PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Aquinas's Proofs of God's Existence


KRev
29-07-2004, 01:19 AM
Before your fong me and tie me to a stake,

the purpose of this thread is to discuss/debate/refute/validate Thomas Aquinas's Proofs.

KRev assumes no responsibility for the Proofs. They are the sole intellectual property of Sir Thomas.

*TRY TO KEEP "RELIGION" OUT OF THIS. WE'RE HERE ONLY TO EVALUATE THE VALIDITY OF AQUINAS'S CLAIMS! *

PROOF ONE: Everything in the world changes. Aquinas' argument here needs to be understood against the background of Aristotle's discussion of astronomy. Aristotle argued that planetary motion which caused the seasons to change required an unmoved mover who would maintain the order of things. Aquinas used this notion to speak of the sustaining work of God. Thus without God the heavens and the earth would not exist.

PROOF TWO: The notion of cause and effect means you cannot have the latter (effect) without the former (cause - here called efficient cause (which refers to that which brings another thing into existence or causes something to change)). There cannot be an endless regression of cause and effect thus there must be a first cause which is God.

PROOF THREE: Things exist in the world but they need not. There was a time before certain things existed and there will be a time when they no longer exist. There must also have been a time when nothing existed. Objects have contingent existence (they can or cannot exist) but only God has necessary existence (God must exist). Thus if God did not exist nothing else would exist.

PROOF FOUR: We can see in the world degrees of perfection and goodness. We know these degrees because we can compare them with the maximum in any genus (genus = group of things). As humans have the capacity for both good and bad deeds they cannot be the source of all goodness. Therefore, the maximum in the genus of morality must be God (the most perfect being), who is the 'first cause', or source, of all goodness and perfection.

PROOF FIVE: Nature points to the notion of order in that things seem to have an innate sense of purpose (design?). We know that nothing that has purpose does so without the aid of a 'guiding hand' (E.g. an archer shooting an arrow at a target) thus everything in nature is directed to its goal by God.

Now, go to...

Jacoby
29-07-2004, 01:31 AM
Interesting...
I for one, have always believed in God, or some type of creator. Someone had to start it all when there was nothing to begin with (stated in "PROOF THREE".) I also believe in a higher being because of the personalities in humans...

KRev
29-07-2004, 01:49 AM
Even atheistic scientists acknowledge that the universe must've had a beginning. Hence the Big Bang Theory.

Matter cannot be eternal, given the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy).

Aquinas recognized this during the medieval ages!

DragonRat
29-07-2004, 02:13 AM
I'd let Baz handle most of the cosmological argument here, because my apologetic stance deals mostly with morality. But, the biggest problem with Aquinas' Five Ways is due to the belief in finite time. If time was an infinite regress, then there would be no need for a so-called 'First Cause'. And, as Big Bang theorists propound, time existed only immediately after the Big Bang, in which from an infinitesimal point in space-time derived from all directions the very fabric of space-time.

But if you believe that something must have caused the Big Bang, the relation of cause and effect must be due to some temporal substance; that is, a cause must precede the effect, and the effect must proceed from the cause. However, if time did not exist BEFORE the Big Bang, then to be sure there was no temporal cause FOR the Big Bang, and it was both a cause and effect in and of itself.

Most scientists now do agree that the Big Bang is the cause of the universe, but you cannot necessarily be sure that something caused the Big Bang. Most theorists believe that the Big Bang caused itself. But we cannot really use the word 'cause' in relation to anything before or at the moment of the Big Bang, simply because the word 'cause' connotates time, and time did not exist then - only AFTER the Big Bang.

As for the argument from design, I'll get back to you on that.

(Mind you, I'm a Christian, and I seem to have an interest in apologetics. I'm only proffering what I have learned from past debates and my own reading, as a method of learning.)

KRev
29-07-2004, 02:18 AM
I see your "time" point, DR.

However, when stated behind my suppositions it--all due respect--seems like a red herring. Not to negate your point. Just a thought.

