Thomistic proofs for the existence of God in the light of modern science

[JDaniel]

Possibility 2: The Universe is not infinite. Our current understanding says that a cause must either be an accidental efficient cause (Quantum Fluctuation: youtube.com/watch?v=uzEhC9iAbeE or String/M Theory: tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php, etc) or be something outside of the universe that is not an accidental efficient cause.

The possibility you speak of inaccurately discounts the first possibility and the first 2 of within the second set, and says that the beginning must have been something outside of the universe that is not accidental. Your solution? Simply say, with conviction: It was God! An infinite amount of timeless energy must have been loving, intelligent, a being, supernatural, benevolent, just and gracious enough to give us an imperfect book from his perfect self.

I hope you didn’t spend any money on that Basic Logic Course by Squirrel Higgins advertised on the Fantastic Histoire Channel . . . no, I’m pretty sure you didn’t. It’s a waste of money, to be sure. (I added some necessary words, to your first paragraph, and highlighted them, with the hope that you wouldn’t mind, as they are actually what St. Thomas had to say,)

Your Possibility 1 is now accurately refuted. Please don’t invoke it again. When you state your second paragraph, is where I really wonder if you did actually pay for that bogus logic course: if you consider efficient causality by actually LOOKING at it, you discover a couple of very important, necessary things that cannot be done without. (1) ALL intermediate efficient effects have a cause. Subsequently, an effect may become causative of another effect, and so on (what is commonly known as a causative chain), but, not necessarily.

What does this tell us? Well, it tells us that no-thing can be the cause of itself, otherwise, what? Otherwise it would pre-exist itself! How can it do that? It can’t! But, we also notice, that there are effects that terminate and cause nothing further. And, we also notice that effects can become causative. Now, if we peer into the future, we can advance the proposition that these cause/effect chains could progress into the future ad infinitum. Thus, there is the possibility that the universe is eternal.

It is science that says it is not: first, it says that the universe is on a steady course towards complete entropy. Second, the Hubble Telescope can see the edges of the universe and what takes place there. Stars, galaxies and constellations imploding into black holes - becoming, well, becoming dark energy and dark matter because, as we know from the Law of the Conservation of Energy (and Matter), energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so, we need to postulate something. Seems to be said with “conviction”, too.

Now, to logical, and naturalistic, proposition (2). From all that has been heretofore stated and observed, we KNOW that there cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. And we know this for two reasons now. First, because science says the universe is not infinite (regardless of what some moron scientists postulate who do not fully understand what it means to be “infinite”) And, second, because there could be no new (ultimate or intermediate) causes/effects. It would be an endless, circular chain of the same cause - effect - cause - effect, and so on. But, we can plainly see that that is not so.

Further, from the fact that we can see the cessation of causative chains, we know that intermediate causes are not sufficient to continue from all eternity to all eternity. For, if at any point in time should all cease causing, nothing would exist. What does this show? Well, for one thing, it shows the need for a necessary cause - an un-caused, infinite and eternal cause (St. Thomas’ 3rd way of knowing God exists). We exist; we are not nothing.

To stop the search for the real explanation, and postulate a random explanation without any evidence is absurd and against every available scientific principle. If you would like to search for the evidence, go ahead, but I will never subscribe to a supernatural view without evidence, because there has never been any showing a hint of a supernatural world. And I doubt there will be. If there is, I will be happy to join you.

Seems you are very intent upon killing God for a second time. You have no problem believing in random postulates from some scientists. You take them at their words, on FAITH. Even though, some 40-plus percent of them have not lost their faith and continue to believe God exists despite their comrades’ constant, yet seemingly futile, attempts to crush the life out of God.

Until then, I happily sit here, typing to you. Hoping you’ll see that natural explanations are valid, even if unproven, and that your attacks on them do not hold up scientifically- if you have trouble with these explanations, go to your local university and ask around. They can explain it much, much better than me or youtube ever will. For now, I’m just trying to get you to understand that, even though the Bible says so, all Atheists are not “fools.” : ).

I am clearly on the side of the Bible.

