Question About Christianity

College Confidential Community
221

<p>Hey, GDW, glad to see you're still putting forth the same BS arguments - just remember, repetition does not make them true, especially when their fallacies have been pointed out again and again.</p>

<p>Others, glad to see we've abandoned the actual discussion at hand and proceeded to name-calling and name-throwing and provided various distorted 10-second histories of the world. Also, it's interesting to note that as soon as one's allies enter, it's acceptable to abandon real discourse, kick back and joke with them about how "it's so stupid - how could they possibly think that? Now if everyone were more like us..."</p>

<p>Well, I won't have internet for a while, so perhaps by the time I get back you will have gotten back from whatever ego trips you're vomiting onto this discussion. Or maybe not. We'll see.</p>

222

<p>EH_2005</p>

<p>[you really need to get your anger under control...I certainly do not mean to offend your view of the world, even where I disagree with it]</p>

<p>Copernicus himself was a monk:</p>

<p>“Actually, Copernicus and Kepler developed their most revolutionary theory to satisfy certain philosophical and religious interests. Having become convinced of the Pythagorean doctrine that the universe is a systematic, harmonious structure whose essence is mathematical law, they set about discovering this essence. Copernicus' published works give unmistakable, if indirect, indications of his reasons for devoting himself to astronomy. He valued his theory of planetary motion not because it improves navigational procedures but because it reveals the true harmony, symmetry, and design in the divine workshop. It is wonderful and overpowering evidence of God's presence. Writing of his achievement, which was thirty years in the making, Copernicus expressed his gratification”</p>

<p><a href="http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/PineCh4.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/PineCh4.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As to Galileo:</p>

<p>“For the record, Galileo was mistaken, as we now know. What made him important to science was simply that he was less wrong than his scientific predecessors. His model of the universe was mathematically incorrect, but intuitively close to correct based on his observations with the aid of a telescope.
The Catholic Church told Galileo that he was free to present his model as an alternative to the current view, but that he could not claim it to be the absolute and only possible view. He proudly declined and was placed under house arrest. Like many, he absolutely believed in his way.</p>

<p>This is a direct quote of Cardinal Bellarmino addressing Galileo’s innovative new cosmology at the time:</p>

<p>………“It seems to me that Your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves to speak hypothetically and not absolutely…to say that on the supposition of the earths movement and the Sun’s quiescence all the celestial appearances are explained better than by the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever.”……….</p>

<p>Galileo, as Bellarmino implies, was not absolutely right, but simply more right; although, potentially completely wrong as far as the authorities of the day could know.”</p>

<p>Moreover, Galileo, lived and died a devout Catholic, unless you yourself, post mortem, intend to excommunicate him from his own Faith. Are you saying he was neither a Christian or a Catholic? I’m sure that would have been news to Galileo and his very famous nun/daughter who happened to be his closest confidante.</p>

<p>I simply claimed he was a Christian, and to the best of my knowledge, no serious person has ever denied Galileo's own faith: Christianity.</p>

<p>It's not easy to hold a belief, or to get published...not even today (though admittedly, you are unlikely to be put under house arrest for it--unless you live in those parts of the world where that is still an option).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/10/17/reviews/991017.17lightmt.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/10/17/reviews/991017.17lightmt.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

223

<p>note that I am not taking sides. I would just like to offer my impartial thoughts.
1. The historical content of the bible and the existence of god are mutually exclusive. The existence of God is not a prerequisite for any of the events of the bible, and there is not much reason to doubt its historical accuracy.<br>
1.5 There is no evidence for the existence of God, nor is there any evidence against existence. I could make a multitude of similar propositions which you could neither prove or disprove, for example, I conjecture that there is a chair shaped stone floating through space with a pepsi bottle and a rock on the inside of it dictating the weather patters of Malaysia on odd numbered days. You could not say that I was wrong or right, because there is no way to verify it. It is pointless arguing this point.
2. Saying that God is beyond reason just ends the argument. Both sides have dug themselves into a hole. (Can you see why? Think about it.)
3. There is no harm in just having a belief.
4. Just to address something i saw somewhere in the thread (not intended as an argument.) For thousands of years people thought the world was flat. That does not mean that people were stupid back then. People can have a wrong belief and still be right about other things.
5. By the previous, it means nothing to say that christianity produced thousands of people of great intelligence. People can be smart and wrong as well about certain things as the previous number mentioned. For example, Einstein did not believe in Quantum Mechanics. That didn't mean that he was not smart.
6. There are a multitude of (old) arguments against christianity. They have not worked before and they will not work here. So just stop. e. g. immorality of god etc. etc.</p>

