To deny god is to deny holy wars.

My golly, we are reaching back to the beginning of this discussion! Back to faith again, as well, I see! Ah well, on we go. For those not terrifically interested in the specific points of the discussion, I provide a summary at the end.

Faith does not beg the question of God's existence. We assume God exists, yes, but it does not properly beg the question. Faith assumes God exists, but does not properly deal with the fact that He exists. The same is true of a good deal of things faith assumes (such as the fact that I exist for the revelation to be given to me).

I would point out that I began a discussion of God's existence in a more recent post in this forum (according to how it can be logically proven).

Faith has a two-fold logical ground: by internal coherence (not contradicting what we already know naturally), as well as according to the fact that the belief in general is made logically. We believe in what God has revealed because it seems worthy of belief; in other words, because it seems to 'make sense' or be a probable belief. If we want to be rather theological (which of course is no way binding as any form of proof in this conversation) God's own authority in the supernatural gift of faith through grace is an additional way in which faith is rational - because it proceeds from Truth itself and hence cannot be untruthful.

I would point out that suicide bombers fall into a seperate category of people who do not necessarily fit into this category. I would also point out that such people are not in the mainstream of the Christian, let alone most, religions.

I would point out that you like to continually impose your own interpretation on the terms of the debate. You are challenging the Christian faith, not your own concept of what faith means. This entails that you must hypothetically accept the Christian beliefs accurately in order to criticize them. If you use your own definition of faith, that is not an accurate criticism. However, I would likewise point out that faith, commonly speaking, corresponds to my definition. Faith, in common speech, is acceptance of a proposition as true due to the authority of another, such as when I accept that the earth revolves around the sun on the authority of my teachers and the scientists who have discovered it. Religious faith is a subspecies of this knowledge.

It is a type of knowledge, but as a type of knowledge it has a proper name: "faith." It is likewise not a rejection of epistemology, but an acknowledgement of proper epistemology that the human reason, acting on its own power, cannot discover certain truths. Thus, acting on a superior authority, we accept these precepts as true. This is what Christians understand faith to be (or at least, this is what reason would tell us true faith consists in, and this is further what the Catholic Church defines as faith).

Frankly, I was just making a conjecture that it seems odd debating with people who do not accept the authority of the text in the first place. I can argue the text, however, as it remains consistent.

My own desires or beliefs only have to do with it insofar as it is accepted as true by myself. It has nothing to do with a 'desire for it to be true' as faith does not consist in a desire.

Lastly, a math book is of a different character from the Sacred Scriptures, and that is basically my point in speaking about it. I cannot prove to you that the Scriptures are true because they concern themselves with articles of faith and in fact their own authority is dependent upon belief that they are revealed. That does not mean they are untrue, they are just have a different character.

I don't know about a billion Christians, but I would agree that many people would disagree. I would believe them to be wrong both by my faith and by my natural reason which tells me that 'sola scriptura' is not a tenable position. Also, Catholics do agree that the Church exists to ensure proper interpretation of Scripture (we might have internal disputes over other things, but Catholics accept this proposition, otherwise they are not Catholic. Period.).

On the other hand, I find this rather irrelevant to the discussion.

It has nothing to do with ad hoc rationalizations. The Church has believed these things since its inception. It is likewise a matter of natural reason that if God exists, He would act in accord with logic (especially insofar as He is its author).

Specifically, God does not 'need help' in transmitting the message. The Holy Spirit acting by/in the Church is the 'message' and the 'means' of disseminating the message (the Scriptures and their interpretation, the Sacraments, the teaching authority are all one real thing in Christ's Church). God acts ordinarily through natural means to achieve a supernatural end.

First, God dealt with supernatural articles of faith which are unable to be discovered by natural reason. That is precisely the point. Only God knows these things, and only God can reveal them. Second, it would have been useless for God to write a textbook because it could not be proven to be supernatural. Is Euclid's geometry supernatural in the least? Does it point to a supernatural author? No, and any book with was purely a book of natural science would be purely that: natural science. The Scriptures are a textbook of supernatural science. They work according to different principles. God's authority in revealing them is manifested in the miracles which He and His Church work.

God did not just write a book, He founded a Church and gave many miracles to substantiate His claim that He gave the said message. His Revelation was infallible and the Church likewise is infallible as it acts as the organ of His Revelation (in the Scriptures, in Tradition, in Teaching). God did not just give everyone books (like the Gideons, for example ), but rather sent His Son, sent Apostles, and sent priests. The apostles brought His message and showed forth its truth by great miracles, as did Christ. God sends a person, not a book. The words are tied to the person.

It is not an internal contradiction, as you keep repeating with this dismissive attitude. Christian theologians and philosophers have known about these problems for a long time and have nevertheless understood them as not being contradictions. Your attitude seems to indicate nobody in the past 2000 years has ever considered them; frankly, we have and I believe that we have answered them satisfactority.

In a manner of speaking, God is only indirectly responsible for our faults in that He created us. But He created us with free will. Our own wills are the only thing to blame for refusing freely His love. We are the direct and efficent cause of our disobedience to God. The same goes for why people reject Revelation.

I don't understand why you have such an overly dismissive attitude. I place myself here to be at your service, not my own. I am here to answer your questions. Nor do I consider your questions as trifles - they are real difficulties that need to be answered. I propose to give an answer.

First, God's essence is His existence. This is the definition God gives in the Old Testament when He says, "I am." It does not say He is natural; He is supernatural in that He is other than creation as its cause. Further, it is not how we define natural entities. It might be how you do so, but it is not contradictory to speak of God as having positive characteristics, at least for Christians.

I would utterly disagree with you. Existence can and is a predicate of ordinary conversation. I can truly say that "the dog exists" as truly as I can say "God exists." Both are predicated existence. On a sidenote, most philosophers have conceded this view post-Kant. Time to move beyond the old boy.

Except that I do not deny that God is omnipotent, but go right ahead.

Further, it is incorrect that if God is infinite He cannot possess identity. He possesses identity insofar as He is the cause of things that exist and thus a likeness can exist between Himself and those things caused.

Lastly, I have no idea what 'omnimax' is supposed to imply, as God does not truly fit into this strange, fictional category. God is all-loving, but cannot be said to be all-hating, or something else contradictory, nor do Christians hold it to be such.

Quote:

Let me say first that I do agree that this is a contradiction of god's averred omnipotence.

First, I think that interpretation of the book of Judges very silly for obvious reasons. Second, I think that there is no contradiction in the text. God did not drive the people out of the said valley due to the distrust of the Israelites in God's help in the fight against their enemies. This sort of wording is used elsewhere metaphorically.

Quote:

However, it is an error to take from this contradiction that that bible does not assert that god is in fact, omnipotent!

I would agree that it does not assert that God is not omnipotent.

