The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[EvilAttackLlama]

Religion was important in letting civilization reach the point that it's at today.

No it wasn't. Reason and intelligence would have worked at least as well; probably better. But I guess religion did fill in the gap.

 

[beefbutcher88]

No, it was definitely important. The stupid common people needed someone to follow and something in common to believe, so rich people started wearing funny hats and told them all that 'God' wanted them to believe in him and do everything to support the monarchs. Towards the mid to end of the nineteenth century, though, people starting realizing how much this was and started to form new social principles, like socialim (bad idea) and communism (worse idea). Then capitalism started after the first industrial revolution. Kings became rich, and they started buying weapons and became eager to use them. But they had no excuse. Suddenly, a dude named Gavrilo Princip working for a terrorist organization known as the Black Hand, shoots the Archduke Ferdinand. All the monarchs use this as an excuse to kill several million people on battlefields. The killing became really out of hand when they started using weapons they had no idea how to use. Then, after the dust settled at the end of the war, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, France took a sh*t on Germany, and since then, there haven't been any monarchs in the world with real influence over anything (why won't England give up?).

 

[Nall]

Omni, we're not animals. We're human. But you do make a good point, maybe I shouldn't call it unnatural. But I didn't say homosexuality was a sin, I said having sex(without marriage or with same sex) was a sin. And quite honestly I wish it wasn't. But it is, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. A sin doesn't necessarily mean you're going to ****. It's something God doesn't want you to do.

 

[Bladek the Sly]

Nall: But I didn't say homosexuality was a sin

Homosexuality is most Definitely a sin. In the Bible it says all men who lay with other men will be hung and burn in **** unless they repent their sins. However you are right about free sex being a sin.

 

[Omnipotence]

Originally posted by Bladek the Sly
Homosexuality is most Definitely a sin. In the Bible it says all men who lay with other men will be hung and burn in **** unless they repent their sins. However you are right about free sex being a sin.

The bible is a bunch of moronic homophobes spewing fairy tales, exagerating their opinions to manipulate and dominate the worlds minds. Its all bullcrap, back then killing homosexuals was tolerated, if the bible was created by gay disciples of God, it would be wrong to be straight.

Either way, it was created by mad men, they think they were close to God, that they heard them.

As far as I'm concerned, they were dilusional schizophrenics bent on controlling others because they were so paranoid.

'Nuff said.

 

[not_you]

This may not have anything to do with the topic but I'll try my best to help ya. If you don't believe in Jesus, you'll burn forever.

 

[Omnipotence]

Then let me burn? I love fire. ^.^

Jesus is a psychotic man, or a huge conspiracy used to screw with peoples heads. No way does a man have supernatural powers... Unless I see it, I just won't believe it.

 

[Crimson King]

Well, one major factor of Christians is faith. Through faith alone miracles have happened. If you don't believe there is no way to convince you otherwise. That's just your opinion and that's what must be respected.

 

[Johnny5]

well i am not trying to be a hipacrit(sorry if mispelled) but i can't really remember any miracles from god that can be proved
without being a strang coincidence.

 

[Crimson King]

It's faith that makes the things happen. If you don't believe anything can be explained why millions of people have seen the things they seen.

 

[GoronMoron]

Did you not read anything that was in my post?

not_you, you are sorely mistaken. You will not "burn in ****" if you don't believe in Jesus. Read my post about a page or so back and you'll find out the Catholic view of this.

Omnipotence, let me tell you something: the men who wrote the Bible were not "mad men" that were "bent on controlling others." Please tell me what shows this.

In response to homosexuality being a sin, Nall was correct and Bladek the Sly was wrong. Those who are homosexual are not living in a constant state of sin. Only if they act upon those impulses is it considered a sin, but, like all sins, are forgiven for the price of feeling the pain of it being eradicated, as are all those who die.

