3 edits
Originally posted by legochessmaniacChristians were burned at the stake by PAGANs???
[b]Furthermore, I don't care who came up with religious freedom. The church burned non-believers alive for hundreds of years - they still regularly try it with abortion clinics. For that reason alone, it's hard to take anyone who claims that Christians came up with the ideas of religious tolerance seriously.
Just so you know, the "church" wa me exists in that way.
You do the math. And the Research.
- LCM[/b]
I think you learned your history at the same place as your "logic". Maybe "house of pancakes".
The Salem which trials (and others before, like the whole Bruno thing) were certainly perpetrated by the church, and especially its policing arm, the inquisition.
In fact, here's you favourite guy's opinion on it.
"Saint Thomas Aquinas summed up the standard medieval position, when he declared that that obstinate heretics deserved "not only to be separated from the Church, but also to be eliminated from the world by death" " (from Wiki page on religous persecution, emphasis mine).
Also, atheism does not have beliefs. Only a disbelief in God.
You claim there is no proof of antimatter is completely bogus. Antimatter has been created in the lab!!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0919_020919_wirantimatter.html
Originally posted by legochessmaniacSo you are saying that you cannot comprehend a concept, but it is nevertheless a 'logical explanation'?
No one can really comprehend anything we can't understand. Theists don't understand the concept of "out-side time," but through a process of elimination, there is no other logical explanation.
Let's assume both theism and atheism are wrong. First question. Which one explains for the universe's creation? Theism.
No it doesn't. It merely hides the problem behind layers of delusion. If God exists then the definition of 'universe' must be expanded to include him and the question 'who made God' still remains unsolved.
Some atheists on the other hand (atheism is not a belief system), do not think there is a need for an explanation for the universes creation or that the universe was not created.
Atheism's beliefs go against the laws of finite time.
Atheism does not have 'beliefs', it is not a religion.
If time were infinite, there would be no time, unless time existed unto itself, and no one believes that time exists in that way.
What? How do you know what people do and do not believe? And where do you get the ridiculous idea that all atheists believe that time is infinite?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'll borrow your line and change it slightly.
Christians were burned at the stake by PAGANs???
I think you learned your history at the same place as your "logic". Maybe "house of pancakes".
The Salem which trials (and others before, like the whole Bruno thing) were certainly perpetrated by the church, and especially its policing arm, the inquisition.
In fact, here's you favourite guy's op lab!!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0919_020919_wirantimatter.html
I believe you got your PhD from wikipedia. I've searched the web for that quote, eliminating the bold type, and I still can't find it. Show me the URL where it says that. I typed three words into Wikipedia, "Religious Persecution Aquinas," and came up with zip. Zero. Nada. Nill.
I also believe that if your saying you had a scientists PhD was true, you would've taken into account the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe WAS infinite in the dimension of time, the universe would be a mushed up pile of gravitational dust with an equal median temperature. This URL's from a respected little-heard-of site called NASA: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo2.html
No Christian in their right mind would condemn people by breaking the fifth commandment. The soldiers' mind's in the Inquisition often strayed to temptation. Nobody's perfect. You missed the point, again.
Here's the point:
Assuming your accout of this (non-existant) page is correct, that Aquinas actually sayed that heretics should be "eliminated from the world by death," consider this: 1. You should study the psychology of the Saint. 2. Aquinas would've been talking about elimination of their souls, which:
1. Would've already been dead through non-belief
2. Would've perished in the eternal flames and death of Hell
3. Only the Saints souls have ever had any influence of the living in this world. Demons fall into another category. The souls of the Damned are chained in Hell like the spirit of Satan. They have no capability of reaching this world, or did you read that parable:
"19 There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores, 21 Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. And no one did give him: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. (Abraham's bosom... The place of rest, where the souls of the saints resided, till Christ had opened heaven by his death.) 23 And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom: 24 And he cried and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. 25 And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted and thou art tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you cannot, nor from thence come hither. 27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, 28 That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. 29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them. 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. 31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead."
