|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the Existence of GOD. (prophex and sidelined only) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Thomas Aquinas' philosophy in regards to the existence of God.
Five proofs for the existence of God Aquinas shows five "ways" to indicate the existence of God, some of which are developed in detail in his Summa Contra Gentiles. The first way(Prime Mover) "It is clear that there are in this world things which are moved. Now, every object which is moved receives that movement from another. If the motor is itself moved, there must be another motor moving it, and after that yet another, and so on. But it is impossible to go on indefinitely, for then there would be no first motor at all, and consequently no movement" ("Contra Gentiles," ii. 33). This proof, like much of Thomas Aquinas's thought, is taken from Aristotle, whose "unmoved mover" forms the first recorded example of the cosmological argument for God's existence. The second way"We discern in all sensible things a certain chain of efficient causes. We find, however, nothing which is its own efficient cause, for that cause would then be anterior to itself. On the other side, it is impossible to ascend from cause to cause indefinitely in the series of efficient causes....There must therefore exist one self-sufficient, efficient cause, and that is God" ("Contra Gent." i. 22). The third way"We find in nature things which may be and may not be, since there are some who are born and others who die; they consequently can exist or not exist. But it is impossible that such things should live for ever, for there is nothing which may be as well as not be at one time. Thus if all beings need not have existed, there must have been a time in which nothing existed. But, in that case, nothing would exist now; for that which does not exist can not receive life but from one who exists; . . . there must therefore be in nature a necessarily existent being." The fourth wayAny category has its degrees, such as good and better, warm and warmer. Each also has one thing that's the ultimate of that measure, like good and "best", warm and "hottest". And whatever is the most of that category is the source of that category, as fire (or, in modern terms, energy itself) is the source of heat, and God must therefore be the source of goodness. The fifth wayEverything, sentient or otherwise, progresses in an orderly way. Planets move in their orbits, light breaks from and combines into its spectrum, et cetera. Reality has a natural order, which could not have come from nothing, yet which precedes mere humans. Some believe that the Fifth Way is equivalent to what is now called Intelligent Design. However, this is not an accurate presentation of Aquinas' thought, and is subject to the Cosmogonical Fallacy. -Wikipedia.org.
These proofs, are logical analysis using reasoning, to prove God's existence, they make a great deal of sense, and I wonder about Atheism, and how it counteracts such theories. But the main point is, that without God, there is nothing to live for. Human Life would be meaningless. What is it that we live for, and strive to become, and why do we show passion for life? I believe that life, is a precursor to an eternal life to come. But is there meaning beyond the thought of this afterlife, is there meaning for living without the idea of a Divine Being? (Not to strengthen my beliefs, justified with wonder, and debate.)(If not enough is given, just close it, maybe passion for debate, and discussion has left me.) This message has been edited by prophex, 11-10-2005 08:36 PM edited by AdminJar to fix title This message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-12-2005 09:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Sorry for the delay.
quote: I think that when Aquinas stated this "way", he referred to the phenomenon of the original move. As the Big Bang puts it the original move expanded a ball of energy and matter, but the question goes on to, what exactly gave life, gave energy, exerted some kind of force, for movement to come to exist. Althought the details of the unmoved mover are sketchy, and at best speculation and opinion, the basis remains, where was the first energy, and where did it come from? How or why this event happened should not take precedence over what seemingly had to happen.
quote: But we agree that, there requires an originator of some kind, any kind? For many, God is viewed as ever-existant. And an origin for the originator is non-existant. God as the word for the mover, not applying common conceptions and beliefs about the mover itself.
quote: A truly hard concept to put faith in, let alone grasp. The beginning is erased, left with no beginning, and although contrary to any human thinking and reason, is eternal, has and ever will be. Do you believe that a 'beginning' is an essential part to everything that exists?
quote: In chemistry recently, we learned of the uncertainty principle, developed by Werner Heisenberg. The physical universe is not determinable, particles of mass randomly move, and nothing can in effect, predict the future movement of a given particle. So occurences and movement in nature are not precise in nature as you said. Although the principle was contested by Albert Einstien, I will for the sake debate accept that the principle holds true in nature, which I imagine it does, entropy reigns here I see. But the fact remains that as random as this universe seems in it's movement, an original cause for the particles to randomly move needs to exist. I see no reason to exclude cause and effect because of the inability to determine movement of particles in the universe. (Einstien was dedicated in the latter part of his life in connecting all of everything into a universal understanding, he was unable to, but his work has led to work on String Theory as I know it.)
