This Catholic Journey
Each and every argument of St. Thomas, from what I have heard and what I read is flawed. This is stated even by Catholics.
I can take them apart one by one if you wish.
But I would hold that God is defined as such that is improvable and, therefore, must remain as an unknown.
Each and every argument of St. Thomas, from what I have heard and what I read is flawed. This is stated even by Catholics."
No, some Catholics agree, other do not.
"I can take them apart one by one if you wish."
We're all ears! Keep in mind that the "logical fallacy" argument against St Thomas' proofs is only valid if we consider God to exist within (and subject to the rules of) the universe, and not, as we believe him to be, an eternal being which exists beyond (or outside) the universe.
Funnily enough, there's quite a bit of scientific hypothesis on this topic, a lot of which compliments St Thomas quite nicely, proposing God to be the universe's "First Cause".
But for me, the point is this: You stated that Christianity requires "mostly blind faith", and pretty much implied that there is no thinking element to being a Christian. This is obviously nonsense.
I didn't say all Catholics! I was just simply stating that I am not alone in my criticism of it. Are you stating that it is sound? If it were I would venture there would be wide spread knowledge of this and therefore no criticism from ANY Chatholics. That is why I brought it up.
"First Clause" is flawed in that there is no reason to beleive that things did not always exist and that would then explain how there was always something to cause any event that occured in the past. Also if there was a proof for an original cause then there is no logical reason for it being a God.
You are right in your last point. There is most definitely a thinking element to Christianity. To me it is "mostly blind faith" because the thinking part to it is not very sound. That was IMO. I understand you think that the reasoning behind it is solid.
The real question is why do you think your religious choice is not mostly blind faith? And how is it that you feel Christianity stands a high probability of being the right religion. Unless you don't then there is not a strong "thinking element" to it.
-Kermit
"I didn't say all Catholics! I was just simply stating that I am not alone in my criticism of it. Are you stating that it is sound? If it were I would venture there would be wide spread knowledge of this and therefore no criticism from ANY Chatholics. That is why I brought it up."
They are theories! Naturally, they will be debated, and of course they are debated even within Catholicism. (That's a good thing.) The fact they are still being discussed 800 years later is notable (the likes of Augustine, Anselm and Augustine are still presented in every college 101 phil class), especially when you include modern scientific insight. I personally think they are good arguments which (while clearly debatable) have weathered well. (Just because something is debated doesn't mean it isn't worth considering -- it's still good stuff that's fun to kick around IMHO.)
"First Clause" is flawed in that there is no reason to beleive that things did not always exist and that would then explain how there was always something to cause any event that occured in the past."
What "things" did not always exist? We're pretty sure that the universe (as we know it) didn't always exist. See "Big Bang Theory".
"Also if there was a proof for an original cause then there is no logical reason for it being a God."
I don't see why. Is there a more logical reason for it being something else? You could argue that the very reason humans understand some concept of "infinity" is due to the nature of an infinite Creator, else why would finite man be equipped to (however feebly) grasp such a notion?
"The real question is why do you think your religious choice is not mostly blind faith? And how is it that you feel Christianity stands a high probability of being the right religion. Unless you don't then there is not a strong "thinking element" to it."
I've stated why in the other thread. Eyewitness accounts/martyrs, fulfilled prophesy, strong theology, wealth of religious inspired art, music, and thought, as well as personal experiences... not to mention moral issues standpoint of Catholicism. Christianity happens to appeal to me on an intellectual level more than, say, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam. (Not to say these other religions don't contain strong elements of truth, or that I don't have high respect of them!) So again, it is not mostly blind faith, though I don't require 100% assurance 100% of the time. Few are blessed with that. :)
Regards,
Hi Damion! I do enjoy your writings!
Yes, I do enjoy kicking them around too along with Descartes’ proof and others. It is interesting to attempt to prove something that is almost by definition indefinable. And I would agree they have weathered well. But only for their ability to expose the problem of attempting to prove there is a God.
Well, not all scientists agree that there was a ‘Big Bang.’ There are still a lot of questions regarding such an event. But supposing there were there would have to have been something before it. The Big Bang theory says nothing about there being nothing before it.
You said, “I don't see why. Is there a more logical reason for it being something else? You could argue that the very reason humans understand some concept of "infinity" is due to the nature of an infinite Creator, else why would finite man be equipped to (however feebly) grasp such a notion?”