(NAB Luke 16 19-31)
The souls in Hell are chained. The souls in "Abraham's Bossom" were also bound to the netherworld. Christ's Ressurection broke death itself, therefore, only those in Heaven are truly free to assist us in the world, and even then, only when terribly necessary.
.......
Bottom line, note that even in your "quote" St. Aquinas doesn't say that people will do the killing? Since this is forbidden, I assume it is God who will either give these unfortunate many eternal life, if they indeed are innocent, or eternal death in Hell's flames, if they indeed committed the sin of not trusting God completely.
Your arguments still holds no truth. Aquinas still stands, and you are grasping at straws trying to quote a wiki page.
Also, if atheists don't have belief, then you don't believe you have a brain, a heart, lungs, eyes, fingers, (if you're typing) and the like. True knowledge is in knowing that I know nothing. We believe many things. I believe your reading "this" right now. We observe only what we see. We see very little of the universe. We may not be in the center of the physical, but the earth IS in the center of the known universe, and everything science shows is that the universe seems to be constructed to support life on this planet. Alter ONE property and the earth ceases to exist. I call that a miracle.
I believe that if you do not even believe that you're reading this, then you have serious personal trust issues, and you're--dare I say it--seriously illogical.
"I also believe that no one believes in pink unicorns." That was uttered by an atheist in this very thread. I call THAT belief, don't you?
- LCM
Originally posted by legochessmaniac1) I earned my PhD in biology from a respected British University. Unlike the Creationists favourite, the fraudster Kent Hovind.
I'll borrow your line and change it slightly.
I believe you got your PhD from wikipedia. I've searched the web for that quote, eliminating the bold type, and I still can't find it. Show me the URL where it says that. I typed three words into Wikipedia, "Religious Persecution Aquinas," and came up with zip. Zero. Nada. Nill.
I also believe that ...[text shortened]... thread. I call THAT belief, don't you?
- LCM
2) Try "Aquinas heretic death" in google. The first one I clicked on came up with the exact quote.
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/aquinas.htm
so did the second
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9512/articles/novak.html
and the thirdhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
and the fourth
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/03/thomas-aquinas-on-women-apostates.html
So, it seems he really did advocate murder of innocent people.
3) I believe that the universe had a beginning somewhere around 13.7 billion years ago, and that that represents all the time which has ever existed.
4) Oh, and the atheists - belief thing - you're grasping at the same straws so many theists do. When a theist says "I believe" it means that they believe irrespective of the evidence. When most atheosts (and they are a diverse bunch, so this is necessarily a generalisation) say "I believe", what they are actually, in effect, saying is "the evidence that I have seen leads my to conclude that.....".
However, irrespective of this, (a) what one atheist says has no bearing on any other atheists position, and (b) there is a substantial difference between saying that you believe something factual, with a physical basis to be true (for example, I believe the earth is roughly spherical), and something with no physical basis (I believe the moon is made out of cheese).
Cant you see the contradiction in your post?
First you say:
Originally posted by legochessmaniac
I believe you got your PhD from wikipedia.
Then you contradict yourself by proving that he was able to use material that did not originate on Wikipedia:
Originally posted by legochessmaniac
I typed three words into Wikipedia, "Religious Persecution Aquinas," and came up with zip. Zero. Nada. Nill.
You also proved that you yourself do not know how to use the internet. You say you 'searched the web' but apparently only looked on Wikipedia.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou still haven't refuted that the Second Law of Thermodynamics states evidently that the universe certainly had a beginning.
1) I earned my PhD in biology from a respected British University. Unlike the Creationists favourite, the fraudster Kent Hovind.
2) Try "Aquinas heretic death" in google. The first one I clicked on came up with the exact quote.
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/aquinas.htm
so did the second
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9512/articles/novak.html ical), and something with no physical basis (I believe the moon is made out of cheese).
Thank you for typing the URL. Apparently I typed into Google and Wikipedia and came up with nothing. Funny how servers work sometimes.
So, it seems he really did advocate murder of innocent people.