Quote:

All this passage shows is that the biblical authors were clearly human - i.e. they made a claim and then bungled the job by contradicting it!

I would agree that they were human, but I disagree that the human authors were stupid. Further, I see no internal reason in the text to prove that this is a true contradiction.

Quote:

Biblical god's omnipotence

How can nothing 'be' too hard for thee": if his will is limited by his nature.

I agree with this entire section in that God is truly and really omnipotent. I just disagree that omnipotence involves the ability to do logically impossible things. The reason is because omnipotence is the 'power to do all things,' whereas such a contradiction is a non-thing. Further, it is to be pointed out that to do something against His nature would be to act badly, or to fall short of acting correctly. This God cannot do as it would be a denial of His omnipotence and a denial that God is all-powerful. I would point basically here to the famous formulation (which the Catholic Church holds) taken from Saitn Thomas Aquinas: "Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them." God can do all possible things. God cannot do something that does not exist in the first place. It indicates no limitation on God, but rather it would be a limitation if God could contradict Himself.

In fact, you quote Aquinas yourself here:

Quote:

Reason itself proves the omnipotence of God. "Since every agent produces an effect similar to itself," says St. Thomas (Summa, I, Q. xxv, a. 3), "to every active power there must correspond as proper object, a category of possibilities proportioned to the cause possessing that power, e.g. the power of heating has for its proper object that which can be heated. Now Divine Being, which is the basis of Divine power, is infinite, not being limited to any category of being but containing within itself the perfection of all being. Consequently all that can be considered as being is contained among the absolute possibilities with respect to which God is omnipotent."

For some reason, I do not think you assert that reason clearly shows that God is all-powerful? You must have just cut and paste this off of some website. It is nevertheless funny to behold.

Quote:

It should now be clear that the bible defines god negatively, as omnipotent, omniscient, and outside of existence as its creator....
As per negative theology, a supernatural "being" is necessarily imcomprehensible.

Actually, the Scripture defines God as omnipotent, omniscient, ect. but not as 'negative.' Further, neither the Scriptures or Catholics or most Christians accept this negative theology that you propose.

That's almost funny as the whole Scriptures is a disclosure of things about God and hence contradicts this statement. The passage does not assert that; it says "who can fathom the mysteries...." This is a different statement from, "You cannot know anything about God." The same goes for the other passages.

I don't see why Kant is such a dogmatic authority with you. I never pull out Aristotle or any other philosopher with whom I agree (of whom I could cite Heideggar, Husserl, Aquinas, Pieper, Maritain, Gilson). Kant does not hold some fantasic weight with me.

First, I would point out that the Catholic Church rejects Luther's doctrine basically for precisely the reason that he denies such fundamental parts of Christianity as the compatibility of faith and reason, as well as nature and grace and free will and grace.

Second, the Scriptures support no such thing. The passage speaks of 'secret things' not indicating that this is knowledge of God. Knowledge of God is possible, it is just not comprehensive (which is a big difference). There are further things that have not yet been revealed ("We do not know what we shall be like, but we shall see Him as He is," ect.) but it does not follow that nothing can be known. Further, in faith we know true things about God.

Quote:

On negative theology:

St. Macrina explained this method in this manner: "In the very act of saying that a thing is `not so and so,' we by implication interpret the very nature of the thing in question." (Pelikan 205) (Incorrect - without a universe of discourse, this is not possible) This form of apophaticism is more pervasive than might be realized. Words such as "infinite" and "ineffable" are obviously negative. Less apparent is the negation hidden in words like "individual" or "immense" (not measurable). Finally there is apophaticism hidden even in positive terms. For example, one defines God as "free" in order to show that He lacks the contrarieties found in finite creatures, and one calls Him "alive" merely to discriminate His nature from that of the lifeless. (James 431)

http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/my.papers/apophatic.html

First, the Ba'hai hold no authority with me or the Church in the area of what they believe. Second, St. Macrina is not implying that nothing can be said about God. In fact, she implies the opposite. If negative theological thought were true and nothing could be said about God, even negative theology (following St. Macrina's statement that to say a negative thing says a positive thing about the substance of the thing) would fail because it would indicate something about God, which would be (following the premise) impossible.

Quote:

St. Augustine wrote:

What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

This is not new; Catholics hold this. Comprehension of God is different from saying something true about God.

Quote:

Gregory of Nyssa wrote:

‘Since Moses was alone, by having been stripped as it were of the people’s fear, he boldly approached the very darkness itself and entered the invisible things where he was no longer seen by those watching. After he entered the inner sanctuary of the divine mystical doctrine, there, while not being seen, he was in company with the Invisible. He teaches, I think, by the things he did that the one who is going to associate intimately with God must go beyond all that is visible and—lifting up his own mind, as to a mountaintop, to the invisible and incomprehensible—believe that the divine is there where the understanding does not reach.’

—Gregory of Nyssa

Life of Moses, §46

God's essence is beyond human reason's natural reach, but that does not mean that nothing can be said of God. We just cannot speak of God a priori, but we can speak of Him a posteriori (as effect to cause).

 

 

Before I proceed, I would point out that these people's statements are not authoritative. Just because Jacques Derrida says something does not indicate that I hold it as true. Also, their philosophy in my estimation falls apart.

Quote:

Keith Augustine wrote:

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical world is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it." More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism. I agree that once we subtract out the natural, there is no positively characterized ontological category to which the nonnatural or supernatural belongs.

I would disagree. The supernatural, again, is related to natural as cause to effect and hence a similarity exists.

Quote:

George Smith wrote:

All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning.

They do not cease to have meaning. They are just not always applied in the same sense. I say God is powerful not in the same sense that a double-A battery is powerful. These terms have meaning because God exists in relation to natural things as their cause. As such, a likeness exists and real things can be said of God because they exist in Him as their cause (and they exist in Him as exemplars of those things we know in finite terms).

Quote:

Derrida:

"Considering that every predicative language is inadequate to the essence, in truth to the hyperessentiality (the being beyond Being) of God; consequently, only a negative (‘apophatic’) attribution can claim to approach God and to prepare for a silent intuition of God." - Jacques Derrida

Except that language can attain to predicate something of God. It cannot predicate it in the same way, but it can predicate something of God because He is related to creation. This very relationship enables our predication (as I have been saying).

 

Quote:

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus:
3.032 It is as impossible to represent in language anything that 'contradicts logic' as it is in geometry to represent by its coordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the coordinates of a point that does not exist.

P1 God is ‘above’ logic
P2 Therefore he is not bound to it
P3 Which means he can do the logically impossible.
P4 We cannot represent anything that contradicts logic.
C1 Therefore we cannot represent god. At all.
C2 Hence talking of god is necessarily incoherent and meaningless.

