Theism is Rational; Christianity is Not

[Ahimsa]

What would that make me?

A theist.

 

[aristotle]

Pascal’s wager always wins in these battles “aristotle”. If your theory of God putting all Catholics in hell is right, then the God of this universe is irrational and a liar. But if he is rational, then he will do what He says, and put all NONCATHOLICS in hell forever. God doesn’t have to prove to you his religion scientifically or beyond all doubt. All he has to do is give you a warning about hell so that in conscience you become MORALLY directed to choose the true faith.

I find both gods made-up and irrational. It would make just as much sense to me for a god to throw all Christians into hell and save everyone else, as it would for a different god to save only Christians and throw everyone else into hell.

Explain to me why the Christian being is more likely, or more “rational” than the non-Christian being?

And where is this warning that this being has written, and why should I believe him?

 

[aristotle]

A theist.

Thought so.

 

[aristotle]

Pascal’s wager always wins in these battles “aristotle”. If your theory of God putting all Catholics in hell is right, then the God of this universe is irrational and a liar. But if he is rational, then he will do what He says, and put all NONCATHOLICS in hell forever. God doesn’t have to prove to you his religion scientifically or beyond all doubt. All he has to do is give you a warning about hell so that in conscience you become MORALLY directed to choose the true faith.

I find both gods made-up and irrational. It would make just as much sense to me for a god to throw all Christians into hell and save everyone else, as it would for a different god to save only Christians and throw everyone else into hell.

Explain to me why the Christian being is more likely, or more “rational” than the non-Christian being?

And where is this warning that this being has written, and why should I believe him?

 

[Boanerges]

From a puny mind.

Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics: Complete entropy is achieved when, with no outside energy supplied, complete randomness is accomplished. In otherwords, **ALL **creation moves from order to disorder when no outside source of energy is infused.

For anything to exist requires “energy” to be infused from without. No substance or being in existence can provide its own energy source. Plant seeds need light, heat and moisture to germinate. Mountains were formed by volcanic activity or tectonic thrusts. Volcanic activity is a leftover from earth’s creation from the “big bang”. (What caused the big bang?) That being said, what is the Source of this “energy” that holds all things in being? Only a benevolent God can keep us in existence and order,

That same God revealed himself in His creation, to Adam and Eve, the convenant with the ancient Hebrews and fulfilled His revelation in Jesus Christ. Every human is existence knew from the very beginning of an external “source” or Being, although imperfect, they recognized a Benevolent Creator.

The God of creation, of Christianity, of the Hebrews, of Adam and Eve is the same God. After the fall, He chose His method of Revelation and that’s what we have fulfilled in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, infused with God’s “energy”, has and is transforming the world. Who but a benevolent God could spread His message of peace so fast and complete? (Alas, but we are free to reject Him)

He is the source of our “energy”, both physical and spiritual, and He will continue holding everything in being until He decides all creation will pass away. Now that’s more rational than not.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Maybe then you can explain these terms to me, :theism", “pantheism”, “panenthism”, by applying them to my specific beliefs.

I do not believe that the Universe was created, but rather I hold that the universe is eternal, and that God exists as a part of it, in a similar way as you or I do.

God simply attracted all things that do anything to exist, and to do what they do.

What would that make me?

Probably a pantheist, but certainly not a theist. Theism holds that God is infinite, separate and distinct from his creation, and active in it. To hold that god is part of the universe is pantheism. It blurs or eliminates the distinction between creator and creation that is an integral part of theism. It also denies that God is a personality, characterizing it as an impersonal force.

Panentheism is a rather unstable attempt to give this impersonal god a personality.

So now I wonder: Someone who claims that “theism is rational” does not espouse theism as a personal belief. What, I wonder, is up? And why would someone who purportedly espouses theism need the term explained in terms of his beliefs?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[aristotle]

From a puny mind.

I doubt it.

Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics: Complete entropy is achieved when, with no outside energy supplied, complete randomness is accomplished. In otherwords, **ALL **creation moves from order to disorder when no outside source of energy is infused.

Absolutely! And the further back you go, the more energy there was. So, if you could go back forever (impossible, of course), there would be infinite energy. So the universe is tending toward heat death. This is it’s purpose, which God is helping it fulfill. Heat-death is a time when the most energy that can be active is active. This is the purpose and end of all physical things.

The God of creation, of Christianity, of the Hebrews, of Adam and Eve is the same God…

Why should I accept that Adam and Eve existed?

 

[aristotle]

From a puny mind.

I doubt it.

Newton’s Second Law of Thermodynamics: Complete entropy is achieved when, with no outside energy supplied, complete randomness is accomplished. In otherwords, **ALL **creation moves from order to disorder when no outside source of energy is infused.

