Thomas Aquinas's Proofs of God's Existence - Page 2

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

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
: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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRev

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

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

Quote:

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.

01-08-2004, 10:45 PM	#27
DragonRat Officer Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: California Posts: 507	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. __________________ "I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good, and we're just wasting time." - Mitch Hedberg (1968-2005) "Football is about if you want to run and fight for each other, if you really want to play that killer ball." - Robin van Persie, Arsenal FC

02-08-2004, 03:00 AM	#35
DragonRat Officer Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: California Posts: 507	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. __________________ "I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good, and we're just wasting time." - Mitch Hedberg (1968-2005) "Football is about if you want to run and fight for each other, if you really want to play that killer ball." - Robin van Persie, Arsenal FC

02-08-2004, 03:02 AM	#36
KRev Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 85	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? Last edited by KRev; 02-08-2004 at 03:56 AM.

02-08-2004, 03:34 AM	#37
DragonRat Officer Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: California Posts: 507	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. __________________ "I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans, because maybe they're just as good, and we're just wasting time." - Mitch Hedberg (1968-2005) "Football is about if you want to run and fight for each other, if you really want to play that killer ball." - Robin van Persie, Arsenal FC

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

30-07-2004, 04:11 PM	#21
Hazzle Sponsored Cunt Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 5,168	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

30-07-2004, 11:28 PM	#22
Moe Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 78	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.

31-07-2004, 09:14 AM	#23
Nick Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Oregon, U.S.A. Posts: 164	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.

31-07-2004, 10:48 AM	#24
Moe Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 78	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.

31-07-2004, 10:57 AM	#25
Hazzle Sponsored Cunt Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 5,168	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.

01-08-2004, 03:37 PM	#26
barrington Kite-Eating Tree Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Copenhagen Posts: 1,121	Just for KRev: Things Creationists Hate :icon_err:

02-08-2004, 02:19 AM	#28
KRev Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 85	"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?

02-08-2004, 02:28 AM	#29
KRev Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 85	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.

02-08-2004, 02:36 AM	#31
KRev Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 85	Hole #1: The possible existence of other gods...

02-08-2004, 02:52 AM	#33
KRev Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 85	*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*

02-08-2004, 02:54 AM	#34
KRev Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 85	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?

02-08-2004, 04:00 AM	#38
KRev Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 85	Thanks.

02-08-2004, 07:00 AM	#39
Nick Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Oregon, U.S.A. Posts: 164	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)