Why Is Your Faith Not Arbitrary?

[beatty07]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399354' date='Oct 8 2007, 11:51 AM']everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian. perhaps as you were saying, if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily.[/quote]

That's just it. Positing "God" as a first link in a chain places God as a thing among others. Thomas' point is that the ultimate ground of existence must be something behind it all, something whose very essence is to exist. Something that couldn't not exist, and that does not admit of a cause. Using God as the first link reduces him to the stature of a pagan god.

As Ronald Knox put it, you can add as many links and as large as you like to a chain, but at some point you have to have a peg to hang it on.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd tend to agree.
but have to say not necessarily.

it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.
but i never thought God as first cause was saying much anyway, even if you could prove he's a first cause.

Edited October 8, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

the peg theory is helped by the big bang stuff i was saying. if big bang happened at a set point, then something was here before, something that just was, one would think.
but i still don't see the bang as a definiteve proof.
the peg is just adding more of the same stuff, extra fluff that's argued against with the same arguments that are used had the peg not existed.

i guess the big bang just says that the peg theory has some validity to it finally beyond just an abstract extra that's needed. but even with the peg theory, note all the stuff i've already said.

Edited October 8, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Lord Philip]

Excellent points made in this thread by many people.

Revprodeji, I might suggest the following approach:

First off, the atheist is beginning with abstractions. He assumes that the only rational way to approach something from the beginning is with an attitude of doubt. As honest as this may sound, the theist is approaching it with utmost honesty: he begins to approach things without either belief or doubt.

We simply look at data. We don't abstract about it, we don't perform back-breaking twists of logic, we simply observe data and from that we attempt to make sense of it in the most universal way possible.

This branches out into all the arguments that you already know. For instance, we observe that nothing comes into existence without a cause. Since the universe exists we simply infer that the universe must have had a cause. That is a good argument but far from being the most interesting one.

We can look at a building and infer that it was designed and built by human beings. There is no twist of logic there. Doubtless the atheist will ring out: "but we can test that hypothesis by looking at other buildings being built and designed by men, so we really know this empirically." But this does not answer the argument at all.

If one looks at a building and needs empirical evidence that it was built and designed by men, then he is a madman! It is obvious from everything we know about existence and about the world.

Sorry for the mishmash of ideas, but in debating atheists the argument about inference from real, hard data has worked very well with me.

God bless!

Philip

[beatty07]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399366' date='Oct 8 2007, 12:15 PM']it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.[/quote]

good points...and certainly the 'peg' thing is more cute than theologically precise.

But I do maintain that God's "just being" is not in the same way that the universe might "just be."

If God's existence is only a possible state...i.e., there may or may not have been a God and we are arguing about which way things ended up... then we're not really talking about God. We're talking about something contingent. The question "Does God exist" presupposes some matrix of existence prior to God, into which God could take existence or not take existence. But that kind of god is still an idol, an empty concept.

Even possibility itself requires some matrix in which to exist. God is not that matrix, God is its Creator.

Boy, do I wish I could use words good. I'm pretty sure I have a good argument here, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't make any sense as written. Sorry.

[N/A Gone]

