is there a god?

[infinitelord1]

how do you explain those who have claimed to meet god? What about the miracle at fatima, spain in 1917? Do you simply just not believe in this? If so, then i hope you have good reason. I hope you dont 'believe in aliens' and not this.........that could be a whole new thread but lets not focus on aliens.

Edited July 20, 2005 by infinitelord1

[jmjtina]

To those who don't believe in God, what is your definition of good and evil? Do they exisist to you? And if they do, are they subjective?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jul 19 2005, 09:03 PM']Or you can take the infinite regress stance(multiverse)  then there requires absolutely no first cause.
[right][snapback]650385[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But where does the first universe come from?

[Fidei Defensor]

I tend to look also at proof here among us, such as real exorcisms, Euchristic miracles, other miracles. You try telling an exorcist that has experienced a real one, that God doesnt exist, and he will laugh in your face.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Semalsia'][quote name='infinitelord1']you are saying that "in your mind" theist arguements fail.........so to you that is proof that there is no god.[/quote]

No, no.. I didn't mean that as a proof. Just a justification not to believe.
[/quote]

Meaning that it's not a justification for thinking there is no god, but a justification for not being a theist.

[quote name='Melchisedec']Another argument is the one pertaining to God being the first uncaused caused.[/quote]

Which is based on the assumption of causality. That things need to be caused.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 20 2005, 08:26 AM']Which is based on the assumption of causality. That things need to be caused.
[right][snapback]650822[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Exactly, and the presupposition that the cause must be God. Yet God is not subject to the same line of reason for requiring a cause.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 19 2005, 10:31 PM']But where does the first universe come from?
[right][snapback]650562[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It doesn't come from anything, anymore than God comes from anything. It just has always existed.

[Brother Adam]

logic tells us that matter itself must have a source.

But really now, who cares? There are better things to do in life. Like read Harry Potter.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jul 20 2005, 09:43 AM']It doesn't come from anything, anymore than God comes from anything.  It just has always existed.
[right][snapback]650880[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Except modern science has dismissed the notion that it has always existed. Particularly since the universe appears to be expanding, pointing to a begining point. And if it had one, that implies something to begin it.

We place God there in light of other revelation on his part.

[ergosum]

FYI: Peter Kreeft, from Boston College - i think, compiles a decent list of arguments that supposedly "prove" the existence of God. The book is titled "Handbook of Christian Apologetics". It's really an interesting read, though if you are a tenacious and reasoned thinker, you will find easy flaws in all that's in that book.

Anyways, so many posts on here are just so obviously weak that I'm not going to take the trouble to respond to them individually. I'll point out a few things here.

"Intelligent design" is NOT a scientific theory.

Some kind of "intelligent design" claimed to be a property of this Universe is clearly an assumption - and a very shaky assumption.

Assuming that there is always a sequence of causes, and that the effects are always dependant upon the causes, and that one can identify causes and effects or which one is the cause and which one is the effect, are all false beliefs that have already been discarded by science.

Anselm's Ontological Argument is an insidious farce. I'm not going to waste my time explaining myself. I have more than elaborately clarified this issue on my blog site ergosum.blogspot.

To claim that faith is a "firmer" ground to base one's beliefs than reason is, is to engage in an irrational fallacy of the stolen concept.
In order to engage in precise logic, you must fully understand and define your concepts. Without having done that, you cannot build a rational and logical argument.

Why should 2+2=4? Not because we "believe" or have "faith" that it is so. But because we can demonstrate it by proof of logic and reason. Assume we cannot trust our power of reason and logic. So, let's use the axioms of existence and Identification to come to the conclusion that 2+2=4.
We understand that inorder to contemplate on the issue of 2+2=4, we have already assumed our perception of what those numbers mean. In other words, we know that a 2 is not any other number but a 2 and a 4 is not any other number but a 4. Thus, we have engaged in identification.
However, identification does not come without existence.
Thus, we understand that something exists which we have now identified. However, in order to identify one matter of existence, we need to understand all that which that matter is NOT, and all that exists which this matter is NOT.
Thus, we know that 2 is not a 1 or a 3 or anything else. But now, we also understand that we know what a 1 is, or what a 3 is.
Thus, knowing that a single element, or a single unit, or an individual entity, or a 1 exists, we can also say that "since we know 1 exists, and we also just identified the existence of a 2" we can say that a single unit and another single unit when contemplated together synonymously manifests the property of that which we have just identified as 2.
We can now proceed similarly to further prove that 2+2=4.

