Have you explored other religions?

[Tuno]

Hi, Tuno,

You are right when you say that God is not amenable - but, the ‘proofs’ are not for Him - rather, they are for us. The idea that St. Thomas had was to demonstrate from natural reason that God existance can be proven. The desire to accept or reject these proofs is strictly up to you. If you can disprove them, I would be interested in reading what you have to say. Here is a link you may find helpful; aquinasonline.com/Topics/5ways.html

Actually, I think St. Thomas’ proofs are not only quite useful but establish a definitive stand against those who claim there is no God or God existence can not be demonstrated. Again, the pages of history are quite full of early man’s recognition of a Power greater than man Who brought all of creation into existence. This is not a point to be easily dismissed.

Actually, the section I quoted from St. James was to clearly identify that even the devils believe in God - and this does not help them. I am not sure what the “Unitary Principle” (physics? biology?) has to do with this - so, please clarify.

God bless

By saying that God is not amenable to “proofs” I had no intention that those are meant to convince God of Deity. That is silliness. And I have read no “proof” that is reasonably compelling either from St Thomas or anyone else. I reject those “proofs” not on the basis of reason, necessarily, though I think that they fail there as well, requiring assumptions many do not offhand accept, and rightly so. I reject them, as did St Thomas in the end, on the basis that they do not apply in the realm where actual Meaning lives. God, Deity, is as Self the Unitary Principle. The problem is not that there is or isn’t God, it is beliefs about God. Theists and atheists are actually in the same boat in this regard.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tuno,

I really was expecting a logical presentation for your position. Instead all you bring to the table is you find no compeelling argument from St. Thomas or anyone else. Amazingly dismissive - but truly disappointing.

The idea is to present a logic argument so it can be discussed. When you say you just don’t like it and offer no reason you present a less than what is necessary.

Now, I am sure that anyone who claims to be, “non-religious, not atheist, not theist, not agnostic” can make a cogent argument against St. Thomas’ proofs about God’s existence. So, please, give it a try and we can have a discussion. By the way, merely throwing out terms: “Meaning”, “God”, “Deity”, “Self” and “Unitary Principle” without content are like throwing out so many red herrings.

I know you can do better if you try.

God bless

By saying that God is not amenable to “proofs” I had no intention that those are meant to convince God of Deity. That is silliness. And I have read no “proof” that is reasonably compelling either from St Thomas or anyone else. I reject those “proofs” not on the basis of reason, necessarily, though I think that they fail there as well, requiring assumptions many do not offhand accept, and rightly so. I reject them, as did St Thomas in the end, on the basis that they do not apply in the realm where actual Meaning lives. God, Deity, is as Self the Unitary Principle. The problem is not that there is or isn’t God, it is beliefs about God. Theists and atheists are actually in the same boat in this regard.

 

[Tuno]

With all due respect, tqualey, I have no wish to convince you, argue with you, or be “logical” with you. St. Thomas is his own proof against himself in the end; the others are so in another way. Read them a few hundred time and see for yourself, if you can. Your structures indicate that you won’t be able to. 'Nuff said. I’ve already said too much.

Have you read St. Thomas’ poetry? Absolutely lovely! And you might peel a few more layers from your favorite quotes.

Thank you, by the way, for the obvious and great good you are doing for us in your professional life.

 

[Julia1996]

Hi, Tuno,

I really was expecting a logical presentation for your position. Instead all you bring to the table is you find no compeelling argument from St. Thomas or anyone else. Amazingly dismissive - but truly disappointing.

The idea is to present a logic argument so it can be discussed. When you say you just don’t like it and offer no reason you present a less than what is necessary.

Now, I am sure that anyone who claims to be, “non-religious, not atheist, not theist, not agnostic” can make a cogent argument against St. Thomas’ proofs about God’s existence. So, please, give it a try and we can have a discussion. By the way, merely throwing out terms: “Meaning”, “God”, “Deity”, “Self” and “Unitary Principle” without content are like throwing out so many red herrings.

I know you can do better if you try.

