Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by jockeys

The usual hermanuetical procession goes something like this: (exegetical students usually frown on this)
1. we will assume God exists, a priori
2. based on 1, God has made man special and distinct from the animals by giving him a soul and the ability to reason
3. based on 3, God expects us to use our brains and our ability to reason to their utmost capacity, because not to do so would be a waste and therefore (depending on your denomination) slightly blasphemous
4. since God exists and works outside the realm of conventional reason (cannot be directly observed (apart from Direct Revelation) and cannot be directly communicated with (apart from Special Revelation) and cannot be understood by mortal men (continually defies the laws of nature)) we cannot readily (or perhaps ever) be expected to have a belief in Him that stems from using our reason, and in fact seems to fly in the face of reason.
5. ergo, believing in God is unreasonable and illogical (in that it cannot be justified by reason and logic)

#4 is where the hermano- herman- whatever, breaks down. Direct observation is not the end of conventional reason. Can you observe love? It isn't rational to think that watching chemical reactions through a medical machine tuned in on someone's brain is the same as watching someone's love. Reason has plenty of room to include what is beyond the 5 senses - it extends into our interpretations and perceptions of what is going on around us. Reason is not limited to the directly observable. If your reasoning capabilities include recognizing love, they include recognizing God. To eliminate such reasoning capabilities as a modern intellectual is to do a disservice to oneself.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

There is no way of knowing that whatever compelling force that you feel is "the" God.

Sure there is

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

It could very well be any number of spiritual entities one could conceive of, correct? I mean, if one supernatural being can exist and induce feelings in human beings, how can we be sure that there aren't more

If they aren't going to make themselves known to you, why do you have any reason to think they exist?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

If we are given the capabilities of analyzing and cognizing, and put so much emphasis on knowing things in concrete terms, then why is it that God would require us to just believe, based on feelings, the one thing that so many humans struggle with

Based on feelings? Perish the thought! I wouldn't entrust my feelings with a steak dinner let alone the basis of my life's beliefs. Emphasizing concrete raw physical natural data is what we grow to be good at from our conception. We get input, and we respond based on our interpretations of that input, right? Isn't that only natural? But when you are old enough to understand that life is more than learning how to crawl or eat from a spoon you begin to realize there is more to life than the material world. There's love - is it not more than a feeling? There is freedom to make choices - the input around me cannot force me one way or another, I can choose this way or I can choose that way. What is that ability to choose, where does it come from? Life is more than the tools we use to describe the natural environment around us (science, mathematics, logic reason). To reiterate my earlier question, what specifically are you being asked to suspend in order to believe God? Is it only your nonbelief? If that's all, then is that not also irrational?

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

belief in the supernatural requires a momentary suspension of what our senses can perceive, which seems counter productive if God gave us those senses and made them so necessary to the understanding of our existence.

It's like if I train my dog, from an early age, to sit when I whistle, then expect him to shake as well, without any fore-warning. That would be a ridiculous expectation on my part. It just confuses me as to why that would be the case for understanding God.

It isn't a suspension, it's an extension. Go beyond the four corners of the natural box. Dare to admit God could be right next to you hoping you will simply look for him.

God didn't train me to learn how to use my five senses. That came naturally to me. It's what my body was designed to do. What I choose to do with it is my own decision. To let my body be dormant and only reflect all day on metaphysical concepts would do a disservice to my natural body wouldn't it? I'd starve to death. Maybe my soul would survive, but my body would rot. I dare to venture that if I continued to neglect any God-given human capacity for anything that over time I would become so accustomed to not using or thinking I needed it that I would never even consider its existence, let alone its importance.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Put simply:

Try as you might, with your highly developed brain which is the pinnacle, the very apex, of biological complexity in the Universe as we know it, you cannot "know" the entity that gave you that precious gift without, momentarily at least, abandoning it.

My natural brain is designed to help me interpret my natural world and to transfer the decisions I make to the rest of my body, isn't it? That's it. That's its purpose. A central idea dispenser for my body to act on. Why is it assumed that's all we've got with which to understand God? And again, what specifically do I have to lay aside in order to believe in God's existence?

But on the contrary, God didn't stop with my body, he gave me reason. He gave me freedom of choice. He gave me what animals don't have - something that separates me from them. What other species compares to us? What is it that makes us so different? Don't animals have brains with which they can sort out their natural environments? Yet they don't build churches or medical laboratories. We were created with something else. That something else, whatever it is, is what I endeavor to use most of all. And by allowing into it the possibility of God's existence, he has proven himself to me time and time again both with natural evidences, and with supernatural. Both with feeling and without. For me to deny his existence would be absurd. And if he has never once even remotely made any sort of effort to make himself known to you, then for you to deny his existence would be natural, and only natural.

How do I know God is the God of the Bible? I was fascinated when I discovered that what I had learned about God was in the Bible already. I had already discovered that to come to God, I first had to admit that he could exist, and that if he did that he could surely show himself. And then years later I read that anyone who comes to God must first believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently look for him. Fascinating! I found that in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God so that my faith would not be rooted in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Should I really base my faith in my creator on what he created? I would think that by simple definition, the Creator would be greater, not less, than the created. Believing in God doesn't diminish what I can perceive about my natural material surroundings, but in fact increases what I can understand about him from them.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

And again, what specifically do I have to lay aside in order to believe in God's existence?
...to come to God, I first had to admit that he could exist, and that if he did that he could surely show
himself.

The admission that something can exist which you have previously seen absolutely no evidence for, of which no logical argument has ever supported, and is entirely outside of the realm of what can be proven by the means that apply to every other entity which is known to exist is a momentary abandonment of the rational mind. You said it yourself, you had to decide to be convinced of his existence; this is a decision in the absence of convincing proof, a "leap of faith", a lapse in reason.

Craig said it too, at some point he asked God for help, which was, at the time, counter to his logical, empirical, and intellectual experiences.

The results of these lapses have been increased knowledge of that which was presupposed on an invalid basis. Cyclical thinking, if you will.

So I would like to throw my hat in the fire, but done have time to read to catch up on what is going on in the last 25 pages. I saw soemthing about how do I know God exists. The (main)answer was answered for me by Doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas.

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.
2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.


I also belive that in God we must use both Faith and Reason. I would also like to add that I am a theology and art major that struggels very much with his faith the more he chooses to explore it through critical thinking and exegesis.

I don't mean to be aggressive, but you're wrong on all counts, Akady. I'd like to encourage you to click the Critical Thinking link in my signature. I find it very helpful whenever somebody makes me an argument.

1. The only thing which can be identified as a 'first mover' is the big bang. Remember, you're looking for evidence.
2. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS #1! ... honestly.
3. I don't know where to start with this one. You're making too many fallacious assumptions and a contingent being is a mystery term intended to mislead. You even say that if contingent beings exist then everything must be contingent. That's like saying that because I have an apple everybody must.
4. Greatness is another human creation. The universe doesn't really care about your value judgments. Only people do.
5. Very wrong. What end does the shark have, but to fill his stomach. He requires no supernatural hand to do so. There is no need and no sign of it being otherwise.

I think you should read the thread. I also think you're better off to abandon the notion of finding reasons to believe in your god. Just like the shark, you don't need one either.

Peace and Love always,

X
I think this is evidence to support my prior claim.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The admission that something can exist which you have previously seen absolutely no evidence for, of which no logical argument has ever supported...

Not really, Russell. It's just like believing anything else. I didn't recognize the evidences as being evidences of God before I was open to discovering him. Electricity has always been around, but it wasn't discovered until the 18th century; it was there but nobody really understood what to look for or why they should look for it. Someone had to look at an effect they perceived and say, "I will admit the possibility that there is more to that than I currently know." Logical argument supports his existence: God has done what he said he would do and continues to do what he says he would.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

...and is entirely outside of the realm of what can be proven by the means that apply to every other entity which is known to exist is a momentary abandonment of the rational mind. You said it yourself, you had to decide to be convinced of his existence; this is a decision in the absence of convincing proof, a "leap of faith", a lapse in reason.

What entities are known to exist? I know God exists, I know love exists, and I know that reason exists. They don't exist as exclusively material entities but yet they exist. To admit the existence of what exists is entirely rational. I have to decide to be convinced of everything I am convinced of. I have that option to either choose to accept or deny every evidence that is ever presented to me about anything. My decision to admit the possibility of proof is what led me to the proof. To ignore the proofs of the existence of the immaterial in order to help support an entirely materialistic way of thinking is to leave reason behind

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Craig said it too, at some point he asked God for help, which was, at the time, counter to his logical, empirical, and intellectual experiences.

The results of these lapses have been increased knowledge of that which was presupposed on an invalid basis. Cyclical thinking, if you will.

My doubts weren't based on any material evidence that pointed against God's existence, they were simply based on my perceived absence of such evidence. I presupposed that God shouldn't exist because I had never directly seen, heard, felt, or otherwise sensed him with my natural senses. But I learned later on that is no reason by itself to disbelieve anything. But if in addition to that I never see the effects of something or the necessity of something, or even the possibility of something, then I have no reason at all to believe it. Like I have been trying to explain, reason is not exclusive to the material world as reason itself is immaterial

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Can you observe love? It isn't rational to think that watching chemical reactions through a medical machine tuned in on someone's brain is the same as watching someone's love. Reason has plenty of room to include what is beyond the 5 senses - it extends into our interpretations and perceptions of what is going on around us. Reason is not limited to the directly observable. If your reasoning capabilities include recognizing love, they include recognizing God. To eliminate such reasoning capabilities as a modern intellectual is to do a disservice to oneself.

This largely depends upon how you define love. I define love thusly:

"The intellectual decision to put the needs of another before your own."

That's it. It's not an emotion. That's lust. It's not that crazy feeling you get when you have a crush on someone. That's infatuation.

By my definition, you can observe love quite easily. By your definition (which I'm guessing at) you can still observe love. You say it isn't rational to think that "watching chemical reactions" is the same as observing love. Well, if you define love as an emotion (and I'm guessing you are) then that is exactly rational. Emotions are chemicals in your head. No more, no less.

