There is no God

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

But supernatural causes may have no cause at all? Is that plausible?

sure - the first cause is necessary, and necessarily supernatural, since necessary beings cannot be corporeal.

the first cause doesn’t need a cause because it didn’t begin to exist (i.e. it’s necessary).

 

[kev7]

pgoings:

As others have alluded to, it seems that what we have here is an epistemological dead end.

A proof of God’s existence from empirical evidence does not (and, I believe, cannot) exist.

There is no proof necessary for those who believe by faith.

I do, however, submit that those atheists who claim that the existence of the Christian God is a logical impossibility are incorrect. (Usually their understanding of what Catholics mean by God is incorrect or incomplete.)

In general, though, what is the purpose to this discussion? What common ground can there be?

Exactly, there is no reason to require logical proof to believe in God.

Logical proof alone is limited by mans understanding of his own existance, which we know from our own history is full of error.

As catholics we understand that mans understanding of things is always changing and that it is subject to time. We also have no reason to put faith in mans logic.

That is the main difference.

The atheist puts his faith in what he knows (mans understanding). He is constantly searching for a truth that is void of love.

We put our faith in the possibility that there is more to our existance then what man is limited to understanding.

We then conclude that if there is a God that is good that exists outside our realm of understanding then his truths will be of a nature that promote love and peace for man. after all we can’t understand a God that is non-linier with linier logic.

There would be no need for mans logic if we existed in a non-linier reality.

When we repsect and follow the teachings of Chirst we come to know that they are the word of God. His word fills our hearts with love for everyone even those that persecute us. How can there be any greater truth then that?

 

[Alois]

estesbob:

No-you tell me where the properties of the universe tat that Quantum Maechanics exlores came from.

Properties are derived from the object, an object is not derived from its properties.

and while you are at it tell me where all the matter that makes up the universe came from. If you believe its all from the “Big Bang” please tell us where the hydygeon that fueled this came from and what caused the catalyst for the Bang came from. And please dont speculate-like you I demand PROOF.

Proof? I guess you’ve been devoid of scientific knowledge for the past… 50 years? At least you act that way. I’m not your teacher, look up something as simple as that for yourself.

Anyway, it’s a wee bit hypocritical to hold on to the thought of a God which you have no evidence for, and then demand conclusive proof for things which we actually have evidence for.

–

By the way, I’m still waiting for the “evidence” of a God. Where is it?

BTW-the link you gave me was worthless. Lots of bashing of Creationists, lots of SPECULATION on how non-life could spring from life but no proof-you hve to take it ion Faith.

I can’t help you if you’re damning yourself to ignorance. You believe what you want to, and turn off your logic to do so. When you’re willing to actually debate instead of covering your ears and saying “LALALALA I"M NOT LISTENING!”, come back and start over.

 

[Alois]

Exactly, there is no reason to require logical proof to believe in God.

Logical proof alone is limited by mans understanding of his own existance, which we know from our own history is full of error.

As catholics we understand that mans understanding of things is always changing and that it is subject to time. We also have no reason to put faith in mans logic.

No offense to you kev7, but I feel like I’m beating my head on a brick wall here. Please, answer these questions: (which I have proposed in response to you 3 times now)

Do you believe that when you walk outside, a being not of our existence will tear you limb from limb?

If you don’t, how can you claim to believe in a God with the same physical traits (or rather, lack thereof) but not believe in the being I just mentioned?

If you concede that you have no logical reason for believing one over the other, then you have conceded the debate itself. You have stepped into illogic, where anything is possible and nothing can be proven. Good luck trying to get anything done there.

The atheist puts his faith in what he knows (mans understanding). He is constantly searching for a truth that is void of love.

You put your faith in what you know each time you take a step. Each time you exhale. Each and every moment you exist. Your life depends on what your rational mind tells you. Your life does not depend on what your irrational mind tells you. Nothing does.

As for the love comment; ridiculous. You bastardized the definition of love in an attempt to fit it to your own argument.

We put our faith in the possibility that there is more to our existance then what man is limited to understanding.

So why put this “faith” into one being? Under your definition of a God’s properties, it could be anything. There are an infinite amount of possibilities that you create when you assume a being can exist out of logic, detection, and existence. I say there are round squares in this realm where you god exists, and that your god actually worships them. Disprove me.

When we repsect and follow the teachings of Chirst we come to know that they are the word of God. His word fills our hearts with love for everyone even those that persecute us. How can there be any greater truth then that?

The burden of proof is on you. How could there not be any greater Truth? After all, you’ve opened up all possibilities in this brave new realm of illogic.

 

[estesbob]

Alois:

Properties are derived from the object, an object is not derived from its properties.

Proof? I guess you’ve been devoid of scientific knowledge for the past… 50 years? At least you act that way. I’m not your teacher, look up something as simple as that for yourself.

