The obstacles which prevent faith

[FredBloggs]

The evidence that human beings value their genesis and desire to identify as part of a linage is too overwhelming to ignore. For example that fact of the ‘family’ and a unique sharing of surname to that end can be traced back as far as history and anthropology can go. It’s a deeply rooted need that isn’t naturally present in any other form of life to the extent that human beings value it. We want to know who created us and who our father of fathers is.

I agree with everything up to the last sentence. Yes, we want to know where we came from. But to assume that we were consciously made by someone for a specific purpose is just bad thinking. Once you prove that we were made by someone for a specific purpose, then we can start to wonder who it was and what their purpose was.

The answers through contemplation are strong and cohesive enough among people to have sustained belief in gods or God pretty universally until modern times.

Yes, and there’s plenty of research that shows why we evolved to assume agency even where it doesn’t exist. However just because an idea is tenacious, that doesn’t mean that it’s right. People believed the earth was flat for tens of thousands of years.

Atheism didn’t exist as a significant option for at least the prior 10s of 1000s of years .

And just because an idea is relatively recent, it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. In fact atheism has most likely always existed, but even as recently as the 18th century it was inadvisable to question the status quo.

It wasn’t just one person that came up with gods.

No, it was most likely group story-telling, embellished with each telling.

Like the blind monks describing different parts of an elephant, there was enough universality in the act of contemplating to form a sound basis for the existence of higher, involved powers who are ‘contactable’ for our needs.

Then there’s a sound basis to believe in all the other gods too. What a conundrum.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

“Maybe we can never know the ultimate truth.”

Can there be a truth so great, that possibly even God could do nothing greater?

Here is a childlike and yet profound way to test the power of the greatest commandments; when looking for a purpose for the creation of the universe and life.

Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God the Father, Son and Holy spirit looking out into the vast empty void of space. They are thinking, we have the power to create anything we want, what is the greatest good thing that we can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be the supreme builder. He could create plants; and be the unsurpassed gardener. God could create the animal kingdom; and be the best farmer. God could create children in his own image and be the greatest father. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image?

God could love each and everyone of his children as he loves himself. Could God love us more than he loves himself?

Could there be any greater purpose for God to create the universe?

We are given the greatest commandments to love as God loves, can we do anything greater?

 

[FredBloggs]

Aquinas based his argument on Maimonides, who in turn based his on Avicenna.

Okay, that doesn’t make the arguments sound though.

We we’re looking for, is whether there is such a being that is intrinsically necessary. You will decide what makes it false. Now, do you agree that we can leave out whatever is intrinsically & extrinsically impossible, because they do not exist?

I’ve been down this road before, and the philosophy just doesn’t add up - it always gets to a point where one person asserts that a necessary is one that must exist, therefore it actually does; while the other person gives up in bemusement and does something more productive with their time.

And even if an intrinsically necessary being is - philosophically speaking - “shown” to exist - there’s even more philosophical prestidigiation to come, as the plaintive attempts to show that this being is their particular version of a particular god.

So with respect, I politely decline.

 

[SalamKhan]

Okay, that doesn’t make the arguments sound though.

Aquinas’ argument is nowhere near as strong, although I haven’t read Maimonides’ version.

I’ve been down this road before, and the philosophy just doesn’t add up - it always gets to a point where one person asserts that a necessary is one that must exist

No, this isn’t Anselm’s reduction to absurdity, but okay I respect your decision to decline.