224

<p>This point is probably pretty biased. But oh well.
An interesting thought and a few questions.
Biologically, childhood is a time when many things are imprinted. Language for instance. It also happens that if a child is raised in a christian household, the odds are that he will be christian.
So, that said, I ask: Does free will really exist?
Why do we act in a certain way? Do all of our actions depend upon the environment and our genes? Or is it whim? What determines whim? Is it some external stimuli? Is it preprogrammed? Considering that we cannot control the initial conditions, i. e. what happened before we were born, or our genes for that matter, does anyone really have a "choice?" What does free choice really mean? If I "decide" to pick up a pencil, did my initial conditions and my genes dictate that i was going to pick it up anyways? If this is true, does anyone really have a decision to believe in God or not?</p>

225

<p>"Does free will really exist?"</p>

<p>mruncleramos, bravo for asking that question. I'm still debating that one. That's really what I took from the whole nature/nurture debate... if who we are is determined by nature and nurture alone, and we have control over neither our circumstances nor our genes, how can free will exist? In fact, i'm off to start a new thread asking this question. Hopefully, it won't become as contentious as this one.</p>

<p>Fountainsiren,<br>
I really wish you wouldn't be so aggressive. Your primary goal seems to be insult anyone who holds different beleifs than your self-assured ones. You pretty much single handedly turned this thread from a debate into a petty squabble.</p>

226

<p>agreed - the free will question is very interesting
But I don't think the main threat is the nature/nurture issue, but rather materialism and physical determinism. If the only things that exist in the universe are physical beings (as materialism suggests), then any action must have a physical cause. Ergo everything (including mental states and decisions) is the result of the sum of the state of the universe plus the laws of physics.
But even if this is not true, free will has a massive problem in the fact that it is simply incoherant. Sarte talks about this problem in "Being and Nothingness". If we are not determined, and our actions are not random (akin to muscle spasms), then actions must be viewed in regard to the intentions of the agent. But then the question becomes whether or not we are free to choose our intentions. Perhaps the answer is yes, because we have a certain proclivity to a certain intention. But then we have to freely choose our proclivities.
You see where this is going... infinite regress. Sarte dismisses the problem of infinite regress as "just the way it is", but its still there.</p>

<p>But the really interesting thing about the free will issue that we should be concerned about is morality. Think about it - if we have no free will, then morality is a moot point, since moral culpability is based on the idea that the moral agent could have done other than he/she did.</p>

227

<p>further than that! without free will, say goodbye to courage, bravery, love, anything that poets like to write about. The ramifications of the non-existence of free will are enormous. </p>

<p>I really want there to be free will, but I can't get around those logical connundrums... this deserves its own thread, so when i get around to it, i'm creating one. Unless someone else wants to beat me to it? Anyone?</p>

228

<p>To the best of my knowledge there is no LOGICAL PROOF for the existence of a chair with a coke bottle on it floating through space. There is on the other hand, an extraordinary amount of LOGICAL PROOF for the existence of an immaterial cause of life, and the universe.</p>

<p>Most of the greatest minds and deepest thinkers in human history (by common agreement) found very convincing arguments for the existence of god. Moreover, they believed they were true and logical arguments. I suppose all those who doubt them have disproved them, in the same way that they have logically proved to themselves that gravity is a logical and scientific formula. To name merely a few of those being dismissed by the current crop of geniuses: </p>

<p>Pythagoras
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Plotinus
Augustine
Ibn Sina
Aquinas
Maimonides
Khayam
Descartes
Spinoza
Shakespeare
Leibniz
Newton
Kant
Galileo
Da Vinci
Copernicus
Kepler
Pascal
Hegel
Pasteur
Kierkegaard
Peirce
Bohr
Faraday
Einstein</p>

