To Deny God is to deny life
Life requires an all-powerful being, God, to even exist. Life is too complex to simply be something that fell into place. The replication of DNA to formation and cooperation of cells. The very beginning of matter requires God.
- Login to post comments
I never claimed that you do accept the First Cause argument; I only claim that it is logically necessary to posit God (in other words, you logically should accept it ). But, regardless, I CAN know that God exists by using by reason, without faith.
Also, the "earth revolving around the sun," is naturally known. Natural knowledge/reason is not "what seems to be," but rather, "knowledge that comes from what we can know by our own powers, without Revelation." Thus, it is in my own power to verify that the earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun because I can go into space or produce calculations that demonstrate this.
It is rather YOUR position that must reject the moon landing, because you reject the validity of accepting an argument based on authority as a rational action. Religious faith is merely a species of such trust.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Wrong. I do not use belief to substantiate that the sky is blue and why, I use science. Science that I personally have conducted. Science that I have personally conducted to prove your god, and came up with a falsity. Try again.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I really don't know why we are bothering. this is like talking to someone from another planet. Religious faith is really worthless as a source of information, especially with the absurd claims made by it - and the fact that there is no good reason to pick one over another.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
No. 1000x no. There are many things of which I can conceive. I can take all kinds of conscious states, refer them to other conscious states, and come up with all sorts of chimeras. "The intellectual possession of an idea" simply means that some conjunction of attributes, generalities, and other qualities of ideas have been assembles in the imagination. The only thing that could be said to be knowledge about these idea is that we have them. We have no necessary connection between the idea and it's actual referent.
Epistemology is a complex subject and their is no commonly agreed upon definition of knowledge. As was said above, knowledge is related to the probablility of something being true. A standard used in science is predictive power as well as conformity to coherence with other data of which we find to correlate with known facts. But ultimately knowldge is a structure that uses a very complex correlational criteria; all facts are based on other facts. The better that the information we have conforms with the other information we have, the more they are both said to be "true."
I won't say more about that right now, in the interest of post-length.
Here's the rub. You don't know that it was told to you by God. The only possible reason to believe that it is God is that the book says it's god, but that's circular reasoning and begging the question.
You have an idea in your head. The idea has import because the story of Christianity is based upon deep structures of unconscious processes and because it has emotional association with other things you find to be important--like philosophy, truth, etc. But the connection between God and these ideas is superfluous and cannot be called knowledge but rather an idea adhered to you. You commit to accepting it despite rational justification. You have faith. There is no justificaion outside of the circular rationalization of accepting that God said what's in the book, and we know that God said it because the book says so.
It's no different than the following Kissing Hanks Ass
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Normally I'd agree, but he's revealed a chink in his armour by allowing his irrationality(or at least part of it) to be defined. While this doesn't necessarily mean he can be shown the path to reason, it significantly increases the possibility of it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Did you ever read that article I linked you to?
Why i don't consider the first cause argument reasonable
There is a difference between accepting something on authority (like NASA) and accepting something on the authority whose existence is in question. You accept God on the word of God. I accept the moon landing on the word (as well as additional evidence) of NASA. At least I can demonstrate empirically that NASA exists.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
What science that you personally conducted? Do you have a particle accelerator to prove the composition of the atom? Do you even have an electron microscope though which you have seen viruses? How do you know that a virus exists? You cannot, but must accept this on a trust that those who do investigate these things are telling the truth.
Religious faith makes no absurd claim (the most I can speak about is mine) and there do exist good reasons to choose one religion from another. God's existence is demonstrated from nature, and from His existence we can learn that He must be, for example, One. This rules out all polytheistic religions. Second, God must be omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, ect. which rules out some more. We can keep going with naturally known truths which contradict other religions (for example, reincarnation is philosophically impossible). In the end, you are left to choose a religion that is monotheistic, with a purely omnipotent and personal God governing all things by His Providence. Very few choices left. Add in the credibility of the Christian faith due to miracles substantiating its claim to be a Revelation on God's authority, and there is little room for objection.
Then no ideas are true. Have fun calculating how much weight a bridge can bear, as it has no connection to reality.
If ideas are only true in relation to ideas, no such thing as a true statement can exist. That also begs the question of how ideas can arise, if they have no reference outside of the mind. Again, have fun trying to operate in real life if no truth exists. And, lastly, your own statement that truth doesn't exist outside of your mind makes sure that I don't have to find your statement true (because it is only true in relation to your ideas).
I do not believe it is true just because the Scriptures say so, for precisely the fact that it is circular reasoning. Rather, I believe God revealed these truths X because certain persons, for example, Christ, who claimed to God, proceeded to substantiate His claims with miracles performed only by God (I recall specifically the paralytic; Which is easier, to say your sins are forgiven or rise and walk?). Thus, I can reasonably believe Christ is God. Further, all that is revealed can be believed with certainty on that fact: Christ is God and God cannot decieve nor be decieved.
