Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 478812

Shown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

God

Posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2005, at 3:41:28

Aquinas' First Way

(i) In the natural world we observe that some objects are in motion.
(ii) In the natural world a thing only gets to be in motion by being acted on by another thing.
(iii) In the natural world there are no infinite cause and effect chains.
--------------------
(iv) There must be some super-natural being (beyond and prior to the natural world) to set the first moving thing in the natural world in motion.
--------------------
(v) Hence, God exists.


In case anyone is worried about the truth of (iii) Aquinas offered an independent argument for that. I'll adapt it a little...

(i) You are now sitting in front of your computer.
(ii) That event didn't just spring into being all by itself, there was a causal chain leading up to it.
(iii) A causal chain that is infinitely long would (by definition) lack a first member.
(iv) If it lacked a first member then the subsequent chain could not have occured.
-------------------
(v) So because of (i) causal chains cannot be infinitely long.


Typically we consider these arguments and evaluate them. Consider whether they work or not and their merits and flaws.

The major thing is that all it shows the existence of (if it works to that extent) is a First Mover. We don't know what attributes that first mover has (whether it is omni-god for example). But Aquinas knew that. He didn't think one could find God in his totality by following deductive arguments. But he thought it was a way to see an aspect of God.

Another thing is that we don't know that all causal chains extend back to the same first mover or first cause. There could be a different number of causal chains where each chain has a seperate and distinct first mover or cause.

But anyway - the point is that it seems to be an indicator that there needs to exist a super-natural being (of the logically prior to nature kind) in order for the world to exist.

In one of my tuts this just struck us as valid.
Typically it does not.
But that day it did.
I offered the criticisms I usually offer (from the text) - but nobody found them compelling.
Not even me.
They were swiftly disposed of.
Wow.
I love tuts like that.

Faith.
:-)

 

Re: God alexandra_k

Posted by rayww on April 2, 2005, at 9:46:57

In reply to God, posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2005, at 3:41:28

alexandra_k,
Now that we have that established......
Does God love?
Does God inspect?
Does God expect?
Does God continue to create?
Does God command the elements?
Do the elements obey God?
Why isn't man compelled to obey?

Can the answer to all of the above be found in one simple phrase? And can that one simple phrase be proven with logic and science?

 

Re: God

Posted by Spriggy on April 2, 2005, at 16:39:33

In reply to Re: God alexandra_k, posted by rayww on April 2, 2005, at 9:46:57

Oh wow, my brain hurts now..

You guys are waaay too deep for this blondey.

But it's good stuff!

 

Re: God rayww

Posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2005, at 16:55:28

In reply to Re: God alexandra_k, posted by rayww on April 2, 2005, at 9:46:57

> Now that we have that established......

Well... I am not sure that it is 'established'. But it strikes me as compelling... More compelling than it ever has before. The crucial bits (IMO) are that cause and effect chains can't be infinitely long. And then in the independent argument for that the premise that a cause and effect chain that is infinitely long does not have a first member. I think all the rest hangs on the truth of those...

> Does God love?

Is he omni-benevolent?

> Does God inspect?
> Does God expect?
> Does God continue to create?

Or did he just set up the natural laws and let nature run its course?

> Does God command the elements?
> Do the elements obey God?

Is God subject to the natural laws or did he create them himself?
What about the logical laws?

> Why isn't man compelled to obey?

Is it better to have free will?

> Can the answer to all of the above be found in one simple phrase?

I am not sure what you mean. Each one is a major question and there are a lot of factors to consider...

>And can that one simple phrase be proven with logic and science?

I don't know. But if we don't think logic or science will help us then we have given up before we have even begun.

> [Aquinas] didn't think one could find God in his totality by following deductive arguments. But he thought it was a way to see an aspect of God.

He thought it might be a way to show the sceptic.

People differ in their opinions...
We usually start the first tutorial on this section of the course with the question 'if god exists then is it impertinent to try to prove or disprove this fact by using argument / reason?'.

Some people think it is impertinent.

Other people think that reason is a gift from god. He gave it to us so that we could use it. In using it in this way (to try to show the sceptic) we are using this tool that god has given us to further glorify him.

Something to think about...

 

Re: God

Posted by Buckeye Fan on April 2, 2005, at 20:37:21

In reply to Re: God rayww, posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2005, at 16:55:28

Here's some more to think about ...from God Word the Bible...

