[sndbay]

I am not sure about God.
I dont' know if he is real.

Understood...

I am not meaning to offend anybody here at all, so please, don't take it personally. I Just can't find myself to agree 100%

No offence taken

Although I live by what one would call "christian values" I see no proof in God. I believe he is a possibility.

You mean to love your neighbor, and believe in being a good person not wanting to hurt people.

If you indeed believe God is possible, why not seek answers from him? Call upon HIM

As many times as I've been preached to, I'm still reluctant.

I'm not looking to be preached to either, so please, do not.

Nope won't preach, that happens in church with sermons

I am very happy for the people that can believe so strongly, And I admire them, but I can not bring myself to completely agree.

Why do you wish to express this here on a thread?

It just seems very Naive to believe in something that one can not see, or touch.
I feel like sometimes people fool themselves into believing that God has sent them a message.

I allow people their feeling, they have intuitive behaviors, and instinctively know fear and love.

To me, God is a creation of man. I"m not sure if he is real, or if he really is a higher being.

Have you tried to call HIM or talk with HIM?

When people say that they love God, it kind of makes me laugh in irony. Not to chastize.

Just because a child has an imaginary friend that they 'have a relationship" of sorts with, does not mean that this imaginary friend is real.
Maybe it's just a piece of themselves that they wish they could be, or the part they want stronger. Something that they wished they had, but do not. They are not sure how to gain it, so they create something that has it.

In some ways I think it might be similar. Somone to talk things over with, and find a safe and loving feeling in their heart about having such a wonderful friend. But of course we know they are assured in their love by their belief

Thus why people would create a higher being.

I trust it is just to know who created them, who put the pebble in the path they walked that morning. Can we count on man to do it all? I don't think so..

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm saying that people worship imaginary friends. Because essentially, that is what I'm saying. But not necessarily in that context. I can relate them, or draw a direct parallel, if you will.

Understood, and again no offence taken

I want to believe, but I am unable.

I trust that if you want to, then in time you will. But I won't say why I know that, because it's not the time.

Input would be nice, but really, please, do not preach. Although I agree with christian values, I can not be converted into believing completely. I am NOT Athiest.

What we want, we usually go after.

[Alty]

Have you tried to call HIM or talk with HIM?

Sndbay, I respect your beliefs but really, have you talked to God?

Why would "God" take time to talk to mere mortals?

[sndbay]

Sndbay, I respect your beliefs but really, have you talked to God?

Why would "God" take time to talk to mere mortals?

The answer is yes. I posted one of the most recent on thread "Prophetic message about the US" #81

Acts 2:17-18 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy

[Alty]

The answer is yes. I posted one of the most recent on thread "Prophetic message about the US" #81

Acts 2:17-18 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy

You're preaching the bible.

Read the OP, that's not what she wants.

Answer me this. Why would God talk to humans, he's God!

[sndbay]

Answer me this. Why would God talk to humans, he's God!

Answer why Our Father in Heaven spoke through His begotten Son.

Scripture says as I posted God's servants will have the Spirit poured out on them, and they shall prophesy. Most know this as the latter rain that comes before the harvest. We are in the last days, and soon all will have their answers.

Now this is off thread, but out of respect for you, I answered your question.

~in Christ

[JoeT777]

See the thing is, is that I don't believe that everything that makes me happy is good. I don't believe that lot of things that normally makes anyone happy is good, and in contrast, not everything that makes me unhappy is necessarily bad, but can be looked at as something that makes me stronger. I'm not Hedonistic, just doubtful. Don't confuse the two.

I apologize if my comment was understood as offensive. It was intended as a call for introspection, no offense was intended.

The response seems to indicate that it's 'strengthening' when unhappy events (of the non-bad type) occur. To what end is this strengthening aimed? Does it make one a better person or does it just form a callus? But, wouldn't being 'better' be subjective without a living God? By what rule do we judge without a God?

JoeT

[ohsohappy]

I apologize if my comment was understood as offensive. It was intended as a call for introspection, no offense was intended.

The response seems to indicate that it’s 'strengthening' when unhappy events (of the non-bad type) occur. To what end is this strengthening aimed? Does it make one a better person or does it just form a callus? But, wouldn’t being ‘better’ be subjective without a living God? By what rule do we judge without a God?