Alas, you are bringing up an intellectual subject, which I fear many people may misunderstand. But so that you may know, and so not spread around false information:
These people were hardly innocent. You should read the entire page before making a claim.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm (you'll want to read the whole thing for reference.)
To understand what Aquinas was saying, you should know a few things.
1. What a "heretic" is.
2. What "excommunication" means.
3. Why in certain cases, only extreme, is Capital Punishment acceptable.
1. "Just as the heresies of the Jews and Pharisees were about opinions relating to Judaism or Pharisaism, so also heresies among Christians are about matter touching the Christian faith."
2. Excommunication occurs when the Church is in no position to judge the mental sanity of this person, whom, for whatever reason, has refused reason twice. With that said, the Church entrusts his soul to God, as they have no means of talking reason into him, and this person is refused the Sacraments for fear of violating what cannot be understood by anyone but the individual in question.
3. The "extermination" of heretics is necessary when they refuse logic and continue to preach false doctrines. The learned scholars within the Church, who were given authority by the Hierarchy, have said essentially that the person in question forfeits his life when he no longer cares for reason on the very matters he preaches. In no authority to judge the individual, the following reason exists: "Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death," so that their errors (and these errors can only be proved as such to the unbiased) cannot spread and poison the rest of the faithful.
..................
These people are not innocent. Just as there is no innocent learned logical adult. These heretics' thoughts are twisted--"subverted"--and they are handed into God's Ultimate Judgement by the path of death.
Atheists and anyone outside of the Christian Faith are not heretics. The followers of heretics are not heretics if they were incompetent of choosing the right, whereas, if they uphold the heresies and refuse the same logic their forerunners had refused, then they are heretics.
Atheists, or anyone who leaves the Christian Faith and totally abandons it, are "apostates." "Perfidiæ (a.k.a. apostacy) is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous."
Aquinas was only talking about heretics. FYI, Luther was a heretic, but he repented of his sins and he was recieved back into the Catholic Church just prior to his death. On that subject, it is difficult to say whether or not Aquinas favored the death penalty on heretics. However, note that his comparison of Capital Punishment being logical was to secular law, to which he was saying that if these individuals favored the secular law as opposed to the Canonical and Theological teachings, they ought to reason that the punishment of the local authorities is worse than the Church's teachings, which they lost their right to by their false doctrine. Also, if they wish to entitle themselves to the harsher secular laws, let them. It's their life to lose, and if they refuse help as they previously have, leave them to their own demises.
3) I believe that the universe had a beginning somewhere around 13.7 billion years ago, and that that represents all the time which has ever existed.
For me to define the concept of "God's infinity" to people who obviously don't recognize it's meaning, I must refer you to arguments which will be too large for this post.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1007.htm
That will answer any questions you have on God's infinity, and help your understanding of the concept. If you refuse to read it, then don't put forward any arguments against what you don't know.
Originally posted by legochessmaniac1) I covered that fact that the universe had a beginning, when I said I believed (based upon the most rational interpretation of the evidence) that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
You still haven't refuted that the Second Law of Thermodynamics states evidently that the universe certainly had a beginning.
Thank you for typing the URL. Apparently I typed into Google and Wikipedia and came up with nothing. Funny how servers work sometimes.
[b]So, it seems he really did advocate murder of innocent people.
Alas, yo ...[text shortened]... then don't put forward any arguments against what you don't know.[/b]
2) No worries with the URL.
3) Aquinas is still advocating the death / murder of people who do not agree with the church's position. Hardly a "church of love". Do you think Jesus would sanction Aquinas' position? I doubt it. It may well be a last resort, but he's hardly the first in that chain, look at Charlemagne.
4) Aquinas' prose is just horrible. If I wrote garbled crap like that my papers would be rejected even more frequently that they currently are, and rightly so!
However, more seriously, his argument contains errors, both logical and technical. For example his section on matter being infinite in possible scope until it assume a form (quite whatever he means by that) is wrong. First, nuclear decay and nucleosysthesis can change the "form" of matter into another. Secondly, material objects can often be readily deformed and changed. In fact, the whole argument is really a series of (often floating) axioms followed by a non-sequiter.
