|
Post by franko on Dec 20, 2006 11:11:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 20, 2006 19:34:10 GMT -5
That was a fun little exercise and the people who worte it are stupid. Their thinking is quite unsophisticated. They consider medicine and cleanliness to be unnatural ....That's nuts. They think that human suffering disproves the existence of a good, loving God....the old problem of Evil...If God can rescue as it were the effect of individual or particular evil, or answer and resolve it then that is not inconsistent with a loving God. Human evil, yours, mine, are necessary in a universe that is designed for love. Love requires the freedom not to choose love as we daily do. No contradiction. They believe that the existence of God cannot be proven. I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 21, 2006 9:14:48 GMT -5
I prefer to belive that this is not just some big 'test". But what do I know ... If I am wrong and the way I lived my life is not good enough, than like I said on countless occasions, it aint worth being in there. A serial killer or rapist can repent on his death bed and be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven .... but I can live a decent life, give to charity what I can afford, help people in need when I see it and "do unto others ...." and just because I do not accept Jesus Christ as my saviour I am not getting in??? Now that does not make one iota of sense. The good book does not say you have to believe in God to get into heaven ... it says you shall have no other god but me (so 66% of the world's population are going to hell), and that you can only get to the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ (I know franko will argue they are one in the same ... but I do not think so) .... So my belief in God is null and void, because I do not believe in his Son? Well I am in the majority going in the other direction .... nice loving God that he is ... vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, does not a loving God make.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 21, 2006 9:37:50 GMT -5
A serial killer or rapist can repent on his death bed and be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven .... but I can live a decent life, give to charity what I can afford, help people in need when I see it and "do unto others ...." and just because I do not accept Jesus Christ as my saviour I am not getting in??? Now that does not make one iota of sense. The good book does not say you have to believe in God to get into heaven ... it says you shall have no other god but me (so 66% of the world's population are going to hell), and that you can only get to the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ (I know franko will argue they are one in the same ... but I do not think so) .... So my belief in God is null and void, because I do not believe in his Son? Well I am in the majority going in the other direction .... nice loving God that he is ... vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, does not a loving God make. [lots of editting done to get to this:] This is a somewhat heretical thought -- the "second chance" model. Rather than an "all-or-nothing take-it-or-leave-it" view of Christianity with Jesus the only way and a large percentage of the earth's population bound for hell, some look at Revelation 20 as giving a (for lack of a better word) break to those who have never heard of Jesus (yes, there are those who think that you are bound for hell even if you never heard about Jesus -- boggles the mind!): Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. I think He is a God of love who wants everyone to find His love, not a wrathful vengeful God who limits Himself. Adn while I don't believe that "all roads lead to God", I do believe He has compassion and grace for those who may not find the right road.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 21, 2006 9:47:09 GMT -5
A serial killer or rapist can repent on his death bed and be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven .... but I can live a decent life, give to charity what I can afford, help people in need when I see it and "do unto others ...." and just because I do not accept Jesus Christ as my saviour I am not getting in??? Now that does not make one iota of sense. The good book does not say you have to believe in God to get into heaven ... it says you shall have no other god but me (so 66% of the world's population are going to hell), and that you can only get to the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ (I know franko will argue they are one in the same ... but I do not think so) .... So my belief in God is null and void, because I do not believe in his Son? Well I am in the majority going in the other direction .... nice loving God that he is ... vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, does not a loving God make. [lots of editting done to get to this:] This is a somewhat heretical thought -- the "second chance" model. Rather than an "all-or-nothing take-it-or-leave-it" view of Christianity with Jesus the only way and a large percentage of the earth's population bound for hell, some look at Revelation 20 as giving a (for lack of a better word) break to those who have never heard of Jesus (yes, there are those who think that you are bound for hell even if you never heard about Jesus -- boggles the mind!): Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. I think He is a God of love who wants everyone to find His love, not a wrathful vengeful God who limits Himself. Adn while I don't believe that "all roads lead to God", I do believe He has compassion and grace for those who may not find the right road. Definately a better way of looking at things ...but ... once again shows the ambuiguity of the Bible. One passage says this, another says that ... I know you and I will never look upon the Good Book in the same light. I tend to take it as a whole and since some area's are contradictory or blatantly false it leaves other areas of the Book open to question/examination. To me it is not the word of God. It is a Book (a Good book) written by man, and thereby since man is fallible has errors in it ... and therefore questionable in all regards.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 21, 2006 10:06:07 GMT -5
once again shows the ambuiguity of the Bible. One passage says this, another says that ... I know you and I will never look upon the Good Book in the same light. I tend to take it as a whole and since some area's are contradictory or blatantly false it leaves other areas of the Book open to question/examination. To me it is not the word of God. It is a Book (a Good book) written by man, and thereby since man is fallible has errors in it ... and therefore questionable in all regards. I am not a biblical literalist. I believe that the Bible contains theological truth (it teaches us about God), and that it teaches principles for right living. Contradictions? You'd better believe it. Sometimes in transcription, sometimes in translation. Misinterpretation? It definitely happens. Open to question and examination? It needs to be. I don't think anyone should accept it (or any religious teaching) blindly. Love God; love others. We've made the whole thing a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Bottom line to me: is Jesus who He says He is? If so, follow Him. If not, He isn't worth following. Hope that isn't too preachy ;D
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 21, 2006 10:24:23 GMT -5