QED

Except that God cannot do anything illogical, as I said earlier. God, in a certain sense, is not just logical, but is logic. His own identity of essence and existence means that He is being. He cannot also be non-being. This entails that God cannot contradict Himself.

Geez, long discussion.

In sum:

A) Faith is a type of knowledge which is a knowledge based on the authority of another. In religion, faith is knowledge based on God's authority.

B) Faith, then, cannot contradict natural truths because God is the author of both natural and supernatural truths.

C) God is omnipotent in the sense that He can do all things

     1) God cannot do a non-existent action, nor contradict logic. This would be a) a limitation on His power, and b) contrary to His essence (which is His existence).

D) Negative theology is impossible and contradictory because it posits something of God.

E) Negative theology is not held by Catholics or Christians

F) God can be spoken of by human beings because a relationship exists between creation and God as God is the cause of all being. In this way, we can speak of God a posteriori (from effect to cause).

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Good one!

Yes you do. It's the only way you can claim it exists in the face of denial. 

If god were truly the foundation of existance, then god would be easily proven. God is not provable at all, and so the foundation of your argument crumbles away.

And yet according to your beliefs, he did. 

Define intrinsically impossible. You have such a flawed understanding of language I'm not always certain you even understand what you're saying.

It is not known by reason. Natural or otherwise. It is believed. Which means you are spreading a belief, not truth. And you claim to hold the only valid one, which makes you arrogant. Someday you'll get it. You don't seem dimwitted enough to be able to hold off rationality forever.

Because you are irrational, and apply irrational logic. You are forwarding a belief I have never had. I was not born with it. It does not require faith to disbelieve your claims. It requires a foundation in reality. Mine is very strong. In order for me to accept your belief, it must therefore be proven. Especially when there are 3 billion other people out there who say your religion is wrong and theirs is the right one. Your understanding of the word faith appears to be as flawed as that of truth and harm.

Yay! I've been waiting for this one. Congrats on being the first to raise it to me in 15 odd years of debates on religion. Let me let you in on a little secret: I do like the idea that many religions espouse. I wouldn't mind living in heaven for eternity. If it existed. But I'm not going to waste my life on a claim from someone else. If I were to do so, someone could tell me to jump off a bridge and I'd have to listen to them. Otherwise I'd be a hypocrite, like yourself.

So you're saying evil always existed, even when there was nothing? What an interestingly flawed concept. If evil always existed, and god always existed, then god must be evil. Thanks for clearing that up.

That would imply there were inherrent qualities of the act that were evil, yet there aren't. Especially since evil is only a concept. Not a reality. 

He allows it to exist, yet didn't create it. That implies he could destroy it. The act of not destroying it is equal to creating it. If he didn't create or destroy it(but is capable of both), then he is evil himself. An biblical act of evil does not lead to a biblically greater good. It leads to more biblical evil as revenge. Creating a vicious cycle.

I never said truth and falsity do not exist. You simply have flawed perceptions of their meaning. Your lack of capability to understand the nonexistance of good and evil are rooted in the irrationality of your theism.  

Laws of conservation: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The logic you've seen applied from a number of people, but I suspect you are currently incapable of recognizing rational logic. As such, it would follow that you can't understand how logic denies your god. There's really only one way for you to get it.

Nope. Most people in history had no concept of a god. It wasn't until about 50,000 years ago that we would have even been mentally capable of the concept. At which point it became a survival trait. And stayed that way for a very long time. But it is no longer needed to explain existance and give us the courage to explore, and so like any no longer useful trait, it's on the way out.

 

 

That's all well and good, if you can prove the universe had a beginning. And that god was the cause. Which would raise a whole bunch of new questions in science. Otherwise you're merely forwarding an unproven hypothesis. 

 

Contradictory. Existance doesn't need to be necessary. Unless you can prove that there's a consequence to nonexistance somehow? Lol. Even if you pull that off, you'll be contradicting yourself again. Nonexistance can't be nonexistance if there can be consequence.

At this point I could start repeating myself or refer to earlier statements. I choose the latter.

A fatal flaw. I love those. If there were an absolute standard of goodness, than it would be provable and universal. It is not, and therefore your cause is irrelevant and impossible. 

That's like saying there's a god because the grass is green instead of blue. In other words, it's not proof.

The beauty of this theist argument is that I'm living proof it's not true. If it were natural, I would have been a theist. I've never been a theist, so it's not natural.

If you assume god exists, then you beg the question. That's what 'properly' begging the question means.

If faith assumes god exists, then it begs the question.

You don't need to take it on faith that you exist, your own existence is unavoidably axiomatic. If you deny that you exist, you defend your existence through retortion! Do you follow this point?

And yet another error hides here: you're conflating contingent faith with theistic faith.

Your attempt to 'resurrect' Aquinas fails. The christian faith involves holding to beliefs that contradict science, such as... the resurrection.

It's painfully obvious that christian claims are at odds with what we know naturally, so I don't know why you thought you could sneak this one by us.

Yet there are many logical refutations of your beliefs.

I trust you see that you are again begging the question of your god's existence. Perhaps now you'll see the truth on this matter.

It proceeds from truth, ergo it cannot be untruthful?

BEGGING THE QUESTION

I would like to point out that this is untrue. I's not my own intepretation. Non contingent faith is in fact unjustified belief. This is not a controversial claim. Many theists have no problem accepting that, they recognize that there can be no rational grounds for holding to a belief in the supernatural.

No, I'm getting you to recognize what the definition of theistic faith is...

Read this to yourself again:

"Acting on superior authority"

This is the assumption.

I.e. you're begging the quesiton.

You assume what you seek to prove.

You assume that 'god' gives you some 'knowledge' through 'faith'.

Do you see it now?

If you 'knew' that there was a superior authority, then why have FAITH in the first place?!

Will you ever see this?

here's the problem:

If he acts in accord to logic... who created the logic that he must 'act in accordance to...... and if he didn't, if it's part of his nature, can he change this nature?

Oh, and can you explain to me how people act in accordance to logic? Logic has to do with evaluating arguments... so what on earth do you mean by 'logic' here?

Metaphysics?

Physics?

Cosmology?

Natural law?!

Yet billions of people get different messages......

Tell me, do people who read Euclid all come up with different competing versions of the axioms? Is there a need for churches of Euclid and Eluclidean apologists who go around taking things from algebra text and English lit books and matchbook covers to "settle the problems"?

Why was Euclid able to do what god can't? Provide a simple, basic text that stands on its own, that defies any rational person's ability to refute it?

Before you rush to the sancturay of the apologetic response (the bible has different goals!) ask yourself: might it not have better met it's goal if it were at least as stable as a 2200 year old mathematical text?!

But he did "use a book' according to you. I don't see how the church is any less error ridden.

On the contrary, I recognize that they've recognzied these problems... but they haven't solved them.... any more than you've answered any of my questions....