I invited him over here, since the talk was on a sports forum that gets mocked alot. We will see if he comes.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399354' date='Oct 8 2007, 11:51 AM']everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian. perhaps as you were saying, if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily.[/quote]
Yes, everything we know has a cause, except God. God can not have a cause. If God had a cause, then there would be a cause for God's cause. That can not go ad infinitum though, because of some mathematical law which I never studied (anyone able to throw me a bone here?). Anywho, the must be the unmoved mover, because otherwise, things wouldn't be put into motion.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399354' date='Oct 8 2007, 11:51 AM']now, the big bang actually helps verify the CC dogma of God's existance. we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. should we say hte big bang just happened or that something cause it?
was there anything before the big bang?
if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next onse the first God. and are those first particles then God? i think particles idea shows that the first cause should not necessairly be called God, and that God has to be more than just random chance.
this is where it gets hairy.
while the big bang does help give credence to the CC dogma, it doesn't necessarily prove it.
it is a sufficent level to say that God, as defined as first cause, does exist. but it's not exhaustively definitive. must like if we see a shadow, we know somehting is causeing it as a proof, but we haven't proven it definitively.[/quote]
It would seem the Big bang was caused. I don't know how it would be self causing. That was never really part of the theory. There would have to be something before the big bang... there would need to be the exploder of the big bang. "if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next onse the first God." clarify for me please? I could not interpret that beyond my imagination... are you trying to speculate whether particles were God? How could they be if they came from an explosion? Anyways, I think you see though that God can't be a "random" chance. Another thing, you keep bringing up the thing about "the Dogma of God's existence". Could you verify that you know what you're talking about here? And yes, God is the first cause. It's interesting that you use the shadow analogy, but what could there be other than God? Tell me! I'm interested in a definitive speculation.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399357' date='Oct 8 2007, 11:55 AM']same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
as a first cause as God, order just means that order happened to occur.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything.
order is indicative of inteligent consciousness but not a proof.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. plus when you look at the watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.[/quote]
Order does prove God. It proves that there was something to put order. If I drop a hand full of dice (maybe 7 or 8), they could all line up evenly and turn up sixes, or they couldn't... but we're talking major odds that they will do this unintelligently. I would have to set them up myself if I wanted them to make it that way. Or how about you put a disassembled typewriter in a washing machine. Will it rebuild itself completely? Anyways, I define intelligence as the capacity of knowledge. I think you're right about the consciousness thing, but I think it suffices to say God is conscious, and was when things were created. It takes a conscious move (beyond our capacity) to knock those two particles together causing the bang. I think you have things with the watch analogy...

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399366' date='Oct 8 2007, 12:15 PM']i'd tend to agree.
but have to say not necessarily.

it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.
but i never thought God as first cause was saying much anyway, even if you could prove he's a first cause.[/quote]
Indeed I agree with the peg thing. It's sorta icing to the cake. Only reaffirmation. But, the thing about existence quirks me a bit... though, I think I can read into in a Catholic way... just, it's very ambiguous. I'm not sure what you mean... and I'm not sure why you sort of cop-out with ockham's razor. It's actually flawed in so many ways. Bad short cut. My good Catholic friend gave me this humourous example for why it is wrong. He said, let's say there is some dog doodoo in a tree. Ockham's razor says simple answer, so one can assume a kid put it up there... but, the other speculation one can make is that an inventor was working at making a dog-hang glider. Now which is right? Well, in truth, the second was right in this analogy, but the other was the simplest. Doesn't always work. (sorry if this analogy was hot stuff-esque, but fails to make a point [unlike hot stuff's actual stuff, which points really well]... I'll try harder next time).
Anywho, on to your next point. God is somewhat separate from existaence, insofar God exists on His own standards, and holds us into existence. This belief took a dive from Ockham's time. People started to believe they existed aside from God, and independently. Unfortunately, we have the belief of relativism because of that.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399369' date='Oct 8 2007, 12:21 PM']the peg theory is helped by the big bang stuff i was saying. if big bang happened at a set point, then something was here before, something that just was, one would think.
but i still don't see the bang as a definiteve proof.
the peg is just adding more of the same stuff, extra fluff that's argued against with the same arguments that are used had the peg not existed.

i guess the big bang just says that the peg theory has some validity to it finally beyond just an abstract extra that's needed. but even with the peg theory, note all the stuff i've already said.[/quote]
Define your stance on definitive proof. We're here aren't we? Rocks can be dated. Our planet can be dated. Stars can be dated. In other words, there was an inception. Scientists even speculate that the universe is expanding. In other words, it was smaller at some point. If it always was, then there would be no gradation of matter, and most of all, gradation of size. By what standard do we measure the hypothetical infinite universe?

