-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Just a question
- Thread starter svafree
- Start date
- Status
chestertonrules
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 8,747
- 515
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If there is no God, how did everything come into existence?
If there is a God, how did he come into existence.
An answer to either question requires faith.
You must have faith that a universe with self aware intelligent beings came from nothing, or you must have faith that an eternal God exists.
The benefit of Christian(monotheist) philosophy is that it is whole. It explains everything.
Human interaction can be made sensible using Christian philosophy and teaching. Thomas Aquinas provided five proofs for the existence of God, then proceeded to build a philosophy on this solid ground. I recommend that you start with Aquinas if you want to really understand Christian beliefs.
If there is a God, how did he come into existence.
An answer to either question requires faith.
You must have faith that a universe with self aware intelligent beings came from nothing, or you must have faith that an eternal God exists.
The benefit of Christian(monotheist) philosophy is that it is whole. It explains everything.
Human interaction can be made sensible using Christian philosophy and teaching. Thomas Aquinas provided five proofs for the existence of God, then proceeded to build a philosophy on this solid ground. I recommend that you start with Aquinas if you want to really understand Christian beliefs.
Upvote
0
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I have not seen a believable description of god that is noteworthy.*Reads between the lines.............*
You do believe in God!
Upvote
0
chestertonrules
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 8,747
- 515
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Aquinas's Proofs 1 to 3
1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.
2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
<A name=0>Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 52 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God. 5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Upvote
0
I agree. Stating anything with certainty does require faith.
I'd be curious what exactly contitutes nothing. Does it simply mean "not created by god"?
As far as I know the only people that claim the universe came from "nothing" are theists speaking for atheists.
To an extent. Though that "everything" you speak of is hardly agreed upon even with in the circles of theology.
It only answers by neccessity and on a "need to know" basis.
This is debatable. They have answers yes. Though I don't feel they are valid.
Upvote
0
Logically unsound. Selfrefuting argument. Everything requires a mover, therefore god, except god doesn't require a mover, so not everything requires a mover.
Logical huh?
Self refuting in the exact same way as 1.
Straw man. This one is weak.
This is just unintelligent. Greatness goes undefined, and why greatness is percieved as great, and why greatness is necessary for a perception of greatness to occur.
ID is not a good argument now, it wans't back in the day either.
All of these elleged proofs are highly biased and contigent on the person assuming that a certain type of god already exsists to be valid. Which is circular, and obviously not scientific nor a proof.
Upvote
0
Yekcidmij
Presbyterian, Polymath
- Feb 18, 2002
- 10,469
- 1,453
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
While I agree with Aquinas, because of my bais towards Christianity, and deducing or inducing a belief in God from these arguments is valid, there are still some problems (I''ve probably only touched on a few that I think are problems) here that need to be overcome to make the arguments more concrete. Not that the conclusions are false, they just need to be elaborated. I have numbered the arguments for ease of reference but have not altered the words:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT]
(1) Are there things that are not in motion?
(2) Hasty Generalization. A natural question would be, does God move?
(3) Hasty Generalization. Needs more explination
(4)&(5) Hasty Generalization. (5) doesn't necessarily follow from (4) without further explination.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
(1) Implies that something besides God could be uncaused. Could a multi-verse be uncaused?
(5) doesn't necessarily follow from (4). That's a jump to a conclusion. I would have formed it a little different:
[1] everything that begins to exist has a cause (causal principle)
[2] the universe began to exist (big bang)
[3] therefore, the universe had a cause. (conclusion)
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
(1) Do you believe in eternal life? Maybe it should be reworded "every contingent being at some time begins to exist"
(2) There is a problem with the jump from (1) to (2). You went from talking about beings specifically to talking about everything in general. This is a sweeping generalization.
(4) Is the universe or a mulit-verse contingent?
(5) Hasty generalization. There was a jump from the conclusion (4) to number (5) and from (5) to (6).
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
(2) Is this necessary?
(3) Hasty jump to conclude that there is a being that is the source and not just a source
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
(2) What if something is acting for the end purpose of evil?
(3) This is a hasty jump from (2). Also, there is no information about the designer. Is he evil?
(4) If he's evil, I hope not!
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT]
(1) Are there things that are not in motion?
(2) Hasty Generalization. A natural question would be, does God move?
(3) Hasty Generalization. Needs more explination
(4)&(5) Hasty Generalization. (5) doesn't necessarily follow from (4) without further explination.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
(1) Implies that something besides God could be uncaused. Could a multi-verse be uncaused?