Absolutely! And the further back you go, the more energy there was. So, if you could go back forever (impossible, of course), there would be infinite energy. So the universe is tending toward heat death. This is it’s purpose, which God is helping it fulfill. Heat-death is a time when the most energy that can be active is active. This is the purpose and end of all physical things.

The God of creation, of Christianity, of the Hebrews, of Adam and Eve is the same God…

Why should I accept that Adam and Eve existed?

Absolutely excellent points, by the way.

 

[aristotle]

So now I wonder: Someone who claims that “theism is rational” does not espouse theism as a personal belief. What, I wonder, is up? And why would someone who purportedly espouses theism need the term explained in terms of his beliefs?

Probably because the definition you use is unusual. It is certainly not Webster’s first definition. Nor is it the definition given by Aristotle, or Plato, or frankly anyone until this whole “theistic world-view” false dichotemy philosophical nonsense started popping up.

From the Oxford University Dictionary:

theism

/theeiz’m/

• noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

God creates and intervenes by attraction.

 

[anthony022071]

It is very likely that God, a single being, exists, where God is defined as that which cannot be perceived, and from this definition and certain assumptions has the characteristics of being the best thing, thought thinking itself. “God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.” (Aristotle, Metaphysics Lambda, Trans. Ross)

God, defined in this manner, can be defended, and this God I accept. But the Christian God I cannot. God had no son, no mother, does not write books, and indeed has no power to move things, but moves all things only by attraction.

What do you mean by power of attraction? God is a gravitational or magnetic force which moves things? And if this is what you believe,how do you say that God has no power to move things? If God moves all things then he must have power.

Omnipotence is all-power, infinite potential, the ability to do and be anything. Only nothing is omnipotent. God has no potential, for anything that God could do God does.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that nothing is omnipotent? And how does the idea that God can do anything mean that God will do anything?

 

[aristotle]

What do you mean by power of attraction? God is a gravitational or magnetic force which moves things? And if this is what you believe,how do you say that God has no power to move things? If God moves all things then he must have power.

Excellent question. God is like gravity, in the sense that both are attractive forces. God is not like gravity in that gravity requires a potential, and cannot exist without such a potential. Also, gravity is a property of things, and not a thing in itself.

Magnetic fields do no work, but they are properties of objects with potential, also.

Also, God is not like gravity in that God is intelligent; God is thought thinking Itself.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that nothing is omnipotent? And how does the idea that God can do anything mean that God will do anything?

Because there are limits to what I can become. But God draws much that exists from nothing by attraction. So nothing is potentially anything.

 

[cathgal]

For everyone:

I refer to God as “It”, not out of any disrespect, but because I find “Him” to be chauvanistic.

If people find this disrespectful, I will refer to God as a “She”.

But I will not refer to God as a male (save accidentally) because God has no penis.

Chauvanistic?

Are you thinking like a feminist thinks?

 

[aristotle]

Chauvanistic?

Are you thinking like a feminist thinks?

Hardly. I just find that, as God has no penis nor vagina, God is neither He nor She. Simply It.

And that is a more respectful thing, because it means God has no potential in this arena either.

 

[cathgal]

Why should I accept that Adam and Eve existed?

Why shouldn’t you?

 

[cathgal]

Hardly. I just find that, as God has no penis nor vagina, God is neither He nor She. Simply It.

And that is a more respectful thing, because it means God has no potential in this arena either.

That’s where the problem is.

In our finite mind, we would never know.

That’s why He has revealed Himself to us, but most of us are not opened to that divine knowledge.

 

[aristotle]

That’s why He has revealed Himself to us, but most of us are not opened to that divine knowledge.

I certainly am not.

 

[aristotle]

Why shouldn’t you?

For the same reason I don’t accept unicorns. Not that they couldn’t exist, but simply it is unlikely.

I suppose the best answer comes from GK Chesterton. I have the freedom to believe in faries. I simply choose not to.

And I choose not to believe in Adam and Eve.

I might be more open if there were more evidence, but I find the whole concept ugly and unappealing.

 

[Ahimsa]

Aristotle, you’re a Process Theologian.

 

[cathgal]

I certainly am not.

Good for you!

 

[cathgal]

For the same reason I don’t accept unicorns. Not that they couldn’t exist, but simply it is unlikely.

I suppose the best answer comes from GK Chesterton. I have the freedom to believe in faries. I simply choose not to.

And I choose not to believe in Adam and Eve.

I might be more open if there were more evidence, but I find the whole concept ugly and unappealing.

You think you’re the only one who doesn’t believe in unicorns and fairies ?!

Quit be so insulting to us Catholics’ intellect ! :tsktsk:

More evidence?

Why don’t you tell us how little you know and we’ll go from here…