Does God Exist?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1201600' date='Feb 21 2007, 09:50 AM']The bottom line is we choose to believe in God or not. If God exists, He exists in a level of complexity that humans would be incapable of completely comprehending. By the same logic, if God does not exist, humanity is incapable of comprehending and proving His non-existence.[/quote]Above is what I wrote. The following is from the RC Catechism: [quote]42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"[b]the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable[/b]"--with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, [b]though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity[/b]. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18[/quote]I was not describing God's essence, but humanity's inablility to comprehend. To only declare that God is 'Simple', insinuates that something 'Simple' can be readily understoond by humanity, and easily proven.

If you weren't so twisted up in the idea that I have to be WRONG, you may find yourself open to what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote so you could 'bash' it. I think you may need to take a breath and go to confession about your struggle.

[jesussaves]

God is the creator of all.

Edited February 26, 2007 by jesussaves

[prose]

I was just reading this from Vatican II:

[quote]Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.[/quote][quote] In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated(16) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence.

Still, she strives to detect in the atheistic mind the hidden causes for the denial of God; conscious of how weighty are the questions which atheism raises, and motivated by love for all men, she believes these questions ought to be examined seriously and more profoundly.

The Church holds that the recognition of God is in no way hostile to man's dignity, since this dignity is rooted and perfected in God. For man was made an intelligent and free member of society by God Who created him, but even more important, he is called as a son to commune with God and share in His happiness. She further teaches that a hope related to the end of time does not diminish the importance of intervening duties but rather undergirds the acquittal of them with fresh incentives. By contrast, when a divine instruction and the hope of life eternal are wanting, man's dignity is most grievously lacerated, as current events often attest; riddles of life and death, of guilt and of grief go unsolved with the frequent result that men succumb to despair.[/quote]

Interesting I thought. Does it fit this thread? Not sure. Don't mean to hijack.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1201600' date='Feb 21 2007, 09:50 AM']Reasonable atheistic arguments would be any and/or all arguments against the 3 basic arguments for a God.

Cosmological: How can "God" be the First Cause unless there was a cause for God. If God always existed, then existience always existed.

Telelogical: No true randomness exists because of scale. Fractals.

Ontological: Logical and reasonable philosophical arguments for God are met solidly with logical and reasonable philosophical arguments against the existence of God. (David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gottlob Frege, and Gaunilo of Marmoutiers).

The bottom line is we choose to believe in God or not. If God exists, He exists in a level of complexity that humans would be incapable of completely comprehending. By the same logic, if God does not exist, humanity is incapable of comprehending and proving His non-existence.[/quote]

Gah... Ontological... it hurts the head... yet I manage to understand it somewhat. We skipped over this proof of God in our hack philosophy class in high school because the textbook could not really explain it as eloquently as this.

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1202267' date='Feb 22 2007, 03:16 AM']Perhaps a good and solid starting point lies in the argument of Saint Thomas Aquinas from motion, in which the existence of the Being that is not put into motion by another is argued. This establishes that the Cause of all motion has no potency, being [b]Pure Act[/b]. ( A mug on a table has potential to be moved to the other end of the table, or being smashed into pieces. It is not until this occurs through some interference (motion) that these potentialities are actualised. Whereas with the Unmoved Mover, there is not such distinction between potentiality and actuality.) From the Unmoved Mover being Pure Act, it follows that the Being is [b]immutable[/b] or unchangable in every way. From this, it can be argued that the Unmoved Mover [b]has and always will exist[/b]. From this argument, one can establish these attributes of the Unmoved Mover: immutability and eternity.

Since this Being must exist, and essentially must exist, it can be said that Existance is one with this Being's Essence. Perhaps, from this, it can be said that the Being is one with Pure and Perfect Existance (eg: in the same way a circle MUST be round without compromise; a weak comparison, but still helpful perhaps). Perfect Existence is existence without any defect whatsoever, existence without limit; hence this Being is perfect in every way: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and all the attributes of God (who this Being IS).[/quote]

I have a friend who claims to be atheist and tries to refute this argument of the 'unmoved mover'. I think the 'problem' is the paradox. Its a beautiful paradox nevertheless.

