Okay, I guess is safe to continue:
Post #2
All possible beings, therefore, at one time did not exist, will exist for a time, and will finally pass out of existence. Once possible things do come into existence, they can cause other similar possible beings to be generated, as when parents beget children, and so on. But Aquinas is making this argument, namely that possible beings do not have their existence in themselves or from their own essences; and that if all things in reality were not only possible, that is, if about everything one could say that it could not-be both before it is and after it is, then at one time there was nothing in existence. But if there was a time when nothing existed nothing could start to be, and even now there would be nothing in existence, "because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing" But since our experience clearly shows us that things do exist, this must mean that not all beings are merely possible. Aquinas concludes from this that "there must exist something the existence of which is NECESSARY. We must therefore admit, he says,"the existence of some being behaving of itself it's own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others this necessity. This all men speak of as a God".
The idea of proofs by degrees of perfection. In our experience we find that some beings are more and some less good, true, and noble. But these and other ways of comparing things are possible only because things resemble in their different ways of something that is the maximum. There must be something that is truest, noblest, and best. Similarly, since it can be said about things that they have more or less being, or lower or higher form of being, as when we compare a stone with a rational creature, there must also be "something which is most being". Aquinas, then argues that the maximum in any genus is the cause of everything in that genus, as fire, (not our respectable forum member) which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things. From this Aquinas concludes that "there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their beings, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."
Rational hierchy:
God
Angels
Humans
Animals
Plants
Stones
From most rational to less rational. God on the top of all rational beings. A stone cannot be more rational than a plant. A plant can't never be more rational than an animal. An animal can't be more rational than a Human. A human can't be more rational than an angel. And an Angel can't never be more rational than God. God sits on the top of the throne. Above all else.....see the hierchy.
Proof from Order of things. We see that things such as parts of the natural world or parts of the human body, which do not possess intelligence behave in an orderly manner. They act in special and predictable ways to achieve certain ends or functions. Because these things act to achieve ends always, or nearly always, in the same way and to achieve the best results, "it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly". But things that lack intelligence, such as an ear or a lung, cannot carry out a function unless it be directed by something that does have intellengence. For example an Arrow and a Archer. Both must co-exist in order to achieve a goal. One cannot exist without the other. If the archer can exists without an arrow therefore he cannot be an archer! Simply because he needs arrows to be an archer. Arrows cannot exists without an archer. If they did then WHO would shoot them? You can apply this almost to anything. A mountain and rocks, seeds and plants, oceans and water, and even humans and God. Aquinas concludes, therefore, that "some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their ends and this being is God".
Using Analogy to prove God. Analogy for Aquinas is an ontological term; it means that what is in God is also in humanity. This is more than mere metaphor or simile (I know I said no more metaphors, but I didn't say anything about Aquinas using his!). To say that there is an analogical relationship between God and humanity is to say that man resembles God. In his philosophical thinking Aquinas uses the word Resembles for the purpose of explaining humanity and God. Resembles in this topic means that humanity has in some degree or certain proportion what God uniquely is. For example, Aquinas says that humanity has a certain mode or degree of being. God, on the other hand, is BEING. What makes the relationship between God and humanity analogical is, therefore, the fact that God and humanity are linked together by a common attribute (remenber the example of the arrow and the archer?). Humanity derives it's very existence from God, and this fact accounts for the common elements in both God and humanity. When we use the word Wise, we refer to an attribute perfectly realized in God and only partially realized in humanity. Wisdom is something that exist both in God and the relationship between the two wisdoms is analogical, which is midway between univocal and equivocal. What makes wisdom different in humans (pay ATTENTION to the following) is that their minds is located in their physical body and is dependent upon the senses. Yes! and our senses can sometimes decieved us! We can't not trust our senses all the time! Because the eyes can be fooled by a mirage in the desert. Our hearing can't be tricked to different sounds. God, being pure act with NO material substance knows all things simultaneously. Analogy would mean, then, that humanity knows what God knows but NOT everything that God knows and not the way God knows it. In other words since God has no physical body he doesn't have a physical brain like ours. Therefore his senses are far more expanded than ours! If the human mind is capable of doing so many things, now picture a mind with no physical parts.