Except that I can know God exists before I believe He has revealed something. First Cause, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, Grades of Perfection, and Ordered Ends (Quinque Via) prove God exists from natural reason. That He can reveal a truth and in fact has revealed one is not far off.
PS - I read the paper and just found it lacking, having many errors. I answered it earlier, but I suppose that means I posted in vain.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Hee-haw, Hee-haw, hee-haw! :roll:
Quite a lot really. If you want a full listing, I'm going to have to refer you to the education systems of the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta in Canada. I didn't take notes on every single science experiment I did. Oh, you also might want to check into a number of kids clubs that do scientific things in Edmonton and area. I remember doing paleontological, physical, cosmological, and biological studies as well as various other sciences at the Edmonton Space and Science Centre during the summer time for kids over the years. Most of this, if not all of it, involved applied science.
What does that have to do with a blue sky? *Shakes head*
Fine, you want to switch subjects, lets do it. No, I don't. But I have indeed seen one, and seen the evidence it collected.
Nope, but I utilised them back in school.
I've both seen them, and seen their effects.
I just demonstrated you are wrong. If you keep this up you almost certainly will find something I haven't done, but that doesn't mean I can't do it. All of science is provable and testable. The fact that someone else did it means I can do it if I really put enough effort into the task.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You have never been to the moon to verify that the moon is actually existent. You have never been inside the sun to verify that its center is quite hot. You have never seen dark matter. You have not seen the earth from space. You have not personally demonstrated every truth about everything. It has nothing to do with the fact that you could, but the fact that you have not. It is thus a form of trust in an authority. Religious faith is a form of this reasonable trust in the truth revealed because the one revealing is trustworthy. In the case of religion, infinitely trustworthy, and hence the truths are infinitely credible.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Why must he be One, why must he be all-powerful, why must he be omniscient, why must he be all-loving?
Do you have a metaphysical accelerator for observing the soul? Do you have a deity microsope for examining god?
There are no theists on operating tables.
Here, your nihilistic tendencies come to the fore. Suppose I can't prove the moon is there or that the sun is hot. This is no way provides an argument for you to claim that anything is real, including god.
All your comment does is explain to us why even you should doubt there is a god...for precisely the same reason that we should doubt the sun is hot since it cannot be ultimately verified (assuming that it can not be verified for the sake of argument).
If you think Jesus was anything more than this, then you are engaging in a "leap of faith" that is irrational and is the very kind of faithful phenomenon we have been telling you that faith is and why it is anything but a kind of knowledge.
It was not a proof that God exists or even that we ought to believe in a God. It was merely an illustration that faith itself is not irrational. There exists both rational/reasonable faith and irrational/irreasonable faith. I consider it a good idea to believe the moon is not made of green cheese, even though I have not been there. In the same way, if the belief is substantiated by concurrent evidence, it is able to be believed rationally. I believe religious faith falls into this category.
There is no justification for the first statement.
Second, I could just as easily say to you that "your feeling that they do not reveals that your approach to these questions is, in fact, irrational." It is a non-unique argument, an assertion.
You present no evidence for that theory; hence, there is no reason why it ought to be believed. If we want to accept something as credible of belief, evidence must exist. There has never been observed any such thing as an alien, nor does it seem that any will ever be discovered.
In the case of my beliefs, God Himself can be shown to exist logically. Christ performed miracles to substantiate His claims to be God. It would seem perfectly rational to move from A to B, so to speak, in this case.
I intended to clarify these statements later, as we have not even moved past the proof that God exists. If He does exist, it requires certain attributes that follow from His nature as First Cause. For instance, God must be One because the First Cause/Mover, ect. cannot have any potency/division/privation of being in Him. If He had parts, or there were more than One, it would not be God. God is utterly simple; even what He is and how He is are not different. There is no form of composition whatsoever because otherwise He would not be purely in act, and hence not the First Cause. In other words, being One follows as logically necessary from the fact that He is the First Cause.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Aliens can be proven to exist by the use of reason along with faith and alien revelation.
So God must be one, and cannot have parts, but he is also 3 in one, with 3 parts. And god logically exists, because logical existence is the nature of being god.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Aliens are not logically necessary, nor do they exist on the basis of a reasonable faith.
God is one and does not have three parts. The Trinity is three Persons in One God. But they are nevertheless One. The procession of the Persons in the Trinity is such that it is like intellectual emanation (like a word proceeding from a man, whereby he retains the word and becomes united to it). This mode of emanation unites the Word and Mind thinking the Word more closely the more perfect the emanation is. In God, this is most perfect and the Word, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all supremely One. It might be difficult to understand, and we will never fully comprehend what sort of life there is in God, but it is not a contradiction.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
And yet one day I'll be able to. In the mean time seeing it is more than enough. Another thing that doesn't apply to your god.