 

In a manner of speaking, this is illogical. The free will defense cannot absolve a perfect god's perfect responsibilty for his own creation. Why? Because this god is necessarily perfectly responsible for creating the nature of the free will precisely as it is... its limits, as well as all the parameters of existence that influence free will!

So he still maintains perfect responsiblity for what happens to his own creation.

Error 2: People don't have free will to not believe things... they can be in denial, but they don't have the freedom to simply not believe... belief is not a choice, belief is something thrown at you... like a baseball at your head...

But please, focus on problem one, as it's the fatal problem for you.

Because you just wave your hands at every problem put to you. When you do make a claim, you assert, without backing it up.

First, stolen concept fallacy.

This is why I dismiss your posts... because I've already shown you why, numerous times, that this makes no sense.

To exist is to exist as something, to have positive characteristics. To have identity. To say "I AM" is to have identity, to exist, to be a part of nature.

Yes it is. I've given you basic ontology here. Your naked assertion otherwise is of no value in rational discourse, because you don't give any reasons for it.

Of course, but unless you give a reason why, you're just naysaying.

So you assert.

Oh boy. Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy....

To say "the dog exists" is NOT to give the dog 'existence' as a characteristic! It is to use the term 'exist' in the colloquial sense of saying "Yes, there is a dog here. It's true. It exists. Here it is. It exists."

I warned you to read your Kant.

But notice that if we explore the phrase "it exists" that the term is redundant. Do you see that? "IT" is a reference to an existent. So to say 'it exists' i redundant. It adds nothing.

So to use 'exists" as a characteristic of "it" is to make a basic error in metaphysics.

Do you see it now?

Please tell me you do, because I had hopes of having good discussions with you.

On a side note, this is untrue. At any rate, you've not cited anyone who does so, nor have you given a legitimate grounds for doing so.

If you don't recognize the error of using 'existence' as a predicate (and since you don't know what that means, I'll make it clear: using it as a characteristic) then you're not ready for this part of the conversation.

Please, I implore you to learn about the topic before debating it further.

again, this is a stolen concept fallacy. You can't refer to 'causality' when discussing the supernatural, as it would be acausal. "Causality" is a description of how natural entities interact.

You can't rule out a concept by definition (an omnipotent god creating ex nihilo) and then rely upon the concept. That is stealing the concept.

You don't know what it is, but you call it strange, and fictional?

Omnimax just refers to the fact that all 'god descriptors' are omni traits. Not so strange, and absolutely not fictional.

I find it troubling that you now openly admit to arguing a point that you don't understand.

This is not a reason. You're just begging the question! And your stealing the concept.

A contradiction is not a 'non-thing" it is two acts (or more, I suppose) that are mutually exclusive.

Another stolen concept fallacy.... I'll cover the other errors below.

As per the definitions. A priori.

Of course you do, because we often laugh at what we don't understand. My posting his claim does not mean that I accept the existence of an omnimax god. What I do accept is that IF you do define such a 'god', as omnimax, then Luther's point does follow.

Got it now?

Again, I was hoping from better from you.

Actually, omni traits are negative traits.

You didn't know that, did you?

Quote:

This passage does not deny that one can believe in a god, but it denies that one can know anything about this 'god'.

Quote:

That's almost funny as the whole Scriptures is a disclosure of things about God and hence contradicts this statement. The passage does not assert that; it says "who can fathom the mysteries...." This is a different statement from, "You cannot know anything about God." The same goes for the other passages.

It's not different... if one cannot fathom the mysteries, then they cannot know this 'god'

Quote:

I don't see why Kant is such a dogmatic authority with you.

He's not. He's given a good argument, one that I've replicated, briefly for you. His argument has helped to unseat some of my own claims as well.... so I accept his argument based on the logic,, which is inescapable. Not on his name.

Quote:

In sum:

A) Faith is a type of knowledge which is a knowledge based on the authority of another.

And this begs the question that there is a god who grants this knowledge.

So again, faith is simply belief without justification.

Quote:

B) Faith, then, cannot contradict natural truths

yet the christian faith contradicts science. So much for aquinarian arguments....

Quote:

C) God is omnipotent in the sense that He can do all things

And the error here is that you are placing a limit on the unlimited!

Here's a way for you to see the error: who places this 'logical limit" on god?

Is your god responsible for it?

When you run to the 'it's part of his nature" response

3 problems arise:

1) stolen concept fallacy - 'god having a nature

2) How can 'things' be logical ?!

3) Can he change this limit?

If he can, you're back to square zero.

Quote:

1) God cannot do a non-existent action,

Contradictions are only 'non existent' because nothing in nature can contradict itself by definition.

But if something is 'beyond nature' then it can be contradictory. So you can't use the fact that contradictions do not exist to hold that they are 'non existent actions' because you would be stealing the concept of naturalism to do so.

Contradictions would involve (or more?) mutually exclusive actions!

Quote:

D) Negative theology is impossible and contradictory because it posits something of God.

Very common error!

It posits NOTHING about god.

It DEFINES god as a set of negatives, devoid of any universe of discourse, A PRIORI!

Come on! I expected better from you!

Please, can you at least see this mistake?

Quote:

E) Negative theology is not held by Catholics or Christians

Oh? You're incorrect on both counts.

A friend of mine wrote this:

For a negative theologian to say that God does not exist is incorrect. To think it leads to atheism also appears to me to be incorrect unless we accept the RC Church as an covert atheist organisation. The Roman Catholic Church has built one of the oldest, most powerful and dynamic religions in existence upon the bed-rock of negative theology.

As I understand it, negative theolgians are stating that there is nothing we can state about the nature of God's ontology. All existence that we know has a cause, dwells in time, by nature is limited and contained by boundariesetc, No matter how we try to break out of our concept of existence, we will always fail. We cannot grasp God's ontology, to think we can is to create a false God.

That is very different from saying God does not exist, or even that there are not things we cannot know about God, since God has revealed them, but even those things are beyond our comprehension and have to be accepted on faith.

It is hardly likely that the Augustine, Aquinas, Thereasa of Avila or Catherine of Sienna, would be called Doctors of the Church, if they had nothing but incomprehensible things to say about God. They have lots of positive things to say - just look at Augustine's debates with Pelagians, Donatists and Arians - but it is all based on faith, accepted by faith, and limited by our finite nature.

The only time we will fully comprehend according to via-negative theology is when we see the beatific vision (Similar, but not the same as a protestant idea of heaven), we will at that time understand: "For now we see things in a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now my knowledge is in part; then it will be complete, even as God's knowledge of me. 1 Cor 13:12

To paraphrase John Paul II "Reason is faith's handmaiden, but the handmaiden is unable access faith's chamber." See JPII's encyclical letter Fides et Ratio.' (Faith and Reason)

And here's something very interesting from Aquinas himself:

Thomas Aquinas, did introduce the idea that natural reason can tell us things 'about' God, by telling us those things which God cannot be. What we are left with is the nearest we can come to 'comprehending' God. However, he also taught that there are mysteries of the faith: those revealed truths that natural reason cannot even in principle come to knowledge of without the aid of divine revelation.