End of post #2
Post #3
Moving from Aquinas to Joseph Campbell. Since some ppl think that God is a Myth pay attention to this dialogue between Campbell and Bill Moyers:
Moyers: But people ask, isn't a myth a lie?
Campbell: No, mythology is not a lie, mythology is poetry it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth, penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words. It is beyond words. It is beyond words, beyond images, beyond that bounding rim of the Buddhist Wheel of Becoming. Mythology pitches the mind beyond that rim, to what can be known but not told. So this is the penultimate truth.
It is important to live with the experience, and therefore the knowlege, of its mystery and of your own mystery. This gives life a new radiance, a new harmony, a new splendor. Thinking in mythology terms helps to put you in accord with the inevitables of this vale of tears. You learn to recognize the positive values in what appear to be the negative moments and aspects of your life. The big question is whether you are going to be able to say a hearty yes to your adventure.
Moyers: The adventure of a hero?
Campbell: Yes, the adventure of the hero, the adventure of being alive.
Now, why did I posted this? For this reason, it seems that to deny the existence of God would be to deny that thing in humanity that has always being with us since our beginning. And that is to believe in a greater good. To declare God a mythology and to deny mythology is a very simple thing. To prove God is a much more harder task. Anyone can say GOD DOESN'T EXIST!. But that is lame and also rather lazy. Anyone that says that GOD EXISTS! Has a harder task and that is to prove God exist. There are different ways, one is through religion the other through philosophy (which I'm more incline to followe) and another is through mythology.
See, if we were to take what Campbell says about mythology we can assume that mythology is very poetic. Can you possibly prove a poem to be false? Don't we need muses? I'm sure every artist requires a muse to do a piece of art. Can you define art is false? No, we are moving to Aesthetics. Since we are assuming that mythology is poetic therefore we need to analyse the concepts of beauty. And since beauty is hard thing to prove......how can we prove that a piece of art is beautiful? Let's apply that to God. We tend to think that God is perfect being. So, would that mean that God is beautiful? We really don't know for we have never seen him/her. But our own idea of beauty is inside of us. Which kinda makes sense since Christians out there say that God is IN all of us. Maybe God and Beauty go together as one?
End of post #3
Okay, that's only about a small taste of what my knowlege about philosophy and God.....now for the rest of your post:
Originally posted by The Omega
WindDancer>The Bible is not fact. It’s like saying paranoid conspiracy theorists take their FACTS from the latest Alien Abduction site. Facts are not relative. 2+2 will never be five, no matter how many times it’s mentioned in the Bible.
Now you're saying that the Bible is not fact. Do you still think that it is a mythology? check my #3 post willya.
Originally posted by The Omega
Again you’re wrong. Scientists usually don’t CARE about religion – as I said they don’t have to anymore, the Inquisition is over. Fundamentalist Christians however spend aeons trying to prove a thing like Evolution wrong and cosmology wrong – as if that would somehow make the 6000-year old Earth hypothesis right.
Scientist usually don't CARE about religion? Umm... I could swear that in another thread you mention Archeologist being scientists. Since Archeologist have been studing the death sea scrolls, excavating Jerusalem caves, searching for the Arc of the convenant, and Noah's boat, plus other ancient religious artifacts stuff......does that mean that those aren't scientists? I'm shock!
Originally posted by The Omega
WD> Just shows the homosexuals are less prejudiced than the Christians, huh?
What about homosexuals that believe in God? I'm sure they don't feel attack by atheist who are prejudiced. After all Atheist deny the existence of God. I'm pretty sure you won't like an Atheist that is prejudice towards gays.....right?
Originally posted by The Omega
Biblical family values DO leave something to be desired.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html
Yep, adultery, incenst and bigamy.These things are horrible. Homosexuality is not. So, no thanks. I don't want anything to do with your God!
I'm just curious. Answer me this question, do you accept everything that site says? You've seen to use quite a lot in your arguments.
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
So God has told you that being gay is bad?
Ok, as previously stated by ninjaturtle and me, in Leviticus (which is a book in the Old Testament of the bible 😛) and in Romans and more than likely in a number of other books in the bible, it says that relationships with ppl of the same sex is wrong. I think its ok to have feelings for someone of the same sex as long as you dont act upon them. 🙄 and i am having a strange sensation of de va jeu - havnt we had this discussion before?! 😛
And WindDancer, 🤨 Did anyone ever tell u that ur really confusing? 😛 🙂 or maybe i just cant process so much info at the one time 😮 🙄
Ninjaturtle> So what about ancient societies where homosexuality was allowed? Will a homosexual who never heard of God (because he/she lived prior to the spreading of the Bible) be judged by God for his sexual observance?