So I don't know, and it's unlikely I will know. I can accept that. But you have a problem with not knowing everything, whether your knowledge is accurate or fiction.
Neither of us knows enough about it to even really discuss it, so the point is moot.
Actually I have. Just not in person......yet.
I don't need to. The fact is I can demonstrate every scientific truth we know. You cannot demonstrate a single religious theory.
On the contrary, it has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that I can.
Invalid conclusion.
Trustworthy eh? How do you account for the high number of criminals in the church then? Yeah, real trustworthy. Moving beyond that, trust is not proof. I think you are fortunate to be able to trust so implicitly that the ones telling you god is real are actually telling the truth. I don't have that option. I've seen the lies of religion far too clearly.
Another invalid conclusion.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Belief in what God reveals is different from knowledge that God exists. The former is faith while the latter can be based on reason.
Religious faith is a reasonable trust in some article of faith because God has revealed it.
That bears no import on the argument at hand, even if it were true. We trust God, not criminals.
OK, you got burnt by some religion. But that does not give you any reason to reject the truth of religion in general.
Again, God's existence is not a matter of faith.
Lastly, trust is a form of proof, just not a demonstration that has certainty. However, in God's case, the evidence that God reveals it gives the article of faith an infinite credibility (because God is infinitely trustworthy).
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
But it is uninformed reason. Reason that depends on you believing a book over something you can personally test. Therefore it's not really reasoning.
In a general sense you're right, it doesn't matter. But you brought up the fact that you believe in god because you were told about it by people you trust. People you probably have valid reason to trust, who learned it from people that they trust. But somewhere along the way was someone who was not trustworthy, but was trusted anyway. In order to put trust in your faith, I'd have to have trust in the human species in general. The problem with that is that the bible says man is inherrantly evil. Born into sin. Lying is a sin. Therefore man is not trustworthy. Therefore god must only be accepted on physical or mystical(yet still provable) evidence. Of which there is nothing. Just a book written by a bunch of evil guys who thought they were right.
Actually I've never been burned by a religion. I've never been close enough to one to get burned. Closest your comment comes to accuracy is my general annoyance that everywhere I turn there seems to be another mystic demanding my soul. Or maybe my friends not being around to play hockey for a couple hours on sundays when I was a kid. I don't think that really qualifies however.
Assuming for a moment that for you your statement is accurate, it does not apply to me. While you have the knowledge that god exists, I have the knowledge that god does not exist. We seem doomed to circle this point.
And the moment I get clear evidence that something came from a god I'll have to agree with you. But I've never seen anything demonstrating a god. I've never seen anything that needed a god. I've seen even less to suggest that if there is one, you've got the right one.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Aliens are logically necessary, because aliens exist - so by necessity, it is logical to believe in them (I think).
It is logical to believe that jesus was an alien. jesus did not perform miracles; miracles represent a contravention of the laws of nature, and if god is logical she would not contravene the laws of nature. A few sound logical proofs of jesus' alien nature follow:
1. The immaculate Conception - since god is not a material being, it could not have provided the sperm to impregnate mary and conceive jesus. However, aliens commandeered the technique of spontaneously generating organic material 3 billion years ago; it is logical to conclude that aliens provided the y-chromosone which jesus inherited.
2. jesus walking on water: The human body is more dense than water, and is not capable of supporting itself on the water's surface. Therefore jesus was not human - for a human to walk on water, the laws of nature would need to be contravened - see above. Aliens, however, are less dense than H20, and are fully capable of traveling on the surface of water.
3. the ascension - a human (especially a resurrected human) would not have survived the journey through the earth's atmosphere; a human would either have suffered from the change in pressure, or the poisonous ozone layer. An alien does not rely on oxygen for respiration, so can ascend through the atmosphere without problems.
4. transubstantiation - jesus as an earthly being was of finite dimensions; as an earthly being he cannot provide enough body and blood for all the world's catholics. An alien is capable of drawing on the universe's dark matter and converting it into organic flesh and blood. When all the universe's dark matter is consumed by catholics, jesus will return trailing clouds of glory (which are actually fumes from the mother ship).
jesus is an alien, and it is illogical to think otherwise.
So when jesus came to earth, one part of god came down while the rest of god stayed up there, but it was still one. And when jesus asked the Father that "this cup be taken away" but that the Father's "will be done", he was asking the Father, but they are one, so he asked himself, but it was that his own will be done. And when he said "father, into your hands i commend my spirit", he commended his own spirit into himself, because they are one. And then he ascended back up there to be with the father, but he was already with the father because they are one, then the holy spirit came down, but they were still one.
