Originally posted by legochessmaniacThanks for the reply. I had just jumped in on the topic of love, but have now gone back to review the entire thread.
There are different kinds of atheists, like there are different kinds of Christians. You raise an interesting point, that while some atheists may understand the fundamentals of, "love," others are, well, not so sentient. There are "logical" atheists, those who understand society's fundamentals, and live within those boundaries; there are "practical" ]. Nothing personal.
Will the real atheists please stand up?
- LCM
I'll make this statement as simple as I can. Atheism is wrong--if not for theological reasons--because it violates the logically fundamental scientific laws it so 'idolizes.' Specifically this: Theories can ONLY be disproved. This law is ignored by atheists who claim that "the non-existence of a deity cannot be disproved."
Note the use of a double-negative, and a logical thought that goes along with both instances: In order to think that someTHING DOESN'T exist, people have to FIRST think that it DOES.
The statement, "God does exist," must be logically refuted BEFORE the belief, "god does NOT exist."
____________________________________________
This appears to be somewhat confused. One does not first have to form an actual belief that P, in order to the form a disbelief that P (or a belief that ~P). I do not have to first think that trees-with-legs actually exist (are instantiated in the actual world) in order to form a justified belief that there are no trees-with-legs. I merely need to understand the concept of trees-with-legs.
If you assert a concept C, your first burden is to demonstrate that C is coherent. (Your particular concept of a deity may well be coherent; I don’t know, because I don’t know what all you claim as conceptual content for that deity—neither theists generally, nor Christians specifically, are univocal on such things.) Suppose I put forth the following claim—
(1) Dardyvart exists.
(2) In order to think that dardyvart does not exist, one must first think that it does.
(3) Therefore, (1) must be logically refuted before the counter-belief, ~D.
____________________________________________
Let me prove--logically--why Divine Providence exists, and why so many people have become disillusioned.
This you have not done. Perhaps you can provide a straightforward logical inference.
____________________________________________
—NOTE: As I continue to read through the thread, I see that my points above have already been made—and more concisely—by others.
_________________________________________
As has happened so often over the years on here, the argument seems to have moved from the question of the existence of a supernatural deity to issues of morality. I cannot tell for sure if you are arguing from a fairly common distribution (e.g., a normal curve) of ethical considerations across cultures to the existence of a God (C.S. Lewis’s view, I think), or that “divine command theory” is the only well-grounded moral theory (as opposed to, say, Kantian deontology, or Aristotelian virtue ethics, or moral intuitionism, or a social-preservation theory, or . . .).
What you do seem to be doing is playing the same “burden of proof” game that many atheists adopt. The atheist version (articulated often and well by Rwingett on here) is, roughly, that (a) no one is born with a god-concept embedded, so to speak; (b) all god-concepts are learned within a cultural milieu; (c) there is no clear necessity to assume any kind of supernatural (extra-natural) category at all—i.e., nature does not clearly point to supernature; (d) therefore the burden falls to the theist to show that her/his learned god-concept is somehow more worthy of consideration than any other god-concept, or a default of no god-concept at all. [I realize that I have not done Rwingett’s position justice here.]
Or else you’re simply adopting a position of “agnostic theism” in a similar fashion to “agnostic (or weak) atheism”? That’s fine, so far as it goes. But what twhitehead and I and others have been arguing for a long time is that we cannot actually believe something because it might lead to better outcomes (ala Pascal’s Wager); that would not be an epistemically justified belief, and it would not be honest for us to do so. Epistemic justification does not require certainty. I likely hold some unjustified beliefs; but if I realize that, then I must challenge them. The difficult discipline of self-integrity demands it. Sometimes, previously held beliefs get suspended for a long time, and revisited often.
Therefore, you must not think that, just because I challenge your arguments, I do not appreciate your willingness to put them forth. There are lots of people on here who, through argument, help me to maintain that discipline; some of them I am often in agreement with, some of them I am seldom in agreement with. I may be stubborn (well, I am stubborn), but I am not immovable. 😉
___________________________________________
EDIT: deletion of my own off-topic spiritual ramblings.
Originally posted by vistesdVistesd, you should be a diplomat in the UN... 🙂
Note to Brobluto and Rajk—
Well, Rajk has known me for some years, and is unlikely to be surprised by my comments. Within a juridical model of salvation, Rajk’s longstanding view on this subject makes the most sense. Within a healing (soterias) model of salvation (quite literally a “soteriological soteriology”—or, as I think Irenaeus put it, a “s ...[text shortened]... e purgatory of Roman Catholicism (though I may not have a very good understanding of purgatory).
