How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[ThinkingSapien]

Perhaps the more pertinent question is, how steadfast and vehement should we be in defense of our beliefs? Reason would suggest that I should be at least as steadfast in defense of my beliefs, as you are in defense of yours.

If your stance on the question of the beginning of the universe is “I don’t know” then what is there to defend?

 

[Partinobodycula]

If your stance on the question of the beginning of the universe is “I don’t know” then what is there to defend?

The absolutely incredible beauty and importance of life.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The absolutely incredible beauty and importance of life.

I’m not sure whether my thoughts on this would be perceived as agreement or disagreement. Perhaps it will suffice to say that I think that we may conceptualize some things differently that would make that difficult to discuss. Probably worthy of another thread on another day.

 

[Sochi]

As mostly reasonable people, we should be able to agree on at least one thing, when it comes to the question of where reality as we know it came from, none of us really knows. We may each have our own personal beliefs, theories, and proofs, but if we’re being brutally honest with ourselves, then we have to admit that what we have is a small degree of knowledge, mixed with varying degrees of faith. Faith may be an admirable thing, but if history has taught us anything, it’s that faith isn’t always an infallible thing. Even when inspired by the divine, it’s still we imperfect humans that seem obliged to try to justify it, even if we lack the capacity to do so.

Perhaps the more pertinent question is, how steadfast and vehement should we be in defense of our beliefs? Reason would suggest that I should be at least as steadfast in defense of my beliefs, as you are in defense of yours.

Or alternately, the correct question may be, which is more important, the willingness to defend your beliefs, or the willingness to question your beliefs? The warrior in me says that I should defend. But the scholar in me says that I should question. Which is correct?

This is well said. The nature of faith itself is about the last thing the faithful examine. Faith is in most cases, as are many unconscious traits, passed down automatically as an element of growing up in some original infant-childhood situation. For some, there is a rebellion period, as is the necessity in every teenager’s process of becoming autonomous. But ultimately, save for a rare few, the basics are fallen back on, even if one changes forms of–in our case here–christianism. This is perceived as a maturation, of a growing of faith, when usually it is only an abdication to the already inculcated position. This is a dynamic in every religion, political belief, and extends to even and actually especially emotional dynamics on a pre-verbal and pre-cognitive level because it is a dynamic of human awareness, not of any particular faith as its acquisition. Does anyone here think that a fundamentalist Hassid or Muslim or whatever is in any way less sincere than you are?

What most of the faithful tend to forget is that–again in our instance–it is the Pope who is alleged to have infallibility in some cases; not the faithful necessarily in their agreement or level of interpretation. Dynamically, that means that agreement with the Pope and dogma and tenets in general is a third party acquisition. That is to say, they are learned, not discovered, though “discoveries” are part of the process when the dots of the interior logic of the faith arguments are emotionally connected. This is unavoidable, as it is hard wired as part of learning. But the net result is investment of the sense of personal identification with an inculcated second and third party belief paradigm postulating ultimate authority in its particular way, whether christianist or whatever. Of course, this is the source of the strong “My view is right” sense, that being reinforced by the attachments of group dynamics within the believer’s church and its perceived opponent, those being vital in the sense of verification.

So the huge fish-in-water caused lack of deep introspection in this area includes a vast ignorance, starting with an ignorance of epistemology. This is followed by a deep of the actual history of one’s faith, including histories form the “outside and the phenomenology of religion, etc as such;” the nature of witnessing, recording, collecting, translating, linguistics, semantics and general semantics, literary criticism, idioms of the original speaker of the ideas of the religion at the time of their giving, critical thinking and logics, the nature of meaning, communication, learning, the levels of both spiritual and intellectual understanding of the chain of transmission between the original dispenser and the one being inculcated today, or studying today, and their own capacities for intellectual and spiritual understanding, etc, etc, etc.

Even if we point to the Great Mystics, we find a curious phenomenon: They, of any religion or lack of it, arrived at their revelation very often through an intense period of duress. And of whatever faith, or lack of it, they arrived at remarkably similar conclusions as to the nature of Spirit. On analysis, the propositions of St. John of the Cross, St Theresa, Meister Eckhart, etc, are nearly indistinguishable, accounting for cultural vocabulary, from say Lau Tse, Ramana Maharshi, Rumi, Franklin Merrell-Wolf, etc. Semantically, they match. They also match with much attributed to Jesus, but dogmatically interpreted in a sense I, and many others, strongly suspect was not the intention of the Giver of those words.

