To all Catholics
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
Then you have either come to incorrectly know religion or the religion you have come to know incorrectly uses reason. What proof do you have that we were intentionally put here by a divine being? Without such proof then it is unreasonable to hold such a belief. Claiming that we are here "against all odds" doesn't pan out either -- you cannot use statistics when discussing existence. We are here, therefore the "odds" are 100% that humans live on the Earth.
As for Thomas Aquinas, many of his ideas about faith and reason lie heavily in the concept of "faith in authority" -- one has faith to believe what a theologian claims in the same manner as what a physicist claims. However, this is false. A physicist makes rational claims based on evidence. This evidence is available for scrutiny and confirmation. Your so-called "faith" in the physicist is based on personal knowledge, cross-references, and past history of proven truth. On the other hand, faith in the theologian is based on no facts. You cannot "fly to heaven" and see if it exists, you cannot travel back to the time of Jesus and judge for yourself, and there is nobody else that can do this and report their find back to you -- you simply hold an irrational, unfounded belief in what this theologian says. There are atheistic theologians as well, but most people tend to ignore them. Without proof for a religious theologian's claims your "faith" in him and distrust of the atheist is irrational -- you are simply believing what you want to believe.
There is something to be said for a healthy family. Love creates a bond between two partners that encourages them to stay together and raise their childeren successfully. Based entirely on lust, you would have a bunch of single mothers trying to raise their family while the men are off doing whatever they want. I believe that a highly intelligent, rational society could create a system in which love, or any emotion, is not required. However, emotions are most likely needed to reach this level from the ignorant humans of the past.
Physically, my eyes are open. If you mean this in another sense then you must define it for us.
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
Kant we all-
Ok, sounds like a reasonable request.
Ok, sounds like a reasonable request.
Indeed there is a hundred percent chance that we are here now, the fact that we debate it only proves the truth. The concept to which I was referring was specifically how we can to be here. As for proof, if I could present physical proof of the Almighty here today I would not be waiting here to tell you of it. Well that is not entirely true, the world around us is my only proof of the divine. For in my faith God created all proof so just presenting one article is pointless. That is what I meant by opening your eyes, even in the process of doing so (to me at least) that is proof enough. To be able to see and breath and walk upon the earth.
My proof is based upon my faith and my rational that something created the human creature. That some being, greater than man, placed him upon this earth and then tested man. Indeed it is a great test to believe that a snake once talked and tested the first woman and man.
Furthermore, hundreds of creatures survive by having the mother take care of the children, even happens in human society. Instinct however, is and never shall be love. You have said that there are atheist theologists, I would dearly like to know of some of these persons. Meanwhile, take a look into another man who has supported the Christian faith, G.K. Chesterton, your comments are indeed helpful, and you argue effectively I commend you for such Xlock...
My proof is based upon my faith and my rational that something created the human creature. That some being, greater than man, placed him upon this earth and then tested man. Indeed it is a great test to believe that a snake once talked and tested the first woman and man.
Furthermore, hundreds of creatures survive by having the mother take care of the children, even happens in human society. Instinct however, is and never shall be love. You have said that there are atheist theologists, I would dearly like to know of some of these persons. Meanwhile, take a look into another man who has supported the Christian faith, G.K. Chesterton, your comments are indeed helpful, and you argue effectively I commend you for such Xlock...
Last edited:
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
Yes, G. K. Chesterton. And while you're at it, C. S. Lewis and Dr. Peter Kreeft. Aquinas, Augustine. Why not Plato and Aristotle, as well? Right I know I know: "Plato and Aristotle were Christians? Doesn't sound like a 'reasonable' claim to me." But each demonstrated the necessity of God's existence.
How did we get to be here could be the subject of an entirely different, and long, thread. My own beliefs - we are here as a result of a myriad chemical interactive accidents. The fact also must be considered that we are very likely the only population or species in the universe like this as such an infinitesimal sequence of events brought the human race into existence. As such, the same number of accidents to occur elsewhere - well, the odds must be in the ultra trillions to one. It was not the "divine touch" that brought us here but a complicated sequence of chemistry.
Abdiel, I agree -- the world is truly amazing. However, it does not follow that a supernatural, unkown and unseen being is the prerequisite. What's wrong with the idea that the universe simply exists, that time originated with the Big Bang?
