|
Post by Skilly on Dec 26, 2006 20:56:52 GMT -5
Yep ... and yet I return. Shoot me.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 27, 2006 11:08:26 GMT -5
So, because you cannot assent to every phrase of sacred scripture, it must all be unhistorical and impossible to reasonably and rationally consider? I wish you would take the itme to read what I wrote in response to your comments. YOU maintain that we CANNOT determine with reasonable certainty whether or not GOD exists. WHY not? I don't think you have a trace of an argument to support that dogma. So when Archimedes developped the principles of right angled triangles (I thing it was he), and not everyone agreed, then his proof was false. That is neither a sound argument or logically entailed. It's actually an argument for being a good boy and letting everyone else do your thinking for you. Trully blind faith. No wonder you think others indulge this deficiency. The cosmological arguments as found in this audio link from professor Peter Kreeft are sound philosophical (not religious) arguments for the existence of something very much like the God of Judeo -Christian belief. My own words would be very similar, but less interesting. \ It takes a couple of minutes to download, but it is absolutely fascinating. Enjoy. www.peterkreeft.com/audio/08_arguments-for-god.htm
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 27, 2006 11:14:38 GMT -5
Yep ... and yet I return. Shoot me. Actually we were there but did not do that. All that was done was pointing out that Blaise was a dogmatic fundamentalist deist, who tried unscucessfully to base his prejudices on a naive materialism, incidentally, the most common unfounded article of faith of our culture. People generally think incorrectly that they ar being 'scientific', but they've just learned to accept scientism uncritically from others.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 27, 2006 13:47:02 GMT -5
Again..... you supply no proof. If it is easy to prove, enlighten me. I am yours for the converting.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 27, 2006 14:40:52 GMT -5
Again..... you supply no proof. If it is easy to prove, enlighten me. I am yours for the converting. Seems that you would be a good candidate to join the club . To be clear, my perspective: The Bible does not prove the existence of God. The Pope does not dictate the existence of God. Faith accepts the existence of a "creative higher power" which we have labelled "God", and reason may or may not agree. This review of the book The Probability of God (about halfway down the page) is an interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 27, 2006 19:41:28 GMT -5
Again..... you supply no proof. If it is easy to prove, enlighten me. I am yours for the converting. Seems that you would be a good candidate to join the club . To be clear, my perspective: The Bible does not prove the existence of God. The Pope does not dictate the existence of God. Faith accepts the existence of a "creative higher power" which we have labelled "God", and reason may or may not agree. This review of the book The Probability of God (about halfway down the page) is an interesting read. You'd be surprised at how close your view is to mine. I have stated that the probability of a creator is high. I do not doubt that something caused us to be here. .... is that God? That's as good a name to call it as any. But that is probability. That is not proof. If we could prove, without question, the existence of God then there would be no need for faith, would there? But without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."So it is not knowing God exists, or believing God exist .... God is only pleased if you have faith. I do not doubt faith in God, but to say it is possible to prove he exists actually discounts all the teachings of the Bible (from a logical analysis) and therefore proves he doesn't exist. Confusing logical arguelment huh?
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 27, 2006 22:36:35 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, I was rooting through some old "stuff" today and came upon a box filled with university memorabilia, including every paper I ever wrote (I was sure I tossed everything out during one of my moves . . . and what did I find but a paper from a philosophy class dealing with the question on the existence of God. [Smugly he says] I got a fairly decent mark from the toughest professor. If I wrote the paper today I would come to the same conclusion: the five classical argument proving His existence don't cut it; it comes down to a faith proposition. [and my mark would be just as high, thank you very much).
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 28, 2006 11:05:41 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, I was rooting through some old "stuff" today and came upon a box filled with university memorabilia, including every paper I ever wrote (I was sure I tossed everything out during one of my moves . . . and what did I find but a paper from a philosophy class dealing with the question on the existence of God. [Smugly he says] I got a fairly decent mark from the toughest professor. If I wrote the paper today I would come to the same conclusion: the five classical argument proving His existence don't cut it; it comes down to a faith proposition. [and my mark would be just as high, thank you very much). And I would agree with you 100%. I wrote a paper in philosophy on the existence of God as well. Still saved because the prof said it was a well thought out logical analysis, but he said I should have supplied an overview of my thought process because I wrote it as a dialogue between a preist and a doctor standing on a hill. The conversation is between the "scientific" doctor and a priest trying to help him find his way. The end of the paper I reveal that there is a tombstone on the hill and that the priest has just finished the funeral service. A little boy comes up and wraps his arms around his father's leg and asks when they can go home. The doctor thanks the priest and tells the little boy they can leave now (the back and forth between the doctor and priest goes unresolved - with the doctor adamant God can not exist.) The little boy asks "is mommy coming with us" ... and the doctor turns to the priest and says "Mommy can not come home, she is in heaven with God and will see you again one day" In essense ... that says it in a nutshell for me. When we look at our kids we have to believe there is more to this life than this. We want to believe we will see them one day after we die, we have to give them hope and "faith" that life holds great things for them. God is our inner strength to live this life - through all the pain ... it is a reason to live. But when we analyze it, we can not prove this being exists, but we want to believe (since the beginning of time) that he does exist "For Our Children" - which is what I called the paper. (Think I got 95% on it).
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 28, 2006 11:29:08 GMT -5
And I would agree with you 100%. I knew you'd come around to the side of the light ;D Karl Barth: God cannot be known by human reasoning. William Hordern: The very idea of proving God presupposes that there is some common neutral arean into which believer and unbeliever alike can come to settle the question rationally. The other side of the coin to when we analyze it, we can not prove this being exists is that we cannot disprove this being exists either. In defense we might say that at this time we cannot prove God exists . . . but we continue to hypothesize.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 28, 2006 19:19:29 GMT -5
The other side of the coin to when we analyze it, we can not prove this being exists is that we cannot disprove this being exists either. In defense we might say that at this time we cannot prove God exists . . . but we continue to hypothesize. Again .... I agree and have said as much. I said I believe we came to be some how, but we can not prove or disprove that it was by God's hands. This is the common ground for us ... a leap of faith has you on one side of the fence, my unwillingness to take that leap has me on the fence questioning anything and everything. The only good thing is that I haven't been yanked off the fence into the dark side by HA just yet .. ohhhh I am such a lost young paduan ... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 29, 2006 23:35:40 GMT -5
Again..... you supply no proof. If it is easy to prove, enlighten me. I am yours for the converting. Sorry for the delay in responding... I am in Myrtle Beach on vacation and can only tune in every now and then to respo nd. As I responded earlier, I am already on record as stating that the cosmological arguments as covered by Kreeft are sufficint demonstrations of the existence of God. Your sense that there must be a God that explains the wonder of all that is, is well founded. Did you get to hear the Peter Kreeft presentation of the coslmological argument? But, not to let YOU off the hook; you assert that one CANNOT demonstrate the existence of God. Again...I point out that you are just giving me your prejudice on this question. What are your reasons for stating that we CANNOT. That's just a statement of your dogma. What is it about God, or the human intlellect that pre-ordains that we CANNOT. I would state that there are in fact no grounds you can bring to bear to support this article of faith of yours. So give..stand and deliver or admit you don't know and retract. If it helps at all I know that you cannot know what you claim to know. ;D
|
|