faithcecelia Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 As far as the world in general is concerned, I personally consider it obvious that there had to be a 'start', there has to be a point - however far back - where science can explain no more and so a 'creator' can be the only option. Im no scientist so won't try to be, but my thoughts are that of the Big Bang created the universe then something had to cause the Big Bang. If the cause was gases then something had to cause the gases, etc etc - however far back you want to describe the detail, it gets to the point you have to accept a 'something', to me its obvious that something is God. Within myself, I have no need to go back beyond a moment ago, it is obvious God exists because of the relationship I have with Him, the love I feel for Him and the love I feel from Him. I know He exists just as easily as I know my parents exist, theres just no question.
KnightofChrist Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 At some point the creation of the universe or the existence of the universe comes down to believing either the universe has no cause, or believing that the universe is caused by either a being with intelligence that was uncaused or a non-intelligent object that was uncaused. No body in their right mind believes in the pop theory that the universe just pop into existence. So really everyone does believe in the eternal, the choice to make is if the eternal uncaused cause is intelligent or non-intelligent. FYI no one ever has proven that you can get something more in the effect than you had in the cause. It is not possible to get or gain intelligence from non-intelligence.
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='faithcecelia' timestamp='1307501187' post='2251099'] As far as the world in general is concerned, I personally consider it obvious that there had to be a 'start', there has to be a point - however far back - where science can explain no more and so a 'creator' can be the only option. Im no scientist so won't try to be, but my thoughts are that of the Big Bang created the universe then something had to cause the Big Bang. If the cause was gases then something had to cause the gases, etc etc - however far back you want to describe the detail, it gets to the point you have to accept a 'something', to me its obvious that something is God. Within myself, I have no need to go back beyond a moment ago, it is obvious God exists because of the relationship I have with Him, the love I feel for Him and the love I feel from Him. I know He exists just as easily as I know my parents exist, theres just no question. [/quote] Aquinas' Unmoved Mover? It's actually a fairly logical approach I think though we'd differ on what we see as the nature of that Cause. Thanks for adding
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307503069' post='2251115'] At some point the creation of the universe or the existence of the universe comes down to believing either the universe has no cause, or believing that the universe is caused by either a being with intelligence that was uncaused or a non-intelligent object that was uncaused. No body in their right mind believes in the pop theory that the universe just pop into existence. [b]So really everyone does believe in the eternal, the choice to make is if the eternal uncaused cause is intelligent or non-intelligent. [/b] FYI no one ever has proven that you can get something more in the effect than you had in the cause. It is not possible to get or gain intelligence from non-intelligence. [/quote] Yep, main difference would be there. Intelligent and conscious.
KnightofChrist Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307503421' post='2251119'] Yep, main difference would be there. Intelligent and conscious. [/quote] So which do you believe? Intelligence or non-intelligence? If non how do you explain you cannot get something more in the effect than you had in the cause. And that it is not possible or to get intelligence from non-intelligence? Edited June 8, 2011 by KnightofChrist
Mr.Cat Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 As a geneticist taught us, as students of science we must always be ready to admit an unknown or an uncertainty. But theistic apologists interject their god into these unknowns or uncertainties, making a god of the gaps. I am personally satisfied not knowing but investigating, I personally find the glazing over the unknown with a dogmatic faith unattractive. Which if we could explain better the origin of the "[i]big bang[/i]", theistic apologists would merely inject their god before that... The cosmological argument is often misunderstood or misused by theistic apologists. As a doctor of philosophy once noted, theistic apologists devote much effort to support their first premise, the assumption of causality... that all things are caused. Only to propose an exception to the assumption of causality in the second premise, by special pleading. Then even if there is an uncaused cause, there is nothing to necessarily suggest that this phenomena has any of the qualities attributed to a god.
