|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 7, 2017 21:51:59 GMT
tpfkar He could just borrow some of your old posts. ze fax |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 11:42:53 GMT
Fair enough, but unless you focus on the deliberate supernatural variety then few atheists would have an issue with a mere First Cause, which can be called 'god' if one likes just as much as anything else, as being the most reasonable source of everything else. Aquinas' famous Ways, for instance, don't all attempt to make the deliberate supernatural necessary as such, just a Cause (although his later writings would appear to suggest that God was what he had in mind.) A first cause may exist, but there is nothing about that which suggests an intelligence had to be involved, which makes calling it a god a more or less meaningless statement. Instead, the process, whatever that is, should be called by how it actually works.
I agree. But 'god' has had a wide range of definitions down the years, and people don't often label things as they should. As an atheist I only exercise myself when the deliberate supernatural is the matter in hand. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 8, 2017 14:36:08 GMT
I agree. But 'god' has had a wide range of definitions down the years, and people don't often label things as they should. As an atheist I only exercise myself when the deliberate supernatural is the matter in hand. Ok. Well we weren't talking about the physics of quantum fluctuation and calling it god, so it just sort of sounds like you're stating the obvious. I don't think most people worshiping and praying are doing so to quantum fluctuation, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 8, 2017 15:22:36 GMT
I agree. But 'god' has had a wide range of definitions down the years, and people don't often label things as they should. As an atheist I only exercise myself when the deliberate supernatural is the matter in hand. Ok. Well we weren't talking about the physics of quantum fluctuation and calling it god, so it just sort of sounds like you're stating the obvious. I don't think most people worshiping and praying are doing so to quantum fluctuation, do you? No, but since the notion of 'god' generally is demonstrably such a moveable feast, then presumably it does not necessitate worshiping and praying. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 9, 2017 4:29:18 GMT
No, but since the notion of 'god' generally is demonstrably such a moveable feast, then presumably it does not necessitate worshiping and praying. Ok, so all you're saying the term can mean anything. Ok. Great. Productive conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 9, 2017 12:07:21 GMT
No, but since the notion of 'god' generally is demonstrably such a moveable feast, then presumably it does not necessitate worshiping and praying. Ok, so all you're saying the term can mean anything. Ok. Great. Productive conversation. Well it is important at least to bear in mind that 'god' means different things to different people at the very least. Einstein's 'god' was vastly different from that of the Pope, while some thinkers have thought God entirely symbolic. And so on. Atheists, as already suggested only have an issue with a particular sort of God. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 9, 2017 14:29:19 GMT
Ok, so all you're saying the term can mean anything. Ok. Great. Productive conversation. Well it is important at least to bear in mind that 'god' means different things to different people at the very least. Einstein's 'god' was vastly different from that of the Pope, while some thinkers have thought God entirely symbolic. And so on. Atheists, as already suggested only have an issue with a particular sort of God. Correct. If you're calling the sun, or your pet rock, god, then sure, that god is real.
You do realize my original post doesn't specify a particular god right? Anybody is welcome to defend any version they hold to be true. So I don't know why you're spending so much time on this. I don't disagree, it just doesn't mean anything relative to the conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Mar 9, 2017 14:37:24 GMT
Probably not enough to convince the unconvinced, but I have been through difficult times/suffered losses that I'm don't see how I would have carried on from without the love and support of a higher power.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 9, 2017 14:52:56 GMT
Probably not enough to convince the unconvinced, but I have been through difficult times/suffered losses that I'm don't see how I would have carried on from without the love and support of a higher power. Ok, well if it can't convince somebody, then what convinced you? And what is love and support from a higher power? I honestly don't know what that means.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 9, 2017 15:10:57 GMT
Well it is important at least to bear in mind that 'god' means different things to different people at the very least. Einstein's 'god' was vastly different from that of the Pope, while some thinkers have thought God entirely symbolic. And so on. Atheists, as already suggested only have an issue with a particular sort of God. Correct. If you're calling the sun, or your pet rock, god, then sure, that god is real.
You do realize my original post doesn't specify a particular god right? Anybody is welcome to defend any version they hold to be true. So I don't know why you're spending so much time on this. I don't disagree, it just doesn't mean anything relative to the conversation.
Indeed, your OP was asking whether anyone can show "a god is necessary for anything we observe in reality" to which the answer is still, yes - since, for one thing several of Aquinas' famous ways arguably don't do anything else than show how a First Cause is logically necessary.
You then went on with the asking of whether it is possible that "some kind of intelligence to exist prior to the known universe", can be demonstrated necessary - something much more of interest to atheists who, by and large, only take issue with the deliberate supernatural. In other words your OP would have been better to be more specific as, as we both now agree, a 'god' can be a force without intelligence. Just sayin'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 15:15:51 GMT
I have been through difficult times/suffered losses that I'm don't see how I would have carried on from without the love and support of a higher power. Could you elaborate on that? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 9, 2017 15:19:05 GMT
Correct. If you're calling the sun, or your pet rock, god, then sure, that god is real.
You do realize my original post doesn't specify a particular god right? Anybody is welcome to defend any version they hold to be true. So I don't know why you're spending so much time on this. I don't disagree, it just doesn't mean anything relative to the conversation.
Indeed, your OP was asking whether anyone can show "a god is necessary for anything we observe in reality" to which the answer is still, yes - since, for one thing several of Aquinas' famous ways arguably don't do anything else than show how a First Cause is logically necessary.
You then went on with the asking of whether it is possible that "some kind of intelligence to exist prior to the known universe", can be demonstrated necessary - something much more of interest to atheists who, by and large, only take issue with the deliberate supernatural. In other words your OP would have been better to be more specific as, as we both now agree, a 'god' can be a force without intelligence. Just sayin'.
If you're just calling any first cause a god, no matter what that first cause might be, then ok, but a first cause in no way has to mean anything intelligent is the cause, which is what most theists, at least in any major religion, would claim. I'm not sure what you're contesting about that.
Atheists are interested in any claim that has no evidence based justification, specifically related to god claims, but most of us would have the exact same concerns about alien abduction claims, ghosts, voodoo, etc.
Even if your claim was that we are in the matrix, that isn't a supernatural claim, but we would still have a similar issue with that, which is that there isn't sufficient evidence to claim it to be true.
I did not agree that a "god" can be a force without intelligence. I agreed that you can call it that, just like you can call a potato god. But calling it that doesn't help us understand anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 9, 2017 15:53:49 GMT
Er, I wasn't. This is not something I claimed, merely that you first asked a question about god being necessary and then whether even if intelligence is possible before the universe. i.e you distinguished between an essential First Cause generally and then a deliberate one specifically. Aquinas, and others would say there is a logical case for the former as I said from the first reply; atheists have most issue with the latter. I merely pointed up the distinction.
Well it is always best to discover what sort of god someone has in mind before trying to understand it, is it not? lol
It is interesting what you say about The Matrix, and I would agree - although strictly speaking a lack of belief in God, or the deliberate supernatural, which is what atheism is commonly defined as, is not contingent on any belief in any other particular Causes which might be found in the natural world. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Mar 10, 2017 0:34:35 GMT
I have been through difficult times/suffered losses that I'm don't see how I would have carried on from without the love and support of a higher power. Could you elaborate on that? Losing people I love (especially my husband and nephew). |
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Mar 10, 2017 1:33:12 GMT
If they had an argument to justify their beliefs, it wouldn't be called dogma.
|
|