I don't have time for a long post today, but I just thought I'd post this quote regarding Aristotle since he supposedly "demonstrated the necessity of God's existence":
"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."
--Bertrand Russell
I don't have time for a long post today, but I just thought I'd post this quote regarding Aristotle since he supposedly "demonstrated the necessity of God's existence":
"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."
--Bertrand Russell
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
That might be an adequate rebuttle if the fact that Aristotle made one mistake means that he was a complete moron.
There's nothing wrong with that. But what is the origin of the Big Bang? Who or what pulled the trigger? Who or what told time "Go." ???
Physical reality and time are products of something else, just as I am the product of something else, and you are, and that damned computer is. Everything that exists is dependent on other things for its existence. When you step all the way back, the great big universe is still just a single object (if it were not, how could we "call" it anything, how could we give it a name?). The question, then, becomes: what is that which the universe relies upon for its existence?
There's nothing wrong with that. But what is the origin of the Big Bang? Who or what pulled the trigger? Who or what told time "Go." ???
Physical reality and time are products of something else, just as I am the product of something else, and you are, and that damned computer is. Everything that exists is dependent on other things for its existence. When you step all the way back, the great big universe is still just a single object (if it were not, how could we "call" it anything, how could we give it a name?). The question, then, becomes: what is that which the universe relies upon for its existence?
Heheh, I'm not trying to claim that he's a complete moron with that quote, I just think it's funny.
As for the First Cause Argument, it just doesn't hold. You claim that everything requires a cause. Then what causes god, a god of gods? And that higher god, yet another, and another, ad infinitum? No, you will claim that there is no cause of god which in turn violates your first postulate. There is no need for the addition of a supernatural, uncaused being just because you don't like the idea that the universe itself is uncaused.
In response to beautyisonlyskindeap
There is a fallacy in that statement. You cannot know for sure that some supreme diety is watching over you, that is just your belief. This is where I find humans to be rather arogant- we believe ourselves worthy of the personal time of a god. that doesn't hold any water with me. The universe is big- comparatively we are the space between atoms.
and I have gone through more crap then most of you will ever have to
For these supposed ruff times you've had and that it is much more crap than most of us will ever deal with (you are 13. what can seriously make you think that you've gone through more than anyone else here? that is a loud challenge you are making and i think you would be shot down 90% of the time if you asked anyone else here what they have had to deal with at one time or another), you obviously haven't learnt much going through those experiences- "I only hope God has more mercy then I do."
First you are vindictive then you show your petulance again as well as your wonderful way of judging people "I am nice person rather then other might think, but I go with first impressions." If there is anything that I have learned it is NEVER judge a person by the first impression they give you, very rarely is it one that lets you form a proper idea of who they are. Also, how impersonal is the internet- if you are ready to judge someone over an electronic medium, as well about something they are being inquizitive about, you shouldn't have bothered replying in any form.
This is the problem I have, religion should not be teaching such responses as this- the unprovoked outburst is not constructive, yet this is what most people i talk with seem to confront me with. I never set out to proke an outburst of hate (which is often followed by that person looking down at me through their nose- who teaches people this kind of stuff?) just some well constructed questions and a bit of scepticisim. It is a fool who teaches close mindedness and that is the only lesson learnt in most of the Christians I know
There is a fallacy in that statement. You cannot know for sure that some supreme diety is watching over you, that is just your belief. This is where I find humans to be rather arogant- we believe ourselves worthy of the personal time of a god. that doesn't hold any water with me. The universe is big- comparatively we are the space between atoms.
and I have gone through more crap then most of you will ever have to
For these supposed ruff times you've had and that it is much more crap than most of us will ever deal with (you are 13. what can seriously make you think that you've gone through more than anyone else here? that is a loud challenge you are making and i think you would be shot down 90% of the time if you asked anyone else here what they have had to deal with at one time or another), you obviously haven't learnt much going through those experiences- "I only hope God has more mercy then I do."
First you are vindictive then you show your petulance again as well as your wonderful way of judging people "I am nice person rather then other might think, but I go with first impressions." If there is anything that I have learned it is NEVER judge a person by the first impression they give you, very rarely is it one that lets you form a proper idea of who they are. Also, how impersonal is the internet- if you are ready to judge someone over an electronic medium, as well about something they are being inquizitive about, you shouldn't have bothered replying in any form.
