If there's a God, it dropped the ball after creation...well, maybe, I cannot substantiate that.

 

Sham, I thought the theistic God was inherently a personal God.

He didn't specify and I'm curious.

 

 

Also I encourage everyone involved in this thread to take everything with an open mind and research your beliefs, faiths, logic, or reason. The point of this thread was to create a dialogue on a topic that is extremely important in society, so take advantage of these conversations and examine what you truly believe. Maybe talk about it with a professor or priest or parent or anyone you trust. Doing so will only make you a stronger person for it, leading you to more truth and understanding. I think we should compile a list of works/authors and analyze what those people have to say about the subject at hand. Would this interest anyone? Sort of a spur of the moment idea and I know it would seem like school, but its benefits cannot be undervalued. Anyone with interest PM me or answer in the affirmative in this thread.

A bit late to the discussion, to say the least.? I am Catholic, go to church every week and had perfect attendance at sunday school (religious education) for 8 years.? So yes, I believe in God.

Do you believe in a personal god? Or an indifferent god? Ummm.....Could you specify the difference please? I think I know what you mean, but I wanna make sure.

A bit late to the discussion, to say the least.? I am Catholic, go to church every week and had perfect attendance at sunday school (religious education) for 8 years.? So yes, I believe in God.

Do you believe in a personal god? Or an indifferent god? Ummm.....Could you specify the difference please? I think I know what you mean, but I wanna make sure. The personal god is one who cares for every individual believer in him. The indifferent god created the earth and its inhabitants for kicks and now ignores us.

A bit late to the discussion, to say the least.? I am Catholic, go to church every week and had perfect attendance at sunday school (religious education) for 8 years.? So yes, I believe in God.

Do you believe in a personal god? Or an indifferent god? Ummm.....Could you specify the difference please? I think I know what you mean, but I wanna make sure. The personal god is one who cares for every individual believer in him. The indifferent god created the earth and its inhabitants for kicks and now ignores us. I'll take "personal God" for $200, Alex.....

Its our daily double

 

If God's a personal God, then why is there evil in the universe?

just as there is God....there is also Satan.

 

Don't judge me, or my faith. And no, I was not mocking you. But, I am also not perfect.

just as there is God....there is also Satan.

 

Don't judge me, or my faith. And no, I was not mocking you. But, I am also not perfect.

Yes I will, if your faith judges me and says I'm going to hell, I'll judge your faith.

 

Are you scared? The point of this tpoic is to judge the question, you cannot "back out" now.

 

Furthermore, just as there is God there is also satan, let me say this:

Just as there is no God, there us no satan. Or there is God, but no satan. Don't give me dogma. I can just say "Just as there's Zeus there is also Hades." Do you agree with that? Yes or no.

 

I'm not perfect, we both concede to that, but I believe I have made it clear that believing based on faith and dogma can be awfully arbitrary (in the sense that one can choose anything and the probability of it being true is no greater.)

You can believe in Zeus and Hades. I believe that it's wrong. But you are entitled to believe that.

 

Just like people believe that Muhammad was a prophet of Allah, and Egyptians believed in their gods, and Greeks believed in their gods, and Romans believed in Greek gods with different names, and the Native Americans had their spirits.

 

I just believe that my belief is right. I must believe my faith is the correct faith, or there would be no faith.

 

And what am I backing out of? Am, I gonna make this topic into you bashing Christianity, and me defending it? Because frankly, I'm getting tired of it. Make yourself another rant, and pimp it. Whether you want me to or not, I feel bad for you.

You can believe in Zeus and Hades. I believe that it's wrong. But you are entitled to believe that.

 

Just like people believe that Muhammad was a prophet of Allah, and Egyptians believed in their gods, and Greeks believed in their gods, and Romans believed in Greek gods with different names, and the Native Americans had their spirits.

 

I just believe that my belief is right. I must believe my faith is the correct faith, or there would be no faith.

 

And what am I backing out of? Am, I gonna make this topic into you bashing Christianity, and me defending it? Because frankly, I'm getting tired of it. Make yourself another rant, and pimp it. Whether you want me to or not, I feel bad for you.

The issue isn't just christianity, its faith. Faith is immoral, that's my argument. You have not countered it because you are unwilling are unable.

 

I have stated I'm against Atheism and every organized religion that makes a truth claim (which everyone does, besides maybe certain kinds of Buddhism.)

 

So you can take minor cheap shots at my site, but the truth remains

-you did not counter my arguments

-you are not entitled to have faith unless you believe that truth is pragmatic or

-you devise logical arguments like Thomas Aquinas

 

You did none of the above three. So you basically proved nothing besides your willingness to believe something that is most likely (logically and statistically) not true. Until you concede to these points, you are only continuing your own ignorance. Your "faith" would not be justified, it would be equivalent to nothing.