I really don't see how admitting this demonstrable truth is doing a "disservice" to myself. If anything, these realizations have vastly improved the quality of my life.

Originally Posted by jockeys

This largely depends upon how you define love. I define love thusly:

"The intellectual decision to put the needs of another before your own."

That's it. It's not an emotion. That's lust. It's not that crazy feeling you get when you have a crush on someone. That's infatuation.

I agree. Love is a decision. I discussed this earlier that yours and my freedom of choice is yet another immaterial yet rational quality in our lives. Love is a concept and although it is immaterial, it is still real. It needn't be a directly observable material energy or object in order to exist. It exists because we choose to accept the proofs of its existence. You can't convince me my wife doesn't love me Although there are times I think I test that of her, hehe

Originally Posted by jockeys

By my definition, you can observe love quite easily.

Not the way Russell was saying you must observe in order to keep from having to suspend logic and reason.

Originally Posted by jockeys

By your definition (which I'm guessing at) you can still observe love. You say it isn't rational to think that "watching chemical reactions" is the same as observing love. Well, if you define love as an emotion (and I'm guessing you are) then that is exactly rational. Emotions are chemicals in your head. No more, no less.

I don't define love as an emotion - regardless of how I define it though, can you prove that emotions are nothing more than chemicals in my head? Or to put it another way, do you think that what is good enough for proof to you is good enough proof for me? I am more skeptical? You'll receive evidence of things as proof that I never would, and quite likely vice versa

Originally Posted by jockeys

I really don't see how admitting this demonstrable truth is doing a "disservice" to myself. If anything, these realizations have vastly improved the quality of my life.

I know you don't see it... Just as I don't see how admitting the demonstrable truth of God is doing a disservice to myself. You use immaterial decisions to decide that only the material exists. I think that is fascinating

So I would like to throw my hat in the fire, but done have time to read to catch up on what is going on in the last 25 pages. I saw soemthing about how do I know God exists. The (main)answer was answered for me by Doctor of the Church Thomas Aquinas.

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.
2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.


I also belive that in God we must use both Faith and Reason. I would also like to add that I am a theology and art major that struggels very much with his faith the more he chooses to explore it through critical thinking and exegesis.

Originally Posted by xman

I don't mean to be aggressive, but you're wrong on all counts, Akady. I'd like to encourage you to click the Critical Thinking link in my signature. I find it very helpful whenever somebody makes me an argument.

1. The only thing which can be identified as a 'first mover' is the big bang. Remember, you're looking for evidence.
2. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS #1! ... honestly.
3. I don't know where to start with this one. You're making too many fallacious assumptions and a contingent being is a mystery term intended to mislead. You even say that if contingent beings exist then everything must be contingent. That's like saying that because I have an apple everybody must.
4. Greatness is another human creation. The universe doesn't really care about your value judgments. Only people do.
5. Very wrong. What end does the shark have, but to fill his stomach. He requires no supernatural hand to do so. There is no need and no sign of it being otherwise.

I think you should read the thread. I also think you're better off to abandon the notion of finding reasons to believe in your god. Just like the shark, you don't need one either.

Peace and Love always,

X
I think this is evidence to support my prior claim.

1&2-Aha, the Big Bang. All very scientific and all; exploding gases, mind boggling physics, etc, ect.

Did the Big Bang just happen out of nothingness all by itself? If all of the known universe expanded out of the big bang, what came prior to it? All this matter, all that energy. Saying the first mover was the Big Bang is describing an event, not what or Who may have caused that event to happen. Like saying a firecracker went off. OK, fine, but who lit the firecracker? Where did the firecraker come from?

3. I believe the point being made is that we are all here, but where did that all start from? It is contingent on something coming before us. Follow that back to the very first thing, and where does that leave you? Lighning bolts and primordial soup? Or some other sort of creation?

4. Number 4 for me rests on number one above. Can everything have come out of nothing? No. It had to come from something, i.e.- something greater.

5. Somewhere above mention was made of it taking multiple generations for monarch butterflies to complete their migrational journeys. How does the offspring know where to take up the trail? And their offspring to know where to return to? A shark may have the brainpower to know "I'm hungry"and head for the nerest beach...How much brainpower does a butterfly posess? How about a spider? How do they know how to spin a web? I don't think it's handed down from father to son, it's somehow innate.


Welcome to the thread Akady! Be on your gaurd!

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

regardless of how I define it though, can you prove that emotions are nothing more than chemicals in my head?

Can you prove that there is MORE to emotion than chemicals in your head? So far, the only observable physical evidence of emotions we have is chemicals in your head. That is solid, material evidence. Thus I believe it. This is rational, logical and repeatable. I cannot prove that there is not some unobservable component of emotion. That would defy the very nature of proof.

But, neither can it be proven that there IS an unobservable component of emotion. The difference is I do not believe in the unprovable, you do. The belief in the unprovable is not something I understand. I suppose you could call that fascinating.