WD> No, I know you’re not forcing anyone 🙂
I just wanted to let you know I intended to answer.
So, let’s see…
Okay, cool. Thanks for the info on Aquinas and Anselm.
“The first thing to notice about the ontological argument is that Anselm's though proceeds from within his mind, rather than starting, as Aquinas did, with assumption that each proof must begin with some empirical evidence from which the mind can then move logically to God.”
This is interesting. (Detour begins). I – and most scientists – do assume that each proof must begin with some empirical evidence – let’s call it an observation of something in Nature. And we also assume that the Universe is explainable. Well, this is actually the foundation of the Scientific Method, just add Occam’s Razor and you have it all 🙂
Of course there is nothing to SAY that the Universe IS explainable, and follows logic and rationale. We may be some thought in the mind of an omnipotent alien, and we’d never know…
“Only throught extensive medidation and prayer can a being feel connected to God.” I’m somewhat aware of the benefits of meditation (I practice martial arts), and the “peace-of-mind” state and “Mind-of-no-mind” that one can seek while meditating. But I “merely” feel in touch with my “self” and perhaps gaining a peek at the unconscious which, according to Jung – contains our common subconscious (dunno the word in English).
“For me everything in the universe has a purpose and whatever the causation of that purpose gives us a reason why we should inquire into our existence.”
Let’s define PURPOSE maybe, before we proceed.
To me motion does NOT have a purpose. It is a consequence of a force. An object does not move because it playes a greater role in something bigger, but because “it was set in motion.” One kind of energy has been converted to kinetic energy.
About parenting other things and science: I’m merely saying that a NEW thing may arise from one or more unequal things. Such as when the first star ignited billions of years ago, it was… the first star to ignite. A NEW genetic trait may arise (mutation). A new idea may be born, a new hypothesis.
About designs in nature, arrows and archers: I find it hard to go about ”designs” without bringing up examples of BAD design, which shows no intelligence was behind that design. Metaphors are fine, but if they are the invention of HUMANS, I can’t see how it can possibly point towards a higher, greater OR divine being.
”Philosophically” speaking I think nature didn’t really know what ”it” did when it made us self-aware. 🙂
I do not discard all hypothesis, but naturally look for a way to test and prove them.
” Preferable or possible? Which one is more suited for the argument to prove God's existence.”
Should I attempt to prove the existence of a divine being that would be ”possible”.
”But myths could be proven to have exist, right? I mean if they find a wooden trojan horse that would be good evidence for proving that Homer was telling us the truth. So why not let the Archeologist continue to dig until they find something that can be proven to have existed.”
Yes, myths could theoretically be proven to have existed. But finding a wooden trojan horse doesn’t mean Homer told the whole truth. It simply proves there was a trojan horse – a big wooden animal doesn’t mean Homer didn’t omit things, added things or changed things in his account.
” Yeah but the fact still remains. If an acheologist finds the arc of the covenant that means the possibility that God actually gave Moses the stones with the commandments did actually happen.”
”The possibility” being the key-word here. If an archaeologist finds AN arc, and it looks like the description of the arc in the Bible, it still doesn’t PROVE anything. Who says the authors of Gensis didn’t omit things, added things or changed things?
”Do you apply this same rule to other religious books? Koran? Dhammapada? Kabbala? Or you only apply this rule to the Bible? I don't claim the Bible is Fact, but I also don't consider the Bible to be fabricated by some guy thousands of years ago. ”
There exists archeological evidence to support that Muhammad was a real person. That doesn’t prove the Koran is the truth. There exists evidence to suggest Siddharta Buddha existed. It still doesn’t mean Buddhism is THE truth. There is no archeological evidence to suggest Jesus existed. But there is archaeological evidence to support some stories in the Bible, and to discard others.
I think our ancenstors viewed the world differently – to them – all of them, Gods, goddesses, spirits and the divine was viewed as very real. I do think some religious texts are pure fabrication – Some are based on real events with a lot of added, omitted and changed stuff to make a good story.
” Well, I still continue to think that atheist are human beings capable of committing errors.”
Ah, indeed we are. What I meant to say is – look around this forum. You find people who’re prejudiced against homosexuals because it says so in a BOOK. They may not even know a gay person, or ever have met one.
“So whoever is running that site holds the facts and fallacies of the Bible? The guy must be well educated and also a expert scholar! Whoah! that's cool!”
Have you read the site? 😉 The site-manager has simply collected prejudices, insults to women, contradictions (AND also Good stuff) in the Bible, so it’s easy to look up. You don’t need to be an expert scholar to do that. You just need to be able to read.
FE> “Saying if it was NOT a choice would it still be sin, hmmm well since it is a choice, Yes it is. The bible doesn't skip/hop around this, it flat tells you it's an abonimation to God.”
🙄 Try to think, please. Try to IMAGINE if it was NOT a choice to be homosexual.
Can you do that?
You’re good at imagining stuff – so TRY to imagine that homosexuality is NOT a choice.