 

Furthermore, with all the evidence against Zeus existing (like Mt. Olympia doesn't have Gods on top of it) is not justified- so yes, evidence is necessary, or you can just believe in ridiculous things for no reas, which is immoral.

 

I'm preaching morality. I'm not attacking christianity in particular and you must realize that. The greeks, egyptians, aztecs, indians (hindus), muslims, christians, zen buddhists, atheists, the whole lot are equally unjustified in my eyes.

 

 

P.S. Why are you saying that it is everyone's right to hold any belief? It is your belief that everyone else (who doesn't have your belief) will be damned! That's inherently intolerable.

I pretty much skim through your posts because they are so longwinded, but I believe you said that faith is immoral because it is based on a lie? First of all, I don't believe it is a lie, and you cannot prove that it is a lie. You can take bits and pieces out of the Bible and point them at other bits and pieces and find contradictions and inconsistencies, but until you read the content around the verses you pull out, and see how Jesus responds to commandments (not just the 10 Commandments) in the New Testament (i.e. Sermon on the Mount). I could pull out little facts about the Bible, and how some of the activities in the Bible are proven to be true (like how Jesus was definitely a real person, and how there have been personal accounts of seeing Jesus, etc.), but that isnt the point. I don't have to prove my faith through science, history, DNA, logic, etc.

 

So my faith may be illogical to you. Big deal!

 

P.S. This is my last post on this thread as it is getting repetitive, it is just me defending my faith while you bash faith in general, and frankly I don't want to say something I would regret.

Well, I would chime in more intelligently and more elaborate if I had seen this when it started. So I'll just drop down some random musings now (being I haven't really read any of this, save for a couple things on this last page).

 

1) Differences in religion boil down to seeing who has the better imaginary friend. We won't know until we die if there is a God, where he lives, etc. So what is the use of killing people now over it? So they find out before you do?

 

2) You can't believe everything in the Bible. You can't even believe most of the Bible. If you did, where did the other people in Cain and Abel come from? And in the Book of Job (not positive), when God and Satan make a bet on someone's faith. Do you think a real loving God would do that?

 

3) I do not believe that not going to Mass every Sunday means you are going to Hell. I can talk to God on my own, thank you very much (and I do). I do not need an hour of wasted time every week, especially when my mind would be on something else anyways.

 

I'll drop down more as it comes to me.

I pretty much skim through your posts because they are so longwinded, but I believe you said that faith is immoral because it is based on a lie? First of all, I don't believe it is a lie, and you cannot prove that it is a lie. You can take bits and pieces out of the Bible and point them at other bits and pieces and find contradictions and inconsistencies, but until you read the content around the verses you pull out, and see how Jesus responds to commandments (not just the 10 Commandments) in the New Testament (i.e. Sermon on the Mount). I could pull out little facts about the Bible, and how some of the activities in the Bible are proven to be true (like how Jesus was definitely a real person, and how there have been personal accounts of seeing Jesus, etc.), but that isnt the point. I don't have to prove my faith through science, history, DNA, logic, etc.

 

So my faith may be illogical to you. Big deal!

 

P.S. This is my last post on this thread as it is getting repetitive, it is just me defending my faith while you bash faith in general, and frankly I don't want to say something I would regret.

I'm long winded? Did you ever read the bible or go to church! Ha! That's funny.

 

I have seen you have surrendered and refused to even make an attempt to understand what I am saying. Your religion isn't necessarily a lie, but without evidence to back it up and with the existence of logical difficulties, believing in it would be immoral, that's my argument.

 

Of course, the weak minded (when it comes to subject, your expertise for debate concerning other subjects can be far greater than mine) duck out when they are backed into a corner. The strong, the true theists/ whoever tries to inquire info. about the truth don't "skim" through arguments and then totally misunderstand them.

 

And so your immorality continues.

 

Just so you know, I have nothing against you as a person. I'm not stupid, a lot of people think just like you, and I don't hold that against you. However, I will make note of anything I find illogical or stubborness when I make an argument. Don't take it as anything more.

Well, I would chime in more intelligently and more elaborate if I had seen this when it started. So I'll just drop down some random musings now (being I haven't really read any of this, save for a couple things on this last page).

 

1) Differences in religion boil down to seeing who has the better imaginary friend. We won't know until we die if there is a God, where he lives, etc. So what is the use of killing people now over it? So they find out before you do?

 

2) You can't believe everything in the Bible. You can't even believe most of the Bible. If you did, where did the other people in Cain and Abel come from? And in the Book of Job (not positive), when God and Satan make a bet on someone's faith. Do you think a real loving God would do that?

 

3) I do not believe that not going to Mass every Sunday means you are going to Hell. I can talk to God on my own, thank you very much (and I do). I do not need an hour of wasted time every week, especially when my mind would be on something else anyways.

 

I'll drop down more as it comes to me.

All good points, especially the Jobe one (i brought that up in an earlier post by the way.) By the way, what convinces you that God definitely exists if you pray to it or are you agnostic?

