God does exist.

From the whole context of bible I can get that it is a nice pseudo-historical collection of legends, myths from many cultures some christian propoganda and many more funny things.

btw- Yeshua couldn't have been born in year 0 ce, because Herod died in year 5 bce- it's quite well documented.

cheers
 
Originally posted by Xev
Wow, this thread attracts asinine comments like a Sci-fi convention attracts geeks.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about God's existence at all; however, Jesus did exist. The thing to be doubtful about is what he has done during his existence.

Whoever denies Jesus' existence is ignorant of history.
 
Has there ever been any kind of investigation concerning the personal beliefs of scientists? It would be interesting to know how they differ in worldviews. Are there more atheists/materialists among them than among people in general?
What would also be intriguing is that if it came to people knowledge that most of the "best" scientists were in fact believers of some sort of afterlife and/or spiritual world, would people then stop believing them and their work?
 

I posted Thomas Aquinas' text is to trigger us to think about the question of
"does God exist" with cross-reference to his arguments.

Because many thologians have more in depth and profound thinking in some
theological questions, and they have good explanation (i prefer not to call it
answer but good explanation), by reading their opinions, can save me some time
to resolve some problems that befuse me. Anyhow, I still have to remind me to always
to go back to Bible.


Below is another theory popounded by Aquinas.

--------------------------------------------




Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two
contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the
word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed,
there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world.
Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be
accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems
that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other
principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be
reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be
reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is
no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Ex. 3:14)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From espbp@csv.warwick.ac.ukTue Aug 29 12:48:52 1995
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 95 11:14:29 0100
From: Mr Y P Lim <espbp@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
To: espbp@csv.warwick.ac.uk
Subject: The Argument from Contingency

http://www.csn.net/advent/fjw.contin.htm

[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

The Argument from Contingency

If we consider the universe, we find that everything in it bears this mark,
that it does exist but might very well not have existed. We ourselves exist,
but we would not have existed if a man and a woman had not met and mated.
The same mark can be found upon everything. A particular valley exists
because a stream of water took that way down, perhaps because the ice melted
up there. If the melting ice had not been there, there would have been no
valley. And so with all the things of our experience. They exist, but they
would not have existed if some other thing had not been what it was or done
what it did.

None of these things, therefore, is the explanation of its own existence or
the source of its own existence. In other words, their existence is
contingent upon something else. Each things possesses existence, and can
pass on existence; but it did not originate its existence. It is essentially
a receiver of existence. Now it is impossible to conceive of a universe
consisting exclusively of contingent beings, that is, of beings which are
only receivers of existence and not originators. The reader who is taking
his role as explorer seriously might very well stop reading at this point
and let his mind make for itself the effort to conceive a condition in which
nothing should exist save receivers of existence.

Anyone who has taken this suggestion seriously and pondered the matter for
himself before reading on, will have seen that the thing is a contradiction in terms and therefore an impossibility. If nothing exists save beings that receive their existence, how does anything exist at all? Where do they receive their existence from? In such a system made up exclusively of receivers, one being may have got it from another, and that from still another, but how did existence get into the system at all? Even if you tell yourself that this system contains an infinite number of receivers of existence, you still have not accounted for existence. Even an infinite number of beings, if no one of these is the source of its own existence, will not account for existence.

Thus we are driven to see that the beings of our experience, the contingent
beings, could not exist at all unless there is also a being which differs
from them by possessing existence in its own right. It does not have to
receive existence; it simply has existence. It is not contingent: it simply
is. This is the Being that we call God.

Excerpted from "Theology and Sanity" by F.J. Sheed




 
Warning: the following post contains sarcasm...

Originally posted by Futurist
From the whole context of bible, man's existance does not cease after physical death.
Therefore, the fate of the babies who got killed in the flood did not end when there were drown.

Just a lovely piece of reasoning here… absolutely marvelous.

God killed innocent babies but God is not a baby killer because babies have souls and so their existence did not end with their death.

Please be sure to remember this little bit of demented logic when some psycho kills your babies. After all, their existence does not end with their death… they have souls. Therefore the psycho is not a murderer.

Seriously, if your going to rely on such feeble arguments as this you'd better find another board to post on.

~Raithere
 
raithere

Seriously, if your going to rely on such feeble arguments as this you'd better find another board to post on.

