Searching for the Truth

[ArchaicTruth]

*cough*

Don't ignore my post

 

[StTherese]

If you've looked in your house for your car keys, and haven't found them, do you assume that they're outside. Even worse, when picking a religion, you not only assume that they're outside, you assume that they're in a specific bush.

Just because there are many different religions doesn't mean there isn't but ONE truth. How do I know that my religion is correct?...I have faith. I asked God to lead me to truth and He lead me to the Catholic Church.(kicking and screaming might I add).

False. I do not have faith that god does not exist.

Really? Your icon says you are an atheist...you CANNOT prove that God doesn't exist, therefore you have faith that He doesn't exist.

 

[us38]

Really? Your icon says you are an atheist...you CANNOT prove that God doesn't exist, therefore you have faith that He doesn't exist.

You need to learn what an atheist is. People who believe in god(s) are theists. Everyone else are atheists. This includes people who don't believe in god (which I am), as well as people who believe in god's nonexistance (which I am not). Guessing what some believes based on some pixels that resemble a head and a brain is a dangerous excersize in generalization. The only thing that can be safely concluded from my icon is that I don't believe in god.

 

[StTherese]

You need to learn what an atheist is. People who believe in god(s) are theists. Everyone else are atheists. This includes people who don't believe in god (which I am), as well as people who believe in god's nonexistance (which I am not). Guessing what some believes based on some pixels that resemble a head and a brain is a dangerous excersize in generalization. The only thing that can be safely concluded from my icon is that I don't believe in god.

Yes, but you cannot prove He doesn't exist, just because you "believe" there is no God. There is a possibility that you are wrong and there is in fact a God...yet you have "faith" that there is no God.

So you believe in God's existence, but you do not believe in Him?

 

[Sunrunner]

So you believe in God's existence, but you do not believe in Him?

That's not what he said at all. Weak atheists (such as myself) do not believe God's existence. Nor do we believe in God's nonexistence.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

You mean like, on the fence kinda thing where you don't want to give your all to sides that both have major holes in them?

 

[us38]

Yes, but you cannot prove He doesn't exist,

Never claimed I could.

just because you "believe" there is no God.

But I don't believe that there is no god.

There is a possibility that you are wrong and there is in fact a God...yet you have "faith" that there is no God.

Are you having fun beating that strawman?

So you believe in God's existence, but you do not believe in Him?

I don't believe in god's existence. Nor do I believe in god non-existance. I don't hold any beliefs regarding the existence of god.

You mean like, on the fence kinda thing where you don't want to give your all to sides that both have major holes in them?

Yeah, something like that.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Thats fine, though I find floating isn't very health, it supposedly eats away at your bones or somethin' like that...

I hope you one day find the truth, and when you do, please come share it with the rest of us. Just make sure you're nice about it.

 

[StTherese]

Never claimed I could.



But I don't believe that there is no god.



Are you having fun beating that strawman?



I don't believe in god's existence. Nor do I believe in god non-existance. I don't hold any beliefs regarding the existence of god.



Yeah, something like that.

So you are a "weak" atheist? Do you think there is a possiblity that Christianity is true?

 

[RCCdefender]

Never claimed I could.



But I don't believe that there is no god.



Are you having fun beating that strawman?



I don't believe in god's existence. Nor do I believe in god non-existance. I don't hold any beliefs regarding the existence of god.



Yeah, something like that.

So, from what I can see you are indeed a relativist, or am I wrong. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask you when you have the TIME.

 

[redmartian89]

Still waiting for logical proof of God.

Atruth, your website was uninspiring and had a lot of holes in the arguments.

 

[us38]

So you are a "weak" atheist? Do you think there is a possiblity that Christianity is true?

Sure.

So, from what I can see you are indeed a relativist, or am I wrong. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask you when you have the TIME.

I'll answer your questions. Please do this over private messages, though, as this thread is already dangerously close to being derailed.