Now, some of you may be wondering what the heck I'm saying here. In apology, I am replying to Dairy for her sake, because in the last while, Budge was claiming that Dairy doesn't really exist, is a hoax, etc. cause of her fence-sitting, and because not many claim to "follow her posts" I'm not ignoring this child of God, so I thought I'd give a crack at this type of replying. Anywho, so my main purposes here are to 1. Definitively prove the existence for Dairygirl4u2c, and 2. help her come to know God (more) through reason.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the CC teaches that God's existance can be proven.
i'm not sure that's an infallible teaching. it's probably just a teaching, and whether it's part of the ordinary magisterium or not will be determined in the future. just look on google.

i didn't mean that God is the first particles. I meant to say that the particles if they just popped up would be God according to the idea that the first causes were God: which is not something that would make sense. Just like the idea that random chance being God would not make much sense. I think you can say that the particles were caused by something, or you could say they just occured. I think you're right though, that a cause as per our view of reality would make more sense than just chance. but, we dont' see a first cause everyday in our real life, so i don't think you can necessarily that we should rule out a random chance. again if God can just be, the first particles can just be.
you're just stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't sun. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally deductive proof, not inductive. i forget the meaning of those words or if they ar teh right words but it's one of those.

i think order helps give evidence for God but not proof. if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity. as per the world being ordered, it seems like it just follows laws of entropy and order just happened to occur givne gravity and such. it's not an unreasonable argument. but i agree God makes most sense.

i think these points were helpful for me to add. most of the other points you've made seems like you just insisting they are right. and i you can claim my existance, but you're going to have to prove it first.....
also, i do take definitive stances. i believe God is love and has consciousness and is light. i believe Jesus existed and was the son of god and many other things. many specific points i'm not sure i agree with sterotypical christians. i know these cannot be proven, but that's the whole point of faith. (i'm pretty sure that's why we call this stuff faith. and i'm pretty sure all those who dissent are not simply suffereing from mental disorders in this area of life)

Edited October 9, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also one argument i forgot to make. the idea that order proves God.
you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd that complexity of God come from?
ockham's razor. this is where i usually use ockham's razor arguments with God arguments

[morostheos]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1399224' date='Oct 8 2007, 07:05 AM']Thanks Guys. Keep going. I hope Jeff or L_D venture in here.

Oh, so you can see how it is going so far, here ya go

[url="http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=716291&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0"]http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php...asc&start=0[/url][/quote]

Unfortunately, Jeff won't be stopping by, he's in the novitiate right now with the Dominicans, so he doesn't have access to the internet.

[jeffpugh]

Dang... I thought he was talking about me? haha... oh.. yeah... the PMer Jeff... Alas, I never met the man...

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do welcome more debate on this matter. especially from those who think i am clearly wrong, to explain why that is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ih

[S][N]

Wow that guy rocks. Interesting discussion.

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1399109' date='Oct 7 2007, 09:20 PM']That part made me cringe. He really is objectifying God, seeing belief as quantifiable. A monotheist who believes in one God is not closer to atheism than a polytheist who believes in two dozen. If anything, it is the other way round. Polytheism seeks to quantify the divine, to assign it to designated compartments, to make it easy and understandable. Apply to this god for help in love and this goddess for help in war. The divine becomes a giant customer service department. This corresponds very closely to the atheistic understanding of 'god'. The Judeo-Christian tradition is leagues away from this.

The pair of you are not speaking a common language when you talk about God. I think you need to write that you don't see God as a 'thing', a bigger and better version of a human being seated on a golden throne in the clouds. God is being itself. Your friend may disagree with that statement, but if he thinks closely about its meaning he will realise that your concept of God does not match up with his own. Once he is at least prepared to accommodate this idea, you will be able to talk about the manner of revelation.[/quote]

Dude, that is really impressive. Seriously I had never even thought of it that way before....Wow. R u like a priest or something? where did you get that from?