I'll await a theory for the lifespan of matter and answer to my entropy point.

DragonRat
29-07-2004, 03:36 AM
I don't expect it to be considered a 'red herring', simply because theism itself can be considered a 'red herring' in itself. As most people think, it is just as difficult to prove God's existence, as it is to disprove it.

As J.L. Mackie writes in his book "The Miracle of Theism", to believe that things exist for a reason, for contingency, may only "[express] an arbitrary demand; it may be intellectually satisfying to believe that there is, objectively, an explanation for everything together, even if only we can guess at what the explanation might be. But we have no right to assume that the universe will comply with our intellectual preferences" (Mackie 86-87).

For the fourth point, that involves morality, which is more or less my bread and butter, when it comes to apologetical belief. For one thing, many people debate whether or not morality even exists. Morality, like ethics, derives from society, from whether or not something is divined to be good or bad, based upon preference of the culture. What one culture believes to be manifestly good, may indeed be considered taboo in another. What makes Hitler a bad person? Is it the culture of the world at the time that Hitler made his mark?

Yet, I think Hitler is a bit too extreme of a model character. Take the average person. What makes his actions moral and just? Is it simply because he believes it to be moral and just, or that society around him thinks it so? If murder to one person is justifiable, does that make murder in all cases justifiable? And the existence of such creatures as Adolf Hitler is of itself a point against morality: why would God create such evil beings? Why is there evil in the world at all? And even if we did Fall, and Original Sin does exist, why doesn't God simply absolve it?

As for design, the fifth point, the greatest argument probably comes from David Hume, in which he derives five points of discussion (in chronological order) to debate the argument from design:

1) Is the connection between nature and order close enough to make theism a plausible explanation?

2) If so, then still would alternative hypotheses weaken the theistic possibility, and render it moot.

3) If even the theistic possibility is true, then one would still have to postulate to the reasoning behind the theistic Designer, whose very existence must be explained, as it is another case of order and design.

4) And even if the Designer's existence is proven, then one would invariably believe it moot, simply because the Designer's moral component in designing the universe is void due to the existence and occurrence of evil.

5) And even if all four of the previous statements can be answered, one cannot begin to postulate on the workings of the world around us using the argument - including prayer (both answered and unanswered), why good men are punished for crimes they have not committed, why bad men go free, etc., or even to the existence of a possible afterlife.

alby
29-07-2004, 06:59 AM
No one can prove or disprove God's existence.

deviljet88
29-07-2004, 09:55 AM
Who thought of God? Its only a term made by humans to tell themselves, ahhh that's the one who has created us. And I've always wondered if God just came into existence by himself. Its a never ending chain of events stretching billions of years. There's no point really to argue it =| Alby said it, you can't prove or disprove His existence.

Glare
29-07-2004, 10:26 AM
I'm glad I gave up religion years ago, I can laugh at all this.

:icon_popc

DragonRat
29-07-2004, 11:00 AM
Yet, it is the very question that haunts us in the deep recesses of our mind. Is there a purpose to life? And if so, what is that purpose? I think the question of God is probably the most commonly mocked yet decidedly important ponderance. Whether we have meaning to our lives, whether what we do makes any difference to the world in general, is the choice we live with every moment of our waking lives.

And of course most people think it is impossible to either prove or disprove God's existence, a handful spend their entire lives doing just that. I think it is, simply because it has to be either one or the other. If God cannot be proven or disproven, and all we really have to go on is pure 'blind faith', then I think that would lead ultimately to ignorance. (This not to say that those who believe blindly are stupid, but rather that in my opinion, I would like to believe that belief requires not something so blind, but rather something as spiritual - that we can actually know and acknowledge.) If God does not exist, then so be it. But if He does, then that would raise just as many questions.

Early theologians believed as Anselm and Augustine did, that one does not know in order to believe, but rather one believes in order to know. And in a way, that is truth.

barrington
29-07-2004, 11:15 AM
Points one, two and three are invalid because Aquinas knew nothing about the nature of time as a function of space.

