We cannot deduce the existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good. I am open to discuss my argument with you. But first I need your objections.{snip}.
What part of post 118 did you not understand? It seems quite clear to me what the main objection is.
 
lol, God has been proven repeatedly.

Belief in Him is not an intellectual question so much as it is a moral one.
 
I don’t see the objection and I would be happy if you clarify it.
I’ll will attempt to summarize:

OP: “We cannot deduce the existence of God”
Objection: St. Thomas Aquinace deduced the existence of God.

Therefore the OP is false.
 
I’ll will attempt to summarize:

OP: “We cannot deduce the existence of God”
Objection: St. Thomas Aquinace deduced the existence of God.

Therefore the OP is false.
But the contrary can be correct too.
 
But the contrary can be correct too.
How can this be? The logical principle of non-contraction indicates that an item and its contrary cannot both be true.

What is the contrary?

Thomas’ deduction is a matter of factual history. His deduction has survived many decades of intense scutiny, and has never been shown to use invalid logic.
 
How can this be? The logical principle of non-contraction indicates that an item and its contrary cannot both be true.
Hence he is wrong. Why? Because metaphysical concept has to be simple so an average person could understand it because God is simple.
What is the contrary?
We are conscious beings and we cannot deduce things we haven’t experienced. Like when a person wants to deduce love without falling in love. We have to face ourselves to make the sense of Self.
Thomas’ deduction is a matter of factual history. His deduction has survived many decades of intense scutiny, and has never been shown to use invalid logic.
Newton also was correct for almost 300 years and he had the very basic fact, objective reality, in his disposal.
 
Hence he is wrong.
Who is the “he” in the above?
Why? Because metaphysical concept has to be simple so an average person could understand it because God is simple.
I have no idea what this means. I think you are misusing the term, simple.
We are conscious beings and we cannot deduce things we haven’t experienced.
How do you know this?
Like when a person wants to deduce love without falling in love. We have to face ourselves to make the sense of Self.

Newton also was correct for almost 300 years and he had the very basic fact, objective reality, in his disposal.
So what does this have to do you with Aquinas’s deductions?
 
Who is the “he” in the above?
Thomas.
I have no idea what this means. I think you are misusing the term, simple.
God is simple. That is what Jesus said. Hence the metaphysical concept that define reality in the core has to be simple.
How do you know this?
I gave you an example: Like when a person wants to deduce love without falling in love. We have to face ourselves to make the sense of Self.
So what does this have to do you with Aquinas’s deductions?
His proof is very hard for an average person. Hence he is wrong.
 
Thomas.

God is simple. That is what Jesus said. Hence the metaphysical concept that define reality in the core has to be simple.
What does simple mean in this context?
I gave you an example: Like when a person wants to deduce love without falling in love. We have to face ourselves to make the sense of Self.
Examples do not demonstrate how you know. Besides, I don’t believe your example is true.
His proof is very hard for an average person. Hence he is wrong.
Oh really? You really degraded your credibility with this one.
 
What does simple mean in this context?
What is simple? It is something that a kid can understand. Otherwise it is no knowledge. Quoted from Einstein.
Examples do not demonstrate how you know. Besides, I don’t believe your example is true.
We have to face ourselves to make the sense of Self. I keep practicing it and I get a positive result always.
Oh really? You really degraded your credibility with this one.
I will make it.
 
Many people think that the idea of a Trinitarian God is not simple.
Jesus clearly mentioned that God is simple. People makes stories based on false understanding and then contradicting their own belief. :confused:
 
Jesus clearly mentioned that God is simple.
That is completely False. Jesus never said that.
Also, you are apparently unaware of the fact that Jesus IS God. Additionally, God the Father is God and The Holy Spirit is God. That is not simple.
Making blatently false Fase statements does not help your credibility.
 
That is completely False. Jesus never said that.
Also, you are apparently unaware of the fact that Jesus IS God. Additionally, God the Father is God and The Holy Spirit is God. That is not simple.
Making blatently false Fase statements does not help your credibility.
I agree. I search Bible and there was no phrase like that. So I quote Einstein.
 
I agree. I search Bible and there was no phrase like that. So I quote Einstein.
And I doubt Einstein said it either.

Gee Bahman, you searched the whole Bible since yesterday? Sounds like a Paul Bunyon stroy to me. 😃

Linus2nd
 
And I doubt Einstein said it either.

Gee Bahman, you searched the whole Bible since yesterday? Sounds like a Paul Bunyon stroy to me. 😃

Linus2nd
Actually to be correct, Einstein said that “knowledge should be simple so a kid can understand it”. It is very easy to search Bible these days. You need one of those on-line Bible.
 
This thread is meandering, pointless and ill defined.

Have a great weekend folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top