Soviet cogitations: 1785 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2005, 07:15 Unperson
26 Mar 2007, 14:04
I'm an agnostic until proven otherwise.
Does God exist? I don't know. There is no real proof to deny it, nor to prove it.
I roll with science, but there are certain things that remain undisclosed by science, thus making it impossible for me to rule out the existence of God.
Soviet cogitations: 3116 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Party Bureaucrat
27 Mar 2007, 03:08
Just to make you think a bit...
This is from the St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica (the link is not relevant, check the book if you want)
First part, Question 2, Article 3
Whether God exists?
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence â€” which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Feel free to discuss...
"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Soviet cogitations: 1180 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Jan 2005, 10:55 Party Member
30 Mar 2007, 11:55
I am a pious Roman Catholic, and always have been (even when I was fooling myself into thinking I was a communist).
Some of you say that religion gives spirituality a bad name, or that religion is just another way to oppress the mases. I believe that that is immaterial. I personally believe in god, and that is my business. I do not try to press it on others, nor do I look down at people who worship a 'different' god or do not have spiritual faith at all (Though I am suspicious of vegetarians. I always will be, but thats besides the point.). Whether or not a greater being exists, I know the belief in God gives me some comfort just like the belief that democracy works gives hope to others.
And whether or not you believe a God exists, I am pretty you will suddenly find yourself quite faithful when it comes time for the mettle to meet the meat. [/i]
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles De Gaulle
Soviet cogitations: 2538 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Feb 2004, 06:10 Party Bureaucrat
31 Mar 2007, 00:57
Keep in mind that you are quoting "philosophy" from a schizophrenic character in a stupid movie.
In any case, your proposal is a completely logical possibility.
I personally don't see God as a big magical guy with a white bushy beard watching all our lives on little television screens. Therefore it wouldn't really make sense for me to say that God doesn't "care" about us. I see it as more of an energy or force... which has about as much of an ability to actively care for something or someone as electricity.
Goranhammer... blessed be his name. May his memory live in our hearts and touch our souls like a strawberry tampon enema
Soviet cogitations: 6 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Mar 2007, 22:01 New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
31 Mar 2007, 13:43
Remember what good old Marx told us; Religion is opium for the masses!
I can't see any explanation in where the idea of the God and heaven came from if it wasn't from the bourgoise and their interesst in the proletariat shutting up and acting as they were ment to be slaves.
The whole idea of God is undermining the whole idea of the revolution. We can't get the masses to join in our fight if they are passive and just waiting for their paycheck in heaven!
Soviet cogitations: 6 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Mar 2007, 22:01 New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
31 Mar 2007, 22:27
Hehe... Thats one way of putting it.
As I see it, religion is just a tool used by the bourgouise. It doesn't mean that you can't belive in the better sides of humanhood, but that doesn't need to mean that there excists a God.
The better sides and forces of human nature forms the revolution, we form it ourself. Don't start pulling and pushing on a creature we don't know if excist. Create the revolution among yours, and make them join into a bigger process and the final step! [/quote]
Soviet cogitations: 5532 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49 Embalmed
01 Apr 2007, 02:36
I agree, but Hegel's logic does make it a thousand times easier to read and much, much clearer, if on a different level (probably not the best, as Marx was original).
To the point! Does God exist? No. I don't pretend to know the answer and the eternal key for all worldly and aethereal knowledge for everything in some...abstracted being who seems to show remarkably human characteristics. That he somehow stopped having wonderful miracles and brief appearances on Earth at a time when science developed to question the world seems to suggest that he was made-up, rather than a consistent, caring being (or malicious if you apparently read the OT, which I haven't done so myself, hearsay hints that I am veering towards being rightish).
"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx