| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Red Vein Kratom  Buy Bali Kratom Powder  High THC Strains  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 whiterastahippie lover  Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
if you can get through this, then maybe it will explain somethings to somepeople.
Whether the existence of God is self-evident? Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God is self-evident. Now those things are said to be self-evident to us the knowledge of which is naturally implanted in us, as we can see in regard to first principles. But as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 1,3), "the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in all." Therefore the existence of God is self-evident. Objection 2. Further, those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word "God" is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition "God exists" is self-evident. Objection 3. Further, the existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth. But God is truth itself: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6) Therefore "God exists" is self-evident. On the contrary, No one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident; as the Philosopher (Metaph. iv, lect. vi) states concerning the first principles of demonstration. But the opposite of the proposition "God is" can be mentally admitted: "The fool said in his heart, There is no God" (Ps. 52:1). Therefore, that God exists is not self-evident. I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature--namely, by effects. Reply to Objection 1. To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else. Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word "God" understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word "God" is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist. Reply to Objection 3. The existence of truth in general is self-evident but the existence of a Primal Truth is not self-evident to us. Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists? Objection 1. It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists. Objection 2. Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists. Objection 3. Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. On the contrary, The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rm. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists. I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us. Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated. Reply to Objection 2. When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God". Reply to Objection 3. From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence. Whether God exists? Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist. Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence. On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14) I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, 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, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. 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. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good. Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article. -------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
 WhiskeyClone Not here    Registered: 06/25/01 Posts: 16,512 Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ... |
| ||||||
|
Do you know what circular logic is? You cannot prove God's existence by quoting the Bible. Do I need to explain why?
The second half of your post (yes I did read all of it) attempting to prove the existence of God in five ways using dozens and dozens of assumptions. A few examples: Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; We really don't know this for sure. You see, humans don't actually know how the universe works. They have created many theories that are consistent with other observations and deductions, but it is still just theory. The majority of scientists believe in the Big Bang theory, which is the theory that matter came into both existence and motion spontaneously; without being put into motion by another. This doesn't jive very well with the Laws of conservation of matter and energy, but since it makes the most sense to the most people, they believe it is likely. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The universe was put in motion by something, correct? Why must this be a God? There is no reason to believe that it is a supernatural deity that did this, unless you are already assuming that scripture is somehow fact. As I mentioned, most scientists believe it was a spontaneous big bang that did this. Not because a religion or mythology suggested it, but because it is the theory most consistent with their observations of the stars and their movement in relation to each other. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible This makes the assumption that time is linear. All we know is that humans perceive time as linear. Humans have NO IDEA what time is or how it works. ...Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. Why does it have to be a being? It could be an type entity or no entity at all. This is my problem with religion. It is just too human-centric. It's as if humans are the center of the universe, the reason for the universe, and that all metaphysical truths must be explainable is such a way that the average homo sapien can identify with it. "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; Where did this assuption come from? There is no "hottest thing". The very idea of anything being perfect or truest is so utterly juvenile. There is no reason to believe that just because something can be hotter or colder than something else, God exists. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. Rocks are unintelligent and they move towards their end by sitting there. That is their existence. No brain is necessary. The concepts of knowledge and intelligence are human concepts, and the universe was in existence long before humans and their simplistic labels. I don't see why any thing you've written here suggests the existence of a God in any way. Sorry man, I am thoroughly unconvinced. -------------------- ~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance" 
| |||||||
|
MightyQuinn Eskimo Registered: 04/22/02 Posts: 187 Loc: United States Last seen: 20 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
The problem with the Medievals' proofs of God is that they aren't proofs of God, they're justifications for belief in God.
The proofs you've quoted and those from the other Medieval philosophers like Anselm and so on aren't faithful representations of their process of coming to a belief in a faith. They did not start with a question and find the answer. They started with the answer ("Of course there's a God") and backtracked until they found a starting point from which to base the argument. All of these arguments inevitably lead to a "proof" of God but there's no other way they could have turn out. Look who wrote them. There are some slick movements in a lot of those old texts... Anselm's "proof" of God as "quo maius cogitare nequit" shows he's a clever bastard but the proof itself has nothing to stand on if the reader doesn't already believe that God's there... -------------------- everybody's gonna want a dose.
| |||||||
|
Revelation ॐ  Registered: 08/04/01 Posts: 6,135 Loc: heart cave |
| ||||||
|
Be Here Now
-------------------- 
| |||||||
|
MAIA World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)  Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 7,399 Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri Last seen: 1 month, 9 days |
| ||||||
|
"Rocks are unintelligent and they move towards their end by sitting there. That is their existence. No brain is necessary. The concepts of knowledge and intelligence are human concepts, and the universe was in existence long before humans and their simplistic labels. I don't see why any thing you've written here suggests the existence of a God in any way. "
Correct, in the mineral kingdom things exist, in the vegetal kingdom things exist and live, in the animal kingdom things exist, live and are intelligent (well, some  ).MAIA -------------------- Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala   Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy. Voltaire
| |||||||
|
whiterastahippie lover Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
it is thomas aquinas. and circular logic? yes he quotes the bible in some places, but mostly you could take those out. and yes, i'm sorry that proofs of God are based on the assuption that not everybody reading it is a nihilist.
 now if you actually believe science and the things we have learned and to many people proved. then you can take this. have you ever noticed how if some one wants to poke a hole in something bad enough then they will do it. period? but if you build a building of thought on a false foundation then the whole thing is false, even though to itself it may sound logical. like a guitar in tune to itself, but not to any other instrument. it sounds great alone. cyberchump. did you really read it? okay, you said you did. now, did you comprehend it me friend? did you catch the gist of when he was saying (here it is in much simpler wording): forget all your knowledge of what the word "GOD" means, and let me use this word for the sake of this arguement. i mean, the guy takes nothing, and then puts forth his debate, and says, "this we call god" sometimes meaning, "this is why we call god "GOD". get it braa? don't you catch what he's doing here? sigh. we live in an age of hatred and rebellion, and so, there is hatred and rebellion for everything. period. if you name it. somebody will disprove it or hate it. so what is the point of arguementation. i think that this is a very good proof of a God. very sound and logical, but i digress...peace. why. all. the. fucking. hate. in. this. world? 