God bless

With all due respect, tqualey, I have no wish to convince you, argue with you, or be “logical” with you. St. Thomas is his own proof against himself in the end; the others are so in another way. Read them a few hundred time and see for yourself, if you can. Your structures indicate that you won’t be able to. 'Nuff said. I’ve already said too much.

Have you read St. Thomas’ poetry? Absolutely lovely! And you might peel a few more layers from your favorite quotes.

Thank you, by the way, for the obvious and great good you are doing for us in your professional life.

It’s generally not a good idea to tell people that they aren’t able to do something, because you might very well be wrong.

Secondly, talking about St. Thomas’ poetry, however lovely it may be, is running away from the original question of whether you could “make a cogent argument against St. Thomas’ proofs about God’s existence”.

I’m really inclined to agree with tqualey on this one.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia1996.

I think you may have to give up on that poster … sometimes the breath of a serious inquiry blows away a lot of smoke…

God bless

It’s generally not a good idea to tell people that they aren’t able to do something, because you might very well be wrong.

Secondly, talking about St. Thomas’ poetry, however lovely it may be, is running away from the original question of whether you could “make a cogent argument against St. Thomas’ proofs about God’s existence”.

I’m really inclined to agree with tqualey on this one.

 

[Julia1996]

I’m sorry, sometimes I get a bit carried away being stubborn.

Hi, Julia1996.

I think you may have to give up on that poster … sometimes the breath of a serious inquiry blows away a lot of smoke…

God bless

 

[AveChriste11]

Hi all! I am just curious if anyone here were from a different religious background than Catholic, or have explored other faiths. Just…well, I am always the curious cat, aren’t I?

I have to admit, I was raised Catholic then moved away from it. I was a Lutheran for awhile but I missed the “glitz and glamor” as my dad calls it, of the Catholic Church. I tried to get into Wiccan but realised it was too complicated and expensive. So now I am drifting, and I supposeI wonder what other people have experienced.

Yes, I was raised Southern Baptist. I then felt a calling to teach others about Jesus from a very early age when I myself was not even certain about my own religion. At 12 years old, I learned about almost every religion under the sun – thanks to a little site called religioustolerance.org/ and enjoyed it. I started getting into chat rooms and debating, these people made me ask questions that I had never thought of before. I was heavily into Islam (off and on) from the age of 14 to 23. During this time I was also into the New Age Movement, and “channelings” of any type… you name it. During this time if some spirit claimed to be Jesus or Mother Mary, I would’ve believed them. Now I know that just because they claim to be those people, doesn’t mean they are.

I also was into the Baha’i Faith for a little while, and even signed a declaration card. That lasted for about 6 months (August, to just last February). I just couldn’t feel any connection with their “prophets”, Baha’u’llah or the Bab. I learned about Judaism, and found out what the Talmud says… that Jesus was supposedly a black magician who learned his tricks down in Egypt. I found that to be very blasphemous and offensive, and could never completely reject Jesus like that.

While I was into the Baha’i Faith and a little before then, my Mother was exploring Catholicism. That also made me look at Catholicism more intensely as well. I began exploring the history of the early church and realized that I could never revert back to my Protestant ways. I found that with all of the religions I’ve been into, only Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy offered a safeguard from all of these heresies.

I’m still not completely certain about Catholicism just yet, but I’ve found that I love the Rosary and the devotions to Mary. I eventually found the Eastern Orthodox church recently, and have been exploring that after being let down by the contemporary Mass. They have an entire liturgy that is so completely different, and has not changed in the past 100 years which makes it even more beautiful.

I’m currently still studying it as a catechumen, I may convert soon. But I still want to make sure I’m serious about all of this, with everything I’ve been into…

 

[The_Wanderer]

I’ve dabbled in and studied about other belief systems since drifting away from Protestant Christianity, but I’ve never really become serious about any of them. Or, serious enough to consider conversion into a given religion. I think that my dabbling is more out of a sense of intellectual interest, and satisfying my curiousity is the main reason why my bookshelves are filled with books as diverse as the Vedas, Taoteching, Dhammapada, Torah, and several different versions of the Christian Bible. I’m also a student in ancient mythologies, so I’ve got books like the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid, modern scholarly studies of ancient religion, and so forth.