Anyway, it’s a wee bit hypocritical to hold on to the thought of a God which you have no evidence for, and then demand conclusive proof for things which we actually have evidence for.

–

By the way, I’m still waiting for the “evidence” of a God. Where is it?

I can’t help you if you’re damning yourself to ignorance. You believe what you want to, and turn off your logic to do so. When you’re willing to actually debate instead of covering your ears and saying “LALALALA I"M NOT LISTENING!”, come back and start over.

In other words:

You cant offer us any explanation as to where the matter that you say existed at the time big bang occured came from AND

You can not offer us any proof that life can spring spontaneoulsy from non life. I guees we have to take it on FAITH, right?

 

[hurst]

Alois:

This is just you saying “I assert” in place of “I believe”.
Sorry, but that’s all it is.

No, it is me saying “I recognize” in place of “I believe”.

I am not making a blank declaration, nor am I insisting you hold to it, and I even made that clear in the last sentence of my post.

However, I can’t make someone else recognize this, anymore than I can make someone think a certain way who doesn’t want to reach the same conclusion.

Still, for the times I lose consciousness of this recognition, I continue through belief, and that is fine. Just as you would continue to believe the sun is still in the sky though hidden by clouds or night.

Alois:

I could just as easily say that I recognize the existence of unicorns because of existence itself.

You could certainly “assert” that.

I already realize that simply making an assertion does not make something true.

And yet, the “concept” of unicorns does exist, which is what enables us to discuss it at all.

Alois:

It’s no different. They’re both baseless assertions

They are very different. A unicorn has no relationship to the source of existence. Nor would I assert horses exist because of existence itself.

A better comparative example would be recognizing that the water coming out of the end of a hose must have its source in a larger source of water, for the amount coming out is more than the hose could contain. That is not an assertion, but rather a reasoned conclusion.

Alois:

used to distance oneself from chalking it up to faith and belief alone.

I am not avoiding “chalking it up to faith and belief alone”. Did you not read in my post where I referred to this?

though certainly, one can decide to “believe” in place of not recognizing

What I was doing was pointing out that faith is not required to reach the conclusion of such existence. In fact, reaching that conclusion is required before one can have faith in it. And yet, one may decide to use faith to reach or hold that conclusion.

Alois:

In order to assert something, you need logical proof for it.

Actually, assertions need no “proof”. Cheerleaders often assert that their team is “Number One”, even when they aren’t. It is often just wishful thinking or social positioning.

Alois:

Where is your proof that existence needs to be supported by a god?
Where is your proof that such a god indeed exists?

When I say I recognize that God exists, I am referring to God defined as the source of all existence. It is just a term at this point. We could use another term, if you would feel better about it, but it can’t refer to any visible object.

Scientists reason that all living creatures evolved from a single organism, since they share similar make up. They reason that all matter and forces came from a single point of matter/energy, since it all shares similar make up and laws.

They could likewise reason that everything recognizable comes from a single point of existence since everything shares the property of being and remaining recognized either as something visible or invisible. But this would include personality, humor, wisdom, knowledge, evil, fear, lies, truth, scepticism, faith, honor, anything knowable, glory, shame, speculation, make-believe, etc. etc. since all these things can be recognized. And it is this common source that we need a name for. For all things that we recognize have in common that they can be recognized; they exist in one way or another.

Alois:

A child will assert that there is a monster under his/her bed when there clearly isn’t.

Your assertion that a child will assert such a thing is perhaps based on hearing stories of children saying that, but the reasons a child does this is not consistent. They might be making it up in order to gain some benefit such as staying up later or of getting more attention from their parents. Then they would be making an unfounded assertion or claim.

However, it may also be that the child senses danger or fear. The feelings are real and exist, and they recognize there is a source for them, even if invisible, which they call monsters. It is sufficiently real to them that they can be considered to be in a real fight, at least in their perceptions, and naturally call out to their parents for help.

hurst

 

[estesbob]

EnterTheBowser:

I’d recommend reading A Brief History of Time; it’s an excellent book, or if you don’t feel like buying it, this might also help.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

This isn’t an argument I’m making; it’s just informative.

Kind of off topic I know but wikipedia is not a vaid source. it is a complation of peoples “opinion” on a subject.

 

[mikew262]

Alois:

Properties are derived from the object, an object is not derived from its properties.

Proof? I guess you’ve been devoid of scientific knowledge for the past… 50 years? At least you act that way. I’m not your teacher, look up something as simple as that for yourself.

Anyway, it’s a wee bit hypocritical to hold on to the thought of a God which you have no evidence for, and then demand conclusive proof for things which we actually have evidence for.

–

By the way, I’m still waiting for the “evidence” of a God. Where is it?