This is the problem I have, religion should not be teaching such responses as this- the unprovoked outburst is not constructive, yet this is what most people i talk with seem to confront me with. I never set out to proke an outburst of hate (which is often followed by that person looking down at me through their nose- who teaches people this kind of stuff?) just some well constructed questions and a bit of scepticisim. It is a fool who teaches close mindedness and that is the only lesson learnt in most of the Christians I know
Re: In response to beautyisonlyskindeap
Thank you for that, human arrogance was not something I tended to take into consideration before and your absolutely right. The universe is infinite in size and we are the smallest microbial sub atom in a vast ocean of matter - why are we so special? Simple - we are not!
Thank you for that, human arrogance was not something I tended to take into consideration before and your absolutely right. The universe is infinite in size and we are the smallest microbial sub atom in a vast ocean of matter - why are we so special? Simple - we are not!
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
I never said that everything in the universe requires a cause. I said that everything that exists exists not on its own, but by dependence on other things and creatures who also exist. And no, not to infinity; for that would be nonsense; if anything, I think that the fact that to go back through infinity is absurd is a fine reason for believing that there must be a first cause--plus, (I think Kant said it) if everything went back to infinity, there would be the question over whether we are not in eternity already--likewise, there would be the question of whether anything ever began existing at all. The first postulate is not violated because everything which is dependent and which exists is in motion; God is that entity which the universe itself is dependent on, and that which set all things in motion--e.g., the Bang, Evolution, &c. That there is no need for the addition of a supernatural being--i.e., being itself, He Who created the very idea of what is called "being", as we understand it (however, He could not have created his own being, nor could his being have been created; that is why it is said of us that we were "created in his image" and that "the universe reflects His glory"--because all of that, us and the universe, exists)--that we should neglect this final question is an assumption of the natural scientist; not of the philosopher. It's not that I, personally, don't like the idea; it is simply that I am human; and to be human is to seek to "know." And the fact that we seek to "know" can hardly be a happenstance: for just as our intake of food depends on our hunger, and as having sex depends upon desire, so our knowledge of God depends upon our need to "know"--this is, after all, one of the reasons God must have created human reason: to find Him. My point with all of that is that each function of the body and each faculty of the mind exists for a specific purpose--to get something else done, usually, or to get somewhere. The faculty of Belief, as the faculties of Will and Intelligence, also serves a function and is there for a purpose.
Kant we all,
If the universe had no beginning i.e. has an infinite past then there can be no first cause.
The big bang is often quoted as an indication of a beginning. How do we know that the observed big bang is the only one and is not just one in an infinite universe full of other big bangs? As Alan Guth at MIT suggests, our big bang could be just one of an infinite number in a particular inflationary branch of an even larger tree of inflationary spirals.
As Hawkings suggests, why can’t the universe just be?
The proposition of a first cause appears to add an unnecessary complication.
Infinity is defined as something without a boundary, i.e. no beginning and/or no end. Why do you consider it absurd for something to have no beginning?
If the universe had no beginning i.e. has an infinite past then there can be no first cause.
The big bang is often quoted as an indication of a beginning. How do we know that the observed big bang is the only one and is not just one in an infinite universe full of other big bangs? As Alan Guth at MIT suggests, our big bang could be just one of an infinite number in a particular inflationary branch of an even larger tree of inflationary spirals.
As Hawkings suggests, why can’t the universe just be?
The proposition of a first cause appears to add an unnecessary complication.
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
As I think Xlock pointed out, it is a logical fallacy. (absurdum ad infinitum, I believe)
Yes, that follows. But if there was a beginning to the universe, then there can/could/might-be a first cause.
I think you once pointed out to me that speculation carries no weight, am I right? You must have some sort of "empirical/sensate data." Or were you limiting that possibility only to the Scriptures? If I may speculate: is your speculation that (1) 'we may speculate about things which we know to be fact', but that (2) 'we may not speculate about things for which have no factual grounds'? If I am right, then your assumptions are based on the grounds that the Scriptures of the Hebrew-Christian tradition fall under the latter (2); while my grounds fall under the former (1). But that is off the subject for now; the point I am making as a response is simply that that is just as much a speculation as that of what might have happened in recording Christ's last words. In any case, the universe can have as many big bangs as it wants; that doesn't make it infinite. And even if it is infinite....
