Existance of God

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Didacus' date='May 13 2005, 10:48 AM']



And yes, even the catholic religion went through several centuries where the deterministic dogma was dominant.[/quote]
[quote]Please specify the stance of beliefs of the atheism.[/quote]

Atheism simply means 'without' theistic beliefs. You can be a buddhist and be an atheist. You can be a raelian (belief that aliens created humans) and be an atheist. The indivuals stance is a relative one. It in no way implies a worldview.

[quote]
I move to say that if you do not believe in God you inevitably are deterministic.[/quote]

That contradicts what you said about Catholics in the past holding to a deterministic view. If not believing in God is deterministic, than how can believing in God be equally as deterministic? Like I said before, you can be a deist and be a determinist, not believing in a God does not at all require determinism. Even than you havent address the compatbilist argument. All you want to do is paint a bleak picture of robotic atheist. Inject God, and poof, you all of a sudden have free will. Its laughable.

[Didacus]

I never said that believing in God forced you to be un-deterministic. There is no contradiction, you make a [color=green]vise-versa [/color]assumption of my statement.

Religions that have or had deterministic point of views claim so by the will of God... i.e., everything is determined since God knows all, knows the future as well thus since the future is known of God, the future must be determined.

I do not share the deterministic point of view, .




[quote name='Melchisedec' date='May 13 2005, 11:10 AM']
Inject God, and poof, you all of a sudden have free will. Its laughable. [/quote]
Very well then, laugh.

Edited May 13, 2005 by Didacus

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote]
What good fruit? All I see is havoc caused by this. Just look at the most recent gay thread.. people are up in arms against each other. And over what? Absolutely nothing.
[/quote]

Without changing the topic too much I think you are misunderstanding what we are saying on that thread.

It is in no way an attack on homosexuals as a whole.

Its this particular groups actions we are protesting.

I guess since you dont believe in God you wouldnt understand. But I would hope that if you seen someone verbally assault your Father, and you knew that what they were doing was hurting your Father, you would stand up and do something. Not because the people are doing it are gay, but because they are doing things that hurt your Father.

Being gay is not a sin.

Living the gay lifestyle is the sin.

Just like if non married couples have sex..again..sin.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote]
But tell me this, why are christians afraid to die? Why are they sad when others die? Why are they in pain when others die? Why is death a bad thing, if there is an afterlife? If they truly believed in their religion, then should not they be happy? They are in God's hands now, is it not time for joy? Why do they act like they have lost their dearest, if they know they will meet them in Heaven?
[/quote]

Im not sure we are afraid to die. Im not. I cant wait until Jesus comes back..this world bites!

We mourn for the lost ones mainly out of selfishness. We [b]hope[/b] they are in heaven, or at least purgatory in hopes to see them again one day.

One cannot truely say 'Sally is in heaven' or 'Joe bob was a nice guy so he must be in heaven'.

We mourn because they person we lost is missed. Again, its selfishness that leads us to this act. God chose that day to take them, I assume, so after we mourn we look to the time we see them again.

One of those idiot guys on Atheist Radio always says 'If you believe in heaven why do you wear a seat belt while driving..dont you want to die?'

See, this is a prime example of not knowing what the heck you are talking about.

God created us, God takes us away. We are not to do it prematurely by suicide or doing stupid things that may get us killed.

If God choses to take you, even a seatbelt wont save you.

Sure as Christians we want to go to heaven. But we cant take our own life in order to get there.

[quote]
For a honest mistake! A loving God would punish those that are weak and not have been able to crack the "God puzzle" for just that weakness that He himself created them with?

If that is so, then I would rather burn in Hell than be in Heaven. Just as a protest.
[/quote]

God doesnt send you to Hell my friend. You will do that yourself. And there is no God puzzle to it. God created a Church that we should follow. Listen to it and you'll be fine.

He is a loving God. He calls everyone to Him, even you, even now.

Why turn your life upside down to follow Him? Hand it over with Trust and he will hand you over a life you can live and strive in.


[quote]
Oh yeah, and you know the mind of every single atheist.
[/quote]

You are right, I dont. But I do know my two friends and how happy they [b]want[/b] to be, and pretend to be. But thier actions and range of emotions they give away at the slightest things tells me they are not internally happy.