So of course there is merit in defending one’s faith. That would seem right and proper given the arguments one usually uses. And that is way sufficient for most. But there ought nevertheless be a deal of respect for those who are using their God given, if you will, abilities to delve into those area listed above that have vital bearing on the actualities of the spiritual experience which are beyond simple inculcation and acceptance.

That is why i’m coming down on the side of Partinobodycula (a fabulous handle with some fascinating overtones!) regarding scholarship.

Comments?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Reason would suggest that I should be at least as steadfast in defense of my beliefs, as you are in defense of yours.

But a problem arises when one assumes this statement to be true. For whatever level of defense your opponent employs, you are to some degree obligated to respond in kind. For if you don’t then disagreements are subject to being decided by those who are the most zealous in defense of their position.

The hope I suppose, is that humans are intelligent creatures, and that logic and reason are as powerful of weapons, as fervency and aggression. But that depends on whether we’re prepared to listen them, or indeed, if we’re even capable of recognizing them.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I always love it when atheists, agnostics, non-believers, Eastern cultists come in here and try to give us advice on how to think. They demand that we justify ourselves. Why? You don’t believe us when we tell you! You point out that most of us are Believers because that is the way we were raised. And I’m sure that is true in some cases. But you can’t continue living a Faith unless you sincerely believe in it. At some point you have to make a choice. And unbelief simply isn’t a reasonable choice, how can you bank your life on Nothing???You claim it works for you. Good, more power to you.

And, yes, I have read the history, etc,etc,etc. I find atheism, etc. the most bleak condition imaginable. Above, someone accused us of " group think, " of " following the crowd. " That’s very odd, because that is exactly what I think most non-believers do. They find that " believers " are no longer accepted in society as they have been in the past ( but rather reluctently I would say ). The weigtht of societal pressure, since the " Age of Enlightenment, " has been quite the other way. In fact, to put the shoe on the other foot, if you read your history, Christianity has had hundreds of years of persecution in the West before it was reluctantly allowed to exist. And persecution has never been absent in the East and in Asia. Yes, you too, need to read your history. It has never been easy to be a Christain, except for short periods here and there, at least a serious Christian, and especially a serious Catholic. And for Catholics, even in peaceful times, there has always been an underlying prejudice in Protestant countries since Henry Vlll. And America has never been free of this prejudice. So, it is hard to see how we could be guilty of " following " the crowd, It certainly hasn’t been the " enlightened " thing to do.

O.K. You can go back outside now.

Linus2nd

 

[Sochi]

But a problem arises when one assumes this statement to be true. For whatever level of defense your opponent employs, you are to some degree obligated to respond in kind. For if you don’t then disagreements are subject to being decided by those who are the most zealous in defense of their position.

Sounds like Hamlet’s “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”

The hope I suppose, is that humans are intelligent creatures, and that logic and reason are as powerful of weapons, as fervency and aggression. But that depends on whether we’re prepared to listen them, or indeed, if we’re even capable of recognizing them.

Humans have a capacity for intelligence, and it is capable of being trained into usefulness in some degrees and kinds. I quote again from post 279:

"…We define thinking as integrating data and arriving at correct answers. Look around you. Most people do that stunt just well enough to get to the corner store and back without breaking a leg. If the average man thinks at all, he does silly things like generalizing from a single datum. He uses one-valued logics. If he is exceptionally bright, he may use two-valued ‘either-or’ logic to arrive at his wrong answers. If he is hungry, hurt, or personally interested in the answer, he can’t use any sort of logic and will discard observed fact as blithely as he will stake his life on a piece of wishful thinking. He uses the technical miracles created by superior men without wonder nor surprise, as a kitten accepts a bowl of milk. Far from aspiring to higher reasoning, he is not even aware that higher reasoning exists. He classes his own mental process as being of the same sort as the genius of an Einstein. Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.

"That is why there is always room at the top, why a man with a leetle more on the ball can so easily become governor, millionaire, or college president–and why homo sap is sure to be displaced by New Man, because there is so much room for improvement and evolution never stops.

"Here and there among ordinary men is a rare individual who really thinks, can and does use logic in a single field–he’s often as stupid as the rest outside his study or his laboratory–but he can think, if he is not disturbed, sick, or frightened. This rare individual is responsible for all the progress made by the race; the others reluctantly adopt his results. Much as the ordinary man dislikes and distrusts and persecutes the process of thinking he is forced to accept the results occasionally, because thinking is efficient compared with his own maundering. He may still plant his corn by the dark of the moon, but he will plant better corn developed by better men than he.

