Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Bond/Catalyst]

Why dont the atheists look at the work of Aquinas, or the doctors of the Church who use Ontological arguments for Gods existance...see page 970...

 

[morning storm]

lol aquinas? his arguments have long been deconstructed and pulled apart

 

[John McCain]

Why dont the atheists look at the work of Aquinas, or the doctors of the Church who use Ontological arguments for Gods existance...see page 970...

Because they're shit.

Why don't you read some Bertrand Russell?

 

[John McCain]

• The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
• The Argument of the First Cause
• The Argument from Contingency
• The Argument from Degree
• The Teleological Argument

Thomas Aquinas, "The Five Ways"—Introduction: The Aristotelian Background and even Quinque viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia are interesting.

The first two premises are disproven, modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any moving body influencing them. The third cause doesn't explain why god should not be contingent on anything else.

On the fourth premise, it is not evident that simply because we can conceive of an object with some property in a greater degree, that such an object exists. And the argument that greater perfection exists only holds true if you accept principles of universalism.

For the last premise, countless complex systems exist in nature that can be demonstrated to have arisen naturally, design isn't required to create complex structures such as a diamond, the universe naturally orders itself.

 

[G4_SuperTeam]

Nice how the thread is called "Does God Exist" and there I go trying to be faithful to the thread and actually propse an argument or five and it is nicely ignored. Mad thread.

get over it my friend...

 

[trickx]

wow how did i miss this thread.

Okay guys,
i as the resident apologetic theist, will try to answer your serious and mature questions that you have about the existence of God, Christianity or Jesus Christ.

Okay.
The very premise to Christ's coming was to save us from our sins. Our sins are the result of our rebellion against God (i.e Adam & Eve), that is according to Genesis. But if we were to take our sense of morality, our consciousness of right and wrong to be the product of evolutionary processes. Then does that not dismiss the very point of Jesus Christ?

 

[theism]

Okay.
The very premise to Christ's coming was to save us from our sins. Our sins are the result of our rebellion against God (i.e Adam & Eve), that is according to Genesis. But if we were to take our sense of morality, our consciousness of right and wrong to be the product of evolutionary processes. Then does that not dismiss the very point of Jesus Christ?

hmm very interesting
i don't believe that morality has derived from evolutionary processes because of moral absolutes... or rather, moral relativism

 

[Bond/Catalyst]

The first two premises are disproven, modern physics has many examples of bodies being moved without any moving body influencing them. The third cause doesn't explain why god should not be contingent on anything else.

On the fourth premise, it is not evident that simply because we can conceive of an object with some property in a greater degree, that such an object exists. And the argument that greater perfection exists only holds true if you accept principles of universalism.

For the last premise, countless complex systems exist in nature that can be demonstrated to have arisen naturally, design isn't required to create complex structures such as a diamond, the universe naturally orders itself.

In regards to the first two, although modern scientists may have proved that, they havent disproved that it is God 's will or God Himself that designed them to be moved without having another body moving on them (i know im straying from aquinas original thought in that instance, but of course he wouldnt have known what modern scientists know) and I know that the original point is to proove Gods existance straight out but still...

In regards to the third, if we are seeking to prove the existance of God then God himself must have the "characteristics" that what we would credit God with having (otherwise he would not be God), and in doing so it is assumed and understood that God need not be contingent on anything else.

It is impossible, I believe to escape universalism.

The fifth argument states that in unintelligent, unthinking beings, phenomena, laws acting towards an end, there must be some designer to that for the very nature of acting towards a constant end is intelligent...therefore that designer is God....and anyway what how is it that we can identify laws of nature that never change? Why is the universe so orderly, so reliable, did these just "naturally" occur.

The following is not an original thought but definately worth considering...

"The greatest scientists have been struck by how strange this is. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. This astonishment springs from the recognition that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence."

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."

 

[Bond/Catalyst]

Okay.
The very premise to Christ's coming was to save us from our sins. Our sins are the result of our rebellion against God (i.e Adam & Eve), that is according to Genesis. But if we were to take our sense of morality, our consciousness of right and wrong to be the product of evolutionary processes. Then does that not dismiss the very point of Jesus Christ?

Then why do animals then not have a sense of morality or consciousness to discern right from wrong. Humans are entirely unique out of all Creation in terms of our ability to reason and discern right from wrong and act in response to conscience. If this was simply something that evolution developed then animals would have the same ability as humans to do so.

 

[KFunk]

Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."

Consider Kant's solution: it is a condition of the possibility of experience that perceived objects be structured in accordance with a priori laws. In other words, the universe is perceived by us as lawlike because it could not appear any other way to a rational being capable of cognition and knowledge.

 

[trickx]

Then why do animals then not have a sense of morality or consciousness to discern right from wrong. Humans are entirely unique out of all Creation in terms of our ability to reason and discern right from wrong and act in response to conscience. If this was simply something that evolution developed then animals would have the same ability as humans to do so.

No.
The higher forms of mammalian species do hold elements of human morality. Primeapes share solidarity with one another, they seem to display emotions that do resemble our own. But because our brain matter is far more developed, we embody a conscious far higher than primeapes - that includes out ability to reason and act ethically. This is all from an evolutionary perspective of course. But what's more, I think resorting to a supernatural explanation to explain our moral principles is completely insulting. There is no definite connection between morality and religion.

 

[John McCain]

In regards to the first two, although modern scientists may have proved that, they havent disproved that it is God 's will or God Himself that designed them to be moved without having another body moving on them (i know im straying from aquinas original thought in that instance, but of course he wouldnt have known what modern scientists know) and I know that the original point is to proove Gods existance straight out but still...

The burden of proof lies on he who asserts the premise, not on scientists to disprove god is behind this relationship. Regardless, this is a very weak sort of god created by this premise, not very threatening, as it doesn't propose or necessitate that god is any sort of moral actor.

And the same goes for the third premise, I think whether a god of this sort exists isn't super important, it's only really important if he's a particular moral actor. The first three premises, if they were held to be true, could equally presume malevolence, apathy, chaos or anything in between as the nature of god.

For the fifth premise, kfunks post sums up what I know to be true.

Then why do animals then not have a sense of morality or consciousness to discern right from wrong. Humans are entirely unique out of all Creation in terms of our ability to reason and discern right from wrong and act in response to conscience. If this was simply something that evolution developed then animals would have the same ability as humans to do so.

Putting aside the vast areas of moral disagreement that exist across and within human cultures, most of the moral basics that all cultures largely agree on i.e. the immorality of killing, private property rights, the benefits of cooperative behavior, behavior that upholds these morals are reflected widely across various animal species, behaving according to the actions we consider moral isn't unique at all, and the extent to which certain animals may be capable of consciously reflecting upon this is disputed.

 

[Bond/Catalyst]

Consider Kant's solution: it is a condition of the possibility of experience that perceived objects be structured in accordance with a priori laws. In other words, the universe is perceived by us as lawlike because it could not appear any other way to a rational being capable of cognition and knowledge.

Well that is clever, but in a practical sense, we ARE all rational beings capable of cognition or knowledge and the only laws we have and understand are the ones that exist...not the ones that dont. But anyway, it is not the law in itself that is remarkable, but the fact that it is so constant and consistant. It is more to do with the nature of laws in general rather than laws themselves I think...why are laws laws anyway? What forces them to act so "mathematically"? What forces them to function in the predicatble way that only laws can?

I mean we may not be able fully appreciate any other laws other than the ones which exist, but then how exactly does a law exist without it having any practical application in the real world. But regardless, the point I think, was that there is no reason why nature should be consistant and "mathematical" in nature and that the fact that it is quite a miracle in itself.

 

[Bond/Catalyst]

No.
The higher forms of mammalian species do hold elements of human morality. Primeapes share solidarity with one another, they seem to display emotions that do resemble our own. But because our brain matter is far more developed, we embody a conscious far higher than primeapes - that includes out ability to reason and act ethically. This is all from an evolutionary perspective of course. But what's more, I think resorting to a supernatural explanation to explain our moral principles is completely insulting. There is no definite connection between morality and religion.

Elements, seem etcetcetc....im not disputing that they may have behaviour which may "seem" to mimick that which is moral and the arguments regarding this are contentious...however the fact is that no other species has the SAME capacity for moral and ethical decision making in comparison to humans. The reasons for this are arbitrary...I believe it was God's plan for humans to be masters of His creation and this is a POV that you dont even need to be religious (the masters of nature part) to agree with.

And as Kant has been raised, didnt he say that it is very much our "personhood" that puts us above animals.

"The fact that the human being can have the representation "I" raises him infinitely above all the other beings on earth. By this he is a person....that is, a being altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one's discretion. "(Kant, LA, 7, 127)

There is nothing insulting, rather it is somewhat relieving I think, to know that my morals and morals are the result of a perfect Being's plan....and not just the resultof some random evolutionary process.

 

[nhg]

No, thank god.

 

[Templar]

In regards to the first two, although modern scientists may have proved that, they havent disproved that it is God 's will or God Himself that designed them to be moved without having another body moving on them (i know im straying from aquinas original thought in that instance, but of course he wouldnt have known what modern scientists know) and I know that the original point is to proove Gods existance straight out but still...

The burden of proof lies on he who asserts the premise, not on scientists to disprove god is behind this relationship. Regardless, this is a very weak sort of god created by this premise, not very threatening, as it doesn't propose or necessitate that god is any sort of moral actor.

Let me clarify with Bertrand Russell's teapot: the claim is that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. Unfortunately, any telescope is not powerful enough to see it. While you can't prove the existence of the teapot, there is no doubt that the claim would be false.

The same could be said of pastafarianism, the pink invisible unicorn or any of these objects. The burden of proof lies with those who asserts them.

 

[John McCain]

however the fact is that no other species has the SAME capacity for moral and ethical decision making in comparison to humans. The reasons for this are arbitrary...

Obviously the reasons for this aren't arbitrary.

If this was simply something that evolution developed then animals would have the same ability as humans to do so.

The implication of what you've said here is that if evolution were true, all animals should have all the same abilities. Or at least, there should be no ability that is not seen in two or more species. Which is absurd.

All species develop uniquely to fill an ecological niche. The fact humans have some unique abilities, does not necessitate a designer.

 

[Bond/Catalyst]

My point is not about abilities in general, just the ability to reason and act ethically etc, I mean the reasons arent arbitrary but what I meant was that whatever the reasons may be (i mean thats wat were discussing) the FACT is that no other animal or being matches the humans capacity for such moral and ethical decision making. So it is important to recognise that in this instance we are not different, but have a SUPERIOR ability to discern right from wrong.

And it doesnt have to be entirely religious...what of Kant's "personhood" reasoning? As I have stated before this particular question in relation to animals v humans need not be an entirely religious one...

 

[Bond/Catalyst]

And I'll just re-post this as it has not been addressed

Well that is clever, but in a practical sense, we ARE all rational beings capable of cognition or knowledge and the only laws we have and understand are the ones that exist...not the ones that dont. But anyway, it is not the law in itself that is remarkable, but the fact that it is so constant and consistant. It is more to do with the nature of laws in general rather than laws themselves I think...why are laws laws anyway? What forces them to act so "mathematically"? What forces them to function in the predicatble way that only laws can?

I mean we may not be able fully appreciate any other laws other than the ones which exist, but then how exactly does a law exist without it having any practical application in the real world. But regardless, the point I think, was that there is no reason why nature should be consistant and "mathematical" in nature and that the fact that it is quite a miracle in itself.</SPAN>

 

[John McCain]

My point is not about abilities in general, just the ability to reason and act ethically etc, I mean the reasons arent arbitrary but what I meant was that whatever the reasons may be (i mean thats wat were discussing) the FACT is that no other animal or being matches the humans capacity for such moral and ethical decision making. So it is important to recognise that in this instance we are not different, but have a SUPERIOR ability to discern right from wrong.

And it doesnt have to be entirely religious...what of Kant's "personhood" reasoning? As I have stated before this particular question in relation to animals v humans need not be an entirely religious one...

Yes we have a superior ability in this regard, but I think this alone doesn't justify the biblical position of environmental stewardship, or demand that humans should have any rights over animals.

I acknowledge what you're saying to be true, but I fail to see the religious implications or relevance.

In regards to laws, it is interesting, but you can't draw any firm conclusions on the nature of reality from this observation. There are alternate hypothesis to the existence of god that are just as logical based on this observation.