Eric_The_Red is also correct. All religions require faith. Otherwise, you wouldn't be in that religion, now would you? Faith in Jesus was what the Catholic faith was founded upon. Omnipotence, there is no denying that Jesus was, in fact, a true man who worked real miracles. Secular historians and even people of other faiths from his time acknowledge his amazing works. They just lack faith in the fact that he is God.

Going back to who wrote the Bible, why do you stick to your arguement of a bunch of crackpots writing it? Nowhere in the Bible does it command to "do this or else burn in ****," the exceptions being those from the Book of the Law, aka the Torah, aka the New Testament. Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; all three have these inane rules. The people needed a guideline to follow: that was Judaism, mind you. Heaven was not accessible to the common man, whether believer or non-believer. Jesus changed all that; he opened it up to all for redemption, and all people except the most evil of people (read: people with not a shred of humanity in them) are saved after Purgatory (or a painful cleansing of the soul).

Oh, and don't believe the crap you hear about "only faith in Jesus will save you, not any good works are required" or that miraculous medals will send you automatically to heaven.

I await a reply, but please, no flaming.

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

Through faith alone miracles have happened. If you don't believe there is no way to convince you otherwise.

I doubt that faith alone can make these miricles happen. I have heard however, from many (but unconfirmed) sources that a person's state of mind can impact their recovery. Faith may help someone's state of mind, and therefore help them recover. At least I find that explanation more plausable than some omniscient super-being who cures someone's cancer just because they think he exists.

It's faith that makes the things happen. If you don't believe anything can be explained why millions of people have seen the things they seen.

I'm sorry, but I don't have faith in your sources. Millions of people? I don't believe that millions of Christians think that they have experienced faith healing. Where are you pulling these numbers from?

Omnipotence, there is no denying that Jesus was, in fact, a true man who worked real miracles.

There is significant evidence to show that Jesus existed, yes. As for the miracles, I have seen no evidence except the bible (which is not a valid source) pertaining the truth of these miracles. I will not accept the latter part of your statement unless I am shown some evidence from a trustworthy source.

By the way, what do you mean by miracles? Were they super-natural miracles, or only amazing, but natural, occurances? Please specify.

 

[beefbutcher88]

Jesus is largely believed to have existed. I believe that he was real. I also believe that some of the bible is rooted in partial historical fact. Now, whether or not Jesus was the son of God is a different story...

Crono edit: your sig is too big. Change it.

 

[GoronMoron]

The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles.

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/rhjesus.html

On a different note, why discredit the Bible? Why is it not a credible source? Biblical scholars have, for the most part, separated the truth from fiction. Even Christians know that the Bible is not 100% accurate. It has been shown, however, that many of the events written about actually occurred.

Another thing: many of the miracles can be explained by *gasp* SCIENCE! Heck, they've even proved the plagues from the Old Testament! Who said science and religion are incompatible?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by GoronMoron
Another thing: many of the miracles can be explained by *gasp* SCIENCE! Heck, they've even proved the plagues from the Old Testament! Who said science and religion are incompatible?

You'll need to show us evidence, good sir.

 

[Aurora Grid]

Sceince and Relegion are totally separated from each other.

Religion = Worshipping god or any other gods/ goddesses

Sceince = The Man himself trying to raise power over the world.

 

[snex]

if they can be explained by science then *GASP* they arent miracles!

 

[Jax]

Umm... GoronMoron... I beg to differ. In what way has the bible been proven inaccurate any way? I haven't heard of this, and I have my doubts.
And please don't point out the differences in the gospel accounts for this. I alreaady know the reason for those, and I would not call them innacuracies. The gospels all have different focuses, and were writen by people who, according to scripture, were very different people with different opinions. As a result, they recorded certain events differently.
I would like to point out that real christians do in fact believe in the inerency (Sorry if I mispelled that) of the scriptures. It's sorta kinda a core bit of out faith.
Also, snex, just because something can be explained by science, doesn't mean it isn't a miracle. For instance, if soemone has a desease with a minimal chance of rrecovery, however recovers when prayed for, I would classify that as a miracle. Just because something could happen without God woking, doesn't mean he isn't.
Aurora, science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. They are separate, but not mutually exclusive. Only certain theories, for instance the there-is-no-god type evolution doesn't work out to well with religion in general, but for the most part, it works out pretty well. Even better, in some cases. For instance, we have a reason to explain why things work, such as gravity, or strong force. The only theory on why those work the way they do I've heard is string theory, which sounds kinda sketchy to me. They in no way completely disprove each other.
And to Omnipotence... *Shakes head sadly*