Happy New Year and
God Bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Link for String/M Theory (Last one was a mistake): youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAagw6iug&feature=related

To JDaniel: I will go research that, thank you. I did not necessarily mean to say that the Universe itself is infinite, but that the overarching term of existence is. Our universe, due to its ever-expanding nature, is of course not infinite, for it regresses to the point of singularity. However, the “strings” of String Theory could be infinite and constant, and my current understanding of QM leads me to believe that the Quantum Field (I know this is a terrible name for it, but I don’t know what else to call it) could be infinite, but I will certainly research what you said and possibly reform my understanding. Thanks! : ).

Terrific, but, remember, “string theories” are, for all intents and purposes, essentially not important in Physics now, and are probably on their way out for most physicists. There are better, more palatable theories that pretty much invalidate “strings” and are more appropriate to what can be seen to take place out there.

Happy New Year and
God Bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Please allow me (as feeble as it may turn out to be) to attempt to interject some understanding of St. Thomas’ five Ways (Proofs) of Knowing God exists:

St. Thomas’ first proposition is from Motion. He says, we all see and understand motion. Here, St. Thomas means motion is a wider sense than simple, local motion. He means, local motions, growth, becoming, building-out, spreading-out, and things that are all essentially processes of a thing ending up in a different place, different age, different size, different number, different than its former self.

Further, if we look closely, we discover that all such “motions” do not occur by and of themselves. We discover that some thing, itself in motion, set them in motion. Now, if all things that are in motion(s) are, in fact, caused by something else that is in motion, it would appear that we would have no choice but to regress ad infinitum. But, we know this can’t happen.

We know that no new motion would take place without a first mover, otherwise, we would have a circular chain of the same moving thing moving the same thing moving the same moving thing. Also, we know that the universe is not infinite, did not set itself in motion and was set in motion by someone, or something, that pre-existed its existence.

We have covered his 2nd Way in several earlier posts. It is the proof from efficient causality. This is simple: all of the causes that we are able to see are intermediate causes. But, we know that intermediate causes cannot be the cause of themselves as they would have had to pre-exist themselves, thus, there must be a First Cause.

St. Thomas’ 3rd Way (Proof) is from necessity. Again, this is easy. Look at nature. We know, from looking at nature, that a thing comes to be and goes out of being. But, it is impossible for these two to always exist. If they did, then nothing would exist now because we know that what exists only comes into existence by that which exists. But if, at some point, nothing existed, then nothing could exist now. So, there must be some thing, in existence, that is necessary being; something that never did, nor could, go out of existence.

Furthermore, we cannot go on infinitely for the same reasons we cannot go on infinitely from the 2nd Proof.

St. Thomas’ 4th Proof is from gradients of predication. Things are known to be more or less “something”. Some predicates are accidental (non-essential) to a subject, while others are necessary (essential). When a predicate is predicated of a subject, it is predicated from a gradient.

For example, if we predicate “tallest”, we predicate it from a knowledge of that which is the tallest. We do not predicate it from shortest. Only shortest is predicated from “shortest”. The genus, tallest, has, under its tree, everything which has heretofore been predicated as the tallest. But, there can be only one actual “tallest”.

Thus, in the realm of being, there can only be one most-being and it can’t be something merely natural, as we know that nothing merely natural stacks up to being the most-being, or the perfect being, except God.

The 5th Proof is from how the world seems governed, via our abilities to sense things. We notice two distinct groups of things (Aquinas calls “natural bodies”) in our world (or, universe): things that are intelligent and things that are not. When we look at intelligent things, such as humans, we discover that their final causes are not necessarily ordered to their “best” ends. We notice that, with the help of free will, humans can, and sometimes do, make a muck of things.

However, Aquinas is not speaking of intelligent things herein. He is speaking of unintelligent things. When be observe unintelligent things, we discover that they tend to act (be) towards their best good. So, the best end for lumber, for example, can be said to be the for construction of shelter. The best end for a tree may be its fruit, to be consumed by humans, or, if not for its fruit perhaps its ability to provide shelter for other life forms on their evolutionary journey.

Even rocks tend towards their best ends. They may provide cave structures for wolves and large cats to den in. Or, they may provide shade for dessert dwelling life forms. Etc., etc. That nothing can be found that proves itself absolutely worthless, and since all things tend to be directed towards their best ends (or best benefits) would seem to indicate something very intelligent is behind all of this creation. We call Him God.

