Your time upon this earth is ending...
- Thread starter Lawdog
- Start date
yeah, that lie.
I 'll rewrite this for you, as you've made a mistake,Lawdog said:
remember to put that before reality if you refer to a god/devil, demons, angels, pink unicorns, santa, fairies, dragons, etc...ad-infinitum ( anything thats imaginary).lawdog said:
it only needs one instant of a thing for it to be real(objective).
Nice Entertainment. LETS look once again at the debate shall we?
Instead of looking at all five, lets just pick apart Aquinas' first two proofs and tell me exactly whats wrong with them, eliminating the criticism that Aquinas assumes God's existance, (since he does not). When you are done discovering that it makes no sense to you, we can do the other three.
Here is THE First Proof /way of knowing of God)
Everthing in Nature is changing, even things that seem permanent. only God does not change
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; 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 moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... 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 moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved 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 as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Here is the next proof:
It is a creature that does not exist, (at least as far as we know).
Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through 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 already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit 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. (Aquinas)
Instead of looking at all five, lets just pick apart Aquinas' first two proofs and tell me exactly whats wrong with them, eliminating the criticism that Aquinas assumes God's existance, (since he does not). When you are done discovering that it makes no sense to you, we can do the other three.
Here is THE First Proof /way of knowing of God)
Everthing in Nature is changing, even things that seem permanent. only God does not change
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; 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 moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... 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 moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved 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 as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Here is the next proof:
It is a creature that does not exist, (at least as far as we know).
Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through 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 already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit 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. (Aquinas)
Last edited:
Lawdog said:
Yeah, otherwise it's 2 much for us to handle.
Everything changes, except the changing itself. What makes things change and move? You could call it God. I prefer to call it mind, self or nature.
Maybe the problem is that Atheists don't understand what God is. They imagine that we believe he is a person in the sky or something.
and the hand is moved by the will of the mind.
Yeah. There is nothing in existence. There is only an illusion of existence, and it exists because you separated yourself (with your mind and thoughts) from the rest of the universe.
Lawdog said:
I don't understand what else God could be. He is the creator of the world, right? He is omnipresent, all powerful and all knowing. That's what the real self is. There is nothing which is not inside the mind, that way, the mind knows everything. There is a sense of self within us all, that way, the true self is omnipresent. We are not aware of that, since our bodies restrict the true self (God) from expressing itself. We are "slaves" to bodily desires (satan), just like religions explain.
Everything that is visible is an "illusion".
Well, I can see how you can equate God with self. We believe that there should be some distinction in what that means. There is a certain subjectivity with respect to the divine, as scripture says "ye are gods..." This is meant to say that we are godlike, and that God dwells within in us and has an intimate share in our BEING. We call this the INDWELLING TRINITY. I think that our distinctness from God is also important, just like our distinctness from eachother, for in this way we can love others, but were we the same as others, how could we show love? there would be no self/other relationship. The same is true with God, he is distinct from us, and from Nature, but also permeates both.
2) Does this mean that those who have loved you are not real, a mere illusion?
2) Does this mean that those who have loved you are not real, a mere illusion?
No. Since quantum physics allows for particles to be created out of a near vacuum, movement does not always have a direct cause. Or at least not a deliberately inflicted one.Lawdog said:
You basically just assign the creation of motion to God. That's nice, but it does not proof that God is an intelligent being capable of implementing a design. More importantly, if you have a concrete actor that you attribute as the first deliberate creator, how do you explain that this actor is capable to make up a design, without any motion being applied to him? If I design a computer program, a lot of neurotransmitters whizz about in my brain. Designing, or any concious thought for that matter, is an effort which requires change and change requires motion.
So, how can God actively design something, and still be the origin of motion or "the first mover", as you put it? He needs to be moved, or rather bits of him need to be moved, in order to design in the first place.
It is basically the same argument as with movement. You just assign the label "God" to the first that brought about others. Yet, there is no proof that this needs to be an intelligent creator. Since a being is nothing more than a manifestation of energy, the question really is how we got from a singularity to the universe we live in today. There are theories around explaining that without the need of an intelligent creator. So, why should we assume one?
1) How does creation of particles out of a vacuum, something only theorized in a mathematic equation, demonstrate that movement does not always have a direct cause?