Point five is invalid because Aquinas knew nothing of Natural Selection or Anthropic Principle.

Some philsophers (Plato, Hume, Descartes) proposed ideas that stood the test of time. Aquinas was someone I never had much faith in, since his ideas rest on foundations of reality that have, in the last hundred years, been shaken to pieces.

Sarah
29-07-2004, 11:55 AM
I see no proof that God is exsists. Religion was created by man, so it never exsited in the first place.

barrington
29-07-2004, 12:18 PM
And with so many worldwide religions, statistically it would appear prudent to assume that they all branched from a single instance and thus we could say with some certainty that ALL modern religions are incorrect.

With every organised religious institution's view that theirs is the ONLY right one to follow, it cannot be that they are all correct. Ergo it is almost certain that they are, infact, all wrong.

gracie
29-07-2004, 03:31 PM
i believe in them. ive been reading this really interesting book one on christian apologetics by peter kreeft. fabulous in a later chapter he discusses the proofs when i get there. ill share his thoughts. ibelieve them having studied them sophmore year of hs though im a little rusty.

DragonRat
29-07-2004, 08:15 PM
There actually should be a difference in pondering whether religion is right, or whether God exists or not. One can disapprove of organized religion as a whole, simply because different churches have different ideas about what is right and what is wrong. However, one can still believe in a personal deity, and that is where apologetics helps. Religion is meant to focus on what God is, and what His purpose is for the world, and how we must act in accordance with His plans. The existence of God acknowledges nothing about His purpose or designs (if there is such a thing), simply that He has created the world.

The major monotheistic religions of the world - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - all coincide from the same deity, though worshipped in different ways. Whether or not any one of the three are wrong can be easily debated, but why they actually believe in a God is a different matter.

Moe
29-07-2004, 08:52 PM
The weird thing is not that supposedly God sent his own son to earth to die for the sins of man. The weird thing is that this actually makes sense to about a billion people.

Elijahfan
29-07-2004, 09:31 PM
i believe there is a creator of the world, doesnt nessarily have to be god or have the same principles, but going to a catholic school for the last 9 years of my life, i've realized that the school has really been imbedding their beliefs in the students, even if it's their choice (or parents) to be there. i find it funny that in religion class, i can just fake everything, like in papers all you have to do is say you believe in God and go along with the everything they say. it's actually really easy to get a good grade.

really i agree with Barrington, everything he says is true and undisputable, it's like he's god.....

KRev
29-07-2004, 10:08 PM
OK.

Apparently few people actually read the first post.

Guess they just saw the word God, their brains shut off, and their mouths went into "Religion is stupid mode." (You know who you are.)

If you can't evaluate Aquinas's claims with the least bit of logic--proof of your conjectures would be nice, too--then stop spamming the thread!

Gawww... It's like teaching Kindergarten... Special Ed.

Now I know how the Mods feel...

Nick
30-07-2004, 09:40 AM
I wouldn't call them Aquinas's "proofs" because the word proof implies that you have facts and hard evidence, which you clearly don't have. I'd say they're more like Aquinas's speculations, because I see no hard evidence or facts to prove the existence of God in Aquinas's claims. I need to see evidence and facts before I'll completely believe something. So even though you can't really disprove the existence of God I still choose not to believe. I like to compare it to things like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Even though people claim they exist I'm not just going to take their word for it, I have never seen either of these creatures nor have I seen any good evidence to prove their existence. So even though their existence cannot really be disproved I choose not to believe in them until someone presents me with some good evidence.

DragonRat
30-07-2004, 11:12 AM
I wouldn't call them Aquinas's "proofs" because the word proof implies that you have facts and hard evidence, which you clearly don't have. I'd say they're more like Aquinas's speculations, because I see no hard evidence or facts to prove the existence of God in Aquinas's claims. I need to see evidence and facts before I'll completely believe something. So even though you can't really disprove the existence of God I still choose not to believe. I like to compare it to things like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Even though people claim they exist I'm not just going to take their word for it, I have never seen either of these creatures nor have I seen any good evidence to prove their existence. So even though their existence cannot really be disproved I choose not to believe in them until someone presents me with some good evidence.

Spoken like a true logical positivist :P. The one thing that the theistic philosophers Alvin Platinga and Richard Swinburne agree upon, is that it is not just the proofs that Aquinas proffer, but rather all the circumstantial evidence - not physical evidence, mind you - that all these so-called 'speculative' proofs offer. With all these possible evidences taken into account - what with design or morality or what have you - they all combine into one singular proof that can only lead to one plausible answer - that God does exist.

Of course, one with physical evidence... one can only theorize about so many things - such as electrons. You cannot experience electrons for yourself, but for the most part, can witness its effect in nature. And that is more or less an indirect and circumstantial piece of evidence, not a direct, physical form which you, Nick, so dearly wish to have.

If it is something that one can understand with the five senses, then such evidence cannot necessarily be given. Empirically speaking, it is almost impossible to truly prove the existence of God. However, one must therefore take a step into conjectural reasoning, and read the arguments for oneself. It is not just the cosmological argument, or the teleological argument, or the argument from design, or from morality, or consciousness, or miracles, but rather the combined efforts of argumentation of all the previously mentioned.

Hazzle
30-07-2004, 04:11 PM
Actually, I think to restrict knowledge to our senses is ridiculous (me backing up a proof of God's existence...how rare) Who's to say we should trust our senses? Perhaps our senses delude us? Perhaps what we see is not the truth, but a quasi-fictional reflection, a shadow of the truth...you can tell I'm big into Plato :p

Moe
30-07-2004, 11:28 PM
Well that is obviously true, Hazzle. We perceive the world not what it is like. We don't see atoms and molecules, we see water and stones. Even with microscopes we can't see the particles that make up the atoms. We only know they are there because of their reaction with other particles. And all of that is supposedly just a bunch of quantum wave functions. So no, what we see is not the "truth", although I wouldn't use that word here. After all, what we see isn't false, it is just... inaccurate, maybe.

KRev: How about you stop insulting people in discussion threads?

I don't think it is possible to prove the existance of a god. Usually religions are based on faith. My personal opinion is that I refuse to believe in a god as depicted in the bible. I especially disagree with the catholic church, which in some regards creates a lot of drag and prevents or slows advancements in science (not anymore, but remember Galileo?) and society (still doing that). In any case, since the existance of a god cannot be proven or disproven, I am willing to accept the fact that there might be a higher being, however it is extremely unlikely that it is anything like what we imagine it to be.

Nick
31-07-2004, 09:14 AM
I define reality as what I can perceive with one or more of my five senses. I've heard people use the argument that you can't see atoms but we still know they're there so you can believe in God the same way you believe in atoms. The difference is that even though I can't see an atom I can detect the effects an atom has on the perceivable world. For instance if you mix certain chemicals together they react to one another because their molecular make up is different, so that right there proves that there is something going on underneath that we can't see (at least not without help of instruments such as microscopes) and we know it's the molecules which are made up of atoms that are reacting to eachother. God on the other hand, if "he" really is there that is, cannot be perceived by the five senses. "He" doesn't do anything that can be detected in our perceivable, physical universe therefore he doesn't technically exist. However the Christian Bible often speaks of a "spiritual realm" which we humans cannot understand until after we are dead. So even if this "spiritual realm" is there we cannot detect it with any of our five senses so to us it does not exist, it doesn't mean it's not there it just simply means we aren't aware of it. So even if God really is there and is part of this "spiritual realm" we cannot detect it with our five senses which are meant to help us perceive the universe so for all intents and purposes "he" doesn't exist.

Moe
31-07-2004, 10:48 AM
Actually, you can see atoms. There is an extremely impressive picture of the logo "IBM" formed out of individual atoms. I just can't find the URL anymore, maybe someone here has it?