The Bible also doesn’t skip/hop around this: If we are to take the Bible literally, then:
- Must we KILL all homosexuals (Romans 1: 26-28)?
- Must we circumcise all boys (Genesis 17:14) or abandon them?
- Is bigamy allowed? (Starting in Genesis 4:19)?
Fe> “things in the bible are not symbolic”
Okay, answer me this:
Did Abraham commit adultery with Hagar?
Did Abraham marry his sister with God's blessing?
Did Lot allow the mob to rape his daughters?
Did Lot have sex with his daughters?
Originally posted by The Omega
WD> No, I know you’re not forcing anyone 🙂
I just wanted to let you know I intended to answer.
So, let’s see…
Okay, cool. Thanks for the info on Aquinas and Anselm.
“The first thing to notice about the ontological argument is that Anselm's though proceeds from within his mind, rather than starting, as Aquinas did, with assumption that each proof must begin with some empirical evidence from which the mind can then move logically to God.”
This is interesting. (Detour begins). I – and most scientists – do assume that each proof must begin with some empirical evidence – let’s call it an observation of something in Nature. And we also assume that the Universe is explainable. Well, this is actually the foundation of the Scientific Method, just add Occam’s Razor and you have it all 🙂
Of course there is nothing to SAY that the Universe IS explainable, and follows logic and rationale. We may be some thought in the mind of an omnipotent alien, and we’d never know…
The Omega but when scientist apply logic and rationale is mostly aim at physical things or objects. Thus there is no room for philosophy. Unless you base your arguments on Philosopher Hobbes. He never admitted that anything such as spirit or God exists if these terms refer to beings that have no bodies, or are incorporeal. Of God's existence Hobbes writes that by the visible things in this world, and their adminrable order, a man may conceive there is a cause of them, which men call God: and yet not have an idea or image of him in their minds" Hobbes was willing to concede that God exists, but argued that people do not know what God is. In other words the thought is greater than the being. Okay, let's go back to Anselm quote on God "That which nothing greater can be thought". It comes down to this....God is too great to be thought of. Philosophicaly this might work, scientifically it doesn't because you still need some type of visible and observable thing. Since God cannot be seen with the naked eye he can't be studied by science. But that is not say that science CANNOT find God. Because scientist do study the human brain and it's thougths. Eventually once all the secrets of the mind have been discovered there is the possibility of Finding God. Remenber my little comment about our brains keeping some information of our origins deep inside lock somewhere? Thats what I'm trying to get to..... God is inside of us! We just can't seem to unlock that door in our minds in which God is in the other side. Yet, there is communication with God. When we use prayer and meditation there is a chance of establishing some type of bridge between God and ourselves. Just a reminder...after you read what I've just wrote remenber these are only philosophical arguments.
Originally posted by The Omega
I do not discard all hypothesis, but naturally look for a way to test and prove them.
As I said earlier...how can you apply testing to a being with no physical body? Every test and every experiment requires physical bodies in order to be examined. Again, that doesn't mean that Scientist can't prove God's existence. As long as they studied the human brain there is a chance God might be found.
Originally posted by The Omega
Yes, myths could theoretically be proven to have existed. But finding a wooden trojan horse doesn’t mean Homer told the whole truth. It simply proves there was a trojan horse – a big wooden animal doesn’t mean Homer didn’t omit things, added things or changed things in his account.
Ah! But wouldn't the wooden trojan horse serve as evidence in the case?
Kinda like a trial....you need the murder weapon in order to convict the accuse? Whatever else Homer wrote is up for grabs, but the factor of the evidence stills remains. But then again the first step is finding the evidence. So let them keep digging!
Originally posted by The Omega
”The possibility” being the key-word here. If an archaeologist finds AN arc, and it looks like the description of the arc in the Bible, it still doesn’t PROVE anything. Who says the authors of Gensis didn’t omit things, added things or changed things?
Looking at my earlier reply....
Is still serves as evidence. Unless you're an unfair judge and dismissed any evidence during the trial. 😉
Originally posted by The Omega
There exists archeological evidence to support that Muhammad was a real person. That doesn’t prove the Koran is the truth. There exists evidence to suggest Siddharta Buddha existed. It still doesn’t mean Buddhism is THE truth. There is no archeological evidence to suggest Jesus existed. But there is archaeological evidence to support some stories in the Bible, and to discard others.
I think our ancenstors viewed the world differently – to them – all of them, Gods, goddesses, spirits and the divine was viewed as very real. I do think some religious texts are pure fabrication – Some are based on real events with a lot of added, omitted and changed stuff to make a good story.
I'm glad to read that you don't think that ALL religious texts are purely fabrications. We're finally getting on the same page here. Changes were made? Let the scholars continue to investigate. So is it safe to say that God does or does NOT exists?
It was exactly what I was trying to explain earlier. Until ALL the facts and research has been done we still don't have an answer. Therefore let's not jump into conclusions about the Bible being a complete LIE. I relly on the scholars to give us the answers some time in the future. Don't you agree that we must let them finish their research before we make statements like: God doesn't exists or God exists. We can only use our opinions for now.