What are the strongest arguments you know for God's existence?

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

Simple line form would be much appreciated.

E.g.:
(1) Man is mortal
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

1/ All cultures have religion/spirituality.
2/ All people have a sense of some kind of spirituality/invisible depth
of existence - whether to accept it or deny it.
3/ The sensing of a spirituality of existence seems to be a craving of
nature in humans (at least).
4/ Nature does not instill in her creatures a craving that cannot be
satisfied by something real.

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

(2)Can you ever demonstrate that those feelings are spiritual rather
than physical?

Psychology has made great strides in providing satisfactory natural
causes for NDE's,

(4) Eh? Nature doesn't care whether your cravings may be satisfied. It
will evolve you to crave as much as natural selection prefers and rate
of mutation allows. That is, at least, until memes take over.

[dontprayforme]

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

My favorite:

ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists

[dfnj2006]

What a funny website! It's kind of funny someone would go through all
the trouble.

[someone]

That question has been answered in my mind; for I don't ask it any
more. As to his existence, who has faith enough to ask and get an
answer for himself is my answer. We can know him as much as we want,
only the faithless are ignorant. He is not responsible for opening the
door. He stands at the door and knocks but we have to open it. He has
stated through his chosen prophets: If any of you lack wisdom, let him
ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and
it shall be given him (James 1: 5).

[llpens@aol.com]

LL: That's an impossible question to answer. I have seen no arguments
for god's existence that make any sense at all. They are all equally
bad and equally irrational.

[shipmodeler1]

"I have seen no arguments for god's existence that make any sense at
all. They are all equally
bad and equally irrational."

Agreed, and just as well. If we could prove God's existence faith would
be meaningless.

[shipmodeler1]

Agreed. If we could prove God's existence, faith would be meaningless.

[Joseph Geloso]

shipmodeler1 wrote:
> Agreed. If we could prove God's existence, faith would be meaningless.

Except:

1. We _can_ prove God's Existence, and
2. Faith is not meaningless.

Demons _know_ God exists, but they don't have faith. Angels know and
are faithful. So there is more to faith than knowledge of fact. Proof
only establishes factual knowledge, it does not confer faith.

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> shipmodeler1 wrote:
> > Agreed. If we could prove God's existence, faith would be meaningless.
>
> Except:
>

> 1. We _can_ prove God's Existence, and...

We can prove nothing about the physical universe because our senses
have the possibility of error. They are always doubtable. This means
they cannot lead to absolute proof. Any rationalist scientists will
admit this. They don't claim they prove anything about the physical
world, in the strictest sense.

Even a perfectly logical argument about supernatural from premises made
from simple premise about the world around us is NOT proof for the
simple reason that those premises may not be proven themselves. Strong
evidence, sure, but not proof. Therefore, any claims about the
supernatural are also unprovable. God himself could not communicate an
undoubtable idea to you, however strong the evidence.

If by "proof," you don't mean absolute undoubtable proof, then don't
use the word proof. It has special philosophical significance.

> So there is more to faith than knowledge of fact. Proof
> only establishes factual knowledge, it does not confer faith.

This makes no sense. Faith, under one definition of the word, is just
"belief in the absense of proof." This is logical, but only given
sufficient evidence for the believed claim. If proof is suddenly
obtained for the subject of faith, then it ceases to be an object of
faith, and becomes an object of absolute knowledge and absolute
certainty.

If one uses another definition of faith, which is belief without
evidence, then faith is never logical. It may happen, but it is
illogical. We ought to use evidence to decide with beliefs/claims may
be maintained, and which may not.

[Joseph Geloso]

NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > shipmodeler1 wrote:
> > > Agreed. If we could prove God's existence, faith would be meaningless.
> >
> > Except:
> >
> > 1. We _can_ prove God's Existence, and...
>
> We can prove nothing about the physical universe because our senses
> have the possibility of error. They are always doubtable. This means
> they cannot lead to absolute proof. Any rationalist scientists will
> admit this. They don't claim they prove anything about the physical
> world, in the strictest sense.
>
> Even a perfectly logical argument about supernatural from premises made
> from simple premise about the world around us is NOT proof for the
> simple reason that those premises may not be proven themselves. Strong
> evidence, sure, but not proof. Therefore, any claims about the
> supernatural are also unprovable. God himself could not communicate an
> undoubtable idea to you, however strong the evidence.
>
> If by "proof," you don't mean absolute undoubtable proof, then don't
> use the word proof. It has special philosophical significance.

I meant proof.

>
> > So there is more to faith than knowledge of fact. Proof
> > only establishes factual knowledge, it does not confer faith.
>
> This makes no sense. Faith, under one definition of the word, is just
> "belief in the absense of proof." This is logical, but only given
> sufficient evidence for the believed claim. If proof is suddenly
> obtained for the subject of faith, then it ceases to be an object of
> faith, and becomes an object of absolute knowledge and absolute
> certainty.

We can know God exists with absolute certainty, unless we are prepared
to reject reason itself, which is not rational.

>
> If one uses another definition of faith, which is belief without
> evidence, then faith is never logical. It may happen, but it is
> illogical. We ought to use evidence to decide with beliefs/claims may
> be maintained, and which may not.

Faith is assent to what has been revealed. That is the definition I am
using. As such, it does not depend either on evidence, proof, reason,
or lack of evidence, lack of proof, lack of reason. Reasons can be
adduced to support Faith, and reason can never contradict Faith, but
Faith neither derives from nor depends on reason. Faith is no more
faith if its object is clearly seen, and the Blessed in Heaven do not
anymore need faith. Neither is there any doubt in them as to what they
see. They see God face to face, and their knowledge of Him is 100%
certain. Their senses are no longer imperfect, and neither is their
knowledge.

[Joseph Geloso]

NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> llp...@aol.com wrote:
> > LL: That's an impossible question to answer. I have seen no arguments

> > for god's existence that make any sense at all. They are all equally
> > bad and equally irrational.
>

> They may all be weak, as you and I agree, but you can probably pick out
> arguments you think are the strongest of them. But anyway, this topic
> was more for theists to respond to.
>
> I became a atheist 5 months ago, and a nontheist/agnostic 3 months
> after that, because I actually laid out the arguments in my mind,
> picked out the strongest, and came to the conclusion that they
> (happened to be the cosmological argument and the lack of a standard
> theory of abiogenesis) were themselves weak.
>
> I thought perhaps this process would help in the growth of our theist
> friends.

>
> someone wrote:
> > That question has been answered in my mind; for I don't ask it any
> > more. As to his existence, who has faith enough to ask and get an
> > answer for himself is my answer. We can know him as much as we want,
> > only the faithless are ignorant. He is not responsible for opening the
> > door. He stands at the door and knocks but we have to open it. He has
> > stated through his chosen prophets: If any of you lack wisdom, let him
> > ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and
> > it shall be given him (James 1: 5).
>

> I asked for an argument for God's existence. That is a fair request
> regardless of your beliefs. If you can't contribute anything useful in
> this thread, don't reply. Thank you.
>
> By the way, I've prayed earnestly many times for evidence of God's
> existence. I've come up empty-handed.

That's funny. Someone advises you to pray for wisdom and you interpret
that to mean pray for evidence of God's existence. Hilarious!

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

Agreed ship. There is no ratonal arguement for God's existence. So
why do I remain unconvinced? Have I been brainwashed, am I insane or
am I just a victim of my own dellusions?
But I must say that in my most "irrational" moments I have felt the
most "sane".

[Michael Ewart]

I'm going to answer first, then read other posts (so there will
probably be some repetition.)

1) The universe. I could subdivide this, but the vastness, beauty,
complexity and order of the universe give powerful testimony to a
Creator's existence.

2) Life. The complexity, beauty, order, and interdependency of life on
earth, plus the delicate balance essential for its survival give
powerful testimony to a Creator and Preserver.

3) Conscience. That all have an inner "voice" that tells us when we've
done right and wrong, and that we are accountable is powerful testimony
that there is indeed Someone whom we are accountable before.

4) Man. The fact that man has FAR greater mental powers than are
necessary for simple survival is testmony that there is a God who gave
him such an intellect. Evolution cannot explain the leap in intellect
between man and other creatures.

These come to mind first. There may be others. Sorry if this repeats
other posts.

[Joseph Geloso]

"The Moon is the same size as the Sun."

(Aesthetic Argument)

[llpens@aol.com]

Ninja Yadda wrote: I became a atheist 5 months ago, and a

nontheist/agnostic 3 months
after that, because I actually laid out the arguments in my mind,
picked out the strongest, and came to the conclusion that they
(happened to be the cosmological argument and the lack of a standard
theory of abiogenesis) were themselves weak.

LL: Congratulations on your ability to do this. I have a question,
however. What, in your mind, is the difference between an atheist and
an agnostic?

Ninja: I thought perhaps this process would help in the growth of our
theist
friends.

LL: It is interesting to your atheist friends but it's lost on your
theist friends, I'm afraid.

[llpens@aol.com]

LL: Those are all subjective reasons and most fall into the category
of, "I can't think of any other reason for these feelings than that
god exists." that's hardly a good argument. It simply shows a lack of
imagination.

[floyd_1977]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > By the way, I've prayed earnestly many times for evidence of God's
> > existence. I've come up empty-handed.
>
> That's funny. Someone advises you to pray for wisdom and you interpret
> that to mean pray for evidence of God's existence. Hilarious!

It is funny indeed that an all-powerful god cannot indulge such a
simple request. It would cost him nothing.

Prayer accomplishes nothing, except perhaps a psychological effect on
the person praying. It is no different than meditation. All the
believers on earth could simultaneously pray to God to strike me dead
or even knock me to the ground, and it just wouldn't happen. Please
try it, I dare you.

I know what you're going to say: that's not what prayer is for. It's
for things that are beyond our control that may or may not happen due
to random chance. If we pray for something and it happens, then God be
praised! If it doesn't happen, then God has a different plan for us.
Yawn...

[dfnj2006]

I am agnostic on atheism as well as theism. And I am agnostic on
agnostism as well. Is there a label for that position? I think I am
simply anti-dogma. Language is like a roadmap. No matter how much
detail is on the roadmap it doesn't even come close to the complexity
and richness of the reality it represents. In my opinion, it is the
nature of representational thought to always be limited. It may be
that to truly understand the complexity of reality your mind will have
to be one with reality. It is a question of faith that the laws of
physics are true and valid for all eternity. All we are left with is
the uncomfortable position of incompleteness in our understanding.
Once you get used to it, it's not so bad. Mine is a religion of open
mindedness.

[Simpleton]

dfnj2006 wrote:
>
> I am agnostic on atheism as well as theism. And I am agnostic on
> agnostism as well. Is there a label for that position? I think I am
> simply anti-dogma. Language is like a roadmap. No matter how much
> detail is on the roadmap it doesn't even come close to the complexity
> and richness of the reality it represents. In my opinion, it is the
> nature of representational thought to always be limited. It may be
> that to truly understand the complexity of reality your mind will have
> to be one with reality. It is a question of faith that the laws of
> physics are true and valid for all eternity. All we are left with is
> the uncomfortable position of incompleteness in our understanding.
> Once you get used to it, it's not so bad. Mine is a religion of open
> mindedness.

I think you left out the part where you say you are a deist.

[semiopen]

It seems like you are retreating from your claim that the existence of
God can be proved with absolute certainty! Hopefuly, you are joking. If
not - you have a weird notion of proof.

[semiopen]

3) Is probably the strongest - I don't see how atheists can avoid moral
nihilism in the final analysis. It's all just matter in motion. But -
maybe the truth *is* nihilistic.

4) Is weak - it is like saying "Peacocks - their feathers are FAR
longer than are necessary for simple survival." Evolution is contingent
- not necessary. Brains themselves aren't *necessary* for simple
survival - bacteria seem to get on fine without them. You haven't
substantiated the claim that "Evolution cannot explain the leap in
intellect between man and other creatures." What makes intellect so
different, biologically speaking, from feather length in peacocks or
neck length in giraffes?

-semiopen

[James Barlow]

semiopen wrote:

"It's all just matter in motion. But -
maybe the truth *is* nihilistic."

   That is what has to be reckoned with in a realizable way. But to say that if nihilism is correct (or atleast, presently the unavoidable option that seems presently open) does not mean that "it is all just matter in motion." Reduction of everything to point-blank materialism is a FUNCTION of nihilism, acc. to one analysis of it, and not its result.  MORAL nihilism can be avoided even if it "is all matter in motion."  For it might be the case that morality arises from us, begins and ends with us, that there is such a thing as 'natural morality' (even the Church would go along with this.)


semiopen <semi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

---

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

[LiamToo]

floyd_1977 wrote:
> Prayer accomplishes nothing, except perhaps a psychological effect on
> the person praying. It is no different than meditation. All the
> believers on earth could simultaneously pray to God to strike me dead
> or even knock me to the ground, and it just wouldn't happen. Please
> try it, I dare you.

Nathan,

Do you think that the above challenge is a smart one?

Lance

[semiopen]

James Barlow wrote:
> semiopen wrote:
> "It's all just matter in motion. But -
> maybe the truth *is* nihilistic."
> That is what has to be reckoned with in a realizable way. But to say that if nihilism is correct (or atleast, presently the unavoidable option that seems presently open) does not mean that "it is all just matter in motion." Reduction of everything to point-blank materialism is a FUNCTION of nihilism, acc. to one analysis of it, and not its result. MORAL nihilism can be avoided even if it "is all matter in motion." For it might be the case that morality arises from us, begins and ends with us, that there is such a thing as 'natural morality' (even the Church would go along with this.)
>
>

(snip)

I would just say that some atheists like to pretend that nihilism is
false - they use the *language* of morality but know that in the final
analysis it doesn't *really* matter. Earthquakes happen. Murderous
fruitcakes wandering into Amish schools also happen. A couple of
billion years from now the planet will be toast - what difference does
it make? Michael Martin's book "Atheism, Morality and Meaning" shows
some of the absurdity that atheists are willing to go to deny the
nihilism implicit in their position. An action is moral if an "Ideal
Observer" would look upon it with approval. What is *that* supposed to
mean and why should murderous fruitcakes even care? Now - if the
fruitcake is in danger of hell ...

[floyd_1977]

Not necessarily smart, but it's certainly safe. If I challenged the
believers to strike me dead by any means necessary, that would be
another matter, but feel free to pray until you're blue in the face.

[James Barlow]

Hell has hardly been a deterrent to the murderous proclivities of anyone, least of all religious fanatics who have murdered in the name of 'Truth.' 

semiopen <semi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[James Barlow]

Why does it matter?  When the locus of values is no longer placed in an eternal Beyond, everyone becomes more responsible, not less. What did the woman who murdered her five children in Texas say?  She was convinced that they were possessed. It momentarily became her moral duty to commit a moral atrocity, thanks to allegedly spiritual 'insights' and theological rationales. She had 'faith,' etc.

   "No one is guilty, but everyone is responsible."  --Albert Camus

semiopen <semi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

---

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[LiamToo]

floyd_1977 wrote:
> Not necessarily smart, but it's certainly safe. If I challenged the
> believers to strike me dead by any means necessary, that would be
> another matter, but feel free to pray until you're blue in the face.

You know that I won't do any of that. May the NUTS be with you always
though.

[floyd_1977]

Thank you. At least we have poker in common (I recognize your nickname
from RGP).

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

llp...@aol.com wrote:
> Ninja Yadda wrote: I became a atheist 5 months ago, and a
> nontheist/agnostic 3 months
> after that, because I actually laid out the arguments in my mind,
> picked out the strongest, and came to the conclusion that they
> (happened to be the cosmological argument and the lack of a standard
> theory of abiogenesis) were themselves weak.
>
> LL: Congratulations on your ability to do this. I have a question,
> however. What, in your mind, is the difference between an atheist and
> an agnostic?

The problem is that those words have various definitions, with
different people using the words with different intended meanings. I am
not now, though I was 2 months ago, a "strong" atheist. By that I mean
that I do NOT now claim/believe "there is no God," though I did 2
months ago. I am an agnostic in the sense that I do not make a claim
either way about God's existence. I think this is the only logical
position.

I don't claim/believe God exists, and I don't claim/believe he doesn't.

In other words, I think it's wrong for you to claim that there is no
God, as I think it's wrong for theists to claim there is. Not that
their conclusions are wrong necessarily wrong (in which case I would
side with both sides and neither simultaneously!), but that their
claims are unsupported by sufficient evidence and thus illogical to
make.

> Ninja: I thought perhaps this process would help in the growth of our
> theist
> friends.
>
> LL: It is interesting to your atheist friends but it's lost on your
> theist friends, I'm afraid.

Well I would guess there are other intellectually honest and curious
theists out there like I was. In case of such persons reading what I
say, I should like to accelerate their growth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Geloso wrote:
> I meant proof.

...? You completely avoided answering my question.

Me: "Now, when you say the word X, you could mean a or b.... Which do
you mean?"
You: "I mean X."
Me: "..."

> We can know God exists with absolute certainty, unless we are prepared
> to reject reason itself, which is not rational.

Ok, please prove his existence to me then. If we can know his existence
with absolute certainty, it must not be depending on that which only
you may experience, since those experience may not lead to undoubtable
conclusions.

> > If one uses another definition of faith, which is belief without
> > evidence, then faith is never logical. It may happen, but it is
> > illogical. We ought to use evidence to decide with beliefs/claims may
> > be maintained, and which may not.
>
> Faith is assent to what has been revealed.

Revealed in what way? By God as you believed it happened? That you
heard about, eitehr from another human, or that you observed yourself?

Assent? Do you mean to consciously will to it (which doesn't make sense
unless you mean consciously will to choose to do that which logically
follows from premises which include that which is "revealed") or just
to believe/perceive it positively, which may be unconscious and outside

This definition is wacky and very much open to interpretation.

> That is the definition I amusing.

I've never seen anyone use a definition for that word anything like
what you used. I recommend you try tacking that definition to a
different word to avoid ambiguity confusion.

> As such, it does not depend either on evidence, proof, reason, or lack of evidence, lack of >proof, lack of reason.

That depends on what you meant by "revealed" in your definition above.

> Reasons can be adduced to support Faith, and reason can never contradict Faith,

Woah, what? Reason can never contradict the assention to that which has
been revealed? That makes no sense!

> but Faith neither derives from nor depends on reason. Faith is no more
> faith if its object is clearly seen, and the Blessed in Heaven do not
> anymore need faith.

They do not anymore need to assent to that which is revealed? Something
tells me you're moving the goalposts on me by slightly modifying the
meaning of your definition as you go (not unlikely given the ambiguity
of your definition).

> Neither is there any doubt in them as to what they
> see. They see God face to face, and their knowledge of Him is 100%
> certain. Their senses are no longer imperfect, and neither is their
> knowledge.

All experience is doubtable. Memories are fallible, so are senses. But
really, let's not bother discussing what angels absolutely know or
don't. Let's bother with what we can know, absolutely or not. It is
more useful in our discussion.

[Joseph Geloso]

semiopen wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> > > Simple line form would be much appreciated.
> > >
> > > E.g.:
> > > (1) Man is mortal
> > > (2) Socrates is a man.
> > > (3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
> >
> > "The Moon is the same size as the Sun."
> >
> > (Aesthetic Argument)
>
> It seems like you are retreating from your claim that the existence of
> God can be proved with absolute certainty!

Nope.

> Hopefuly, you are joking. If
> not - you have a weird notion of proof.

I like the sun and moon argument because it is simple, intuitive, and
direct. There is not a single spot in the known Universe where it is so
except on this planet. But mostly it just confirms my faith. I have
already said it is impossible for one person to give another person
faith, unless the first person is God.

However, it is still possible to eliminate atheism as a rational
stance. That is not the same thing as faith, because some will deny
because they hate love. It is impossible for one person to make another
person love love, unless, again, the first person is God. For one who
loves love, it is easy to believe in God. For one who hates love, it is
impossible. That is because God is Love.

[Joseph Geloso]

floyd_1977 wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > > By the way, I've prayed earnestly many times for evidence of God's
> > > existence. I've come up empty-handed.
> >
> > That's funny. Someone advises you to pray for wisdom and you interpret
> > that to mean pray for evidence of God's existence. Hilarious!
>
> It is funny indeed that an all-powerful god cannot indulge such a
> simple request. It would cost him nothing.

What would you have Him do that He has not already done?

>
> Prayer accomplishes nothing, except perhaps a psychological effect on
> the person praying.

And changing the world.

> It is no different than meditation.

There are meditative forms of prayer.

> All the
> believers on earth could simultaneously pray to God to strike me dead
> or even knock me to the ground, and it just wouldn't happen.

Yes it would. Fortunately for you that is not about to happen.

> Please
> try it, I dare you.

No.

>
> I know what you're going to say: that's not what prayer is for.

Except that's not what I said. So there goes your mind-reading ability.

> It's
> for things that are beyond our control that may or may not happen due
> to random chance.

No, it's not.

> If we pray for something and it happens, then God be
> praised! If it doesn't happen, then God has a different plan for us.
> Yawn...

God's Plan for you is for you to conform yourself to His Will.
Unfortunately for you, that is impossible for you. But fortunately for
you, it is not impossible for God. And the means of obtaining a new
heart from God that will do His Will are, prayer. So there is a prayer
that is always answered, that is guaranteed to be answered, in God's
time and in His ways. Wen they asked Jesus how to pray, He did not
instruct them to ask for things to happen except "Thy Will be done."
That is something we naturally lack - the desire that God's Will be
done and not our own. It is something we cannot obtain on our own; it
can only come from God. And it something God instructed us to ask of
His Father, through prayer.

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> I meant proof.

...? You didn't answer my question in the least.

Me: "When you say X, you could mean a or b, or something else. Which do

you mean?"
You: "I mean X."
Me: "..."

> We can know God exists with absolute certainty, unless we are prepared

> to reject reason itself, which is not rational.

Ok, then prove it, please. Simple line format would be nice.

> Faith is assent to what has been revealed.

...What?

Revealed in what sense? Exclusively that which you belief God revealed
to humans? And what do you mean by assent? Change in belief is not a
matter of choice. It is only a choice to act upon your
perceptions/beliefs, not to choose perceptions or beliefs. Maybe you
mean "admit?"

This is a terrible definition, and unlike any other definition of the
word I've heard. Perhaps you should use a different work to tack on
this peculiar and ambiguous definition.

> As such, it does not depend either on evidence, proof, reason,
> or lack of evidence, lack of proof, lack of reason. Reasons can be
> adduced to support Faith, and reason can never contradict Faith,

Reason can never contradict the "assent to what has been revealed?" How
does that make any sense at all? Something tells me you're switching
your goalposts, or operating on teh ambiguity of your weird definition.

> They see God face to face, and their knowledge of Him is 100%
> certain. Their senses are no longer imperfect, and neither is their
> knowledge.

I could debate that, but let's put aside spiritual epistemology aside
for now, and please grant your proof that God exists, which you
apparently claimed to have.

[Joseph Geloso]

NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > I meant proof.
>
> ...? You didn't answer my question in the least.
>
> Me: "When you say X, you could mean a or b, or something else. Which do
> you mean?"
> You: "I mean X."
> Me: "..."

You want to see the proof, that is going to take some time. On the
other hand, it has already been done. What flaw do you find in Saint
Thomas's proofs?

>
> > We can know God exists with absolute certainty, unless we are prepared
> > to reject reason itself, which is not rational.
>
> Ok, then prove it, please. Simple line format would be nice.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

>
> > Faith is assent to what has been revealed.
>
> ...What?
>
> Revealed in what sense? Exclusively that which you belief God revealed
> to humans? And what do you mean by assent? Change in belief is not a
> matter of choice. It is only a choice to act upon your
> perceptions/beliefs, not to choose perceptions or beliefs. Maybe you
> mean "admit?"
>
> This is a terrible definition, and unlike any other definition of the
> word I've heard. Perhaps you should use a different work to tack on
> this peculiar and ambiguous definition.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

VI. DEFINITION OF FAITH
The foregoing analyses will enable us to define an act of Divine
supernatural faith as "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine
truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the
grace of God" (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). And just as the light
of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so
also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an
equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is
due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts,
but "Ask and ye shall receive."

>
> > As such, it does not depend either on evidence, proof, reason,
> > or lack of evidence, lack of proof, lack of reason. Reasons can be
> > adduced to support Faith, and reason can never contradict Faith,
>
> Reason can never contradict the "assent to what has been revealed?" How
> does that make any sense at all? Something tells me you're switching
> your goalposts, or operating on teh ambiguity of your weird definition.
>
> > They see God face to face, and their knowledge of Him is 100%
> > certain. Their senses are no longer imperfect, and neither is their
> > knowledge.
>
> I could debate that, but let's put aside spiritual epistemology aside
> for now, and please grant your proof that God exists, which you
> apparently claimed to have.

It is not simple, but begin with the link above to Saint Thomas and say
why you would think to reject his proofs. Here is the link a second
time:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

[James Barlow]

The alleged "proofs" of St. Thomas Aquinas for God's existence have been refuted a number of times over the course of the last several hundred years....

-otherson

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

---

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> The alleged "proofs" of St. Thomas Aquinas for God's existence have been refuted a number of times over the course of the last several hundred years....
> -otherson

Can you cite a refutation and provide a link?

[James Barlow]

I'd start with "Blackwell's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion" for all the citations. Something went wrong with the classical version of causality starting with Hume, and Descrates' version of the ontological argument found its refutation through that as well. Check out Blackwell's, which can be found in any Barnes&Noble.

-otherson

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> I'd start with "Blackwell's Guide to the Philosophy of Religion"
> for all the citations. Something went wrong with the classical
> version of causality starting with Hume, and Descrates' version
> of the ontological argument found its refutation through that
> as well. Check out Blackwell's, which can be found in any
> Barnes&Noble. -otherson

Well, that's Blackwell's counter-argument and you happen to
believe in it. However, the Cosmological Argument has many
advocates, the likes of Aquinas, Aristotle and Plato, to name
just a few. If you put the name of Blackwell side by side with
the others I'd rather believe in the others, hands down.

[Simpleton]

I take it that you have read Blackwell's counter-argument. Can you
enlighten those of us who have not, as to what precisely his refutation
centers around?

[LiamToo]

Simpleton wrote:
> I take it that you have read Blackwell's counter-argument. Can you
> enlighten those of us who have not, as to what precisely his refutation
> centers around?

otherson (Barlow) is telling us to buy the book at Barnes and Noble. I
take it that
Amazon.com has it too as well as Borders. I ain't buying it.

[James Barlow]

Blackwell's is an anthology of varios philosophers. Actually you will be hard pressed to find a professional philosopher who takes either the cosmological or ontological proofs for God's existence seriously, unless said 'professionals' are Dominicans, Jesuits, what have you, in Catholic univeristies or the like. But even there, and if one is a serious philosopher, everyone knows that the cosmological proof doe not hold water. Where have you guys been?

Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

---

Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

[James Barlow]

Let me explain by means of an upcoming post.

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

[James Barlow]

See up and coming (er..incoming)

-o

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---

All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> Blackwell's is an anthology of varios philosophers. Actually you will
> be hard pressed to find a professional philosopher who takes either
> the cosmological or ontological proofs for God's existence seriously,
> unless said 'professionals' are Dominicans, Jesuits, what have you,
> in Catholic univeristies or the like. But even there, and if one is a
> serious philosopher, everyone knows that the cosmological proof doe
> not hold water. Where have you guys been?

St. Aquinas was Dominican and St. Anselm was monastic. They were both
highly educated as doctors.

May I ask if you're Catholic?

[Simpleton]

LiamToo wrote:
> Simpleton wrote:
> > I take it that you have read Blackwell's counter-argument. Can you
> > enlighten those of us who have not, as to what precisely his refutation
> > centers around?
>
> otherson (Barlow) is telling us to buy the book at Barnes and Noble.

No, he is not telling you. He answered your question, and where to get
it if you were interested.

> I
> take it that
> Amazon.com has it too as well as Borders. I ain't buying it.

Of course not. You never really wanted a refutation, the very thought
that one may exist was disconcerting enough.

As to why you would demand to see a refutation, and then refuse to even
consider reading it is beyond me.

Oh wait... this is Liam. My bad.

[James Barlow]

What relevance does it have to know whether I am or not, rather than considering the arguments on the merits? I think the 'proofs' are supposed to be valid, understandable, and successful for anyone above the age of reason, no?

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---

Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[LiamToo]

Simpleton wrote:
>
> No, he is not telling you. He answered your question, and where to get
> it if you were interested.

And why were you asking this question if you know that he already
aswered my question?

"Can you enlighten those of us who have not, as to what precisely his
refutation

centers around?"--Simpleton

ROFL! Oh wait this is Simpleton, I should have known better.

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> What relevance does it have to know whether I am or not, rather than
> considering the arguments on the merits? I think the 'proofs' are
> supposed to be valid, understandable, and successful for anyone
> above the age of reason, no?

I was just curious as you seem to know Catholic nomenclatures
when you mentioned Domicans and Jesuits.

[Simpleton]

LiamToo wrote:
> Simpleton wrote:
> >
> > No, he is not telling you. He answered your question, and where to get
> > it if you were interested.
>
> And why were you asking this question if you know that he already
> aswered my question?
>
> "Can you enlighten those of us who have not, as to what precisely his
> refutation
> centers around?"--Simpleton
>

Because I made the assumption that you were an intellectually honest
person who had read the refutation--as I noted, I assumed that you had
read it-- and then concluded that it does not hold water.

Sorry, I won't make that mistake again.

> ROFL! Oh wait this is Simpleton, I should have known better.

You won't know better even if it was your face. Time for your daily
rounds of thumpin', Liam.

[LiamToo]

Simpleton wrote:
> Because I made the assumption that you were an intellectually honest
> person

And you are intellectually honest by saying this?

Oh Simpleton, I forgot for a moment that you are unGodly.

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> See up and coming (er..incoming)
> -o

I'm holding my breath.

[Simpleton]

LiamToo wrote:
> Simpleton wrote:
> > Because I made the assumption that you were an intellectually honest
> > person
>
> And you are intellectually honest by saying this?

No, I was simply honest when I said it.

>
> Oh Simpleton, I forgot for a moment that you are unGodly.

Now you are being simply dishonest.

[LiamToo]

Simpleton wrote:
"Oh Simpleton, I forgot for a moment that you are unGodly."--LiamToo

"Now you are being simply dishonest."--Simpleton

What are you saying by the above exchange, that you are Godly?

[James Barlow]

Ah. Well it pertains just as much to historians of philosophy to know these things, I think. For example, Bertrand Russell (who in his History of Western Philo. also takes a stab at showing why and how these 'proofs' are erroneous) was a fairly adamant atheist (see his "Why I Am Not A Christian") is very familiar with the history. It pertains to a good understanding of the history of western thinking anyway.

   Perhaps you can determine whether or not I am a catholic by what I have written? One thing I've noticed about this group of interlocutors is the inquisitorial quality accompanying their respective combative natures.....

-otherson

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Simpleton]

I said that you are being simply dishonest when you say that you
*forgot*.

Scratch that, you weren't being dishonest, you were only mimicking
light sarcasm. My apologies!

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> Perhaps you can determine whether or not I am a catholic by what

> I have written? -otherson

There's one thing that I don't do too often, to assume. You know what
they say about spelling out ASS U ME, it doesn't come out nicely. I'd
rather hear it from you.

[James Barlow]

Credo quia absurdum est. --Tertullian (3rd cent.)

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---

Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> Credo quia absurdum est. --Tertullian (3rd cent.)

Aha, but the full text was this, "Natus est Dei Filius;
non pudet, quia pudendum est: et mortuus est Dei Filius;
prorsus credible est, quia ineptum est: et sepultus resurrexit;
certum est, quia impossibile"

[llpens@aol.com]

dfnj wrote:

I am agnostic on atheism as well as theism. And I am agnostic on
agnostism as well.

LL: Are you agnostic on psychic ability? horoscopes? speaking to the
dead and getting an answer? Santa Claus? the Easter Bunny? the Flying
Spaghetti monster? Pseudoscience?

[James Barlow]

I'm simply trying to enjoin a philosophical debate (at this moment with Joseph Gelaso) about various theistic proofs for God's existence and their worth in terms of his presentation and my response. I am not interested in amish girl massacres, the harmony of the spheres, whether Adam and Eve came from mud and/or dirt or not, and many of the other things many others in this thing find so endlessly marvelously fascinating. -otherson

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> I'm simply trying to enjoin a philosophical debate (at this moment with
> Joseph Gelaso) about various theistic proofs for God's existence
> and their worth in terms of his presentation and my response. I am
> not interested in amish girl massacres, the harmony of the spheres,
> whether Adam and Eve came from mud and/or dirt or not, and many
> of the other things many others in this thing find so endlessly
> marvelously fascinating. -otherson

And I, for one, enjoy reading the philisophical debates that you are
in.

I wonder if you know that Joseph Geloso is a devout Catholic? However,
if you don't like to divulge if you are too, then it's fine with me.

My gut feeling tells me though that you are a Gnostic? I'm a very good
poker player you know. Good instincts are the necessary attributes to
have in order to attain such berth in the poker hierarchy.

[James Barlow]

Then you ought to know that a full house beats a two of a kind.

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> Then you ought to know that a full house beats a two of a kind.

Yes of course, but then again both of the cards that I'm holding
are aces and I can see two more aces on the community cards
on on board, which makes it four of a kind.

[Msgt_Billy]

LiamToo wrote:
> floyd_1977 wrote:
> > Prayer accomplishes nothing, except perhaps a psychological effect on
> > the person praying. It is no different than meditation. All the
> > believers on earth could simultaneously pray to God to strike me dead
> > or even knock me to the ground, and it just wouldn't happen. Please
> > try it, I dare you.
>
> Nathan,
>
> Do you think that the above challenge is a smart one?
>
> Lance

Do you think it would be a bad one?

Billy

[LiamToo]

Msgt_Billy wrote:
> Do you think it would be a bad one?

Yep, definitely bad. However, no Christian would ever say a prayer that
will cause harm to any human being.

[James Barlow]

LiamToo has it, "Yep, definitely bad. However, no Christian would ever say a prayer that will cause harm to any human being."

   Really. It seems to me that on more than one occasion a few European nations and their churches were praying for the death and demise of their enemies. Not to mention the prayers of the Byzantines re. the Turks, the Crusaders contra the Saracens, etc. The Old Testament, esp. the Psalms are replete with "Lord crush my enemies" language and the Psalms are prayed daily in monastic communities all over the earth.

-otherson


LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[James Barlow]

Can we switch to bridge?

LiamToo <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

---

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> LiamToo has it, "Yep, definitely bad. However, no Christian would ever say a
> prayer that will cause harm to any human being."

> Really. It seems to me that on more than one occasion a few European
> nations and their churches were praying for the death and demise of their
> enemies. Not to mention the prayers of the Byzantines re. the Turks, the
> Crusaders contra the Saracens, etc. The Old Testament, esp. the Psalms
> are replete with "Lord crush my enemies" language and the Psalms are
> prayed daily in monastic communities all over the earth.
> -otherson

I should have said now.

I don't know if they pray for someone's harm in the old days, but the
Crusades, Inquisitions, languages of wars in the Old Testaments, etc.
really happened. They went to war to protect their countries and people
were harmed. I don't agree that it had to be done but some trigger
happy general went hunting for some barbarians, did some preemtive
strikes on the enemies and hurt a lot of people. And these are stories
of wars.

Never again would Christians do that now.

[LiamToo]

James Barlow wrote:
> Can we switch to bridge?

Sure, but I'm conceding defeat now. Bridge is not my forte.

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

You might want to contact Stanford University (and others) and inform
them of your findings - they have 20 years of data that contradict you.
Lots and lots of research going on about prayer and there is much to
present a statistically impressive arguement in favour of it being
effective. One study came out in the spring that suggested prayer is
not effective, which the media plastered all over the world, but it
seems the reams of other studies that state otherwise have been somehow
missed....damned odd that is....

[James Barlow]

Can you point us to the evidence?

Red_Pill_Blue_Pill <TomAnd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

Nothing I can get my hands on right now but I've researched the topic
extensively for several groups I have spoken to. Stanford kept much of
the research under wraps for many years while less reputable
researchers were drummed out of the scientific community for presenting
similar findings. I haven't tried to search the Net on it but I'll see
if I can access any reliable on-line journals. There is a LOT of
research into prayer in the past 7 -8 years.