I can’t help you if you’re damning yourself to ignorance. You believe what you want to, and turn off your logic to do so. When you’re willing to actually debate instead of covering your ears and saying “LALALALA I"M NOT LISTENING!”, come back and start over.

You atheists are saying there is no God. Where is your proof? Nobody on this thread has provided any proof that God doesn’t exist.

Can I provide you absolute proof in your 3-D, 5 sense world that he exists, probably not. One has to open their minds and hearts and have faith. Go beyond logic. This is your limitation.

Not believing is easy. Having faith and sticking with it is the hard part.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Read Thomas Aquinas if you can’t bring yourself to believe in God. Also, if you’re looking for scientific evidence of God’s existence, you won’t find any. By His very nature God is supernatural. Science observes the natural and therefore can never prove God’s existence.

 

[Alois]

In other words:

You cant offer us any explanation as to where the matter that you say existed at the time big bang occured came from AND

You can not offer us any proof that life can spring spontaneoulsy from non life. I guees we have to take it on FAITH, right?

No, I take it on reason. You’re making a typical black and white fallacy:

"There are two solutions to the question: A and B. Therefore the odds of A being the correct solution are 50%, and the odds of B being the correct solution are 50%." - This is a logical fallacy. We have evidence for mans evolution, and we have evidence for abiogenesis. (option A) We have no evidence for the creation of man by a God. (option B) Therefore, A is more likely than B.

I’m not taking it on faith, I’m taking it on reason. One solution is more reasonable and logical than the other, so I take the more reasonable and logical solution. It’s really a pretty simple concept, and you’d know it if you weren’t trolling.

Edit

I have provided the evidence, where is yours of God’s existence?

 

[RobNY]

Alois:

Why shouldn’t it? What is your definition of “caring”?

I don’t think you’d think too highly of my arguments if in response to, “does God exist,” I responded “why shouldn’t it?” Are there any reasons that being ‘here’ should entail ‘caring?’

And no, I don’t really have the definition… I was aiming the question at AnAthiest, so I suppose I am looking for his definition.

 

[JSmitty2005]

This seemed like an applicable article:

Scientific Faith: Like Religion, Science Is Grounded in Non-Provable Beliefs

JP2 also wrote an encyclical called Fides et Ratio

Finally, Mr. Anthony Rizzi, founder of the Institute for Advanced Physics and devout Catholic wrote a book entitled The Science before Science: A Guide to Thinking in the 21st Century. He also recently appeared on EWTN Live as well as The Journey Home. You will need RealPlayer to listen to these.

Alois:

We have no evidence for the creation of man by a God.

Is this the reason that you don’t believe in a Higher Being? The only “evidence” that you seem to be open to is scientific evidence, and like I said before, natural science cannot prove the existence or unexistence of a Supernatural Being.

 

[estesbob]

Alois:

I’m not taking it on faith, I’m taking it on reason. One solution is more reasonable and logical than the other, so I take the more reasonable and logical solution. It’s really a pretty simple concept, and you’d know it if you weren’t trolling.

Edit

I have provided the evidence, where is yours of God’s existence?

The only evidence you have provided is the assertion that your “opinon” is more logical than the opinon of the overwhelming majortiy of people throughout the ages… My evidence of the proof of God is the that your assertion that life can arise from non-life is an absurd, unproven proposition.Thyus, there had to be a creator-both of life and all other rmatter. Can you disprove this?

 

[Alois]

No, it is me saying “I recognize” in place of “I believe”.

I am not making a blank declaration [snip]

Then you’re just saying “I believe”. “I recognize” would only apply if there were something to to gain that recognition from. You “believe” that existence is the thing that provides this recognition, therefore the base of your claim is “I believe”.

Still, for the times I lose consciousness of this recognition, I continue through belief, and that is fine. [snip].

This is assuming the base I mentioned above: that existence can cause the recognition of a God. It can, but only if you believe it. There is no evidence that is does so.

You could certainly “assert” that.

I already realize that simply making an assertion does not make something true.

How is the recognition of unicorns because of existence any more of an assertion than the recognition of a God because of existence?

And yet, the “concept” of unicorns does exist, which is what enables us to discuss it at all.

And yet, the same applies to God.

They are very different. A unicorn has no relationship to the source of existence. Nor would I assert horses exist because of existence itself.

Why not? Why is God an acception to this? In your example below, why could a unicorn not be the “larger source”?

A better comparative example would be recognizing that the water coming [snip]

You assume that you know the size of the “hose”. If you actually do and have the evidence to back it up, you’ve just won a Nobel Peace Prize.

I am not avoiding “chalking it up to faith and belief alone”. Did you not read in my post where I referred to this?

Responded to above.

What I was doing was pointing out that faith is not required to reach the conclusion of such existence. In fact, reaching that conclusion is required before one can have faith in it. And yet, one may decide to use faith to reach or hold that conclusion.