 

One thing I have nothing against is prayer. Most people pray about things to make themselves feel good and express thankfullness. The practice of such is not religious in my eyes, and if one truly attirbutes their prayer to God in actuality, their practice is still much like a form of meditation.

 

However what we hope for cannot effect what we believe, unless one subscribes to the pragmatic truth school from William James. (man i keep on saying that!)

Well, I'll admit right now, I have no proof that there is a Supreme Being up there. I could argue either way (I actually helped convince my philosophy teacher, a priest, that there might not be anything else) but in the end I just am a man of faith. I have faith in the Marlins, I have faith in the Canes, I have faith in myself, I have faith in humanity, and I have faith in a Supreme Being to help us out.

 

Because in reality, it could all be just a hoax. We could have nothing to look foward to after death. But that would leave us with an unfulfilled life. And I refuse to believe that humanity, such a perfect race in so many ways but so correctable in others, is the highest there is on the pecking order. Sorry, no can do.

 

I, being one of a dying breed of people that think about things other than those concerning whats for dinner every once in a while (be outside for a little while each day, it works wonders), have thought about this many a time. But in reality, there is never any set proof. Could praying just be another way of man's being able to indirectly control a situation by asking for someone more powerful than he to intervene? Sure. But do I believe God is just Big Brother, waiting to step in when Little Brother needs a hand? Nope.

 

So yeah, I have misdirected details. But in the end it all makes sense to me personally. And isn't that what truly counts?

What's important is that you make no truth claim.

 

You choose to pray to a God, but you cannot discern if it truly exists, because you like the idea of there being a God?

 

This is a toughy. I can't label it as your view of pragmatic truth, because you admit that you really don't know, and you don't even choose a fiath, but rather a God. To what extent is your prayer important to you? Do you think it probably doesn't make a difference but you do it anyway?

 

I personally pray, but there's two weird reasons:

1. When I was young I had horrible insomnia and my Dad told me to pray to get sleep. I have become mentally conditioned to pray or I cannot sleep.

2. It's a sort of thankfulness. I address God, but I do know that logically it should make no difference if I address it or not and if it cares or not, so in a way, I am really adressing myself and coming to terms with things in my own life.

 

So I'm not sure if my prayer is holy whatsoever- its more like my own sort of meditation.

 

I like what you said about sitting down and thinking. I do that a lot, whether it be taking a run or walk, or just typing down my thoughts. In fact, I am so bound by my interpretation of morals, I took 3 days out of my like to assess if I personally was for or against the war on Iraq. I was under the impression that the WMDs were real, but I came to the conclusion that supporting the war was overall immoral.

 

So yes, sitting down and thinking is very important.

You know what? This thread is going too far and is becoming quite repetitive.

 

SorianoFan- I have nothing against you and your beliefs, but don't try to change anyone's mind because it's not going to happen. Agree to disagree. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Everyone is different. We all don't have to agree with everything. This thread was to express your beliefs, not argue over who's right or who's wrong. I personally feel it's pretty messed up that some people were chased away from this thread.

You know what? This thread is going too far and is becoming quite repetitive.

 

SorianoFan- I have nothing against you and your beliefs, but don't try to change anyone's mind because it's not going to happen. Agree to disagree. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Everyone is different. We all don't have to agree with everything. This thread was to express your beliefs, not argue over who's right or who's wrong. I personally feel it's pretty messed up that some people were chased away from this thread.

People are chased away because they do not thoroughly understand their own beliefs, so they cannot defend themselves. I discuss with theists all the times, and the ones who truly believe put up, not shut up. They are the true believers, whoever else might believe, but they have no justification for it.

 

If you cannot defend your belief, you are entitled to believe it, but you are not justified to believe it.

 

I have nothing against anyone personally for their beliefs, but I still believe everyone else's belief is wrong because I agree with W.K. Clifford. My belief is that every other belief but being agnostic is immoral, its inherently intolerant, much like the chrisitian religion that states that everyone but believers of christ go to hell.

 

This thread has not gone too far. I have not yet begun to debate higher level arguments concerning the subject because there's a lack of it on the side of the theists. Bring up the arguments from design or creation (teological and cosmological.) Debate the validitiy of miracles! Debate pragmatic truth! The truth is that many of you just don't know these things, so I pretty much debate the validity of faith, which I have a very clear stance on.

 

It doesn't have to be repetitive! Bring up ideas other than your faith. I already stated that it is immoral, so bring up other logical arguments like the one I said above.

 

If anyone is scared out fo their topic, their mind cannot handle their own beliefs.

People are chased away because they do not thoroughly understand their own beliefs, so they cannot defend themselves. I discuss with theists all the times, and the ones who truly believe put up, not shut up. They are the true believers, whoever else might believe, but they have no justification for it.

Well, they just don't feel like arguing with you. You are no one to point fingers at who's a true believer or not.