But I also take into account my own experience. I guess I was never really an Atheist, but I spend my teenage years not giving God a thought. I remember how I felt at that time. I was having fun..but it was empty when I was alone. Something was missing. The things I was doing became stale and senseless. The lies of 'This makes me feel better' slowly showed their faces and I knew that what I was doing, the way I was living was wrong.

God started to call me when I was 18 or 19, driving down the road I had this strong urge to make the sign of the Cross. Had no idea why but after I did it, I thought it was the coolest feeling. But I didnt do it again.

It wasnt until I was 23 years old that I started fully desiring to be apart of God and I started to explore the Churchs that were around. I started with Pentecostal's because thats why I was so called raised in. I ended up at the Catholic Church.

My point is, as a teenager I lived the life of someone not believing in God or even caring. I was having too much fun. But it was a lie and I felt empty.

That empty feeling is what I associate with others that are in my position. Its hard to be happy when you have this empty feeling within you.

I hope this makes sense.

God Bless

[Didacus]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='May 13 2005, 11:58 AM']
I hope this makes sense.

God Bless [/quote]
Aye, this makes sense. Make very good sense indeed.

Kudos.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Didacus']Have you heard of the first and second law of thermodynamics?[/quote]

What do the laws of thermoynamics have to do with determining the initial conditions of a system?

[quote]How little value you must give to those closest to you if you see them as just animals without soul for pain or relief. What are they to you, entertainment value? A 'real live' television?[/quote]

They are my friends.

[quote]Animal kill in order to survive. to eat or not be eaten. They do not murder, kill for pleasure or just up and save a goat's life because they feel it is the right thing to do.[/quote]

They murder. You should look into some animal social structures. They are not so different from us, and we are not so different from them.

[quote]Please show me how my ideas are perversed?[/quote]

I got the feeling that you think evolution has a will or a goal. You can't will against evolution, since there is nothing to go against with. Evolution is pointless. Humans are fit because they have a good probability of adaptation and survival.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 13 2005, 12:28 PM']They murder. You should look into some animal social structures. They are not so different from us, and we are not so different from them.



I got the feeling that you think evolution has a will or a goal. You can't will against evolution, since there is nothing to go against with. Evolution is pointless. Humans are fit because they have a good probability of adaptation and survival.[/quote]
Are you familliar with the laws of thermodynamics?

It suffices to claim that at time T(0) of the system, the system contains a scientifically defineable matter and energy and that this mater and energy will co-exist and react within the laws of science. The principal laws of science being those of thermodynamics - they precede the laws of quantum physics.

If you argue that "Initial Conditions cannot be known", it is the equivalence of claiming "God's all knowing". It is the equivalent of syaing the universe is 'undefineable', like someone claiming that God is undefineable. I hope that you can see my point.

Besides, the laws of thermodynamics do not need to be applied at the initial conditions of the bigBang. They can be applied at any choosen time within the existance of the universe. one simply needs to define the initial state of the system at at time after the bigbang, and before life on earth and this would be sufficient for argument's sake of the model.

if you are unfamiliar with the laws of thermo, then it will be very difficult to continue this line of reasoning.




Apes can commit murder? I think we differ in our definition of murder. Do the monkeys that commit murder believe that what they are doing to be wrong? In my opinion, this is weak. You are uncertain there exists freewill or self-awareness in humans and go looking for it in apes?




The feeling you got was wrong. However, if there is a God - Creator of all things, would you not agree that He would have the ability to affect His creation?

In the absence of God, you are correct that it is impossible to will evolution. Actually, this type of theory/thinking is precisely the type of thinking that Darwin disproved with his theory of evolution.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Didacus']I hope that you can see my point.[/quote]

I don't.

Buut it doesn't really matter, since this is not important to the original topic of free will. It doesn't matter whether or not we can know the initial condition, because it's there either way. Hmm-um... or is it?


[quote]Apes can commit murder? I think we differ in our definition of murder. Do the monkeys that commit murder believe that what they are doing to be wrong? In my opinion, this is weak. You are uncertain there exists freewill or self-awareness in humans and go looking for it in apes?[/quote]

I meant that they kill just to kill. I remember seeing this documentary about apes where this one male ape stole a baby ape from it's mother and ran away. A angry mob chased him to a tree where he finally broke the baby's neck. It was part of this kind of revenge and battle for power thing that we apes are good at. I wish I'd remember more of the reasons for it, but it was a long time ago. It was fascinating.

I'm trying to say that free will is not required for us to be able to make decisions and choices.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote]
I don't.