....The universe is still a material object. What I want to know is this:-- by what "person" or "thing" or "essence" or "consciousness" has this matter come to be, similarly as, say, a thought comes to be in the mind of you or me? Matter itself is a "thought" of the God who willed it into being; all time and eternity, all that is material and all that is spiritual, is but a single image and a single moment before the eyes of the imageless God.
Perhaps I am guilty of it--though in a different way--but it seems to me that you found that the scientific method was reliable for some things, and so then decided to apply it to the validity of the whole of humanity. It is about the same as an economist telling a mathematician that his beloved numbers are only any good for money calculation.... but maybe that is a bad analogy.
Last edited:
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
There are no problems (at least not on my part) with the scientific implications of a divineless universe; for the universe herself is not divine. It is the Intellect which designed the universe that is divine. God and science do not contradict each other; they reassure each other.
to xlock
In this situation reason proves sweet F___all.
You are using a human brain with purely human structures to apply human reason to a situation that exists purely in the world outside of your brain. If it is your view that we are all just a bunch of dudes walking around in a big galactic cave with torches on our heads then I disagree. The reality that lies before exists in its own right I do not allow it to exist with my acknowledgement I only interpret it.
I beleive in what I cannot concieve. That an answer does not exist for me and you because we cannot comprehend it. Can you comprehend nothingness or infinity? That is what I realate trying to comprehend the universe with your cornflake box reasoning. At the moment there is an enormous X sitting in the middle of my cosmological formula and the stuctures provided to me by catholocism give me a stand in module.
Plus I grew up my whole life with it, it is more comfortable. Truth exists. acknowledge its existence and know that you will never find it. I personally beleive that every one element is connected to every other by an infinite shade of grey ond so every element is one in the whole and a whole in one (no pun intended, golf does not resemble god)
In this situation reason proves sweet F___all.
You are using a human brain with purely human structures to apply human reason to a situation that exists purely in the world outside of your brain. If it is your view that we are all just a bunch of dudes walking around in a big galactic cave with torches on our heads then I disagree. The reality that lies before exists in its own right I do not allow it to exist with my acknowledgement I only interpret it.
I beleive in what I cannot concieve. That an answer does not exist for me and you because we cannot comprehend it. Can you comprehend nothingness or infinity? That is what I realate trying to comprehend the universe with your cornflake box reasoning. At the moment there is an enormous X sitting in the middle of my cosmological formula and the stuctures provided to me by catholocism give me a stand in module.
Plus I grew up my whole life with it, it is more comfortable. Truth exists. acknowledge its existence and know that you will never find it. I personally beleive that every one element is connected to every other by an infinite shade of grey ond so every element is one in the whole and a whole in one (no pun intended, golf does not resemble god)
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
The concept of infinity in itself is not a logical fallacy. But that a continuous sequence of events should go on and on backwards or forwards is a logical fallacy. There has to be a beginning and an end--in time, anyway. Outside of time, there is really no need to use the word "infinity"--we can only understand such a concept, however, with our limited human minds, on that background (i.e., time). God isn't infinity because God is not bound to the restraints of time or space. So maybe God can be something like "infinity" if one is speaking of God in anthropomorphic terms (which is where most people go wrong in trying to talk about God; i.e., they talk about him as though He had some sort of human make up...which lead to the silly questions such as "If He exists, where is He?"), but speaking objectively about God--that is, from God's Nature, and not ours--infinity would not be freeing Him from human contraints, it would be limiting Him. We have to think of God in this way: He is infinite, but He is NOT infinite in the way "we" understand it--He is beyond that. Likewise it would go for anything else; for instance, "God is good"--but God is NOT good as we know it, for He is good beyond all comprehension. (At least, that's sort of how it was communicated by Thomas Merton...of course, don't quote me.)
Siddhartha
Registered Senior Member
Science demands that God cannot have any hand in this universe and yet also be infinite in anything. If you are in this universe, you must obey the laws of Physics within it. Miracles do not.