quote: I don't believe this is true. If nothing existed, nothing would exist, Or ever exist in the future. Where is there problem with this statement. Exclude any idea of God for this, nothing > nothing. Aquinas argues that a divine God is the reason for existance, and that without God, no idea has yet been produced to determine where existance as a whole, as we know it came from.
quote: But can't you see that the actions of men are not what our existance is limited to? Of course we view these actions and decide for ourselves where they go on the scale, but there must be some sort of free will, a creation to where goodness, and evil must come from. As cumbersome Aquinas' thoughts seem, even illogical in this "way", I think I see what he was trying to convey with an origin to goodness.
quote: The order that you speak of is in direct contradiction to the randomization of the universe, and entropy that supposedly is increased in a cosmic scale. Order in our universe is said to exist only when the use of energy comes into play. The order of chemical bonds, and atomic functions is a result of energy, this energy is of need for a creator. I understand the prevalent forces apply as well, but these forces could not occur upon, if not summoned originally.
quote: As beautiful as that last paragraph you made was, I believe that this view, the interactions you speak of, and the choices you make on earth hold far too much significance to pass away, and be erased. By losing faith in an originator, one loses any importance within social interactions and relationships, and love. The personal relationships, feelings, love, and interactions are not fleeting, these things are too great to be buried with us. well sure as planets come, i know that they end and if i'm here when they happens, will you promise me this my friend? please bury me with it i just don't need none of that mad max bullshit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
bumper balls - mario party
well sure as planets come, i know that they end and if i'm here when they happens, will you promise me this my friend? please bury me with it i just don't need none of that mad max bullshit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Where the heck is he lol?
these walls are paper thin and everyone hears every little sound.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: Do you believe that the universe has an age? So the energy existed at a value of Zero for what you call a "brief moment in time", then sort of enacted naturally, and gave rise however slowly to the concept of a "Big Bang". (This is a summary of the argument in the above paragraphs, if it is inaccurate, please tell me in the reply.) This energy that sort of "appears" and dissipates at will, the question still remains, what of it's origin? Where did the energy's existance begin. Has the energy always been? These thoughts and questions were the beginning sentiments to the ideas of a God on earth, these ideas to this day have been recycled as truth.
quote: These realms that you speak of are not of the imagination, rather the conclusive results of this important thought process of ancient times. The thought; "God exists" is not part of an imaginative creation, rather is backed with reason, which has become totally seperate in the world of philosophy, religion, and spirit. Claiming that we do not understand the way that the universe has worked in this way, replaces God, with the creation. Is the universe ever-existant? Is energy also not without a creator, or original force? To say that it is beyond us might be true, but to give that as the reason that we have called upon a God for understanding is false. Beyond ourselves, but you can't exclude any alternatives, and simply state that thought beyond the universe doesn't make sense, or is merely human creativity. Because the ideas are at the heart of the thought of humanity. The existance of God is truly undeniable.
quote: Direct agreement being 0 = 0? 0 = 1 existing, living universe? These ideas are not behind common sense notions. Your evidence is that of mathematic equations that seem to be 0 = 0, and 0 = 1. And they propose that universe matter, and energy, space, and time can stop existing. Or become beyond human radar. The math doesn't work here. The concept of it being beyond us is the real "non-answer".
quote: So anyway that you look at it, we stay at the same conclusion. Something has to be ever-existant. Right? You believe that energy/universe is ever-existant? I believe that God is ever-existant, and created what we see as the universe/energy.
quote: The question is fundemental. Can a beginning exist? Must there be a God, or energy eternal? Tell me what you believe.
quote: So what you are saying is that there is NO beginning to the universe. Where does that put you? Eternal God? Eternal Universe? Eternal, yet dissipating temporarily energy?