Originally posted by scottishinnz1)and 2) So you agree that the universe had a beginning, and that some infinite entity must have initiated our creation, but you refuse to call this Infinite God? What do you call this power then? If it has control over the universe’s creation, and is truly absolutely infinite, able to control the very existence of creation, isn’t this the definition of God? To a theist it is. Perhaps an atheist needs more proof than a logical conclusion, such as a sign. Is that what you hold to be self evident? Is that what you believe? “Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe.” Those of us in the scientific community see the evidence of a preexisting entity, and yet why do some refuse to give the title of God?
1) I covered that fact that the universe had a beginning, when I said I believed (based upon the most rational interpretation of the evidence) that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
2) No worries with the URL.
3) Aquinas is still advocating the death / murder of people who do not agree with the church's position. Hardly a "church of lo ...[text shortened]... rgument is really a series of (often floating) axioms followed by a non-sequiter.
3) Yes, Aquinas may have been advocating death (only as a last resort), but--and again, I’ll say what I’ve said before--he was saying that if these individuals favored the secular law as opposed to the Canonical and Theological teachings, they ought to reason that the punishment of the local authorities is worse than the Church's penance, which they lost their right to by their false doctrine through excommunication. Also, if they wish to entitle themselves to the harsher secular laws, let them. It's their life to lose, and if they refuse help as they previously have, leave them to their own demises. There is nothing a Church can do to save the life of someone’s soul who wants to forfeit it.
WWJD? He’d read the souls of the heretics, and find if they truly were illogical.
Hardly a “church of love.” Read the apocalypse, if you haven’t already, and you’ll find proof that when Christ comes--better yet, this is from Luke’s Gospel:
“26 And as it came to pass in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat and drink, they married wives and were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it came to pass in the days of Lot. They did eat and drink, they bought and sold, they planted and built. 29 And in the day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man shall be revealed. 31”
.....................
Basically, when the Second Coming takes place, as a Christian, I believe the time for love will not be over. Rather, the unprepared will be punished without warning. Is this a “church of love?” Certainly. But to all of those theists in name only, I say: If you aren’t ready for Christ today, how can you possibly say that you will be ready when he actually comes? Christ will take no prisoners at the endtime.
The aspect of theological “love” is far overblown and misunderstood. Yes, it should be held in utmost esteem, but it is not love when you ignore Christ’s teachings, especially when, within Christianity, there are pillars of belief. One. Holy. Catholic. (or universal) Apostolic. (or successive) In addition, there are pillars of Sacred Scripture, and equally of Tradition. Many Protestants say to Catholics, “You have Peter, we have Paul,” and yet they forget how much of a stickler for Tradition Paul really was. Tradition which Protestants have abandoned.
Look at Charlemagne. I did. From a page on his biography:
“For political purposes and to please Frederick Barbarossa he was canonized (1165) by the antipope Paschal III, but this act was never ratified by insertion of his feast in the Roman Breviary or by the Universal Church”
Charlemagne also got tangled up in the whirlwind of a few heresies. Never, though, did he instigate them. He was previously given the duty to protect Rome from the Saxon pagans, who “were a horde of aggressive pagans offering to Christian missionaries no hope but that of martyrdom; bound together, normally, by no political organization, and constantly engaged in predatory incursions into the lands of the Franks.”
On another historical note,
Thus it was that Charles (Charlemagne), resting at Thionville after his Saxon campaign, was urgently reminded of the rough work that awaited his hand south of the Alps. Desiderius' embassy reached him soon after Adrian's. He did not take it for granted that the right was all upon Adrian's side; besides, he may have seen here an opportunity make some amends for his repudiation of the Lombard princess. Before taking up arms for the Holy See, therefore, he sent commissioners into Italy to make enquiries and when Desiderius pretended that the seizure of the papal cities was in effect only the legal foreclosure of a mortgage, Charles promptly offered to redeem them by a money payment. But Desiderius refused the money, and as Charles' commissioners reported in favour of Adrian, the only course left was war.