JoeT

I don't believe that humans need God in order to feel that the actions they take are right and wrong. Some people would say that it's kind of like the golden rule "don't do to others what you would not want done to yourself" It's common sense to most people. (Although I've noticed more and more that although it's common sense, quite a few people choose not to live by it for their own selfish reasons, and choose not to consider others.) That does not necessarily mean that people need to incorporate God in to whatever sort of values they would want to live by.

And as far as unhappy events making one stronger, I mean that if people people open up, they can learn from those unhappy events, and use what they've learned to shape their own ways of life.

[Mayniac]

I don't believe that humans need God in order to feel that the actions they take are right and wrong. Some people would say that it's kind of like the golden rule "don't do to others what you would not want done to yourself" It's common sense to most people. (Although I've noticed more and more that although it's common sense, quite a few people choose not to live by it for their own selfish reasons, and choose not to consider others.)

This is true. But a lot of people use god to help them decide what actions are right or wrong. You need to decide yourself whether you want to do this or not. It's all up to you, and I don't think anybody on this thread will really help with this.

[arcura]

cadillac59,
You may think it is hilarious, but I do not.
I'm very serious about first cause and the other things I said
The difference is that I understand it from a deist point of view.
Everything has a beginning except God. God is infinite and eternal or He is not God.
God is existence. Without God the is no existence.
By the way deism is a religion of the belief in and some worship of a god or supreme being.
Some deist groups have their own meeting places.
I'm a believer in Intelligent Design for it makes very good sense to me if believed in as I do.
The mathematical possibility of the universe and life is just one chance in several trillion years and we live in a universe of just several billion years old.
I mentioned quantum mechanics and physics.
I have read books by people in those fields who were once atheist but no longer are.
One of them has become an Anglican Priest while still a quantum physicist.
Yes I believe in science and even evolution which is still going on even in us human beings.
Modern genetics and the code have shown that to be true.
I just read several articles on that in an issue of Discover Magazine.
The more I read and study the more my belief strengthens.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Alty]

By the way deism is a religion of the belief in and some worship of a god or supreme being.
Some deist groups have their own meeting places.

I've never ever seen or been to such a meeting place Fred and I'm a Deist.

I'd be interested to learn where these meeting places are.

[TUT317]

"I'm very serious about first cause and the other things I said
The difference is that I understand it from a deist point of view.
Everything has a beginning except God."

There are many problems with first cause arguments. At the moment the best we can say is that they are a hypothesis ( yet to be proven true or false).

In the philosophy part of this website, under the sub-heading,' Science and Religion' I have contributed an argument in defence of metaphysics (this includes first cause arguments).

[arcura]

Tut,
I know of no problem with first cause simply because everything has a first cause except God.
There are other causes such as second and third or more but there is only one cause that is first for everything.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[ohsohappy]

Ha that's one thing that I could never make sense of. How can God NOT have a beginning? Is there really a beginning? And absolute, defined, cut and dry, simple as pie beginning? Where does THAT beginning come from? How does it come from nothing?
It makes absolutely NO sense to me.
I'ts like numbers, there's no beginning or end, but HOW is that possible? I don't get it?
Pi has a definite beginning, and no definite end, that I can make sense of, but absolurely NO beginning? It hurts my head.

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=arcura;1990985]Tut,
I know of no problem with first cause simply because everything has a first cause except God.
There are other causes such as second and third or more but there is only one cause that is first for everything.

Fred, I wish it did but everything we experience doesn't have a first cause. Everything would be a lot simpler if there was a first cause for everything.

It is impossible to say with certainty that any observable sequence of events which we witness has a first cause. Causes and effects require no beginning since they can be conceived indefinitely, forward or backwards. For example, we cannot say for certain that it was the falling branch which broke his arm, after all the wind caused the branch to fall. But wasn't it the low pressure system which caused the wind to blow in the first place and so on indefinitely.

We have no means to employ our reason to confidently say that we have arrived at the end of our quest for cause and effect.In other words, we cannot tell when a series of cause and effects has been started or completed.( Ohsohappy makes reference to first terms in mathematics. This is a different 'kettle of fish' and needs to be treated separately).

As Hume says, cause and effect is merely an act of the mind as it structures experience. Out mind forces us to see events in an orderly fashion in preference to seeing things in a haphazard way.