 

but I still believe everyone else's belief is wrong because I agree with W.K. Clifford.

 

Wow...that was harsh. So now everthing you say is right?

 

This thread has not gone too far.

I think so. Someone talks about their beliefs and you come and point fingers and say, "No! You're wrong!" and you go off and try to prove them wrong. You seem to be trying to convince others that you are the "good guy" and that you are "right". You have no right to try to change people's beliefs. I know you're going to come in here and say you're not doing that, but to us, it looks like you are.

 

Debate the validitiy of miracles! Debate pragmatic truth! The truth is that many of you just don't know these things, so I pretty much debate the validity of faith, which I have a very clear stance on.

 

The thing is, you ask questions that we can't answer as human beings. (Why do bad things happen to good people? Why are there so many bad things in the world?) To us, they are God's Mysteries and no one else but God can answer them for you. Say that we're wrong....heck, say what you want. Those are just things not even the Pope can tell you.

so let me see in a quick recap.

 

 

having faith is immoral because there is no truth behind it.

 

 

but not having faith is immoral because you cant prove that a higher being exists.

 

 

is that correct?

 

 

 

but then again you cannot prove that faith does not exist neither.

 

 

hmm.

 

 

its all a complicated manner. you say that making faith claims based on truth is wrong.....

 

 

but yet you make claims based on what you feel is the truth...simply because these issues called 'faith' are illogical.

 

so arent you in a roundabout way contradicting yourself?

first off i cannot take credit for all of this myself.....

 

 

but here is a little something i have come across based on 5 minutes of research.

 

here is my link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm

 

This long winded passage is dealing with the THEISTIC PROOFS of God's Existence. Skim over it. Read it. Ignore it. I dont care. But there you have something.

 

The arguments for God's existence are variously classified and entitled by different writers, but all agree in recognizing the distinction between a priori, or deductive, and a posteriori, or inductive reasoning in this connection. And while all admit the validity and sufficiency of the latter method, opinion is divided in regard to the former. Some maintain that a valid a priori proof (usually called the ontological) is available; others deny this completely; while some others maintain an attitude of compromise or neutrality. This difference, it should be observed, applies only to the question of proving God's actual existence; for, His self-existence being admitted, it is necessary to employ a priori or deductive inference in order to arrive at a knowledge of His nature and attributes, and as it is impossible to develop the arguments for His existence without some working notion of His nature, it is necessary to some extent to anticipate the deductive stage and combine the a priori with the a posteriori method. But no strictly a priori conclusion need be more than hypothetically assumed at this stage.

 

1. A Posteriori Argument

 

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) and after him many scholastic writers advance the five following arguments to prove the existence of God:

 

Motion, i. e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.

The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e., an infinitely perfect Being such as God.

The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

To these many Theists add other arguments:

the common consent of mankind (usually described by Catholic writers as the moral argument),

from the internal witness of conscience to the supremacy of the moral law, and, therefore, to the existence of a supreme Lawgiver (this may be called the ethical argument, or

from the existence and perception of beauty in the universe (the aesthetical argument).

One might go on, indeed, almost indefinitely multiplying and distinguishing arguments; but to do so would only lead to confusion.

 

The various arguments mentioned -- and the same is true of others that might be added -- are not in reality distinct and independent arguments, but only so many partial statements of one and the same general argument, which is perhaps best described as the cosmological. This argument assumes the validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason and, stated in its most comprehensive form, amounts to this: that it is impossible according to the laws of human thought to give any ultimate rational explanation of the phenomena of external experience and of internal consciousness -- in other words to synthesize the data which the actual universe as a whole supplies (and this is the recognized aim of philosophy) -- unless by admitting the existence of a self-sufficient and self-explanatory cause or ground of being and activity, to which all these phenomena may be ultimately referred.

 

It is, therefore, mainly a question of method and expediency what particular points one may select from the multitude available to illustrate and enforce the general a posteriori argument. For our purpose it will suffice to state as briefly as possible

 

the general argument proving the self-existence of a First Cause,

the special arguments proving the existence of an intelligent Designer and

of a Supreme Moral Ruler, and

the confirmatory argument from the general Consent of mankind.