(5) doesn't necessarily follow from (4). That's a jump to a conclusion. I would have formed it a little different:
[1] everything that begins to exist has a cause (causal principle)
[2] the universe began to exist (big bang)
[3] therefore, the universe had a cause. (conclusion)
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
(1) Do you believe in eternal life? Maybe it should be reworded "every contingent being at some time begins to exist"
(2) There is a problem with the jump from (1) to (2). You went from talking about beings specifically to talking about everything in general. This is a sweeping generalization.
(4) Is the universe or a mulit-verse contingent?
(5) Hasty generalization. There was a jump from the conclusion (4) to number (5) and from (5) to (6).
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT][/FONT]
(2) Is this necessary?
(3) Hasty jump to conclude that there is a being that is the source and not just a source
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
(2) What if something is acting for the end purpose of evil?
(3) This is a hasty jump from (2). Also, there is no information about the designer. Is he evil?
(4) If he's evil, I hope not!
Upvote
0
GeratTzedek
Meaning Righteous Proselyte to Judaism
- Aug 5, 2007
- 4,213
- 339
- 64
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Why is this so difficult for you?
If they know they don't know it, but say it anyhow, it is dishonest.
If they believe they know it, but they really don't, it can be all sorts of other things:
- They could have been mistaught by people they trust
- They might have been misinformed by otherwise reliable sources
- They may be too unintelligent to realize their source is bad
- They may have reasoned badly to their conclusion and don't realize it
- They may be under the suggestive emotional sway of a charismatic leader who effects their ability to reason well
- They may be emotionally disturbed
I am beginning to wonder if there isn't some underlying emotional reason why it is important to you to tag them as dishonest rather than mistaken. Is it important to you to feel morally superior to them? If not, why is it so important to you to see them as bad people?
Upvote
0
Because we have different definitions for what it takes to KNOW something. People often label beliefs as knowledge. This is infact incorrect. Beliefs are beliefs. Knowledge is knowledge. Beliefs can be either true or false. Anyone who claims absolutely that their beliefs are infact knowledge is claiming that their beliefs are a fact. A fact, is clearly defined, and beliefs are not facts.
Yes it can be all sorts of things. If they qualify what they BELIEVE they know, as such, it is not dishonest, as they are leaving the option open that they could be wrong. If they label what they BELIEVE they know as knowledge, meaning they "KNOW" they are right, this is dishonest, as nobody KNOWS 100%.
I agree with these, but it's all about HOW they qualify their claim in my mind.
It's because I often see people here claiming they "KNOW" 100% percent, when it is clearly not the case. Nobody is certain 100%.
No. I just hold them to the same standard I hold myself to when it comes to making absolute truth claims.
I don't call them bad people. Just dishonest. It may seem fairly trivial. In most cases it is. People can be dishonest without intentionaly trying to be dishonest. Though in discussions like these, it is nice to have a standard methodology for debating terms.
My origional post was meant to adress these issues.
A person may believe Santa is real. That's fine there is nothing wrong with that. If they were to claim that they know santa is real, is that an honest claim?
Upvote
0
GeratTzedek
Meaning Righteous Proselyte to Judaism
- Aug 5, 2007
- 4,213
- 339
- 64
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Rasta:
Basically, I think you are being unfair. Just because you have a mind that can think more clearly in this manner does not mean others do, and it is WRONG for you to require them to match your intelligence. In a word, you are acting like a snob. You need to let people be people, and try to understand what they are saying on THEIR level, and respond to them on THEIR level, instead of getting all prissy that they are not on yours.
Rest assured, you are likely deficient in other ways. I know I am. None of us are perfection incarnate. My guess is that any one of those whom you are berating could be gifted in running speed or balance, or maybe they play flute like a muse, or they could shmooze the socks off of Scrooge. For all you and I know, the one you most recently insulted spent last weekend dishing out meals at the local soup kitchen.
And again, there is no such thing an unintentional dishonesty -- what you are discribing is error. There is something not quite right when you insist on attaching a moral judgement to mistakes.
Basically, I think you are being unfair. Just because you have a mind that can think more clearly in this manner does not mean others do, and it is WRONG for you to require them to match your intelligence. In a word, you are acting like a snob. You need to let people be people, and try to understand what they are saying on THEIR level, and respond to them on THEIR level, instead of getting all prissy that they are not on yours.