<p>To the best of my knowledge, none of them speculated about the existence of a chair floating through space, however all of them believed that there was necessarily and logically a first-cause; that cosmology, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics made no sense at all—to their limited minds—without a divine, immaterial cause: God. There is no reason why anyone else has to believe in the logical necessity of a first cause, God (like all those mentioned above). Many claim that their minds are less limited than those above, which would be a great claim, if true.</p>

<p>One thing I have noticed throughout this thread is the fact that not a single person has seriously taken on any of the logical arguments for the existence of God. I know of about 17+ logical/philosophical arguments myself, and I have barely scratched the surface. I find some more convincing than others, yet all of them deserve the respect (at least) of a teenager or college student (unless you already know the answers to the biggest questions in life—should write a book I’d say)).</p>

<p>If life is only a material cause and therefore, existence, I would agree that there is no free-will and logically only determined behavior.</p>

<p>If we are more than material beings, or have more than a material efficient cause, than we likely have choice and freewill.</p>

<p>I don’t know where you can acquire free-will, or actual choice, if there is no immaterial efficient cause and therefore final cause. Moreover, it would be right to say, in my mind, that there would be no love or creativity (thus art, per se, would be impossible). If there is no conscience (which if there is no God, there cannot be) there can also be no “moral” choices. Power would be the only imperative.</p>

229

<p>Jerzak,</p>

<p>I had no idea this thread was intended to be an atheist’s/skeptic's love-fest.</p>

<p>I assumed it was intended to bring about differing and contrary views and to have them challenged for logical consistency and fact. I would have thought that anyone here has the opportunity to "feel-the-love" from those who find them fascinating in their day to day life.</p>

<p>It seems to me that your difficulty is with the contrary views. I imagine if I was saying the same things in support of your position, you would find them delightful. Which person that completely disagrees with your views do you find refreshing? I have disagreed with statements made, positions taken and logical consistency.</p>

<p>Mathematics, like philosophy, is not a material fact--it's a logical fact. God, by definition, is not a material fact. God is a logical fact. You can work all you want with science, which proves and disproves material facts, and you will still never get near God.</p>

230

<p>
[QUOTE]
Great. Let me know whether you're still a creationist after you actually TAKE a few biology courses, let alone attempt graduate work. You'd be laughed out of the room!

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>No I would not, and my experience from the 2 college biology courses (and much more) that I've already taken tells me so. A real scientist discounts nothing, and recognizes the domain of science. There is a realm of truth that science cannot touch. Science requires measurable evidence. The greatest truths are not measurable. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
See, your problem is that you are equating God with man. God is not bound by silly rules such as ethics, because he is above all creation. YOU assume that belief must be based on evidence. God cannot be bound! What does it mean to be bound? It means that there are laws, some higher determination that subordinates the individual. Such laws are causes, and their effects the subordination. However, it follows that each effect has a cause. God is the first cause. Any rights and principles are thereby under God, and not even applicable. Defining laws that bind God is akin to attributing the laws of riding a bicycle to gravity, which is a process that cannot be done in reverse. You're applying base political theory and novels of relativistic fragmented origin to the supreme unity of the universe. It doesn't logically work that way.</p>

<p>Supreme power is not an excuse to do things for no reason. If God punishes based on lack of "faith" (a euphemism for baseless belief, if you ask me), then I reject his illegitimate authority, just as I would that of any other totalitarian. The rules DO apply.

[/QUOTE]

Your counter argument shows that you cannot think outside of your own little world. Tragic. Try again. You cannot reduce what I said to "supreme power is not an excuse to do things for no reason," because that is not what I said.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

I have read the Bible, and if that God existed, then I would be forced to hate him with every fiber of my being, since his existence and nature negate everything I value. God expects obedience; I will not obey blindly. He wants control; he will not get it from me. God is a dictator; the analogy applies. Put simply, I want to be a free individual.