(a) The general causality argument

 

We must start by assuming the objective certainty and validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason -- an assumption upon which the value of the physical sciences and of human knowledge generally is based. To question its objective certainty, as did Kant, and represent it as a mere mental a priori, or possessing only subjective validity, would open the door to subjectivism and universal scepticism. It is impossible to prove the principle of causality, just as it is impossible to prove the principle of contradiction; but it is not difficult to see that if the former is denied the latter may also be denied and the whole process of human reasoning declared fallacious. The principle states that whatever exists or happens must have a sufficient reason for its existence or occurrence either in itself or in something else ; in other words that whatever does not exist of absolute necessity - whatever is not self-existent -- cannot exist without a proportionate cause external to itself; and if this principle is valid when employed by the scientist to explain the phenomena of physics it must be equally valid when employed by the philosopher for the ultimate explanation of the universe as a whole. In the universe we observe that certain things are effects, i.e. they depend for their existence on other things, and these again on others; but, however far back we may extend this series of effects and dependent causes, we must, if human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately to a cause that is not itself an effect, in other words to an uncaused cause or self-existent being which is the ground and cause of all being. And this conclusion, as thus stated, is virtually admitted by agnostics and Pantheists, all of whom are obliged to speak of an eternal something underlying the phenomenal universe, whether this something be the "Unknown", or the "Absolute", or the "Unconscious", or "Matter" itself, or the "Ego", or the "Idea" of being, or the "Will"; these are so many substitutes for the uncaused cause or self-existent being of Theism. What anti-Theists refuse to admit is not the existence of a First Cause in an indeterminate sense, but the existence of an intelligent and free First Cause, a personal God, distinct from the material universe and the human mind. But the very same reason that compels us to postulate a First Cause at all requires that this cause should be a free and intelligent being. The spiritual world of intellect and free will must be recognized by the sane philosopher to be as real as the world of matter; man knows that he has a spiritual nature and performs spiritual acts as clearly and as certainly as he knows that he has eyes to see with and ears to hear with; and the phenomena of man's spiritual nature can only be explained in one way -- by attributing spirituality, i.e. intelligence and free will, to the First Cause, in other words by recognizing a personal God. For the cause in all cases must be proportionate to the effect, i.e. must contain somehow in itself every perfection of being that is realized in the effect.

 

The cogency of this argument becomes more apparent if account be taken of the fact that the human species had its origin at a comparatively late period in the history of the actual universe. There was a time when neither man nor any other living thing inhabited this globe of ours; and without pressing the point regarding the origin of life itself from inanimate matter or the evolution of man's body from lower organic types, it may be maintained with absolute confidence that no explanation of the origin of man's soul can be made out on evolutionary lines, and that recourse must be had to the creative power of a spiritual or personal First Cause. It might also be urged, as an inference from the physical theories commonly accepted by present-day scientists, that the actual organization of the material universe had a definite beginning in time. If it be true that the goal towards which physical evolution is tending is the uniform distribution of heat and other forms of energy, it would follow clearly that the existing process has not been going on from eternity; else the goal would have been reached long ago. And if the process had a beginning, how did it originate? If the primal mass was inert and uniform, it is impossible to conceive how motion and differentiation were introduced except from without, while if these are held to be coeval with matter, the cosmic process, which is ex hypothesi is temporal, would be eternal, unless it be granted that matter itself had a definite beginning in time.

 

But the argument, strictly speaking, is conclusive even if it be granted that the world may have existed from eternity, in the sense, that is, that, no matter how far back one may go, no point of time can be reached at which created being was not already in existence. In this sense Aristotle held matter to be eternal and St. Thomas, while denying the fact, admitted the possibility of its being so. But such relative eternity is nothing more in reality than infinite or indefinite temporal duration and is altogether different from the eternity we attribute to God. Hence to admit that the world might possibly be eternal in this sense implies no denial of the essentially finite and contingent character of its existence. On the contrary it helps to emphasize this truth, for the same relation of dependence upon a self-existing cause which is implied in the contingency of any single being is implied a fortiori in the existence of an infinite series of such beings, supposing such a series to be possible.

 

Nor can it be maintained with Pantheists that the world, whether of matter or of mind or of both, contains within itself the sufficient reason of its own existence. A self-existing world would exist of absolute necessity and would be infinite in every kind of perfection; but of nothing are we more certain than that the world as we know it, in its totality as well as in its parts, realizes only finite degrees of perfection. It is a mere contradiction in terms, however much one may try to cover up and conceal the contradiction by an ambiguous and confusing use of language, to predicate infinity of matter or of the human mind, and one or the other or both must be held by the Pantheist to be infinite. In other words the distinction between the finite and the infinite must be abolished and the principle of contradiction denied. This criticism applies to every variety of Pantheism strictly so called, while crude, materialistic Pantheism involves so many additional and more obvious absurdities that hardly any philosopher deserving of the name will be found to maintain it in our day. On the other hand, as regards idealistic Pantheism, which enjoys a considerable vogue in our day, it is to be observed in the first place that in many cases this is a tendency rather than a formal doctrine, that it is in fact nothing more than a confused and perverted form of Theism, based especially upon an exaggerated and one-sided view of Divine immanence (see below, iii). And this confusion works to the advantage of Pantheism by enabling it to make a specious appeal to the very arguments which justify Theism. Indeed the whole strength of the pantheistic position as against Atheism lies in what it holds in common with Theism; while, on the other hand, its weakness as a world theory becomes evident as soon as it diverges from or contradicts Theism. Whereas Theism, for example, safeguards such primary truths as the reality of human personality, freedom, and moral responsibility, Pantheism is obliged to sacrifice all these, to deny the existence of evil, whether physical or moral, to destroy the rational basis of religion, and, under pretence of making man his own God, to rob him of nearly all his plain, common sense convictions and of all his highest incentives to good conduct. The philosophy which leads to such results cannot but be radically unsound.