Rest assured, you are likely deficient in other ways. I know I am. None of us are perfection incarnate. My guess is that any one of those whom you are berating could be gifted in running speed or balance, or maybe they play flute like a muse, or they could shmooze the socks off of Scrooge. For all you and I know, the one you most recently insulted spent last weekend dishing out meals at the local soup kitchen.
And again, there is no such thing an unintentional dishonesty -- what you are discribing is error. There is something not quite right when you insist on attaching a moral judgement to mistakes.
Upvote
0
I don't think it is an intelligence thing. I think it is an ego thing. Thank you for the compliment though. People somehow feel if they admit they could be wrong, they are (or their opinion is) somehow less valuble or invalid. Why do they think this? Is it because they have assigned a value set for their presuppositions of reality?
"My level" is one that requires a degree of scrutinty when making truth claims.
Would you correct me if I calimed that I knew that YHWH was an evil, cruel, jealous, petty, tribal, war god?
Or would you expect me to know the ways that Jews typically view god, and ask me to first study thoes views (your level) before I make any judgement call?
I think I know the answer to this, so I am merely doing the same with truth claims as theists do when speaking of their faith.
No doubt. I never claimed contrary.
Yeah, that could be true. Though it hardly sheds any relavence to this discussion.
I know 100% fact that Santa is true. That is a completely honest statement isn't it?
Doesn't everybody? If I choose to worship the wrong god (based on a mistake) what happens to me in your mind?
Upvote
0
GeratTzedek
Meaning Righteous Proselyte to Judaism
- Aug 5, 2007
- 4,213
- 339
- 64
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
No, sir. NOT EVERYONE attaches moral judgments to mistakes. Please do not ascribe to me your personal ethics.
In my mind, I have no idea what happens to you, as only G-d sees your heart. He alone can truly discern if you are rebelling or confused.
I may try my best to discern the truth. If I think you are mistaken, and we are agreed to have a mutual discussion, I will share my thoughts on the matter with you. But I will not make a judgment as to the state of your soul.
I do believe people lie, and there are times I accuse others of lying, but it takes a heck of a lot more than simple disagreement for me to make such an accusation. For example, I would not even call your false statement regarding Santa a lie, as I know you to be speaking flippantly to make a point. There is no deception involved.
There are times when an individual is so far gone they become toxic and dangerous, when I say, "That is simply a bad person, and I don't want to be around their corruptive influence." But generally speaking, I'm simply not into the "Here are the innies and over there are the outies, these are the good guys and those are the bad guys" kind of deal. My thoughts are far more focused on irradicating the remaining bad within myself.
In my mind, I have no idea what happens to you, as only G-d sees your heart. He alone can truly discern if you are rebelling or confused.
I may try my best to discern the truth. If I think you are mistaken, and we are agreed to have a mutual discussion, I will share my thoughts on the matter with you. But I will not make a judgment as to the state of your soul.
I do believe people lie, and there are times I accuse others of lying, but it takes a heck of a lot more than simple disagreement for me to make such an accusation. For example, I would not even call your false statement regarding Santa a lie, as I know you to be speaking flippantly to make a point. There is no deception involved.
There are times when an individual is so far gone they become toxic and dangerous, when I say, "That is simply a bad person, and I don't want to be around their corruptive influence." But generally speaking, I'm simply not into the "Here are the innies and over there are the outies, these are the good guys and those are the bad guys" kind of deal. My thoughts are far more focused on irradicating the remaining bad within myself.
Upvote
0
chestertonrules
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 8,747
- 515
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
good questions:
(((1) Logically unsound. Selfrefuting argument. Everything requires a mover, therefore god, except god doesn't require a mover, so not everything requires a mover.
Logical huh?)))
The point is that everything except an eternal entity requires a mover. That's the point, and yes, it is logical, although faith based. Do you have a better explanation?
((Self refuting in the exact same way as 1.))
Again, you are missing the point. This explanation is totally logical IF god exists and is eternal. The fact that a first cause is a KNOWN, given that we are here, leads to the necessity of a first cause. How do you explain it?
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God. Straw man. This one is weak.
All existence can be traced to the big bang. That is the ultimate contingency of our existence taken as far as our senses will let us. Let there be light.
I think the weakness might be in your understanding of this point!
As to #4, I'm with you. I don't get this one.
#5
Quote:
DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
ID is not a good argument now, it wans't back in the day either.