once again shows the ambuiguity of the Bible. One passage says this, another says that ... I know you and I will never look upon the Good Book in the same light. I tend to take it as a whole and since some area's are contradictory or blatantly false it leaves other areas of the Book open to question/examination. To me it is not the word of God. It is a Book (a Good book) written by man, and thereby since man is fallible has errors in it ... and therefore questionable in all regards. I am not a biblical literalist. I believe that the Bible contains theological truth (it teaches us about God), and that it teaches principles for right living. Contradictions? You'd better believe it. Sometimes in transcription, sometimes in translation. Misinterpretation? It definitely happens. Open to question and examination? It needs to be. I don't think anyone should accept it (or any religious teaching) blindly. Love God; love others. We've made the whole thing a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Bottom line to me: is Jesus who He says He is? If so, follow Him. If not, He isn't worth following. Hope that isn't too preachy ;D To me "loving others" is "loving God" ... so why do I have to classify that love with a religion (and all that comes with it), or put other conditions (as the Bible does) on that love. If I am going to get into the Kingdom of God it is going to be on the merits of my lived life (as I would hope it would be) and not because of my religion, or beliefs in God, or because an establishment defined how my life should be lived.... I live my life God(?) , whoever, now is it good enough? ..... but that black book over there I dont believe in it, and it contains stories about your Son which I question .... is it good enough?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 21, 2006 11:52:25 GMT -5
For an occasional church-goer you seem pretty knowledgeable about stuff. ;D To me "loving others" is "loving God" ... so why do I have to classify that love with a religion (and all that comes with it) Someone suggested that "religion is man's search for God". Religion is an institutional construct. "If I do this then God will . . . " is religiosity. otoh, Christianity (at least my understanding of it) teaches Incarnation: that God became flesh and dwelt among us [the Gospel of John] -- God making Himself known to us outside of religious dogma. In His simple teachings, Jesus said God is here -- quit looking; start living outside yourself (selfishness is the root cause of sin . . . er . . . is the thing that breaks relationships, with God and with others. but I digress). I think that loving others comes out of love for God. Being nice to someone else is not the same as loving that person. I don't do random acts of kindness toward someone I don't know because I love them, but because I love God, who Himself is love and has taught me what love is. (but I again digress ) Just wondering what conditions you mean. In the famous "love passage" (1 Corinthians 13) Paul says love has no conditions or it is not love. You are right -- religion will not cut it to enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus Himself said that religion is no guarantee and that, in fact, many religious people will be surprised to learn that they don't "make it": Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23)Seems to me the final questions are "Do you believe in God?" followed by "Did you live for God or for yourself"; not "did you go to church every week" (an important part of learning about/growing closer to God). Digressions continue.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 21, 2006 18:11:25 GMT -5
For an occasional church-goer you seem pretty knowledgeable about stuff. ;D It has gotten to the point now where I am not even occasional. A little bit about myself I guess is in order. I was born and raised Anglican. My mother, while not overly religious, respected religion and ensured I was exposed to it at every turn. I was in Bible school at age 10-12 in the summers. Nothing serious, a local neighbour had kids over for treats and exposed them to religion, the Bible, and dicussed various Biblical stories. I was confirmed at 13. My mother always told me that once confirmed she would let me make my own mind up as to if I wanted to be apart of the church community. Around the same time the Mount Cashel sexual abuse scandal was happening in NL. That never affected my view because at the time (being 13-14) I viewed it as a RC problem. But my church going got less and less and then non-existant. The more I read, the more I questioned. "But miss, this passage isn't what this passage said ..." I had an amazing memory. To me it was a case of using random passages tto make a point .... and other passages could make that arguement void. So that was the start of me regarding the Bible as "just another book". But always in my reasoning and questioning, while wondering and pondering the existence of a God, it became apparent to me that there is a creator .... maybe not a physical being, maybe just a random gathering of gases and pressure (who knows?) .... but I managed to reason in my own mind that a belief in a creator does not mean you have to believe in religion and/or the Bible. I found comfort in that. It doesn't happen often, and I know it wasn't your intention, but you have swayed my religious outlook on this. When I say that "loving others is loving God" I mean that respecting God's children (us), is paramount to living a "Godly" life. But I looked at it differently when you said I think that loving others comes out of love for God. I found myself agreeing with that statement ... but in a way you may not ave intended. I feel that "loving others comes out of a commitment to live one's life (to use a legal term) as a reasonable person would treat another" .... and I would go so far as to say that reasonable way is "God's teachings" as outlined in various sections of the Bible. Not sure conditions was a good word ... but what i meant was that the Bible tells you all are accepted into heaven but only through Jesus. There is a condition placed on God's love. He will love us, but gives us conditions (the ten commandments, and others) in order for us to see his love in the Kingdom of God. It isn't, IMO, correct to call him a forgiving God because he only forgives on his terms ... accept his son as your saviour. Do I believe in God ... I believe something happened to put us here. The thing is that the science tells me the Bible is wrong, but science can't explain the ultimate beginning. God (in what ever form) is just as acceptable an answer as any. Religious zealots will always have the benefit of going one step back .... Science explains the Big Bang, Religion says what caused the big bang ... when science explains how the gaseous came together, religion will say "what cause them to do that" ... Do I live for God ... no... I live by my own code. It isn't living for myself, but it is a set of beliefs I have developed (some came from religion, some not) that allow me to look in the mirror each day and say "you aint that bad". (My little Stuart Smiley moments. ) I used to have these debates with 2 good friends of mine. One a devout pentacostal who married a pastor's daughter. The other I am not sure of his religion, but he went on to become a lay-minister in a non-denominational church ... I have lots of respect for them and their beliefs and I believe (or mayve I should say like to believe) that they have the same respect for me and my beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 21, 2006 20:16:29 GMT -5
