Why Is Your Faith Not Arbitrary?

[N/A Gone]

I invited him over here, since the talk was on a sports forum that gets mocked alot. We will see if he comes.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399354' date='Oct 8 2007, 11:51 AM']everything we know has a cause. but we also have to recognize that we don't come across God phenomenon everyday, so to speak. if the first cause is God, wouldn't he required a cause too? God doesn't necessarily solve the problem.
if God can just be, the universe can just be.

there is the argument a fortiori. if there's an unending chain of events back in time, something must have made that chian. perhaps as you were saying, if existance is, even if infinte, it has to be here as an effect of something.
but, as i was saying, not necessarily.[/quote]
Yes, everything we know has a cause, except God. God can not have a cause. If God had a cause, then there would be a cause for God's cause. That can not go ad infinitum though, because of some mathematical law which I never studied (anyone able to throw me a bone here?). Anywho, the must be the unmoved mover, because otherwise, things wouldn't be put into motion.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399354' date='Oct 8 2007, 11:51 AM']now, the big bang actually helps verify the CC dogma of God's existance. we see empiracally that there was a first cause, the big bang. should we say hte big bang just happened or that something cause it?
was there anything before the big bang?
if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next onse the first God. and are those first particles then God? i think particles idea shows that the first cause should not necessairly be called God, and that God has to be more than just random chance.
this is where it gets hairy.
while the big bang does help give credence to the CC dogma, it doesn't necessarily prove it.
it is a sufficent level to say that God, as defined as first cause, does exist. but it's not exhaustively definitive. must like if we see a shadow, we know somehting is causeing it as a proof, but we haven't proven it definitively.[/quote]
It would seem the Big bang was caused. I don't know how it would be self causing. That was never really part of the theory. There would have to be something before the big bang... there would need to be the exploder of the big bang. "if the big bang just happened as it were, is the first particles or group of particles that pushed the next onse the first God." clarify for me please? I could not interpret that beyond my imagination... are you trying to speculate whether particles were God? How could they be if they came from an explosion? Anyways, I think you see though that God can't be a "random" chance. Another thing, you keep bringing up the thing about "the Dogma of God's existence". Could you verify that you know what you're talking about here? And yes, God is the first cause. It's interesting that you use the shadow analogy, but what could there be other than God? Tell me! I'm interested in a definitive speculation.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399357' date='Oct 8 2007, 11:55 AM']same for intelligence. that there is order to hte universe doesn't prove God.
as a first cause as God, order just means that order happened to occur.
if you define intelligence as order then sure, but that's not saying much. you have to give the intelligence consciousness to mean anything.
order is indicative of inteligent consciousness but not a proof.

same with somethign complex like a watch. it's just proof, even more proof, but not exhaustive. plus when you look at the watch, it didn't spring up out of nowhere. it got here as an end product of earth formation, and evolution, and trial and errors and all that. if it did just spring up, you'd have something.[/quote]
Order does prove God. It proves that there was something to put order. If I drop a hand full of dice (maybe 7 or 8), they could all line up evenly and turn up sixes, or they couldn't... but we're talking major odds that they will do this unintelligently. I would have to set them up myself if I wanted them to make it that way. Or how about you put a disassembled typewriter in a washing machine. Will it rebuild itself completely? Anyways, I define intelligence as the capacity of knowledge. I think you're right about the consciousness thing, but I think it suffices to say God is conscious, and was when things were created. It takes a conscious move (beyond our capacity) to knock those two particles together causing the bang. I think you have things with the watch analogy...

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399366' date='Oct 8 2007, 12:15 PM']i'd tend to agree.
but have to say not necessarily.

it seems like this peg, or this thing that must just be regardless of existance is just extra fluff that theists use to say he must exist. cause if God an just be, existance can just be.
to say soemthing more needs to be is not necessary. ockham's razor, the simplest solution is prob right.
and even if there was oemthing more, it does't have to be God so much as the fabric of existance. it's just there and just is. that seems like part of existance to me, not soemthing separate from it. to use the metaphor, the peg is part of existance not soemthing separate from it.
and you can call it God, if it's even allowed to be argued that this just being is needed (which i don't think you can do) but that's not saying much.
but i never thought God as first cause was saying much anyway, even if you could prove he's a first cause.[/quote]
Indeed I agree with the peg thing. It's sorta icing to the cake. Only reaffirmation. But, the thing about existence quirks me a bit... though, I think I can read into in a Catholic way... just, it's very ambiguous. I'm not sure what you mean... and I'm not sure why you sort of cop-out with ockham's razor. It's actually flawed in so many ways. Bad short cut. My good Catholic friend gave me this humourous example for why it is wrong. He said, let's say there is some dog doodoo in a tree. Ockham's razor says simple answer, so one can assume a kid put it up there... but, the other speculation one can make is that an inventor was working at making a dog-hang glider. Now which is right? Well, in truth, the second was right in this analogy, but the other was the simplest. Doesn't always work. (sorry if this analogy was hot stuff-esque, but fails to make a point [unlike hot stuff's actual stuff, which points really well]... I'll try harder next time).
Anywho, on to your next point. God is somewhat separate from existaence, insofar God exists on His own standards, and holds us into existence. This belief took a dive from Ockham's time. People started to believe they existed aside from God, and independently. Unfortunately, we have the belief of relativism because of that.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1399369' date='Oct 8 2007, 12:21 PM']the peg theory is helped by the big bang stuff i was saying. if big bang happened at a set point, then something was here before, something that just was, one would think.
but i still don't see the bang as a definiteve proof.
the peg is just adding more of the same stuff, extra fluff that's argued against with the same arguments that are used had the peg not existed.