The problem is, no evidence has been put forth to prove that you don’t need faith to reach such a conclusion. There is no valid, logical argument for the existence of a god, or at least one has not been yet provided in this thread.

Actually, assertions need no “proof”. Cheerleaders often assert that their team is “Number One”, even when they aren’t. It is often just wishful thinking or social positioning.

Which is why the assertion will fail. I was implying a true assertion.

When I say I recognize that God exists, I am referring to God defined as the source of all existence. It is just a term at this point. We could use another term, if you would feel better about it, but it can’t refer to any visible object.

If this is your definition of God; I have no problem with it.

Scientists reason that all living creatures evolved from a single organism, since they share similar make up. They reason that all matter and forces came from a single point of matter/energy, since it all shares similar make up and laws.

In many ways, this isn’t true. Though, I will let it ride for now.

They could likewise reason that everything recognizable comes from a single point of existence since everything shares the property of being and remaining recognized either as something visible or invisible. But this would include personality, humor, wisdom, knowledge, evil, fear, lies, truth, scepticism, faith, honor, anything knowable, glory, shame, speculation, make-believe, etc. etc. since all these things can be recognized. And it is this common source that we need a name for. For all things that we recognize have in common that they can be recognized; they exist in one way or another.

A compound is more than a base. A base does not need to contain all of the attributes of something derived from it, but rather the root of that compound. For instance, in evolution theory we have all evolved from one common ancestor. (many actually, but I want to keep this simple) This common ancestor did not contain all that we have in creatures today, these traits were evolved and enhanced.

This single point, this trigger, did not need to come from a God or base with those attributes.

Your assertion that a child will… [snip]

This is a perfect analogy of how man created God. To explain the (seemingly) unexplainable, and to control. They equate to the same as a child claiming there is a monster under his bed.

However, it may also be that the child senses danger or fear. The feelings are real and exist, and they recognize there is a source for them, even if invisible… [snip]

And thus Hell is created.

I mean no offense when I say this, but are you agreeing with me on this point?

*Sorry to snip your quotes, space issues.

 

[Alois]

estesbob:

The only evidence you have provided is the assertion that your “opinon” is more logical than the opinon of the overwhelming majortiy of people throughout the ages… My evidence of the proof of God is the that your assertion that life can arise from non-life is an absurd, unproven proposition.Thyus, there had to be a creator-both of life and all other rmatter. Can you disprove this?

Give me a full, written rebuttal of the links I provided you then. Or stop trolling. The evidence is there, you refuse to look at it.

Here they are again:
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

 

[Alois]

Is this the reason that you don’t believe in a Higher Being? The only “evidence” that you seem to be open to is scientific evidence, and like I said before, natural science cannot prove the existence or unexistence of a Supernatural Being.

What other evidence is there? You saying that God exists? Naturalistic evidence is the only evidence possible. Your feelings do not count as evidence, and never should. That opens all kinds of doors.

–

Thanks for the links by the way, but the first one has already been refuted numerous times.

Here’s one essay in particular.

I’ll get back to you on the others.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Scientism is another strand of relativism that the Pope exposes in Fides et Ratio. Scientism “is the philosophical notion that refuses to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences; and it relegates religious, theological, ethical, and aesthetic knowledge to the realm of mere fantasy.”

 

[Alois]

JSmitty2005:

Scientism is another strand of relativism that the Pope exposes in Fides et Ratio. Scientism “is the philosophical notion that refuses to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences; and it relegates religious, theological, ethical, and aesthetic knowledge to the realm of mere fantasy.”

:banghead:

Science isn’t philosophical. It is based on reason and fact.

Even then, would you care to provide any advancement in knowledge provided directly by religon? (IE: not by a religous scientist using the SM) Or does Thor still cause lightning where you live?

The essence of philosophy is the study of ideas and methods that are fundamental, and not directly addressed in other specialized disciplines such as science, history, or religion.

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_philosophy

 

[Alois]

estesbob:

Kind of off topic I know but wikipedia is not a vaid source. it is a complation of peoples “opinion” on a subject.

No, Wikipedia is fact checked more rigorously than written encyclopedias. It’s isn’t opinion.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Alois:

Science isn’t philosophical. It is based on reason and fact.

My point exactly - you believe that there are no “facts” other than things that can be proven through the scientific method. Anyways, I’m a college student and this is finals week, so I need to get off here for now, but you should listen to the Journey Home link that I put in my other post. The scientist addresses the relationship between science and philosophy. By the way, he’s not a “creationist” (in the fundamentalist sense). Also, I would venture to guess that you would like to believe in God if you could, otherwise you wouldn’t be on this forum unless you want to convert us all to atheism, but where would that get you? Alrighty, that’s about all I have to say. Take it easy.

-Jon

PS - Merry Christmas!