"Still rarer is the man who thinks habitually, who applies reason, rather than habit pattern, to all his activity. Unless he masks himself, his is a dangerous life; he is regarded as queer, untrustworthy, subversive of public morals; a pink monkey among the brown monkeys–a fatal mistake. Unless the pink monkey can dye himself brown before he gets caught.

"The brown monkey’s instinct to kill is correct; such men are dangerous to all monkey customs.

"Rarest of all is the man who can and does reason at all times, quickly, accurately, inclusively, despite hope or fear or bodily distress, without egocentric bias or thalmic disturbance, with correct memory, with clear distinction between fact, assumption and non-fact. Such men exist, Joe, They are “New Man”–human in all respects, indistinguishable in all appearances or under the scalpel from homo sap, yet as unlike him in action as the Sun is unlike a single candle.

~RA Heinlein, Gulf, short novel in Assignment in Eternity c 1949, '53, '81 RAH

This may be from a story, but it is true. Such men/women exist. But precious precious few!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hoot, Hoot !

One of the great intellects here has recommended that I ( we Christians ) go to the web site " Iron Chariots.org " and become enlightend about Thomas’ Five Ways. If this is the best source of anti-Thomist arguments, then you are in a poor condition. The atheist apologetics here is a hoot, laughable, easily dispatched. Indeed, Edward Feser has dispatced most of the counter arguments either in his Aquinas or in different places in his blogspot. Further, I have answered many of the arguments in the thread, " The First Way Explained , " page 6 of this Forum.

The errors begin right in the first line of the rebuttle to the Unmoved Mover. It says, " "Nothing moves without a prior mover. " This is a common error repeated ad nausiam even in Catholic philosophical texts. Actually " Omne autem quod movetur ab alio movetur, " should be translated as " Whatever is moved, is moved by another. " Quite a difference really. I have addressed this issue and others in the thread mentioned above.
Feel free to take a look.

The contributors to Iron Chariots apparently have not read either Thomas or his faithful commentators and their science isn’t much better.

Linu2nd

 

[KingCoil]

Just a point of clarification. I think everyone here knows where I stand on the creation of the universe - except King who cannot seem to understand the difference between a philosophical argument and a position taken and accepted as a matter of Faith.

I firmly believe and accept the God of Christianity, who exists eternally outside the universe, created the universe and all that is in it, both the spiritual and the material, in time out of nothing. I also am firmly convinced, along with St. Thomas, Augustine, and a host of philosophers and theologians, that it cannot be demonstrated or proven by science or philosophy that the universe has not existed eternally. I am futher convinced that Thomas has demonstrated satisfactorially that, even if the universe has existed eternally, it has been and is being eternally created by God, in time, out of nothing.

I hope every one here understands now where I stand, though I am convinced that my earlier posts made this distinction clear.

Peace to all.

Linus2nd

I really love to discuss universe with beginning or always existing, but I like to get your thoughts more exactly correct as you have them in your mind.

Are you of the postion that the universe having a beginning in your case is from revelation, namely, man cannot come to this idea or what I call truism?

http://i62.tinypic.com/doqo05.jpg

It turns out that Linus2 is of the position that it is only by faith i.e. through revelation that anything with a beginning has a cause, and also, examine the following exchange between us two, taken from his post reproduced above by snapshot.

KingCoil – 1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Linus2 – I disagree with point 1, science has not demonstrated this point with absolute certainty. And I have pointed out to you that philosophy cannot demonstrate it either.

KingCoil – 2. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.

Linus2 – I disagree with 2 because 1 has not been establisted by either science or philosophy, and can be known only by Faith.

I am of the diametrically contrary position, namely, that it is certain from reason that anything with a beginning has a cause.

What do you guys say, does mankind at all need revelation to know that anything with a beginning has a cause?

This is the first that I have come across such a kind of cognitive idea.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Sorry you think so. We obviously come to the discussion with a different background than your own, so we have a different thought process from yours.

Your original syllogism is as follows:

" 1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

1. The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.
2. The transit, Premise 1 is included within the circumference of the circle that is Premise 2, namely, it is one of the anything that has a beginning.
3. The conclusion, therefore: the universe has need of a cause outside itself to have come into existence.

If folks cannot see the transit there, then I fear they are beyond rational thinking i.e. intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts. "

I disagree with point 1, science has not demonstrated this point with absolute certainty. And I have pointed out to you that philosophy cannot demonstrate it either. That is why I pointed out to you the value of Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways. These establish the necessity of a Being who possesses some attributes that can only apply to the Christian God. That is the " bridge " between a Cause of all that is and the God of Reveltion. And Thomas has explained that this Cause would be necessarily, eternally creating all that exists. And then, when God gives man His Revelation, we make the necessary connection between Him and the God of philosophy.