Nick, your reasoning has one flaw though: When you hit high-speed particles against each other, they form new particles. At least that is our interpretation of what we see on our instruments. While it is a pretty solid theory and most likely true, there is a chance that we screwed up the interpretation. The same is possible with acts of god.

Hazzle
31-07-2004, 10:57 AM
Of course it all depends what one means by existence...I mean one might dispute if WE exist (and no, don't give me the Descartes "I think, therefore I am" bullshit...because "I think I exist, therefore I do" doesn't really work...if existence is to be something OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE).

I mean if we're trying to prove God's existence OBJECTIVELY (because subjectively one might say he exists in those who believe in him, because they think he exists, therefore he does, according to Descartes' theory :)) then we have to define existence objectively, and if we cannot prove our own existence objectively, I fail to see how our senses can be the means by which we define existence.

See kids, this is why Nihilism fucks with your head.

barrington
01-08-2004, 03:37 PM
Just for KRev: Things Creationists Hate (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/thingscreationistshate.htm)
:icon_err:

DragonRat
01-08-2004, 10:45 PM
I think that proves the reactionist mold of creationists, and how they tend to ignore specific scientific phenomena, as long as it fits their regular bill of biblical theory. They tend to see science books, read them, and do not believe a word they say, simply because it faults their already existing theistic beliefs. However, that is not the case for many theologians today, who argue fervently for God's purpose and design in science.

It is a strange thing, to see creationists downright mock and scorn evolution. For one thing, if they cannot admit to themselves about fossils and other archaeological evidence toward the slow rate of evolution, then I do not think that anything can necessarily be argued against them.

KRev
02-08-2004, 02:19 AM
"Evolutionists" and "Creationists" do have something in common...

Persons from both camps can be posed with questions that they are unable to answer. Strange trait to have in common.

OK. So everyone's agreed that "Proofs" for God's existence are moot since (a) the existence of God can never be proved by logic or tangible evidence, or (b) there is no "God" to begin with. All righty then...

==================

Here's another oft used piece of "conservative rhetoric":

Take two people. One believes in God, another rejects. Both die having lived by their beliefs.

If God and that whole Hell concept were untrue, both the believer and unbeliever are in a perpetual state of nothingness. No loss either way.

However, if the believer was right--there is a holy, just God who controls the fate of our eternal souls--then doesn't it make more sense to believe, simply because the eternal rewards/punishments are so much greater?

KRev
02-08-2004, 02:28 AM
Just for... everyone I guess:

http://www.creationscience.com :icon_err:

Yet another site with claims aplenty that (I assume) no one in this forum has the education and scientific background to reasonably answer...

Correct me, if I'm wrong.

deviljet88
02-08-2004, 02:29 AM
Well the one who doesn't believe goes to Hell isn't it? What if its another God, and by following the Christian one, you get sent to hell or even banished from all life? who knows.

KRev
02-08-2004, 02:36 AM
Hole #1:

The possible existence of other gods...

DragonRat
02-08-2004, 02:46 AM
If you succumb to Pascal's Wager, then you basically move life into nothing more than a coincidence. There's no "why not" when you believe in something as important as a God. And even so, to trust in the Wager, is to believe in an afterlife, or at least consider the possibility of it. There are atheists who do believe in an afterlife, but not a God. Go figure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for... everyone I guess:

http://www.creationscience.com

Yet another site with claims aplenty that (I assume) no one in this forum has the education and scientific background to reasonably answer...

Correct me, if I'm wrong.

Don't assume again, KRev, especially about this topic. Apologetics is important to me, and if you cannot make your point clear without belittling others, then don't try at all.

KRev
02-08-2004, 02:52 AM
***OFF TOPIC***

Is there anyone here who believes DR is only 19?

(For if thou tellest the truth, thou art the wisest barely legal human I have ever encountered)

And if someone believes his age, do you have verifable proof?

***END OFF TOPIC***

:)

KRev
02-08-2004, 02:54 AM
My assumption was not about your view on apologetics, but on whether or not anyone had the degrees/background that would make their conjectures so trustworthy...