Things become even more tenuous when we try to extend out knowledge of cause and effect beyond the material world. As Kant says, when we try to reason beyond our categories of understanding we run into all sorts of problems. It is extremely difficult to summarize 'categories of understanding' in a few sentences. It is even more difficult to summarize it in the context of the topic at hand. But here goes.

The physical world provides us with the boundaries for our facility of reason. It is an illusion to think that we can reason beyond the limits set by the categories. The difficulty which prevents us from developing any FIRST CAUSE METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENT is that there is no way to determine if our mental apparatus is applicable to anything beyond the world of experience.

Keep up the good work Fred

Regards

Dave

[JoeT777]

Tut,
I know of no problem with first cause simply because everything has a first cause except God.
There are other causes such as second and third or more but there is only one cause that is first for everything.

Fred, I wish it did but everything we experience doesn't have a first cause. Everything would be a lot simpler if there was a cause to know that there exist some cause; e.g. by observation we know that the attraction of bodies, called gravity, is directly related to mass. Yet, we don't know what physical not know how this force works in nature.

It is impossible to say with certainty that any observable sequence of events which we witness has a first cause. Causes and effects require no beginning since they can be conceived indefinitely, forward or backwards. For example, we cannot say for certain that it was the falling branch which broke his arm, after all the wind caused the branch to fall. But wasn't it the low pressure system which caused the wind to blow in the first place and so on indefinitely.

This confuses the ability to 'know the measure of' with causality that determines the ultimate agent of that cause. The physicist doesn't need to the know the objective state of an event to know that it exists, e.g. the phenomenon of gravity exist and is defined as attraction of two buddies proportional to their mass, but the physical or scientific reason for this attraction is yet unknown. What the principle of 'first cause' asks is whether there is adequate reason for an event that exists outside itself. Both the philosopher and the physicist observing any phenomena will observe certain effects that cannot exist without a cause external of itself. These questions can be asked of each event whose cause is subsequently investigated in a like manner until the 'first cause' is determined. This phenomenon can be asked of all causes existing in the cosmos, whether natural or spiritual; each has a finite number of iterations that resolve to the first cause which is Theism. The final conclusion as to the universe as a whole will result to a single entity, whose existence is not caused, whose intelligent will is the First Cause, i.e. God. (see St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q44,1)

St. Aquinas also explains the existence of God as the source of all Change:

Manifested motion
Efficient cause
Possibility and necessity
Perfection of order
Intelligence of the design
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q2,3)

As Hume says, cause and effect is merely an act of the mind as it structures experience. Out mind forces us to see events in an orderly fashion in preference to seeing things in a haphazard way.

Things become even more tenuous when we try to extend out knowledge of cause and effect beyond the material world. As Kant says, when we try to reason beyond our categories of understanding we run into all sorts of problems. It is extremely difficult to summarize 'categories of understanding' in a few sentences. It is even more difficult to summarize it in the context of the topic at hand. But here goes.

The physical world provides us with the boundaries for our facility of reason. It is an illusion to think that we can reason beyond the limits set by the categories. The difficulty which prevents us from developing any FIRST CAUSE METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENT is that there is no way to determine if our mental apparatus is applicable to anything beyond the world of experience.

Keep up the good work Fred
Regards
Dave

Hume is a naturalist, that all must be proven through an ideal view of nature. Hume postulates that God is 'all' of reality. From this is presumed that "ALL" cannot have components; within ALL, all must be homogeneous and good. But, since the universe contains the malevolent then it cannot be homogenous which leads to the conclusion that it cannot be all good. Hume, basically comes down on the side of uncertainty of First Cause, it's not that there isn't a first cause only that science cannot know that God is that first cause. Hume definitely fits the schools of naturalism, materialism and idealism which at best are agnostic.