And I disagree with 2 because 1 has not been establisted by either science or philosophy, and can be known only by Faith. As Thomas has pointed out in many places, if science and/or philosophy established definitely that the universe had an absolute beginning in time, it would be simple to establish that the God of Christianity existed. In that event, only the insane would deny His existence. In that event [science-philosophy ascertains universe to have beginning], most present day atheists would immediately become believers - only the insane would continue to maintain that He did not exist.

Now I think it is time you consider what I and others have been saying. You can start with On the Eternity of the World by T.A. here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEternitateMundi.htm

And then you can read the Five Ways here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2A3THEP1

Of course man has always had a vague notion of God, which was given to man by God at the beginning ( Genesis ), which remained as a dim recollection handed on from generation to generation, which morphed into a sort of " totem, " a dim but real " concept " of something existing bigger than himself, but having no specific outlines. And this would account for the " gods " of the pagans, which was fleshed out in the Philosophies of the Greeks, especially Plato and Aristotle. And it was the last which T.A. immediately recognized as the God of Genesis and Christianity.

The answers to the rest of your many questions should flow reasonably from this. I don’t have time to go into all that. But again I would urge you to read Edward Feser, especially his Aquinas and his newest book coming out in May, and take a good hard look at his blogspot…

I really have no disagreement with the remainder of your post, except where you give way t frustration. Yes, the Christian God is the Creator and Director of all that is and He exists outside of the universe which he created in time from nothing. And this is the God of Plato,Aristotle and Thomas, the God of Philosophy, the God whom the earlier pagans knew as a dim totem.

Linus2nd

Do you mean by God giving…

Of course man has always had a vague notion of God, which was given to man by God at the beginning ( Genesis )…

that giving by God is revelation for you? I call that reason given by God, and it can be called natural revelation, i.e., by the light of the rational nature of man by which man is distinguished from non-human creatures.

Anyway, whether man knows the universe to have a beginning from pure reason alone without any revelation (that is not natural revelation, understanding that as reason), or that man does know by pure reasoning from anything with a beginning has a cause, thus the universe has a cause, dear Linus2, we are in concurrence that the universe has a beginning and thus it has a cause which we call creator of the universe.

Now, that is all in the realm of thinking in our mind, we must now transit to the objective universe of existing things and events to search for God, and we do that by examining everything in the universe and even the whole universe as one object, as one event, this examination leads us to conclude that: yes as already predicted in our thinking mind, we have now the evidence which is the universe itself that God exists as its creator-cause.

But, how come we don’t see God, not even with all the science detection equipment available today? We don’t see God with our physiological senses, but with our mind: because God is more huge than the universe and more subtle than any most minutest particles, fields, forces, laws of physics, laws of nature, etc., in the universe: that is why we infer also thereby that God is both without and within the universe; in brief, God is the creator and operator of the universe – God gave the universe its beginning and keeps it in existence and in operation.

And that is the whole point of the topic in this thread, "How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

I always love it when atheists, agnostics, non-believers, Eastern cultists come in here and try to give us advice on how to think.

You’re welcome, always happy to help out as best we can

You point out that most of us are Believers because that is the way we were raised. And I’m sure that is true in some cases. But you can’t continue living a Faith unless you sincerely believe in it.

But believing it doesn’t necessarily require that you have a good reason for believing it. Most people in my experience don’t. Most of those on this site seem to at least understand that some kind of justification is required, so are much further along than most theists I meet in day to day life.

At some point you have to make a choice. And unbelief simply isn’t a reasonable choice,

Why not? The default starting position for any proposition is unbelief. You wouldn’t get very far in life if you by default accepted every proposition that you heard unless you had good reason to disbelieve it. For a starter you’d spend your entire life forwarding on chain emails.

Not to mention all the propositions which you’ve never heard but currently don’t believe to be true (because you’ve never heard them).

how can you bank your life on Nothing???

No idea, I’ve never met anyone who banked their life on Nothing.

And, yes, I have read the history, etc,etc,etc. I find atheism, etc. the most bleak condition imaginable.

Fair enough, probably a good thing you have your religious beliefs then. Personally I’m much happier and more fulfilled in my life now then back when I was a theist. That seems to be common among atheists I know personally.

Above, someone accused us of " group think, " of " following the crowd. " That’s very odd, because that is exactly what I think most non-believers do.

That’s actually what most people do. It’s relatively hard to go against the beliefs of the vast majority of your family and peers.