I prefer to belive that this is not just some big 'test". But what do I know ... If I am wrong and the way I lived my life is not good enough, than like I said on countless occasions, it aint worth being in there. A serial killer or rapist can repent on his death bed and be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven .... but I can live a decent life, give to charity what I can afford, help people in need when I see it and "do unto others ...." and just because I do not accept Jesus Christ as my saviour I am not getting in??? Now that does not make one iota of sense. The good book does not say you have to believe in God to get into heaven ... it says you shall have no other god but me (so 66% of the world's population are going to hell), and that you can only get to the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ (I know franko will argue they are one in the same ... but I do not think so) .... So my belief in God is null and void, because I do not believe in his Son? Well I am in the majority going in the other direction .... nice loving God that he is ... vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, does not a loving God make. The Catholic and Orthodox churches who comprise the overwhelming majority of the world's Christians, now, and throughout history, do not teach that a person must formallly, and specifically "accept" Christ to have the hope of eternal life and communion with the source of love, or God. A person IS required to both develop and follow God according to their lights e.g. the voice of conscience. For me, I'm fairly sure that in my case, it would mean formally ain a sense being a Catholic, simply because I recognize the truth of the church and I dare say, see her very clearly as the divinely instituted entity she is. That simple acknowledgement is not in itself sufficient either. I've got to walk the walk. I'm a really average jerk by the way. I sin. Regularly. I hate going to the sacrament of reconciliation ( which has always been a wonderful experience by the way) because I detest acknowledging my own smallness, vanity, selfishness and hypocrisy . Who wouldn't hate that? I must go again shortly. Yecchhh! When I don't and should have, I hate not going to communion with a big SINNER sign on my vain forhead. It conflicts with the false image I like to project. In incidentally, I was raised as a Catholic thank God, dropped it for years as most of us do, and rediscovered her almost accidentally as while looking for other answers. My first "confession" after many years was the occasion of what I believe was a totally unexpected personal experience of the love of God. Spiritual directors describe such occurances as the honeymoon experience wherein this actual Person lavishes love upon a weak and immature and undeserving soul. I didn't even much believe in the Catholic church at the time though I was virtually certain that if there were a church that was the real deal, it would most likely be the Catholic church. I was right. As to the identity of Christ, He did say that blessed, or happy are those who find no stumbling block in Him. EDIT: I just read further posts to the one I responded to just a bove this. More clearly, religion can make all the difference or none. The church WAS commissioned bye CHrist and the church WAS given the keys to the kingdom of God, and the authority to forgive sin in God's name and to teach the truth unerringly. SOOOOO. If the above is true, then it behooves me to avail myself of these wonderful sacraments and get my lazy a$$ out of bed, or off the courts and go to mass even when its the last damned thing I want to do. It' just me being an a$$hole (again). The church is the bride of Christ, (that's right feninine, one reason why the priest is always a male...there are many and they don't involve chauvinsim). If the church REALLY IS exactly what she claims to be, then that makes it de facto the quintessential FACT of all existence, in other words, the point of the whole ballgame. So her claims must be considered by any conscientious person. I often hate being a Catholic, like when its time to get up out of a nice warm bed and go to mass, but most of the time I am astounded at how fortunate I am and happy I am mentally, emotionally and even physically; gifts of this channel of grace in history, which is there despite all our human sinfulness and failings. Sinfullness has a funny ring to it in our rather terrificly stupid culture, but it means this. If I'm stupid and selfish and hurt myself and others, then, in the agnostic, atheisitic or amoral world I've done a bad to me and man. If there is a God, and to me that's an intellectual no brainer, then there is a dimension of ingratitude for the life I received completely freely. That's a sin. And so it should be. We all respect justice to some degree....usually just to ourselves and our self interest (see SIN).
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 22, 2006 10:10:11 GMT -5
Not sure conditions was a good word ... but what i meant was that the Bible tells you all are accepted into heaven but only through Jesus. There is a condition placed on God's love. He will love us, but gives us conditions (the ten commandments, and others) in order for us to see his love in the Kingdom of God. It isn't, IMO, correct to call him a forgiving God because he only forgives on his terms ... accept his son as your saviour. I think that God's love is generally understood as you have put it, but I disagree with the general understanding (did you understand that? ;D). I see God's love as unconditional; that is, He loves us, period. He shows us His love through the incarnation and death of Jesus (the resurrection is another discussion topic). He wants us to accept His love (we are free to choose, to accept or reject it). The ten commandments are ethical constructs which help us to show our love for Him -- we act in a certain way (with respect is a good term, I think) toward others because His love is to extend through us to others -- because we are no longer self-centred self-importnat creatures. His terms of forgiveness are simple: ask. That makes, in the Christian sense, Jesus your Saviour. I think that many people are more Christian than they think they are, and that many people are less Christian than they think they are -- even those who have said the magic incantation and have "asked Jesus into their heart". Respect make discussion possible. And worthwhile. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 22, 2006 16:13:20 GMT -5
Some Christmas fun.
Since Descartes, when the modern world lost its mind, literally, there's this funny idea that all ideas and thought should be respected. It takes but a second to see how wonky that is. We should support slavery because....etc.
That said, the truth of things is in the object itself, which is where we get the idea of "being objective" a phrase people use all the time but think it has something to do with controlling your emotions or being "scientific" which is even funnier. Explain 'funny ' scientifically and do it justice. Then explain 'justice' scientifically. Scientific method is defended by philosophical argument, not vice-versa.
Error has no rights. A true statement is simply a statement of what is or isn't. An erroneous statement says that what isn't, is or what is isn't. It's illusion or delusion or confusion; being unreal and not in touch with reality, or what is.
One should only respect sound arguments.
Sound arguments start with sound premises, and proceed to logically entailed conclusions. If the premises are true and the logical steps entailed, then the conclusion is true beyond any reasonable doubt.
If what I just wrote is false, then the reader should have no respect for the delusion or confusion and should point out where it is false.