 

[GoronMoron]

Jax - I actually am Catholic. I am not discrediting the Gospels. They are infallible in matters of faith. I am merely stating that the historical aspect needs to be taken in context (excluding many of the Historical books). The difference in the Gospel accounts arise not because of "horrible, drug-induced people" but rather the audience to which they are writing. Matthew wanted to emphasize that Jesus is the Messiah, so therefore he referred back, and often made connections, to Old Testament, even altering minor details. Luke, on the other hand, was writing to Gentiles, so his account emphasizes the downtrodden and poor. Women, unfortunately, are downplayed in all four, and their amounts differ.

To recap: I AGREE that the Bible is infallible, in its core beliefs and some of the historical fact.

Crono - You want facts? From a History Channel show: take the ten plagues. The first nine can be explained very well. The "blood" is a fungi that is often associated with anthrax. Anthrax bacteria kills the fish, which rot. The frogs now have no natural predators and thrive. They deprive themselves of food and die. Rotting, they attracted flies and gnats. Locusts are a natural occurrence.

Miracles are things that occur at the time that they are needed. This does not mean that all the miracles. As I stated to Jax, you must take it in context. Contextualists take the middle ground in Biblical interpretation: they realize many of the things in it are used to emphasize a certain message for a certain audience (making it, as I cannot stress enough, infallible on matters of faith and morals), but they don't go as far as saying "the Bible is wrong in everything."

Here's an article I urge you to check out: Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?.

That article (I have not checked out the rest of the site) states the partial accuracy and storytelling used in the Bible.

 

[RABicle]

In what way has the bible been proven inaccurate any way?

I'm sure we wont be using spears to fight any beasts that Peter saw in his visions of revelation. And you cant survive inside a whale either.

Also, snex, just because something can be explained by science, doesn't mean it isn't a miracle. For instance, if soemone has a desease with a minimal chance of rrecovery, however recovers when prayed for, I would classify that as a miracle.

Yet I guess if they are prayed for and die anyway it's not a miracle. It's all based on chance irrespective of whethor or not someone prayed for you. Real example: My friend's Mum has cancer. She was diagnosed a year and a half ago. The doctors said she was unlikely to last past August of last year. She had been at the hospital full time but is now at home and fairly healthy. Now my friend hates religion of any kind, his family arn't religious either. In fact my friend has been skipping the compulsory weekly worship at school. yet she lives. Nobody prayed, she's lucky.
While your god is keeping your followers out of heaven by keeping them alive from illness, he's neglecting the true problems of this Earth, like extreme poverty, hunger and discrimation. {rehaps somebody is praying that 17% of deaths in Gaetamala (sp) are caused by non cancer diseases. Like some kind of plague, last I checked, the Spanish made that entire country Catholic.

Even better, in some cases. For instance, we have a reason to explain why things work, such as gravity, or strong force. The only theory on why those work the way they do I've heard is string theory, which sounds kinda sketchy to me.

What are you getting at? String theory is sketchy because they are still developing it. I must've missed your point here.

Sceince = The Man himself trying to raise power over the world.

What? Scieence is about understanding and finding out about our world. Not trying to raise power over it. Are you trying to undermine science? Scientists make hypothesis and then try to prove themselves wrong in order to make it a law. Unlike religions which stubbornly stand by whatever has made up thousands of years ago. Scientists will exciteadly tell you that their are things they dont understand. Like light, usually it acts live a wave motion, but other times it acts like a particle. They love the mystery.