Now, Reason ofcourse is the ONLY ONE AND ONLY competent means to gaining and attaining and integrating knowledge that we HUMANS possess. Arriving at any conclusion by Reason gives us the capacity to check our premises and our conclusions and identify any errors we may have mistakenly assumed as real or true.
Remember: Logic CANNOT have any contradictions. And contradictions DO NOT EXIST at all in this real world. There is NO circle with FOUR corners. That is a contradiction.
THis cannot be a pen and a book at the same time. That is a contradiction.
Since, contradictions have NO reality and NO existence, pure logic and reason SHOULD reflect the non-contradictory nature of reality and existence. (The implications for a "perfectly logical or intelligent Being" is immense, and should provide enough proof for the tenacious thinker to arrive at the Atheist conclusion).

Now, someone here said "Faith, by definition, begs no questions because it desires no proof, it needs no proof."
That is fully true.
And therefore, on faith I can believe in anything. I can believe in Batman. Or if I'm feeling whimsy enough, I can believe in Batman and Superman at the same time.
Faith gives you NO CAPACITY to check ANY of your premises and contemplate your errors because YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT ERRORS you may have made. You are REQUIRED to believe things on FAITH because "faith, by definition,... desires no proof, it needs no proof" to believe in anything... even Batman!

Thus, the fallacy of Stolen Concept? You cannot claim faith as a "firmer" foundation to attaining knowledge than Reason is by openly admitting how ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be accepted as "knowledge" without any need for justification, reason, proof, or logic. Such is your fallacy: you accept anything and everything on your whimsical, fuzzy feelings of the day. On faith. And you claim that it must be TRUE because it makes you feel good and if's based on faith!

Btw, if you didn't guess by now. I am an Atheist. My blog site is ergosum at blogspot.com that discusses these and many other issues of faith, logic, reason, sex, love, and relationships!

[Fidei Defensor]

How exactly do we know that reason is the only way to achieve any kind of understanding? By reason of course! Circular logic anyone?

The problem with reason, is that if we are merely the product of blind chance, and we are set by our instincts due to our nature, we would be ultimately trapped to "reason" by which our instincts and nature tell us, not to actually discover anything.

[ergosum]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:51 AM']How exactly do we know that reason is the only way to achieve any kind of understanding? By reason of course! Circular logic anyone?

The problem with reason, is that if we are merely the product of blind chance, and we are set by our instincts due to our nature, we would be ultimately trapped to "reason" by which our instincts and nature tell us, not to actually discover anything.
[right][snapback]651060[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



This post makes absolutely no sense! Oh God. (pun deliberately intended!)

First off, how do we know that reason is the ONLY competent means of us gaining knowledge? NOT through reason... through the experience of reality and the sustenance of our lives! Try to live a life that goes against EVERY shred of reason and logic. Let's see how long you can survive!
Try to use a pen to stab yourself instead of using it to write (the reasonable use of a pen is to write). Try to step out of a fast-moving car and see if you can escape unhurt and alive! (It is reasonable to assume that you will be hurt in doing so because either your own experience or the experience of someone else has shown you that it is irrational or DUMB to jump out of a fast-moving car!) Anyway... I hope you get this point.
And if you still think this is "circular reasoning" (no pun intended here!)... then you tell me what is YOUR selection of that which is the most competent faculty for us humans to gain knowledge and know reality?
And please don't say faith -- I have already discussed why relying on faith to gain knowledge is simply absurd!

And for the rest of your post:

"The problem with reason is that blah blah blah...." that makes no sense either.