[rkwright]

I'm surprised at the low number of votes for 'are there any atheistic arguments that hold ground'. Of course there are; if there weren't we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Its important to recognize the opposition (that is atheistic) and know how to counter them. Even Aquinas found objections to the existence of God. One must know them and be able to respond to them (which he did).

[Anomaly]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1205838' date='Feb 28 2007, 03:09 PM']I'm surprised at the low number of votes for 'are there any atheistic arguments that hold ground'. Of course there are; if there weren't we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Its important to recognize the opposition (that is atheistic) and know how to counter them. Even Aquinas found objections to the existence of God. One must know them and be able to respond to them (which he did).[/quote]
There are so few votes for atheistic arguments because people are lemmings and are scared to be honest. I presented the obvious few and was labled as an atheist or just airing a personal grudge against the RC Church. In today's world you either have to choose superficial stereotypes based on emotional opinion or what the athorities say you should agree with, or get some book education and consider yourself an expert and correct and those who disagree as uneducated or uniformed.

It's not completely unreasonable to believe in God, nor is it completely unreasonable to disbelieve in God. People can argue about what's "most" reasonable, or which is the wisest choice between two relatively reasonble alternatives, but it's just plain stupid and intellectually dishonest to dismiss either alternative as being completely without merit.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1206224' date='Mar 1 2007, 10:39 AM']It's not completely unreasonable to believe in God, nor is it completely unreasonable to disbelieve in God. People can argue about what's "most" reasonable, or which is the wisest choice between two relatively reasonble alternatives, but it's just plain stupid and intellectually dishonest to dismiss either alternative as being completely without merit.[/quote]
It's completely unreasonable to be an atheist. Common sense says that God exists.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1206229' date='Mar 1 2007, 10:56 AM']It's completely unreasonable to be an atheist. Common sense says that God exists.[/quote]
Case in point.

Poor Tommy A. Wasted all that time.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

My view, for what it's worth:
There are atheistic arguments, but I said they do not hold ground because I do not find them convincing. I see no need to argue from design and orderliness etc, when the fact that anything exists at all is sufficient. I really do think it is unreasonable to believe that some ancient mass of energy and matter just existed and blew up, setting out a chain of reactions which has led to the present state of the universe.

Edited March 1, 2007 by thedude

[prose]

[quote]There are atheistic arguments, but I said they do not hold ground because I do not find them convincing. I see no need to argue from design and orderliness etc, when the fact that anything exists at all is sufficient.[/quote]

That is exactly what I think. In order for an argument to hold ground, it needs to make sense, be logical, and be difficult to refute. I find that such an argument does not exist for atheism.

[Anomaly]

People who believed our solar system revolved around the Earth pretty much had the same mindset. It didn't make sense to consider the earth is just a speck, hurtling at great speed while revolving around a star. To fail to question the logical and reasonable belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe and solar system was to fail to explore the greater majestey and glory of God's creation.

[prose]

You can explore atheist arguments without considering them reasonable.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='prose' post='1206315' date='Mar 1 2007, 02:39 PM']You can explore atheist arguments without considering them reasonable.[/quote]
And thus we begin condenscending and arrogant lecture while avoiding mutual respect and intelligent discourse.

Thomas Aquanis, Aristotle, and other philosophers would certainly disagree with your method of exploration and discourse.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Anomaly

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The atheistic arguments I have seen that are not just bias against religion (for example: bringing up 9/11 and declaring religion is evil and must be rejected), miss the big picture. You can argue cause and effect and everything else all you want - without God, matter and energy or whatever was just "here." Atheism cannot answer the question as to why there is existence. There must be a reason there is something rather than nothing - God, the Creator.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

My analogy:
The present condition of existence is a house. Atheists and theists can argue over who/what (or whether it was necessary) did the building, but atheism falls short in telling us where the materials to build the house came from in the first place.