St. Thomas understood that this thing did not have to be called God; it could have been called Yahweh. But, it could not have been called, “world”. And, it could not have been called, “universe”. Neither of these exigencies have sufficient determinate properties to be able to accomplish the things Aquinas has described.

Finally, as to the theory that causality and motion stem from multiple sources, therefore we can’t regress such that the regression insinuates a singular initial point of beginning, I’d say, “look harder.” Nothing that is has multiple and simultaneous first efficient causes.

Happy New Year and
God Bless,
jd

 

[Logos385]

Thank you JDaniel for your very comprehensive posts, they were very informative. I now realize that either my understanding of the sciences are flawed or science might not know, as of yet, a sufficient explanation.

However, whether or not science currently can explain the phenomena of causation, origins, “the beginning,” etc., I see no reason to give up the search, as I have said before. Although a natural cause might be, as of yet, out of our mental grasp, a supernatural one is even more so distant. In order to solve this problem of causation, Aquinas and his proponents add an entirely extra realm of existence, rather than actually searching for evidence. Their evidence for a supernatural cause is that there is no evidence, thus the “evidence” or the source of the causation must be supernatural. At least, this is all I have heard. Whether or not a theory holds it is the evidence that gives it merit. (Ex. When someone is killed it is perfectly reasonable to think that their neighbor killed them, and you can even assign qualities of impulsive behavior to the neighbor, put a possible affair into the situation, postulate means, motive, etc, yet until evidence comes into the picture this theorizing means nothing).

Also, this theory, if evidence is ever found for it (or if it can predict things extremely well that happen in our world, another kind of evidence for a scientific theory) still does not show God to exist, all it shows is that their is an eternal, divine energy. This would be God from a Deist perspective, far from a Christian one. To assign this energy such qualities as intelligence, compassion, being just and jealous is going far beyond the scope of the provable realm.

Once again, my goal is to simply show Aquinas’s proof as proof of a possibility, not complete proof. I still would wish to end this conversation, as these posts are still ridiculously long, and no one likes that, right? : ).

Some Atheists are fools, but statistically, they have to be, just as many Christians are. : ).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Once again, a naturalistic origin IS POSSIBLE.

Possibility 1: The Universe is infinite.

its limited in space by the speed of the expansion and its limited temporally by a beginning. how then would you consider the it infinite?

Don’t true and use the argument of the laws of entropy, for we are not sure that the Universe is a closed system,

why not? with the above limits it seems to be proven.

and if you hold free will as a certainty, decision-making can alter the conclusion of the laws of entropy

.

only the addition of energy into a closed system(as the universe seems to be) can alter entropy, and then it only extends the life of the system, so to speak, for a limited amount of time

Possibility 2: The Universe is not infinite. Our current understanding says that a cause must either be accidental (Quantum Fluctuation: youtube.com/watch?v=uzEhC9iAbeE or String/M Theory: tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php, etc) or be something outside of the universe that is not accidental.

yes, we all know the more exotic branches of cosmology, but they all depend on a physical cause, whether, you talk about branes, strings, loops, or whatever the flavor of the month is.

or take virtual particles on the broken link, they tell you that it doesnt violate the laws of conservation because the net energy gain would be 0, then they tell you that they havent found the antimatter to do that yet.

these kind of arguments are fallacious, they sound good, to someone who doesnt know better, but on examination they are nothing more than flights of imagination, physicists dreaming of ways to avoid a created universe.

The possibility you speak of inaccurately discounts the first possibility and the first 2 of within the second set, and says that the beginning must have been something outside of the universe that is not accidental

.

please quote what you are referring to here, im not sure what you are talking about

Your solution? Simply say, with conviction: It was God! An infinite amount of timeless energy must have been loving, intelligent, a being, supernatural, benevolent, just and gracious enough to give us an imperfect book from his perfect self.

im only saying it must be supernatural because all physical effects can be excluded on the basis of being unable to cause themselves.

