Is the fact that the majority of philosophers DO NOT believe in God problematic for our faith?

[Charlemagne_III]

Where is the proportionality in these questions? Tony tried to argue that “large” effects demand “large” causes. Sometimes large causes have miniscule effects, and sometimes miniscule causes have large effects.

Then again, sometimes large effects demand large causes.

The murder of unborn children is a large effect.

The motive in those who kill such children is a large corruption of human nature.

Why are you even bothering to quibble about such self evident things?

 

[tonyrey]

I completely agree with this. To me, philosophers start sharing their own opinion and then go in to philosophical language and tangents that lose my interest…IMO

The Holy Trinity is and always will be my guide to His truth on this earth and in eternity.

It is unwise to write off all philosophers. Please read my next post…

 

[tonyrey]

Where is the proportionality in these questions? Tony tried to argue that “large” effects demand “large” causes. Sometimes large causes have miniscule effects, and sometimes miniscule causes have large effects. It would have been quite prudent if you had read the exchange before you started to shoot from the hip.

Is that too much to ask for?

Size is irrelevant. To derive the power of reasoning from mindless molecules gets something for nothing. That is certainly too much to ask for - unless one is unrealistic…

 

[tonyrey]

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Negativity leads to a negative conclusion - which is the obverse of positive causality.

(By the way, quoting “authorities” does not impress skeptics.)

The “authority” was a sceptic who made many valuable contributions to philosophy.

There is no proportionality between the cause and effect… no matter who says otherwise.

If there is no proportionality whatsoever between cause and effect the rational foundation of science is an illusion. Do you really believe that is true?

Causality is one the most fundamental and essential notions of physics. Causal efficacy cannot propagate faster than light. Otherwise, reference coordinate systems could be constructed (using the Lorentz transform of special relativity) in which an observer would see an effect precede its cause (i.e. the postulate of causality would be violated).
Causal notions appear in the context of the flow of mass-energy. For example, it is commonplace to argue that causal efficacy can be propagated by waves (such as electromagnetic waves) only if they propagate no faster than light. Wave packets have group velocity and phase velocity. For waves that propagate causal efficacy, both of these must travel no faster than light. Thus light waves often propagate causal efficacy but de Broglie waves often have phase velocity faster than light and consequently cannot be propagating causal efficacy.
Causal notions are important in general relativity to the extent that the existence of an arrow of time demands that the universe’s semi-Riemannian manifold be orientable, so that “future” and “past” are globally definable quantities.

• wikipedia

 

[Aloysium]

Negativity leads to a negative conclusion - which is the obverse of positive causality. . .

The intent of the saying you were commenting on is to underline the importance of the smallest of details, whether it is about a competition, writing code, or putting together Ikea furniture. It is not meant to represent how causality works. Constantinople did not and could not become Istanbul because of something that wasn’t. The point it tries to make goes along with another saying that goes “Measure twice, cut once.”

These truisms reflect how the world is complex; there’s lots of noise in the system. Try to cover the contingencies you know about and be prepared to learn about those you don’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Where is the proportionality in these questions? Tony tried to argue that “large” effects demand “large” causes. Sometimes large causes have miniscule effects, and sometimes miniscule causes have large effects.

Well the large existence of the universe is the large effect of some cause.

Was the cause of the universe the equivalent of a horseshoe nail?

Or was the cause of the universe something even larger than the universe?

 

[tonyrey]

The intent of the saying you were commenting on is to underline the importance of the smallest of details, whether it is about a competition, writing code, or putting together Ikea furniture. It is not meant to represent how causality works. Constantinople did not and could not become Istanbul because of something that wasn’t. The point it tries to make goes along with another saying that goes “Measure twice, cut once.”

These truisms reflect how the world is complex; there’s lots of noise in the system. Try to cover the contingencies you know about and be prepared to learn about those you don’t.

Indeed. The intent of the poster is to demonstrate “There is no proportionality between the cause and effect” - which is a blatantly false generalisation.

 

[laircy]

A negative is not strictly speaking a cause… It might be necessary for there to be an open position for a job in order for it to be filled, but it won’t mean you’re automatically hired just because there’s an open space. There would have to be a positive, the act of someone hiring you.

 

[Godconvertedme]

I know popular opinion is not the best measure of what is true, but if the majority of doctors believe a certain illness is caused/not caused by something we take their word for it.

Medical doctors are scientists of a NATURAL science. They measure things that can be seen and weighed. Their opinion is important because they have spent time studying and have received training.

I’m just wanting to know how this would be possible that God exists and can be easily understood to exist, yet the majority of philosophers don’t believe there is a God?

Philosophers are not scientists. What they believe is largely dictated by their will. If I want to believe there is no God, ie a lie, God allows me to receive, from Satan, everything I need to believe it, but if what I want to believe is the Truth, Jesus said He is the Truth, God will provide everything I need to believe. Gods existence cannot be proven to the masses, like a Natural science, but any individual can know the Truth, to some extent or another, if it is what he or she desires.

God could be in a floating castle, conjuring up new animals on a daily basis to prove he’s God, but then people would believe he’s God because of facts. I saw God make a new animal out of nothing, so I know He’s God. God doesn’t want us to believe in Him because of the fact He exists. He doesn’t want us to love Him because He’s God. He wants us to believe in Him because we want to believe in Him and to love Him because we want to love Him. That is the freedom of freewill.

 

[tonyrey]

Where is the proportionality in these questions? Tony tried to argue that “large” effects demand “large” causes. Sometimes large causes have miniscule effects, and sometimes miniscule causes have large effects.

It is always tempting to try to get something for nothing, Charlie. In the absence of the Creator there has to be a substitute like the blind Goddess…