He did, that's the problem. ;)
 
I don't think there's a God...I don't want to believe there is because my logical mind says not to, but my conscience keeps nagging at me because of the way I was brought up...that's why I'm turning to Taoism....not completely...just to fill in that gap that I feel missing and to shove a sock in my loud ass conscience's mouth....Aquinas is a wanker.
 
all those eastern ones are too different from our (Baltic) culture. I can't understand them (that is - I understand, but see nothing so attractive in them).
 
What I find interesting about Taoism is that I doesn't center around an Almighty being that we must obey...it's more to recongnize that something is tying everything together. The idea is that we are incapable of describing this energy or being or whatever it is.

It centers more around the individual person, as gaing wisdom and awareness to decide for yourself. Its beautiful because it says that everything has an opposite. That's where Yin and Yang came from. Let's see if I can remember....Yin is the dark earth and Yang is the light sky, without each other, they would be nothing....I think that's the basic idea. And you are always in pursuit of equalness of Yin and Yang.

I'm just starting to get into it, but it keeps my mind moving and the beauty of it is so nice.
 
Tao Te Ching
Translation:
Steven Mitchell

14

Look, and it can't be seen.
Listen, and it can't be heard.
Reach, and it can't be grasped.

Above, it isn't bright.
Below, it isn't dark.
Seamless, unnamable,
it returns to the realm of nothing.
Form that includes all forms,
image without an image,
subtle, beyond all conception.

Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end.
You can't know it, but you can be it,
at ease in your own life.
Just realize where you come from:
this is the essence of wisdom.
 
Noah took a few years to complete constructing the ARK.
He was a prophet of GOD.
At the meantime, he had preached to his fellow people to repent and warned them about the flood. But they simply ignored his advice.
God had to punish the wicked generation accordingly, by his justice and sovereignty.
The babies offcourse hadn't sinned yet (but will sin when they grow up), God had the power to kill the adults and spare the babies, but the problem is, who will take care of the babies after the parents died?

To analyse this problem thoroughly, you must agree with the basic knowledge of bible about man's having physical body and soul, there is life after death.
If you disagree, then nothing can we discuss further!
A christian analyses problem of bible from the point of view of Secular as well as Spiritual world.

From the whole context of bible, man's existance does not cease after physical death.
Therefore, the fate of the babies who got killed in the flood did not end when there were drown.
God is just, he will not count those who are not guilty to be guilty, he will deal with their souls justly in another world.
Click to expand...


To tell you now, stop interpreting God from the Bible, which is from many authors writing. Do you seriously just believe in everything the Bible says? Anything less then a theophany is nothing, shouldn't even be considered. So please don't go describing God from the Bible. IF you actually READ the Bible and educate yourself on it scholarly, you will see it is VERY good literature that you may learn from. People should look at the Bible intellectually rather then emotionally.
 
Haven't read the Tao Te Ching yet but its already shipped from Amazon.com......as well as Confucius: The Analects...and some Plato...oooo can't wait!
IF you actually READ the Bible and educate yourself on it scholarly, you will see it is VERY good literature that you may learn from. People should look at the Bible intellectually rather then emotionally.
Click to expand...
That's what I want to do with Taoism. I can't handle a book that tells me what I have to do if I want to lead a happy afterlife....I started Genesis but it was too much like the Oddysey....Zues was the child of....and he had 3 daughters....cousins of....father of....mother of...I couldn't get past that.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: God does exist.

Originally posted by You Killed Jesus
I didn't say that Jesus didn't exist, I just said that there isn't any evidence supporting his existence. To which our friend Daiel said there was.
Click to expand...

Then how do you explain the roots of Christianity, the church, and the testament? If Jesus did not exist, Christianity would not exist, as there would be no Christ to follow.
 
Originally posted by stu43t
God only exists to people who believe in him.
Click to expand...

False. God exists, though some are ignorant of his existence. Of course, science can provide no empirical evidense of the existence of God. But if we were to depend on truth from science, what state would we be in at this moment? Science is unable to provide any emprical information on the existence of God. This does not mean you should be ignorant of any possibility. This ignorance is a fallacy, and can not be supported both ways.
 
More thought could have been put into it ... though it was a very different period of time and addressed to a completely distinct audience.
 
Platipus:
More thought could have been put into it ... though it was a very different period of time and addressed to a completely distinct audience.
Click to expand...

Funny, I wrote an aphoristic haiku about Pascal today. But his wager sucks like the offspring of Monica Lewisnsky and Jenna Jamison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top