This Desiderius tried to take over the papal cities by a mortgage scam (as you can see, not much has changed), and when he refused Charlemagne’s payment, the only resource left to defend the Holy See was war.
Charlemagne was never recognized by the Church as a “Saint,” which effectively says that he did some things that Rome didn’t approve of.
......................
4) Aquinas' prose is just horrible.
As a Ph.D. you could have realized that “Summa Theologica” was Latin. I like to think it would make more sense in it’s original “language of scholars” than in boring English.
Concerning the logical and technical “errors,” I’m sure you remember an old friend named Einstein?
“Within some problem domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted from one form to another (E.I. potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy) but the total energy within the domain remains fixed.”
This law is easily applied to Quantum Physics, in specific, String Theory, where vibrating looped strands of energy do not decay, but their form is denoted by their vibration frequencies. To understand Aquinas, consider that energy can simply be matter without a form, as energy within a conductor, such as copper.
Secondly, material objects can often be readily deformed and changed. In fact, the whole argument is really a series of (often floating) axioms followed by a non-sequiter.
If energy has no form, it is not matter, merely pure ( not “non-existent,” rather: almost undetectable) energy, a concept I think science can grasp.
As I said before:
“The unification of the Quantum and Relativity scientific theories, from the sub-atomic levels to the vast reaches of the universe, respectively, comes from the belief that God exists in every particle of energy within the universe, governing the binary laws of every energetic form that exists.”
Now, if pure energy is perpetual, and so supposedly is God, doesn’t this justify my original claim?
As SwissGambit said: “You're either the next Nobel prize winner, or some excitable kid regurgitating big words. Tough call.” Do you think I’m, “some excitable kid regurgitating big words,” especially after I’ve held a rather reasonable scientific argument? If I indeed was, would not it be degrading that a kid would be able to touch on some rather logical scientific data, when many theistic predecessors haven’t?
.................
I wonder, though, whether the direction of vibration denotes anti-matter or matter, just as in biology left-handed amino acids are the only type that support life, and when something dies, it reverts to a mixture of predominately right-handed acids. As the biology Ph.D. you say you are, could you kindly explain this process?
Originally posted by legochessmaniacFirst—
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
The universe is not a thing-in-itself: it is not like a jar containing bugs, such that, if one has explained the behavior and relationships of all the bugs, one still has to explain the jar. The universe includes time-space dimensionality (and any other natural dimensions that may be discovered, I suppose); motion is an aspect of the universe; causation is an aspect of the universe.
If one can (one day) explain all the motions, causal complexes, relationships, etc. of all the things/forces of the universe, the universe will be explained. Simply, there is not “everything that makes up the universe” and then—on top of that—the “universe-itself”. The universe is fully explained if one explains all the effects by all their (contingent) causes. (We may be actually barred from having such a complete knowledge of the “universal content”; there is no logical bar.)
Consider the following:
Suppose I see a group of 5 Eskimos sitting in the park in Nashville, Tennessee. I want to have an explanation for how they came to be here. Investigation yields the following:
E1: Moved south to escape the extreme cold of the polar climate, which she no longer enjoyed.
E2: Is E1’s husband, loves her, and didn’t want to stay behind without her.
E3: Is the infant child of E1 and E2; had no choice.
E4: Saw an advertisement on satellite TV for a job as a computer programmer in Nashville, was unemployed, and decided to take the chance.
E5: Is a private detective hired by E4’s former spouse to follow E4.
Let’s assume that the following explanations are sufficient to explain the behavior of each of the Eskimos (or, that if they are not sufficient, there is no logical bar on getting enough further information to meet the test of sufficiency—theoretically, we could trace every item in the causal complex). Now you ask: “Yes, but what explains why the group of Eskimos came to Nashville?”
But—once we have explained the behavior of all the individuals (and their relationships with each other within that universe), there is nothing left to explain. There is no need for a “first mover” or a “first cause” to explain how the group of Eskimos came to be in Nashville.