They find that " believers " are no longer accepted in society as they have been in the past ( but rather reluctently I would say ). The weigtht of societal pressure, since the " Age of Enlightenment, " has been quite the other way.

Er, I think you might need to read your demographics more carefully. In most countries in the world atheists are still VERY much in the minority. There’s a few countries in Europe which are mostly atheist, plus Japan, I think from memory “no religion” is now the second biggest group in Britain…

Otherwise people are mostly having to overcome societal pressure to come “out” as being atheists, not as being theists.

In fact, to put the shoe on the other foot, if you read your history, Christianity has had hundreds of years of persecution in the West before it was reluctantly allowed to exist.

Sure, Christians once suffered a great deal of persecution by other theists. And once the tide turned, they promptly paid back the compliment with persecution of their own.

And persecution has never been absent in the East and in Asia. Yes, you too, need to read your history. It has never been easy to be a Christain, except for short periods here and there, at least a serious Christian, and especially a serious Catholic. And for Catholics, even in peaceful times, there has always been an underlying prejudice in Protestant countries since Henry Vlll. And America has never been free of this prejudice. So, it is hard to see how we could be guilty of " following " the crowd, It certainly hasn’t been the " enlightened " thing to do.

Yep, I agree. Religion has caused division and persecution for centuries, all over the world.

Fortunately secularism is slowly spreading and reducing the impact over time. I hope to live long enough to see the world become secular and have an end to religious persecution of all forms and in all directions. Freedom of religion for all!

 

[CandideWest]

Hoot, Hoot !

One of the great intellects here has recommended that I ( we Christians ) go to the web site " Iron Chariots.org " and become enlightend about Thomas’ Five Ways. If this is the best source of anti-Thomist arguments, then you are in a poor condition.

Come on Linus, I expect better of you than such catcalls and silliness. I clearly recommended that if people want to understand the errors in the 5 ways that they should go to the source, but for something simple for those without that level of interest they could take a look at Iron Chariots.

Sure there’s loads of better sites out there that go into great detail about the problems with the 5 ways, but if you’ve got the level of interest to go through those, then you should just go to the Summa and work it out for yourself. If you haven’t then Iron Chariots is easy reading and outlines ** some of ** the problems with the 5 ways.

The atheist apologetics here is a hoot, laughable, easily dispatched…

Yet the only question I asked you to answer is such a simple one, and you have not even attempted to answer it. Let’s try again, “how do you show that the cause of the universe show in the 5 ways MUST BE some self aware being?”

We have to be able to at least manage that before we even consider calling it a god, let alone selecting a specific god.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’re welcome, always happy to help out as best we can

But believing it doesn’t necessarily require that you have a good reason for believing it. Most people in my experience don’t. Most of those on this site seem to at least understand that some kind of justification is required, so are much further along than most theists I meet in day to day life.

Why not? The default starting position for any proposition is unbelief. You wouldn’t get very far in life if you by default accepted every proposition that you heard unless you had good reason to disbelieve it. For a starter you’d spend your entire life forwarding on chain emails.

Not to mention all the propositions which you’ve never heard but currently don’t believe to be true (because you’ve never heard them).

No idea, I’ve never met anyone who banked their life on Nothing.

Fair enough, probably a good thing you have your religious beliefs then. Personally I’m much happier and more fulfilled in my life now then back when I was a theist. That seems to be common among atheists I know personally.

That’s actually what most people do. It’s relatively hard to go against the beliefs of the vast majority of your family and peers.

Er, I think you might need to read your demographics more carefully. In most countries in the world atheists are still VERY much in the minority. There’s a few countries in Europe which are mostly atheist, plus Japan, I think from memory “no religion” is now the second biggest group in Britain…

Otherwise people are mostly having to overcome societal pressure to come “out” as being atheists, not as being theists.

Sure, Christians once suffered a great deal of persecution by other theists. And once the tide turned, they promptly paid back the compliment with persecution of their own.

Yep, I agree. Religion has caused division and persecution for centuries, all over the world.

Fortunately secularism is slowly spreading and reducing the impact over time. I hope to live long enough to see the world become secular and have an end to religious persecution of all forms and in all directions. Freedom of religion for all!

I agree totally with the last sentence. However, I see no hope. Even now the secular state is busy, devising and enacting laws to restrict religious freedom. I assume you have noticed this blot the record of your favorite cause. Even now the U.S. government is doing its very best to force all Catholics, and many other Christians to engage in actions which violate their consciences vis a vis the Affordable Care Act. Your move.