It's a little difficult to comprehend, but god is simple and logical, and I think I get it.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Lol. I don't suppose you have any alien holy books kicking around?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
How not so? I believe the Scriptures and the other things the Church teaches as revealed because Christ, His Apostles, and His saints substantiated their claim to be from God (in Christ's case, God) by means of their miracles. It is reasonable to assume, thus, that they are credible.
No you do not. We have plenty of evidence both from people of the time period and from today substantiating miracles. Further, it is reasonable to assume that Christianity must have had miracles to support its claims from the mere fact that it spread so far and so fast. If it did not have miracles, as it claimed to do, would it be reasonable to assume that this would be a logical outcome? [This last part is not a proof, mind you]
It does not. Man might be "born into sin" but you're putting a spin on it that is not there. Man might have inherited original sin, but that is not the same as saying he is intrinsically evil.
Two wrong parts. God Himself is knowable as existing by natural reason apart from the Bible or what the Church says, ect. Revelation doesn't factor into it. Also, there is no proof that it was "written by a bunch of evil guys who thought they were right." That is plain assertion.
But we cannot both have contradictory "knowledge." You are using a sense of the word knowledge that doesn't apply. I have knowledge because my reason proves/demonstrates that God exists. I can see, for example, motion in the world and can logically deduce that a Prime Mover is necessary. This Prime Mover is God. Thus, I have knowledge in a true sense because it is justified; in this case it is demonstrated with logical necessity that a mover must exist for there to be motion.
That is a circular argument. First, I never argue that by necessity it is logical to believe in anything. Logic demonstrates truths with necessity. We believe in propositions which, though without a logical certainty, are reasonably probable for me to accept. Second, my evidence of God is founded on nature as in motion. If nature is in motion, it requires a mover because of the logical necessity that otherwise no motion would exist. Hence, God must exist as a logical necessity.
The last statement is false. God creates nature and determines its laws. Miracles are not contraventions of natural laws in an absolute sense, but only in the sense that God intervenes in an extraordinary manner. The natural laws do not exist apart from God.
They are not proofs. They would be merely probable statements.
First, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, not Christ. Second, God is immaterial, but creates matter all the time (by His constant sustaining of the universe and its initial creation ex nihilo). It is no contradiction to assume that He could likewise create genetic material inside of our Blessed Mother. Third, if aliens can spontaneously produce genetic material, why can't God? Fourth, it is pure speculation without any evidence that this could be the case, either from historical witness or from evidence that aliens themselves exist.
Well, that already contradicts the claim you made earlier when you said that Christ was a robot and just now when you said that He was a genetically human creation inside of Our Lady. Second, there is no reason God could not allow Himself to walk on water. As the Lord of nature, as I explained earlier, He has control over all of its function.
Especially a resurrected human. Resurrection involves the creation of new matter which is different from the current matter and it is likewise an immortal body. Further, who said Christ went into the outer atmosphere? Christ ascended, but not necessarily into outer space or the upper atmosphere.
Again, this contradicts your earlier claims. And there is again no shred of evidence to suppose that this is the case. Also, no reason why an alien would survive the pressure changes.
You're just being downright ignorant of Catholic doctrine now. Christ's Body and Blood (in fact, under both species His entire substance Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are present) are present in the sacramental species not by way of location or dimensive qualities (as if we were ripping off Christ's ear), but by way of substance. The substance of Christ, whole and entire, is found under each Host in the world. But Christ does not move; Christ remains at rest in heaven. The Blessed Sacrament is thus Christ's substance as so many mirrors reflecting the same sun. Further, Christ is not an earthly being - He is God.
The reason we do not acknowledge the belief in aliens is because we see no evidence for them to exist. Likewise, there is no proof that aliens had anything to do with Christ's life at all.
I would also point out the Christ's miracles of conversion of one substance to another or curing mortal illnesses instantly or His Resurrection and the like are all miracles that cannot be done at all by any agent other than God Himself.
One "part" did not come down. No parts exist in God. One Person of the Blessed Trinity united Himself to the soul of a man. The Trinity nevertheless is still one.
And when he said "father, into your hands i commend my spirit", he commended his own spirit into himself, because they are one. And then he ascended back up there to be with the father, but he was already with the father because they are one, then the holy spirit came down, but they were still one.
In a manner of speaking. Christ spoke to God in prayer through His human nature. He likewise united His human will through prayer to His Father. His ascension was not a reuniting of the "god" that came down with the "god" in heaven. His body and soul were assumed into heaven, but His Godhead was always united to His Father in heaven. It suffered no change.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.