This all goes to Aquinas’ first and second ways.
__________________________________________
Second—
Just as with the Eskimos, there is no reason to assume that any initial causation needs to come from outside the universe (if it made any sense at all to talk about “outside” the universe). If there is no bar on proposing an extra-universe necessary being, there is no bar on proposing that the universe includes the properties, that are outside (transcendental to) our intellectual access, that make up such a “necessary being”—the universe itself.
To quote from philosopher Simon Blackburn (in his book Think): “For it must be ‘unknown, inconceivable qualities’ that make anything a ‘necessary existent.’ And for all we know, such unknown inconceivable qualities may attach to the ordinary physical universe, rather than to any immaterial thing or person or deity lying behind it.”
This goes to Aquinas’ third way.
___________________________________________
Third—
If one finds an infinite causal complex problematic, it is no less logical to proclaim (by fiat) an end to it with the universe itself, or with an initial singularity, than it is to submit a supernatural (extra-natural) being and then do so. The standard answer to the question, “Whence, then, God?” is—God is causa sui. But one could just as well posit a God behind that God, and another behind that one, until one chooses to stop. Theists just take one more step before saying “Stop”. The atheist stops with the universe (or with the initial singularity).
This goes, again, to Aquinas’ first and second ways.
_____________________________________________
Fourth—
Regarding Aquinas’ fourth way: gradations are, again, an aspect of the universe. “More” and “less” are comparisons made among what is in/of the universe. There is no need (nor is there any logic) to reaching “outside” the universe for any “maximum”, or for any cause of such gradations. The fact that I am taller (or shorter) than you does not require a god for explanation—it only requires a standard of measurement.
Consider: “Is the universe bigger or smaller than itself?” A nonsensical question, of course.
Consider: “Is the universe the biggest thing there is?” Since spatiality (and hence size) is a feature of the universe, this is also a nonsensical question.
It is a bit like asking, “Is there anything more than all that there is?”
______________________________________________
Fifth—
Aquinas’ fifth way seems to assume intelligent purposefulness, and then conclude to the necessity for such intelligence. This is simply circular reasoning. Or: he asserts that non-intelligent existents nevertheless act “designedly.” Then he concludes to a designer—again, circular reasoning.
However, neither intelligence nor design need be assumed. It is simply an observation that the universe is coherent—and that the grammar of our consciousness is sufficiently coherent with the syntax of the rest of the universe for us to be able to “read” at least some of it. That the universe is cosmos, rather than chaos, can simply be taken as a brute fact. If it were otherwise, we would not be here talking about it.
______________________________________________
I am not denying Aquinas’ brilliance. We have the advantage of the views of subsequent philosophers who challenged his views.
I do not assert, nor assume, that the grammar of our consciousness exhausts the syntax of the universe. There may well be things that we can never know—“whys” for which there is no “wherefore” accessible to us. It seems to me that—generally speaking (and based only on what you have posted)—that may be Aquinas’ error: to assume that there must be a “wherefore” for every “why” that we can ask. At least up to the point of stopping the (potentially infinite) “whys” at God, and asserting that must be the ultimate “wherefore”.
The only difference between you (and perhaps Aquinas) and the atheists is where you choose to—stop. I choose to stop before positing any kind of supernatural (extra-natural) category. Positing such a category (whether one calls it God or not) itself requires epistemic justification. If one posits a God, then stopping at that one God as causa sui requires epistemic justification. [I’m sure you are aware of the so-called Gnostics who did posit another god behind the creator-god of the Bible.]
Otherwise, it is no different from saying:
“How come there seems to be an actual pattern to your fingerprints?”
“Because the faeries design a unique set of fingerprints for everyone when they are born.”
Don’t just laugh. Examine the logic.
__________________________________________
The great religious divide is between dualist-supernaturalist-theism and non-dualism. Non-dualists believe that ultimately one can at least talk in terms of a whole: the cosmos, the totality that has no edge (scottishinnz), the all-without-another, the Tao, etc. Supernaturalist-dualists believe that one must talk in terms of (at least) two. Both may (and have) used the word “God.”