“Given these considerations regarding the causes of evil, and the limits of human understanding, what is the most reasonable hypothesis concerning the first cause of the universe? Philo dismisses the suggestion that the first cause is either perfectly good or perfectly malevolent on the ground that “mixed phenomena” can never prove either of the unmixed principles as the first cause. This leaves only two other possibilities. Either the first cause has both goodness and malice or it has neither. Philo argues that the steady and orderly nature of the world suggests that no such (Manichean) “combat” between good and evil is going on. So the most plausible hypothesis is that “the original source of all things” is just as indifferent about “good above ill” as it is about heat above cold (D, 113-4). Nature is blind and uncaring regarding such matters and there is no basis for the supposition that the world has been created with human or animal happiness or comfort in mind. Any supposition of this kind is nothing better than an anthropomorphic prejudice (EU, 11.27/146; cp. D, 100).” Hume on Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[TUT317]

"Hume is a naturalist, that all must be proven through an ideal view of nature. Hume postulates that God is ‘all’ of reality. From this is presumed that "ALL" cannot have components; within ALL, all must be homogeneous and good. But, since the universe contains the malevolent then it cannot be homogenous which leads to the conclusion that it cannot be all good. Hume, basically comes down on the side of uncertainty of First Cause, it’s not that there isn’t a first cause only that science cannot know that God is that first cause. Hume definitely fits the schools of naturalism, materialism and idealism which at best are agnostic".

Hi Joe and thanks for the reply. If it is OK with you I will deal with some of the last points you made first. No particular reason for this.

I cannot see how Hume is in any way an IDEALIST. He is definitely not a metaphysical idealist and there may be some confusion over epistemological idealism here. He is a skeptic but no in the same sense as Berkeley who is a skeptic and an idealist. Hume is not saying that objects of experience exist only in the mind. He is definitely an empiricist in regard to physical objects.

In your quotes from the 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' I don't agree with your interpretation of Hume. Yes, your are right, Hume is not denying the possibility of a first cause. His conclusion is there may be a first cause or causes in the universe that bear some remote analogy to human intelligence, but this is as far as he is prepared to go.

Hume has always held his position in relation to our inability to establish anything about the characteristics of this first cause, if it exists. Therefore, we cannot establish any meaningful hypothesis how this cause might be related to us. For example, the problem of good and evil in the world.

[JoeT777]

Hi Joe and thanks for the reply. If it is OK with you I will deal with some of the last points you made first. No particular reason for this.

I cannot see how Hume is in any way an IDEALIST. He is definitely not a metaphysical idealist and there may be some confusion over epistemological idealism here. He is a skeptic but no in the same sense as Berkeley who is a skeptic and an idealist. Hume is not saying that objects of experience exist only in the mind. He is definitely an empiricist in regard to physical objects.

I have no problem with how you want to label Hume. The OP questions the existence of God, not what label we apply to Hume.

In your quotes from the 'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' I don't agree with your interpretation of Hume. Yes, you are right; Hume is not denying the possibility of a first cause. His conclusion is there may be a first cause or causes in the universe that bear some remote analogy to human intelligence, but this is as far as he is prepared to go.

Hume has always held his position in relation to our inability to establish anything about the characteristics of this first cause, if it exists. Therefore, we cannot establish any meaningful hypothesis how this cause might be related to us. For example, the problem of good and evil in the world.

From what little I know of Hume, it seems he was particularly challenged by things beyond his sensual perception. It seems to me that such perception is sterile, and whatever conclusion he drew were a cynic's postulates. Hume's approach on morals seemed consistent if not supportive of Utilitarianism. I've always taken Utilitarianism as a sort of 'justification' for 'if-it-feels-good,-collectively-it-can-be-made-a-moral-virtue'. One important obstacle, he was unable to overcome was how to reconcile the pursuit of happiness with the moral virtue of charity.

Furthermore, Hume's philosophies are part and parcel of modern liberalism. In part they were combined with the philosophies of Locke, Rousseau, Lessing and Kant. It's a designer virus attacking right reasoning since its introduction by an errant monk in 1520. This liberalism holds, as a right, emancipation from Divine Authority and sovereignty in all sectors of life to control and judge all matters. Fundamentally it requires God to conform his will to that of man's; because according to liberalism, true authority resides in the interior of the individual, to which the God's exterior creation must bow. The philosophy proposes: "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part, denying God and His supernatural creation this autonomous intellectual freedom from moral and social order is in conflict with the Church.