I don't. Anyone else want to be honest?

AND WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE GETTING HAND-SLAPPED FOR HURTING OTHERS' FEELINGS?

DragonRat
02-08-2004, 03:00 AM
Simply because you are the hardcore creationist in this entire forum (or at least the most outspoken), while everyone else has either developed an evolution-creation synthesis (like I have), or is completely evolutionist and does not believe in God. At some point, this debate will end up on bad terms, with each side fighting to prove the other wrong.

Also, the way you post your objections and arguments, tends to come off as a bit condescending.

KRev
02-08-2004, 03:02 AM
Me condescending? Phrases like "ignorant piss ant," "guys in white jackets," "imbecile" ring a bell?

So to get respected I would have to change/adapt my beliefs, yeah?

DragonRat
02-08-2004, 03:34 AM
Just because you are the scapegoat for creationism, does not mean you must act as a know-it-all and express contempt for evolutionists and evolutionism. And even if others express a similar contempt for creationism and attack you ad hominem, that still does not give them express purpose to do what they do. So why even try to stick to their level?

To be honest, what you propose - that evolution does not exist, and that creation is the absolute answer to the beginnings of the world - does not bode well with many of the forum users. For them, they have grown up in a scientific world, understanding and learning through the use of their senses and the Scientific Method. They see you as an ignorant fundamentalist, merely because you do not believe in something that they themselves believe, just as strongly as you in creation. And by proffering your own beliefs through a filter of condescension and scorn, you also end up sounding arrogant - hardly the humble theologian. Amazingly, the average theologian that people perceive, is exactly that arrogant, ignorant fundamentalist that you seem to standardize.

I have held my own (hopefully) in a previous discussion on theism, without acting pompous or foolish. If you wish to hold your own, then don't act like you have the answer to everything - and that everyone else is either uneducated or unforgiving - just that you have a strong opinion inclined toward something (as do the others), and try your best to articulate it.

KRev
02-08-2004, 04:00 AM
Thanks.

Nick
02-08-2004, 07:00 AM
Okay I have to vent a little frustration here. I was debating creation vs. evolution with someone the other day and this person used the argument that "even Darwin himself admitted his theories were wrong about evolution." This is a lame argument and I hope no one is gullible enough to believe it because Darwin did no such thing. He stood by his theory of evolution to the day he died. This is simply an argument used by creationists when they've run out of any sort of intelligent arguments to support creationism. What's even worse is most of the people who use that argument don't even do the research to find out if it's true, they only say it because they heard their pastor say it and God forbid (no pun intended) they should admit that the pastor could be wrong or dare I say....... lying.

Moe
02-08-2004, 10:27 AM
So to get respected I would have to change/adapt my beliefs, yeah?

No, just your posting style.

By the way, DevilJets argument is valid. A lot of religions have a commandment similar to "I am the one and only, don't you dare pray to anyone else". Therefore, by picking the wrong religion, you damn yourself to hell, perhaps even more so than the guy who doesn't believe in any god at all - at least he didn't worship the wrong god.

On a sidenote, I find it hard to believe that only a person who believes in God may go to heaven, whereas a non-believer, no matter how "good" he has been during his life time, is automatically sent to hell. That doesn't sound very christian to me.

DragonRat
02-08-2004, 08:06 PM
On a sidenote, I find it hard to believe that only a person who believes in God may go to heaven, whereas a non-believer, no matter how "good" he has been during his life time, is automatically sent to hell. That doesn't sound very christian to me.

For one, it's not just a Christian idea; almost every religion believes in the same capacity, more or less. Every religion is very exclusive, except for the occasional Buddhism, Bahaism, or Unitarianism. The point to consider though, is whether or not one believes in an afterlife. If an atheist does not believe in an afterlife, then whatever he does, it doesn't matter if he's going anywhere at the end. So, if the standard Christian condemns an atheist to hell, the atheist can simply reply, "Well, I don't believe in hell. What does that to do with me?"