 

[CandideWest]

I agree totally with the last sentence.

Great, another point of agreement

However, I see no hope.

That’s sad, why not? We’re already doing so much better than we were even 50 years ago. And incomparably better than 500 years ago.

Perhaps my hope to live long enough to see the end of religious persecution is a little over optimistic. But we should expect to see improvements and frankly if we don’t aim high then we’re not trying hard enough.

Even now the secular state is busy, devising and enacting laws to restrict religious freedom. I assume you have noticed this blot the record of your favorite cause.

Depends, what are you referring to?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Come on Linus, I expect better of you than such catcalls and silliness. I clearly recommended that if people want to understand the errors in the 5 ways that they should go to the source, but for something simple for those without that level of interest they could take a look at Iron Chariots.

Sure there’s loads of better sites out there that go into great detail about the problems with the 5 ways, but if you’ve got the level of interest to go through those, then you should just go to the Summa and work it out for yourself. If you haven’t then Iron Chariots is easy reading and outlines ** some of ** the problems with the 5 ways.

Yet the only question I asked you to answer is such a simple one, and you have not even attempted to answer it. Let’s try again, “how do you show that the cause of the universe show in the 5 ways MUST BE some self aware being?”

We have to be able to at least manage that before we even consider calling it a god, let alone selecting a specific god.

Certainly, the First Way reads as follows: " I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are moved ( or changed ). Now whatever is moved ( or changed ) is changed by some other thing, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. 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. "

If a thing is " put in motion by no other " that means that it has no potentiality to be moved, it simply is. It is pure act, which means that it has no composition, nor is it some type of material substance, since all material substances are composed of some matter and some nature or form. And since it is not composed in any way, being pure act, it is not a part of the universe, but exists outside the universe. Since it exists and is pure act, it is a spirit.

And since it causes movement and change, it causes the forms and existence of the forms which are the subject of motion and change. Obviously any being which can do this must be a living being, and it must be intelligent. And if it is intelligent, it must be self-aware. This is further evident since this being cause intelligent, self-aware forms to exist in the universe ( men and angels ). This argument is a kind of summation of the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Ques 2-11, newadvent.org/summa/1.htm .

Any Being possessing these and other properties discussed in Part 1 can certainly be identified with the God of Christianity. You can see more of my analysis of the First Way on the thread " The First Way Explained, " pg 6 of this forum.

Linus2nd

 

[Sochi]

I always love it when atheists, agnostics, non-believers, Eastern cultists come in here and try to give us advice on how to think.

Stating it this manner implies that you are sure of a superior position and are in fact poo-poohing the visitors who come on here for whatever reason. Your use of “us,” implying all the other Catholics on here, gives all of “you” an alleged higher ground. Interesting, when is see much bickering, intellectualism, emotionalism, etc in the home ranks as well as sane, well thought out and well grounded presentations. I can’t speak for everyone, but for my part, I don’t care how you think, but the invitation for folks of other streams to partake on here is as well an invitation to display our considerations as well. In either case, I am accepting or critical of presentations based far less on the presenter’s belief than in the consistency and integrity of their presentations. Certainly, if one is defensive or arrogantly self assured, pointing out possible flaws, or even areas that may be open for further comment and examination, then those opportunities will present in the mind of the un- or too sure a threat or an attempt to instruct. Further, I have seen attempts similar to the ones I think you are mocking coming from your own ranks, as it were.

They demand that we justify ourselves. Why? You don’t believe us when we tell you!

First, you might speak more for yourself and point to an example or two. You seem to feel that they are abundant. And in any debate, I for one would expect both sides to offer points supportive of their positions. I can see a debate team walking off a stage because they just fold up their papers and exclaim “problem solved! Without further ado, we believe you!” Would you be on that team? Why then would you assume that people who through other inculcation, discoveries, or bloody hard work would come on here and bow to your personal interpretation of Holy Mother Church? Or are you using your brand of understanding as a bolster by association with what in fact amounts to a phenomenal intellectual accomplishment, not originally yours, and so only by association? I personally do not equate your stand as necessarily being that of the Church, but only your take, and therefore not ex cathedra. Frankly, right or wrong, I appreciate those of any faith, whether I agree or not, who have come to where they are by their personal struggle. Perhaps you have. The only reason I’m doubting it is that such people heavily tend to be very compassionate of other positions unless they have ended in some emotionally fanatic state.

You point out that most of us are Believers because that is the way we were raised. And I’m sure that is true in some cases.

Who is the “You” in this sentence? In some case? Perhaps most, by far.

But you can’t continue living a Faith unless you sincerely believe in it.