“If carried out logically, it leads even to a theoretical denial of God, by putting deified mankind in place of God. It has been censured in the condemnations of Rationalism and Naturalism. The most solemn condemnation of Naturalism and Rationalism was contained in the Constitution "De Fide" of the Vatican Council (1870); the most explicit and detailed condemnation, however, was administered to modern Liberalism by Pius IX in the Encyclical "Quanta cura" of 8 December, 1864 and the attached Syllabus. Pius X condemned it again in his allocution of 17 April, 1907, and in the Decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition of 3 July, 1907, in which the principal errors of Modernism were rejected and censured in sixty-five propositions. The older and principally political form of false Liberal Catholicism had been condemned by the Encyclical of Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos", of 15 August, 1832 and by many briefs of Pius IX (see Ségur, "Hommage aux Catholiques Libéraux", Paris, 1875). The definition of the papal infallibility by the Vatican council was virtually a condemnation of Liberalism. Besides this many recent decisions concern the principal errors of Liberalism. Of great importance in this respect are the allocutions and encyclicals of Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X. (Cf., Recueil des allocutions consistorales encycliques . . . citées dans le Syllabus", Paris, 1865) and the encyclicals of Leo XIII of 20 January, 1888, "On Human Liberty"; of 21 April, 1878, "On the Evils of Modern Society"; of 28 December, 1878, "On the Sects of the Socialists, Communists, and Nihilists"; of 4 August, 1879, "On Christian Philosophy"; of 10 February, 1880, "On Matrimony"; of 29 July, 1881, "On the Origin of Civil Power"; of 20 April, 1884, "On Freemasonry"; of 1 November, 1885, "On the Christian State"; of 25 December, 1888, "On the Christian Life"; of 10 January, 1890, "On the Chief Duties of a Christian Citizen"; of 15 May, 1891, "On the Social Question"; of 20 January, 1894, "On the Importance of Unity in Faith and Union with the Church for the Preservation of the Moral Foundations of the State"; of 19 March, 1902, "On the Persecution of the Church all over the World". Full information about the relation of the Church towards Liberalism in the different countries may be gathered from the transactions and decisions of the various provincial councils. These can be found in the "Collectio Lacensis" under the headings of the index: Fides, Ecclesia, Educatio, Francomuratores.”

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Liberalism

JoeT

[arcura]

TUT317, Dave,
Please list for me those things which you think have no first cause.
And I must agree with Joe on this at this time.
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[TUT317]

Joe T,

I think you have come up with an excellent political analysis of Hume and others of his tradition. I agree in principle with your assessment.

What may be of interest is Kant's attempt to prove the existence of God through a formulation of what he terms, 'The Categorical Imperative'. Kant wants to prove the existence of God through morality. This is a totally different approach to what has gone before. The reason for the change in direction could be political. However, it was Kant that said it was Hume,'who woke me from my dogmatic slumbers'. Kant largely agrees(but not completely) with Hume's theory of causation. It is the acceptance of Hume's ideas on causation which puts Kant in a difficult position. He wants to go beyond empiricism and prove that there is a least something beyond what we can experience.

I think Kant attempts to, 'sum things up' with a statement which goes something along the lines of...
Such things as, God, freedom and immortality continually impinge on the human mind as a result of our attempts to categorize our empirical knowledge. Reason naturally seeks something beyond the limits of empirical knowledge which can, 'make sense' of the diversity of facts which we encounter in the physical world.

In relation to Fred's question about which things don't have a first cause. I think this is more a philosophical question rather than a religious question. I will put forward a question/answer in the philosophical section of this website and it will probably be something along the lines of 'The problem of Causation'

Best wishes from TUT

[JoeT777]

I think this is more a philosophical question rather than a religious question.

Wise Tut:

It seems foreign to me that religion can be separated from philosophy. God doesn't ask us to do away with reason; in fact the truth is quite the opposite. How can a rational analysis of any truth whether moral, philosophical, or metaphysical be undertaken without religion; especial given that Truth=God? St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.“ (St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, Prima Q, 15 a5) From which we can conclude there is an absolute and infallible truth in all things created. Why would one practice a faith that doesn't contain truth, that doesn't contain all of truth (insofar as it is knowable), and doesn't contain an infallible truth? What would be the point – a good philosophical argument? It's God's Truth that E=MC^2, just as it is God's Truth that the planets revolve around the sun in an elliptical orbit, and God's Truth exists as the First Cause of all His Creation.

JoeT