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307503943' post='2251124'] So which do you believe? Intelligence or non-intelligence? If non how do you explain you cannot get something more in the effect than you had in the cause. And that it is not possible or to get intelligence from non-intelligence? [/quote] Non intelligent [i]appearance [/i]of intelligence. What exactly do you mean by "cannot get something more in the effect than you had in the cause"? Entropy? As for intelligence coming from non intelligence, I don't know, except that for intelligence complexity is necessary (compatible with evolution). At least for us.
xSilverPhinx Posted June 8, 2011 Author Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307504797' post='2251126'] As a geneticist taught us, as students of science we must always be ready to admit an unknown or an uncertainty. But theistic apologists interject their god into these unknowns or uncertainties, making a god of the gaps. I am personally satisfied not knowing but investigating, I personally find the glazing over the unknown with a dogmatic faith unattractive. Which if we could explain better the origin of the "[i]big bang[/i]", theistic apologists would merely inject their god before that... The cosmological argument is often misunderstood or misused by theistic apologists. As a doctor of philosophy once noted, theistic apologists devote much effort to support their first premise, the assumption of causality... that all things are caused. Only to propose an exception to the assumption of causality in the second premise, by special pleading. Then even if there is an uncaused cause, there is nothing to necessarily suggest that this phenomena has any of the qualities attributed to a god.[/quote] I'm also not really big on the god of the gaps argument. It's one thing to use god as an interpretational framework when viewing reality but to posit god as the answer for uncertanties doesn't lead anywhere and doesn't explain anything.
cmotherofpirl Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307359615' post='2250397'] "If there were no God, " we would be in exactly the same situation that we find ourselves in today. [/quote] Not hardly.... we won't for example have hospitals or universities, nor international law or human rights.
stevil Posted June 8, 2011 Posted June 8, 2011 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1307508157' post='2251144'] Not hardly.... we won't for example have hospitals or universities, nor international law or human rights. [/quote] I am assuming that for you hospitals, universities, international law and human rights are proof of god, not man made things.
cmotherofpirl Posted June 11, 2011 Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307534246' post='2251205'] I am assuming that for you hospitals, universities, international law and human rights are proof of god, not man made things. [/quote] Hospitals started when christians followed the commandments [ of God] to love one and other and care for the sick and dying. Universities came about groups of people gathered to be educated for the priesthood. Human rights ( and therefore the concept of International law ) came about when the Spanish theologians objected to the ruthless treatment of the peoples of the New World. All were inspired by Church teachings inspired byGod.
mortify Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307330083' post='2250322'] In another discussion Amppax wrote the following: I found this to be intriguing, especially since, to me it is not obvious that god exists. I'm curious to know what your thoughts on this is. [/quote] God's existence is not self evident, but with some reflection it is knowable. [quote] So...what is God? [/quote] Infinite Existence
Nunsense Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307330083' post='2250322'] In another discussion Amppax wrote the following: I found this to be intriguing, especially since, to me it is not obvious that god exists. I'm curious to know what your thoughts on this is. So...what is God? [/quote] God isn't a 'what' to me. God is a 'who'. It's pretty obvious to me that you exist through your interactions here. It's pretty obvious to me that God exists through His interactions with me. It isn't that difficult, but Jesus did tell us that unless you become as a little child.... well, you know the rest. You are just going to 'clever' your way into a place of no hope.
