Clarification/Follow-up by HANK1 on 01/25/05 12:58 pm:


Pete & Darkstar: "What do you think would the proof of God's existence do to religion?"

Proof is the keyword. If we could PROVE God existed .....! Since I live by God's Word, that's my religion ... better known as Christianity! It's a trick question! Now review my answer again. Of course I believe in God.

Clarification/Follow-up by arcura on 01/25/05 3:32 pm:
Proofs of God do exist. Whether some accept or reject does not change that fact that God exists.
This is a paste from:
www.rockofinspiration.org

In the thirteenth century A.D., St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), one of the greatest Christian theologians to ever live, built upon the work of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and many others to prove that God exists. In his famous Summa Theologica (Pt. 1, Q. 2, Art. 3) Aquinas declares, "The existence of God can be proved in five ways:" If St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs at first seem difficult to understand, don't give up . . . read them over and over. Think of all the time you spend studying superfluous things; you can fully understand these proofs by diverting just some of that time to studying something really important-God!

1. Aquinas' Argument of motion:

"The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. . . . Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another [this coincides with Newton's law that 'a body at rest tends to stay at rest, a body in motion tends to stay in motion!']. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also needs to be put in motion by another, and that by another again [e.g. you were put into motion by your parents, and they by their parents, and so on]. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

2. Aquinas' Argument of efficient causation:

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself [e.g. you did not create yourself, nothing in the
universe created itself]; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first cause is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate cause is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

3. Aquinas' Argument of possibility and necessity:

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some point is not.

Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, at some time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist.; and thus even now nothing would be in existence-which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every
necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

4. Aquinas' Argument of gradation:
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is uttermost being. . . .
Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness and every other perfection; and this we call God.

5. Aquinas' Argument of directedness:

"The fifth way is from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/26/05 6:11 am:
"That is an atheist bothering to make arguments that are little more than word games and time wasters".
.
Dear Choux, from where that haughtiness?
.
My "On belief in God" is just an article that shows the consequences to theists for that what so many seem to hope for.
It also shows that maybe it's better for them that "God" remains a hypothesis.
.
Personally the existence of "God" has not my interest.
But does that mean it's not allowed to discuss the consequences of proving "God"s existence or non-existence?
.
.
"It is obvious that there is no GodAlmighty except in the fervent fantasies of needy believers".
.
As co-atheist I have to ask you know : CAN YOU PROVE THAT?
If your answer is "no", or of the same empty-words level of the theists, my conclusion must be that all that you do is BELIEVE that there is no "God".
I prefer to stay without that belief, pro or against the existence. As an atheist I do not care if "God" exists. I am without "God".
.

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/26/05 7:33 am:
Dear Fred,
.
ALL these arguments (actually more word-games) are based on the assumption (i.e. hypotheisis, claim, belief) that there is a "God", though in different themes.
.
1. Aquinas' Argument of motion:
.
This is a NON-argument.
The entire universe with everything in it is in motion.
That is the natural state that started with the Big Bang.
EVERYTHING is in motion.
.
Your follow-up question on the start of the Big Bang I can counter with the statement that it is impossible that there is a "God" who/that existed forever in our universe that is only 4,6 billion year old.
.
.
2. Aquinas' Argument of efficient causation:
.
This is a NON-argument too.
IF a "god" could exist forever (which I question), than something like an "ultimate energy nucleus" could also exist for ever.
This nucleus can change from matter into energy into matter etc. (Quantum Physics), this could be one of many possible "first causes".
.
.
3. Aquinas' Argument of possibility and necessity:
.
Another NON-argument.
.
Yes we find things that are possible and not possible.
And we find even more things that SEEM possible and not possible.
We simply do not know all that is possible and not-possible.
And any "normal" person would not claim to know all that is possible and not-possible.
IF WE KNEW you could call us all "gods", a highly unlikely to exist entity from the fairy-tale books.
.
Aquinas and theist co's in their quest to believe that they KNOW, jump to consequences, and can not accpet that there will always remain "things" that will remain unknown to mankind.
.
.
4. Aquinas' Argument of gradation:
.
You guessed : also a NON-argument.
.
"as fire, which is the maximum of heat"
.
Oh that Thomas! A medieval spirit debating science?
Fire the maximum of heat? Since when?
The so often totally misunderstood phenomena of entropy is at the basis of this argument.
.
.
5. Aquinas' Argument of directedness:
.
"We see that things which lack intelligence such as natural bodies, act for an end..."
.
Again : a NON-argument, a misunderstanding of nature.
.
4.6 Billion years ago a totally NEW universe was born out of nothing.
Directed to their end?
Or at a certain moment simply transformed into a new start?
Is the bottle half full or half empty?
.
.
Old Thomas was an interesting thinker, but he lacked any scientific insight.
No wonder of course in his time here on earth.
Today we live in the year 2005, and we know better.
As we will know even better in 3005, and again better in 4005 (that is if we use our BRAINS instead of our BELIEFS to prevent the world from being destroyed by humanity).
.
Any other SOUND arguments? Anyone?
.

