Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

I'll pick it up and have a look next time I'm around Fisher library.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Nowhere did I say it wasn't based on evidence. I said we choose to believe rather than being forced to.

Let me use Gravity as an example. There is overwhelming evidence for gravity, and though we can choose not to acknowledge it we do so at our own peril. Gravity is comething we have no choice but to believe in. There is no faith involved, because there is no choice.

Faith in God, however, is different because we can choose to "explain him away" and not be physically worse off for it. There is evidence for God (the philosophy behind it is something I can't enter from the top of my head) but it is not like gravity in that to ignore the evidence causes us physical harm. There is a choice in whether or not we wish to acknowledge God and place our trust, our confidence, our faith in Him.

The fundamental differrence between gravity and God is that while gravity is a natural truth, an aspect of the temporal world (in which we live, with space and time) God is a supernatural Truth, existing in the spiritual world (outside space and time, without matter or physical substance). Humanity is unique because only we have aspects in both - we are both body and spirit, fundamentally united to make a person.

Well it isn't a case of "explaining God away" because to the non-theist, you don't start with the proposition that God exists. You start from looking at all the evidence and reasoning you have about the world and asking what is likely to be true. Since, to the non-believer, there is no evidence or reason for believing God to be true, you do not adopt the belief that God exists. But to frame it as "explaining God away" is to shift the default position to assuming that God exists and then working from there. It is far more accurate to start from the position that God does not exist and work forward, or at the very least to assume neither that God exists or that God does not exist.

As to the harm point, that is only a harm if God actually exists. If God does not exist, it doesn't matter what sort of harm is alleged to occur. I could say that you will suffer the worst experiences in the world, far worse than hell, if you do not believe in unicorns. But you're not going to just adopt that belief because the alleged harm is great. Yes the analogy is extreme but the point is that the probability of the belief being true can't be overlooked. (I won't go over it too much as I think Pascal's wager has been dealt with previously in the thread.)

On the point about God existing in the spiritual world, it seems that that is a belief that cannot ever be tested or proven. If this is the case, then why should people believe such a claim? It may be convenient for taking God outside the realm of observation, but there is not any evidence or reason to justify such a proposition. Similarly, claims that humans have a spiritual element (perhaps a "soul" or some such thing) seem equally unfounded. To my mind we have no evidence or reason to suppose spiritual aspects are real.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The sad truth is that Catholic schools no longer provide the spiritual formation they are meant to. People are more interested in UAIs than eternal life, and that's what they pay for.

As for the philosophical arguments, you'd be looking for the writings of Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (two of the Doctors of the Church, the fathers of theology). Of course, they're bloody hard to follow so you might want to start with the Catechism, which is a more lay-directed explanation of what Catholics actually believe (or would, if they bothered finding out).

I would also recommend reading Aquinas, but for different reasons. I looked at Aquinas's proofs in first year philosophy when learning the basics of argument. They are interesting for this purpose. Our fervent lecturer delighted in hammering such arguments into us with the most persuasive force possible, until we were swept away with them. Then he would pull the carpet out from under us and tear them up before our eyes.

I think Aquinas was probably a very clever man, but most of his proofs are severely flawed in some aspect or another.

 

[Lexicographer]

I would also recommend reading Aquinas, but for different reasons. I looked at Aquinas's proofs in first year philosophy when learning the basics of argument. They are interesting for this purpose. Our fervent lecturer delighted in hammering such arguments into us with the most persuasive force possible, until we were swept away with them. Then he would pull the carpet out from under us and tear them up before our eyes.

I think Aquinas was probably a very clever man, but most of his proofs are severely flawed in some aspect or another.

And it's precisely for that reason that we still have theologians. After all, Aquinas may have been one of the Church's greatest men but man he still was, and as you said there were still flaws to be reconciled. It is this growth in our understanding of God that requires us never to stop thinking and discussing, never to say "well we've got it all sorted then eh".

 

[Lexicographer]

Similarly, claims that humans have a spiritual element (perhaps a "soul" or some such thing) seem equally unfounded. To my mind we have no evidence or reason to suppose spiritual aspects are real.

As I understand it the presence of a soul, and its subsequent distinction of humanity from all other creatures, is the uniquely human element of creativity. Though animals can be taught to do things, and can learn by imitation, animals never create. This power is purely human in terms of the temporal world, and it is a function of their spiritual aspect rather than merely being the result of a "more highly developed brain".

 

[MoonlightSonata]

As I understand it the presence of a soul, and its subsequent distinction of humanity from all other creatures, is the uniquely human element of creativity. Though animals can be taught to do things, and can learn by imitation, animals never create. This power is purely human in terms of the temporal world, and it is a function of their spiritual aspect rather than merely being the result of a "more highly developed brain".

Are you saying that the fact that humans can create is indicative of a soul? I don't quite follow that.

 

[volition]

As I understand it the presence of a soul, and its subsequent distinction of humanity from all other creatures, is the uniquely human element of creativity. Though animals can be taught to do things, and can learn by imitation, animals never create. This power is purely human in terms of the temporal world, and it is a function of their spiritual aspect rather than merely being the result of a "more highly developed brain".