I totally agree with that. It is why I left the Church. Anything less would have been hypocracy.

At some point you have to make a choice. And unbelief simply isn’t a reasonable choice, how can you bank your life on Nothing???You claim it works for you. Good, more power to you.

Yes, a choice, or a discovery. If the original paradigm is found to be hole-y and inconsistent measured against experience and other information found to be reasonably or more supportable by facts, then it is illogical to maintain the original position. I’m sure that in your growth process you have done that often, as have we all, if not in the area of your faith. And while you posit unbelief as an unreasonable choice, there are those who see it as the only reasonable choice, and are living very happy lives in that state. In fact, there are many arguments that belief, as such, is in itself, however necessary in some instances, the one barrier to growth in many areas, especially Spirit. Go figure. And for whatever good it might do, your use of the word “nothing” isn’t remotely what say, a Buddhist or some brand of panenthist means by it.

And, yes, I have read the history, etc,etc,etc. I find atheism, etc. the most bleak condition imaginable. Above, someone accused us of " group think, " of " following the crowd. " That’s very odd, because that is exactly what I think most non-believers do.

I’m sure you have read history, and I’d like to see more names than etc’s in your list. Of course most of us have read history. And some of us remember that history is written by the victors, and other such caveats and dig a bit deeper. And of course, some read with the specific intent of proving or disproving something on their agenda. All that happens. But there are some who are wiling to suspend belief and entertains possibilities or see other clearly marked trails, or undiscovered roots. But naturally, one i your position would find atheism bleak. And yet for others it may be a significant spiritual step forward, similar to a teen’s necessary rebellion as part of gaining autonomy. The “bleakness” of that may not be our call, and that stand my have a useful purpose. And that speaks to following the crowd. Many atheists don’t fall in to a crowd of atheists and become “converted” by their arguments. Atheism is most often, as I understand it, a reaction to the untenability of a religion one was in, or of religion as such. That is a subject worth pursuing, And yes, atheists might find others and associate, but generally I have found them to be “loners,” albeit in my experience, happy, ethical loners, and usually loners in only this respect.

Continued in part 2

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Linus2, I think I shall call you doctor of philosophy/theology, sub-species – in re divine revelation.

Tell me:

1. That anything with a beginning has need of a cause to bring it into existence, is that from revelation; otherwise you will never come to know it, namely, that anything with a beginning has need of a cause to bring it into existence?
2. That the universe we are residing in has a beginning is for you from revelation; otherwise you will never know it, namely, that the universe we are residing in has a beginning.

You can answer if you prefer from your mastery of the teachings of St. Thomas and of course from also your contemporary authorities.

What about myself?

For myself:

1. I know from reason i.e. intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts that anything with a beginning has need of a cause to bring it into existence.
2. I know from scientists that the universe where we are residing in has a beginning.

But I am glad that whatever, you and I concur that the universe has a beginning – just that we keep silent on whether by revelation from God or by reason/science.

Because from that concurrence by us both that the universe has a beginning, we can already proceed to the universe and together search for the cause of the universe.

KingCoil

 

[Sochi]

Part 2

They find that " believers " are no longer accepted in society as they have been in the past ( but rather reluctently I would say ).

Well, you haven’t been in political circles then, or to a Tea Party meeting, or to the revival down the street. C’mon, Linus. This Country is publicly conservative in its religious displays to the point of often being actually retrograde, including such ideas as the mental inferiority of women and other absurdities, about half believe in creationism, and it is the politically sponsored religious element that has effectively blockaded sanity and science in our educational systems.

The weigtht of societal pressure, since the " Age of Enlightenment, " has been quite the other way. In fact, to put the shoe on the other foot, if you read your history, Christianity has had hundreds of years of persecution in the West before it was reluctantly allowed to exist.

Yes, and then it devoured its own people after purging other beliefs, for instance by burning libraries.

And persecution has never been absent in the East and in Asia.

Of any religion, yet many persist. Methinks you protest too much, as the same kinds of suppression have happened, are happening, for other reasons like ethnicity, and yes, by one religion claiming superiority over another. We are just a race that parts of, for fear that someone has another perspective not aligned with our own, likes to crucify both its Saviors and groups found to be different for even trivial reasons. Some paces you can get killed for wearing a color, as skin or clothing.You know what I mean?

Yes, you too, need to read your history.

Thanks, I will continue to do so!

