Catholic AnswersPosted 5 years Ago

At 7/1/2016 2:33:14 PM, Racingfan53 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:21:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/1/2016 2:00:11 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:46:39 PM, Racingfan53 wrote:
This is a continuation of my previous topic.

I am a Catholic, and any questions about faith, Catholic life or otherwise are welcome as long as they are respectful.
You do understand that your limited knowledge of Catholicism is detrimental to your ability to maintain this thread?

lmao. "Don't open a thread unless you have limitless knowledge of the subject you want to discuss"

I do not think my limited knowledge would be as much of a hindrance to me continuing the topic as the rapid posting of questions which is cluttering up my notifications and leaving little time for me to respond to my debates.

Indeed, I would not open a topic about Seventh-Day Adventism, since I am not an SDA.

You're doing a great job. I'm glad we have another enthusiastic catholic on the site. As they say, Deus Vult
Forums Home > Religion

Catholic AnswersPosted 5 years Ago

At 7/1/2016 2:00:11 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:46:39 PM, Racingfan53 wrote:
This is a continuation of my previous topic.

I am a Catholic, and any questions about faith, Catholic life or otherwise are welcome as long as they are respectful.
You do understand that your limited knowledge of Catholicism is detrimental to your ability to maintain this thread?

lmao. "Don't open a thread unless you have limitless knowledge of the subject you want to discuss"
Forums Home > Religion

Cosmological Argument for ChristianityPosted 5 years Ago

At 6/29/2016 10:14:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 9:13:59 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/29/2016 6:51:59 PM, matt8800 wrote:
I have no comment on the personhood of 'god' because there is no way for me to know, or anyone else for that matter. I suspect that consciousness may be an inherent property of the universe but that is pretty much the extent of my speculation.

Regardless, how do you connect the cosmological argument with a personal god that intervenes in humans lives and judges them (particularly in the matters of human genital use and misuse)? How do you connect it with the efficacy of human sacrifice?

I've been on this forum for enough years to know not to spit out a cosmological argument and hope for the best. My point here was to show that theistic philosophers of the past argued directly from the cosmological argument towards a being of ultimate perfection, who would necessarily retain an intellect and will. Those two powers (collectively referred to as "rationality") were traditionally understood to be the source of personhood. If those arguments work, then a personal God exists, and it's purely a matter of revelation towards Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or some other religion which admits God in the metaphysically provable way.

That argument attributes "personhood" (noun) to a sentient being. 'Personal' (adjective), as in 'personal god', refers to a human's relationship in conjunction to that god, typically in terms of intervention. Even if there was a god that could be attributed with personhood, that does not necessarily mean that it/he is a personal god.

lmao, ok, now we're on the same page. I had no idea you were using the term 'personal' to mean something like 'intimate.' I thought you simply meant it as 'amounting to a person' or something like that.

Even if it could be established that an interventionist god exists, that still brings up the original question on how you connect that to a specific religion. Is there any evidence that is not mere hearsay in the technical sense?

While it's been taught that God's existence can be proven by the light of natural reason, generally, the idea that God did this or that action in mankind's past is considered a matter of faith. That is, beyond attempts in archaeology and history and the like to show historical evidence from the Bible or Koran.

If one was arguing for the validity of the Christian Bible, how would they resolve the fact that the bible was communicated by a perfect god in such a confusing, imperfect way?
If you were to write down life wisdom to pass down to your kids after you are gone, would you be clear with what you write or would you purposely write in a manner to confuse them as to what you are saying?
If you wrote in a confusing way not on purpose, wouldn't that render you imperfect?
How do you know the authors of the New Testament, who wrote down accounts on third party hearsay, were correct but Joseph Smith was wrong?

Again, I've learned enough about DDO to stay on-topic on a specific thread. Generally, they devolve into vicious arguments about God's existence or about God's character. I can see this one is headed towards the latter. If you'd like to discuss God's chosen method of transmission, make a thread about it.

It should be noted that it is just as reasonable to say that the universe created the intelligent consciousness as an emergent property of natural laws as saying the intelligent consciousness created the universe. Many theists would say that is not a reasonable conjecture because the universe had to be created but for some reason, the intelligent consciousness did not need to be created. It is called the 'passing the buck fallacy'. http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Something that should be considered in the equation is we can observe that natural laws create complexity from chaos - https://en.wikipedia.org...