Yes, we discussed this before. There is not much support for the 'healing' model of salvation in the Bible. That idea is more in line with Hinduism in which sucessive deaths and rebirths through reincarnation eventually bring all people to salvation.
Originally posted by vistesdCan anyone prove or disprove that there is intelligent life in out there in the universe? I dont think you can. Yet many atheists who require solid proof of the existence of God believe that we are not alone in this universe, without proof.
(1) Dardyvart exists.
(2) In order to think that dardyvart does not exist, one must first think that it does.
(3) Therefore, (1) must be logically refuted before the counter-belief, ~D.
.
Originally posted by Rajk999Most atheists I have heard or spoken to believe that not out of faith, but out of the idea that by simple probabilities and the vastness of the universe then there should be another planet situated in a way that could support and develop some form of life.
Can anyone prove or disprove that there is intelligent life in out there in the universe? I dont think you can. Yet many atheists who require solid proof of the existence of God believe that we are not alone in this universe, without proof.
That's very different than having a solid belief that they absolutely must exist in the form the imagine.
The god that theists believe in is very defined. If atheists (or anyone) believe in specific alien forms then they should be expected to provide evidence for that too.
Originally posted by Rajk999I think it's because it's a lot more plausible. Life was created on earth, we are the proof. If it happened once, it's possible that it happened again. Where is the proof that god ever existed thereby making his existence possible?
Can anyone prove or disprove that there is intelligent life in out there in the universe? I dont think you can. Yet many atheists who require solid proof of the existence of God believe that we are not alone in this universe, without proof.
To PP & BB ... point taken. But apply the same idea of probabilities and plausibilities to religion. All societies in all ages and all eras believed in some kind of supernatural being/s that influenced the course of events. That happened because there were prophets, sages, and ordinary people who had some kind of communication with angels and other messenges of God. There must have been many thousands of such people. I find it hard to believe that they were all crackpots and insane people.
Originally posted by Rajk999Part of the problem is that the gods people believed in were often contradictory.
To PP & BB ... point taken. But apply the same idea of probabilities and plausibilities to religion. All societies in all ages and all eras believed in some kind of supernatural being/s that influenced the course of events. That happened because there were prophets, sages, and ordinary people who had some kind of communication with angels and other messenges ...[text shortened]... usands of such people. I find it hard to believe that they were all crackpots and insane people.
The greeks, egyptians, sumerians, not to mention the monotheistic big three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have their own creation stories.
We have concrete proof that life can come to being in our universe. We don't have concrete objective proof of a supernatural creator.
People have had very odd beliefs throughout the years and I don't think that means they are crackpots or insane people. The science at the time used to think that fire was a liquid that was in everything and the difference between flamable and non-flamable compounds was that the non-flamable compounds didn't have any content of this liquid. That sounds wacky to us now, but then it was a common belief and I don't think they were insane or crackpots.
People now believe that they have been abducted by aliens and other things. I'm not sure if they are insane necessarily either. People have gotten themselves to believe a whole lot of things and historically, the belief in any type of god was much more accepted and believable.
I also think there's a reason why you no longer see as many people claiming to be prophets - because people today are in general a bit more critical of those claims. If our society more readily believed in prophets then I'd bet more would come out of the woodwork.
Originally posted by Rajk999I agree with PsychoPawn, but to add some more, people used religion to explain the unexplainable. Throughout history people searched for answers to the question"Why?" or "How?". We are now in a point in time where we have the answers to many of these things and none of them hinge on a god or supernatural entity. Actually, we are proving that everything IS natural (obeying the laws of nature). The ones we are stuck on is the after-life and meaning within our life. In my opinion, that is why religion still exists today. Once we can either explain those, or agree that neither exists, religion will lose its influence.
To PP & BB ... point taken. But apply the same idea of probabilities and plausibilities to religion. All societies in all ages and all eras believed in some kind of supernatural being/s that influenced the course of events. That happened because there were prophets, sages, and ordinary people who had some kind of communication with angels and other messenges ...[text shortened]... usands of such people. I find it hard to believe that they were all crackpots and insane people.
Originally posted by broblutoSo science does not have all the answers yet.