To stop the search for the real explanation, and postulate a random explanation without any evidence is absurd and against every available scientific principle. If you would like to search for the evidence, go ahead, but I will never subscribe to a supernatural view without evidence, because there has never been any showing a hint of a supernatural world. And I doubt there will be. If there is, I will be happy to join you.

if all physical causes are excluded, then what is left? you seem to be subscribing to theories that even the people posting the youtube video disclaim. thats a lot of faith in itself.

if you have trouble with these explanations, go to your local university and ask around. They can explain it much, much better than me or youtube ever will. For now, I’m just trying to get you to understand that, even though the Bible says so, all Atheists are not “fools.” : ).

you are under the mistaken impression that we are less educated than you. that would be a “foolish” assumption

 

[Logos385]

To warpseedpeety: I’m not saying you are less educated than I, I actually doubt that. I think my most recent post (that isn’t this one) will help you more understand where I am coming from. If I remember correctly it will address this specifically I think, at least some of the ending stuff you said.

For the record, I don’t think any of you are fools, and am not trying to degrade your intellect in any form, 'tis just a discussion that has been far too long : ).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Although a natural cause might be, as of yet, out of our mental grasp, a supernatural one is even more so distant. In order to solve this problem of causation, Aquinas and his proponents add an entirely extra realm of existence, rather than actually searching for evidence. Their evidence for a supernatural cause is that there is no evidence, thus the “evidence” or the source of the causation must be supernatural. At least, this is all I have heard.

then you have misheard.

Aquinas’ proofs say that there is no naturalistic evidence possible, as nothing physical can cause itself.

not that one can find some physical object that is capable of causing itself if only one looks hard enough, but rather no physical object is capable of causing itself.

in other words there is nothing left to search for, only non-physical(supernatural) causes are logically possible.

this is easy to understand, but hard for an atheist to accept.
it is not a question of logic, reason or evidence in the end, it is a question of motivations.

why is one an atheist? can one remain an atheist in the face of insurmountable reason?

Whether or not a theory holds it is the evidence that gives it merit. (Ex. When someone is killed it is perfectly reasonable to think that their neighbor killed them, and you can even assign qualities of impulsive behavior to the neighbor, put a possible affair into the situation, postulate means, motive, etc, yet until evidence comes into the picture this theorizing means nothing).

thats called reasoning, and logic, which is exactly what the Thomistic proofs are. why is that acceptable in every situation but this one?

This would be God from a Deist perspective, far from a Christian one. To assign this energy such qualities as intelligence, compassion, being just and jealous is going far beyond the scope of the provable realm.

that is not what the Thomistic proofs are about, they claim no such thing

Some Atheists are fools, but statistically, they have to be, just as many Christians are. : ).

actually i can prove this statement false. check this out.

in the course of another conversation this was posted as to why an atheist would not agree with a theist if they both knew the same thing

Quote:

What if the person disagreeing actually has more knowlege, not the same? What if the person disagreeing understands something better, not worse than the individual claiming that other’s don’t understand?

that essentially seems to be a polite claim that atheists are more intelligent than their theist counterparts.

here is my response

because thats not a possible scenario when applied to a significantly large sample size of humanity. though some individuals may be more or less educated, intelligent, or knowledgeable, when averaged across the total population we are essentially equal in these qualities

if theism, and atheism were of equal validity, than under the conditions above we should expect to see approximately a 50/50 split. where half the population is theist and half is non-theist

however the actual distribution seems to be 10:1 to 20:1 reflecting a rate of atheism of 5% to 10% of the total population. (though i think that number a little high)

so if the arguments as to individuality were true and both propositions were equally valid then we should see a 50/50 distribution.

but we dont

in order to explain that unequal distribution we have to assume the following positions

1. theists are less intelligent than average, by a large enough amount to account for the rate of that position in society. (9.5 out of 10 would have to be less intelligent than the current average)
2. atheists are less intelligent than average by a rate significant enough to account for that distribution (1 to 2 out of 20 would have to be less intelligent than the current average)
3. the propositions of atheism vs. theism are not of equal validity.

as the first two are false on the face of them, that strongly suggests that the third position is true

the proof being that if they were equally valid than there should be an even distribution among the population

as we dont see that, and the other possibilities are false on their face.

we can only conclude that atheism and theism, are not of equal validity

in fact by the numbers of adherents atheism is only 1/10 to 1/20 as valid as theism (a little tongue in cheek )

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To warpseedpeety: I’m not saying you are less educated than I, I actually doubt that. I think my most recent post (that isn’t this one) will help you more understand where I am coming from. If I remember correctly it will address this specifically I think, at least some of the ending stuff you said.

For the record, I don’t think any of you are fools, and am not trying to degrade your intellect in any form, 'tis just a discussion that has been far too long : ).

the quote button is the one to the immediate left of the hash marks at the top of this box, just highlight the text and hit it

that said you must understand that many atheists come here only to find out that what they thought they knew from school or the discovery channel was lacking and only looked good until they got here, dont feel bad it happens a few times a week.

The Roman Catholic Church has more than 1.2 billion members, millions of those are physicists, doctors, engineers, chemists. people who understand hard science. many of them are here.
you might ask yourself if all of us, who are just as intelligent and educated as any other people on the face of the earth, could all be wrong?

you may question which faith is correct, that is another thread, but one cannot ignore that naturalism is not a possible answer.

 

[Logos385]

To the first part of your response: I will certainly admit that nothing we know of that is physical can cause itself, but the conclusion that must be made is agnosticism about the Universe’s creation, not a conclusion of the supernatural. This is the same situation as there used to be with Intelligent Design: Nothing, logically in any way, was known that could be designed without a designer. Thus, this persuaded people to theism quite efficiently- if we look designed, and nothing we know of can be designed without having a designer, then there must have been a designer. However, this thinking, as we no know, was incorrect. It was blown out of the water with Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. Thus, we must evaluate the reasoning of the individuals who formed the false conclusion that there was unquestionably designer. Since no natural explanation was known, or even to them logically possible, they jumped to the supernatural explanation and called it good. Yet, this explanation had no evidence, despite the theory being sound. Finally, another, natural theory came to be and was supported by mounds and mountains of evidence, revolutionizing the thinking of the modern world.

The correct stance of the IDers in the past should have been agnosticism as to the possibility of a designer, for there was no evidence for such a supernatural intelligence. Although the theory held and seemed unquestionably correct, it turned out to be wrong.

To apply this to our situation, I honestly can’t show you anything natural that is uncaused, or can cause itself, and I can’t give you a perfect natural explanation, yet I see no reason to conclude the supernatural rather than enact agnosticism, for we very well could have revolutionary ideas to come. The supernatural remains unproved because we don’t have the evidence for it, yet the natural realm is proved because we are within it. Thus, since we have one realm proved and one not, it is safe to assume that occurrences remain in the proved realm are true, while those in the supernatural are speculation at best. I remain agnostic about the origin of the universe, and believe it to be unlikely that there is a supernatural cause (for there is no evidence), and think that there is a possibility of our naturalistic understanding to be revolutionized, and patiently await for that day. If it is not however, the correct position is agnosticism about the Universe’s origins, not an unproved, supernatural conclusion.

 

[Logos385]

I forgot to address the “atheists must be fools” proof you had.

I guess I’ll just say this: truth isn’t decided by majority. Understanding can be changed with evidence. The entire world used to believe in Polytheism, how does that equal truth? Answer- it does not.

Truth is not decided by majority.

 

[Logos385]

One more thing–> Dawkins on Aquinas’s proofs.

youtube.com/watch?v=SrtlyZPYmRE

I’m not saying he’s right or agreeing with him, just adding it to the discussion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I forgot to address the “atheists must be fools” proof you had.

I guess I’ll just say this: truth isn’t decided by majority. Understanding can be changed with evidence. The entire world used to believe in Polytheism, how does that equal truth? Answer- it does not.

Truth is not decided by majority.

of course not, but thats not what you said,

you said that atheists and Christians must equally be fools, i was disproving your statement, not trying to prove truth by numbers

 

[Logos385]

Alright, if you aren’t saying that, then your conclusion I think fails. You are ignoring the effects of indoctrination, the need for traditions, the innate predisposition the human race has for belief in the divine and also the myriad of other factors that effect whether someone believes or does not. Atheism is the fastest growing viewpoint on the subject of religion, “The American Religion Identification Survey found that the fastest growing religious indentification “in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight perent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001. It might be even higher since there was also a dramatic increase in the number of people who refused to answer the question, from 2 percent in 1990 to 5 percent in 2001.” According to your model, are Americans then just becoming more and more deluded? Or is a shift being made in light of a cultural change? And take Sweden for instance, which I believe is the most secular country. In Sweden then, are all religious people fools?