i guess the big bang just says that the peg theory has some validity to it finally beyond just an abstract extra that's needed. but even with the peg theory, note all the stuff i've already said.[/quote]
Define your stance on definitive proof. We're here aren't we? Rocks can be dated. Our planet can be dated. Stars can be dated. In other words, there was an inception. Scientists even speculate that the universe is expanding. In other words, it was smaller at some point. If it always was, then there would be no gradation of matter, and most of all, gradation of size. By what standard do we measure the hypothetical infinite universe?

Now, some of you may be wondering what the heck I'm saying here. In apology, I am replying to Dairy for her sake, because in the last while, Budge was claiming that Dairy doesn't really exist, is a hoax, etc. cause of her fence-sitting, and because not many claim to "follow her posts" I'm not ignoring this child of God, so I thought I'd give a crack at this type of replying. Anywho, so my main purposes here are to 1. Definitively prove the existence for Dairygirl4u2c, and 2. help her come to know God (more) through reason.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the CC teaches that God's existance can be proven.
i'm not sure that's an infallible teaching. it's probably just a teaching, and whether it's part of the ordinary magisterium or not will be determined in the future. just look on google.

i didn't mean that God is the first particles. I meant to say that the particles if they just popped up would be God according to the idea that the first causes were God: which is not something that would make sense. Just like the idea that random chance being God would not make much sense. I think you can say that the particles were caused by something, or you could say they just occured. I think you're right though, that a cause as per our view of reality would make more sense than just chance. but, we dont' see a first cause everyday in our real life, so i don't think you can necessarily that we should rule out a random chance. again if God can just be, the first particles can just be.
you're just stomping your foot saying that a first cause, ie God, can just be without a cause, cause he's the first cause and can't have a cause before him. it's like a leap of logic that's not necessarily warrnated or based on anything we've seen as humans empiracally.

definitive proof would be proving either logically that there was a first cause, beyond particles and random chance. proving that there wasn't anything before the big bang that went back on and on. as of now we just have evidence for God. like if you see a dark spot, you have evidence that it's a shadow and thus would need an object causing it, but it could also be a natural dark spot where the sun don't sun. (no i'm not saying in anyone's behind.....) i think it'd be techincally deductive proof, not inductive. i forget the meaning of those words or if they ar teh right words but it's one of those.

i think order helps give evidence for God but not proof. if life can form from elementary particles, that would eventially give rise to evolution to complexity. as per the world being ordered, it seems like it just follows laws of entropy and order just happened to occur givne gravity and such. it's not an unreasonable argument. but i agree God makes most sense.

i think these points were helpful for me to add. most of the other points you've made seems like you just insisting they are right. and i you can claim my existance, but you're going to have to prove it first.....
also, i do take definitive stances. i believe God is love and has consciousness and is light. i believe Jesus existed and was the son of god and many other things. many specific points i'm not sure i agree with sterotypical christians. i know these cannot be proven, but that's the whole point of faith. (i'm pretty sure that's why we call this stuff faith. and i'm pretty sure all those who dissent are not simply suffereing from mental disorders in this area of life)

Edited October 9, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also one argument i forgot to make. the idea that order proves God.
you're arguing that something complex, ie existance, was created by something that would be presumably even mroe complex?
where'd that complexity of God come from?
ockham's razor. this is where i usually use ockham's razor arguments with God arguments

[morostheos]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1399224' date='Oct 8 2007, 07:05 AM']Thanks Guys. Keep going. I hope Jeff or L_D venture in here.

Oh, so you can see how it is going so far, here ya go

[url="http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=716291&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0"]http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php...asc&start=0[/url][/quote]

Unfortunately, Jeff won't be stopping by, he's in the novitiate right now with the Dominicans, so he doesn't have access to the internet.

[jeffpugh]

Dang... I thought he was talking about me? haha... oh.. yeah... the PMer Jeff... Alas, I never met the man...

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do welcome more debate on this matter. especially from those who think i am clearly wrong, to explain why that is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ih

[S][N]

Wow that guy rocks. Interesting discussion.

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1399109' date='Oct 7 2007, 09:20 PM']That part made me cringe. He really is objectifying God, seeing belief as quantifiable. A monotheist who believes in one God is not closer to atheism than a polytheist who believes in two dozen. If anything, it is the other way round. Polytheism seeks to quantify the divine, to assign it to designated compartments, to make it easy and understandable. Apply to this god for help in love and this goddess for help in war. The divine becomes a giant customer service department. This corresponds very closely to the atheistic understanding of 'god'. The Judeo-Christian tradition is leagues away from this.