I agree with PsychoPawn, but to add some more, people used religion to explain the unexplainable. Throughout history people searched for answers to the question"Why?" or "How?". We are now in a point in time where we have the answers to many of these things and none of them hinge on a god or supernatural entity. Actually, we are proving that everything IS n ...[text shortened]... we can either explain those, or agree that neither exists, religion will lose its influence.
And its perfectly reasonable for people to cling to their religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Rajk999Yes. I never denied that. But likewise, since science has provided so many answers, people are free to believe that science will have ALL the answers at some point.
So science does not have all the answers yet.
And its perfectly reasonable for people to cling to their religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Rajk999I dislike the word 'proof' when applied to anything outside of mathematics. I prefer something like 'convincing evidence'. I personally have not seen convincing evidence that intelligent life (or life for that matter) exists anywhere other than the earth. I have however seen convincing evidence that it is not only possible by highly probable that life does exist elsewhere. I remain agnostic however.
Can anyone prove or disprove that there is intelligent life in out there in the universe? I dont think you can. Yet many atheists who require solid proof of the existence of God believe that we are not alone in this universe, without proof.
I would consider anyone who has not seen convincing evidence of extraterrestrial life yet believes strongly that it exists to be acting illogically especially if they changed their lives based on that belief. Remember however that convincing evidence does not necessarily mean direct evidence. If someone knows roughly the conditions in which life might arise and and the probability of it doing so and the number of places in the universe with such conditions they might be justified in believing that life has arisen elsewhere.
I likewise have no problem with a theist who sees strong evidence for the existence of God believing in God. I only object when the same theist refuses to subject his 'strong evidence' to rational thought.
I object even further when said theist expects me to believe in God without him providing strong evidence.
Originally posted by Rajk999There is not much support for the 'healing' model of salvation in the Bible.
Vistesd, you should be a diplomat in the UN... 🙂
Yes, we discussed this before. There is not much support for the 'healing' model of salvation in the Bible. That idea is more in line with Hinduism in which sucessive deaths and rebirths through reincarnation eventually bring all people to salvation.
I disagree [ 🙂 ], and have presented the case more than once on here—including explicating the sheep/goats parable and the wheat/tares parable from that perspective (actually, those explications were not original with me, but go back at least to 4th century mainstream orthodox Christianity. Part of the problem is that the healing model gets lost in translation; which is why it is so much more prominent in the Greek Orthodox churches, where they never lost the language base. Again, use of the Greek word soterias—salvation—is a pretty strong hint: it is not a juridical word.
Although there are other words for “healing”, soterias is also used to refer to physical healing, as in the following passage—.
>> NRS Matthew 14:35 After the people of that place recognized him, they sent word throughout the region and brought all who were sick to him, 36 and begged him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it were healed (diasothesan, passive aorist of diasozo).
Sozo (The verb from which the noun soterias is derived) can mean save, rescue, preserve, deliver, cure, heal, make well, make whole. The addition of the prefix dia, in the context of sickness, denotes being completely healed or restored to health.
The word aphiemi—forgiveness—can have a juridical application, but it’s basic meanings are to release, set free, let go, dissolve, etc.; it has a very broad range of usage. There are other Greek words whose meanings can be argued vis-à-vis the question of a juridical or a healing (making well/whole) model of salvation. Epiphenehas and I, for example, argued most of them.
It is not my purpose here to go through the whole argument again. The only point I want to make is two-fold: First, that the healing model is indeed derivable from the biblical texts; and second, so is the juridical model.
I happen to think that the former has stronger support than the latter, especially (though not exclusively) in light of early (I would even say “original” ) Christian oral tradition—what has simply come to be called the tradition, or the apostolic/post-apostolic tradition). That does not mean that the juridical view can simply be dismissed: it too is arguable, and has had exponents from the earliest church. (In the Orthodox churches, there is no dogma on this issue.) My “diplomacy” was simply to recognize that fact.
____________________________________
One way to get a handle on Brobluto’s view, within the context of a soteriological model of healing, is to read the parable of the Good Samaritan—seeing God as the Samaritan. Read that way, of course, salvation is based purely on grace—neither faith nor works on the part of the man in the ditch are involved. Such a reading of a single text does not eliminate the issues of faith and/or works (or the question of whether faith, as it seems to be described by some, is itself a work of sorts); it does provide an interesting context within which to explore them.