You really don’t see why there is no logical reason that the first cause had to be a God? You ask if there is a logical reason for it being something else? Of course not, all I said was there is no logical reason to the thinking that it was a God? None what so ever! And just because there is no logical reason for it being any particular thing does not prove it to be a God. That would be like me saying that I have no idea who threw a rock at me and since there is no way to find out who threw it, therefore it was George. Does that make sense? Are you really arguing a negative argument like Intelligent Design advocates try to do? They say that because there are gaps in the theory of evolution it follows that evolution is false and God did it. There is nothing scientific behind a negative theory. That is you cannot prove one theory by the negation of another. You still have to prove your theory, in this case, that God did it. So, in the case of the ‘First Cause” Theory, even if you prove there needs to be a First Cause then you still have done nothing to prove what that cause was.
Now you get into Descarte’s Theory when you bring up the notion of the fact that we can think of an infinite creator therefore he must exist because how else could we even think of such a vast thing if it were not so. But the question is then are we truly thinking of such an infinite being? How can we be sure we are indeed thinking of it in its infinity? As you said “however feebly” is the problem. It would appear we do not, after all, have this capability. And what if God, being all powerful, gave us this ability then promptly willed himself out of existence? Is that an impossibility? You may have heard that rejection before.
On you last paragraph. I can respect the fact that you have studied religion and do have, what to you are, good reasons for your belief. So are you saying you are not 100% positive then that God exists?
You see, and I have been meaning to get to this point, while I seek 100% proof I, like you I think, do not know of
You see, and I have been meaning to get to this point, while I seek 100% proof I, like you I think, do not know of ANYTHING that is 100% proven. I therefore hold that by no means should I ever say that I know something to be true. Only that some things have a higher probability for being true and that Christianity for me has a low probability.
-Kermit
Hi Kermit,
Yes, I do enjoy kicking them around too along with Descartes’ proof and others. It is interesting to attempt to prove something that is almost by definition indefinable. And I would agree they have weathered well. But only for their ability to expose the problem of attempting to prove there is a God.
Indefinable in that we are theorizing about an infinite being, I agree. On the other hand, it's clear that, by nature, mankind is equipped to grasp some concept of God, else we wouldn't have forms of religion manifest in pretty much every culture known. So in a sense, it certainly is definable insofar as we are equipped to grasp such a concept, and not just on intellectual grounds -- but also those of other human faculties (like "emotion" or spiritual experiences). It's this experience of "God" on every level of being that can make it a formidable thing for some NOT to accept, irrational even.
Well, not all scientists agree that there was a ‘Big Bang.’ There are still a lot of questions regarding such an event. But supposing there were there would have to have been something before it.
I agree 100%! So do many scientists.
The Big Bang theory says nothing about there being nothing before it.
Precisely how some popular modern theories lend themselves well to the idea of an "initial mover" -- if all the matter in the universe was condensed into one point, theoretically a perfect state of equilibrium would exist UNTIL it was disrupted by something outside of it, and ultimately outside the universe as we understand it. (Keeping in mind that time and space are contingent upon things like matter and gravitational forces/etc.) While this does not prove God per se, it's good confirmation of many traditional Christian proofs of God, like the idea of an unchangeable, unmovable being apart from the universe, creation "ex nihilo" and others.
You really don’t see why there is no logical reason that the first cause had to be a God?
To me it's a strong indication, yes. Historic Christian descriptions of God accurately depict the type of Being that would be capable of such a thing.
Now you get into Descarte’s Theory when you bring up the notion of the fact that we can think of an infinite creator therefore he must exist because how else could we even think of such a vast thing if it were not so. But the question is then are we truly thinking of such an infinite being? How can we be sure we are indeed thinking of it in its infinity? As you said “however feebly” is the problem. It would appear we do not, after all, have this capability.
I believe my initial response in this post sufficiently answers this. We are equipped, by nature (and on multiple levels of being), to seek (and experience) God. I don't think this can be argued.
And what if God, being all powerful, gave us this ability then promptly willed himself out of existence? Is that an impossibility? You may have he
And what if God, being all powerful, gave us this ability then promptly willed himself out of existence? Is that an impossibility? You may have heard that rejection before.
Yes. First we have to distinguish between the way we exist and the way God exists, having no beginning or end. It would not be possible for a Being, who (as we Christians claim) has no beginning or no end to will Himself out of existence.
On you last paragraph. I can respect the fact that you have studied religion and do have, what to you are, good reasons for your belief.
Thanks! I appreciate our amicable dialogue and mutual respect. :-)
So are you saying you are not 100% positive then that God exists?
As I said above, we can only be certain insofar as we are equipped to understand and interpret things within the confines of our human limitations. I think I have successfully argued that we can be reasonably sure, and I hasten to add that it is by God's grace alone that a finite being can have any reassurance whatsoever of an infinite Being.
I agree with you that from a certain perspective, we can't ascertain 100% proof for anything. As one apologist argued, we can't even (by empirical means) prove logic or that the sun will rise tomorrow. (I'll also admit that I'm a sucker for George Berkeley.) But (and to paraphrase the same apologist), this also goes to prove that without a rational defeater, it is 100% rational to believe in the existence of God if personal experience, historical record, solid theology/etc dictate such.
As far as the topic of ID/Creationism/Evolution/etc, I am not (as can hopefully be determined from my arguments) a creationist, and I really don't know enough about ID to give an educated opinion without making too many assumptions. It's just not a real area of interest for me. I try not one to jump to irrational conclusions as I think both many Christians and Atheists do with respect to their own biases in that regard. I agree with Kurt Vonnegut that it's difficult to witness the perfection in the universe, and not attribute it to something far beyond us. I also tend to respect Augustine's view, which is basically that rational science and proper interpretation of one's faith do not necessitate immediate collision, LOL.
Regards,
Hi Again!
I want to first tackle the following point. Sounds like you are saying that because the notion of what it would take to be the "First Cause" is fulfilled by the Christian definition of God it therefore follows, and this "strongly indicates," that God, as defined by Christianity, exists. Is this your argument?
This is interesting too...
You said, "It's this experience of "God" on every level of being that can make it a formidable thing for some NOT to accept, irrational even."
You are begging a question that, to me you have not answered. That is; are these "experiences" truly an extension of God? I do not see how you have deduced that they are. It is not at all clear to me why the fact that we have the capability to think of an infinite being or the fact that religion exists in almost every culture proves God's existence. We can certainly imagine an infinite amount of things. Does this make them any more likely to exist? And it is also true that almost every culture has believed in things like slavery. Does this mean slavery is right? How does the mere fact that many cultures do anything make a case for anything more than the fact that humans do similar things in different groups? In fact I would think this fact points more in the direction of these notions of God being an extension of how our brains work and analyze the world around us.
Hello,
Hi Again!
I want to first tackle the following point. Sounds like you are saying that because the notion of what it would take to be the "First Cause" is fulfilled by the Christian definition of God it therefore follows, and this "strongly indicates," that God, as defined by Christianity, exists. Is this your argument?
No, that's not my argument at all.
You are begging a question that, to me you have not answered. That is; are these "experiences" truly an extension of God? I do not see how you have deduced that they are. It is not at all clear to me why the fact that we have the capability to think of an infinite being or the fact that religion exists in almost every culture proves God's existence. We can certainly imagine an infinite amount of things. Does this make them any more likely to exist? And it is also true that almost every culture has believed in things like slavery. Does this mean slavery is right? How does the mere fact that many cultures do anything make a case for anything more than the fact that humans do similar things in different groups? In fact I would think this fact points more in the direction of these notions of God being an extension of how our brains work and analyze the world around us.
I've not stated anything here which I claim "proves God's existence".
I've presented plenty of rational things though (including modern scientific hypothesis like the big-bang, which was simply met with negation BTW) which absolutely do not preclude the existence of God in any way, and argued that these things + experience on deeper levels of being can make for a rational faith and belief in God.
Belief in slavery, and an ontological human condition are completely different things.. and I don't see the correlation.
Regards,
You said,
"No, that's not my argument at all."
What is your argument then? What did you mean?
And I did not use "negation" as a means to disprove the Big Bang theory. I used it to show that the the theory of no Big Bang is still alive. It is OK to use negation to show that the opposite of something is also a possibility. But one should not use it as a means to disprove something as ID supporters do to disprove Evolution.
You say you've offered "plenty of rational things that do not preclude the existence of God." I agree. And the fact that you use such preclusionary information and combine it with personal experience further makes my case that you have pulled alot of questionable information together to come up with something that appears rational.
I would compare it to the 911 conspiracy video I watched and found absurd. The authors pulled tons of weak evidence together to come up with a theory that appeared sound. But each and every piece of "evidence" they used had an alternate explanation that was never addressed. Not that this disproves their theory just that it is much weaker than their video editing made it appear.
Now please don't take that as me comparing the truth of the 911 conspiracy as equal to the truth of Christianity. I simply use the comparison as an example of how something can be belived in based on lots of questionable information. Christianity certainly has a much higher quantity of questionable information.
-Kermit
Commenting by HaloScan
