Originally posted by DigiMark007
Ask a Bible Belt Christian or Muslim extremist to defend their religion without resorting to pure faith. They won't. And question any spiritual person persistently and, however intelligent, it comes to faith eventually. True faith is the kind that "knows"....so its not a risk when they are intuitively sure of themselves through their faith.
No. Certainty must be taken on Faith. Science is a faith. Science never declares anything as certain. We humans round up, not numbers. Many things Catholics (especially) but also Christians believe are also deeply rooted in logic. But from what I read, you seem to be dissatisfied. We know nothing certain of God. NOTHING at all. Even his existence, though extremely probable and highly possible, holds still the possibility of not actually occurring. One day our core may experience a rare anomaly that causes things to fall up. We can't really say it wont happen but we take the calculated risk (i.e. faith) that it wont actually occur.
But let's be clear, just because the majority can't doesn't mean all of them can't. I believe that's the logical fallacy Argumentum ad Numeram
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I would never condemn Muslims in general, nor the majority of them. Most are peaceful, so please don't try to turn my words into more than they are. But I have no qualms with attacking their beliefs if I find them wrong. So one sect interprets the writings differently than others, and most are peaceful while only a few are violent. Fair enough. Faith still underlies both, and as I stated before, it creates the environment in which irrational acts can occur more frequently as a result of that faith, which has no evidence and is the single most powerful driving force in many peoples' spiritual lives (certainly the extremists).
I never said you did, and I would hope you would challenge a certain teaching and/or norm that seems to go against the law of human nature. Faith does not create anything. In fact previously I said an Atheist who would be considered in this type of scenario "faith-less" would also procure these similar environments. So it isn't faith that drives these motives. It is man's concupiscence that directs us towards evil acts. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But the gun can be a tool by which to accomplish the same goal. Faith is inherently a "negative environment creator". Quite the contrary, it is the natural inclination to invest in something greater. Faith can help people. You can kill people with hammers. But you can also build houses with them. Same with your faith: it can be a tool of destruction or a tool for growth. But the hammer itself is neutral; neither good nor evil.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a bullshit thing. Having blind faith like you is idiocy.
"Blind faith" is an issue Dinesh D'souza talks about in his latest book What's So Great About Christianity? Just because a person is a person of faith, doesn't necassarily mean they're a mindless follower.
"It's entirely possible for a believer to be just as skeptical of their faith as a scientist is of the natural world." And that's true, and it applies to me. I don't take in the pages of the Bible hook, line and sinker. I look at the Bible and religion in general with an open and an inquisitive mind. I don't like or understand why Atheists are so quick to dismiss faith as blind faith.
Originally posted by King of Blades
No. Certainty must be taken on Faith. Science is a faith. Science never declares anything as certain. We humans round up, not numbers. Many things Catholics (especially) but also Christians believe are also deeply rooted in logic. But from what I read, you seem to be dissatisfied. We know nothing certain of God. NOTHING at all. Even his existence, though extremely probable and highly possible, holds still the possibility of not actually occurring. One day our core may experience a rare anomaly that causes things to fall up. We can't really say it wont happen but we take the calculated risk (i.e. faith) that it wont actually occur.
That's dangerously close to Pascal's wager.
Originally posted by King of Blades
Not necessarily what I was intending, but I do see your point.Take it like this. Are you aware of the Quinquae Via that was thought up by Thomas Aquinas?
The entirety of Ex Causa occurred to me as a kid, though I meant "this is what we call God" in almost the exact opposite of the way than St. Aquinas seems to mean. Aquinas implies that his "unmoving mover" or "first causer" is somehow intelligent but he lacks evidence not based completely on his own Ex Fine assumptions.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
These?The entirety of Ex Causa occurred to me as a kid, though I meant "this is what we call God" in almost the exact opposite of the way than St. Aquinas seems to mean. Aquinas implies that his "unmoving mover" or "first causer" is somehow intelligent but he lacks evidence not based completely on his own Ex Fine assumptions.
Yes.
And not necessarily. i would agree that infinite regressions seeming impossible is a somewhat childish notion. But it is that simplicity that really makes the points pivitol in the proof of God's existence. They are simple enough to think of yourself (to a certain degree) but complex enough to always teach something new and never be truly understood. But this is not my point.
The first causer must be something intelligent. What I think your implying is the other characteristics that seem to describe God today. God as a clock master to Thomas Aquinas' theory most diffidently. God as a caring loving individual to the Quinquae via probably not. But we know that in order to have set everything up the way it is now, with all it's complexity and and the amount we still don't know must at least point to some supreme being of intelligence. Even if he isn't loving or even intelligent, we can at least agree that something exists.
Originally posted by King of Blades
Yes.And not necessarily. i would agree that infinite regressions seeming impossible is a somewhat childish notion. But it is that simplicity that really makes the points pivitol in the proof of God's existence. They are simple enough to think of yourself (to a certain degree) but complex enough to always teach something new and never be truly understood. But this is not my point.
The first causer must be something intelligent. What I think your implying is the other characteristics that seem to describe God today. God as a clock master to Thomas Aquinas' theory most diffidently. God as a caring loving individual to the Quinquae via probably not. But we know that in order to have set everything up the way it is now, with all it's complexity and and the amount we still don't know must at least point to some supreme being of intelligence. Even if he isn't loving or even intelligent, we can at least agree that something exists.
But that something can be nothing more than an random event at the beginning of the universe. Given the sheer size of the universe it's complexity (especially within a closed system) seems inevitable. God can be as simple as entropy or complex as an omnipotent clockmaker. Occam's Razor would tell us to assume that God is entropy.
The "God" proven by Quinquae Viae does not need to be sentient. For example, knots are complex creations but given time just shaking a box full of rope will produce knots. So yes, there must be something but Aquinas doesn't make a case for what he was really aiming for.
Complexity =/= The Hand of God, though I don't reproach those who wish to believe it is.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that something can be nothing more than an random event at the beginning of the universe. Given the sheer size of the universe it's complexity (especially within a closed system) seems inevitable. God can be as simple as entropy or complex as an omnipotent clockmaker. Occam's Razor would tell us to assume that God is entropy.The "God" proven by Quinquae Viae does not need to be sentient. For example, knots are complex creations but given time just shaking a box full of rope will produce knots. So yes, there must be something but Aquinas doesn't make a case for what he was really aiming for.
Complexity =/= The Hand of God, though I don't reproach those who wish to believe it is.
I would you need you to better clarify what you mean by "entropy". From what I know of entropy, I don't believe that applies to God.
No, but the god proven by Quinquae Via must be intelligent and must be outside of the universe (or in short; a creator). Aquinas was merely aiming for Something. Remember, words are lost in translation. Thomas could have been aiming for "something" in what translates as God.
I never said God was complex. I merely said what was created is complex. And since creation is never more complex then its creator, it is then logical to conclude that the something is more complex then the universe. Notice, I didn't say God, I said something.
But I must disagree with the coming of being of the universe. There is no way, with the the size of this universe, that what was brought forth was out of sheer inevitability. It is simply illogical. The probability is what science itself would consider impossible!
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
OK, Whats the harm is someone having faith in something they can't prove exists?
Full Circle w00t
Originally posted by §P0oONYpoint?
YouTube videoFull Circle w00t
None, I've simply read through this whole thread and it is going nowhere. Every other post is asking the same thing and it's being answered the same way. God probably doesn't exist and if he does his concept of good and evil might be different from America's, the people who crashed the planes thought they were god's chosen ones and as far as we know; as it's all a question of faith, they might have been. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning their actions as I'm atheist and I believe all religion is bullshit. All I'm saying is that God might have been there, on either side or neither but all are extremely unlikely as God is as real as an invisible clock raping dragon that orbits the earth silently singing god save the queen.
Originally posted by §P0oONYDragons dont rape clocks, dumbass, they rape gargoyles.
None, I've simply read through this whole thread and it is going nowhere. Every other post is asking the same thing and it's being answered the same way. God probably doesn't exist and if he does his concept of good and evil might be different from America's, the people who crashed the planes thought they were god's chosen ones and as far as we know; as it's all a question of faith, they might have been. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning their actions as I'm atheist and I believe all religion is bullshit. All I'm saying is that God might have been there, on either side or neither but all are extremely unlikely as God is as real as an invisible clock raping dragon that orbits the earth silently singing god save the queen.
Originally posted by King of Blades
I would you need you to better clarify what you mean by "entropy". From what I know of entropy, I don't believe that applies to God.No, but the god proven by Quinquae Via must be intelligent and must be outside of the universe (or in short; a creator). Aquinas was merely aiming for Something. Remember, words are lost in translation. Thomas could have been aiming for "something" in what translates as God.
I never said God was complex. I merely said what was created is complex. And since creation is never more complex then its creator, it is then logical to conclude that the something is more complex then the universe. Notice, I didn't say God, I said something.