As I often say, context does matter—but one person’s text is often another person’s con-text (there’s a pun in that hyphenation). 🙂
I maintain what I previously said concerning the provability of God. You can't prove anything to fools if they refuse logic. People bred as atheists are asking for proof because they threw out the ingrained wonder in their hearts of the universe around them at an early age.
To quote perhaps one of the greatest intellectuals of all time, here is St. Thomas Aquinas' summary of theology (Summa Theologica) concerning God's existance:
Article 3. 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." (Exodus 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.
...............
If you refuse this, you obviosly have a short attention span, and can be branded as foolish.
As for the question of religion, St. Thomas Aquinas is a doctor (Latin for teacher) of the Catholic Church, whose teachings are foolproof. It is composed of the Church Millitant, (Those imperfect mortals fighting for souls with weapons of prayer and Rosaries) the Church Triumphant, (Those immortal souls who have attained the perfection of Heaven, behold God with wonder and majesty, and have performed reported miracles on earth) and the Church Suffering. (Those souls undergoing the purification of temporal Purgatory by the realization of "separation anxiety" from their creator, who they beheld at the Particular Judgement)
As sayed before, The Church's mortal members are in fact imperfect (an excellent example being the Crusades, where many of the "faithful" fell to the strong temptation of robbery) but it's teachings, which have rarely been fully understood by those within itself, have been proven incorruptible through the test of time.
If you ever desire to attend the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass, one of the best examples is the Traditional Latin Mass a.k.a. Missale Romanum 1962 a.k.a. the Tridentine Mass aka. Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Try to find one in your area.
Any questions I direct to the following, (particularilly the Summa Theologica and the Catechism) which can better explain the beliefs than I ever can:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm (these are the writings of a former non-Catholic. Atheists might be able to associate with him)
http://www.catholic.com/library.asp
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/
http://catholicapologetics.info/
http://www.ewtn.com/
- LCM
Originally posted by Rajk999You should read Julian Jaynes "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", an excellent book reccommended to me by Widget from these very forums.
To PP & BB ... point taken. But apply the same idea of probabilities and plausibilities to religion. All societies in all ages and all eras believed in some kind of supernatural being/s that influenced the course of events. That happened because there were prophets, sages, and ordinary people who had some kind of communication with angels and other messenges ...[text shortened]... usands of such people. I find it hard to believe that they were all crackpots and insane people.
Jaynes introduces a lot of basic brain physiology, backed up by some interesting experimental evidence. Basically, we have two language hemispheres, with the left being the dominant one in most individuals. In people which have a tendancy to hear voices, however, the right hemisphere is also very active. Jaynes also shows from historical literature a consistent pattern that individuals living around the time of the "Iliad" consistently heard voices in their heads. He looks at the development of religion and shows how it can all be explained by the development of a narritive language which allowed true self awareness (consciousness, indeed it is this narritive that Jaynes thinks most closely describes consciouness) , and shows how these two things overlap, and various religious practices and religious idols and icons change over time as a result.
People who hear the voices of God or angels are not crazy, about a 1/3 of the population will hear voices at some point in their lives (normally due to stress), but their mind is certainly playing a trick on them.
Anyway, don't take my word for it, go and read the book - it's well developed and researched (in most places), and very well written.
Originally posted by legochessmaniaclet's look at this for a second, shall we? I'll take just the last line from a number of your paragraphs.
I maintain what I previously said concerning the provability of God. You can't prove anything to fools if they refuse logic. People bred as atheists are asking for proof because they threw out the ingrained wonder in their hearts of the universe around them at an early age.
To quote perhaps one of the greatest intellectuals of all time, here is S ...[text shortened]... s.org/
http://catholicapologetics.info/
http://www.ewtn.com/
- LCM
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
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.
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.
So, basically, God exists because people say he does. This is absolute rubbish.
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.
So apples fall to earth to obtain the "best result"? And I thought it was gravity!! Hey, if you jump out of a tenth story window (not that I'm advocating that you do such), then plummetting to your death could hardly be considered the "best result" for you. Therefore, I presume that you float, or are able to fly?
As for the question of religion, St. Thomas Aquinas is a doctor (Latin for teacher) of the Catholic Church, whose teachings are foolproof.
Foolproof? Well, certainly plenty of fools have been unable to see through Aquinas' "teachings". In reality, Aquinas' teachings were riddled with errors, and whilst they may be foolproof, they are, alas, not clever-person-proof.