DarkRange55
🎂
- Oct 15, 2023
- 2,362
Please read this thread first, I highly suggest you do first
sanctioned-suicide.net
In the past let's say the middle ages none of the philosophers were atheists. But first people defined god differently back then. But in classical theism which is actually what christians are supposed to believe but very few today actually believe that. Because they believe in this cartoon idea of god, that god is some personified some kind of personality in the sky. When Aquinus gives his proof for god, thats not what he's trying to prove. He's trying to prove a prime force behind the universe or an origin of the momentum of the universe or a force external to it. Boomer evangelism talks about god in the idea that it's some sort of dude with a personality and he has traits and feelings and stuff like that. When the bible talks about god having feelings, thats a metaphor in classical theism. Any traditional classical Christian theologian would agree.
Do you personify the moving force of the universe or do you not?
Something beyond the physical plane that put things in momentum, tautologically. Even in terms of particles coming in and out of existence, there's some force behind that. That is analogous to what Aquinous is talking about as being god.
More pantheism. In classical theology you have this different view point. The Free Mason kind of view of god or the prisca theologica view of god. Like the idea that there are themes of god behind all religions, there's some kind of abstract similarity that they're talking about. Once you have that view point, the difference of believe in god vs not is just an issue of personification.
There could be no force other than a random poof of particles, there could be an impersonal force, or there could be a persona (or in between - volcanoes have personalities even if I don't personify them).
Personality is a short-cut for thinking about how complex things behave. Pacific Northwest volcanoes and some of those in Indonesia are largely silent until they violently explode without warning, whereas Etna, Mauna Kea and Arenal have more frequent episodes of spitting fire and sending out streams of flowing lava. Just as with people, knowing how (and how often) a given volcano gets angry is very useful to those who live nearby.
Do you think that there are other supernatural events that happened in history? They must happen in the sense that there are some things beyond the material universe that must happen. Why MUST?
But are they specific things that are part of religious folklore? Thats the next question.
David Hume had a supposed proof that you should never believe miracles.
It is likely that some of the lore is based on something true, so what is meant by 'supernatural'? (e.g., If I went back thousands of years and explained the omniverse, the big bang, geology and the evolution of life on earth to some shepards, the story that their great****grandchildren would tell would likely sound much like genesis. If aliens landed back then and explained it, to me that would not be supernatural).
The Cosmological Argument.
The cyclic universe and/or omniverse answers a lot of the traditional philosophical conundrums like the cosmological argument and uncaused cause…
Arguments from design from both the macro things like the universe as well as the intricate little tiny micro machines that are going inside your body. I saw an interview from Antony Flew. The reason he became a theist from an atheist was he saw micro-machines, he saw the biological machine discoveries and said wow there must be a god.
Or natural selection acting on inheritable variation is very powerful, so not an argument for personification.
The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics which states that everything's wearing down or basically the universe is running out of usable energy. If you wind back the clock, there's this big explosion, it cools off, it winds down, it just stops. And our universe will die of heat death and everything will just grow cold and spread out. If the universe is winding down, something must have wound it up.
Not an argument for personification.
In the 20th Century the idea that the universe had a beginning was being challenged by a lot of scientists and philosophers. They didn't like it because if you say the universe had a beginning it pushes so hard at the idea that there's a god who made it.
Not an argument for personification.
The moral argument - morality offers us evidence to believe in god.
No more than immorality offers us evidence to NOT believe in god.
The uncaused cause concept.
You just don't look at the universe and the world around you and think total accident. It's not natural to do that and science seems to support the idea that, that would not be a very smart thing to say.
Or natural selection acting on inheritable variation is very powerful, so not an argument for personification.
Pascal's Wager is more about design theory. In fact, Pascal was a brilliant man, the father of modern day decision theory. This is what economics is actually based on. So it's profound, it's thoughtful. Basically if you're stuck in the middle, it's 50/50 christianity is true or not or god might exist or not its 50/50 I'm not sure what to do. He then argues well the best thing if you're on the fence is to wager for god. And start living in ways that help you seek god, help you discover the truth about god, help you experience god and acting in ways as though god is real so that you'd have the best possible outcome.
Not evidence for a god, but for the possible value of believing in one type of god. Also ignores what else you could have done with the time spent seeking god.
None that I have heard are evidence against such existence, but some negate some of the claimed evidence for such existence.
E.g., inaccuracies in religious texts show that they are not the literal word of an infallible god, but such a god could still exist and the scribes or translators could have mucked up the process.
What does “spirituality” mean to you?