I am a non-dualist. I remain unconvinced of the necessity (or the epistemic warrant) for assuming a second, supernatural category.
Originally posted by legochessmaniacTradition which Protestants have abandoned.
1)and 2) So you agree that the universe had a beginning, and that some infinite entity must have initiated our creation, but you refuse to call this Infinite God? What do you call this power then? If it has control over the universe’s creation, and is truly absolutely infinite, able to control the very existence of creation, isn’t this the def ...[text shortened]... nded acids. As the biology Ph.D. you say you are, could you kindly explain this process?
...and have attempted to de-legitimize ever since. However, you should look into the Great Schism of 1054—when Rome broke with the rest of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” church over the issues of Papal supremacy and the filioque.
Originally posted by legochessmaniacHe did say that yes.
1)and 2) So you agree that the universe had a beginning,
and that some infinite entity must have initiated our creation,
Where did he say that? It certainly does not follow from what he said in 1) and 2). I suspect he does not believe that to be the case.
but you refuse to call this Infinite God? What do you call this power then?
Now an infinite entity has become a 'power'?
If it has control over the universe’s creation, and is truly absolutely infinite, able to control the very existence of creation,
You just keep adding on properties don't you?
isn’t this the definition of God? To a theist it is.
No it isn't. It may be a subset of a typical theists definition but most theists include a whole lot more than that and some theists do not include that part. You would be on firmer ground if you said "most Christians include that in the definition of God."
Originally posted by vistesdLet us go from one extreme to the other, from the aforementioned gnosticism, to agnosticism.
First—
The universe is not a thing-in-itself: it is not like a jar containing bugs, such that, if one has explained the behavior and relationships of all the bugs, one still has to explain the jar. The universe includes time-space dimensionality (and any other natural dimensions that may be discovered, I suppose); motion is an aspect of the univ ...[text shortened]... vinced of the necessity (or the epistemic warrant) for assuming a second, supernatural category.
I am a non-dualist. I remain unconvinced of the necessity (or the epistemic warrant) for assuming a second, supernatural category.
The word you are looking for is agnostic. You are an agnostic. You seem to remain unconvinced of the necessity (or the epistemic warrant) for assuming a second, supernatural category.
"2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God's existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.
2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism."
(CCC)
So let me get this straight, you stop where you want to stop, while you think myself and other theists are spinning their wheels trying to show atheists the necessity of a deity?
First of all, it is human nature to seek as much knowledge/intel as possible.
Secondly, it is human nature to stop doing things (in this case seeking knowledge) when it becomes a hassle.
Thirdly, if you stop because you don't want to find answers anymore, and it proves too difficult, you're caving in to weakness.
There are "deulistic" theists, agnostic theists, (who really aren't theists anyway, and are sinning against the First Commandment) and there are passive theists. Many people fall into the second category, while others: the first, and still others, the last. But these passive theists are not non-deulistic. Oh, no, they pray.
Frankly, you seem to be under the impression that no matter how far you pursue a personal inquiry into the existence of the universe, you're always going to run into some sort of infinite something.
That is true, but it isn't so simple. It's simpler, and weirder in the fact that it's simultaneously more complex.
God said, "I Am who Am." Moses refered to Him as, "He who Is." If you continue down the logical path concerning the existence of the universe, something is always going to be infinite. But here's the difference:
There are only two choices: Either the succession of causes is infinite, or there is an Infinite Being who is.
Or I could be incredibly stupidly vernacular, put the two together, and say, "If there is an infinite multitude of causes, that would be a God."
I'll just say, for simplicity's sake, that any entity absolutely infinite is a God. Any entity with no beginning and no end is a God, a Creator from which science tells us, there can only be one thing infinite. Infinity entails absolute goodness if it abides by a simple law. This the universe does, and it's Creator must've abided by a binary law to create the creation. If the Creator is beyond our comprehension, He must be simple and complex simultaneously. Simple because order in the universe exists. Complex becaused that's what the universe is, and we know our Creator through His creation.