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

BF

 

Re: God Buckeye Fan

Posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2005, at 21:12:28

In reply to Re: God, posted by Buckeye Fan on April 2, 2005, at 20:37:21

> Here's some more to think about ...from God Word the Bible...
>
> Hebrews 11:6
> But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Yup.
You can't get there via reason alone...
It always comes back to faith.

But it is like how some people find beauty in a carefully crafted poem.

I find beauty in a carefully crafted argument.

Both can work to sing his praise...

 

Re: God

Posted by Dinah on April 2, 2005, at 21:18:16

In reply to Re: God Buckeye Fan, posted by alexandra_k on April 2, 2005, at 21:12:28

I've never understood pure faith...

Because the only way to have it is if everyone believed what their parents believed. And many peoples' parents believe different things. And many of the things are mutually exclusive.

I got in trouble in school for trying to encourage a group of girls to go to different churches, synagogues, and temples each weekend. To diligently search for Truth. Because when you're raised by two parents from two religions that claim to be the only true Truth, you pretty much figure out that you're going to have to reason before you believe.

 

Re: God Dinah

Posted by alexandra_k on April 3, 2005, at 1:13:18

In reply to Re: God, posted by Dinah on April 2, 2005, at 21:18:16

> I've never understood pure faith...

I think faith just takes off where reason stops. Is it more mysterious to believe that the world just sprang into being of its own accord, or that there was a first mover / first cause?

Both are strange...

Reason can't decide between them. So to believe is a matter of faith.

We have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. That the future will be fairly much like the past (in that the planets and seasons and day and night will continue with their regular patterns). Reason can't tell us that they will. But we believe that they will and we expect it. But it comes down to a matter of faith. Because no ammount of the past can justify what the future will be like. And no amount of reason can tell us god exists. But we can construct (IMO) beautiful arguments to express our faith...


 

Re: God

Posted by rayww on April 3, 2005, at 9:36:44

In reply to Re: God, posted by Dinah on April 2, 2005, at 21:18:16

Dinah, did you ever think you were brought up with the best from both worlds? (glass half full)

With the death of Pope John Paul II the world is taking a closer look at the good he has done. Yesterday's opening remarks at General Conference by President Hinckley (94) paid tribute to the greatness of the Pope, and his unwavering stand on moral values.

Truth and reason go hand in hand.

> I've never understood pure faith...

<<<Pure faith is faith in God that is strong enough to move something, through His grace. http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=jacob+4%3A5-7&search.x=31&search.y=10
(600 BC Belief in Jesus, God, and in the Law of Moses, uniting Christians and Jews)

>
> Because the only way to have it is if everyone believed what their parents believed. And many peoples' parents believe different things. And many of the things are mutually exclusive.
>
> I got in trouble in school for trying to encourage a group of girls to go to different churches, synagogues, and temples each weekend. To diligently search for Truth. Because when you're raised by two parents from two religions that claim to be the only true Truth, you pretty much figure out that you're going to have to reason before you believe.


<<You still have a lot of emotion anchored there, I can feel it.

 

Re: God rayww

Posted by Dinah on April 3, 2005, at 10:33:59

In reply to Re: God, posted by rayww on April 3, 2005, at 9:36:44

Yeah, I guess I do. My father swore the mixed church upbringing would turn me into an agnostic. And maybe it did for a time (helped along by my college religion courses).

But that didn't stop him from insisting I go to *his* church. When he threatened to stop my allowance if I didn't go to his church as well as my mother's, I went from going sporadically to his church to not at all. It felt like being paid to go to church, and that I could not do under my ethical code. So I never got allowance again. :)

My husband and I worked hard on finding a denomination we both could belong to, so that our son wouldn't have my experience.

But I hope that doesn't mean he'll just believe what we tell him. I'd rather he earnestly sought the truth in intellect and study, then made the final leap of faith backed by reason.

 

Re: God

Posted by Buckeye Fan on April 3, 2005, at 14:52:07

In reply to Re: God Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 3, 2005, at 1:13:18


The 11th chapter of the book of Hebrews is a great chapter that helped me partially understand
Faith..here are just 3 verses from that great Chapter...

Hebrews 11
11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

11:2
For by it the elders obtained a good report.

11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

BF


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.