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/26/05 7:33 am:
Dear Fred,
.
"just because you refuse to accept what you see and know from the obvious...."
.
I/you may "see", but do I/you "know", do I/you UNDERSTAND what I see?
.
.
"...mean that there is no proof that God exists".
.
Indeed : that proof does not exist. It only exists in the minds of the believers.
.
.
"Proofs abound".
.
You told me that often before, but when I asked for these "proofs" you always post CLAIMS, never PROOFS".
.
.
Peace, Fred!

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/26/05 8:28 am:
Freethinker

>>>Atheists (in general) do NOT believe that "god" does exist, nor does not exist.
Atheists are WITHOUT BELIEF IN "god".<<<

Semantics. You are saying the same thing as "G-d doesn't exist" when you say that "you are without belief in G-d". You can't be without belief in something that exists. Ergo, if you are without belief in G-d, you are saying that he does not exist. And the point stands.

>>>The rest of your post had nothing to do with my thesis.<<<

Again, that is 100% incorrect. Your thesis assumes that if G-d's existence is proven it would change religion forever. My response is that it would only change religion if the true nature of G-d were different from what we believe that nature to be. I further postulate that it would have a greater impact on Atheists than it would on religion. The entire response was on topic, and your attempt to ignore it is transparent and blatant.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/26/05 9:51 am:
"You are saying the same thing as "G-d doesn't exist" when you say that"
.
RUBBISH. That's YOUR interpretation.
I know what I am and what I feel I am.
I do not describe you what you are, or what "god" you have to believe, etc.
You owe me the decency to accept MY interpretation of what I am (i.e. what I mean with the word atheism or atheist).
.
I do NOT say that "god" does not exist. I never did.
I can not know, as I have no "Super-Enterprise" that allows me to discover the entire universe in a matter of seconds.
Just as you can not know neither if "god" exists, even if that job is much easier than what I have to do.
I am without belief in "god" : i.e. I do not care if "god" exists (or not), I live my one and only life without any interest for (your) "god".
Why do you have so much problems with accepting that?
.
.
"You can't be without belief in something that exists".
.
That is PRECISELY your problem : there is no proof that that "something" exists.
There is ONLY belief at your side that that something exists.
I am however without that belief.
.
.
"Ergo, if you are without belief in G-d, you are saying that he does not exist".
.
No, I do NOT say that "god" does not exist".
You BELIEVE that perhaps, just as you BELIEVE that "god" exists.
THAT you believe that is fine with me, but it does not elevate your claim into reality!
.
.
"And the point stands".
.
The point is lying flat on it's (theist) face (and faith).
.
.
"Again, that is 100% incorrect".
.
You mean : you are 100% incorrect.
You keep trying to put words in my mouth, instead of reacting on the thesis.
You base yourself on claims, on belief, on your religious hypothesis.
And as long as you keep your mind so closedminded, and as long as you try to support yourself with claims (only), I will mention that when and where I feel necessary.
.
If you don't like that, do not clarify or post replies to my "questions".
.

Clarification/Follow-up by arcura on 01/26/05 11:07 am:
Speaking of word games, Freethinker love to play them. He likes to tell us how up on science he is even going so far as to say that "Oh that Thomas! A medieval spirit debating science
Fire the maximum of heat? Since when?"
What are the hottest things in the universe?
Answer: Stars and their birth and death, all in nuclear fire.
Making claims that Thomas's proofs are word games does not change them from being proofs.
Once again as said before just because you do not accept the proofs as such, does not take away the fact that poof of God exists.
Peace and kindness, Fred

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/26/05 3:03 pm:
Freethinker,

>>>I do not care if "god" exists (or not), I live my one and only life without any interest for (your) "god".<<<

Gee for a guy who doesn't care if G-d exists or not, you sure spend a heck of a lot of time on the subject of G-d. Methinks you doth protest too much.

>>>"You can't be without belief in something that exists".

That is PRECISELY your problem : there is no proof that that "something" exists.
There is ONLY belief at your side that that something exists.
I am however without that belief.<<<

As usual, you have missed the point I was making. I am trying to say that if you knew that G-d did exist, you would be unable to say that you are without belief in Him. That you are capable of saying that you are without beliefe in Him MUST BY DEFINITION MEAN THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE HE EXISTS. There is no other logical interpretation. Therefore, your statement that you are without belief in him is the same as saying that you do not believe he exists.

You cannot ignore the logical conclusions of your own words. Either you do not believe in the existence of G-d or you are misstating your position. But as stated, there is no other interpretation.

Which again means that my point stands.

And you still have not answered my point that Atheism would be effected much more by proof of the existence of G-d than religions would.

Freethinker, no matter what you may think, you are not a particularly good debater. The fact is that you don't answer arguments, you avoid them and try to bring up new points without answering the original ones. But I'm not going to let you get away with that tactic. If you try to avoid the argument, then I will point that out for everyone to see, just as I did here. You won't get away with such an obvious tactic with me. I have never let Aton get away with it (and frankly he's a better and more challenging opponent than you are), and I'm not about to let you do so either.

