R
ricmat
Guest
If instead of a blue rock, you found an incredibly complex machine in your front yard…I’ll bet you’d think that it was designed by someone. And not that the pieces randomly came together to form it.
- Status
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Argument from design. We’ve been over this before, though maybe not in this thread. The Cosmological and Teleogical are among the weakest arguments for God, surpassed in their ineptitude only by the arguments from tradition and majority.
R
ricmat
Guest
Perhaps we’ve been over it, but others have not. My response was not actually to you, but to somebody else.
What strikes you as a weak argument is sometimes compelling to others because of other insights they may have had.
N
Nepenthe
Guest
Strikes me? No, I’m not quite that whim or desire-based in my enquiry, though I am probably those things as much as the next person in my impulses. What insights might those be? I ask trustingly, yet I realize that the supposition of the supernatural will likely be at the basis of any answers that anyone cares to give.
Please know that I strive to understand theists, and to help theists understand those who are not given to belief as such. I do not ask that question in order to bait and switch, though I can’t guarantee against it either. Do tell me, clearly and without code, what these insights are! I and others may disassemble some of them if they warrant such, but I realize how futile such arguments may be under some mindsets and circumstances.
Please know that I strive to understand theists, and to help theists understand those who are not given to belief as such. I do not ask that question in order to bait and switch, though I can’t guarantee against it either. Do tell me, clearly and without code, what these insights are! I and others may disassemble some of them if they warrant such, but I realize how futile such arguments may be under some mindsets and circumstances.
N
not_a_theist
Guest
It comes natural to me.
What is it that you can’t understand? The science of evolution, abiogenesis, and other fields of biology or that disbelievers don’t subscribe to the argument from ignorance combined with the default answer of “god did it”?I mean, how do you explain not only how human life begun, but where do you think we get our feelings, thoughts, ideas etc from?
Granted, nature is pretty clever, but not clever enough to not only invent ‘humans’, but millions of other species of life onto one planet.
If there was no God, where do all these things come from?
I just cant understand it, please try and explain it to me.
T
theistgal
Guest
I’ve been both an atheist and a theist, so pardon me for trying to look at both sides.
But sometimes, doesn’t it seem like we’re standing on two sides of a deep, bottomless chasm, and we’re trying to shout messages to each other? And we’re so far apart that we can barely hear each other, and what does make it across is garbled and unclear.
Sure, every so often, someone crosses from one side to the other on a shaky, makeshift bridge, and thinks that because they made it, everyone else can - failing to notice that the bridge they crossed on fell into the chasm behind them.
What we need are better bridges.
But sometimes, doesn’t it seem like we’re standing on two sides of a deep, bottomless chasm, and we’re trying to shout messages to each other? And we’re so far apart that we can barely hear each other, and what does make it across is garbled and unclear.
Sure, every so often, someone crosses from one side to the other on a shaky, makeshift bridge, and thinks that because they made it, everyone else can - failing to notice that the bridge they crossed on fell into the chasm behind them.
What we need are better bridges.
C
cpayne
Guest
Dear Nepenthe: In previous posts, you appear to think of natural law and the laws of (physical) nature as the same thing (?–although I’m not sure of that. You seemed to mention natural law and the law of gravity together, as if they were similar?).
In this post, you put together the cosmological argument, teleological, and argument from design as if they were identical, which they aren’t.
Aquinas’s teleological argument points out that non-intelligent entities which appear to act with purpose have intelligence behind them. Scientists speak in teleological language all the time. Humans attend classes IN ORDER TO get a degree; sea turtles swim ashore IN ORDER TO lay their eggs; blood clots IN ORDER TO prevent bleeding to death.
Do humans have intentional purpose? Yes. Do sea turtles? Probably not. Does blood? Definitely not. Yet it appears to act with intentional purpose.
This argument isn’t the argument from design, nor is it the cosmological argument. You might not buy it, but it is not self-evidently “inept.”
R
ricmat
Guest
Nepenth, I used the term “strikes you” because you see this argument as weak. It has stricken others as quite good. People have different backgrounds and experiences, so there is no “best argument” for everybody. You may “disassemble” them in your mind, but your disassembly may not be viewed as such by others. There are many arguments for the existence of God. If there were just one slam-dunk argument, then I suppose all the others could be thrown away.
There are many threads to which ex-atheists contribute, and you can see lots of different reactions on those posts. You can find those if you use the search feature.
You say that you are trying to understand theists (and I think you might have said previously that you were open to the existence of God - assuming adequate proof - but correct me if I’m wrong). I admire you for keeping an open mind on this. It must be very difficult for you to be in a Catholic forum.
I have a suggestion. There are many Catholics who are very direct in the sense of saying something that comes across as “because the bible says so, or because God says so…” This sounds like a cop-out I’m sure, but often there is a great deal of rational thought and analysis behind those statements. They’re not the starting point of that person’s argument, but the end point. Be patient with them if they don’t convince you!
Since you’ve read the work of Aquinas, although you may disagree with him, you probably admit that he was a giant intellect. At the peak of his career, he had a vision, and stopped his writing and philosophical investigations. When asked, he told of his vision, and said that his writings were all straw. He had seen the Truth in the vision, and realized that no matter his intellect and his theology, words were not capable of conveying what he came to know.
Many people experience mini-epiphanies with respect to God. These make the “give me proof” thing sort of meaningless, or at least less meaningful than one might have thought at the beginning.
And one hint for you - before I forget - if someday you find yourself standing before God in judgment, and he asks why you didn’t believe in him, a good answer would be simply “Lord have mercy.” Actually, that’s a good answer for everybody.