I remember seeing something about how after some practice and learning, some dolphins are able to create new 'stunts', do dolphins have souls too? Or do those stunts just not count as 'creativity'?

If we do accept that our creativity come from our 'souls', does that mean if you're more creative, you have a 'better soul' ?

What about people who have been in accidents and experienced brain damage? I don't think a human 'vegetable' is very creative at all. Does this mean their soul was damaged too?

 

[davin]

wouldn't create include the ability to come up with tools? theres just as much creation in that as there is in anything else, i would think, but animals are and have been known to create and use tools.

then there are primates that have been taught how to communicate in sign language or how to paint.


as for the difference between belief in God and belief in gravity....
if you wouldn't believe in gravity, there is observable proof that i could show to explain gravity in a logical fashion.
God, on the other hand, doesn't have a proof that can be simply shown to someone. if its treated as a spiritual realisation or such, that is a very subjective matter that someone else can't be shown.

 

[erin_tonkin]

its called faith

 

[withoutaface]

I have faith that there's an 8 legged unicorn in my roof. That doesn't make it true.

 

[erin_tonkin]

that is bullshit faith. you dont really believe it. i know you dont because it is impossible. God is not impossible. his work is so evident in the world

 

[erin_tonkin]

one question have u ever heard the gospel?

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

I have faith that there's an 8 legged unicorn in my roof. That doesn't make it true.

faith isnt about being true, its about believing without any evidence.

 

[withoutaface]

one question have u ever heard the gospel?

Yes, and I have actually read the Gospel of Luke.

 

[sparkl3z]

faith isnt about being true, its about believing without any evidence.

well, that really is lawful.

 

[withoutaface]

that is bullshit faith. you dont really believe it. i know you dont because it is impossible. God is not impossible. his work is so evident in the world

I have never been up into my roof, so how is it impossible? It's a fanciful being I've created in my own mind, much the same as God is.

 

[volition]

Erin, i have a question for you. Since we're on the topic of god, what religion do you believe in, and why that PARTICULAR one? eg. why do you believe that the Christian God exists, rather than the 'flying spaghetti monster who created the world', both are equally possible aren't they? You speak of 'gods work in the world', yet many many religions claim responsibility for the same work in the world, how can they all be correct? Are you saying that your religion is the 'one true religion' ?

What if i told you that I am God (I'm not expecting you to believe me), but let's just say that I'm God, I created the world 10 seconds ago with your memories intact. Now, prove me wrong. It's not possible to prove me wrong, so does that mean you should bow down and worship me? I don't think so.

The form of Atheism that I believe is basically 'not believing in God until it can be objectively proven or shown', rather than saying that 'God cannot exist'. Even an atheist will believe if he/she is given conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or Gods. I believe that we should use reason, logic and science to discover the truth, and if it is someday proven conclusively that God/Gods exist, then I will happily believe. Until then, I'm an atheist.

 

[Lexicographer]

Hi everyone, sorry I haven't been able to post in the last day or so. I'm leaving for Perth tomorrow morning so have been quite busy lately, and will continue to be until I come back in just over a week. Sorry for any disappointment.

Please try not to taunt the silly fundamentalist girl too much ok?

 

[davin]

that is bullshit faith. you dont really believe it. i know you dont because it is impossible. God is not impossible. his work is so evident in the world

you "see" his work so much because you have faith in it. You see it as evident, but it isn't self-evident of specific religion. Were it fully self-evident, then all forms of religion that are developed (ignoring religions that are just out for money like scientology) would develop the same general beliefs, but theres still even the rift between polytheistic and monotheistic views.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

Erin, i have a question for you. Since we're on the topic of god, what religion do you believe in, and why that PARTICULAR one? eg. why do you believe that the Christian God exists, rather than the 'flying spaghetti monster who created the world', both are equally possible aren't they? You speak of 'gods work in the world', yet many many religions claim responsibility for the same work in the world, how can they all be correct? Are you saying that your religion is the 'one true religion' ?
What if i told you that I am God (I'm not expecting you to believe me), but let's just say that I'm God, I created the world 10 seconds ago with your memories intact. Now, prove me wrong. It's not possible to prove me wrong, so does that mean you should bow down and worship me? I don't think so.
The form of Atheism that I believe is basically 'not believing in God until it can be objectively proven or shown', rather than saying that 'God cannot exist'. Even an atheist will believe if he/she is given conclusive evidence of the existence of a God or Gods. I believe that we should use reason, logic and science to discover the truth, and if it is someday proven conclusively that God/Gods exist, then I will happily believe. Until then, I'm an atheist.

christians have teachings which guide them to their beliefs. And that faith has the common belief.

And obviously, you can never prove God exists. Thats a strong notion in christianity, FAITH. Apart of being christian means you dont need evidence. This DOESNT prove God exists obviously, why? as i said he cant be proven.