xSilverPhinx Posted June 6, 2011 Author Share Posted June 6, 2011 [quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1307383500' post='2250465'] I think that some Jewish philosophers like Maimonides?? have a rule that one can only really describe what God Is NOT since we cannot fully understand what He IS.... lol [/quote] So much for non fuzzy understanding then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1307375213' post='2250427'] And what situation is that? [/quote] Many theories about how we came to be, giving answers that cannot be proven or disproven, conflicting with each other and even themselves. People converting from theory to theory. People disbelieving in all the theories. Wars between people believing in conflicting theories. Everyone claiming to know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 In the original post (aka mine that phin is quoting) I meant to say it has become obvious to me. It is analogous to overlooking something that is right in front of you. You search for something everywhere, and when you stop and think, it was right in front of you the whole time. That is more what I originally meant. Carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 [quote][b][url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm"]Summa Theologica[/url][/b] "... Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident... Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us..." [/quote]Perhaps the most honest and humble of all theological admissions. I had to read about the summa theologica when I studied world religions, this is a very distinctive aspect of Catholic theology among world religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307491184' post='2251063'] In the original post (aka mine that phin is quoting) I meant to say it has become obvious to me. It is analogous to overlooking something that is right in front of you. You search for something everywhere, and when you stop and think, it was right in front of you the whole time. That is more what I originally meant. Carry on [/quote] Like adding 1+1? Would you say that you discovered god by yourself or was god shown to you? Or both at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faithcecelia Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 As far as the world in general is concerned, I personally consider it obvious that there had to be a 'start', there has to be a point - however far back - where science can explain no more and so a 'creator' can be the only option. Im no scientist so won't try to be, but my thoughts are that of the Big Bang created the universe then something had to cause the Big Bang. If the cause was gases then something had to cause the gases, etc etc - however far back you want to describe the detail, it gets to the point you have to accept a 'something', to me its obvious that something is God. Within myself, I have no need to go back beyond a moment ago, it is obvious God exists because of the relationship I have with Him, the love I feel for Him and the love I feel from Him. I know He exists just as easily as I know my parents exist, theres just no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 At some point the creation of the universe or the existence of the universe comes down to believing either the universe has no cause, or believing that the universe is caused by either a being with intelligence that was uncaused or a non-intelligent object that was uncaused. No body in their right mind believes in the pop theory that the universe just pop into existence. So really everyone does believe in the eternal, the choice to make is if the eternal uncaused cause is intelligent or non-intelligent. FYI no one ever has proven that you can get something more in the effect than you had in the cause. It is not possible to get or gain intelligence from non-intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1307501187' post='2251099'] As far as the world in general is concerned, I personally consider it obvious that there had to be a 'start', there has to be a point - however far back - where science can explain no more and so a 'creator' can be the only option. Im no scientist so won't try to be, but my thoughts are that of the Big Bang created the universe then something had to cause the Big Bang. If the cause was gases then something had to cause the gases, etc etc - however far back you want to describe the detail, it gets to the point you have to accept a 'something', to me its obvious that something is God. Within myself, I have no need to go back beyond a moment ago, it is obvious God exists because of the relationship I have with Him, the love I feel for Him and the love I feel from Him. I know He exists just as easily as I know my parents exist, theres just no question. [/quote] Aquinas' Unmoved Mover? It's actually a fairly logical approach I think though we'd differ on what we see as the nature of that Cause. Thanks for adding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307503069' post='2251115'] At some point the creation of the universe or the existence of the universe comes down to believing either the universe has no cause, or believing that the universe is caused by either a being with intelligence that was uncaused or a non-intelligent object that was uncaused. No body in their right mind believes in the pop theory that the universe just pop into existence. [b]So really everyone does believe in the eternal, the choice to make is if the eternal uncaused cause is intelligent or non-intelligent. [/b] FYI no one ever has proven that you can get something more in the effect than you had in the cause. It is not possible to get or gain intelligence from non-intelligence. [/quote] Yep, main difference would be there. Intelligent and conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307503421' post='2251119'] Yep, main difference would be there. Intelligent and conscious. [/quote] So which do you believe? Intelligence or non-intelligence? If non how do you explain you cannot get something more in the effect than you had in the cause. And that it is not possible or to get intelligence from non-intelligence? Edited June 8, 2011 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 As a geneticist taught us, as students of science we must always be ready to admit an unknown or an uncertainty. But theistic apologists interject their god into these unknowns or uncertainties, making a god of the gaps. I am personally satisfied not knowing but investigating, I personally find the glazing over the unknown with a dogmatic faith unattractive. Which if we could explain better the origin of the "[i]big bang[/i]", theistic apologists would merely inject their god before that... The cosmological argument is often misunderstood or misused by theistic apologists. As a doctor of philosophy once noted, theistic apologists devote much effort to support their first premise, the assumption of causality... that all things are caused. Only to propose an exception to the assumption of causality in the second premise, by special pleading. Then even if there is an uncaused cause, there is nothing to necessarily suggest that this phenomena has any of the qualities attributed to a god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307503943' post='2251124'] So which do you believe? Intelligence or non-intelligence? If non how do you explain you cannot get something more in the effect than you had in the cause. And that it is not possible or to get intelligence from non-intelligence? [/quote] Non intelligent [i]appearance [/i]of intelligence. What exactly do you mean by "cannot get something more in the effect than you had in the cause"? Entropy? As for intelligence coming from non intelligence, I don't know, except that for intelligence complexity is necessary (compatible with evolution). At least for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307504797' post='2251126'] As a geneticist taught us, as students of science we must always be ready to admit an unknown or an uncertainty. But theistic apologists interject their god into these unknowns or uncertainties, making a god of the gaps. I am personally satisfied not knowing but investigating, I personally find the glazing over the unknown with a dogmatic faith unattractive. Which if we could explain better the origin of the "[i]big bang[/i]", theistic apologists would merely inject their god before that... The cosmological argument is often misunderstood or misused by theistic apologists. As a doctor of philosophy once noted, theistic apologists devote much effort to support their first premise, the assumption of causality... that all things are caused. Only to propose an exception to the assumption of causality in the second premise, by special pleading. Then even if there is an uncaused cause, there is nothing to necessarily suggest that this phenomena has any of the qualities attributed to a god.[/quote] I'm also not really big on the god of the gaps argument. It's one thing to use god as an interpretational framework when viewing reality but to posit god as the answer for uncertanties doesn't lead anywhere and doesn't explain anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307359615' post='2250397'] "If there were no God, " we would be in exactly the same situation that we find ourselves in today. [/quote] Not hardly.... we won't for example have hospitals or universities, nor international law or human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1307508157' post='2251144'] Not hardly.... we won't for example have hospitals or universities, nor international law or human rights. [/quote] I am assuming that for you hospitals, universities, international law and human rights are proof of god, not man made things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now