Ninjaturtle> You make it sound as if homosexuals should all give up their love- and sexlife and go into monasteries.
You’re a damn hypocrite! You can find NO other reason to hate homosexuals than an out-dated book, which you only BELIEVE is the word of God. So you’re biased against homosexuals for NO reason. That’s being prejudiced!
You may have heard that, a little while ago, there were a huge amounts of debates withing the Anglican church over the issue of practicing homosexual priests. The Church was basically divided into two over what they though of the issue. Sometimes even Christians dont agree amongst ourselves, but we do our best. The bible can at times be hard to interpret and as such, different people get different meanings out of it. Some of the people who were for allowing homosexual priests to practice said that bacuase some of the laws that were originally laid down in leviticus were changed by Jesus when he came, (Jesus gave the people a new set of laws) that therefore none of leviticus was relevant any longer. Others (and I agree with this opinion) said that it doesnt matter, because the laws still stand and there are no two ways to interpret it. Yes, I do realise that I am probably giving you a lot of fuel to come back with arguments on how stupid Christians are because we cant even agree on things, but im just telling you the truth. Besidse, im sure you will have heard about these debates
Originally posted by The Omega
Jury> No, you didn’t answer my question.
Your reply was: “Those who lived faithful to God has God's promise of salvation. From the very beginning up to the end of time.
And those who disobeyed Him will be destined to die.Those who sinned under the law will be judged under the law.
And those who sinned apart from the law will be judged apart from the law.”So, for the third time:
What about the people who never heard of God and couldn’t embrace any commandments?
What about all the people on the planet who existed before the invention of Judaism and Christianity? They’re in hell?
What about all the people living at the time of Judaisms invention in far-away lands, like Australia and North America, with no chance of EVER hearing the word of God. Are they in Hell, too?
🙂
Originally posted by WindDancerScientist usually don't CARE about religion? Umm... I could swear that in another thread you mention Archeologist being scientists. Since Archeologist have been studing the death sea scrolls, excavating Jerusalem caves, searching for the Arc of the convenant, and Noah's boat, plus other ancient religious artifacts stuff......does that mean that those aren't scientists? I'm shock!
What about homosexuals that believe in God? I'm sure they don't feel attack by atheist who are prejudiced. After all Atheist deny the existence of God. I'm pretty sure you won't like an Atheist that is prejudice towards gays.....right?
I'm just curious. Answer me this question, do you accept everything that site says? You've seen to use quite a lot in your arguments.
1st part: Dead sea scrolls are a piece of history. hsitory deserves to be studied. With that logic we shouldn't study about the Greek Gods or the Aztec religion.
But the ones that search for the Arc and the covenant are just religious zelots parading as scientists. because Any half of a scientist would know that Noah's arc has been proven to be false.
2nd part: We don't attack the religious homosexuals for being homosexuals, but for being religious, exactly like we are doing to you.
TO- pray
Originally posted by Jury
He told us all. 🙂
No, actually a bunch of guys with a little too much time on their hands told us. And then of course the Romans came along and edited the hell out of it to fit their needs so that their people would be easier to control. And we can't forget that the original Bible has been translated many times by many people. And that everything in the modern Bible is essentially the interpretation of some religious scholar. Hence why I believe organized religion to be a form of mind control.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by yerssot
then how come, ie, the Aztecs needed to get converted ?
or those before the aztecs, why didn't they worship your god? cause apperently it got preached everywhere... what about the african cultures? or the maoris? [/QUOT
who said they did? how do you know it's a different God? i was just explaining that the Word of God would be preached thr the World.
^ same here 😊 and plus, look around you. (and yes, i'll get heaps of comments for this one) but do you really believe that everything you see, happened coz one atom hit another atom and spontaseously (spelling?) exploded int the world which evolutionised? I admit, that that's almost impossible to believe. Even if i wasnt a Christian, i wouldnt accept that theory.
In all seriousness, how do you guys reckon the world was created? 🙂 i dont think i need to say mine.