-------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
|
WhiskeyClone Not here Registered: 06/25/01 Posts: 16,512 Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ... |
| ||||||
|
Relax man, this is a spirituality/philosophy discussion board, not a murder trial. What hate??
My point was not that if you really want to pick apart what he's saying here, you can. That can be done with any post. My point was that there is absolutely no good argument for the existence of god in that post. I listed a few of the huge assumptions made to make his aruments work. I'm sorry if you did not expect somebody to rebut that particular fellow's debate. In reply to: I do believe in science and did not dismiss every scientific theory. Not nihilist; just unassuming. If somebody can make the stretch to conclude that those arguments prove that an intelligent being exists and created the universe, I can certainly remind them that the human brain (when unaltered by substances) perceives time in a directly quantitative, linear fashion. We know that drugs can allow us to perceive (firsthand) the fact that this is not the only way of perceiving it. His argument only works if it is assumed that time is always linear. In reply to: I don't hate anyone. You don't have to agree with me, remember? The point of argumentation is up to you; I do it to learn things and because it's fun. If you stop hating the 'hate', you'll start seeing the love. -------------------- ~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
| |||||||
|
whiterastahippie lover Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
ah yes, you are so right brother. i apologize for that. certain people on this board get to me, and i let it affect all my posts for the next fifteen minutes after that or so. i mention no names, that's gossip. but just the people who try to blame innocent christians for everything bad that has happened in history. i love my faith and my God and if somebody gives me a theory against it, that's cool, i don't have to agree. but when unamed people in other posts and on different sites, just hate christians and poke fun at them with everything they have in their mental grasp, it starts to get to me. bad day. so maybe white rasta hippie shouldn't post when upset with totally different stuff eh?
 my mistake braa. so yeah, aquinas...you seem to find flaws, but i don't see those as flaws. maybe i get something different out of what he says. he's not the easiest reading for everybody. like the fire thing. i believe there has to be a hottest. you don't? then i guess this strain of logic is not for you. but i am a firm believer that there has to be a first in everything. because that is far more likely than the alternative. hey hey man! i'll try to keep personal feelings out of my posts from now on. my mistake.
-------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
|
whiterastahippie lover Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 718 Loc: look into a chil Last seen: 21 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
hey cyber chump, how about this if you are interested? http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
fascinating stuff based on mathematics and not just assumptions. here's another. Q. Smith has recently argued that (I) the universe began to exist and (II) its beginning was uncaused. In support of (II), he argues that (i) there is no reason to think that the beginning was caused by God and (ii) it is unreasonable to think so. I dispute both claims. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html peace braa.
-------------------- Peace and Love to all!
| |||||||
|
WhiskeyClone Not here Registered: 06/25/01 Posts: 16,512 Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ... |
| ||||||
|
Cool, I printed them both and I'll read em this aft.
-------------------- ~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
yeah, saint thomas aquinas... the idea that since things are here, that means god must have put them here. that's really all he's saying. bollocks.
| |||||||
|
MarkostheGnostic Elder  Registered: 12/09/99 Posts: 14,279 Loc: South Florida Last seen: 3 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Yes...but...despite the two diametrically opposed ontological assumptions, which will remain so in this pluralistic universe - the two of you raised the collective IQ of this forum a good 20 points.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
| |||||||
thefloodbehind  Registered: 07/05/11 Posts: 898 Loc: Nashville, TN Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Why aren't there more posts like these happening in the forum now? Cultural shift I presume?
| |||||||
| |||||||
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Red Vein Kratom Buy Bali Kratom Powder High THC Strains Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
God Exists (  1 2 3 4 5 6 all ) |
 Zahid |
12,018 | 113 | 03/18/03 03:57 PM by falcon |
|
|
Dose God exist? Take a look around. ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Bavet |
7,100 | 68 | 02/06/03 10:46 AM by Strumpling |
|
 |
Does God Exist? part one ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 MentalHygene |
16,498 | 126 | 02/22/02 08:26 PM by ArCh_TemPlaR |
|
|
Does God Exist? (lets get to the point!) | MentalHygene |
1,148 | 12 | 02/08/02 10:19 AM by Seuss |
|
 |
Proof That God Does Not Exist ( 1 2 all ) |
 yewhew |
4,303 | 37 | 02/21/04 03:34 AM by raytrace |
|
 |
When will you all understand? There is no god! ( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 ) |
 Fliquid |
21,820 | 263 | 09/22/11 10:30 AM by Cactilove |
|
|
Philosophical evidence that God Probably does not exist. ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 SpecialEd |
9,772 | 52 | 02/07/04 06:30 PM by nubious |
|
 |
Death & Time don't exist. Where God comes from... ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Shroomalicious |
9,350 | 69 | 12/18/02 06:30 PM by Strumpling |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 1,817 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 42 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