You're hearing this word 'consciousness' in a way that some theists would not accept. If you take this word 'consciousness' as the chemical reactions of the brain, which are reducible to physical laws, then sure, consciousness could simply have emerged from the universe. But if you take this word 'consciousness' in a holistic, immaterial, non-physical way, then consciousness the way we experience it cannot be even a very complex physical reaction, and must be the product of some exterior immaterial reality.

My concept of consciousness might be considered metaphysical-esque by other atheists. I believe it is possible that consciousness is more than chemical reactions in the brain. Furthermore, because of some of the reincarnation cases studied by Ian Stevenson and a few near death experience accounts, I might even be convinced that consciousness survives death. With that said, I cant be convinced of an all powerful, merciful god that could provide unquestionable evidence, chooses not to and then decides to burn and torture people that cannot know that which there was no evidence provided for in the first place.

Aaaaand we're at some sort of problem-of-evil discussion. These kind of debates are known to burn hundreds of forum posts a piece. I applaud your belief in the immortality of consciousness, but I hope you'll understand that I wish to stay on-topic.

The fact that we are debating this means no unquestionable evidence has been provided. After all, we don't debate things that are proven empirically. If the best he could do is pass along his most important message via ancient hearsay, he is an incompetent communicator at best. Wouldn't an all-knowing god know English? Cant an all-powerful god speak it?

I don't put it past people, particularly the kind of people to sign-up for a website like this, to argue against empirical evidence. I'm sure you've heard of the Flat Earth Society.

Of course God can speak english, that's theologically trivial. There have been a variety of theories proposed to explain these sort of questions about divine revelation. They typically revolve around the fact that this method forces man to move himself towards God; that is, it forces humans to work for a supernatural end, thus transforming us into divine instruments. Again, I do not wish this conversation to derail any further than it already has.

What evidence is there that any claims of divine revelations are correct? Don't you find it a suspicious coincidence that people usually argue for the same religion that they were brought up in? Many theists would say that, although the geography of their birth originally chose their religion, their logic and reason confirmed that <insert name of religion here> is the one and only correct divine revelation.

See above w/r/t the necessity of faith for claims like these. I don't even claim to have evidence that this God delivered His people from pharaoh. Or that He revealed Himself to the prophets. Or that He became man as Christ. Those are claims that, while objectively true, rest on the accessibility of grace.
Forums Home > Religion

Cosmological Argument for ChristianityPosted 5 years Ago

At 6/29/2016 6:51:59 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:43:15 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 6/29/2016 5:11:22 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:07:27 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.

I don't have an opinion on the intelligent design theory nor is there any way to intelligently discuss it because there is no way to define what the intelligence is, what mechanism it used to create or how to falsify it. If one wants to call intelligent design an incomplete suspicion and not knowledge, I have no problem with that.

By definition of the word god, it is personal and interventionist. The mere existence of a consciousness and/or intelligence does not meet that definition. How does one logically connect the cosmological argument to the existence of an interventionist, personal god?

(god (definition) - https://www.google.com...)

A definition from google isn't going to end century-old debates in theology over what it means to be 'God.'

As someone in the Aristotelian tradition, I'd ascribe personhood to anything which retains both an intellect and a will, if those terms are understood correctly. Without tediously laying out some very contentious arguments, many of the great classical theists of the past showed that God, if there is one, must retain both of those powers. It involved traditional definitions of perfection and yada yada yada.

I have no comment on the personhood of 'god' because there is no way for me to know, or anyone else for that matter. I suspect that consciousness may be an inherent property of the universe but that is pretty much the extent of my speculation.

Regardless, how do you connect the cosmological argument with a personal god that intervenes in humans lives and judges them (particularly in the matters of human genital use and misuse)? How do you connect it with the efficacy of human sacrifice?

I've been on this forum for enough years to know not to spit out a cosmological argument and hope for the best. My point here was to show that theistic philosophers of the past argued directly from the cosmological argument towards a being of ultimate perfection, who would necessarily retain an intellect and will. Those two powers (collectively referred to as "rationality") were traditionally understood to be the source of personhood. If those arguments work, then a personal God exists, and it's purely a matter of revelation towards Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or some other religion which admits God in the metaphysically provable way.