[/QUOTE]

No, read the whole Bible, with an open mind, assume that it is true, even hypothetically, and you will understand. I hope that I have not overestimated you, but here you go on with your sophomoric application of political science.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
God is not defined. I believe that everything is logical, except God, because just as logic relies on assumptions to progress through reason, the idea of logic itself must have an assumption. As all else is encompassed by logic, logic is defined by God, who in turn is not defined. God bears (or is?) an eternal knowledge beyond our comprehension, beyond the limits of logic</p>

<p>Ah, I see. You have retreated to the position that God is above all criticism, since he possesses some mysterious property that makes him immune to logic and ethics. Remember: those who make the law are bound to live by it. You ask me to believe in a God who can contradict himself at whim, who can commit the most heinous of crimes without culpability. I cannot do that; if any entity decides that my freedom does not exist, I hold it responsible, omnipotent or not.

[/QUOTE]

It is not a retreat. You're not reading between the lines. Please try harder to understand, your pathetic approach right now is to take some remote, unrelated meaning from my argument and mince it to pieces. It's not going to work with me, I'll only accept criticism from those who understand my argument. I can clarify any questions, of course.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Sure we can. But what is 'bad'?</p>

<p>You are very close to asking me what the definition of "is" is. Bad is an adjective describing an undesirable action or set of circumstances. In this context, it would describe an action that ought not to be performed, such as murder or rape.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Yes, and it really is quite simple once you start to understand the Bible. I feel that Occam's razor serves the most purpose in utilitarian matters. I disagree with his idea that there is nothing beyond the individual. I feel that limiting your conception to follow the rule might be useful as a guide in an abstract sense, but to strictly adhere to it in attempting to discover truth is not wise, as truth very possibly could be extremely complicated.</p>

<p>There are three possible explanations as to why we consider murder to be bad:
1. It is bad because morality is a social construct, and our society says it's bad.
2. It is bad because God says it's bad.
3. It "just is," independent of any edict, human or otherwise. This explanation includes the idea that this is an objective principle that can be derived rationally, without recourse to human or divine fiat.</p>

<p>Although I believe a good case can be made for (1), I will not discuss it here. My point is that the only way I can be bound to this principle is (3); otherwise, it is arbitrary, and therefore illegitimate. If you want murder to be bad universally, not only is God's intervention unnecessary, it is contradictory.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

231

<p>3 is the most arbitrary of them all (there are also many many other explanations by the way). I don't see how a single act could be described as bad, it makes much more logical sense to link it to a universal (such as God, or some definition of 'bad'). This is a case where Occam's razor DOES apply! </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Quote:
If the quest for truth is only a pragmatism, and the underlying skepticism remains a possibility, then I would that think that still nothing matters.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter if, and only if, the underlying skepticism is true. If truth can be discovered by empiricism (the only hope we have), then it is certainly not trivial. If you disagree, I have some cyanide pills in my basement. j/k

[/QUOTE]

I do disagree, and have a Bible by my bedside :). Do not take this as a justification for my beliefs, however.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
It saddens me that you would limit the reaches of your thought deliberately so. Can science really explain, love for example? Even if you map out the exact brain processes, even if you can emulate it, is that all that it is? It seems that there has to be something more, because then our existence really is meaningless. I think that even the simplest individual sees things that science cannot, and science alone cannot account for art, for example.</p>

<p>You distort the meaning of my statement. I used the term "know" in the strictest epistemological sense, as in "to possess an objective truth." Remember that science consists of both observation and inference; we may observe love and conclude that it exists, and we may also use the scientific method to attempt to explain its existence. If it is impossible to explain it in naturalistic terms (a BIG if), then the truth will evade us forever. Similarly, aesthetics (art) are inherently subjective (as evidenced by the divergence of people's tastes), so there is no objective truth to be discovered about what makes good art, only individual preferences and opinions.

[/QUOTE]

I did not distort the meaning. I am NOT a naturalist, and I think there is much that can not be explained in naturalist terms. Additionally, there is much beyond that which is unexplainable in any terms. Beyond that is God. It is very narrow-minded and arrogant to assume that everything can be explained through naturalism, in my opinion. In terms of art, I feel that while some of the aesthetics are subjective, in great art there are universal qualities, perhaps indiscoverable, but existing.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
You see, as I have actually demonstrated (unlike what you prematurely conclude), you have to understand the Bible to understand it.</p>

<p>I would certainly hope so. And I'm pretty sure I do.