e.g Most people think that one cannot prove the existence of God. Why do they think that?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 23, 2006 0:49:07 GMT -5
His terms of forgiveness are simple: ask. That makes, in the Christian sense, Jesus your Saviour. I think that many people are more Christian than they think they are, and that many people are less Christian than they think they are -- even those who have said the magic incantation and have "asked Jesus into their heart". I think this is the point we differ on. It isn't as simple as asking. You have to ask and believe. Saying "Jesus/Lord forgive me" and then turngin around 5 minutes later and doing the same thing isn't good enough ...and I don't believe confession just washes away your sins because you orate them to a priest. If I commit adultery and ask a priest to forgive me ... well he might and God might ...but a higher power wouldnt - my wife. As you say "asking makes Jesus your saviour" ... but the condition on it is that you have to ask and truly believe and change. It is a condition. If God's love were unconditional he would accept us all without believing in him, without judgement, etc ... just simply because we are his children. I ask you this ... if your son/daughter murdered someone would you love them less, (maybe too extreme an example) ... if they commited adultery, stole, lied..(you get the point) would you love them less .... I know I wouldn't, because a parent loves their child unconditionally (well most of the time). Yet, God expects, wants, tells us we must, repent (a condition) to get into the Kingdom of God. That isn't uncondtional to me
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 23, 2006 0:56:50 GMT -5
e.g Most people think that one cannot prove the existence of God. Why do they think that? Because you cannot prove the existence of God ... it is a leap of faith. Saying you believe because the church says it is so is not good enough ... have you seen God? Obviously not. You feel him, and you are certain he is a guiding force in your life ... but that isnt proof. That is faith. I believe in Santa Claus. Now prove he doesn't exist. You can't see him, he performs miracles, expects you to be good to your fellow man, is omnipresent, and is a guiding force for good in the world ..... sound familar? So why dont you believe in Santa? EDIT: I once had a teacher try to give me a weeks detention in grade 8. We were in poetry class and our teacher read a favourite poem of hers about a tree. After she finished reading, she gazed out the window and said "Every time I look at a tree I am certain there is a God". I couldnt hold it in ... (but I should have) ... and I said out loud "What are you talking about, what does a tree have to do with God" .... but I being the little wit I am managed to get out of it. Sitting in the principles office with her and the principle, she went on a rant about me questioning hers beliefs on more than one ocassion and that I am a disruption (and so on) .. When the principle asked me what I had to say for myself before he gave me my punishment I said she read a poem about a tree, and then she gave her religious beliefs to a class ... she did not ask us our point of view and I thought poetry was suppose to be interpretive, as long as you gave good reasoning .... he said ok, but the theme of the poem was inner strength, and God was a logical jump ... and I said only if God is dead because trees die .... no detention for Skilly and no more teacher trying to shove religion down our face at everyturn.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 23, 2006 1:39:25 GMT -5
e.g Most people think that one cannot prove the existence of God. Why do they think that? Because you cannot prove the existence of God ... it is a leap of faith. Saying you believe because the church says it is so is not good enough ... have you seen God? Obviously not. You feel him, and you are certain he is a guiding force in your life ... but that isnt proof. That is faith. I believe in Santa Claus. Now prove he doesn't exist. You can't see him, he performs miracles, expects you to be good to your fellow man, is omnipresent, and is a guiding force for good in the world ..... sound familar? So why dont you believe in Santa? EDIT: I once had a teacher try to give me a weeks detention in grade 8. We were in poetry class and our teacher read a favourite poem of hers about a tree. After she finished reading, she gazed out the window and said "Every time I look at a tree I am certain there is a God". I couldnt hold it in ... (but I should have) ... and I said out loud "What are you talking about, what does a tree have to do with God" .... but I being the little wit I am managed to get out of it. Sitting in the principles office with her and the principle, she went on a rant about me questioning hers beliefs on more than one ocassion and that I am a disruption (and so on) .. When the principle asked me what I had to say for myself before he gave me my punishment I said she read a poem about a tree, and then she gave her religious beliefs to a class ... she did not ask us our point of view and I thought poetry was suppose to be interpretive, as long as you gave good reasoning .... he said ok, but the theme of the poem was inner strength, and God was a logical jump ... and I said only if God is dead because trees die .... no detention for Skilly and no more teacher trying to shove religion down our face at everyturn. I don't think you have any grasp of the question. Why can one not prove the existence of God? Why do you accept that as true. I don't think you have any evidence of this and in fact, like most, have just accepted this on blind faith, something you like to attribute to me upon occasion. So put up. Why do you hold that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Or should I just believe you because you say so, something else you apparently think I'm prone to do? This should be good.
|
|
|
Post by insomnius on Dec 23, 2006 8:46:19 GMT -5
If you want to try proving the existence of God, please read Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In all seriousness there is a section that deals with that specifically. I managed to locate the relevant section and have provided it here to you. While tongue in cheek the essential message is that God is unknowable on a conscious level.
"The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 23, 2006 10:39:34 GMT -5
If you want to try proving the existence of God, please read Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In all seriousness there is a section that deals with that specifically. I managed to locate the relevant section and have provided it here to you. While tongue in cheek the essential message is that God is unknowable on a conscious level. "The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.Heh heh heh. That's cute. Actually my little glove thrown down is really a call to examine what we think we know. And I'm not talking about religion, which is what Skilly thinks I;m doing. The above Hitchhiker's bit confuses a few points, and theologians don't prove the existence of God, philosophers do. Philosophy works from reason alone. In other words, the question is similar to asking if camels exist. Is there compelling evidence for the existence of camels? At St Mike's at the U of T, I was extremely fortunate enough to have spent a year on that question and the responses of some of the world's best thinkers. At root, the problem very much comes down to what we think we know about reality. Almost everything is believed on faith e.g. that the earth orbits the sun. If we haven't done the calculations ourselves, then we accept them on faith. Compounding the issue are scientists like Dawkins and Stephen Hawings who quite almost stupidly, think that they can carry over their competence in specific sciences, and go around pronouncing on very sophisticated philosophical questions. They even do so without engaging the deeper questions. Arrogance and pride. They make the classic mistake of scientism or rationalism, if it can't be grasped on their calculators then it isn't there. Ironically Godel's theorem shows that in fact any science based upon higher mathematical functions is doomed to fail to arrive certainly at the desired conclusion like the GUT (Grand Unified Theory). This has been known for 80 years, but Hawkings just recently realized what this meant for his entire life's work. As his wife said, he doesn't know any more about the big questions, like the existence of God, than the average plumber sitting around the kitchen table shooting the breeze. Because he's a good physicist, or at least a famous one, people wrongly assume he has something relevant to say about matters he knows nothing about. Dawkins is similarly messing in a pool without learning to swim. He hasn't even considered the relevance to free will in the bigger questions. That's pathetic. Freud had the same stupid arrogance. He didn't even have any idea what the basic issues were. He just wanted to be famous. In short. whether there is an entity, an Agency let's call it, underlying existence that is intelligent and ultimately causative of existence and its ways is the question. Most people's theory of how we know things and therefor what we can know, has been absorbed from the general culture. The general culture is very, very stupid on this point. Being off in 'epistemology' form the Greek word episteme or 'knowledge' means you will be blind. That' s part of why Skilly thinks I must be acting out of blind faith; becasue he's blind on these questions and doesn't know how to properly pose them. This isn't meant to be overly critical of him in particular, for he voices a common non-specialized man-in the- street perspective, and I have a lot of respect for the evidence derived from the man in the street, not the position taken, but the demand for common sense facts. Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most intelligent human being ever, who lie at the foundation of western thinking and culture, both knew that no conclusion could ever stand against commonly known facts. Lastly, you will probably agree as do almost all educated people that we are easily fooled by our senses, and that rigorous and objective scientific investigation is fundamental to arriving at the truth about our shared existence. THe paragraph I wrote just above this one is sheerest nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 23, 2006 11:00:01 GMT -5
The question of whether or not the existence of God can be proven or not, is not nearly so difficult to articulate and consider as one is naturally inclined to think. consider the Kalem argument that the existence of God is required as is understood by understanding the nature of the existence of things around us. Grasping the idea of 'infinity' with some clarity is the challenge of the argument. We all carry a vague notion of most words including 'infinity', but some of the approaches in the Wikipedia bit are pretty helpful. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. The first premise is fairly straightforward. Craig defines "begins to exist" as "comes into being," and the idea is that things don't just pop into being uncaused. The second premise is usually supported by the following argument: 1. An actual infinite cannot exist. 2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite 3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events. According to some authors, the definition of an actual infinite comes from set theory. However, there is little doubt that the concept of the actual infinite reached Arab scholars through the works of Aristotle. Aristotle's own account of actually vs. potentiality is a fundamental part of his metaphysics. As actuality is often interpreted as the fulfillment of being, it is a short step in reasoning to reach the position that there is no actual being of infinite processes. The possibility of an actual infinite is often disputed, and is the focal point of this argument. Craig describes the impossibility of an actual infinite like an endless bookcase. For example, imagine a bookcase that extends infinitely on which there is an infinite number of books, colored green and red, green and red, and so on. Obviously there would be an infinite number of books. But imagine you remove all red colored books. How many are left? An infinite amount. Thus infinity divided by two equals infinity, which is illogical given standard definitions of division. Craig thus attempts to show that infinity, as he defines it, cannot be applied to operations in the world. One can imagine taking a finger and passing an infinite number of dimensionless points on a ruler from one end to the other, but time is not dimensionless or imaginary. According to Craig, there cannot be an infinite number of past events, because one cannot traverse an infinite set of events. In summary, the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the premise that the universe is not infinite in the past, but had a finite beginning which necessitates an immaterial cause for its existence.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 23, 2006 12:08:05 GMT -5
One philosopher I really like is Peter Kreeft at Boston College (good source of Mtl hockey players) Can You Prove God Exists? Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused. * First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not. * Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.) * Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that. * Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable. * Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs. I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense. There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case. In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God. In subsequent essays we will explore the arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascal's Wager. The next essay explores the Argument from Design. www.peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htmAudo section is a pretty good listen. This is not a 'religious' presentation but appeals only to being reasonable, and addresses a lot of goofy ideas we buy, like monkeys on typewriters.www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_arguments-for-god.htm
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 23, 2006 15:04:09 GMT -5
........and just because I do not accept Jesus Christ as my saviour I am not getting in??? . Yup! Your excluded from heaven so your coming straight down! Don't worry, if I have it my way, your going to help me install air conditioning down here. There is nothing like cooling off in comfort after a hard day of debauchery. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 23, 2006 21:04:34 GMT -5
Because you cannot prove the existence of God ... it is a leap of faith. Saying you believe because the church says it is so is not good enough ... have you seen God? Obviously not. You feel him, and you are certain he is a guiding force in your life ... but that isnt proof. That is faith. I believe in Santa Claus. Now prove he doesn't exist. You can't see him, he performs miracles, expects you to be good to your fellow man, is omnipresent, and is a guiding force for good in the world ..... sound familar? So why dont you believe in Santa? EDIT: I once had a teacher try to give me a weeks detention in grade 8. We were in poetry class and our teacher read a favourite poem of hers about a tree. After she finished reading, she gazed out the window and said "Every time I look at a tree I am certain there is a God". I couldnt hold it in ... (but I should have) ... and I said out loud "What are you talking about, what does a tree have to do with God" .... but I being the little wit I am managed to get out of it. Sitting in the principles office with her and the principle, she went on a rant about me questioning hers beliefs on more than one ocassion and that I am a disruption (and so on) .. When the principle asked me what I had to say for myself before he gave me my punishment I said she read a poem about a tree, and then she gave her religious beliefs to a class ... she did not ask us our point of view and I thought poetry was suppose to be interpretive, as long as you gave good reasoning .... he said ok, but the theme of the poem was inner strength, and God was a logical jump ... and I said only if God is dead because trees die .... no detention for Skilly and no more teacher trying to shove religion down our face at everyturn. I don't think you have any grasp of the question. Why can one not prove the existence of God? Why do you accept that as true. I don't think you have any evidence of this and in fact, like most, have just accepted this on blind faith, something you like to attribute to me upon occasion. So put up. Why do you hold that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Or should I just believe you because you say so, something else you apparently think I'm prone to do? This should be good. You have it all wrong ... I dont have to prove he exists. You do. The non-believer says "prove he exists" , the believer says "he just do". My rebbutal would be "you don't have any evidence he does exist either" And remember before you preach about the Biblical passages that I do not believe the Bible is fact, and philoposhers (no matter how famous) are just thought and opinions, not fact. For every philosopher that says that God exists, there is one that says he doesn't .... (Nietzche for instance). I took philosophy in Univ. as well ... although it was only 2 courses I did write a paper (it was a dialogue actually) between a doctor and a priest after a funeral discussing the existence of God. My paper ended with why I feel when push comes to shove, scientists will neglect their scientific educations and make themselves believe in God. The title of my paper was "For the Children" ... and I got 98% in it. I am pretty proud of that paper , but it is just one philospohical thought, and doesn't mean it is right. But another definition to look up in the dictionary would be "opinion" .... by definition an opinion can not be wrong: Opinion: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. Just like your beliefs differ from someone who is not Roman Catholic (66% of the world is not christian, so majority wins?) it also differs from my belief ... that does not make it stupid, just different.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 23, 2006 21:18:19 GMT -5