EDIT: In light of the fact that this is now a conversation between us two warpspeedpety, I would suggest going into a PM format as to allow the other conversations in this thread to return from being quashed : ).

 

[grannymh]

One more thing–> Dawkins on Aquinas’s proofs.

youtube.com/watch?v=SrtlyZPYmRE

I’m not saying he’s right or agreeing with him, just adding it to the discussion.

 

[grannymh]

One more thing–> Dawkins on Aquinas’s proofs.

youtube.com/watch?v=SrtlyZPYmRE

I’m not saying he’s right or agreeing with him, just adding it to the discussion.

Dear Logos385 and all the wonderful contributors to this thread,

Since I’m now reading The God Delusion in paperback at the same time that I am learning about Aquinas’s evidence for the existence of God, I am interested in the discussion on Dawkins and Aquinas’ proofs, even if it is a very short one which it will probably be considering the length of Dawkins’ treatment.

Blessings for 2009
grannymh

 

[Dark_Warrior]

“After the testing, it was found that the subject’s subconscious brain knew what hand was going to be used before the conscious mind knew. 7 seconds before on average. This seems ridiculous, yet has been verified in multiple studies. It makes my brain hurt. : ).”

Of course free will can be examined scientifically, where do you think the power of us making choices come from? Magic? Our brains are a massive computer system, and free will is all part of our human make-up. What’s the problem? Unless one is claiming that free will comes from some type of an invisible force.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To the first part of your response: I will certainly admit that nothing we know of that is physical can cause itself, but the conclusion that must be made is agnosticism about the Universe’s creation, not a conclusion of the supernatural.

there are only 2 states known

1. physical
2. non-physical (supernatural)

if you have evidence of any other states, please bring it forth, that would shock everybody on both sides of the debate.

This is the same situation as there used to be with Intelligent Design: Nothing, logically in any way, was known that could be designed without a designer. Thus, this persuaded people to theism quite efficiently- if we look designed, and nothing we know of can be designed without having a designer, then there must have been a designer. However, this thinking, as we no know, was incorrect. It was blown out of the water with Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. Thus, we must evaluate the reasoning of the individuals who formed the false conclusion that there was unquestionably designer. Since no natural explanation was known, or even to them logically possible, they jumped to the supernatural explanation and called it good. Yet, this explanation had no evidence, despite the theory being sound. Finally, another, natural theory came to be and was supported by mounds and mountains of evidence, revolutionizing the thinking of the modern world.

thats nothing like the situation we are talking about, there was more than one logical outcome to that argument.

with Thomistic proofs, there is not, you can only say that something came from nothing. which is ridiculous, no physical cause is capable causing itself, that excludes any naturalism. the only thing left is the supernatural cause, there can be no others.

no theory involving any objects of any kind is capable of explaining the existence of the universe.

is there a flaw in our reasoning? please tell me what it might be.

you keep insisting there are other possibilities, but that is the point, there are not.

To apply this to our situation, I honestly can’t show you anything natural that is uncaused, or can cause itself, and I can’t give you a perfect natural explanation, yet I see no reason to conclude the supernatural rather than enact agnosticism, for we very well could have revolutionary ideas to come.

you dont seem to understand this is a logic trap, there is no way out.

The supernatural remains unproved because we don’t have the evidence for it, yet the natural realm is proved because we are within it.

you fail to understand that supernatural simply means non-physical, thats it.

I remain agnostic about the origin of the universe, and believe it to be unlikely that there is a supernatural cause (for there is no evidence), and think that there is a possibility of our naturalistic understanding to be revolutionized, and patiently await for that day

.

if it is not a supernatural cause, than it must be a physical cause, but that is not possible because nothing physical can cause itself. no ideas, can change that in any way, it is bare fact. that you admit.

If it is not however, the correct position is agnosticism about the Universe’s origins, not an unproved, supernatural conclusion.

if it cant be physical, it must be non-physical.(this is entirely separate from religion)

i can only assume 2 things

1. you truly fail to understand the subject, i doubt that, you seem to have a grasp along a 1st or 2nd year students understanding, which is more than sufficient.
2. you are willfully misunderstanding, because caught in the logic, you dont like the implications of the truth.

thats ok, people dont like when cherished ideas are destroyed, when my atheism was crushed i took it personally.

in the end every atheistic pronouncement i have seen has been whittled down to the idea that other possibilities must exist, when confronted with thomistic proofs that other possibilities are impossible, they either run, call us names, or join us in the greater community of theists, whether that be Catholic or another faith, the question is what will you do?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Alright, if you aren’t saying that, then your conclusion I think fails. You are ignoring the effects of indoctrination, the need for traditions, the innate predisposition the human race has for belief in the divine and also the myriad of other factors that effect whether someone believes or does not.

the entire sample is subject to that.it is equally distributed so to speak.