[Msgt_Billy]

Maybe people in this Uber Christian church would disagree with you:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

Billy

[Msgt_Billy]

I hear that tantric meditation works wonders, too. Ooh, ooh... and so
does Buddhist chanting. Yeah, and lets not forget hugs... hugs are
good, too.

Billy

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> You want to see the proof, that is going to take some time. On the
> other hand, it has already been done. What flaw do you find in Saint
> Thomas's proofs?
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm

Here are a few of the problems, besides them being for the most part
pretty strangely worded:

1. This one is very convoluted, and is based on some wacky, apparently
pre-Newtonian ideas about motion. I'm not completely sure what it's
saying, but it appears to be requiring a prime mover for the universe,
and is essentially the same as the first cause argument below.

"...whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by
which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must
needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this
cannot go on to infinity..."

Wrong. The second sentence here contradicts the third. Everytime they
talk about an earliest "mover," the objection from the second sentence
can be made. Anyway, there is no good reason to suggest that there
cannot be an infinite regress. There is nothing at fault with a
hypothetical universe which is comprised of merely 2 hydrogen atoms
bouncing off eachother for infinitely long time.

2. "Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity,
because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the
cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of
the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only
one."

False. In the case where every cause must itself be cause, the only
possibilities are zero causes, or an infinite number.

3. It is not necessary necessarily the case that something may not
arise from nothing. Current knowledge of the physical universe shows
quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. Also, we don't really know if there
was ever nothing. This is an assumption based inductively on what we've
seen, but it's not something we can really know.

Anyway, let's assume that it's true that something can only arise from
something. Again, Thomas says that there may be no such thing as an
infinite regress of somethings. He has absolutely no evidence to say
this.

4. He suggests there must be one maximum in every chategory. However,
he does not take into account that those maximums do not necessarily
have to be supernatural. It may be that the maximum of a particular
trait happens to be physical. He has no evidence to suggest it isn't.
Also, he seems to fail to notice that "noblest," "best," "truest"
(which doesn't make any sense), are all subjective. All preferential
opinions are subjective and arbitrary. It is not necessarily the case
that something exists such that all sentient beings would agree to
label those qualities to.

5."Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end."

How the hell does a Watt governor work, then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor

How about Drebbel's thermostat? And Ktesibios' clock?

> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
>
> VI. DEFINITION OF FAITH
> The foregoing analyses will enable us to define an act of Divine
> supernatural faith as "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine
> truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the
> grace of God" (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). And just as the light
> of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so
> also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an
> equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is
> due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts,
> but "Ask and ye shall receive."

That definition is crap. You cannot choose what you believe.

[Msgt_Billy]

NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:
> Simple line form would be much appreciated.
>
> E.g.:
> (1) Man is mortal
> (2) Socrates is a man.
> (3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Your results seem to have been less than satisfactory. Did you really
expect better?

Billy

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

Msgt_Billy wrote:
> Your results seem to have been less than satisfactory. Did you really
> expect better?
>
> Billy

I expected better tries, quite frankly.

[facilitator]

The simplest answer I can give as to God's existence is "me".
I could elaborate but I have ascertained that even that would not
suffice you.
I could be wrong however and assume you have a genuine curiosity.
Nah! I'll leave it at that. Regards.

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

I see now.

Argumentum ad Confusiam: Confuse the hell out of the person you're
speaking to, and maybe they'll comply.

[facilitator]

Sorry didn't mean to confuse the "hell" out of you. You are the one
however who asked for a simple reply so I think at minimum it meets
that criteria. Regards.

[Michael Pierre]

Hi
Thanks for your reply.
You have a great point. In anatomy and physiology I learned how complex and
beautiful the human body is. Some superior being had to create it
Regards,

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

facilitator wrote:
> Sorry didn't mean to confuse the "hell" out of you. You are the one
> however who asked for a simple reply so I think at minimum it meets
> that criteria. Regards.

I was just joking, because I thought you were.

[facilitator]

How about if you were to ask God a question and he answered you in an
audible voice. Would that suffice?

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

facilitator wrote:
> How about if you were to ask God a question and he answered you in an
> audible voice. Would that suffice?

I would probably believe then, yeah, depending on other factors, like
how drunk I feel.

[facilitator]

I think this in particular is the most serious question here. But
just for the sake of all those who find some sort of deviant pleasure
in reading this I have to say I'm a bit surprised at your response.

Simply an audible voice, of who's source you're not convinced of,
would sway you to be a theist?

And would it depend on how drunk you are or how drunk you feel? What
if you were 7 years old and being drunk was not a factor?

[NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda]

Michael Pierre wrote:
> Hi
> Thanks for your reply.
> You have a great point. In anatomy and physiology I learned how complex and
> beautiful the human body is. Some superior being had to create it
> Regards,

I can't tell if people are being serious anymore.

[facilitator]

NinjaYaddaYaddaYadda wrote:

> I can't tell if people are being serious anymore.

Here's a good teast to tell whether or not a person is being serious:

1) ?rorrim a ni ti ta kool ot evah uoy od ,ti daer ot redro nI

[Klovar]

no

[Goldilocks]

why would God talk to you when you are drunk??
surely if He wanted to tlk to you he would do it when you were sober
and could remember what he said to you in the first place.
that is if God spoke like humans...