 

(b) The argument from design

 

The special argument based on the existence of order or design in the universe (also called the teleological argument) proves immediately the existence of a supramundane mind of vast intelligence, and ultimately the existence of God. This argument is capable of being developed at great length, but it must be stated here very briefly. It has always been a favourite argument both with philosophers and with popular apologists of Theism; and though, during the earlier excesses of enthusiasm for or against Darwinianism, it was often asserted or admitted that the evolutionary hypothesis had overthrown the teleological argument, it is now recognized that the very opposite is true, and that the evidences of design which the universe exhibits are not less but more impressive when viewed from the evolutionary standpoint. To begin with particular examples of adaptation which may be appealed to in countless number -- the eye, for instance, as an organ of sight is a conspicuous embodiment of intelligent purpose -- and not less but more so when viewed as the product of an evolutionary process rather than the immediate handiwork of the Creator. There is no option in such cases between the hypothesis of a directing intelligence and that of blind chance, and the absurdity of supposing that the eye originated suddenly by a single blind chance is augmented a thousand-fold by suggesting that it may be the product of a progressive series of such chances. "Natural selection", "survival of the fittest", and similar terms merely describe certain phases in the supposed process of evolution without helping the least to explain it; and as opposed to teleology they mean nothing more than blind chance. The eye is only one of the countless examples of adaptation to particular ends discernible in every part of the universe, inorganic as well as organic; for the atom as well as the cell contributes to the evidence available. Nor is the argument weakened by our inability in many cases to explain the particular purpose of certain structures or organisms. Our knowledge of nature is too limited to be made the measure of nature's entire design, while as against our ignorance of some particular purposes we are entitled to maintain the presumption that if intelligence is anywhere apparent it is dominant everywhere. Moreover, in our search for particular instances of design we must not overlook the evidence supplied by the harmonious unity of nature as a whole. The universe as we know it is a cosmos, a vastly complex system of correlated and interdependent parts, each subject to particular laws, and all together subject to a common law or a combination of laws, as the result of which the pursuit of particular ends is made to contribute in a marvellous way to the attainment of a common purpose; and it is simply inconceivable that this cosmic unity should be the product of chance or accident. If it be objected that there is another side to the picture, that the universe abounds in imperfections -- maladjustments, failures, seemingly purposeless waste -- the reply is not far to seek. For it is not maintained that the existing world is the best possible, and it is only on the supposition of its being so that the imperfections referred to would be excluded. Admitting without exaggerating their reality -- admitting, that is, the existence of physical evil -- there still remains a large balance on the side of order and harmony, and to account for this there is required not only an intelligent mind but one that is good and benevolent, though so far as this special argument goes this mind might conceivably be finite. To prove the infinity of the world's Designer it is necessary to fall back on the general argument already explained and on the deductive argument to be explained below by which infinity is inferred from self-existence. Finally, by way of direct reply to the problem suggested by the objection, it is to be observed that, to appreciate fully the evidence for design, we must, in addition to particular instances of adaptation and to the cosmic unity observable in the world of today, consider the historical continuity of nature throughout indefinite ages in the past and indefinite ages to come. We do not and cannot comprehend the full scope of nature's design, for it is not a static universe we have to study but a universe that is progressively unfolding itself and moving towards the fulfilment of an ultimate purpose under the guidance of a master mind. And towards that purpose the imperfect as well as the perfect -- apparent evil and discord as well as obvious good order -- may contribute in ways which we can but dimly discern. The well-balanced philosopher, who realizes his own limitations in the presence of nature's Designer, so far from claiming that every detail of that Designer's purpose should at present be plain to his inferior intelligence, will be content to await the final solution of enigmas which the hereafter promises to furnish.

 

© The argument from conscience

 

To Newman and others the argument from conscience, or the sense of moral responsibility, has seemed the most intimately persuasive of all the arguments for God's existence, while to it alone Kant allowed an absolute value. But this is not an independent argument, although, properly understood, it serves to emphasize a point in the general a posteriori proof which is calculated to appeal with particular force to many minds. It is not that conscience, as such, contains a direct revelation or intuition of God as the author of the moral law, but that, taking man's sense of moral responsibility as a phenomenon to be explained, no ultimate explanation can be given except by supposing the existence of a Superior and Lawgiver whom man is bound to obey. And just as the argument from design brings out prominently the attribute of intelligence, so the argument from science brings out the attribute of holiness in the First Cause and self-existent Personal Being with whom we must ultimately identify the Designer and the Lawgiver.