[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand basic Christian ideology, not to mention the complexities that I am drawing from. You do not understand it, and your attitude seems to be locking you into a particular mindset, don't let it! Determinism is self-imposed :D. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
"Tautology n. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow." -Dictionary.com</p>

<p>Basically, a redundancy. Another example: God is moral, since morality is what God says it is. Methinks I do know what it means.

[/QUOTE]

You're right. However, as I argued previously (which went right over your head), morality does not apply to God, because he says what it is.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Quote:
You’re right, the fact that the world’s waters are undrinkable, the rising threat of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, the thick smog surrounding every major city and responsible for the lung disease and deaths of untold babies, children and the elderly, etc….all are meaningless trifles compared to the Spanish Inquisition.</p>

<p>Science is neutral until it is used. Take the most horrible consequences of scientific discovery, for example the atomic bomb. Now put that in the context of all the lives saved from nuclear medicine and all the other results of atomic theory. If anything, science is inherently positive, since it provides us, if nothing else, with truth, which I value.

[/QUOTE]

Prove that science provides us with truth. If you cannot, science is not inherently positive, even assuming that truth is positive (which I can accept). You're trying to defend your presuppossed beliefs, instead of deriving new beliefs. Do you think that Christianity is inherently evil? It is about goodness and love! Until you understand it on the level that you at least can see why I am saying this, do not try to go up against it. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
You go on to list good Christians and bad atheists:
Your list means nothing. It speaks neither to the truth of any religion nor the consequences of religious belief. I could just as soon come up with an extensive list of bad people who were Christians and good people who were atheists. Additionally, your implicit conclusion is laughable. The fact that Shakespeare was a Chrisitan has nothing to do with his literary prowess. I could just as easily say that I'm good at math because I have a mole on my back. Correlation does not equal causation.

[/QUOTE]

I've happenned to have read the entire Bible and most of Shakespeare's works, well over half of the plays and every sugared sonnet. I can authoritatively and conclusively say that his literary prowess was very much directly derived from the concepts in the Bible. Correlation does not equal causation (scientists disagree), but I would say that except for the most unreasonable skepticism, Shakespeare's predominant influences were the Bible, the Homeric poems, and Christian thinkers. Additionally, in all of literature, those two influences taken together WITH Shakespeare form the broadest base of allusions by far. Christianity has influenced literature beyond any other force. But you cannot give credit where credit is due, because you are right. You do not understand why you are right, but you are. I concede to your glorious omnipotence, o vacuous one. </p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

The Theory of Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. Darwin launched a new era in science. These philosophers have all done a lot for the cause of truth, but with respect to human origins, Darwin is by far the dominant figure in gistory, seeing as how he discovered the science of origins, otherwise known as evolution.

[/QUOTE]

Your assessment reflects a profound ignorance of science. I pity the intelligent mind that refuses to expand its limits of perceptions, even while promoting the cause for truth, I truly do. Pease, only talk what you know, instead of walking your way into traps and stubbornly refusing to admit it.</p>

<p>Fountain, I've at least touched on some of the arguments, as have others, though not formally.</p>

232

<p>"There is on the other hand, an extraordinary amount of LOGICAL PROOF for the existence of an immaterial cause of life, and the universe."</p>

<p>If by logical you mean a priori, then I would like to see a proof. What sorts of axioms would be used to prove such a theorem? Or do you have to assume existence as an axiom? If there exists such a proof, I will gladly renounce my agnosticism and accept christianity. (I'm serious.)</p>

<p>"Most of the greatest minds and deepest thinkers in human history (by common agreement) found very convincing arguments for the existence of god. Moreover, they believed they were true and logical arguments. I suppose all those who doubt them have disproved them, in the same way that they have logically proved to themselves that gravity is a logical and scientific formula. To name merely a few of those being dismissed by the current crop of geniuses."</p>

<p>All of the thinkers that you have mentioned were no doubtly geniuses. But with respect to their having proofs of the existence of God is disputable. Clearly, each of them would not accept the arguments of the previous one, or why would they continue to furnish proofs? Being a "genius" about one thing does not mean that you are a genius about everything.</p>