It has never been easy to be a Christain, except for short periods here and there, at least a serious Christian, and especially a serious Catholic. And for Catholics, even in peaceful times, there has always been an underlying prejudice in Protestant countries since Henry Vlll. And America has never been free of this prejudice. So, it is hard to see how we could be guilty of " following " the crowd, It certainly hasn’t been the " enlightened " thing to do.

I myself have never made the claim of following any crowd for any religion. And it has been hard to be any religion anywhere anytime. Have you ever talked to an Irish Catholic who lived in Northern Ireland during that fiasco? Or a Jew anywhere? Or anyone who tired to think during the political reign of the Church in Europe? Which is why J Krishnamurti made his accurate statement about religion, as such, being essentially violent, as it automatically sets up a an artificial division where in essence, there isn’t such a thing. Or can you point to any human who wasn’t made in the image and likeness of God?

O.K. You can go back outside now.

Whew. Fresh air.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Forgive me Linus, I don’t mean to overwhelm you with questions, as I see that you are currently engaged in other ongoing discussions, but if you have the time, I do have a couple of questions that I would like to ask. Please don’t regard these questions as an attack on you, your intelligence, your faith, or your religion. Nor do I raise these objections simply for the sake of being argumentative. I am genuinely curious as to how you would counter them.

KingCoil refuses to engage with me because I am a solipsist, or in his words a “satanic obstructionist” which to tell you the truth, sounds quite terrifying. But in reality is probably a designation that I really can’t live up to. Hopefully you will be more open to discussion.

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are moved

You quote this line from Aquinas’ First Way, and as a solipsist I must immediately raise an objection, because to me it is not "certain, and evident to my senses, that in the world some things are moved". I would point out that what appears to be in motion, may not be in motion at all, and in fact may not exist at all as an entity separate from myself. I realize that most so-called rational human beings will deem this argument to be absurd, and that labeling it absurd is sufficient for them to dismiss it.

I also realize that I could raise this solipsistic objection in just about every argument in these forums, and so it becomes a bit pointless. Any argument requires that certain conditions be presumed to be self-evident, and if that is your answer I can completely accept it. I was simply wondering if you or Aquinas having any logical way of addressing this objection.

Also, while I’m on the subject of your last post, you stated:

And since it causes movement and change, it causes the forms and existence of the forms which are the subject of motion and change. Obviously any being which can do this must be a living being, and it must be intelligent.

In what way is this obvious? Why must it be intelligent, and why can’t any change simply be the result of a natural process?

 

[CandideWest]

I agree totally with the last sentence.

Great, another point of agreement

However, I see no hope.

That’s sad, why not? We’re already doing so much better than we were even 50 years ago. And incomparably better than 500 years ago.

Perhaps my hope to live long enough to see the end of religious persecution is a little over optimistic. But we should expect to see improvements and frankly if we don’t aim high then we’re not trying hard enough.

Even now the secular state is busy, devising and enacting laws to restrict religious freedom. I assume you have noticed this blot the record of your favorite cause. Even now the U.S. government is doing its very best to force all Catholics, and many other Christians to engage in actions which violate their consciences vis a vis the Affordable Care Act. Your move.

Ahhh, you editing your post after I replied. Alas I can’t edit my answer now so I’ll just add to it and repost for your convenience.

I’m afraid that the nature of living in a society is that we must all accept some restrictions on our freedom to do as we please. In this case the freedom you appear to be referring to is the “freedom” for employers to enforce their religious beliefs on their employees who don’t necessarily share them.

Here, let me help. See here’s what you have with religious freedom.

Person A - has set of religious beliefs 1. He is free to act on these beliefs in any way which doesn’t impinge on others.

Person B - has set of religious beliefs 2. He is free to act on these beliefs in any way which doesn’t impinge on others.

So both are equally free as long as long as they don’t impinge on others ability to do likewise. That is the situation I would like to see.

You on the other hand are advocating a situation where Person A gets to deny certain basic healthcare rights to Person B on the basis of Person A’s religious beliefs.

So in fact while you’re claiming to support freedom of religion here you are actually objecting to freedom of religion.

Let’s try another example and see if it helps you see why your position is incorrect.

Imagine if instead of denying basic healthcare rights, an employer has the religious belief that the worth of a woman is half that of a man. So he pays all his female employee half what he pays men for the same job. He argues that he has the right to do this under freedom of religion and anyone who tries to use equality legislation to prevent him doing so is impinging on his religious freedom.

He might claim that such legislation is forcing him to violate his conscience by forcing him to pay some people only half what they are worth.

You would, I hope, agree with me that equality legislation is not impinging upon his religious freedom, but rather impinging on his ability to impose his religious views on others against their will. The healthcare row is much the same.