I absolutely disagree. I think this is the strongest point.
Design is evident all around us. Why is the universe orderly? How can complex systems necessary for life evolve sequentially? For example, how could an eye evolve? It is useless without each of it's components. What good is an optic nerve without a pupil, etc. Unless it was designed for a specific function, it would never have been completed by evolution because the individual components provide no competitive advantage.
(((1) Logically unsound. Selfrefuting argument. Everything requires a mover, therefore god, except god doesn't require a mover, so not everything requires a mover.
Logical huh?)))
The point is that everything except an eternal entity requires a mover. That's the point, and yes, it is logical, although faith based. Do you have a better explanation?
((Self refuting in the exact same way as 1.))
Again, you are missing the point. This explanation is totally logical IF god exists and is eternal. The fact that a first cause is a KNOWN, given that we are here, leads to the necessity of a first cause. How do you explain it?
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God. Straw man. This one is weak.
All existence can be traced to the big bang. That is the ultimate contingency of our existence taken as far as our senses will let us. Let there be light.
I think the weakness might be in your understanding of this point!
As to #4, I'm with you. I don't get this one.
#5
Quote:
DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
ID is not a good argument now, it wans't back in the day either.
I absolutely disagree. I think this is the strongest point.
Design is evident all around us. Why is the universe orderly? How can complex systems necessary for life evolve sequentially? For example, how could an eye evolve? It is useless without each of it's components. What good is an optic nerve without a pupil, etc. Unless it was designed for a specific function, it would never have been completed by evolution because the individual components provide no competitive advantage.
Upvote
0
What if I make a mistake and have sex before marrige? Is that an immoral mistake?
So Jews have no idea what happens to no believers? No verses cover this? Or is this your personal choice to not make individual judgement calls?
Me too. It is usually associated with many things.
Me too. I don't condemn groups of people. Only types of behavior that are detremental to debating. There are rules to be applied when acting as a scholar, scientist, etc. Somehow theists are free from any scrutinty when making claims?
You are free to define things how you want. Words like truth, fact, knowledge have set meanings. Not to be confused with beliefs. This is essentially my point. I only condemn thoes who call their opinions facts.
Upvote
0
GeratTzedek
Meaning Righteous Proselyte to Judaism
- Aug 5, 2007
- 4,213
- 339
- 64
- Faith
- Judaism
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
You switched topics in midstream from ideas to actions. Hmmmmm
I really do think I've said to you what I needed to say. You either get it, or you don't.
I really do think I've said to you what I needed to say. You either get it, or you don't.
Upvote
0
TheOutsider
Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
Special Pleading is not logical.
No, it's not. It's just not. The fact that we perceive design does not mean that it's actually there.
I see lots and lots and lots of chaos everywhere in the universe.
The old Irreducible Complexity of the Eye argument for the ten millionth time. Darwin figured it out 150 years ago. Why are people still throwing this PRATT out there? Go watch this video, please: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Upvote
0
That's poor logic. It's self refuting. The reason it says we must assume god is that EVERYTHING REQUIRES A MOVER. Then it goes on to explain, um......yeah.....so not EVERYTHING requires a mover. Which then effectively negates the origional purpose to assume god in the first place.
That is called circular reasoning. Google circular reasoning and you will discover the reason it is not only illogical but also self refuting.
No, I assure you it is not. It is faulty logic. "Not everything is contingent==> therefore god! This is a straw man becuase it constructs an argument that is easy to topple then makes the jump==> therefore god.
Hooray! We agree!
I'll give you that. Though I don't think this one is particularily strong.
That's debateable.
Most call these the "laws of physics". Which seem like cold, unflexing, rigid operations that lack any kind of emotion or subjective value. They just are. Why are apples red? Why does energy travel in waves?
Simple answer. Things go from simple organisms to more complex ones. Bacteria would be the logical start. They don't have eyes.
Upvote
0
Nope. You realize making truth claims is an action, and not an idea? You know that right? We've been talking about actions all along.
I think I've just challenged your methodology in a way that you would rather avoid the topic than to delve in deeper. That is a personal decision of course.
Believe me. I get it.
Upvote
0
chestertonrules
Well-Known Member
- Dec 17, 2007
- 8,747
- 515
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Please explain why useless mutations would be kept.
Not only kept, but appended with other useless mutations.
Why would these adaptations survive competitive biology?
Not only kept, but appended with other useless mutations.
Why would these adaptations survive competitive biology?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