Summa Theologiae I, Q.3, Prologue:

"The existence of a thing having been ascertained, the way in which it exists remains to be examined if we would know its nature. Because we cannot know what God is, but rather what God is not, our method has to be mainly negative…What kind of being God is not can be known by eliminating characteristics which cannot apply to him, like composition, change, and so forth."[

Remember this is the canonised theologian of the RC Church. I would not call the RC Church a cover for atheism.

The others are traditional via - negative theologians. Catherine of Sienna and Teresa of Avila where only made Doctors of the Church in 1970. This title is the highest honor that the RC Church can pay to a theologian.

Quote:

F) God can be spoken of by human beings because a relationship exists between creation and God as God is the cause of all being. In this way, we can speak of God a posteriori (from effect to cause).

No. Matters induction deal with nature by definition. Any cause must be natural by definition. The supernatural would be 'acuasal' by definition. You cannot work from nature back to its very antithesis, the supernatural.

 

 

 I apologize for the formatting beforehand. I was also unable to post a summary of points at the end due to the volume. Sorry!

Revelation must coincide with what we know by natural reason. I argue that it does not in the case of suicide bombers. Second, they are not Christians. Third, belief in God is not exclusively determined by faith, but can be arrived at without revelation at all.

You are quite welcome.

Not necessarily. The fallacy of appeal to authority only comes in when the appeal is made in a purely logical proposition. If I were to make a syllogism that says that X is true because somebody asserts it, it is false because it lacks proper logical justification to demonstrate the truth of the statement. We are not proving the truth of revelation (which is impossible), but merely showing how it does not conflict with reason. The most reason can say in this event is that the authority does not necessitate the truth of the statement. As God, the authority is supreme and most certain. However, again, faith propostions are not able to be proven from natural inquiry, but that does not imply that they are irrational.

Second, not all religious authorities are of the same authority for various reasons. Some are unsubstantiated with supernatural evidence of authority. Others contradict natural reason. Thus, these are all false. I would have to conclude that either Catholicism is correct (according to my natural reason), or that no religion is correct and God exists but has not revealed Himself.

It is not exactly a test. Rather, if faith truly proceeds from God it cannot contradict naturally known truths because God is the author of both. Basically, yes, reason can be used to determine the internal coherence of faith because faith, if both really supernatural and true, cannot contradict naturally known truth.

I answer them in my post. This is a summary. I treat your 'proofs' elsewhere. Likewise, you do not cite anything here. Further, the following posts are particular answers to the accusation, as indicated by the numbered subsets.

It is not. I am not arguing what you wish to have me say ("God's inability to do a thing is actually proof of his ability to do anything&quot, but rather that if God could do something against Himself, it would limit His omnipotence (and He would not truly be omnipotent). This is, in fact, the opposite argument: if God can do all things, He cannot do "no-things."

Science does not touch on theology at all. Further, God's existence is not a matter of theology properly, but philosophy (metaphysics).

Except that I, nor the Catholic Church, nor the Scriptures, nor most Christians in the world hold the view of 'negative theology.' To paint us as if we did if misleading and incorrect.

Except that I am writing a summary of my points, not a complete rebuttal of all arguments made (which was in my post itself).

I do not. I manifestly do not maintain that God possesses superpowers. He is all powerful because He maintains the existence of all things and brought them into being. As Creator and Cause, His knowledge and willing of each thing sustains it in existence. His power to do anything flows from this.

 

God is the cause of existing things. That is precisely our point. However, your assertion that God is not provable at all is unjustified.

 

Where do I claim that? 

Quote:

Define intrinsically impossible.

A logically impossible action, a contradiction. Where something is said to be and not be in the same way at the same time.

God's existence is provable by natural reason. It is not a matter of belief, except incidentally as we must believe God exists before we can say, for example, that God is a Trinity of persons.

 

The truth in this matter is one. There could clearly be a right and a wrong answer to these questions. I know that God exists because my observation of the natural world shows God to be logically necessarily for existence of other things to be possible. Even in matters of faith, such as my belief that God is a Trinity of persons, this is a matter of truth and falsity where a right and a wrong answer is possible. I hold my belief in this particular area upon my faith in God's Revelation and not upon my reason. It has nothing to do with arrogance.

  

Just because other people disagree with my particular articles of faith does not mean that God does not exist. His existence is not a matter of articles of faith, but of reason. Your insistence that God does not exist is based not upon argument, but upon a consistent conviction or desire that He does not exist. This is virtually the definition of irrational, blind faith.

 

 

Name-calling gets you nowhere. Make an argument if you wish a response.

 

I never said anything of the sort. God tolerates the existence of evil in creation to ensure a greater good. 

Pain is a natural evil, as is removing a limb. Evil is a concept and a reality. An assertion on your part is not an argument.

God cannot properly destroy evil as it does not exist as a being to destroy. Evil is merely a form of non-being. God is being. Further, the act of destruction is not equal to creation nor does it necessitate that God is somehow evil. Further, I have no idea what 'biblical' good or evil (whatever you mean by that) has anything to do with it.

I can just as easily say: "Your lack of capability to understand the existence of good and evil is rooted in the irrationality of your atheism." It is not an argument, my friend. Further, you must deny truth if you deny good and evil (as you do in the next sentence).

This physical law is slightly misleading how you are using it, as Big Bang dictates likewise that these things came into existence at a point. It says nothing of how these things came into existence in the first place.   

What does that mean? That is utterly preposterous. For the entire time of recorded history and, with evidence prior to that, mankind has had a knowledge of divinity. If you mean that human beings were animals before 50000 BC, that would be saying that animals cannot believe in God (which I would agree with).

The need to explain existence is still around. Further, it has nothing to do with survival. Survival does not dictate truth.

That the universe had a beginning is not a matter of science, but of philosophy. Further, I am not merely indicating a beginning of time. I am speaking of the logical necessity of a necessary cause, which is something different.

I am not claiming that existence is 'necessary.' Things exist, and are possible existences. Hence, a being must exist who brought the others into existence (and is hence necessary).

Not necessarily. We refer to truth as something which we can place in existing things as 'more' or 'less' indicating some standard, even if the standard is merely goodness or truth itself. As we can speak of these qualities, it requires a cause of the genus in order for these qualities to exist. In this manner, goodness is a universally known thing - as a quality.

No it is not. Because things act in a rational manner, an ordering intelligence is necessary.

There are different categories of truth. The existence of God is not properly a truth of faith. And, as we see, men do discover the existence of God by natural reason. The same goes for the immortality of the soul, the judgement of the soul, eternal beatitude, ect. These particular things are not matters of faith, per se. People have found these things out (Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Socrates, the Stoics, ect.).