First off, Humans have NO instincts. Every human action is an act of CHOICE (I am not talking about autonomous physiological activites like digestion and heart beating, those are also not instincts but the automatic consequences of our CHOICE to breathe. We can choose to breathe or we can CHOOSE to hold our breathe and die).
We are the only species of living creatures that can CHOOSE to kill ourselves or can CHOOSE to live our lives. Thus, we have NO survival "instinct". We can CHOOSE to starve ourselves. We can choose to be killed by someone else.
No other animal can do this. Animals, except humans, function on INSTINCT: which is an automatic form of knowledge that gives no options and no choices.
A dog CANNOT commit suicide or CHOOSE to starve itself (unless there's something physiologically wrong with the animal, in which case it is an aberration, not the norm).
A squirrel cannot choose to fight a wolf. It will RUN, HIDE. It is AN INSTINCT which does not give it any other options. Animals have instincts that they MUST follow because there is nothing else they know how to do.
Humans are VOLITIONAL beings. We can CHOOSE to eat, CHOOSE to fight, CHOOSE to flee, CHOOSE to kill, CHOOSE to live, CHOOSE to think, and CHOOSE to not think.
Thus, humans have no instincts, only choices, and therefore responsibility, and therefore the need for morals. An Atheist like me has a more rigorous and pure sense of morality than most religious people... read my blog for an in-depth discussion of the morality of an Atheist. ergosum.blogspot.com

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ergosum' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:12 PM']This post makes absolutely no sense! Oh God. (pun deliberately intended!)

First off, how do we know that reason is the ONLY competent means of us gaining knowledge? NOT through reason... through the experience of reality and the sustenance of our lives! Try to live a life that goes against EVERY shred of reason and logic. Let's see how long you can survive!
Try to use a pen to stab yourself instead of using it to write (the reasonable use of a pen is to write). Try to step out of a fast-moving car and see if you can escape unhurt and alive! (It is reasonable to assume that you will be hurt in doing so because either your own experience or the experience of someone else has shown you that it is irrational or DUMB to jump out of a fast-moving car!) Anyway... I hope you get this point.
And if you still think this is "circular reasoning" (no pun intended here!)... then you tell me what is YOUR selection of that which is the most competent faculty for us humans to gain knowledge and know reality?
And please don't say faith -- I have already discussed why relying on faith to gain knowledge is simply absurd!

And for the rest of your post:

"The problem with reason is that blah blah blah...." that makes no sense either.

First off, Humans have NO instincts. Every human action is an act of CHOICE (I am not talking about autonomous physiological activites like digestion and heart beating, those are also not instincts but the automatic consequences of our CHOICE to breathe. We can choose to breathe or we can CHOOSE to hold our breathe and die).
We are the only species of living creatures that can CHOOSE to kill ourselves or can CHOOSE to live our lives. Thus, we have NO survival "instinct". We can CHOOSE to starve ourselves. We can choose to be killed by someone else.
No other animal can do this. Animals, except humans, function on INSTINCT: which is an automatic form of knowledge that gives no options and no choices.
A dog CANNOT commit suicide or CHOOSE to starve itself (unless there's something physiologically wrong with the animal, in which case it is an aberration, not the norm).
A squirrel cannot choose to fight a wolf. It will RUN, HIDE. It is AN INSTINCT which does not give it any other options. Animals have instincts that they MUST follow because there is nothing else they know how to do.
Humans are VOLITIONAL beings. We can CHOOSE to eat, CHOOSE to fight, CHOOSE to flee, CHOOSE to kill, CHOOSE to live, CHOOSE to think, and CHOOSE to not think.
Thus, humans have no instincts, only choices, and therefore responsibility, and therefore the need for morals. An Atheist like me has a more rigorous and pure sense of morality than most religious people... read my blog for an in-depth discussion of the morality of an Atheist. ergosum.blogspot.com
[right][snapback]651081[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well, as i can see, you are a different atheist than other atheists i have talked to. Imagine that. Not even the atheists can agree

I would appreciate it if you dont "look down" on us because we believe in God, and act as if we are absolutely incapable of intelligent thinking. Im sorry if you dont feel you are, but it appears to me that you are.

Thank you.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jul 20 2005, 10:43 AM']It doesn't come from anything, anymore than God comes from anything.  It just has always existed.
[right][snapback]650880[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Would it be fair to say that this "first universe" is actually God Himself?

[Fidei Defensor]

Oh boy, I have so many questions and so little time.

My first question is - where do you stand on why the universe exists and how it reached the point of which we now call present.