But I must disagree with the coming of being of the universe. There is no way, with the the size of this universe, that what was brought forth was out of sheer inevitability. It is simply illogical. The probability is what science itself would consider impossible!
tnropy does apply to a primary cause for OUR universe. please do remember that physically, our universes is very probably a SMALL part of a much bigger existance, which doesnt look or sound anything like a traditional god.
god does not need to be intelligent or outside of EXISTANCE{the cause can be outside the UNIVERSE but there are still lotsa things outside THIS universe, higher dimensions and whatnot}. the sheer complexity of the universe easily makes it almost inevitable that systems like human beings would physically form due to chance simply because there is so much variation and material available in the templagte. the shaking ropes to form knots example fits here.
the creator does not necessarily have to be more complex than the creation. you are again assuming that god is a sentient entity and he is responsible for every tiny little thing being in the arrangement is , INTENTIONALLY and with a plan etc. otherwise, random events can make the most complex of things.
the size of the universe has nothing to do with it requirinig a creator at all, the fact is that the universe is ruled by 4 very uniform forces and on an observable scale, ALL this complexity in celestial bodies and chemically can be explained by those forces and is completely predictable, as such, the HAND OF GOD has been very much subtracted from the equation. for the simplest of accounts on how this happens, you can read stephen hawkins' books for laymen like the brief history of time or the universe in a nutshell just to get rid of the conception that every part of this COMPLEXITY and orderliness has been maticulously crafter or sumthing.
and science doesnt consider the possibility impossible at ALL.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"Blind faith" is an issue Dinesh D'souza talks about in his latest book What's So Great About Christianity? Just because a person is a person of faith, doesn't necassarily mean they're a mindless follower."[b]It's entirely possible for a believer to be just as skeptical of their faith as a scientist is of the natural world
." And that's true, and it applies to me. I don't take in the pages of the Bible hook, line and sinker. I look at the Bible and religion in general with an open and an inquisitive mind. I don't like or understand why Atheists are so quick to dismiss faith as blind faith. [/B]
If it's not blind, it's not actual faith. It would be a form of reason.
Originally posted by King of Blades
No. Certainty must be taken on Faith. Science is a faith. Science never declares anything as certain. We humans round up, not numbers. Many things Catholics (especially) but also Christians believe are also deeply rooted in logic. But from what I read, you seem to be dissatisfied. We know nothing certain of God. NOTHING at all. Even his existence, though extremely probable and highly possible, holds still the possibility of not actually occurring. One day our core may experience a rare anomaly that causes things to fall up. We can't really say it wont happen but we take the calculated risk (i.e. faith) that it wont actually occur.But let's be clear, just because the majority can't doesn't mean all of them can't. I believe that's the logical fallacy Argumentum ad Numeram
Claiming that Christians admit to knowing nothing about God, but following his "laws" for human beings and acting in his name, is in direct contradiction. And that argument doesn't require anything more than looking out your window at the world around you.
Also, science isn't a faith. It's reasonable (not certain) conclusions based upon empirical evidence. But the fact that it doesn't work in certainties is its strength, because unlike dogmas of religions it can change to match what we learn, rather than attempting to bend society to its moralistic will.
Originally posted by King of Blades
I never said you did, and I would hope you would challenge a certain teaching and/or norm that seems to go against the law of human nature. Faith does not create anything. In fact previously I said an Atheist who would be considered in this type of scenario "faith-less" would also procure these similar environments. So it isn't faith that drives these motives. It is man's concupiscence that directs us towards evil acts. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But the gun can be a tool by which to accomplish the same goal. Faith is inherently a "negative environment creator". Quite the contrary, it is the natural inclination to invest in something greater. Faith can help people. You can kill people with hammers. But you can also build houses with them. Same with your faith: it can be a tool of destruction or a tool for growth. But the hammer itself is neutral; neither good nor evil.
Yes yes, it can be used for good and evil. That's nothing new. The same could be said for any opinion. The difference is that faith doesn't require evidence, and it strongly, even irrationally, held onto by religious people. This makes them dangerous because their faith takes precedence over reason.
...
Also, I endorse Spoony's post.
Re: Where was God on 9/11?
Originally posted by ushomefree
On September 11, 2001, God was exactly where He always is – in Heaven in total control of everything that happens in the universe. Why, then, would a good and loving God allow such a tragedy to happen?
Probably because God is as real as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
Man has made God into his own image, not vice versa.