<p>Most, if not all of those thinkers, and the most ardent "famous" defenders of christianity were raised in religious households. Who wants to be told to forget what they had grown up on? This is the same kind of attachment that gives rise to people who rejected the theory of continental drift and the theory of quantum mechanics; despite the large amounts of evidence presented.</p>

<p>A new point. Science is both empiricism and rationalism. We observe our sorroundings and then reason a cause. What is truth? Do we derive truth soley from our god-given abilities of rationality, or do we derive it from experience and observation? Be aware of the empirical and rational side. </p>

<p>Fact: Science begins with the making of observations.</p>

<p>Furthur more what is logic? Is it mutually exclusive from science? If it is not, then how can God be a "logical" "truth," if indeed observation is a necessary component of it? </p>

<p>Also, Wittgenstein had some interesting arguments about language and philosophy. I will go read some and come back later.</p>

233

<p>"existence of a chair floating through space"
This was merely an example to demostrate that I could "make a multitude of propositions that one could neither prove or disprove." What makes christianity more valid than Islam or Judaism? Is it because it says that it is the only truth? Sounds self-referential to me. If I say that I am God, and the Bible says that there is only one God and that it is not me, then we are at a stalemate. Your evidence derives from the bible which claims that it is the only truth. My evidence derives from my statement claming that I am God. Also the fact that many famous smart guys believed this does not make it any more valid, by the definition of god. Again, some of the people on your list believed that the world was flat. Does this mean that they were idiots? No. (oh, there is a connection here to empiricism and my previous post.)</p>

<p>George Berkeley is an interesting guy. I wil read about him also.</p>

<p>I just do not think that there is any evidence for or against, so I "choose" (if that means anything) to believe. There is no harm in that.</p>

234

<p>*To the best of my knowledge there is no LOGICAL PROOF for the existence of a chair with a coke bottle on it floating through space. *</p>

<p>Exactly - to the best of your knowledge. And lack of proof is not proof of non-existance. You cannot even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have a right hand. </p>

<p>One thing I have noticed throughout this thread is the fact that not a single person has seriously taken on any of the logical arguments for the existence of God.</p>

<p>I will - bring them on :)
Lay out your arguments premise by premise, and I will show you that there does not exist a valid argument for the existance of God.</p>

235

<p>Fountiansiren,
"I had no idea this thread was intended to be an atheist’s/skeptic's love-fest."</p>

<p>Heavens, no! I wouldn't want it to be a love-fest. But you can disagree and support your views logically without trying to insult or ridicule the other side. In fact, the non-ridiculing approach would probably be more effective, at least from my experience. </p>

<p>And I want to hear those logical proofs for god's existence, too.</p>

<p>And please, no more long lists of smart christians. Or slightly shorter lists of evil atheists. Mruncleramos has it right when he says that smart people can still be wrong.</p>

<p>videogamer,
"There is a realm of truth that science cannot touch."</p>

<p>You're absolutely right. Science can't begin to explain any philisophical or theological questions. But at the same time, religion should stop trying to pass itself off as science. For example, re-marketing creationism as intelligent design, a supposedly scientific theory, is an insult to religion and science. It ignores most of the theology, and passes off argumants as science that's, well, not.</p>

236

<p>don't you guys know this already - you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. He cannot be proven by logical deduction. This is a fact.</p>

<p>so get over this already, you guys are simply wasting time and effort.</p>

237

<p>baller, you can prove pretty much anything logically</p>

<p>it ties in with this:

[QUOTE]
All of the thinkers that you have mentioned were no doubtly geniuses. But with respect to their having proofs of the existence of God is disputable. Clearly, each of them would not accept the arguments of the previous one, or why would they continue to furnish proofs? Being a "genius" about one thing does not mean that you are a genius about everything.