Of course, condemnation and judgment is a peculiar trait among many who look at Christianity on the outside. Yes, many Christians are judgmental, but so are many other traditional and orthodox believers of other religions. And the majority of believers do not have such an arrogance about them; you simply choose to see the bad seeds, simply because they are the most outspoken.

As for differing religions and their claims to authority, it all really depends. I say that, if you want to learn more about them, then read more about them. The common person will see several religions and base his atheism, because they all believe in different things. Well, if you choose to investigate further, perhaps you can learn that there is one religion above them all, that can answer all your questions. If that would be Christianity, then go for it; if not, then go for the other one.

The main point that many theologians and atheists dictate is this: if you believe in something, believe in it whole-heartedly. Don't go half-way, and don't wade in the shallow waters, when the truth is over across the deep end. If you consistently question or doubt your beliefs, or your lack thereof, then do some investigation. It wouldn't hurt to learn more, and in the end, you'll find yourself satisfied at the prospect of finding something worthwhile.

And sorry to KRev: he didn't want this thread to end up on a debate of religion (only on theism). Still, he asked for it, and most of the representative theistic philosophers here on this board are Christians, while the rest are either atheists or agnostics.

Moe
02-08-2004, 10:17 PM
I think you missed my point. To clarify, consider this hypothetical situation:
Let's say the bible is correct, there really is a god, and he is exactly as described by Christianity.
Now, we have a person, let's call him John. John is an atheist. He is also a very caring man, and after studying, oh, let's say medicine, he devotes his life to fight diseases in a third-world country. The pay sucks, the hours suck, every few years a neighboring country invades, he has to deal with disease, death, and hatred. Yet he still stays, and his work really improves the life of many people.
When John dies, would he go to Heaven? Most religions seem to have a firm belief in their god as a prerequisite for getting into their version of a paradise after your death. It seems to me that an almighty god wouldn't really have to give a fuck whether or not somebody prays to him or even believes to him, as long as his work is being done?

Hazzle
03-08-2004, 12:57 AM
I find myself in entire agreement with Moe...how rare.

And to reiterate KRev, it was entirely your posting style that pissed me off, hence my insults :)

DragonRat
03-08-2004, 02:10 AM
Heh, then you come into the territory of why he's a good person in the first place.

natedawg1486
14-04-2008, 01:33 AM
Ok first i will reply to the orginal message about Aquinas's proofs:
first about the cause and effect i find a huge problem in this, Aquinas says that God is the "original cause" but where did God come from, and which God are we talking about??? are we talking about El-Shadai (the name that the hebrew God gave to Abraham [A history of God, Karen Armstrong, p. 14]) or Yhwh (the name God gave to Moses on Mt. Sainai). In ancient Sumer they believed that the Gods emerged two by two out of a watery marsh which was cinsidered to be divine. In this belief system God was an affect rather than a cause. But Thomas would claim that God is the original cause.

Secondly: throughout these posts there has been discussion about comparing the evolutionist to the creationist. I don't think that this is a comparison that someone can make. They are two completely different subjects, evolution is a science where as creation is a belief. Evolution has been subjected to the rigours of the scientific method and was tested many times before. Creationism can't be tested by the scientific method. Therefore to compare the two is doing an injustice to all of the hard work of all scientists around the world who do use the scientific method on a regular basis to create such medecines as the poleo vaccine and the measles vaccine wich have saved many lifes.

Thirdly: there has been a discussion concerning the fact of an afterlife and how it effects the existance of God. But (as i do expect most of the posters are of the 3 main monotheistic faiths or atheist of agnostic) Jews do not believe in an afterlife, rather they believe that the kingdom of God will reign down on earth, and the descendants of the 12 tribes of judaism will inherit the kingdom. So i don't think that we should use the existance of an afterlife as a reasonable argument for the existance of a God, whichever it may be (especially concerning the fact that judaism was the first monotheistic religion ever, and birthed christianity and Islam)

Digital_Ice
22-04-2008, 07:35 AM
was it really necessary to bump a thread that's 4 years old?