Then there are truths of faith. This would be, for instance, the belief in the Trinity, or in the Incarnation, or in the Sacraments. These things are built upon faith as their authority. Thus, these are things which natural reason cannot attain to on its own. Only by Revelation can we discover these things. Only God could tell us what He is like in Himself, for instance.

Knowledge of the supernatural in terms of articles of faith is not a result of natural reason, except as we can be moved to accept faith on the basis of reason. It is a result of God's grace given to our souls.

Further, knowledge of the supernatural does not 'defy' natural reason in the sense of a contradiction.

 

I'm just not a scholar of Scripture.

The text makes sense without needing to prove it with a PhD. 

First, I am not being contextual in the sense of applying Isaiah to Psalms in my discussion. I was arguing that the text is internally coherent in the books themselves. Isaiah applied to Isaiah. I would support that the text is likewise contextually accurate, so that Isaiah can be used to illuminate the text of Psalms, but that is a theological position where one accepts the text on faith (which is not a strategy where one does not accept that premise).

Where do I use the Septuagint? You might, but I and the Catholic Church (as well as most Christian editions) use texts corrected against the Hebrew original (such as the Neo-Vulgate, which is the most official text of Scripture in the Catholic Church).

 

I did not miss it, as my text later indicates.

 

We are not contesting that God creates; the question is whether He literally creates evil. The use of evil in this passage is not that He creates metaphysical evil, but that He creates/causes war/affliction and peace (opposed in the text).

 

Depending on the meaning of "ra'"; I quote Strong's definition of this word: "

from 'ra`a`' (7489); bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.)." This definition, in fact, includes the meaning I intend to give it.

Quote:

 In the Greek, the word used for evil is κακος, which literally means "EVIL."  There is no other translation for this word.  None.  When combined with my earlier point, the Greek line is:

• και κτιζων κακα or "and creates evil"

Strong's again gives the definition of "κακος" : "

apparently a primary word; worthless (intrinsically, such; whereas ponhroV - poneros 4190 properly refers to effects), i.e. (subjectively) depraved, or (objectively) injurious:--bad, evil, harm, ill, noisome, wicked." which is related to the phrase meaning "afflicted." It has to do with the sense in which the word is used. The context tells the meaning in the text. Evil is being used to refer to affliction.

Quote:

Perhaps you need to go back and read the chapter of Isaiah?  The surronding verses are thus: Isaiah 45:4-7, "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

All God is doing here is telling people WHO HE IS.  He is discribing himself, and telling the people what he has done and pretty much going off on some ranting ego-trip.  In no way can that context which you used be applied to the context of the passage.  You are grasping at straws here.  And failing to pick any.  As I have shown over and over you fail to understand the big picture.

The picture being what? I mean to contend that God cannot be the author of evil in the sense of either moral or metaphysical evil. God is the cause of affliction and suffering only in an indirect sense, which is what the text shows. God is the cause of disturbance and peace, of all things.

  

Quote:

If you assume god exists, then you beg the question. That's what 'properly' begging the question means.

God's existence is revealed by faith, as well as being known by natural reason. Faith discloses truths about God, who we must know already exists. If we do not know that He exists naturally, faith would obviously show us that He does. It has nothing to do with begging the question. Show me how faith commits that fallacy before you assert that it does again. Further, I do not personally assume in my debate that God exists.

I do not necessarily take it on faith that God exists. God's existence is naturally knowable as well as being revealed (and presumed for revelation's truths). God reveals His existence for the sake of our fallen intellects, which lack the light of perfect reason; people screw up and make mistakes. God revealed it to give people a clear knowledge of the truth: that He exists, is one, ect. though these can be discovered naturally.

I would argue that they are species of the same genus.

 

The Resurrection of the body is not contrary to science at all. It is merely unable to be proven scientifically that a body could rise from the dead, but it is likewise unable to be disproven that it could happen. It is a matter of faith and beyond the ability to naturally know.

A proper definition of religious faith includes God. It has nothing to do with begging the question. It would be begging the question if I said, "God exists, hence you are wrong," or, "The Bible is revealed by God, hence Scripture cannot contradict reason," in which case I would be assuming likewise that Scripture is revealed and that God exists. However, if we ask, "how can religious faith be cogent?" I must assume that, 'if God reveals something,' as a premise in order to discuss the matter at all.

Assuming that an article of faith is revealed by God, God is the author of natural and supernatural reality, hence, these cannot contradict. It has nothing to do with begging the question.

The Catholic Church does not hold that, nor do I. Imposing your own definition on faith does not help. I do not accept that definition precisely because it is makes faith irrational by definition. However, faith as contingent flows from rational grounds that give reason for accepting faith as true. This is the doctrine of the Church and is the only way, assuming rational faith exists, that it may exist.

Faith is not a begging of the question. It believes that God reveals something and believes in what He has revealed upon His authority as God. Our reason can offer that such a belief is probable, but cannot demonstrate its truth.

We know, however, naturally that God exists and that Revelation is possible from God. We can know that God can reveal something, but what is revealed and whether we accept it is a matter of faith. Reason can merely indicate whether it is logically consistent and whether it is a probable belief.

Everything in God is one, including His nature and Himself. There is no division. God, in a certain sense, is logic. He cannot act against His nature, because His action is identical with what He is.

We are talking about the Catholic Church. This particular phrase is not speaking about other religions.

Because it is a piece of natural science and hence naturally demonstrable. God's Revelation deals with things per se beyond human demonstration; God cannot do the same thing Euclid did because He is revealing supernatural truths which cannot be demonstrated.

That depends what you mean by 'stable,' as I would argue that the Revelation God has given to man has not changed in the past 2000 years, preserved by His Church and the Holy Spirit.

I said that God did not just write a book; He gave it likewise a teaching authority to ensure that the same message is given until the end of time. And the Church has done this, guided by the Holy Spirit.

God does not move free will, else it would not be free. He gave human beings and spirits the ability to have personal choice. Thus, He has no real responsibility, except indirectly, for their choices as He allows them personal autonomy.

You seem to have the freedom not to believe in articles of faith. The argument does not negate free will.

No reason why this is violates the stolen concept fallacy.

God exists and it does not necessitate that He is thence a part of nature. He is related to nature as its cause, again.

To say that something exists is to indicate that the thing has existence in reality. It indicates the conformity. We can make fallacious assertions, such that unicorns exist. If you wanted seriously to maintain your point, unicorns must thence exist because I can make a reference to them. 'Existence' is a word indicating the conformity of the essence of a thing to reality. If you wanted to maintain that to say that "It is raining outside/"Raining outside" is." adds nothing to the idea of rain occuring outside, I would maintain that position is absurd. Most modern philosophers have rejected this particular thesis of Kant for precisely this reason.