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. The first premise is fairly straightforward. Craig defines "begins to exist" as "comes into being," and the idea is that things don't just pop into being uncaused. The second premise is usually supported by the following argument: 1. An actual infinite cannot exist. 2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite 3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events. This doesn't prove the existence of God ... it supposedly proves the universe has a cause. The universe came into being ...... that doesn't mean it came into being by God's hand.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 23, 2006 21:22:46 GMT -5
If you want to try proving the existence of God, please read Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In all seriousness there is a section that deals with that specifically. I managed to locate the relevant section and have provided it here to you. While tongue in cheek the essential message is that God is unknowable on a conscious level. "The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.Heh heh heh. That's cute. Actually my little glove thrown down is really a call to examine what we think we know. And I'm not talking about religion, which is what Skilly thinks I;m doing. The above Hitchhiker's bit confuses a few points, and theologians don't prove the existence of God, philosophers do. Philosophy works from reason alone. In other words, the question is similar to asking if camels exist. Is there compelling evidence for the existence of camels? At St Mike's at the U of T, I was extremely fortunate enough to have spent a year on that question and the responses of some of the world's best thinkers. At root, the problem very much comes down to what we think we know about reality. Almost everything is believed on faith e.g. that the earth orbits the sun. If we haven't done the calculations ourselves, then we accept them on faith. Compounding the issue are scientists like Dawkins and Stephen Hawings who quite almost stupidly, think that they can carry over their competence in specific sciences, and go around pronouncing on very sophisticated philosophical questions. They even do so without engaging the deeper questions. Arrogance and pride. They make the classic mistake of scientism or rationalism, if it can't be grasped on their calculators then it isn't there. Ironically Godel's theorem shows that in fact any science based upon higher mathematical functions is doomed to fail to arrive certainly at the desired conclusion like the GUT (Grand Unified Theory). This has been known for 80 years, but Hawkings just recently realized what this meant for his entire life's work. As his wife said, he doesn't know any more about the big questions, like the existence of God, than the average plumber sitting around the kitchen table shooting the breeze. Because he's a good physicist, or at least a famous one, people wrongly assume he has something relevant to say about matters he knows nothing about. Dawkins is similarly messing in a pool without learning to swim. He hasn't even considered the relevance to free will in the bigger questions. That's pathetic. Freud had the same stupid arrogance. He didn't even have any idea what the basic issues were. He just wanted to be famous. In short. whether there is an entity, an Agency let's call it, underlying existence that is intelligent and ultimately causative of existence and its ways is the question. Most people's theory of how we know things and therefor what we can know, has been absorbed from the general culture. The general culture is very, very stupid on this point. Being off in 'epistemology' form the Greek word episteme or 'knowledge' means you will be blind. That' s part of why Skilly thinks I must be acting out of blind faith; becasue he's blind on these questions and doesn't know how to properly pose them. This isn't meant to be overly critical of him in particular, for he voices a common non-specialized man-in the- street perspective, and I have a lot of respect for the evidence derived from the man in the street, not the position taken, but the demand for common sense facts. Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most intelligent human being ever, who lie at the foundation of western thinking and culture, both knew that no conclusion could ever stand against commonly known facts. Lastly, you will probably agree as do almost all educated people that we are easily fooled by our senses, and that rigorous and objective scientific investigation is fundamental to arriving at the truth about our shared existence. THe paragraph I wrote just above this one is sheerest nonsense. I amnot sure I can have a respectful conversation with you on this issue .... what I am reading form your post (and probably wrongly) is that any thought that disagrees with yours is unitelligent, stupid, in error, .... however if a philosopher or train of thought agrees with yours it is gospel. For the record, read my posts, I believe in a creator (I have not labelled him/her/it God however) ... it is the Bible I do not believe in. A respectful debate of opinions (not Aquinas' et al) about the existence of God, need to have a dissenter or it is just preaching.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 23, 2006 21:35:49 GMT -5
One philosopher I really like is Peter Kreeft at Boston College (good source of Mtl hockey players) Can You Prove God Exists? Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused. * First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not. * Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.) * Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that. * Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable. * Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs. I believe the question of God, Santa Claus and unicorns fail at question #2. If a thing can exist without our knowing it exist, then God " can exist". It doesn't mean he does exist. So yes, God can exist. Do we know God exists? No. Some believe he does. Some think they know definatively, which is fine and I accept that. But you can know he exists through faith, and I can question whether he exist. To question something, means you don't know. Therefore since not everyone can agree on whether we know deinitively the answer, it creates a null answer and therefore the process fails.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 24, 2006 18:30:00 GMT -5
One philosopher I really like is Peter Kreeft at Boston College (good source of Mtl hockey players) Can You Prove God Exists? Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused. * First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not. * Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.) * Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that. * Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable. * Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs. I believe the question of God, Santa Claus and unicorns fail at question #2. If a thing can exist without our knowing it exist, then God " can exist". It doesn't mean he does exist. So yes, God can exist. Do we know God exists? No. Some believe he does. Some think they know definatively, which is fine and I accept that. But you can know he exists through faith, and I can question whether he exist. To question something, means you don't know. Therefore since not everyone can agree on whether we know deinitively the answer, it creates a null answer and therefore the process fails. I'm glad you checked out his site. I put in a link to the audio portion and downloaded in a couple of minutes his, bit on the existence of God. When you state "Do we know God exists? and then proceed to answer "No.", you go way to far. I am certain that you cannot demonstrate the existence of God, but I maintain that the cosmological arguments in this audio section do just that. I can further accept that you may not get or understand them, but for you to say that on the evidence they are not a demonstration, then