I do not believe so.
I went back and looked at the post that evoked this conversation. I think it’s perfectly clear which parts of that post are subjective.
Why did you pick me to ask? Aren’t nearly all (maybe all) posts on this thread subjective?
I have to admit, I don’t know my religion as much as a devout Catholic does. I had never heard that “truth cannot contradict truth.” But, in truth, isn’t there proof? Isn’t that what makes it the truth? I don’t see the proof in God, and I said before, I’m not looking. But I think I’ll contradict myself here: the evolution of a single cell is too complex to have just happened… so… now I’m at a loss with both science and God… not that I’m trying to incorporate one with the other…
Why are unexplained event events or phenomenon so often used to determine the existance of God? Say a car is headed right for you as you walk along the sidewalk and suddenly you are picked up in the air and placed safely outside the cars path, wow that must have been God looking out for me. Why? Why is everything you don’t understand, God. Furthermore, why was the phenomenon you experienced caused by the particular god you then chose to believe in? Perhaps a force that is unknown to you, and which has no religious origins is what saved you.
A friend of mine explained to me how God made himself known to him. During his highschool years he worked delivering pizza. One night on a delivery someone tried to rob him. He took of running and at some point was going to jump a fence when he says he stopped from a full out run on a dime and ran a different direction. He says he didn’t hear or see anything that would alarm him of dangers on the other side of the fence. He also said he stopped faster that humanly possible. Anyway, the next day he went to look around that fence and saw a baseball bat proped up against the fence and is now convinced that there was someone there that night waiting to bash his head in and that God saved him.
These are the kinds of circumstances that just boggle my mind. While I will agree that a strange occurrence happened to him, how can it be attributed to God? Surely while in a state of panic and while hopped up on adrenaline your body can do some amazing thing. Your senses can be heightened and your strengh increased. Also, your perception of things can be altered. Yet the only explanation he could come up with was that God saved him.
Some will say that life is too perfect or complex to have occured by accident. Yet, people have poor eyesight (reminds me, I need a new pair of contacts), get sick easily and die from disease every minute of the day. Hardly perfect if you ask me. The fact that you can’t fathom how the universe and all it contains could come about without the existance of God doesn’t give any credence to the existence of said God.
I can imagine traveling back in time, say 1000 years, with nuclear weapons and showing people its’ explosive power (from a safe distace mind you) and proclaiming myself a god. How many people would assume I am a god (or perhaps a demon/devil) simply because I harness a power that they can’t comprehend?
Ack! Here I was, writing a masterpiece of a reply to your post, and suddenly it becomes useless. Oh well.
I didn’t mean to pick on you, and I do apologize. I guess I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page, is all.
FYI, High Diety said he thought my post implied that my logic was the only valid logic. (He called me pompous, too, but that was redundant.)
For all the universe: It is my logic and I like it. I think you should see the inerrency of it, but you’re free to be wrong.
(Was that pompous? )
Because our minds are hard-wired to see patterns in nature. As such, to see anything that seems to be a random occurance automatically brings out our instinct to make it not so random.
Why not?
Maybe because it is self-evident to the person for whom it happened.
Perhaps, or perhaps it really was God. You are free to interpret events in your life as you see fit. Just understand that others are free to do so as well.
If I could ask from a personal standpoint, why so hard-up for making everyone see the world exactly as you do?
Did someone argue that life is perfect?
If one contemplates on this, one must conclude that either order arose out of chaos or there is a sentient force behind creation.
Beautiful question. One that would be well received in the Catholic forum to which I linked earlier. I myself have been involved in many time consuming threads dealing with that topic alone. Why? Because I personally have decided that there is no proof (looking for proof is what led me into atheism–see my first post in this thread) unless God chooses to give it to you. But many other Catholics couldn’t disagree with me more. They regularly ply me with various proofs. It’s a fun exercise that you can do here or you can do there (in the Catholic forum). For me, it was a matter of choosing where I wanted to be. Did I want to hear all proofs? I did that for a while, in this forum and elsewhere. After awhile, I decided I wanted to hear Catholic proofs, the proofs of the religion of my family, so I went where I would hear them.
I set aside my desire for proof. It was only then that I was able to have a [ECHO]relationship with God[/ECHO]. Understand: I am not one of the lucky ones who has had a personal religious experience. The search for scientific/logical proof was a dead end for me since I found no personal evidence, and I failed to find any after more than a decade of looking.
You are about to make an improper logical leap: because it is too amazing for me to understand how it could happen, it must have happend because of God. That’s ok, people say that all the time. I know some very good Catholics who use that as a primary reason for their faith. Many deal with that wonder in other ways, however. Atheists marvel about the intricacies of our world just as much as theists do.
But from your statement immediately above, I discern that you might find the “argument from design” or the “first cause” proofs convincing. They weren’t convincing for me, but they were good enough for many saints. Have you been taught those arguments? They are as old as the Church, but often ignored by Church teachers.
Why must the force be sentient?
When I said I was at a loss, I wasn’t saying that I was starting to believe God is creator just because it’s so amazing. I’m saying that now that I’ve taken a step deeper in what I believe, I don’t know if I really believe what I used to about science…or God.
I’ve also never been taught any arguments… or else I don’t understand il Topo…sorry.
I believe that theists put their faith in God, and atheists put their faith in chance.
While I do believe anything is possible, I find it highly unlikely that every meaningful prayer that I have prayed is just a coincidence that it happened. Just as improbable as all life originating from one reproducing cell that happened to find the one and only combination of atoms that would stay together without assistance of a Supreme Being. Just my opinion though…
No apologies are necessary (unless they are to come from me). I should not have assumed anything.
You do understand. I was never taught any arguments/proofs for God until I entered college, so no surprises there. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and company formulated or reformulated many of them. As I say, some find the proofs very convincing; my amazement at how unconvincing they were sent me on a search that led into atheism. Anyway, my sole point in posting to you was to encourage you to inform yourself before you totally abandoned a faith. I’ve been there. I found the Catholic board to be quite helpful. It is full of people that will scramble to answer your questions.
This would be a great board to post the paradoxes you’ve discovered and have a discussion about them. I know I would be interested.
I’ll join this thread with my beliefs later. I’m at work now and don’t have the time.
There is presently a flurry of activity in philosophical circles because of the emergence of new proofs in the 1990s that are S-modal renditions of the ontological argument. Because it is possible to define God as “supreme being”, modal possibility and necessity can be manipulated as logical inferences in formal tableaus. There are now several versions of these, some more controversial than others.
See one example here: Understanding the Ontological Argument.
Why can’t you see that the ontological argument is worthless?
[sigh]
The concept of god isn’t sufficiently defined for it to be believed in. People who say that they believe in a god use personally-customized definitions.
very interesting question. I’m operating under the assumption that intent can only be formed by sentience.
To rephrase: creation/life arouse from chaos by chance or intentional design.
FYI, though, I am pondering whether intent can be formed in the absence of sentience.
Missingdividends, do you have these 50 paradoxes of yours in list form? I’d like to see them.
only if their religion is based on their own reasonings/experiences. My concept of Jehovah God is all found in the Bible and it is decidely not what I would imagine. Especially the part about obeying earthly authorities. I mean, even Bill Clinton? Honoring your father and mother? Even though dad left before I was born and mom, uh, hardly deserves it? Turn the other cheek? Even the guy that insults my wife?
I have a lot of problems conforming myself to my God’s image.
Okay, let me get this straight. If I will merely see things the way you see things and use your definitions, then I’ll be on the right track. Is that the gist of it?