Do you believe in God?
Tell me people do you believe in God?
August Comte idea:
History proceeds through stages ... from superstition, to metaphysics, to science. The first stage is total ignorance, imagining that the world is populated by gods and ghosts and demons. Science proceeds by moving toward respect for the demonstrably true and evident. An overvaluing of science as a reaction against religion's "Jesus did it, Jesus did it, Jesus did it; Zeus did it, Zeus did it, Zeus did it; Ra did it, Ra did it, Ra did it" etc. ... can result in the position that all can be verified by observation and logic.
I don't make this last overreach mistake, but to need to dismiss observation and logic to believe something not in evidence is just make believe. It is anti-mind and anti-reality. So we can go beyond reason, go outside of it acknowledging its limitations, but to be its enemy is foolishness. By doing this, one can believe anything one fancies, and in fact this is the primary motive of setting science up as the enemy.
god flows through mind, god flows through modern physics.
in a moment of mental stillness, the physicist meets god and his mystery in an intuitive revelation and lightful inspiration.
a meditative act where god appears magnetically and shines through space in his soul and mind.
in absence of light, there's chaos. spaghetti chaos.
Yes there is some great mystery running through all things, and it is exactly that: a mystery. To call it "god" and then start listing off its nature and thoughts (and who "He" wants to kill) is just making stuff up. So it is in the fanciful superstition realm. As clearly demonstrated by human history.
Our best lead into the nature of the mystery resides in the quantum fields, and to suppose Jesus, Zeus, Muhammad, Buddha, etc. as solvers of this realm just points up the absurdity of clinging to myths.
you can have free and unlimited mind, and still have more, and more will be your mind
there's one god, but one can think of many, and who thinks beyond, thinks of one god and light
IÂ’m not sure I agree with the premise that only eternally existing things have no cause. However, granting it for the sake of argument would not necessarily lead logically to the conclusion that God exists. Even if we accept that there must be an uncaused, eternal entity, that entity need not be a deity. It is entirely possible, for instance, that the universe itself is an ete
For what it's worth; Aquinas grants that we can't philosophically conclude the universe isn't eternal; but we can philosophically conclude that it must have a cause.
Aquinas defines the world as "contingent" - contingent things can either exist or not exist, and they depend on something else for their existence.
He goes on to explain that the universe could feasibly not exist. The universe is not necessary.
God is not contingent, in Thomistic thinking; part of the very definition of God is that He is existence itself; pure being. The term "actus purus" is important here; God is never "potentially something", he always "is". "I am." The word here is essence; the essence of God is existence.
If God is understood thus, then he cannot not exist; to not exist would be contradictory with His nature.
TL;DR God is necessary, the universe is contingent. Contingent things can be eternal, but they can't be uncaused. Only God appears to be uncaused.
It's all just gaps ... god in the gaps. Creating, manufacturing, fictionalizing angles of gaps to smuggle god in. Aquinas too. He was totally ignorant of modern physics -- of course -- but he had god in all the unknown places. It amounts to: "Here is a massive mystery. Hmm. Must be god." And you know what that is based on? Ancient myths, cultural memes, indoctrination, conditio
Are you certain?
Yes there is some great mystery running through all things, and it is exactly that: a mystery. To call it "god" and then start listing off its nature and thoughts (and who "He" wants to kill) is just making stuff up. So it is in the fanciful superstition realm. As clearly demonstrated by human history.Our best lead into the nature of the mystery resides in the quantum fields, a
Are you certain?
For what it's worth; Aquinas grants that we can't philosophically conclude the universe isn't eternal; but we can philosophically conclude that it must have a cause.Aquinas defines the world as "contingent" - contingent things can either exist or not exist, and they depend on something else for their existence.He goes on to explain that the universe could feasibly not exist. Th
If that’s really what Thomist thinking says then it’s completely useless, at least insofar as providing a logical argument for the existence of God goes. The argument is “we define God as existence, hence God exists”. It’s just blatant question begging. It’s assuming the desired conclusion. By analogy, in strembaist thinking, little pink unicorns are defined as existence itself. Existence is the ESSENCE of little pink unicorns. Therefore little pink unicorns are necessary, not contingent. There is no way for little pink unicorns to not exist. Surely you are unconvinced, but it’s exactly the same argument, so you can see how it’s unconvincing to someone who isn’t already a believer.
Further your assertion that the universe is contingent is hardly supported by any argument. A theist believes that due to their belief in God, but the truth of God’s existence is the very question under debate. If God exists that implies the universe is contingent, but if we are trying to logically establish the existence of God we cannot use a premise whose truth is dependent on the truth of the desired conclusion. The universe might be contingent, but there is no reason to definitively believe it is. In fact, the circular argument presented about God actually works better for the universe. The universe is defined as everything that exists — existence is the essence of the universe. Thus there is no way for the universe to not exist. Not necessarily convincing, but more so than with God, especially since we know for certain that the universe actually does exist.
Finally, the premise that contingent things require a cause is just demonstrably false. A counter example: suppose we observe a plutonium atom. Eventually that atom will emit an alpha particle and decay into a uranium atom. Suppose we watch a particular plutonium atom for 30 seconds and see it decay after that time. Is that a contingent event? Yes. It did not hve to decay in 30 seconds. It could have decayed in 30 milliseconds. It could have decayed in 30 years. What caused it to decay at exactly that time instead of some other time? Modern quantum mechanics gives us the answer - nothing. ItÂ’s a completely random event. The decay will happen with a certain probability during any time interval. ThereÂ’s nothing to single out the actual time it happens.