 

(d) The argument from universal consent

 

The confirmatory argument based on the consent of mankind may be stated briefly as follows: mankind as a whole has at all times and everywhere believed and continues to believe in the existence of some superior being or beings on whom the material world and man himself are dependent, and this fact cannot be accounted for except by admitting that this belief is true or at least contains a germ of truth. It is admitted of course that Polytheism, Dualism, Pantheism, and other forms of error and superstition have mingled with and disfigured this universal belief of mankind, but this does not destroy the force of the argument we are considering. For at least the germinal truth which consists in the recognition of some kind of deity is common to every form of religion and can therefore claim in its support the universal consent of mankind. And how can this consent be explained except as a result of the perception by the minds of men of the evidence for the existence of deity? It is too large a subject to be entered upon here -- the discussion of the various theories that have been advanced to account in some other way for the origin and universality of religion; but it may safely be said that, abstracting from revelation, which need not be discussed at this stage, no other theory will stand the test of criticism. And, assuming that this is the best explanation philosophy has to offer, it may further be maintained that this consent of mankind tells ultimately in favour of Theism. For it is clear from history that religion is liable to degenerate, and has in many instances degenerated instead of progressing; and even if it be impossible to prove conclusively that Monotheism was the primitive historical religion, there is nevertheless a good deal of positive evidence adducible in support of this contention. And if this be the true reading of history, it is permissible to interpret the universality of religion as witnessing implicitly to the original truth which, however much obscured it may have become, in many cases could never be entirely obliterated. But even if the history of religion is to read as a record of progressive development one ought in all fairness, in accordance with a well-recognized principle, to seek its true meaning and significance not at the lowest but at the highest point of development; and it cannot be denied that Theism in the strict sense is the ultimate form which religion naturally tends to assume.

 

If there have been and are today atheistic philosophers who oppose the common belief of mankind, these are comparatively few and their dissent only serves to emhasize more strongly the consent of normal humanity. Their existence is an abnormality to be accounted for as such things usually are. Could it be claimed on their behalf, individually or collectively, that in ability, education, character, or life they excel the infinitely larger number of cultured men who adhere on conviction to what the race at large has believed, then indeed it might be admitted that their opposition would be somewhat formidable. But no such claim can be made; on the contrary, if a comparison were called for it would be easy to make out an overwhelming case for the other side. Or again, if it were true that the progress of knowledge had brought to light any new and serious difficulties against religion, there would, especially in view of the modern vogue of Agnosticism, be some reason for alarm as to the soundness of the traditional belief. But so far is this from being the case that in the words of Professor Huxley -- an unsuspected witness -- "not a solitary problem presents itself to the philosophical Theist at the present day which has not existed from the time that philosophers began to think out the logical grounds and the logical consequences of Theism" (Life and Letters of Ch. Darwin by F. Darwin, II, p. 203). Substantially the same arguments as are used today were employed by old-time sceptical Atheists in the effort to overthrow man's belief in the existence of the Divine, and the fact that this belief has withstood repeated assaults during so many ages in the past is the best guarantee of its permanency in the future. It is too firmly implanted in the depths of man's soul for little surface storms to uproot it.

 

2. A Priori, or Ontological, Argument

 

This argument undertakes to deduce the existence of God from the idea of Him as the Infinite which is present to the human mind; but as already stated, theistic philosophers are not agreed as to the logical validity of this deduction.

 

As stated by St. Anselm, the argument runs thus: The idea of God as the Infinite means the greatest Being that can be thought of, but unless actual existence outside the mind is included in this idea, God would not be the greatest conceivable Being since a Being that exists both in the mind as an object of thought, and outside the mind or objectively, would be greater than a Being that exists in the mind only; therefore God exists not only in the mind but outside of it.

 

Descartes states the argument in a slightly different way as follows: Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the notion of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.

 

To mention a third form of statement, Leibniz would put the argument thus: God is at least possible since the concept of Him as the Infinite implies no contradiction; but if He is possible He must exist because the concept of Him involves existence. In St. Anselm's own day this argument was objected to by Gaunilo, who maintained as a reductio ad absurdum that were it valid one could prove by means of it the actual existence somewhere of an ideal island far surpassing in riches and delights the fabled Isles of the Blessed. But this criticism however smart it may seem is clearly unsound, for it overlooks the fact that the argument is not intended to apply to finite ideals but only to the strictly infinite; and if it is admitted that we possess a true idea of the infinite, and that this idea is not self-contradictory, it does not seem possible to find any flaw in the argument. Actual existence is certainly included in any true concept of the Infinite, and the person who admits that he has a concept of an Infinite Being cannot deny that he conceives it as actually existing. But the difficulty is with regard to this preliminary admission, which if challenged -- as it is in fact challenged by Agnostics -- requires to be justified by recurring to the a posteriori argument, i.e. to the inference by way of causality from contingency to self-existence and thence by way of deduction to infinity. Hence the great majority of scholastic philosophers have rejected the ontological argument as propounded by St. Anselm and Descartes nor as put forward by Leibniz does it escape the difficulty that has been stated.