 

[GoronMoron]

Originally posted by RABicle
Unlike religions which stubbornly stand by whatever has made up thousands of years ago. Scientists will exciteadly tell you that their are things they dont understand.

I don't know how many times I have heard this. RELIGION and SCIENCE are not incompatible. The Church changes with discoveries (formerly stubbornly). Does the Church still think that the Earth is in the middle? Of course not; it changed and accepted it as truth.

I'd say more, but I have to go.

 

[beefbutcher88]

The only reason the Church is so yielding now is because it's lost pretty much all its power. Back when they had control over all people's lives, they would not only disagree with you, but KILL you (after torture) for saying that the Earth was round, or not the center of the universe. And since the Bible said that or something, then it's been proven wrong. The church killed many, many people in the name of good, when those people had done nithing wrong but think differently. In history, God is one of the leading causes of death. Millions of people have been killed for believing in a different god, or not believing in one at all. Is it a coincidence that the period when the Chrch lost its power is known as 'the Enlightenment'? When people actually started thinking and stopped taking everything the church told them without objections? Of course not.

And one more thing - you say that religion and "scieence" are incompatible, and yet yu were just postin scientific explanations to the ten plagues. Justify that.

 

[Novowels]

Originally posted by Jax
Also, snex, just because something can be explained by science, doesn't mean it isn't a miracle. For instance, if soemone has a desease with a minimal chance of rrecovery, however recovers when prayed for, I would classify that as a miracle. Just because something could happen without God woking, doesn't mean he isn't.

Heh, on a now-defunct webpage someone did a little essay on this, that was quite amusing.

Prayer has no effect, statistically speaking. This has been shown time and again through controlled double-blind studies. (See the Skeptic's Dictionary's article on prayer) However, since God (presumably speaking, here) wishes to be known through faith, not evidence, then He would affect the statistics so that the statistics would look the same while healing the other person. That means that for every person prayed for and healed, God must cause another person to get the disease. Since Christians, generally, pray for other Christians to be healed....

It's an interesting thought.

Remember that next time you pray for someone. :D

 

[GoronMoron]

All I am saying is that although miracles can be explained through science, that doesn't make them any less of a miracle - they occurred when they were needed. Therefore, they are compatible.

Don't single out the Church, please. Fanatical religious zealots have existed all throughout history, whether it be Muslim (convert or die were their choices in Muhammed's conquest), Egyptians (pretty self-explanatory) and Judaism (the precursor to Christianity). The Pope back then was corrupt. He had a lot of power, and was not acting in the best interests of God, only himself. Does the Bible say to go out and kill non-believers? Absolutely not. Are there stupid people in this world? Yes. Will people do a lot of stupid things for their faith, including kill those who supposedly threaten it? Yes. The Church has officially apologized for what they did to many people, including Galileo and the Crusades. The Church today is not the same as it was back then.

(Note to beefbutcher: I am not the one who spelled it "scieence.")

 

[beefbutcher88]

The only reason the church is not the same today as it was then is becasue it lost its influence on the people. If the church were still in power, the world wouldn't be much different than it was six hundred years ago. As for Galileo, they didn't really do that much to him. They made him renounce his claims, and that was pretty much the worst of it. They killed other people for far smaller offenses, and yet the only apology I've ever heard was to Galileo, and it was, more likely than not, only for the sake of improving their image since they only DID apologize to Galileo a few years ago.

 

[GoronMoron]

Query: How many religions haven't had violent killings during its creation or even later in its life?

In case you didn't know, they've also apologized for the Crusades, among other things. The Crusades were the result of a corrupt Church manipulating their religion for personal gains. Yes, I admit it: the Church was EXTREMELY powerful, and as a result, corrupt. Now it is not. People are flawed, they do things that misrepresent the whole (namely, the priests for Catholicism, but also the fanatic Muslims who crashed into the WTC). Ever heard of separation of Church and state? It can't hold gigantic amounts of power even if it wanted to.