You're in the big leagues now, boyo.

Now answer the points, and stop trying to ignore them. Or else give up and move on.

>>>And as long as you keep your mind so closedminded, and as long as you try to support yourself with claims (only), I will mention that when and where I feel necessary.<<<

On 3 sepparate occaisions I have offered to give you proof, if you were willing to get into a nice long string, and were willing to be intellectually honest in the discussion. You have never taken me up on the offer. I am not the one being closed-minded, Freethinker. And I have much more than "claims" to back me up. But you have to be willing to go there... and I don't think you have the guts to have your world-view that shaken up.

And before you accuse me of the same thing, let me be very clear... I haven't always believed in G-d or a creator. I've been on both sides of the fence. That is why I can so clearly understand your point of view... I used to be you, at least for a while. I know what you believe better than you do. I had my crisis of faith, and I've had my worldview turned upsidedown. Twice, in fact. First when I lost faith, and the second time, when I found it again. I know how much that kind of shake-up can mess with your head. That's why I know that you are afraid to go through it. That's why you ignore points that are too tough for you to respond to. If you actually responded to them, you would have to re-examine what you believe, and I don't think you can do that.

Let the angry response begin...

(You don't know me.)

(Don't put words in my mouth.)

(Don't project your feelings on me.)

(Your full of garbage.)

I know your reactions before you post them, Freethinker.

I await your comments.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/26/05 6:53 pm:
QUOTE
What are the hottest things in the universe?
Answer: Stars and their birth and death, all in nuclear fire.
UNQUOTE
.
Wrong Fred. They are by far NOT the hottest things in the universe.
That's reserved for the discs of black holes, thousands of times hotter than the hottest stars.
And/or the places where matter/anti-matter reactions take place.
But our Thomas had no idea of such things as star-fire or black-holes.
His "fire" was real "fire", oxygen-carbon reactions (burning).
.
.
QUOTE
Making claims that Thomas's proofs are word games does not change them from being proofs.
UNQUOTE
.
But they are wordgames, Fred, and they are incorrect.
Maybe you do not understand that, but is that my fault?
.
.
QUOTE
Once again as said before just because you do not accept the proofs as such,...
UNQUOTE
.
Wrong Fred : they are no proof.
They are unsupported claims, made by a medieval non-scientific brainwashed monk hundreds of years ago.
.
.
QUOTE
.... not take away the fact that poof of God exists.
UNQUOTE
.
Wrong Fred. There is no such proof.
There is only belief in some people, that these claims are true.
.
.
Salam,

Clarification/Follow-up by darkstar on 01/26/05 7:05 pm:
WHAT???? i thought i was the hottest thing in the universe!!! :(((

Clarification/Follow-up by arcura on 01/26/05 10:18 pm:
Choux,
God Almighty is God, the one and only true God.
There is no other true God.
If a god is not almighty he cannot be the real authentic one and only God.
Therefore...
Your idea that God and God Almighty are two different Gods is not well thought out.
Peace and kindness, arcura

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/27/05 5:16 am:
Ok, maybe I was wrong : YOU are the hottest of all ! :)

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/27/05 5:24 am:
Re. your post to Choux :
.
QUOTE
God Almighty is God, the one and only true God.
UNQUOTE
.
That is what you BELIEVE, Fred.
But you can not PROVE that.
.
.
QUOTE
There is no other true God.
UNQUOTE
.
That is what you BELIEVE, Fred.
But you can not PROVE that.
.
.
QUOTE
If a god is not almighty he cannot be the real authentic one and only God.
UNQUOTE
.
That is what you BELIEVE, Fred.
But you can not PROVE that.
.
.
QUOTE
Your idea that God and God Almighty are two different Gods is not well thought out.
UNQUOTE
.
That is your OPINION, Fred.
But you can not PROVE that.
.
.
I've told you this repeatedly : you may believe that all, and it may be your opinion, but that does not prove your views to be reality.
Is it so difficult to understand that there is a difference?
.

Clarification/Follow-up by darkstar on 01/27/05 10:06 am:
:D i mean one only needs to look at my name, darkstar to know i am the hottest thing in the universe, darkstar=the darkest hottest spots in the universe :D

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 01/27/05 5:31 pm:
freethinker:: Thanks for correcting me. I was very much out of line and overly emotional! :D:D:D

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/28/05 1:41 am:
Dear Choux,
.
yeah ....
I know, I know. It's a hard and dirty job.
But somebody has to do it!
.
Therefore I hope that your fresh understanding of the situation sets a new trend !
:P

Clarification/Follow-up by freethinker on 01/28/05 2:08 pm:
Stony,
.
You have an english translation of that one-liner?

Clarification/Follow-up by STONY on 01/28/05 2:20 pm:
HERE IT IS IN IT'S ENTIRETY.......

The Jews and the Law
17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth– 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: “God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[b]
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.