Atheism is the fastest growing viewpoint on the subject of religion, “The American Religion Identification Survey found that the fastest growing religious indentification “in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight perent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001. It might be even higher since there was also a dramatic increase in the number of people who refused to answer the question, from 2 percent in 1990 to 5 percent in 2001.” According to your model, are Americans then just becoming more and more deluded?

yup, people are constantly told that religion is a myth, and has no logical support, it is excluded from schools, etc. people are being deluded, you came here with similar ideas only to find that theists are on strong footing. education doesnt say that as a function of separation of church and state. peop.e are left with the impression that faith is a myth and science takes its place, but as you have found out, it doesnt, its not even possible

Or is a shift being made in light of a cultural change? And take Sweden for instance, which I believe is the most secular country. In Sweden then, are all religious people fools?

nope, people misled are not fools, just gullible

EDIT: In light of the fact that this is now a conversation between us two warpspeedpety, I would suggest going into a PM format as to allow the other conversations in this thread to return from being quashed : ).

nope PM is a pain in the neck, i didnt see it locked though, if it is start a new thread.

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you JDaniel for your very comprehensive posts, they were very informative. I now realize that either my understanding of the sciences are flawed or science might not know, as of yet, a sufficient explanation.

However, whether or not science currently can explain the phenomena of causation, origins, “the beginning,” etc., I see no reason to give up the search, as I have said before. Although a natural cause might be, as of yet, out of our mental grasp, a supernatural one is even more so distant. In order to solve this problem of causation, Aquinas and his proponents add an entirely extra realm of existence, rather than actually searching for evidence. Their evidence for a supernatural cause is that there is no evidence, thus the “evidence” or the source of the causation must be supernatural. At least, this is all I have heard. Whether or not a theory holds it is the evidence that gives it merit. (Ex. When someone is killed it is perfectly reasonable to think that their neighbor killed them, and you can even assign qualities of impulsive behavior to the neighbor, put a possible affair into the situation, postulate means, motive, etc, yet until evidence comes into the picture this theorizing means nothing).

Also, this theory, if evidence is ever found for it (or if it can predict things extremely well that happen in our world, another kind of evidence for a scientific theory) still does not show God to exist, all it shows is that their is an eternal, divine energy. This would be God from a Deist perspective, far from a Christian one. To assign this energy such qualities as intelligence, compassion, being just and jealous is going far beyond the scope of the provable realm.

Once again, my goal is to simply show Aquinas’s proof as proof of a possibility, not complete proof. I still would wish to end this conversation, as these posts are still ridiculously long, and no one likes that, right? : ).

Some Atheists are fools, but statistically, they have to be, just as many Christians are. : ).

Thank you, Logos; you are a gentleman. I agree with some of what you said above. However, what I gave was corroboration of St, Thomas’ proofs, or ways, to know that that which we call “God” exists. I delve into philosophy.

The next subject that you might want to delve into, yourself, is theology. It is in this arena that corroboration of God as God is to be found. Thus, I implore you to at least look into the subject as part of your continuing search. I am a self-professed non-theologian. But, if you need answers to questions along your search path, I am sure you can find excellent theologians herein.

Happy New year and
God Bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

there are only 2 states known

1. physical
2. non-physical (supernatural)
   …
   if it cant be physical, it must be non-physical.(this is entirely separate from religion)
   quote]

Dear Warpspeedpetey,

I don’t really like dropping into the middle of an interesting discussion but my curious question keeps nagging me. You refer to the non-physical (supernatural) and I agree that obviously this is entirely separate from religion.

When I observe the make-up of human beings, I find two states which are physical and non-physical or spiritual (which is entirely separate from religion). Am I saying the same thing you are, only using the term spiritual instead of supernatural?

Blessings for 2009,
grannymh