you will have to point out the failure of the argument, the flaw in the argument. Because it is such a terrifically important question, and he approaches the question from an evidential or philosophical basis , not a religious one, then may I suggest that if you haven't already, and when you have a little time, try the audio portion on the link I left. He deals with a very large number of misconceptions and mistakes that we are inclined to make in reasoning. I agree with you that you can indeed experience God which I believe I have on at least a couple of occasions in my life, and also that one can know things through faith, which is above reason, not contrary or opposed to reason. Faith is a reasonned assent made by reasoning creatures for reasons. I personally don't believe in the existence of God by faith. I did once, but I now know of the existence of God through sound arguments that demonstrate this simple fact that most of us believe is true even wothout working through the arguments. I think that the arguments Kreeft presents are sound arguments that demonstrate the existence of God as something that can be known with certainty by reason alone. Again, if you have the chance, listen to his audio portion delivered at some university in which he fields questions and overcomes common objections. I'm glad you read that section. Most of us don't even know how to go about asking the right questions on this matter and just adopt whatever other people have told us for most of our lives. It's far too significant a question for such confidence in the local newspaper, common opinion or a favorite aunt.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 24, 2006 18:58:27 GMT -5
Heh heh heh. That's cute. Actually my little glove thrown down is really a call to examine what we think we know. And I'm not talking about religion, which is what Skilly thinks I;m doing. The above Hitchhiker's bit confuses a few points, and theologians don't prove the existence of God, philosophers do. Philosophy works from reason alone. In other words, the question is similar to asking if camels exist. Is there compelling evidence for the existence of camels? At St Mike's at the U of T, I was extremely fortunate enough to have spent a year on that question and the responses of some of the world's best thinkers. At root, the problem very much comes down to what we think we know about reality. Almost everything is believed on faith e.g. that the earth orbits the sun. If we haven't done the calculations ourselves, then we accept them on faith. Compounding the issue are scientists like Dawkins and Stephen Hawings who quite almost stupidly, think that they can carry over their competence in specific sciences, and go around pronouncing on very sophisticated philosophical questions. They even do so without engaging the deeper questions. Arrogance and pride. They make the classic mistake of scientism or rationalism, if it can't be grasped on their calculators then it isn't there. Ironically Godel's theorem shows that in fact any science based upon higher mathematical functions is doomed to fail to arrive certainly at the desired conclusion like the GUT (Grand Unified Theory). This has been known for 80 years, but Hawkings just recently realized what this meant for his entire life's work. As his wife said, he doesn't know any more about the big questions, like the existence of God, than the average plumber sitting around the kitchen table shooting the breeze. Because he's a good physicist, or at least a famous one, people wrongly assume he has something relevant to say about matters he knows nothing about. Dawkins is similarly messing in a pool without learning to swim. He hasn't even considered the relevance to free will in the bigger questions. That's pathetic. Freud had the same stupid arrogance. He didn't even have any idea what the basic issues were. He just wanted to be famous. In short. whether there is an entity, an Agency let's call it, underlying existence that is intelligent and ultimately causative of existence and its ways is the question. Most people's theory of how we know things and therefor what we can know, has been absorbed from the general culture. The general culture is very, very stupid on this point. Being off in 'epistemology' form the Greek word episteme or 'knowledge' means you will be blind. That' s part of why Skilly thinks I must be acting out of blind faith; becasue he's blind on these questions and doesn't know how to properly pose them. This isn't meant to be overly critical of him in particular, for he voices a common non-specialized man-in the- street perspective, and I have a lot of respect for the evidence derived from the man in the street, not the position taken, but the demand for common sense facts. Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the most intelligent human being ever, who lie at the foundation of western thinking and culture, both knew that no conclusion could ever stand against commonly known facts. Lastly, you will probably agree as do almost all educated people that we are easily fooled by our senses, and that rigorous and objective scientific investigation is fundamental to arriving at the truth about our shared existence. THe paragraph I wrote just above this one is sheerest nonsense. I amnot sure I can have a respectful conversation with you on this issue .... what I am reading form your post (and probably wrongly) is that any thought that disagrees with yours is unitelligent, stupid, in error, .... however if a philosopher or train of thought agrees with yours it is gospel. For the record, read my posts, I believe in a creator (I have not labelled him/her/it God however) ... it is the Bible I do not believe in. A respectful debate of opinions (not Aquinas' et al) about the existence of God, need to have a dissenter or it is just preaching. Respectful conversations test everyone. We all get pi$$ed off by what another writes, particularly when not flattering or misrepresenting. And we all speak sloppily every now and then. I do. You do. We all do. So I'm going to give you a blanket forgiveness for all your mal a bouches and will happily accept the same from anyone who wants to give me a blanket forgiveness for all of mine. That said, I'll proceed to screw up some more. I really do like the word 'stupid'. It comes from the Latin word "stupo, stupare" and shares the same root as the word 'stupor'. I think that Freud, and Dawkins and Hawkings were and are really stupid on the most exacting and important questions of human existence. Dawkins, while having his simple and arrogant ignorance picked apart by an Irish newspaper editor who incidentally used similar arguments to those of Peter Kreeft, and Hawkings who shoots his yap off about stuff he hasn't any formal eduation concerning are living off the avails of reputations earned in other fields and using this as a platform for mouthing 17th century prejudices, which incidentally form the basis for most people's thought on these critical issues. I don't mind you saying that you have no idea how a person can prove the existence of God beyond reasonable doubt, or that you don't believe anyone has or can, but be prepared to have your claims examined. If one like Dawkins wants to get really stupid, and say that one CAN'T prove the existence of God , then he must be prepared to show why not, along with pointing out where arguments claiming to do so, like Peter Kreeft's fail. Dawkins who as I recall is a neuro scientist in brain research hasn't even looked at the implications of free will to his dogmatic materialism and dogmatic atheism. That's just stupid as any serious scholar in the field knows. You will usualy find me I hope open to reasonable discourse, and I know that you have no formal education in these matters, and I expect you to come up with clankers for that reason. You already have, but I don't intend to beat you up over them, just move through and past them. In short, my harsh words for Dawkins et al are because they should at least know better. Hawkings should have known from reading Stanley Jaki, that Godel's theorem rendered his unscientific scientific quest impossible. A massive philosophical error. Pysicists should be humbler before yakking like wild ducks about "possible universes" and other things that are purest and utter madness, but believed because they are scientists. It doesn't occur to their critics that they are completely lost in a philosophical black hole and making up silly nonsense that's borderline crazy. I don't think anyone who disagees with me is stupid or wrong, but I do find a lot of opinions to be stupid or wrong or both. Feel free to point out where I am stupid or wrong. Sooo Does that give you heart??!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 24, 2006 19:06:10 GMT -5
I just saw that I missed your earlier posts. I'll take a peak.