What does the word spirituality mean to you? In what ways do you consider yourself to be a spiritual person? Please read, apologies for the length! For some of you this may just be a repeat. I have just always found it to be a rather nebulous word with various interpretations. When you...
sanctioned-suicide.net
In the past let's say the middle ages none of the philosophers were atheists. But first people defined god differently back then. But in classical theism which is actually what christians are supposed to believe but very few today actually believe that. Because they believe in this cartoon idea of god, that god is some personified some kind of personality in the sky. When Aquinus gives his proof for god, thats not what he's trying to prove. He's trying to prove a prime force behind the universe or an origin of the momentum of the universe or a force external to it. Boomer evangelism talks about god in the idea that it's some sort of dude with a personality and he has traits and feelings and stuff like that. When the bible talks about god having feelings, thats a metaphor in classical theism. Any traditional classical Christian theologian would agree.
Do you personify the moving force of the universe or do you not?
Something beyond the physical plane that put things in momentum, tautologically. Even in terms of particles coming in and out of existence, there's some force behind that. That is analogous to what Aquinous is talking about as being god.
More pantheism. In classical theology you have this different view point. The Free Mason kind of view of god or the prisca theologica view of god. Like the idea that there are themes of god behind all religions, there's some kind of abstract similarity that they're talking about. Once you have that view point, the difference of believe in god vs not is just an issue of personification.
There could be no force other than a random poof of particles, there could be an impersonal force, or there could be a persona (or in between - volcanoes have personalities even if I don't personify them).
Personality is a short-cut for thinking about how complex things behave. Pacific Northwest volcanoes and some of those in Indonesia are largely silent until they violently explode without warning, whereas Etna, Mauna Kea and Arenal have more frequent episodes of spitting fire and sending out streams of flowing lava. Just as with people, knowing how (and how often) a given volcano gets angry is very useful to those who live nearby.
Do you think that there are other supernatural events that happened in history? They must happen in the sense that there are some things beyond the material universe that must happen. Why MUST?
But are they specific things that are part of religious folklore? Thats the next question.
David Hume had a supposed proof that you should never believe miracles.
It is likely that some of the lore is based on something true, so what is meant by 'supernatural'? (e.g., If I went back thousands of years and explained the omniverse, the big bang, geology and the evolution of life on earth to some shepards, the story that their great****grandchildren would tell would likely sound much like genesis. If aliens landed back then and explained it, to me that would not be supernatural).
The Cosmological Argument.
The cyclic universe and/or omniverse answers a lot of the traditional philosophical conundrums like the cosmological argument and uncaused cause…
Arguments from design from both the macro things like the universe as well as the intricate little tiny micro machines that are going inside your body. I saw an interview from Antony Flew. The reason he became a theist from an atheist was he saw micro-machines, he saw the biological machine discoveries and said wow there must be a god.
Or natural selection acting on inheritable variation is very powerful, so not an argument for personification.
The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics which states that everything's wearing down or basically the universe is running out of usable energy. If you wind back the clock, there's this big explosion, it cools off, it winds down, it just stops. And our universe will die of heat death and everything will just grow cold and spread out. If the universe is winding down, something must have wound it up.
Not an argument for personification.
In the 20th Century the idea that the universe had a beginning was being challenged by a lot of scientists and philosophers. They didn't like it because if you say the universe had a beginning it pushes so hard at the idea that there's a god who made it.
Not an argument for personification.
The moral argument - morality offers us evidence to believe in god.
No more than immorality offers us evidence to NOT believe in god.
The uncaused cause concept.
You just don't look at the universe and the world around you and think total accident. It's not natural to do that and science seems to support the idea that, that would not be a very smart thing to say.
Or natural selection acting on inheritable variation is very powerful, so not an argument for personification.
Pascal's Wager is more about design theory. In fact, Pascal was a brilliant man, the father of modern day decision theory. This is what economics is actually based on. So it's profound, it's thoughtful. Basically if you're stuck in the middle, it's 50/50 christianity is true or not or god might exist or not its 50/50 I'm not sure what to do. He then argues well the best thing if you're on the fence is to wager for god. And start living in ways that help you seek god, help you discover the truth about god, help you experience god and acting in ways as though god is real so that you'd have the best possible outcome.
Not evidence for a god, but for the possible value of believing in one type of god. Also ignores what else you could have done with the time spent seeking god.
None that I have heard are evidence against such existence, but some negate some of the claimed evidence for such existence.
E.g., inaccuracies in religious texts show that they are not the literal word of an infallible god, but such a god could still exist and the scribes or translators could have mucked up the process.
