I told you already I don't use cologne.
If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
I told you already I don't use cologne.
I don't care if you value your opinion or not, Edwin. I'm glad you offer it. And there is no way I would agree with you that it is an opinion of "an uneducated deviant."
The supposed "proofs" of the existence of god" his Summa Theologica are, today, absurd...as antiquated and uninformed as a ringer washer.
As I said, Aquinas was a master of circular thinking. He also had the build of an NFL defensive lineman, so disagreeing with him was only done with great care.
But like I said, I can understand someone like you thinking his work to be definitive.
For those not familiar with the Summa Theologica, allow me a word or several. In that work Aquinas presents his Five proofs of the existence of god. The "proofs" are (in Readers Digest form)...
...One, the argument from motion. Essentially everything moving was set in motion by something else...and the first motion is known to be GOD.
...Second, is the argument from cause. Essentially everything that IS...is because it was caused...and the first cause is known to be GOD.
...Third, is the argument from necessity...which is only a rehashing of the second argument. And he concludes that it is known to be GOD.
Well...he could have ended those arguments with..."And the cause of the first motion or the first cause or the first necessity is...I have no idea." That would have been the truth. Assigning it to "GOD' is (to be generous) gratuitous. I prefer to call it bullshit..
...One, the argument from motion. Essentially everything moving was set in motion by something else...and the first motion is known to be GOD.
...Second, is the argument from cause. Essentially everything that IS...is because it was caused...and the first cause is known to be GOD.
...Third, is the argument from necessity...which is only a rehashing of the second argument. And he concludes that it is known to be GOD.
Well...he could have ended those arguments with..."And the cause of the first motion or the first cause or the first necessity is...I have no idea." That would have been the truth. Assigning it to "GOD' is (to be generous) gratuitous. I prefer to call it bullshit..
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
Moron claims he read it, but of course shows us all he's never even seen the cover of it. Doesn't even know what formal logic is, much less what is being said.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
its stupid dude.
^^^Some sort of whining and babbling from the neurotic commie doper.
I don't see where wearing some cologne is something smart to do. Whatever you put on your skin goes into your body, and who knows what sort of shit they put in cologne.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
that's the question posed about God in your little verbal wankfest you think is smart.
but when I ask it about you, you see it's obviously stupid.
Hey, Asshole...
...thanks for starting my day with your bullshit. Having someone like you call me a moron energizes me.
I probably know more about logic than you will know if you continue to study it for the next ten years.
Aquinas' "conclusions" are not the result of logic. One cannot get to "There is at least one GOD" via logic...or via reason, math, or science, for that matter.
Aquinas started with a blind guess...namely, "There is a GOD" and manufactured arguments to pretend that his blind guess was obtained logically. He never received much counter debate for a very logical reason. If one argued against him on this, it would sound as though one were arguing "there is no god"...and that was a good way to have a death sentence levied against you.
Okay...now you have my permission to continue your bullshit.
Yakuda
Verified User
This is fantastic. I'll denounce the existence of God if you do just one thing.
Apostle_Frank
Verified User
Why would you denounce God and what is the "one thing" that it would require?
Yakuda
Verified User
My conscience would compel me to. Notice not one of the atheists has asked me the question you just asked. Having said that if an atheist created something from material not presently in existence then I'd be compelled to at least question my belief even if I don't out right abandon my belief
Apostle_Frank
Verified User
Fair enough. What evidence do you have that there was a god that did this?
Yakuda
Verified User
That God did it is a different question from the reality that we are here. Because these is something rather than nothing, someone or something had to create it as nothing creates itself. The fine tuning argument suggests the presence of a mind that tuned it. Finally the fact the universe had a beginning again suggest something coming from nothing. Now you may not like any of that and that's of no concern to me but if someone could show they can create something from material not presently in existence id have to rethink the whole thing.
Part of the problem too is science has been suggested as a replacement for God but the more science learns the less obvious it is that science is only learning and not leading
Who said the universe came from nothing? The goatfuckers who wrote Genesis 2500 years ago?
Yep, science is still learning. And always will. That’s the nature of science. That’s unlike your holy book which is stuck in the bronze and iron age.
The god of the gaps gets smaller every day, Festus. That just sucks for you flat earthers.
Apostle_Frank
Verified User
What if there was "never nothing"? What if the universe has always existed in some form or another?
But doesn't that mean that the same question applies to the Creator? Where did the Creator come from?
The "God proposition" as a solution to any question we find in the world isn't really much value. It doesn't help us understand why something happened if "God did it" is a potential explanation. That's why as @domer76 noted, the God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller with each new discovery in science.
It's a theologically dangerous position to go with the God proposition for any sort of explanation. It doesn't explain anything and it provides no insight and we don't know when or if God will choose to intervene in the same way in the world a second time.
Yakuda
Verified User
What if is meaningless. What is is, that there is something rather than nothing.
I don't know where the the creator comes but if what is didnt always exist something outside time and space as we perceive it had to create it.
Science is incapable of answering any "why" question. It may explain how a thing works not why it works. How is not the same as why.
That's an individual problem not a grend issue problem. What we have is a universe tuned specifically enough that it screams that's is the product of a mind. It's the watchmaker scenario. No one finds a watch and things this always exist or all the individual pieces just accidentally fell into place to produce a functional watch
Apostle_Frank
Verified User
That doesn't address the point.
So a super-creator which is more powerful than the creator? Do we owe any worship to that super-creator? And who created the super-creator? Is there a super-super-creator that created the super creator who, in turn, created the Creator (God)?
That's not much of a distinction. There are many things in science in which the "why" is explicitly investigated.
So then you have other universes that we know were designed so we know how a designed universe looks?
I mean there are crystals in nature that are so perfect you'd think they had to be carved by a person but they are perfectly natural. Just because something appears designed does not necessarily mean it is designed.
That's because we know where watches come from. We have analogues of the designer. For God not so much.
And besides: given that we can comprehend almost nothing about God as he is, then how on earth can "God did it" be a useful explanation? And why is that literally 100% of the times in which it was originally proposed "God did that" that we find out it was perfectly natural (earthquakes due to continents moving, storms due to weather, floods due to topography and weather...etc.)
Tobytone
Verified User
Now that's a really good point, said nobody with a three digit IQ.