The Church not only changed: it matured in its understanding, much like science. People used to think tomatoes were bad for you. Turns out they weren't, of course. In the same way, new discoveries are deepening our sense of God's being.

beefbutcher, if you don't mind, I'd like to know your religion. Just curious; you don't have to tell if you don't want to.

 

[Troy]

I am an atheist, i find the concept of a god or any higher being anything less than logical. Any religion, is nothing but myths, and legends made to make people easier to control over time. The kings of old used religion as a right to power, to how? control the people. You know, "divine right".

Religion and any other sort of myth was made to ease the simple minded of answers they may have. Such as something as small as "whats snow" and a person would say "gods dandriff".. rediculous,and bad example, i know. But still, its one way to keep our children from asking questions we ourselves do not know.

I dispise religion, but just because i dont beleive it, dosn't mean i'm telling others not to. we have a freedom to choose, and i choose not to.

 

[Omnipotence]

Religion: A manipulatory tool used to subjugate the world.

 

[GoronMoron]

Originally posted by Troy
The kings of old used religion as a right to power, to how? control the people. You know, "divine right".

Religion and any other sort of myth was made to ease the simple minded of answers they may have. Such as something as small as "whats snow" and a person would say "gods dandriff".. rediculous,and bad example, i know. But still, its one way to keep our children from asking questions we ourselves do not know.

All right, I do respect your opinion. However, have you not read what I have written for the past two posts? I admitted that religion was used to manipulate IN DAYS LONG SINCE PASSED. Religion was something that could be manipulated for personal powere very easily.

Don't feed me this bull about people "keeping our children from asking questions." That, my friend, is an utter lie. How many children who reach maturity still think that snow is "God's dandruff"? None, that's who. When you asked "why is the sky blue," did your parents, right away, explain refraction? Heck, no. You were little: simple explanations would suffice. A small child's mind is not ready to comprehend such things, nor does it need to. You make it seem as if all children do not go to school, do not learn, and do not think for themselves. Religion is humanity's way of reaching what many see is the higher power (God, at least for the majority of religions). Nowadays, it is not used as psychological manipulation nor is it used for political gain. Religion has been used like that in the past because, frankly, power breeds corruption. But now, a lack of any dominating power keeps that gross corruption at bay, if it hasn't already eliminated it.

Please, if you can find some true examples of the "covering up of truths" through the Church, let me know.

Oh, and Omnipotence: Tell me exactly how the world has been subjugated by religion? That implies it totally eliminates free will, happiness, and a freedom to learn and discover. I don't see any of that occurring.

 

[beefbutcher88]

Originally posted by GoronMoron
beefbutcher, if you don't mind, I'd like to know your religion. Just curious; you don't have to tell if you don't want to.

I was born Jewish, but I don't excercise that faith at all. The only real reason I had a Bar Mitzvah or anything was to make my family happy. And that was a long time ago.

In my opinion, people who still believe in God are fundamentally weak and don't want to be responsible for their own lives, so they can be happy believing that God will take care of things for them.

 

[GoronMoron]

In my opinion, people who still believe in God are fundamentally weak and don't want to be responsible for their own lives, so they can be happy believing that God will take care of things for them.

So, let me get this straight: you seem to think that ALL people who believe in God just kind of...sit back and let nature do its thing? Sorry, but you're wrong. There are Catholic food closets. There are Catholic home-building organizations. And by Catholic I mean formed by Catholics, not catering only to Catholics. Catholics who wanted to help the world and help themselves. I can't speak for any other religions because I don't know them as well.

But you are right about one thing, although not in the way you intend: God will take care of things. But, just like anything, good things only come to those who work for them. God is not the type to say "Hey, you're faithful, but you're just sitting there wasting away your life! Here's a million dollars, a beautiful home, and a supermodel wife! Have fun!". No, no, no, no, no. You have to work for what you want.

If I misunderstand what you say, please correct me. I am merely debating; I do not wish to have an air of snobbish superiority about me.

 

[beefbutcher88]

It means more that when their world starts to fall apart, they can say 'God wills it', and believe that it's not their fault. They don't want to be responsible for any bigger issues.

 

[GoronMoron]

Nope, we do have something called free will, and those of us that know our faith know that it is our choice and our own fault. God does not control; he guides and he loves. We call to God to help us out of tough situations. It may take years or it may take months, but they happen through natural occurrences. God is not a "poof, it's all fixed" type of guy. Free will lets us do what we want, whether he likes it or not, but he never condemns people. There is always salvation.

 

[Aurora Grid]

In my opinion, people who still believe in God are fundamentally weak and don't want to be responsible for their own lives, so they can be happy believing that God will take care of things for them.

Not Really.God in the first place doesn't do everything for you, he instead provides you help but you'll have to do your part. " Triumph is born out of Struggle "

It means more that when their world starts to fall apart, they can say 'God wills it', and believe that it's not their fault. They don't want to be responsible for any bigger issues.

God gave us free will, so God wills nothing in our lives, Free will was given to us so we can either do the right or do the wrong, god doesn't choose if someone goes to **** or not it's based on that person's deeds, so when someone's world falls apart they were the cause of their own problems.

 

[Jax]

RABicle: Okay, for starters, it was actually JOHN who wrote revalation. And might we add, Revalation was not a historical book, but a book a prophesy, therefor heavily metephorical, etc. You cannot take everything in it litterally.

Also, I did not mean that God only helps those that are prayed for. I personally believe that God incorperates himself into every aspect of life, even in non-christians. I don't believe that something has to be miraculous to be a miracle, as stupid as that sounds. God cares about even the most trivial aspects of our lives. For instance, if you can't figure out a problem in a math test, and in the last five minutes of a period, the theorem you need suddenly pops into your head, and you get a good grade on the test because of that, I would call that a miracle. Sure, it seems ordinary. Sure it seems like a mere coincedence, but that doesn't mean that God didn't have a hand in it. "Give thanks to God in all circumstances."
I don't mean that prayer has no effect. It does! But, I'm saying that God isn't this magical entity that only works when we pray to it.

GoronMoron: Well, I don't agree with you on all those things, but hey, like it says in Romans: don't bicker over trivial matters. Hehe... I agree with you. At soem points in church history, the corrupt form of the catholic church has been used to control, however, those parts did not last. Now, the catholic church is back on the right track. Hehe, it's good to have someone on my side of these debates again. I'm all alone on the evolution ones.

BeefButcher: Yes, I actually agree with you. If the church had all the power it had back then, it MIGHT still be tryrannical, and so on. BUt let me ask you this. Do you know how the church really began to lose power? It started with a man named Martin Luther. He used scripture to point out all the flaws in the church. Christian Biblical Scripture. You are confusing the church as a representation of God. We all know the church SHOULD be a reflection of the holiness of god, but unfortunately, this is really often not the case. You think that we always do what GOd wants us, and therefore religion is just a tool to control people. You are wrong, my friend.
Also, might I add, people who are christians are not fundamenmtally weak, as you say. Sure, we have easy answers to hard questions. For instance, why does gravity work the way it does? Well, I think that God established it that way. It's a simple answer, but a good one. Simply becaus we have simple answers does not mean we are weak. Atheists believe in nothing supernatural. There is no absolute truth. Therefore anything is morally acceptable. try adhering to a strict moral code like we do. I am much stronger for trying to live without sin. I don't always succed, but I am better for it.

Novewells: Sorry, I have statistic proof armor on. Statistics have been manipulated, can be manipulated, and in this case, i think they have been manipulated. My personal experience is that Prayer helps. No statitics can alter that.