 

[RCCdefender]

Sure.



I'll answer your questions. Please do this over private messages, though, as this thread is already dangerously close to being derailed.

I don't think it is close to being derailed at all. I'm just trying to figure out your complex belief, which when closely observed could very well be considered fallacious. For me any form of relativism is a very dangerous path to follow.
Forgive me.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

lol, that site has as many holes, and is as uninspiring, than any argument you could put forth against me
Logic has a tendency to be cold, and not always covers everyting, but you ask for logic, and there it is

 

[StTherese]

Still waiting for logical proof of God.

Atruth, your website was uninspiring and had a lot of holes in the arguments.

Try this one...

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm




I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.


The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.


The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.


The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.


The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.


The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.


Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

That was a rather interesting article, and I thank you for bringing it before my eyes

 

[Isambard]

So, from what I can see you are indeed a relativist, or am I wrong. I have a lot of questions I would like to ask you when you have the TIME.

Shoot.

 

[us38]

I'm just trying to figure out your complex belief, which when closely observed could very well be considered fallacious.

Probably. Go on and ask your questions, then.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Special pleading. You're saying that everything needs something to make it move, except god. You haven't actually answered the question.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A slightly reworded form of the first argument. The same problem applies.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

Circular logic. You define god as necessary, and the universe as contigent, and then marvel at the fact that god necessarily exists.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

More circular logic. This same argument can also be used to prove an evil god.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

If something intelligent requires something even more intelligent, then we get infinite regress. God requires a super god, which requires a mega god, which require an ultra god, and so on and so forth. If you argue that the chain stops at the first god, then you're using special pleading.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

You are applying rules of your existence to something that you cannot physically see, and that is not how it works. Perhaps God is infinite, and he pushes himself. Perhaps what "pushed" God, is God. You act as God lives in a plane of existence exactly like ours, yet you must think, for all we know, God could be some being of energy. If something created God and pushed him, what was that being? We assume that this plane of existence has seperate beings as in ours, but for all we know what created God was God, perhaps he can create himself, and each time he does his previous self is absorbed into the new self. Or, if we take into account the possibility that God exists in a moment of no time, where no events thoughts or actions occur, everything that exists there and takes place there has just been, all occurring in one eternal moment which in turn echos through our eternity, and in our one moment. There are a million possibilities as to the existence and nature of God, and to prove him, we only need to prove one, yet to disprove him, you need to disprove them all. It's fair to say a lot of atheists are in the long haul for that one.

 

[Isambard]

You are applying rules of your existence to something that you cannot physically see, and that is not how it works. Perhaps God is infinite, and he pushes himself. Perhaps what "pushed" God, is God. You act as God lives in a plane of existence exactly like ours, yet you must think, for all we know, God could be some being of energy. If something created God and pushed him, what was that being? We assume that this plane of existence has seperate beings as in ours, but for all we know what created God was God, perhaps he can create himself, and each time he does his previous self is absorbed into the new self. Or, if we take into account the possibility that God exists in a moment of no time, where no events thoughts or actions occur, everything that exists there and takes place there has just been, all occurring in one eternal moment which in turn echos through our eternity, and in our one moment. There are a million possibilities as to the existence and nature of God, and to prove him, we only need to prove one, yet to disprove him, you need to disprove them all. It's fair to say a lot of atheists are in the long haul for that one.

I believe the reverse is true especially when you specify God of a certain religion.

Think about it, your arguement is circular. If you didnt already believe in God, then you wouldnt have to create such an incredibly complicated and completely unverifiable network of thoughts in an attempt to 'make God beyond human understanding'. Occam's Razor says that the simplest answer is most likely true which would mean that there simply is no super plan and thus, no (active) deity.

You are correct that (g)God is definitional, but thats more-so to do with the fact that the entire concept is incredibly abstract thus making proving or disproving pointless unless terms are set.

So an atheist cannot ever hope to disprove god, but atheist can disprove the christian God.