britannia Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I'm an agnostic who would love to believe in God. I do not believe that God is the necessary cause of the universe: just because we can't yet explain everything does not prove God. Conversely I do not think that science in any way disproves God. I don't believe that the existence of human morality proves the existence of God: it proves that human beings are remarkable I don't believe God can be proved, because if God exists then God is going to be more unimaginably wonderful and more unimaginably complex and more unimaginably simple than all the measures of human science and philosophy can ever aspire to test. The only mark that God (if there is a God) leaves is the perception of God which human beings have. The fact that human beings want to believe in God does not mean that there is a God. Perceiving beauty in religion and insight in scripture does not mean that there is a God. Some people think they experience God in prayer. Perhaps they do; but this is not something which can objectively be demonstrated to those of us who have not had that experience. Likewise, the fact that I have never (yet!) experienced God does not mean that God does not exist
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307330083' post='2250322'] So...what is God? [/quote] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm"]Summa Theologica I:I:2 art. 1-3[/url] In short, we cannot know what God is, but rather we can know what God is not. Edited June 22, 2011 by Cam42
dells_of_bittersweet Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 [quote name='britannia' timestamp='1308682755' post='2256887'] I'm an agnostic who would love to believe in God. I do not believe that God is the necessary cause of the universe: just because we can't yet explain everything does not prove God. Conversely I do not think that science in any way disproves God. I don't believe that the existence of human morality proves the existence of God: it proves that human beings are remarkable I don't believe God can be proved, because if God exists then God is going to be more unimaginably wonderful and more unimaginably complex and more unimaginably simple than all the measures of human science and philosophy can ever aspire to test. The only mark that God (if there is a God) leaves is the perception of God which human beings have. The fact that human beings want to believe in God does not mean that there is a God. Perceiving beauty in religion and insight in scripture does not mean that there is a God. Some people think they experience God in prayer. Perhaps they do; but this is not something which can objectively be demonstrated to those of us who have not had that experience. Likewise, the fact that I have never (yet!) experienced God does not mean that God does not exist [/quote] Does the Resurrection prove the existence of God to you?
mortify Posted June 25, 2011 Posted June 25, 2011 [quote name='britannia' timestamp='1308682755' post='2256887'] The only mark that God (if there is a God) leaves is the perception of God which human beings have. The fact that human beings want to believe in God does not mean that there is a God. Perceiving beauty in religion and insight in scripture does not mean that there is a God. Some people think they experience God in prayer. Perhaps they do; but this is not something which can objectively be demonstrated to those of us who have not had that experience.[/quote] Humans want to believe in God. But why? If something exists in us that need not exist, there must be a reason why it's there. I too was an atheist, and not merely an atheist, but a nihilist, i.e. I didn't say, "I don't think there is a god" rather, I said, "There is NOTHING!" What's strange, and I didn't notice how mysterious it was at the time, that there were moments where I would gaze out my window and simply, "There must be a God!" Ha! How interesting we are! The reality is we are built for God, it is in our nature to seek what is beyond us. Just like it is our nature to seek water, and thus we thirst, and to seek food, and thus we hunger. Notice that thirst and hunger lead us to realities. That is, we have a desire and it can actually be fulfilled. Now, you recognize a desire in yourself about God. You WANT to believe. Dont you realize that this reflects a supernatural need that can only be fulfilled by a supernatural reality? Friend, make it easy on yourself. Try faith out some time, it'll do you no harm. Don't worry about which religion to choose, or which book to read. Just believe! Talk to this god every now and then, seeing if it even is listening, and see where it takes you. What's to lose? Not like you're charged by the hour!
xSilverPhinx Posted June 25, 2011 Author Posted June 25, 2011 [quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308981307' post='2258480'] Humans want to believe in God. But why? If something exists in us that need not exist, there must be a reason why it's there. I too was an atheist, and not merely an atheist, but a nihilist, i.e. I didn't say, "I don't think there is a god" rather, I said, "There is NOTHING!" What's strange, and I didn't notice how mysterious it was at the time, that there were moments where I would gaze out my window and simply, "There must be a God!" Ha! How interesting we are! The reality is we are built for God, it is in our nature to seek what is beyond us. Just like it is our nature to seek water, and thus we thirst, and to seek food, and thus we hunger. Notice that thirst and hunger lead us to realities. That is, we have a desire and it can actually be fulfilled. Now, you recognize a desire in yourself about God. You WANT to believe. Dont you realize that this reflects a supernatural need that can only be fulfilled by a supernatural reality? Friend, make it easy on yourself. Try faith out some time, it'll do you no harm. Don't worry about which religion to choose, or which book to read. Just believe! Talk to this god every now and then, seeing if it even is listening, and see where it takes you. What's to lose? Not like you're charged by the hour! [/quote] I'm curious, were you an deconverted atheist who then reconverted or were you always one before you came to the conclusion that there is a god?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now