And to all of you who think that religion is illogical, have you ever heard of THomas Aquinas? He was a 13th century philosopher, who did some interesting work. Including 5 proofs of God. These are not completely irrevocable, but they are logical. I did a reaserch paper on Thomas Aquinas a little while back, so I'll just quote that.

St. Thomas gave five proofs of God’s existence, called the five ways.
The first proof of God that Thomas gives regards motion. He states that all things are in fact in motion. For something to be in motion, there must be a cause of motion, or force acting on the object to make it move. This force would be caused by another object, which would itself, due to the force it is exerting, be in motion. That object’s motion would also be caused by another object, also in motion. However, by the laws of pure logic and reasoning, this cannot go on forever, in an endless loop, therefore there must be something that doesn’t move, but has the power to move things, at the very beginning. This is God.

The second proof follows something of the same pattern, although with a different medium. In this proof, the subject is cause and change. Nothing can cause itself to change; there is always an outside force. Anything in change is finite, that it, it has a set beginning and end. Also, for an object to be in change, there must be something that changed it. If this thing exists inside of time, then it would have to be in change as well, thus also being finite. No matter how many finite things one puts together, they will still be finite as a whole, that is, the whole lot of them having a set beginning and end. Therefore, there must be something outside of time that set the first change in motion. Only one thing can exist outside of time. This is God.

It must be noted that these two proofs are all dependant on one believing that a line of finite things cannot go on infinitely. Thomas himself admitted that he could not prove philosophically that this is true, however, he did say that if the world (I.E. the chain of finite things) had in fact gone on for eternity, there must be a being that is not limited by that chain, otherwise that chain would have no reason for existing. This quells one of the obvious arguments to the proofs.

Yet another thing the proofs are dependent on is that the being what exists unmoving, unchanging, and out of time is in fact God. Thomas, in this, was in fact swayed by his Christianity. These proofs do offer the existence of a supernatural being, however Thomas went from that specifically to concluding that the God was the Christian God. This cannot be drawn directly from these proofs. However, theyh are still useful in proving deity of some kind.

The third proof also derives from the fact that changing things in time are finite, but goes in a different direction. The physical things we know are finite, which is to say, they have a beginning and an end in time. Therefore, because they end and begin they have not existed for all of reality. Because of this, they must not be essential for reality to exist. Yet reality does exist, and this, Thomas argues, suggests something that exists outside of time, and is necessary for the existence of reality. This is God.

The fourth proof is based on the comparison. It states that because we can make objective comparisons, the must be a God. The basic premise is this: People make judgments constantly. Some of these are subjective (E.G. Lilies are prettier than roses), but others are objective. For instance, everyone can probably agree that not killing someone is better than killing them. Thomas states that if this is true, then there must be a “best,†or a perfect median to compare everything else to, otherwise we wouldn’t know what end the spectrum was better on, or anything of the sort. Therefore, if there is a best, then it would have to be perfect, thus meeting the definition of God.

Also, this perfection would be complete, and not be dependant on anything else. That is, even if there were nothing to compare it to, it would still be perfect. This more specifically fits the Christian God, because he existed alone before we were created, yet was still perfect, even when there was nothing to compare him to.

In the fifth proof, Thomas states that everything that has been made must have a purpose. Inanimate objects have a purpose however, there must be an intelligent hand to guide them to that purpose. As it is with us, if we have a purpose, there must be some outside guiding force that gives us this purpose.

Thomas himself largely favored the first of all these proofs, however, often recognized that the third is the most powerful, because it is the one that exists on its own. The others all depend on something: The first and second on that there is no such thing as an infinite chain of finite things, the fourth on the assumption that some things are objectively better than others, and the fifth on the assumption that we have a purpose in life. The third, however, demands something that seems to have no answer. How can something exist with no reason?

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

try adhering to a strict moral code like we do. I am much stronger for trying to live without sin. I don't always succed, but I am better for it.