R
ricmat
Guest
Cpayne - I’m probably the one that mentioned this initially to Nementhe. I’m not sure she got my point. My point was that in the beginning, just as God created the physical natural laws which govern the nature of the universe (gravity, electricity, etc.), so also did God create the moral laws (also called wisdom in some cases). And that when we disobey e.g. gravity, we go “splat.” And when we disobey the moral laws, we also go splat, or reasonable facsimile thereof. Not because there is some arbitrary punishment for disobeying the law, but because it’s just a natural consequence of it being there, like gravity.
The physical and moral laws do have in common that they were created by God, and that they are at least partially accessible to reason (although we need some help with the moral law).
Actually, my memory isn’t what it used to be, so it’s possible I mentioned this to someone else…
L
little_princess
Guest
Im sorry that i might didnt read all posts in that thread, but i saw name of topic and i got question to Athiests and Agnostic. Do you deny existence of God (Absolute, Highest power or whataver you may call it ), or you deny only religion as a some “frame builder” for humanity? or?
p.s Dont judge me if that question is stupid but im not improved in Atheistic Idelogy so.
p.s Dont judge me if that question is stupid but im not improved in Atheistic Idelogy so.
T
theistgal
Guest
Some atheists “deny”, others “lack a belief”.
N
not_a_theist
Guest
You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive. Disbelievers can have different opinions about the god of Christianity and the god of Deism, say.
C
cpayne
Guest
This is the second time I’ve noticed this phrase on this thread: “the Christian God” or “the God of Christianity.” What does this mean? Does it mean God?
M
Mirdath
Guest
With the exception of strong atheists, denial isn’t even in the picture. I do not believe in any deity because I have no compelling reason to believe, and have seen no evidence that such a being exists. Nor, of course, have I seen any evidence to the contrary. ‘Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed’, if you remember, but some of us, like Thomas, have to put our fingers in it before we make an absolute statement
Religion is a different issue. If there is some kind of supreme being, obviously all religions can’t be right as to its nature, intent, level of interest in humanity, and so on and so forth. So from an outsider’s point of view, they all seem about equally likely to be wrong. One of them may be correct; or none. Until the first question is answered, though, it doesn’t really matter overmuch.
R
ricmat
Guest
Isn’t this like saying “Atheism can’t be right because there are so many different forms of it…”?
And your actions before you actually believe do make a difference. You get credit for seeking (which it appears that you are doing).
Actually I pray that you can someday put your fingers in the wounds, like Thomas (or satisfactory equivalent thereof). Of course, God may be saying “Hey look, I created the universe in all it’s magnificence…and you want a personal sign that I exist that can out do creation? What are you, nuts?”
N
Nepenthe
Guest
That is how I use the term ‘natural law’, if I must, yes,and opposed to ‘Natural Moral Law’, which is ridiculous in hubris and particulars, no matter who is espousing it, without regard to any cultural affiliations, in that capital-letter form.
And I have immense respect for Thomas Aquinas! I also have immense respect for William of Ockham, who will, in the words of one of my monk-teachers, ‘never be beatified, let alone canonized’ though he fought, physically, for the restoration of the papacy to Rome! But neither he nor my other mistresses and masters in the halls of academe ever said that Ockham’s teachings were unworthy, because they were demonstrably worthy and have lead to some truly marvelous achievements.
I too wonder just what people are talking about when they go on about this ‘Christian God’. I am what some might call an ‘enlightened savage’ so the entire discussion seems rather goofy to me.
C
cpayne
Guest
What I had in the back of my mind was something C.S. Lewis wrote in his “Preface to Paradise Lost”: something like, “When people say they don’t like Milton’s God, what they really mean is they don’t like God.”
When people refer to “the Christian God,” I always just read that as “God.” Adding the adjective is supposed to imply, I think, that “the Christian God” is on the same level as Zeus, or Ares, or some such. But for Christians, the Supreme Being, Almighty Creator, and so on, is pretty much the exact same as the Supreme Being and Almighty Creator known simply as “God,” only without the denigration.
Or, to put it another way: Anyone who is truly worshiping God is worshiping “the Christian God.”
When people refer to “the Christian God,” I always just read that as “God.” Adding the adjective is supposed to imply, I think, that “the Christian God” is on the same level as Zeus, or Ares, or some such. But for Christians, the Supreme Being, Almighty Creator, and so on, is pretty much the exact same as the Supreme Being and Almighty Creator known simply as “God,” only without the denigration.
Or, to put it another way: Anyone who is truly worshiping God is worshiping “the Christian God.”
M
Mirdath
Guest
The basic positions of theism and strong atheism are similar: faith in God, faith in not-God; but there the similarity ends. Where you have two churches or two religions disagreeing in matters of doctrine, there is no such division. There’s no First Atheist Church on Main Street saying God doesn’t exist this way, and no upstart rival Second Atheist Church preaching God doesn’t exist that way.
It isn’t like he doesn’t have the timeActually I pray that you can someday put your fingers in the wounds, like Thomas (or satisfactory equivalent thereof). Of course, God may be saying “Hey look, I created the universe in all it’s magnificence…and you want a personal sign that I exist that can out do creation? What are you, nuts?”
Plus, he evidently has the inclination – witness Jeremiah, Thomas, Arjuna, Zoroaster, and all those other people the divine has seen fit to poke at! 
L
Lampo
Guest
“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” - G.K. Chesterton
C
cpayne
Guest
Anyone else like the Father Brown stories?
(My nomination for Most Off-Topic Post. )
(My nomination for Most Off-Topic Post.
)- Status