The pair of you are not speaking a common language when you talk about God. I think you need to write that you don't see God as a 'thing', a bigger and better version of a human being seated on a golden throne in the clouds. God is being itself. Your friend may disagree with that statement, but if he thinks closely about its meaning he will realise that your concept of God does not match up with his own. Once he is at least prepared to accommodate this idea, you will be able to talk about the manner of revelation.[/quote]

Dude, that is really impressive. Seriously I had never even thought of it that way before....Wow. R u like a priest or something? where did you get that from?

[dairygirl4u2c]

another interesting thread.

intrested to see some attacks on my theology. esp from the obviouslyists. but also for those who think it's pretty appparent God's existance can be proven. or from those who just want to bicker some half thoughts.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='beatty07' post='1399084' date='Oct 7 2007, 06:37 PM']This guy isn't nearly as smart as he sounds. He's made a respectable thrust toward a position of agnosticism, but atheism is something he holds dogmatically and blindly without any evidence. We can have an intelligent conversation about whether there is or is not evidence that God exists. But that will only get us to agnosticism. For atheism, he has to conclusively prove that God does not exist, and at least in this argument he hasn't even tried.[/quote]


athiesm generally, as i understand, is less about their evidence that god does or does not exist, but more about the lack of one or the other. part of your faith certainly includes that you have seen no conclusive evidence that proves to you that God does not exist, where in athiesm it is more that they have not seen any to prove that god does exist.

[dairygirl4u2c]

is the name jesus lol meant to be jesus laughs out loud?

also, one nuance. miracles that can be done over and over would be very good proof in itself. you could argue that miracles are order, but, still, why would something complex ie existance require something even more complex, ie God? but, to me, if you're consistently performing miracles, you have very good proof and to dissent would be the more unreasonable position.

but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. and the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?
so, i think the most reasonable position is that it's not definitive proof, just circumstantial.

Edited November 6, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

is the name jesus lol meant to be jesus laughs out loud?

also, one nuance. miracles that can be done over and over would be very good proof in itself. you could argue that miracles are order, but, still, why would something complex ie existance require something even more complex, ie God? but, to me, if you're consistently performing miracles, you have very good proof and to dissent would be the more unreasonable position.

but, order, to the magnitude that exists with humans etc, tends to be almost miraclous to some. i don't think it's unreasonable to argue that order is so complex as to be almost miracalous, and put it in the proof for God category. but, i think that it evolved to what it is supports the no definitive proof argument. and the ultimate question remains, that why would something complex require something even more complex?
so, i think the most reasonable position is that it's not definitive proof, just circumstantial.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415177' date='Nov 5 2007, 09:23 PM']is the name jesus lol meant to be jesus laughs out loud?[/quote]


thats one way to look at it. or i am jesus. just kidding.

you raise some good points, though i dont think order as such is a miracle. especially as it is really a series of checks and balances, and it shifts daily. i think of major coincidences and acts that cannot be explained by science as miracles. on the other hand, god wouldnt need to break the laws he set down, in order to affect something.
the whole point of christianity is that it cannot really be proved. which is why it is called faith.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote]why would something complex ie existance require something even more complex, ie God?[/quote]

God is not more complex. God has no parts. God is not a thing like a physical universe which requires a first cause.

Explain to me why Ockham's razor is correct? Why in a random universe is the simplest answer true? Ockham’s razor is not science and it is not a conclusive principle. It relies on hindsight bias after the facts are known.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not saying it's correct. i'm merely saying that it's often right as a rule of thumb. and if you apply it here, then God is just extra fluff that is not needed.

you say God is not more complex. if God encompasses us, then anything beyond us is by definition more complex.

God is not an unreasonable belief given order and other arguments, but he's not provable as logical fact.

reducing God to "first cause" first of all isn't saying much of anything. the first cause can just occur by chance. is that then God? if you define God as first cause though, whatever the case, then that's not more complex than existance, but it's included as part of it and you could legit say that and it not be more complex. but why do we even call that first casue God if it's next to proving nothing? proving God as something more substantial, to make it meaningful, would require that he be more complex than existance.

plus we don't know that there was a first cause. but i'm beginning to repeat myself from all my last posts. we should prbably focus on whether God is more complex or not.

Edited November 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[jeffpugh]

Why would you use an inaccurate yard stick to measure, silly? Explain why you insist on Ockham's razor.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1405479' date='Oct 19 2007, 06:49 PM']Dude, that is really impressive. Seriously I had never even thought of it that way before....Wow. R u like a priest or something? where did you get that from?[/quote]

I'm not a priest, just an ordinary laywoman and armchair theologian. The phrase 'God is being itself' comes from the writing of St Thomas Aquinas. It's a phrase that I always like to unpack in dialogue with atheists, as they take their definition of God far too much for granted.

[cmotherofpirl]

Most atheists insists God doesn't exist, and they are reallly annoyed at Him for just that reason.