Like I said, weirder. Saying that there is always going to be some infinite loop of logical causes, and yet not calling it, "God," is like saying, "'The proof is in the pudding,' the pudding's in my stomach, and my stomach's still hungry, obviously because it doesn't think I ate the pudding. 'You are what you eat'," and you just swallowed your own evidence when you said that there is always going to be something infinite in the answer for the universe's creation.
Where do I stop when it comes to the nonsense of creation? I stop at "GOD."
- LCM
Oh, and as for that Eastern Schism, it was primarily because of differences within practice of the multiple Rites of the Faith. Today, many of the formerly separated denominations have been reunited with Rome. Check http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
You'll find about 31 different named Rites, primarily in the East.
Originally posted by legochessmaniac
First of all, it is human nature to seek as much knowledge/intel as possible.
Not true, it is human nature to survive, seeking as much knowledge as possible is a luxury which we have, given our position in the modern world. What is human nature is seeking what is necessary to continue our survival.
Secondly, it is human nature to stop doing things (in this case seeking knowledge) when it becomes a hassle.
Not true, it is human nature to stop at whatever point the effort exceeds the reward. If the hassle is justified, it is likely we will continue.
Thirdly, if you stop because you don't want to find answers anymore, and it proves too difficult, you're caving in to weakness.
Or making a sensible decision to divert your resources to other, more rewarding goals. Acting out a survivalist strategy is hardly a weakness.
Frankly, you seem to be under the impression that no matter how far you pursue a personal inquiry into the existence of the universe, you're always going to run into some sort of infinite something.
That is true, but it isn't so simple. It's simpler, and weirder in the fact that it's simultaneously more complex.
Gibberish. This is exactly the sort of word salad that makes most theists come across as fools.
God said, "I Am who Am." Moses refered to Him as, "He who Is." If you continue down the logical path concerning the existence of the universe, something is always going to be infinite. But here's the difference:
There are only two choices: Either the succession of causes is infinite, or there is an Infinite Being who is.
Or there is a beginning which is finite.
Or I could be incredibly stupidly vernacular, put the two together, and say, "If there is an infinite multitude of causes, that would be a God."
I'll just say, for simplicity's sake, that any entity absolutely infinite is a God. Any entity with no beginning and no end is a God, a Creator from which science tells us, there can only be one thing infinite. Infinity entails absolute goodness if it abides by a simple law. This the universe does, and it's Creator must've abided by a binary law to create the creation. If the Creator is beyond our comprehension, He must be simple and complex simultaneously. Simple because order in the universe exists. Complex becaused that's what the universe is, and we know our Creator through His creation.
God exists because he is everything that is causally linked?
Like I said, weirder. Saying that there is always going to be some infinite loop of logical causes, and yet not calling it, "God," is like saying, "'The proof is in the pudding,' the pudding's in my stomach, and my stomach's still hungry, obviously because it doesn't think I ate the pudding. 'You are what you eat'," and you just swallowed your own evidence when you said that there is always going to be something infinite in the answer for the universe's creation.
Where do I stop when it comes to the nonsense of creation? I stop at "GOD."
You're very confused. It sounds to me (once I've picked through
your treacle-like thought processes) that you believe god exists because everythign that exists is god. Firstly, wtf? Secondly, so what? If you assign an arbitrary name to all of existence what are you actually saying about anything?
Originally posted by legochessmaniacYou keep making the claim that others accept the existence of an infinite something. Can you back up that claim? Where did he say that or something to that effect?
Frankly, you seem to be under the impression that no matter how far you pursue a personal inquiry into the existence of the universe, you're always going to run into some sort of infinite something.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have been following this thread closely, and if you'll notice, LCM seems to have made a living off of responding to his own (inaccurate) summary of what people say rather than what they actually say.
You keep making the claim that others accept the existence of an infinite something. Can you back up that claim? Where did he say that or something to that effect?
It comes off as a sneaky straw man argument disguised as convenience.
Those sneaky theists...!