I do not agree that this is the sense in which Christians apply 'supernatural.' Supernatural does not indicate a lack of relation to natural things, it indicates a relation of being 'above' them. In the sense of God, He is their cause. In this way, things may be said of Him because a relationship exists.

 

I figured that is what it meant. My phrase was rather hyperbolic, I admit.

A logical contradiction lacks being - it is a non-thing. As a result, God cannot perform such an action because His omnipotence extends to doing all things, not to doing "no-thing." Nothing you cited would prove that God's omnipotence extends to logical contradictions.

If a contradiction is two 'acts,' I ask how the phrase, "Cheese is not cheese," is a contradiction. It would seem it is not two actions.

No explanation of how it applies. Stop using fallacies that do not apply! Stolen concept applies only when a certain idea is denied which is essential for the premise. In other words, "Truth is an illusion," or "Reality does not exist." Begging the question applies when one assumes the conclusion to support the premise. In neither way do I commit these fallacies here or elsewhere. I suggest you either clearly define how I violate these fallacies instead of just throwing them out as assertions.

Are you claiming an a priori knowledge of God? I find that odd for many reasons.

Luther's points do not follow. Further, this term omnimax is both unnecessarily silly and inaccurate.

I don't patronize you. Please stop patronizing me.

 

Omni-benevolence is a positive trait. God loves all things. The same is true of all the others. Only if you begin with the assumption that they are negative do you have to assert that.

Again, this does not show that the Scriptures maintain this.

Fathoming mysteries are different from having knowledge of God. Markedly different. I cannot, as man, understand many things involving God's wisdom and providence, but I can clearly know God to some degree; the least that could be said is that neither the Scriptures nor the Church believe that God is unknowable. Quoting the beginning of the book of Sirach, which treats of this point: "1:1. All wisdom is from the Lord God, and hath been always with him, and is before all time.

1:2. Who hath numbered the sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of the world? Who hath measured the height of heaven, and the breadth of the earth, and the depth of the abyss?

1:3. Who hath searched out the wisdom of God that goeth before all things?

1:4. Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

1:5. The word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom, and her ways are everlasting commandments.
1:6. To whom hath the root of wisdom been revealed, and who hath known her wise counsels?

1:7. To whom hath the discipline of wisdom been revealed and made manifest? and who hath understood the multiplicity of her steps?

1:8. There is one most high Creator Almighty, and a powerful king, and greatly to be feared, who sitteth upon his throne, and is the God of dominion.

1:9. He created her in the Holy Ghost, and saw her, and numbered her, and measured her.

1:10. And he poured her out upon all his works, and upon all flesh according to his gift, and hath given her to them that love him.

Quote:

And this begs the question that there is a god who grants this knowledge.

So again, faith is simply belief without justification.

The fact of whether or not God reveals does not beg the question in the matter that Revelation is a revealing by God. The conclusion is not in the premise. I do not have to assume that Revelation happens before I can say that, if God reveals, it is supernatural knowledge. Further, it does not beg the question of whether or not God exists (which is a subset of whether or not He reveals), because it merely states that, hypothetically, if God were to reveal something, faith would be acceptance of it, ect.

Christian faith does not contradict science in the least. Stop asserting without justification. It is your burden of proof.

Which it is. God is the same as His nature.

Stolen concept applies only when the first disproves the second even though it assumes the second. I think you mean that I beg the question of whether God has a nature. He does, as He is a being with existence. He is unique however as the first cause, having an utter identity between His essence and His existence. God's logic is God, God's love is God, God's existence is God, God's power is God, they are all unified in one substantial attribute which is God.

God cannot 'perform' or 'create' any entity that is a contradiction. A thing can be a contradiction in terms as, for example, a tree that is a man (as this violates both the definition of tree and man), or when we say a round square (a more clear example of a logical contradiction in a thing). Either event, God cannot 'create' these things because their terms are nonsense.

God cannot 'change His limit,' as it is identical with Himself. God is the rule that binds Him as a necessary being. He wills His own existence necessarily.

I do not see how this applies. Naturalism versus supernaturalism is not an issue. Concepts are contradictory, not things. Contradictions cannot exist because they deny themselves.

It is unclear what you mean by "actions," as contradictions do not involve acting (except incidentally).

Any statement which says that "A is not in B" is a statement that posits "not A" of its object (even if that something is negative). If it posited absolutely nothing, modus tollens would be impossible.

This is unjustified in a statement on the Catholic Church. Nowhere does the Church believe this (I challenge you to place an official statement of the Church endorsing negative theology in your next post; you can't find any because they only exist among a particular group of Protestants). Further, a negative theologian must hold purely only that God is not non-existent. In fact, Tillich would hold that God can be said to not exist. Lastly, quoting a friend (while a nice tribute) does not prove anything by his authority. You need to substantiate your claims.

 

Except that this theology fails on both the natural level and the supernatural level. In the natural level, we would not be able to say anything about God (even to pronounce His name would be a contradiction, then). If God has no relation to categories of existence, there is no category in which to place Him, even negative ones. Negative theology fails.

In the supernatural level, certain truths such as the Trinity are by nature beyond human reason. However, this does not mean that they are contradictions. Further, positive things can be said of the Trinity (which is why the Church can make doctrinal statements about the Trinity, for example, at Nicea). Also, faith enables knowledge of God on a supernatural level because God is possessed by grace in the heart of him who believes.

This is not true. Many positive things are said of God by faith, but it is not all based exclusively on faith (as Aquinas and Augustine are very philosophical and tell many natural truths about God stemming from sources outside of faith), nor is it "limited by finite nature," in the sense that we cannot say anything true. Lastly, this is not what the Catholic Church believes (read my post from the Council of Trent in the Seminarian thread; this is doctrine of the Catholic Church); if you don't believe me, read the Catechism:

;">36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."¹¹ Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".¹²

 

;">39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

 

40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

 

;">41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator".¹⁵

 

;">42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"--with our human representations.¹⁶ Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

 

;">43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";¹⁷ and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."¹⁸

I would point out that the last phrase indicates that a purely negative theology is not possible, especially insofar as we can form true concepts of God by analogy with creatures (how they stand in relation to Him), though we have to admit a dissimilarity

Quote:

The only time we will fully comprehend according to via-negative theology is when we see the beatific vision (Similar, but not the same as a protestant idea of heaven), we will at that time understand: "For now we see things in a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now my knowledge is in part; then it will be complete, even as God's knowledge of me. 1 Cor 13:12

This is accepted.

This applies only to cases where articles of faith are undiscoverable by natural reason (which they are), but naturally known things about God do not fall into this category.

I am surprised you skip over the fact that he defined how we analogically speak of God (outside of a purely negative theology), which is one of his most famous achievements. Negative theology is not a complete picture; it is not entirely false.