quote: Fact is, if it is beyond human reasoning, then you claim that no answer can exist. Because all we have is human reasoning. You are sort of forcing me to accept that we can't know of the UNIVERSE's origin, even then, our own. If it is beyond us as you say, the only viable alternative is of intelligence far greater than humanity. Intelligent Design
quote: It is not of the manipulation, but of the Creation itself. You see, that none of the laws of the universe would even exist without a creator. As I tell you that God can be proven using reason, not even the concept of faith that many have begun to rely on, but the concept of true thought processes that have given us religion, tribal conceptual thought of God/s, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Roman and Greek Mythology, Hinduism, and Buddhism, etc, etc, etc, etc... God has shown himself to us through our own minds, and we can still say these non-answers, giving us reason to not believe. We can honestly tell eachother that the workings of the universe are way beyond mere humanity, but when logic can show us that there is demand for the concept of a creator we still deny it, in ignorance, and disbelief. Sir, there must be an original push, I asked you where the energy came from, and you told me that it is eternal, and has the power to dissipate and reappear randomly. This was not a response of value to me, instead it has shown me that there needs to be an intelligent mind to invent energy. You have replaced God with a creation of God, a law, something that like God, cannot even be seen, is a thought, energy. You
quote: Me
As beautiful as that last paragraph you made was, I believe that this view, the interactions you speak of, and the choices you make on earth hold far too much significance to pass away, and be erased. By losing faith in an originator, one loses any importance within social interactions and relationships, and love. The personal relationships, feelings, love, and interactions are not fleeting, these things are too great to be buried with us. You
quote: Because these interactions would be gone without God. They would be all forgotten, and would not matter, because everything would cease to exist after life. Thanks so much for helping me, you have stimulated thoughts within me, that discussions with anyone else would not have come about. "The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
quote: What is Plancktime. Man's time?
quote: Time is eternal therefore. It seems that this is the logical conclusion because of the existance of the uncertainty principle. But this becomes a subjective speculative conjecture, because we are left with another viable alternative still. I believe that God is eternal, and the laws created by him. You believe that everything has always existed, because time is never zero, and so these laws have always existed. So science points to this? This abyss of emptiness, is that what we have observed? Time is ever-existant, everything is product of randomness, and laws that govern this universe? Time is the invention of God, and so are these laws that pertain to the universe. Without God, what we see, as Time, would have to be eternal, and nothing would be beyond time itself. But Time is a measurement, and has no real value beyond the clocks in humanity's heads. Sir this all leads to one thing, because of there being these laws, that are present in a universe that has always been, there must be an originator. You are circulating through the thought that time is eternal, and that it is beyond measurement, and rather is the factor that allows the universe to exist, the laws of the universe to exist. But read this back,
quote: quote: Your reasoning is purely nonsense, tell me a law that states that matter is also eternal, that the laws that govern the universe can create matter from the expanses of time. Can't you see that it all ends somewhere? That these ideas all reach to the thought of a beginning? quote: Wrong, you divert from attaining any reasonable answers by stating that the blocks that are discussed arose from nothing, with no impetus, rather a void of empty space and time, with universal laws, that dictate the motion of non-existant particles. Where have these particles begun? You are failing to explain to me how one can discuss origins, and the universe without applying the ideas of a Creator.
quote: The scientific approach used by yourself and others, has been an example to me on how without a creator, there is nothing but jargon, and empty thought. Time is eternal.Laws govern the Universe. Creation was always there, but in different form. God is a non-answer. Observation has given us no real answers to how the universe behaves, and how space and time even exists. We will continue the research in vain, trying to understand God without understanding God.
quote: Demonstrate to me, that the human notions of our universe have always been.
quote: Resist, but it is the only option that makes sense to humanity. That at the root of this existance is a creator. Not empty time, or eternal energy, and matter.
quote: Please tell me of a "reasonable" idea to explain the universe's origin, as it is, it's laws, and time.
quote: Because the implication that the universe has always existed, replaces the idea of an eternally existant God, with an eternally existant universe. This implies that nothing that we see has ever been created. So there is no beginning or end. This is simply wrong. An origin must exist for something to exist. Nothing is able to be in existance without at first being non-existant.
quote: No, there was never a beginning to God, but a beginning to everything that we see, our universe is evident, the origin of the universe is exactly what we are debating. So far, you have said that it has always existed, so far I have said that God is the only ever-existant.
quote: There is an apparent beginning to this universe. There is much more beyond this universe. It is usually called Transendance.
quote: Because these interactions would be gone without God. They would be all forgotten, and would not matter, because everything would cease to exist after life. Love would be lost to space and time, and would be eventually gone in an existance without a God, and without a "God-given afterlife." Your entire being, and existance, your soul, would not mean anything, you would cease to exist after life. With a God, your life matters, and everything you do matters, because it will never be buried with you, and never be erased. This is the beauty of the afterlife. There is more to life than what we are able to observe. Because there is God. "The old man cries in the sorrow of eternity." Van Gogh
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
sidelined are we done? I enjoy this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Sounds Good man.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024