[/QUOTE]

The proofs are likely all logically sound, however the assumptions might not be taken as given. For example, two simple proofs:
1.
given: a is true; if a is true, b is false
prove that b is false:
b is false because a is true</p>

<p>2.
given: c is true; if c is true, b is false
prove that b is false
b is false because a is true</p>

<p>While the proofs might be logically sound, if the logic is used by two thinkers, they might disagree on whether or not a and/or c are true, and the rest of the logic breaks down because the assumptions lose their validity.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
You're absolutely right. Science can't begin to explain any philisophical or theological questions. But at the same time, religion should stop trying to pass itself off as science. For example, re-marketing creationism as intelligent design, a supposedly scientific theory, is an insult to religion and science. It ignores most of the theology, and passes off argumants as science that's, well, not.

[/QUOTE]

While most advocates of intelligent design do just as you describe, supporting the concept of an orderly rather than random creation of the universe is a position that is feasible, potentially supported by scientific evidence, and has religious implications. A strictly scientific approach to proving intelligent design probably requires degrees of observation that will not be available for centuries, if ever. If the goal is truth, one could draw from heartfelt truth for a guiding light, with scientific inquiry to clarify the details. Whether it be through science, theology, or something else, any genuine investigative academic tries to approach the same universal truth, differences being accounted for by understandable misunderstandings :).</p>

238

<p>“For example, re-marketing creationism as intelligent design, a supposedly scientific theory, is an insult to religion and science. It ignores most of the theology, and passes off argumants as science that's, well, not.”</p>

<p>Jerzak et al,</p>

<p>Check out the thread below, particularly posts 28 & 30</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=85192&page=2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=85192&page=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>[Jerzak, careful with the spelling, it really rubs ‘eternal_hope2005’ the wrong way: ‘argumants’…don’t worry, I do the same stuff, just a heads up;)]</p>

239

<p>haha, ok so you redirect us to another thread, but unfortunately pafather is incorrect. Saying that "* The implication that intelligent design is not science is FALSE.*" is, well, false lol. Of course intelligent design is not science - it is a matter of faith.</p>

<p>baller, you can prove pretty much anything logically</p>

<p>Wow where did you get that idea. Pretty much anything, eh? All right then, prove that 2+2=5.</p>

240

<p>Icarus,</p>

<p>Well said, it was interesting to see you apply the scientific method and logical analysis to your fascinating and edifying critique.</p>

<p>“The implication that intelligent design is not science is FALSE." is, well, false lol. Of course intelligent design is not science - it is a matter of faith.”</p>

<p>There’s a post I wrote in the ID thread about Evolution and intelligent design. I refer you to that post. <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=85202&page=7%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=85202&page=7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It’s post 123. </p>

<p>“Wow where did you get that idea. Pretty much anything, eh? All right then, prove that 2+2=5.”</p>

<p>Of course most people can’t prove something that isn’t true, but I expect you’ll give it your best shot. </p>

<p>…………………</p>

<p>“Lay out your arguments premise by premise, and I will show you that there does not exist a valid argument for the existance of God.”</p>

<p>I would start with the argument from Intelligent Design, but I have been through it in the parent’s café—so I refer you to that forum. </p>

<p>When I was a little girl, I had a feeling that God existed, but I didn’t know why so I was always prone to skepticism. Then I came across this argument and was utterly convinced. </p>

<p>The Argument from Efficient Causality:</p>

<p>It goes like this. </p>

<p>1) Everything happening around us has been caused to happen. Can you think of anything that has no cause? For example, the effect of hearing a person talk is caused by that person talking; the effect of branches moving is caused by the wind or a squirrel running on the branch…etc. </p>

<p>2) If we trace all of these causes back—all the way back—we reach one of three possibilities:
a. An uncaused First Cause, who has caused everything else in the world to occur.
b. Nothing—beyond everything (all causes), there is nothing right? This makes no sense though: all of reality is dependent, but dependent on nothing? This is absurd because we all know that “nothing comes of nothing.”
c. An infinite regress of causes. This is logically impossible but sophomorically fascinating to some. </p>

<p>So logically, those who are not blinded by resentment and omnipotency are left with the conclusion that there IS a first cause. Call it what you want, a rose by any other name still smells as sweet; still, I call it God. </p>

<p>I also like this proof:</p>

<p>A. There is LOVE
B. Therefore there is a God
C. You either get this one, or you don’t</p>