IreneY wrote:Look, I have not really looked into the First Cause argument so I can't really say whether it is right or wrong. What I'm saying is that it cannot be used as an argument slash proof that there is a God.
Why?
IreneY wrote:Look, I have not really looked into the First Cause argument so I can't really say whether it is right or wrong. What I'm saying is that it cannot be used as an argument slash proof that there is a God.
IreneY wrote:because if the answer to what was the first, un-caused, cause can be "anything" then the First Cause does not prove that it was God who was the first cause (and I realise that doesn't make much sense but I am running a rather high temperature so I just can't do any better)
IreneY wrote:Well, no disrespect to those who believe but I think it wasCaligula who made a deity of his horse? By that I mean that, sure, we can name firmament, goo or whatever inanimate object we 'wish' to place as a First Cause a 'God' but that won't make it one.
IreneY wrote:While there are many, quite different opinions about what (a) God is, I don't think the (relatively modern so to speak) definitions include inanimate objects
pyrheraklit wrote:Isn't it a bit degrading for God to identify Him with First Cause?
Well, I think we can all agree that if this "First Cause" exists (or existed) it is what is, regardless of what we wish it to be. We may disagree about what we think its nature is, but our thoughts and wishes won't change reality (whatever that may be).
I would submit two things to think about:
(1) It may be possible that "God" exists and that the modern belief of what God is happens to be wrong.
(2) If this "First Cause" does exist, it is certainly outside of our everyday experiences (since we do not witness universes being created). That doesn't mean it has to be supernatural (just like most of the interesting things that are described by Einstein's theories are perfectly natural but outside of our daily experiences). Thus, you may believe it to be an inanimate object, but even if that were so it would be much different from any ordinary inanimate object that we experience in our daily lives and I'm not so sure that such a thought is all that inconsistent with modern beliefs.
IreneY wrote:What I am suggesting is that, even if the First Cause is 'in sync' with the latest developments in scientific and philosophical 'findings', it still does not prove anything other than the fact that there IS a first cause. As such, it doesn't help us much in our quest to find what was that first cause.
Bert wrote:Rhuiden, is this reasoning how you came to believe?
IreneY wrote:because if the answer to what was the first, un-caused, cause can be "anything" then the First Cause does not prove that it was God who was the first cause (and I realise that doesn't make much sense but I am running a rather high temperature so I just can't do any better)
edonnelly wrote:But isn't the word "God" really just that -- a word? I mean, if two people fundamentally agree that something (regardless of its nature and regardless of whether it did it by will, or pure chance, or whatever) created the universe, and one person happens to label that something with the word "God," while another says, no, it's not "God," it's something else, is there really a disagreement about anything except vocabulary?
edonnelly wrote:pyrheraklit wrote:Isn't it a bit degrading for God to identify Him with First Cause?
Isn't that what the opening story of the Bible does? The Bible claims that God created the universe. Why do you think that would be degrading?
pyrheraklit wrote:Religious texts are for the soul, not mind. They are symbolical.
IreneY wrote:(1) if the definition of God is simply "whatever the first cause was whether inanimate or not, whether supernatural or not" I agree.
I would ask:
(1) Why do you assert that all "beings" have a cause?
(2) Why must the First Cause be a "being?"
(3) How do you conclude that there must be one First Cause? Why must all things that exist derive from a single cause? Could there not, for example, be hundreds of uncaused First Causes, each causing a chain of reaction
Rhuiden wrote:pyrheraklit wrote:Religious texts are for the soul, not mind. They are symbolical.
This is not what the Bible teaches. We are not told to blindly follow but to search out the truth within the text and expose any false teachings that we may find about the text.
ThomasGR wrote:I agree completely with this statement "Religious texts are for the soul, not mind. They are symbolical". Religion is aiming the soul. The requirement "search out the truth within the text" is just only needed to trap the intellect and keep it busy solving the unsolvable puzzle, whilst the soul gets freed.
ThomasGR wrote:
If we use the traditional spiritual (mystical) definition, the knowledge you'll find in the bible will not provide you with knowledge like how world is created.
Bert wrote:Knowledge in the sense of, what we know.
It says in the Bible that God made heaven and earth.
That gives me knowledge. Now I know who created the world.
Bert wrote:
Bert wrote: As far as "searching out the truth within the text" is concerned, I think that is a poor choice of words.
It implies that there is both truth and untruth in the text.
Bert wrote:We do have to search the scriptures to gain understanding.
Bert wrote:It depends on the nature of the text how it should be interpreted. Is it poetry? Prophesy? Narative? ect.
And we have to test the spirits. That is: The spirit of the time, ideologies, even interpretations of science.
Bert wrote:Knowledge in the sense of, what we know.
It says in the Bible that God made heaven and earth.
That gives me knowledge. Now I know who created the world.
ThomasGR wrote:Knowledge in religion and philosophy is different than knowledege in science. God created the earth, but what is heaven? Today's Heaven is different than of gospels' times.
Rhuiden wrote:Annis, I do not question the sincerety of your beliefs. I appologize if I have given that impression. I have never thought that your comments were intended simply to be difficult, I cannot say that for others whose posts I have read in the past.
Rhuiden wrote:Mere Christianity is on my reading list. I plan to get to it someday. I have heard it is an excellent book.
pyrheraklit wrote:Bert wrote:We do have to search the scriptures to gain understanding.
I' d say "...to gain salvation by understanding".
pyrheraklit wrote:The Bible says that God created the world (in seven days). For me, the important thing for a believer is not the knowledge of who created the world, but to feel (to "know") that by creating it, he is prior and beyond this world and he is omnipotent. No Bing-Bang theory can falsify these.
annis wrote:When you said "The question seems more to be a way of avoiding the issue that there must be something (the uncaused first cause) that created everything" I got a bit of a whiff of that. I may be oversensitive to this particular aroma.
Bert wrote:ThomasGR wrote: Aside form that, that knowledge is totally useless.
Then this discussion is useless.
Rhuiden wrote:Also, on what do you base the statement that Heaven today is different than Heaven in the Gospel times. God tells us that He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That would seem to suggest that Heaven is the same today as it was during the days of Jesus.
ThomasGR wrote:What was meant by Heaven in those times and what is today? Heaven and sky was the same. Heaven was conceived as dome around the earth, with the stars like candles lighting the night. Heaven was also the place where people's soul go after we have died, something like paradise or hell. Today we conceive Heaven quite differently. For a scientist, Heaven are the suns / stars, the dark matter that is filling the empty spaces far way, and all the different galaxies which we measure their distance from our sun (or galaxy) in light years. For religion, Heaven kept the meaning as the paradise / hell and as a kind of life after dead, though one may argue if it is still up there in the sky and not down here on earth. In Jesus' times it was always up in the sky. That may also answer your question and give an example of what is understood under knowledge in religion and science. In science that knowledge should one be able to prove with every expreriment and reaffirm the theory. For religion it is enough one's belief. You believe that heaven exists, or you don't. It's basic dogma, not a scientific theory.
GlottalGreekGeek wrote:Well, as flawed creatures, we can misinterpret God's word too (and I would be surprised, Rhuiden, if you have never come across examples of that).
annis wrote:Rhuiden wrote:Mere Christianity is on my reading list. I plan to get to it someday. I have heard it is an excellent book.
I'm going to be reading that some time soon, probably this summer. Another reading group! :lol:
Rhuiden wrote:Let me know when and how this reading group would work. I have never been part of a reading group before but I am interested. Should be some good discussions. I bet there would be others who would be interested as well.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests