Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Religion (because I already did a thread on homosexuality)Follow

#77 Jul 06 2005 at 1:25 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
MadProfessor wrote:
My wife and i often look up at the stars and wonder if every culture througout the galaxy experiences these religios stages and how long it takes them to out grow it, or if the infection is with us forever.


You and your wife should probably get out more.


..then again me and my woman often stand around and condescendingly talk about the human race as well...


nevermind, carry on.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#78 Jul 06 2005 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My woman and I spend our evenings humping like a couple monkeys in a pheremone-laced burlap sack. But I bet that staring at the stars while contemplating existance thing is nice, too.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 Jul 06 2005 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Few years back there was a series on PBS about the human brain. Only part I can still remember was about a guy who would feel like he was in the presence of God whenever he went into a epileptic seizure. The sciencist interview seem to feel they found a part of the brain that was wire to be spirital.

I gone though times when I don't believe in any "Creator type Being," Only thing that keeps me going though is the fact that I am a very spirital person and can't give up the thought that somehow as humans we interact spiritally with each other. Infact, I think it's this abillity to be spirital, that has created cultures though the ages.

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#80 Jul 06 2005 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
further studies into the brain chemistry of "spiritual" events have revealed that Humans can and do produce these feelings, most often induced when placed in an atmohsphere condusive to suggestion such as low lighted soft music hymns. A very fascinating study of this by leading Neuro-scientist and Neuro-psychologist was shown as an HBO "America Undercover" titled "Miracles and Myths" (the title was something to that nature).

What the program researched people who had said they had seen god in this specific church. It turns out that during the service certain mediums were used (lights, songs, tones, voices) to put the people in a more suggestive state, whether on purpose or not, and through this many of the people would "see" visions.

Through the study it was shown that the services were using similar methods to that of current hypnotism, and that in this state the brain actually creates falacies to fill the incoherent states. Apparently this "preacher" had made millions off them.
Now obviously not every congregasion is full of hypnotism, but many of the underlying mediums used are widely used is a majority of churches.

This also rises the point that people that claim they had an "Experience" with god may infact believe they did, and may infact have actually seen something generated by their own mind.

As for a "Part of the Brain in contact with god", thats complete falicy. Evidence as you see, actually points to the opposite. It would be better if you stick to the "god is un-detectable" arguement so you are free from scientific or logical scrutiny.

#81 Jul 06 2005 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
It would be better if you stick to the "god is un-detectable" arguement so you are free from scientific or logical scrutiny.


Here's my "excuse" for this:

There is a Physical existance and a non-Physical existance.

If the aspect of "G-D" that you seek is on the non-Physical side, than how are you going to "see" it with tools from the Physical world?

and I mean Science and Logic all are rules and explainations based soley on the Physical aspect of existance, all things that Humans have concocted to keep things in order.




How many times have you seen an animal trying to find the other animal behind the mirror?

Your view is stuck in one direction. I am pointing at the sky and you are still staring at the ground claiming not to see.


It's like trying to point somthing out to a dog and the dog keeps staring at your finger instead of waht your pointing at.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#82 Jul 06 2005 at 2:50 PM Rating: Default
lol kelv, i think we have determined ive looked at your view, repeatively telling me that im narrow minded or not seeing it your way is a bit annoying, i simply dont agree lol.

on the physical existence and non-physical i agree, your gods lie the plain of:
Non-physical Existence- or to put it more clearly they dont physcially exist.
which is the point.

as for some fairy land that "outside" existence as religious people often say, this i believe this is just people trying to justify something they cant prove to themselves by trying to believe in something they cant possibly question.

people often compare god to an "idea", something that exists but cant be detected, this isnt true either,an idea is simply a collection of neurons, a similar belief of several biological machines. the point is just because you "think" of a god doesnt mean he or she exists. thats why we study and look for evidence of existence so we may know the truth and grow from it, and until there is even a shred of evidence, i will remain an atheist.

and btw, funny signature kelv, i got slapped for telling my wife about it LOL

Edited, Wed Jul 6 15:51:06 2005 by EvilPhysicist
#83 Jul 06 2005 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
your gods lie the plain of:
Non-physical Existence- or to put it more clearly they dont physcially exist.