These questions are the most fascinating questions in all of human existence and of course the most important ones to get right.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 24, 2006 21:23:55 GMT -5
I don't think you have any grasp of the question. Why can one not prove the existence of God? Why do you accept that as true. I don't think you have any evidence of this and in fact, like most, have just accepted this on blind faith, something you like to attribute to me upon occasion. So put up. Why do you hold that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Or should I just believe you because you say so, something else you apparently think I'm prone to do? This should be good. You have it all wrong ... I dont have to prove he exists. You do. The non-believer says "prove he exists" , the believer says "he just do". My rebbutal would be "you don't have any evidence he does exist either" And remember before you preach about the Biblical passages that I do not believe the Bible is fact, and philoposhers (no matter how famous) are just thought and opinions, not fact. For every philosopher that says that God exists, there is one that says he doesn't .... (Nietzche for instance). I took philosophy in Univ. as well ... although it was only 2 courses I did write a paper (it was a dialogue actually) between a doctor and a priest after a funeral discussing the existence of God. My paper ended with why I feel when push comes to shove, scientists will neglect their scientific educations and make themselves believe in God. The title of my paper was "For the Children" ... and I got 98% in it. I am pretty proud of that paper , but it is just one philospohical thought, and doesn't mean it is right. But another definition to look up in the dictionary would be "opinion" .... by definition an opinion can not be wrong: Opinion: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. Just like your beliefs differ from someone who is not Roman Catholic (66% of the world is not christian, so majority wins?) it also differs from my belief ... that does not make it stupid, just different. No.. .you have it all wrong...to quote you...You said that I cannot prove the existence of God and that a la Kierkegard, such a proof requires a leap of faith. In other words, you made the assertion, so it's up to you to show me how I must use a leap of faith which is totally unacceptable in philosophy and argument. What leap of faith is required and why?And PLEASE stop attributing "preaching" about the bible to me; saying that I quote the bible to prove a philosophical argument. I never do that. That would be nuts and I'm not a bible-thumper. Far from it. I have said a number of times that I believe there are proofs of God's existence, not opinion, proofs. Opinions incidentally are always true or false to some degree. Any declarative statement has this characteristic, usually along the lines of probablility. Hence your statement that opinions cannot be wrong is of course wrong. I don't know where you studied philosophy, but they should have called the course ideosophy if they think that opinions are not true or false. That belief is completely FALSE. WHY are you debating me if you think it has nothing to do with arriving at least potentially at truth? Shirley you jest. Boy did you ever study at the wrong school!! I'm smilinga as I write this by the way, I'm not meaning this in a nasty way, but you seem to be saying that no statement about reality can be true or false. That statement about reality is of course, false. So according to you, the existence of God, not only hasn't been demonstrated, but cannot in principle be determined. This comes as serious bad news to a lot of very intelligent persons, so .... Why is that? What reason is there to believe this is true? You mention that philosopners can disagree with one another. This does not show that they disagree about the existence of truth, but that they disagree about what the truth is. It is the merit of the arguments that has to be determined. So what is it about the nature of reality and the human mind that makes truth impossible? For indeed, if your theory is correct then I will not be able to demonstrate the indemonstrable, but if philosophical truth about the nature of reality is impossible to achieve, why do you think your theory of truth is true? ?? If it were true you couldn't know it. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by referring to my Roman Catholicism, but if your argument is 'stupid', or mine is, the error yours or mine, will be demonstrable, and truth is not determined by support levels. So, why can't I know the truth about what caused or causes the universe to exist?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 26, 2006 18:07:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 26, 2006 20:54:59 GMT -5
You have it all wrong ... I dont have to prove he exists. You do. The non-believer says "prove he exists" , the believer says "he just do". My rebbutal would be "you don't have any evidence he does exist either" And remember before you preach about the Biblical passages that I do not believe the Bible is fact, and philoposhers (no matter how famous) are just thought and opinions, not fact. For every philosopher that says that God exists, there is one that says he doesn't .... (Nietzche for instance). I took philosophy in Univ. as well ... although it was only 2 courses I did write a paper (it was a dialogue actually) between a doctor and a priest after a funeral discussing the existence of God. My paper ended with why I feel when push comes to shove, scientists will neglect their scientific educations and make themselves believe in God. The title of my paper was "For the Children" ... and I got 98% in it. I am pretty proud of that paper , but it is just one philospohical thought, and doesn't mean it is right. But another definition to look up in the dictionary would be "opinion" .... by definition an opinion can not be wrong: Opinion: 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. Just like your beliefs differ from someone who is not Roman Catholic (66% of the world is not christian, so majority wins?) it also differs from my belief ... that does not make it stupid, just different. No.. .you have it all wrong...to quote you...You said that I cannot prove the existence of God and that a la Kierkegard, such a proof requires a leap of faith. In other words, you made the assertion, so it's up to you to show me how I must use a leap of faith which is totally unacceptable in philosophy and argument. What leap of faith is required and why?And PLEASE stop attributing "preaching" about the bible to me; saying that I quote the bible to prove a philosophical argument. I never do that. That would be nuts and I'm not a bible-thumper. Far from it. I have said a number of times that I believe there are proofs of God's existence, not opinion, proofs. Opinions incidentally are always true or false to some degree. Any declarative statement has this characteristic, usually along the lines of probablility. Hence your statement that opinions cannot be wrong is of course wrong. I don't know where you studied philosophy, but they should have called the course ideosophy if they think that opinions are not true or false. That belief is completely FALSE. WHY are you debating me if you think it has nothing to do with arriving at least potentially at truth? Shirley you jest. Boy did you ever study at the wrong school!! I'm smilinga as I write this by the way, I'm not meaning this in a nasty way, but you seem to be saying that no statement about reality can be true or false. That statement about reality is of course, false. So according to you, the existence of God, not only hasn't been demonstrated, but cannot in principle be determined. This comes as serious bad news to a lot of very intelligent persons, so .... Why is that? What reason is there to believe this is true? You mention that philosopners can disagree with one another. This does not show that they disagree about the existence of truth, but that they disagree about what the truth is. It is the merit of the arguments that has to be determined. So what is it about the nature of reality and the human mind that makes truth impossible? For indeed, if your theory is correct then I will not be able to demonstrate the indemonstrable, but if philosophical truth about the nature of reality is impossible to achieve, why do you think your theory of truth is true? ?? If it were true you couldn't know it. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by referring to my Roman Catholicism, but if your argument is 'stupid', or mine is, the error yours or mine, will be demonstrable, and truth is not determined by support levels. So, why can't I know the truth about what caused or causes the universe to exist? I didn't read this whole thing .... because I can just imagine what it says ... but I am still waiting for your .... not anyone else's ... logical arguments to prove the existence of God. I have already told you mine ... the Bible has lies, the logical steps of your 5 step post fail at #2. If everyone can;t agree on a statement then the statement is false ... that's logic. But please enlighten me ... how is God definatively proven to exist. In your own words please.
|
|