One of my favourite lines I've seen used to devastating effect and memed about endlessly.
"There's no such thing as objective truth."
"Are you stating that as an objective truth?"
Another favorite:
"There are no absolutes!"
"Is that statement an absolute?"
Another lesser-known favorite of mine:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
"That's a rather extraordinary claim; what's your extraordinary evidence for it?" - Bob Passantino
Of course I'm not certain. The religious fundamentalists are the ones that are certain. And put them in the Voltaire category of fools. The stupid -- or the functionally stupid -- are the cocksure ones.
So, you could be wrong about your claim that "the religious fundamentalists are the ones that are certain?"
Similarly, you could be wrong about your claim that "the functionally stupid -- are the cocksure ones?"
It is a thought that breaks free from absolutes and chains,
and the listener, still bound by those chains, does not perform the act of liberation.
He clings to shells of certainty instead of allowing his heart to think freely — not mastering his thoughts, but being mastered by them; not connecting, but retreating.
A discourse that collapses under the impossible, revealing the cage in which the perceiver keeps himself and resists dissolution.
So, you could be wrong about your claim that "the religious fundamentalists are the ones that are certain?"
Similarly, you could be wrong about your claim that "the functionally stupid -- are the cocksure ones?"
Open your mind to something other than apologetics gymnastics ... or be the Voltaireian Fool.
Comet 3I Atlas will be coming through our visible skies soon. Because, you know, Jesus did it. Just like he created the black holes. Because he's a master physicist ... not just in that he understands all the physics of the universe, but creates it. He created all the trillions of galaxies so that he could make Adam and Eve here. He created them from the dust (lucky that DNA was in the dust). This is the most reasonable metaphysics I can come up with. It's reasonable because they wrote about it thousands of years ago. How could we go wrong believing that?
Anthropologists surmise (not through belief but through research), that man has created nearly 20,000 gods. All of them are false but this one. The one in the Sunday School of my culture, like duh obvious. We've got boy-raping, bigoted, supernatural believing saints of yesteryear and today to vouch for this, to testify for it. Because this god visits them, gives them revelations, indwells in them.
Some five posts ago I answered it directly. No ... it isn't for certain. Now you answer: are you certain your god belief is true?
No ... you aren't? What then is your evidence for taking it to be true, especially given the known history of what human beings do with god stories?
"The trouble with being brainwashed or bamboozled by religious thinking is thinking you aren't brainwashed or emersed in religious thinking. It takes guts to admit we have been brainwashed or manipulated at some point in our spiritual journey."
Re: your plutonium decay example; I addressed this directly in my reply. There is a difference between temporal, physical causality and metaphysical causality.
Re: The little pink unicorns. So, it's worth pointing out that even Aquinas thought you could only demonstrate the existence of God; not necessarily the Catholic Triune God, but certainly God.
Aquinas is claiming that: in creatures, their existence is distinct from their essence.
If something's existence is distinct from its essence, it must recieve existence from another source.
The chain of "recieving" existence, Aquinas believes cannot be infinite. I agree; you end up in weird situations like "Well, it's an infinite chain." "Ok, where did the infinite chain come from?"
If we accept these premises, we must logically conclude that there is a being whose essence and existence are the same thing. This is the First Mover, the Uncaused Cause. We believe that this being must logically exist, and we call it God.
Whether that God is Jesus or not, that's a whole other discussion. Maybe one day the Prime Mover will incarnate as a little pink unicorn, but I doubt it.
TLDR:
The point is not that "We define Jesus as existence itself." You're right that that's just linguistic trickery.
The point is that "We believe you can logically prove the existence of a First Mover, a being that is non-contingent and eternal. We call this being God."
Many of us, on the balance of evidence from history, from our lives, and from Scripture and Tradition, have come to the (I believe rational) conclusion that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the First Mover, God, on Earth, and that He revealed further information about Himself in this process.
"The trouble with being brainwashed or bamboozled by religious thinking is thinking you aren't brainwashed or emersed in religious thinking. It takes guts to admit we have been brainwashed or manipulated at some point in our spiritual journey."
I feel this way about my years as an atheist; like I had been brainwashed and bamboozled by people with ill intent and no understanding of the subject matter.
This displays an impressive willingness to think and to analyze about one's religion, which I"ve quoted from elsewhere:
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who is a supernatural supreme being, separate and outside the universe and humankind.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" shrouded in maleness, establishing the foundation for the dominance of patriarchy.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who condemns people to eternal conscious torment for not believing the correct theology.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who baits his first two human beings into an act of disobedience, which results in a world of suffering.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who directly impregnated a woman because she was not good enough to birth his son naturally.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who requires devotion to one book of ancient writings as the sole source of absolute truth.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who orchestrates the scenario of a fallen world, requiring the blood sacrifice of his son to fix it.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who demands faith in doctrines and beliefs that defy reason, intuition, humanity, and critical thinking.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who divinely anoints men with special qualities and rights to have authority over women.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" whose cosmic salvation plan is Jesus on a white horse and Armageddon to end the world.
I am an unbeliever in a "God" who adds conditions and qualifications for love and acceptance.
So yes, I am an unbeliever in 'that' “God”. The good news is that we made that "God" up, and there are other ways of conceiving “God” that don’t require the above beliefs. In my view, even Jesus did not believe in 'that' “God”.
End quote.
Being in one of the thousands of religious clubs is one thing, the metaphysics of the cosmos is another. When this is respected, there is no real clash between science and spirituality. When it isn't, the practice of the religion eliminates itself from veracity.