Unfortunately, your assumption that atheists lack morals is completely unfounded. I, as an agnostic, do have a strict moral code, albeit one that may not agree with yours in all respects.

St. Thomas gave five proofs of God’s existence, called the five ways.

These proofs use faulty logic. I will demonstrate.

He states that all things are in fact in motion. For something to be in motion, there must be a cause of motion, or force acting on the object to make it move.

Why is it immpossible that things were always in motion, and always will be? Why do you assume time is finite?

This quells one of the obvious arguments to the proofs.

I couldn't understand what you meant about "a chain of finite things". As far as I know, the universe does not resemble a chain.

The physical things we know are finite, which is to say, they have a beginning and an end in time.

Sorry, no go. Yes, physical things are finite in time, but the matter and energy that they contain is not.

For instance, everyone can probably agree that not killing someone is better than killing them.

No, not everyone can agree to that.

Thomas states that if this is true, then there must be a “best,†or a perfect median to compare everything else to, otherwise we wouldn’t know what end the spectrum was better on, or anything of the sort.

Why must there be the "perfect" comparison? Notice that (almost) everyone on this planet is told from birth that killing is wrong. What do you think this planet would be like if everyone was told from birth that killing was a great thing to do?

It is indocrination, not God, that makes these "perfect" comparisons.

Thomas states that everything that has been made must have a purpose. Inanimate objects have a purpose however, there must be an intelligent hand to guide them to that purpose. As it is with us, if we have a purpose, there must be some outside guiding force that gives us this purpose.

Why must everything have a purpose? Can't they just happen?

How can something exist with no reason?

Why must something have a reason for existing? Answer me that one, and then I'll grant you your point.

All these proofs are logical, to a degree. Then you notice a huge, gaping flaw. When you are trying to be logical, you must start with as few presumptions and prejudices as possible. That is the only problem with religious logic; most of it starts out trying to prove religion right, instead of looking at it objectively.

 

[Bladek the Sly]

I dont fel lke quoting all that **** omnipotence said but i have to words for you **** you

 

[Bladek the Sly]

by the way if you think the bible is bull**** then go to **** you mother ****er. and if you think im immature **** you

 

[GoronMoron]

Why must everything have a purpose? Can't they just happen?

No, no, no, no. That's exactly the thing: things don't just happen without a reason, whether we understand or discover it or not. People give this example as proof that God does not exist, but all it does it make an extremely uninformed statement covering them on all bases.

Sorry, no go. Yes, physical things are finite in time, but the matter and energy that they contain is not.

Physical objects most definitely have a limited amount of matter, although the desity varies. The same goes for energy: potential or not, it has a finite amount...it can be calculated with math, and the result is not infinite.

Why must there be the "perfect" comparison? Notice that (almost) everyone on this planet is told from birth that killing is wrong. What do you think this planet would be like if everyone was told from birth that killing was a great thing to do?

It is indocrination, not God, that makes these "perfect" comparisons.

It is society that imposes upon us what is "right" and "wrong." God gives us the free will to make these choices, whether for the best or the worst.

Jax, it's nice to have someone on my side. I hope I didn't just contradict anything you might've said...we may view things differently. In that case, you can respond directly to his, ignoring mine.

 

[EvilAttackLlama]

No, no, no, no. That's exactly the thing: things don't just happen without a reason

A purpose is different from a reason. A purpose must be a reason, a reason doesn't have to be a purpose. Purposes are subcatagories of reasons.

Physical objects most definitely have a limited amount of matter, although the desity varies. The same goes for energy: potential or not, it has a finite amount...it can be calculated with math, and the result is not infinite.

Did you read the post that I was responding to? I assume you did, and if so you should know that I was saying that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed; it merely changes form. I was not saying there are infinite amounts of matter/energy.

Jax was talking about existence in time, and I responded with that in mind. Neither of us was talking about the amount of matter.