It should be noted that it is just as reasonable to say that the universe created the intelligent consciousness as an emergent property of natural laws as saying the intelligent consciousness created the universe. Many theists would say that is not a reasonable conjecture because the universe had to be created but for some reason, the intelligent consciousness did not need to be created. It is called the 'passing the buck fallacy'. http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Something that should be considered in the equation is we can observe that natural laws create complexity from chaos - https://en.wikipedia.org...

You're hearing this word 'consciousness' in a way that some theists would not accept. If you take this word 'consciousness' as the chemical reactions of the brain, which are reducible to physical laws, then sure, consciousness could simply have emerged from the universe. But if you take this word 'consciousness' in a holistic, immaterial, non-physical way, then consciousness the way we experience it cannot be even a very complex physical reaction, and must be the product of some exterior immaterial reality.
Forums Home > Religion

Ex Deo vs Ex Nihilo vs Ex MateriaPosted 5 years Ago

There's two ways to answer. God created the world from nothing if you consider "from" as "this state is from that state." For instance, "noon is from morning." But God created the world from Himself if you consider "from" as "this effect is from that cause." For instance, "son is from father."
Forums Home > Philosophy

Cosmological Argument for ChristianityPosted 5 years Ago

At 6/29/2016 5:11:22 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/29/2016 4:07:27 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.

I don't have an opinion on the intelligent design theory nor is there any way to intelligently discuss it because there is no way to define what the intelligence is, what mechanism it used to create or how to falsify it. If one wants to call intelligent design an incomplete suspicion and not knowledge, I have no problem with that.

By definition of the word god, it is personal and interventionist. The mere existence of a consciousness and/or intelligence does not meet that definition. How does one logically connect the cosmological argument to the existence of an interventionist, personal god?

(god (definition) - https://www.google.com...)

A definition from google isn't going to end century-old debates in theology over what it means to be 'God.'

As someone in the Aristotelian tradition, I'd ascribe personhood to anything which retains both an intellect and a will, if those terms are understood correctly. Without tediously laying out some very contentious arguments, many of the great classical theists of the past showed that God, if there is one, must retain both of those powers. It involved traditional definitions of perfection and yada yada yada.
Forums Home > Religion

Cosmological Argument for ChristianityPosted 5 years Ago

Your original post seems to attack the "intelligent design" argument for a creator God. I'd agree with you that arguments of this sort do not lead necessarily to the personal God of the Abrahamic religions. However, there are arguments for God's existence that, if true, necessarily lead to a personal God; after this, it's a matter of revelation towards a specific religion.
Forums Home > Religion

A god does not have to be limitlessPosted 5 years Ago

If they work, the classical arguments for God's existence demonstrate that all limited things -- things which merely "participate" in being -- come from a single unlimited being who is Being Itself.
Forums Home > Religion

Top debaters for God's existencePosted 5 years Ago

At 3/15/2016 5:55:21 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/15/2016 5:10:38 PM, Kilk1 wrote:
At 3/15/2016 4:38:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
I've won all but one of my debates on the existence of God whether I was arguing for or against. Here's the one debate I lost:

http://www.debate.org...

It seems like all the really good theist debaters have left the site--people like Apeiron, InquireTruth, and a few others.

Hey, you look like the kind of person I was looking for. Would you be willing to serve as one of my two advisers?

I guess that depends on how much you want from me. I'd be willing to proof read your posts if you want and maybe offer suggestions, but that's about all I'll have time for. You might as Thett. He's a pretty smart guy.

http://www.debate.org...

Also, Donald Keller might be able to help you.

http://www.debate.org...

Nur-Ab-Sal could definitely help you. The only problem with him is that he hasn't been around in a while. Look at some of his debates, though. Brilliant guy.

http://www.debate.org...

I float around from time to time :)
Forums Home > Religion

Adam heard God walking...Posted 5 years Ago

At 3/9/2016 4:47:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/9/2016 8:32:27 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
It's an attempt to use physical imagery to describe a more non-physical state of affairs. When man feels guilt, he hides from those who he has hurt and severs his relations out of remorse. Man sinned against God, so he attempted to hide from Him. The Lord God was not searching for man in any physical sense, but rather searched for man as an endeavour to bring the guilty humans closer to His goodness.

Greetings Padre. :)

Greetings johnlubba!
Forums Home > Religion

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.