To be more clear on this ,briefly (cause I wanna for once get home and beat traffic instead of arguing on this damn forum)


I do recgonize the existence of gods and faeries and dragons et cetera, but only as a form that is giving to them from the observer.

I closer explaination in the bounds of your idea of reality is that there are patterns of "energy" (to be generic)

That there are energy patterns that can be percieved even as sentient and concious with HUMAN TRAITS.

BUT

The only thing that allows them to have human traits like arms and legs and white flowing beards is becaues that is how our minds our adjusted to see them.

It is abstract.

This things have no TRUE shape.
SHAPE is part of the physical world of which they are not.

Therefore waht are they? Energy as I have said before... The nature of this energy I cannot give you details of cause I'm an un-educated dullard. But it goes along with that fact of "matter is energy".


So these patterns of energies have temperments... or frequencies that can somtimes translate as human emotions.... or emotional states... or even conscious states....

So if a creature of of a particular energy that gives a human observer the feeling of JOY, that feeling will have to have an IMAGE attached to it that the Human observer asigns to it..... be it a fairy or an angel or wahtever...
It is humans looking though Human coloured glassses if you will...

Personifying an energy force or pattern is similar to throwing paint on the Invisible Man... until that is done it is all speculations.

So we MUST add our own oppinionated perceptions to the unknown in order to provide ourselves with somthing to grasp on to.


I tell you waht I have seen Is TOTAL evidence of "SOMTHING ELSE"

Spells, prayers, spirits.... cosmic coincidences that nearly drove me MAD.... I have looked at all of these things with a sceptical eye to convince myself that I wasn't crazy and YET the more I did the more the evidence would present itself... Eventually I accepted that I wwas either ENTIRELY in a ****** up delusionary state.... or there is SOMTHING Out there..


You ask me to prove it to you? I can only tell you stories that you prolly wouldn't believe.... I've seen **** that would turn you White!


I dont discount that I could be crazy..... but if I am.. then it's BIG TIME.. cause I testify to you.. the things that I have witnessed leave me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is Somthing Else.


I know the power of the mind is strong and can be tricky and decieving..... But does not that argumant work both ways???

You can say that It's just my mind telling me that these things are true.... But I can just say that it is your mind telling you that they are false.... it swings both ways.

You have science, which is Obseration of thngs of a physical nature..... There is more to it than that.

Studying grains of sand is not the same as studying atoms, but they have similarities.




**** I got to get out of here.

Expect more inane psycho-babble forthcoming.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#84 Jul 06 2005 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Believe in Fairies?

Iceland still has laws (in use and enforced) to protect fairies from harassment.

I remember seeing protests on the news a while back because a US Air Base in Iceland was hassling the elves and pixies. I'm sure I've read recently that over half the population still believe fairies exist as living (as opposed to mythical) creatures.

No more stupid than blokes on crosses or a Mokey-headed God IMHO.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#85 Jul 06 2005 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Let's see....

I don't care if there is a god or gods, if there is an afterlife and in that afterlife, a heaven or hell. Not a case of I don't believe in it, but a matter of not giving a flip- What would that be defined as? O.o
#86 Jul 06 2005 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
I have an entire explaination ready for the existence of faeries, ethereal AND physical.

but figured I'd spare everyone and my E-peenSmiley: grin





..but I heard in Ireland they still work their building ordinances around Faery Hills.

Sidhe can be vicious.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#87 Jul 06 2005 at 3:58 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Althrun wrote:
Let's see....

I don't care if there is a god or gods, if there is an afterlife and in that afterlife, a heaven or hell. Not a case of I don't believe in it, but a matter of not giving a flip- What would that be defined as? O.o


Standard I'd say
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#88 Jul 06 2005 at 4:11 PM Rating: Decent
Not automatic? What kind of mileage do I get on the open highways comparatively?
#89 Jul 06 2005 at 4:14 PM Rating: Default
again you rely on saying god is "immeasurable". That it's all perception. And again i simply say that if he/she is infact "immeasurabe", if he/she has left no proof of existence, if he/she cannot be detected, if he/she is unexplaineable and un-provable by current means:

Then there is no reason for anyone to believe in god other than unwillingness to let go of personal superstitions.

Now, before you respond, think of the ramifications of that, of the fact that your beliefs are induced from false superstitions, that your foundations are on half arguements, and that your feelings may very likely be manifistations of your own willingness to accept something you want to believe in. Again i say ive been there, i sworn there was a god, i KNEW there was a god, i felt him, i saw "miracles", and it was only after i gave up my harness of superstition that i could see my blindness and realize i was fighting for something that had no justification, something that i believed simply "because".

as for your arguement of god being another form of energy that we cannot detect, thats the "Immeasurable" point again. If god interacts with this world in ANY way, that way cuases some force. The idea that we are energy and are only in the shape our mind percieves us is off base too. Yes, we are matter, and yes matter is energy, but we see each other by simple decoding of varying frequencies of light that hit our eyes, an ability that many creatures have developed over the eons to become more efficient macro chemical machines. Yes, there is an error of perception, but attempting to play on people ignorance of the biological reactions behind it in order to facilitate a "Mysterious" truth is a bit Naive and offensive.

as for energy states that can cause emotion in use, same point, if these energies have the power or ability to react say on the electro-magnetic level and force chemical responses in humans, then they are inherently detectable by even the simplest of electronic detectors, although i doubt youll get much success finding god on your EEG.




Edited, Wed Jul 6 17:16:57 2005 by EvilPhysicist
#90 Jul 06 2005 at 4:37 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
EvilPhysicist wrote:
as for energy states that can cause emotion in use, same point, if these energies have the power or ability to react say on the electro-magnetic level and force chemical responses in humans, then they are inherently detectable by even the simplest of electronic detectors, although i doubt youll get much success finding god on your EEG.


With what medical researchers have been able to show using FMRI's I'm wondering what would be found during one of these so called spirital moments.

I would never base facts on a faith. I just find it helps me deal with stress as much as the fact that without physical proof in the exsistance of a Spirital Being, I will side with the Atheist over a follower of any religion every time.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#91 Jul 06 2005 at 4:39 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
PottyMouth wrote:
Believe in Fairies?

Iceland still has laws (in use and enforced) to protect fairies from harassment.

I remember seeing protests on the news a while back because a US Air Base in Iceland was hassling the elves and pixies. I'm sure I've read recently that over half the population still believe fairies exist as living (as opposed to mythical) creatures.

No more stupid than blokes on crosses or a Mokey-headed God IMHO.


this made me chuckle. How, exactly, did the US Air force harass the elves and fairies?
#92 Jul 06 2005 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Lady deadsidedemon wrote:
this made me chuckle. How, exactly, did the US Air force harass the elves and fairies?
Linky Linky
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#93 Jul 06 2005 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
To be clear on the meat and potåtoes of waht we're discussing:

I'm not attempting to prove god to you.

I don't think of God as a personified diety. Wehn I say GOD; I mean an all prevailing machine of clockwork-like precision and perfection; not a conciousness as We would recognize it; not a He or She either. I'm thinking of a universal source from which all flows. It flows out in a pattern. Those patterns come in varying frequencies of the variable that I am calling 'energy'.
This energy goes from solid to 'ethereal'. The physical universe is like the frozen surface of a lake. It is the 'hardening' of the energy into waht we know as the logical and tangible. The rules of the surface are not the same as the rules beneath the 'ice'.
Time is irrelevant in this pattern and is merely the various windows through which 'moments' or aspects of this pattern or 'existance' are experienced. Yada yada yada


Before I became aware of this (and please keep in mind that I KNOW it's all speculation, because "waht do I know?") I was raised Christian. I was raised Christian until I was about 6 or 7 years old. After that time I didn't think about God or Fate. I didn't think about it one bit. Therefore I know how much of a non-issue this can be for most people. At a certain point in my life I became interested in things that were 'mysteries' to mankind. But I digress...
My quest for this stuff was not to mask some seeded feeling of inadequacy, it was for just knowing. I'd read up on things ect... But I still listened to rap, and shoplifted from stores and got into fights and all the other normal things a kid does.
One day, during a thunderstorm, I was bored and staring out the patio window on a ground level apartment, 12 yrs old I think. I was reading a book that was called "The Encyclopaedia of Things That Never Were", a mere alphabetical listing of names and places and things from legends, myths, and fairy tales, and I recognized it as such. AS I read it however I came to notice that many of these things were merely misinterpretations of everyday phenomenon, others just outlandish stories. I than began to wonder why the rational explanation couldn't merely be another way of explaining some phenomenon that we had little understanding of. Such as ancient people knew there was a Sun, but they didn't understand waht it was so they made somthing up and had endless methods of explaining it, as do we with science. It seems at that point I must have became insane. I did believe in ghosts, they were talked about in my family as if they were real, and local tales abound.. I started wondering about everyting else in the world.. anyway.. I had been reading about the "scarab" beetle and for some reason became quite facinated with it. The Egyptian symbols just "looked so cool" I guess.
SO this thunder storm is going on..... and I started staring at one spot outside in the field... and I started saying the Latin words for 'scarab' over and over again.... I don't really recall why.. except that I was curious... I then saw t lightning bolts come down from different parts of the sky and strike together and on the ground while they hit I saw the glowing shape of a scarab beetle. I was taken aback for a long time. THat's the first time I began to reallly wonder about things.. but my life hadn't really changed.. too much..

Another quick and Small example.. I had been playing with Scandinavian rune stones. Reading peopes stones and wahtnot in class and at parties. Also inevitably I was studying the usual witchy books.. yet, none of them satisfies me. I realized the every single fu[b][/b]cking one of those cheeseball Llewellyn books with the Moon on the spine was gonna tell me diddly except another persons interpretation of waht everything was all about and how it worked; much like the Bible.
Anyway, I was sitting there in Math Class and this "goth" dork walks near me clutching a crystal necklace and I'm like "waht the hell is that ****?". He jokingly says "oooo,I'm gonna put a curse on you" and I scoffed and riped of a little piece of notebook paper and scribbled the Rune of Constraint (usualy associated with humiliation) on it, and I told him to take it and put it in his pocket.
NOw this guy in 10-11th grade was aro9und 300 lbs. a BIg Guy. LAter that day during lunch, he sat down and his chair broke underneath of him. The entire commons was standing, pointing and laughin... all but me.

This is a REALLY PETTY example, and very early one. I don't call myself a witch and Wiccans usualy annoy the **** out of me.



I have noticed a greatmany many things that have blown my mind. I know that I could easily explain away things as coincedence or delusion. I could be seeing so many wierd things because I am looking for them, but wehn I am given the notion that everything that I have ever thought was "real" and "normal" is really NOT that way, I think abot it a whole hell of alot. And it took me many ,many years of pondering and delving.. and observing, and meditating... I have searched out the possibilities that I am crazy or my thoughts are misconstrued and I still STILL, even after growing up, after dealing with bills, getting up for 9 to 5 jobs, watching endlessly bad movies, and talking to person after person about these thing, I STILL kno that things are not waht they seem and yet I have only found about 5 or 6 people in my LIFE that I would say are as "crazy" as I am.

I realize that doubt is the enemy.

If it all is some mental construct that I use to get by in daily life.... well so be it. My life is enriched beyond anything I would have ever imagined and I am enlightened.

I do not post these things here to preach. I post them here becaue I like making people think. I also like bouncing my iseas off of people.
I mean, If I REALLY wanted to start REALLY converting people, don';t you think I'd hang out on Wicca forums or other pagan religous cheeseball forums to spread my word to people who would be easily puesuaded. THis is all for my personal ammusment, and if someone is caused to use an extras braincell while reading it, ALl the BEtter.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#94 Jul 06 2005 at 8:53 PM Rating: Good
Stay away from me witch!!!!! Or are you a warlock cause your a guy Kel......BURN HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

p.s. Awesome avatar Kel

Edited, Wed Jul 6 21:53:25 2005 by Buffyisagoddess
#95 Jul 06 2005 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
EvilPhysicist wrote:
Then there is no reason for anyone to believe in god other than unwillingness to let go of personal superstitions.