Except that it is 'mainly' negative. Actually, you are quoting an objection (a point Aquinas answers). I quote Aquinas' reply to this and objection 3: "Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence."

Quote:

Remember this is the canonised theologian of the RC Church. I would not call the RC Church a cover for atheism.

Nor would I.

No proof that these were negative theologians in the pure sense you indicate. I recall to your attention that no Catholic theologian is purely negative in the sense, for example, Tillich is negative, and it would be incorrect to say so.

You are making up slanted definitions. Causes are not natural by definition, nor is the supernatural acausal by definition. Don't just begin with an a priori assumption, but demonstrate why you believe these terms carry this meaning.

 

Quote:

My contention is that indeed because of complexity, there could not be a creator.  You see, if an all powerful god created us, then why build such complex systems that are flawed?  Nature, in it's complexity is flawed: example: Cancer, auto-immune diseases, congenital defects to name a few.  Others are the "design" of the knee.  The simple fact that the sun is also lethal to us (skin cancer).

Just because nature is flawed in its action is not an argument against the fact that it nevertheless acts toward ends in an ordered manner. Cancer follows rules, as do auto-immune diseases and congenital defects.

Quote:

 

If god is so omnipotent, why create life in such a manner that it is so complex?  Why would god not create a more simple living organism? Why would god create viruses, bacteria and parasitic protozoans?  Why would god create plants in nitrogen defecient environments?

Well, this is a rather theological question. God created things in a variety of ways from angels to rocks to show forth His goodness under different aspects, out of love. All things are made in His image in different ways and the entire universe is a great reflection of His beauty. That is not a particularly justified answer (at least, not yet), but I hope that is a satisfactory answer.

Quote:

  Fact is there is no god and we are the products of whatever cosmic accident, and certainly and without doubt, humans are the product of evolution on earth. 

Things follow order. That does not seem strange to you? If no cause of order exists, we would expect all things to be random and helter-skelter. However, they are not; they are orderly. Why is this?

Further, I do not see any evidence that we are a purely cosmic accident. That would be pure speculation.

Quote:

 

 Give up this idea that complexity=god, this assertion is ridiculous.   A god, could not have designed us, becuase if he/she/it had, I think we would not see children in third world countries dying of malaria. Plain and fucking simple.

Death and suffering was not God's creation, but something that came into existence as a result of human sin. Prior to the fall, such things did not exist. Free will allowed man to do such a thing, but God, while allowing free will to cause such a fall, used it to bring about a greater good as a result.

Quote:

  Now, unless you have some wonderous proof and as Rook put it Peer reviewed papers backing your silly assertions, then I suggest you get a biology book and start reading.

You don't need a peer-reviewed paper to prove complexity at all. Further, unless you have peer-reviewed papers waiting in the wings to tell me that the universe is a giant cosmic accident without a creator, I wouldn't be asking others for them.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

The truth is often a matter of distinctions and complicated matters.

I have also not only responded to defend my position, but have done so in a manner that refutes my opponents arguments.

Also, I would never ever become an atheist for so many reasons, but the most basic one will suffice: because atheism is contrary to reason.

 Finally, I work on no basis of wish fulfillment in God; I know God exists by my reason and further:

I firmly believe that God is one God in Three Divine Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I believe that His Divine Son became Man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because God Himself hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

Further, relying on His almighty power and infinite mercy and promises, I hope to obtain pardon of my sins, the help of Thy grace, and Life Everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Redeemer. 

Lastly, I love God above all things, with my whole heart and soul, because He is all-good and worthy of all love. I love my neighbor as myself for the love of Him. I forgive all who have injured me, and ask pardon of all whom I have injured.

 I believe in these more firmly than I can know anything else, including what I know that I exist.

In these virtues I wish to live and to die.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - If you wish to admit that you have no answer and hold your position on blind faith, go ahead. You just won't find converts to your anti-religion here. 

 

This is typical presuppositionalism - morals cannot be absolute or objectively true without some absolute authority in place to enforce them. It's also known as "might makes right". Morals cannot be enforced at the point of a gun.

God said: If you dont love me, burn in hell. 

 

I will leave it to others to discuss atheism being contrary to reason, and how you know god exists by reason.  I would simply like to know, on your premise that god exists by reason, how do you further reason that the catholic god is true,  unlike Allah, Ganesh, or even any of the Protestant versions of the Triune god.

No no no no no, combine a really emotional person who doesnt want to give up their fairy tales with a biology book and you end up with Crapinism and ID. I think you have to get them to back off their emotions first before you hand them something usefull that they would only shred and distroy.

Kindly respond to my post, just a few up.  I was asking how reason, in addition to leading you to the conclusion of god's existence, leads you also to believe in the catholic portrayal of god over that of any other religion.

These atheist peoples are happy. Why are they soo happy ?
Im happy the way i was born, im happy the way i am. I dont want to be different. I was raised atheist. So i dont care if you curse me an my familly to hell.

If a certain god didn't suit you you could find another one more to your liking. Also the multiplicity of gods eliminated the centralized authority for "morality" and put the whole issue of morality back where it belongs: with the people who have to BE MORAL.

It has always been something we humans have to argue and talk about and live with. With monotheism the individual is assaulted with an air-tight system with everything all neatly defined and commanded. There is no alternative. "OBEY OR GO TO HELL." Monotheism seems to completely miss the idea that before we have actual life experiences we have no basis on which to consider what morals are. They are human business for humans.

In rejecting this simple fact of life; in accepting the redemption of the savior and anticipation of eternal joy in paradise, people seem to abandon the ordinary existence and their part in the lives of others. Being already forgiven their sins and carrying the ten commandments before them like a shield, they avoid analysis of their own activities. Hence we have a modern society that accepts things like nuclear weapons and germ warfare and economic greed...with no analysis.

If you don't like someone is it okay to hurt them? What is it about that person you don't like? If it is non-acceptance of virtually everything you have trained yourself to believe, then according to the monotheist, it is okay to kill them, okay to enslave them, okay to rob them. No thought ever is given to what this kind of behavior (the behavior or the "moral theist&quot does to the social environment.

Thank you for responding.

 

It is still not apparent to me how you arrive at the Catholic god, through reason. You have only gone so far as to mention the first cause argument, seeking to support the argument by the fact that Jews and Protestants conform to this term. Curiously you exclude Allah, although it is just another version of the Abrahamic god. It is still unclear, after your acknowledgment of the first cause, how one proceeds with reason to infer the Trinity, and all other aspects of god as defined by catholicism, to the exclusion of protestantism or judaism. You then also say "most other divinities" are not compatible with the nature of the first cause. Please provide some examples from this overwhelming majority of incompatible divinities, and also address the remaining few divinities that are compatible, and how by reason we determine that they do not exist.

Regards