2)I am only establishing that there is a prime mover. we can talk about God/designer later. Can you agree to that?
2)I am only establishing that there is a prime mover. we can talk about God/designer later. Can you agree to that?
Q:
I see no evidence of having passed judgement on science.
Merely criticizing the irrationality of those who use that saced cow to design their entire world-view, which is NOT what science is for.
I studied much science already, having been a geology student for several years in college.
I took:
Intro to Planetology,
General Chemistry
Analytic Chemistry and Lab,
General Geology and Lab.
Historical Geology and Lab (Paleontology),
Geologic Map Interpretation,
Cultural Anthropology.
Educational Psych and Lab
Calc II
I also hold a higher degree in ancient languages.
Yet I ask you, who among you doubters is willing to study theologic concepts with any seriousness? Perhaps you like to think of Christians as ignorant because their religion is 'unscientific". This is comforting to you, for you can easily therefore dismiss them.
To equate "unscientific" with ignorance reveals a corrupt premise
I see no evidence of having passed judgement on science.
Merely criticizing the irrationality of those who use that saced cow to design their entire world-view, which is NOT what science is for.
I studied much science already, having been a geology student for several years in college.
I took:
Intro to Planetology,
General Chemistry
Analytic Chemistry and Lab,
General Geology and Lab.
Historical Geology and Lab (Paleontology),
Geologic Map Interpretation,
Cultural Anthropology.
Educational Psych and Lab
Calc II
I also hold a higher degree in ancient languages.
Yet I ask you, who among you doubters is willing to study theologic concepts with any seriousness? Perhaps you like to think of Christians as ignorant because their religion is 'unscientific". This is comforting to you, for you can easily therefore dismiss them.
To equate "unscientific" with ignorance reveals a corrupt premise
Last edited:
Lawdog said:
God dwells within us, right? So... this all loving God is what is our real self. Because consider this: You want to be like Jesus. You want to do good to others right. You never want to do evil. You only want to do right.
But still, you have done mistakes right? So, what you want to be, that is who you really are. That is your real self.
You know... it is our body (person) which restricts us from being ourselves.
A material person is like a visible cube. An enlightened human is an invisible cube, and inside that cube, inside the outer shell (body), you can see the real self. When you open a cube, it becomes a cross or the letter "T". A person who is a slave to the spirit of matter (satan) is crucified on this opened cube.
This is what the cross truly means. It represents our own divine self (Christ) which we humans have crucified on the two girders of space and time: the body. Since the cube represents matter.
No. You see. You could also say that nothing is illusion and everything is real.
Last edited:
It needs only energy and the laws of nature to come about. If you want to call those ingredients a cause, then, well, fine.Lawdog said:
I do not think it is that clear cut. There was a potential for something to happen, and it happened. I do not see evidence for something or someone "pushing the button". If anything, entertaining that notion would only make the issue more complex. It raises questions such as: "how could that something or someone be able to do that?"
why would you have the arrogance, to think that no atheist, agnostic, humanist, etc, ever study Theological Concepts.Lawdog said:
we all have, some of us for many years, and then found them wanting, hence we became atheists, they are only easy to dismiss, if they are dismissible.
which is, and always will be the case.
there is nothing theological that could ever be considered as truth.
theological, is quite clearly an oxymoron, as theres no logic in theology.
you are quite clearly the illogical one, if a logical thought flew in your head it would die of loneliness, you cannot think freely for yourself, your mind is clouded with fantasy, you are in cloud cuckooland, therefore quite delusional.
"I don't find the theology concept inexplicable at all. In fact, it is because I understand it, I am an atheist."
Last edited:
Lawdog said:
Of course there's nothing wrong with the body. Infact, there is nothing wrong with evil either. Wrong is not wrong. It exists so that we can learn how to do right.
But do you really think we always have the ability to choose to do evil or good? I don't think so. I never want to do evil, therefore, in reality I am all loving. The body is an instrument. It can be controlled, but if you can't control it, it is not your fault. If you are good, it's not your "fault", it is just luck. If you're lucky, it's just luck that you are lucky.
It wasn't Hitler's fault that he killed millions of people. He was "evil", but he didn't choose it, so his real being wasn't evil. Satan took over his life. Hitler was a result of our sins.