I had forgotten about St. Thomas Aquina. That was great Das Texan.

 

*Awaits lenghty response by certain dude*

1. Well, they just don't feel like arguing with you. You are no one to point fingers at who's a true believer or not.

 

2. Wow...that was harsh. So now everthing you say is right?

 

3. I think so. Someone talks about their beliefs and you come and point fingers and say, "No! You're wrong!" and you go off and try to prove them wrong. You seem to be trying to convince others that you are the "good guy" and that you are "right". You have no right to try to change people's beliefs. I know you're going to come in here and say you're not doing that, but to us, it looks like you are.

 

4. The thing is, you ask questions that we can't answer as human beings. (Why do bad things happen to good people? Why are there so many bad things in the world?) To us, they are God's Mysteries and no one else but God can answer them for you. Say that we're wrong....heck, say what you want. Those are just things not even the Pope can tell you.

1. A true believer inquires information about their beliefs, case closed.

 

2. No, everything I say I think is right otherwise I wouldn't say it. I can be wrong, I just don't think I am. I'm sure you believe the point of view you are coming from is right- so is everything YOU say is right? Don't be ridiculous.

 

3. Um, I am not denying anything. I believe all organized religion is wrong if people cannot back up what they believe with issues that do not concern faith. I do not respect the people who just don't care enough to find out why they believe something. Faith is a "cop out." I beleive all moral people should "convert" and think like me. Is that going to happen? hell no. I believe a lot of people can make the moral mistake of having faith and still overally be good people and contribute to society. An example? On this board a good contributor is Lcyberlina, but she is a person of faith, but it sounds like otherwise she's highly moral. That's what counts. It is my belief that one is more so moral if they don't rely on faith- that's my faith argument.

 

4. As an agnostic I agree we can never answer those questions for sure. You agree with me.

 

However, a lot of these questions are certainly debatable. For example, your God is contrary to te evil that exist in this world. If God was truly all powerful and all good, why would their be evil? In "his" power, it would not be necessary. This means the attributes f your God have to be wrong and you must concede you don't understand your God enough to say it is all good and or all powerful. This is a logical debate that can certainly be had.

 

I hope this answers your qualms with me.

so let me see in a quick recap.

 

 

having faith is immoral because there is no truth behind it.

 

 

but not having faith is immoral because you cant prove that a higher being exists.

 

 

is that correct?

 

 

 

but then again you cannot prove that faith does not exist neither.

 

 

hmm.

 

 

its all a complicated manner. you say that making faith claims based on truth is wrong.....

 

 

but yet you make claims based on what you feel is the truth...simply because these issues called 'faith' are illogical.

 

so arent you in a roundabout way contradicting yourself?

Okay, let us discuss this.

 

Faith is immoral because it requires one to believe in a pragmatic form of truth. It is my opinion that one's desires do not make anything more so true or not and to acquire "truth" in such a matter is contrary to a civilized society.

 

I cannot prove faith does not exist? What does that mean? Are you saying that I cannot prove 100% what you believe in is wrong?

 

for that matter, I concede I can't. I'm agnostic, nothing is 100%. however, any belief based upon faith in its entirity only has a 1 out of infinity chance of beng true. Its faith right?

 

I can truly have faith in a religion where a God only gives rewards to those who inquire about it to the bst of their ability, such as philosophers. Chance of that based on faith? Without evidence, it is only one out of an infinity I can think of (or invent.)

 

Out of faith, I could believe God punishes all moral people. Chance of that? 1 out of infinity.

 

So, why choose anything entirely on faith when other religions will have the same chance of being true? It sounds awfully arbitrary if you ask me. Furthermore, to make a truth claim concerning faith (which should be a concession that you CAN'T make a truth claim) is totally absurd. Lastly, because anything can have the slightst chance of being true, why don't we hold everything to the same standard of religion? Well, that would be immoral. With lack of such evidence and with such slight actual chances of truth, one must admit they really don't know or run th risk of acquiring or beleiving beliefs in an immoral fashion.

 

Thie above is entirely consistant.

 

Because of the above, I am not contradicting myself. Thre's the slightest probability that the genome project was wrong and black people are mentally inferior to white people. Unless you give e GOOD evidence, its wrong to come to such a conclusion that is void of all scientific evidence and logic.

 

So if faith can be used to believe in other things that are totally wrong and doing so is immoral in those instances, I don't see why religion would be held to a different standard.

I had forgotten about St. Thomas Aquina. That was great Das Texan.

 

*Awaits lenghty response by certain dude*

Thomas aquinas is a genius. I love reading his work.

 

Long post will come soo enough, don't you worry.

Evil exists because we as humans are given free will by God.

 

 

God gives us the ability to make decisions, but we have to face the consequences.

 

 

Thus evil.