Now, before you respond, think of the ramifications of that, of the fact that your beliefs are induced from false superstitions, that your foundations are on half arguements, and that your feelings may very likely be manifistations of your own willingness to accept something you want to believe in. Again i say ive been there, i sworn there was a god, i KNEW there was a god, i felt him, i saw "miracles", and it was only after i gave up my harness of superstition that i could see my blindness and realize i was fighting for something that had no justification, something that i believed simply "because".
If I was to have "evidence" of a divine being, you'd be the last person I'd attempt to share it with. No one is more judgemental and self-righteous than the reformed. I honestly doubt that any show of faith or divinity would make you turn from your assurances that what you can detect and perceive is all there is and that anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded and foolish. As a wiser man than myself was once reported to say: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you..

I went all King James there for that classic touch
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#96 Jul 06 2005 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


I see now why you and your girl spend every night humping like monkeys, you ole smoothie...
#97 Jul 06 2005 at 11:52 PM Rating: Default
hmm,
to kelv:
so you think of god as the ethereal energy of our universe...
its like your trying to mesh actual science with your desperate attempt to name something god, whether its logical or just plain silly. In this case id have to say just plain silly.


To Jophiel:
Your correct, no act of "Faith" will ever convince me, faith and spiritual acts are ludacrious and irrelavent to someone who doesnt believe in them.
BUT: i have repeatively said that every atheist in the world would believe in god given even the slightest proof. The fact that we deny everything you bring to the table isnt that we are narrow minded, its simply your arguments are very hollow and usually pathetically thought out. Although i LOVE that even though ive considered both sides of the arguement and would even embrace the idea of a higher being given evidence, i am still called narrow minded. I guess its all you have left to do is critisize me for not agreeing with you. But i really dont expect anything different from someone narrow minded as you (im calling you narrow minded not to be a hypocrit but to show you how easy it is to throw out that word any time you dont agree with someone.)
and as for your bible quote, im glad you consider your wisdom as pearls and everyone who disagrees as swine lol.

#98 Jul 07 2005 at 12:14 AM Rating: Decent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
EvilPhysicist wrote:
hmm,


To Jophiel:
BUT: i have repeatively said that every atheist in the world would believe in god given even the slightest proof.


Summa Theologia, Saint Thomas Aquinas 1270AD

Article II. Whether the existence of God is demonstrable:


Let us proceed to the second point. It is objected (1) that the existence of God is not demonstratable: that God's existence is an article of faith, and that articles of faith are not demonstratable, because the office of demonstration is to prove, but faith pertains (only) to things that are not to be proven, as is evident from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 11. Hence that God's existence is not demonstratable. Again, (2) that the subject matter of demonstration is that something exists, but in the case of God we cannot know what exists, but only what does not, as Damascenus says (Of the Orthodox Faith, I., 4.) Hence that we cannot demonstrate God's existence. Again, (3) that if God's existence is to be proved it must be from what He causes, and that what He effects is not sufficient for His supposed nature, since He is infinite, but the effects finite, and the finite is not proportional to the infinite. Since, therefore, a cause cannot be proved through an effect not proportional to itself, it is said that God's exisence cannot be proved.

But against this argument the apostle says (Rom. I., 20), "The unseen things of God are visible through His manifest works." But this would not be so unless it were possible to demonstrate God's existence through His works. What ought to be understood concerning anything, is first of all, whether it exists. Conclusion. It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, atthough not a priori (by pure reason), yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us.

In answer I must say that the proof is double. One is through the nature of a cause and is called propter quid: this is through the nature of preceding events sirnply. The other is through the nature of the effect, and is called quia, and is through the nature of preceding things as respects us. Since the effect is better known to us than the cause, we proceed from the effect to the knowledge of the cause. From any effect whatsoever it can be proved that a corresponding cause exists, if only the effects of it are sufficiently known to us, for since effects depend on causes, the effect being given, it is necessary that a preceding cause exists. Whence, that God exists, although this is not itself known to us, is provable through effects that are known to us.

To the first objection above, I reply, therefore, that God's existence, and those other things of this nature that can be known through natural reason concerning God, as is said in Rom. I., are not articles of faith, but preambles to these articles. So faith presupposes natural knowledge, so grace nature, and perfection a perfectible thing. Nothing prevents a thing that is in itself demonstratable and knowable, from being accepted as an article of faith by someone that does not accept the proof of it.

To the second objection, I reply that, since the cause is proven from the effect, one must use the effect in the place of a definition of the cause in demonstrating that the cause exists; and that this applies especially in the case of God, because for proving that anything exists, it is necessary to accept in this method what the name signifies, not however that anything exists, because the question what it is is secondary to the question whether it exists at all. The characteristics of God are drawn from His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works as shall be shown hereafter, (Question XIII). Whence by proving that God exists through His works, we are able by this very method to see what the name God signifies.

To the third objection, I reply that, although a perfect knowledge of the cause cannot be had from inadequate effects, yet that from any effect manifest to us it can be shown that a cause does exist, as has been said. And thus from the works of God His existence can be proved, although we cannot in this way know Him perfectly in accordance with His own essence.

Article III. Whether God exists.

Let us proceed to the third article. It is objected (1) that God does not exist, because if one of two contradictory things is infinite, the other will be totally destroyed; that it is implied in the name God that there is a certain infinite goodness: if then God existed, no evil would be found. But evil is found in the world; therefore it is objected that God does not exist. Again, that what can be accomplished through a less number of principles will not be accomplished through more. It is objected that all things that appear on the earth can be accounted for through other principles, without supposing that God exists, since what is natural can be traced to a natural principle, and what proceeds from a proposition can be traced to the human reason or will. Therefore that there is no necessity to suppose that God exists. But as against this note what is said of the person of God (Exod. III., 14) I am that I am. Conclusion. There must be found in the nature of things one first immovable Being, a primary cause, necessarily existing, not created; existing the most widely, good, even the best possible; the first ruler through the intellect, and the ultimate end of all things, which is God.

I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.

My reply to the second objection is that since nature is ordered in accordance with some defined purpose by the direction of some superior agent, those things that spring from nature must be dependent upon God, just as upon a first cause. Likewise, what springs from a proposition must be traceable to some higher cause which is not the human reason or will, because this is changeable and defective and everything changeable and liable to non-existence is dependent upon some unchangeable first principle that is necessarily self-existent as has been shown.
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#99 Jul 07 2005 at 1:02 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
your trying to mesh actual science with your desperate attempt to name something god,


Smiley: lol
THAT's the best you can come up with?


DUHHH! Why WOULN'T I try to figure it out and try to find scientific explainations for the things that I experience.

You're just a bitter person who got pissed off cause he couldn't figure out the mysteries of the universe through being a good little sheep so takes it out on all other faith in the world by giving it all the same qualites that you found in Your Particular interpretaion of Christianity.

You lost faith and so you think that everyone else should too.
You're a vampire.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#100 Jul 07 2005 at 1:22 AM Rating: Default
heaven. can't say i believe. i'd hate to be up there with alot of people that say they're going to heaven. hell not that either. can't say where im going cause i've never been there before. i'll play it by ear and tell you how it is when i get there...if i can ever find my way back that is. but if i did believe i don't think i'd differenciate between heaven/hell god/devil. i dont know of too many things that stay at a consistant opposite in life and after i die i doubt if such things would exsist like that all the time. that's just me though...
#101 Jul 07 2005 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
im glad you consider your wisdom as pearls and everyone who disagrees as swine lol.
Well, actually it was Jesus who considered that since that passage is him warning the disciples not to waste time sharing their message with the close-minded. I'm just quoting.

Erm.. lol

I honestly don't care what you believe. I already stated that I don't call myself Christian and doubt that the Bible is wholely the inspired Word. If atheists bothered me, I'd have left the internet long ago since they generally represent the majority on a general forum. But you've two kinds of athiests: ones who say "I don't believe but if you have faith, that's cool and I respect that even though it's not my bag" and those who say "Anyone who has faith is a superstitious caveman or a deluded fool and an idiot". The former is worth having a discussion with, the latter is rarely good for anything fruitful except to hear self-righteousness as tiresome as that of any Born Again Evangelical. Guess which catagory you've placed yourself in?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 138 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (138)