Buut it doesn't really matter, since this is not important to the original topic of free will. It doesn't matter whether or not we can know the initial condition, because it's there either way. Hmm-um... or is it?
[/quote]

You freely chose not to believe him.

Therefore, you have free will and you expressed your will.

[Philologus]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='May 9 2005, 02:53 PM'] I would love to have a few references to books that talk about this. I have a couple of coworkers who I would like to give it too and read.

I know that in the end it all comes to Faith.

[/quote]
I don't think anyone mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas' section on "Does God Exist" in his "Summa Theologica". Even though this work was written 800 years ago his reasoning is flawless. However, the post-modern, relativistic, undisciplined mind may have trouble following logic these days!

Here is an online link to it:

[url="http://www.stjamescatholic.org/summa/index.html"]Summa Theologica[/url]

Philologus

[Didacus]

[quote name='Philologus' date='May 13 2005, 04:31 PM']I [snip]

[url="http://www.stjamescatholic.org/summa/index.html"]Summa Theologica[/url]

Philologus[/quote]
Great site.

I will try to find time to read it over the weekend.

Thanks Philologus

[BeenaBobba]

The best argument I've read for the existence of God was in Fyodor Dostoevsky's [i]The Brothers Karamazov[/i] (which is my favorite book). Dostoevsky argued that if God does not exist, then objective morality cannot exist. The thing is, most atheists I've come across believe that murder is wrong -- and rightly so! What Dostoevsky wrote, however, is that atheists, by their own beliefs, have no basis to believe that murder is [i]really[/i] wrong. If God does not exist, then objective truth cannot exist. If God does not exist, morality would be man-made, and because it would be man-made, it would also be subjective. If murder is only subjectively wrong, then what right do people have to impose their views on those who do not oppose murder? What right do people have to make laws against murder? One could argue that moral and civil laws could rightly be based on the views of the majority, but there were times in history when racial slavery was accepted by the majority.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='May 13 2005, 11:12 PM'] The best argument I've read for the existence of God was in Fyodor Dostoevsky's [i]The Brothers Karamazov[/i] (which is my favorite book). Dostoevsky argued that if God does not exist, then objective morality cannot exist. The thing is, most atheists I've come across believe that murder is wrong -- and rightly so! What Dostoevsky wrote, however, is that atheists, by their own beliefs, have no basis to believe that murder is [i]really[/i] wrong. If God does not exist, then objective truth cannot exist. If God does not exist, morality would be man-made, and because it would be man-made, it would also be subjective. If murder is only subjectively wrong, then what right do people have to impose their views on those who do not oppose murder? What right do people have to make laws against murder? One could argue that moral and civil laws could rightly be based on the views of the majority, but there were times in history when racial slavery was accepted by the majority. [/quote]
True enough but these days atheists will simply argue enlightened self-interest. That is, that whether or not murder is wrong, it damages a society, and therefore should be banned.

[Didacus]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 14 2005, 12:21 AM']True enough but these days atheists will simply argue enlightened self-interest.  That is, that whether or not murder is wrong, it damages a society, and therefore should be banned.[/quote]


Or argue the 'instinct' card. It one of thier 'awnsers-all' arguments.

I started reading the summa theologica. Fascinating stuff.

I like this passage:

"Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable. But what is supremely knowable in itself, may not be knowable to a particular intellect, on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of its excess of light."

Unfortunately you require a basis of beliefs and God before reading this stuff, and you also need a very good foundation of the bible and knowledge prior to reading it. I admit many statements are difficult to grasp.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 14 2005, 02:21 AM'] True enough but these days atheists will simply argue enlightened self-interest. That is, that whether or not murder is wrong, it damages a society, and therefore should be banned. [/quote]
But that's the thing. If God does not exist, then even damage would be relative.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='May 14 2005, 01:05 PM'] But that's the thing. If God does not exist, then even damage would be relative. [/quote]
Even if God exists, morals for instance can still be relative. You kill a baby, you committed a sin. God tells you to kill the baby, and now the same act is no longer a sin. God can make things arbitrary.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

I was reading an excerpt from PETER KREEFT

in which he says:

[quote]
Furthermore, how could the design that obviously exists now in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? It violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a Mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a Mind, by the way, even those who did not believe any revealed religion.)
[/quote]

The full article can be found here:
[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ics/ap0002.html[/url]

very interesting stuff