Humanity's Stuggle With Death.

Here is a exercise for you.

I agree that it would be a very good exercise for you to find the flaws in Aquinas' reasoning.

He merely used Aristotle's five causes to expound upon five ideas of his own, IIRC.I think his actual reasoning was faulty, when looked at in a logical form. I seen a syllogism and it didn't work.His argument is persuasive, slightly, but not conclusive, and certainly he didn't prove God exists as it couldn't be inferred.Proof comes from valid inference. Anything about God is hypothetical, and intangeable, and is not evidential. Therefore it is vacuous conjecture to assert than one has proved God. Not that I'm saying Aquinas claimed to have proved God. You have claimed that he did this.If he actually said he did, then it's impossible that he used reason.

well i'm afraid i have to disagree with you on this, the concept of eternal life is pretty much universal in all religions in some form or another, in fact being one with your god/s having a person grant you eternal life was a pretty common religious theme
norse, celtic, greek, roman, many of the mystery religions believed itmany things were looked on as eternel, so why not the human soul?, it comes down to fear of death being the end

However, Thomas Aquina made some bad assumptoins and logical fallacies.His 'reason' is not good reasoning.. but more hope than anything else.

That was more a statement of my own beliefs. You can disregard the post.

Minor Transcendance through discussions with God, has given me belief in the afterlife. By discussions with God, I mean my everyday experiences, because that is I think, how God has recently decided to talk to me. With a foundation in the Christian philosophy, and in fundamentally taking every word of the Bible as truth, I have realized that to not believe in an afterlife is a disapointment, it is a tradgedy. To reason away truth with skills that we have developed on this planet to strive to understand what this planet is physically is truly a dishonor to what we had known.How could I reject faith for what made sense to me at the moment, when what I had faith in was so much more beautiful, and resonated truth loud and clear?I think it's time for me to venture beyond this.

Keep believing, and keep talking with your god. But know that those of us who do not hold to Christian philosophies may disagree with you mightily.There is absolutely no disappointment in not believing in an afterlife, and no tragedy. Okay, a couple of big problems here, but it seems you are about through with the topic. I will leave it unless you want to go on. If faith makes life easier for you, then, in my opinion, you shouldn't reject it. Just be tolerant of others with different beliefs. Happy sailing.

quote:

---

If faith makes life easier for you, then, in my opinion, you shouldn't reject it. Just be tolerant of others with different beliefs.

---

It is not easier, vastly harder to live with faith, because I find myself questioning myself.

Fantastic. A belief unquestioned is weak and worthless.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I very much hope that you are able to reconcile your faith with your questions. I believe that, for some, faith can be very rewarding. It seems to me that those who can question are those most comfortable with faith. Those who can't come off as angry and defensive; their experience with faith doesn't seem to be very positive at all.Cheers.

Rewarding?The only thing that matters is whether what they believe is true or not.

Well none of us will know the answer to that until after we're dead.So would there be any chance that the reward might also be found in either the satisfaction of helping someone else or in the greater pleasure or comfort lived by the individual?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

One can find a reward in being kind. But one does not believe a doctrine because one thinks it will make them kind. At least one ought not, in my view.One ought not believe in God simply because it has an affect on the "greater pleasure or comfort lived by the individual."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Man has a hyper developed intellect as a survivival characteristic"

---

If this is purely a survival characteristic, then why does our intellect exceed homo habilis? What would be the point of human's intellect to surpass a homo habilis's for example if mans only goal would be to survive? All we would need to do is utilize tools correct?