For me the problem is that people still have a need to believe in something: God, the stars!, the tarot!, etc. I find it sad and truly an attack on our intellect. That's why the belief in a god or a superior being is completely repugnant for me.
Printable View
For me the problem is that people still have a need to believe in something: God, the stars!, the tarot!, etc. I find it sad and truly an attack on our intellect. That's why the belief in a god or a superior being is completely repugnant for me.
Actually, I don't follow any religion at all - I guess you assumed I am Buddhist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolescent09
Thank you for the comment on my post.
I have heard this argument many times and I generally find that it is an example of intellectual laziness, rather than intellectual sense- though obviously I cannot know what energy you have put into this examination.Quote:
Originally Posted by liberal viewer
However, God is fundamentally different than the tarot and the stars. The belief in the tarot is a "magical" belief- belief that some human force can manipulate nature into supernature. The astrologists believed that nature is supernature on its own. But God is out of and beyond nature. Besides which, God, if you will allow yourself to adopt a theist mindset for a moment, is the source of intellect. If you believe that you have outthought God, or the conception of God, you are a stream flowing uphill, above its source- it cannot be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Yeah yeah that's Thomas Aquinas, I've heard this argument many times. ;)
I have heard this argument many times and I generally find that it is an example of intellectual laziness, rather than intellectual sense- though obviously I cannot know what energy you have put into this examination.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
-Yourself
What does it even mean to be "out of and beyond nature"?
That makes no sense to me - it never has the many times I have heard it.
I've never read Aquinas. If it's the same, it's coincidental.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1jt
That's not so much an argument as a further definition of the term "God." It would not be an argument to say that wood does not melt or that ice is frozen water, would it? It would only be a definition of terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
Nature is creation. God is the Creator. Just like a painter cannot be on his canvas, God is not in nature- except when He was, in the Incarnation, which is very much like a self-portrait... or maybe making a painting alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by one_raven
A definition can be an argument. And you are suing it as an argument to try to destroy other's argument on their premises. But again, your definition has nothing more to back itself than wild guesses on what you would like it to be, unless it be blind faith. And EVEN if it is on blind faith, I could tell you, but look at all the others who said this and this based on blind faith, even other catholics, protestants, muslims, hashashashins, freelancer, whatever you are, and they will all have different visions. How can you claim then to be more right than other who pass judgment through faith as well? And how do you explain the evolution of the theology in time if truth was revealed through faith?Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Basically, you're just pulling statements like that out of nowhere, if you're not going to back up your statement, then there is no use of discussing, as it only makes you a wall of blind faith, and I don't like talking to walls, personally.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
Still makes no sense.
Sounds like simple apology to me.
Sure, the analogy makes sense, but it falls apart when you consider that both the artist and the painting are both in the same reality.
The artist can touch and manipulate the canvas and the paint only because they are part of the same reality.
If something does not exist in nature, that is no different than saying it does not exist at all.
Sure, anything can exist in different realities, but since we are in THIS reality, not only will we never know, but it doesn't matter at all.
In order to interact with reality you must be part of reality.
If you are not part of reality, you are not real.
Analogies are great, when they are comparing like terms.
When they do not apply, they are misleading at best.
Try explaining your idea without the analogies, please.
Nature is creation(image). God is the Creator(MIRROR),,,,sounds okay now??
.
What if there was no big foot? Oh wait....there isn't.
Obviously you never met Charlemagne's wife
I doubt anyone here has, but since you seem to have met her (which one?), maybe you can tell us what came out of this happy meeting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
Surely you will recognize that when dealing with the purely spiritual, analogies are essential? Even subatomic particles need to be described with imagery, because what human beings cannot experience physically, they cannot understand in a concrete way. If you want, I will try to explain the idea in the abstract: God created the world ex nihilo. Before God created, there was nothing but God. What God created was dependent on Him for its existence, it was not selfexistent, but God was. Therefore, the most fundamental dichotomy in the universe is God and not-God. God is REAL in the most complete way possible, because He is the only self-existent being/object/anything. We are real too, but we are real because we have been created by God. It is a different mode of existence: God, as C.S. Lewis said, "is full and overflows," we are "empty and would be filled up."Quote:
Originally Posted by one_raven
A.) This thread is not about apologetics. If it was, I might indulge you with some reasons- but most likely it wouldn't make a difference to you. Because it's true, you do still need faith. But don't you need faith to believe in anything? You believe (I would guess) in atomic structure because the scientists say it is accurate. You accept it on their authority. I believe in God on the authority of Scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
B.) "Wild guesses?" No, because, if God exists, He must fundamentally be either different from creation and separate, or else the pantheistic "All." I personally find the "All" to be untrue, and the separate from creation to be true.
C.) How do I explain the differences in religion? Well, considering that God chooses the Israelites (a tiny, politically insignificant kingdom at the time) to be His chosen people, it seems clear that He is not interested in imposing uniformity on a large group of people. He does not, apparently, need or want to make the vast majority of people believe in Him as He reveals Himself in the Bible. How do I explain the "evolution of theology?" Well, being a Calvinist, my theology is actually based on the work of a 4th and 5th century writer named Augustine- there's not really a whole lot of change for us. And, to address the existence of other faiths: C.S. Lewis talks about "good dreams," echoes of God throughout the world. That is to say, when the Greeks conceived of the notion that Dionysus dies and rises again, and, through his death and rebirth gives life to the grain again, they were perceiving Christ as through a funhouse mirror. A slight echo, reaching them through a vast chasm. When the ancient Babylonians thought that a god of theirs had a child with a virgin, and that that son would fulfill a salvific role, they perceived Christ, though distorted.
I believe I can anticipate your reaction: I'm being arrogant, culturally superior, closed-minded, intolerant, etc. But... whatever.