PER HINTS..<<..Every/one of..the "five causes"..is open to interpretations..>>..[FREE-WILL]..<<..<<that do not include.a divine presence.>...

you know me..i juST WANT..TRUTH

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=EQUINAS+5+CAUSES&

Aquinas gave five classic.."proofs"..for the existence of God.[TAKEN/FROM ATHEIST WEB-SITE]..These are..a class handout, which in turn..is taken from his..massive Summa Theologica..(Part 1, Question 2,..Article 3).

The class handout..also includes..a whimsical.."Five proofs
for the existence..of Santa Clause" --..which I'll use in class to make some points...about Aquinas's arguments.[BIASED].

These computerized/exercise materials..are copyrighted (c..2002 by Harry J. Gensler; but they may be distributed freely.>>..

pericules..and your science proof..?
if not god..then WHAT.?

<<..1 - FIRST MOVER/ACTION..MOVEMENT/MOTION
IE CHANGE OF STATE: [non-life/life,]..IE..LIFE-cause.

Some things..are in motion,[RE-ACTION/REACTING/REDACTING..]..anything THAT..is moved is moved..by another,..[causal act]..and

there can't be..an infinite series..of movers...[infinite motion]..So there must be..a first mover..(a mover..that isn't itself moved by another)...This is God...if not whaT?

NAME NAMES?

2 -..FIRST PRIME-CAUSATION:..ALL..things..are caused,..anything caused..is caused by another..[cause].., and there can't..be an infinite series of causes..IF THUS-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...[SOMETHING BEING..first ..cause,,CAUSED/THIS being..of..some-THING.

iF/So not everything..is contingent.
IF-So there is a necessary being/WAY/MEANS...[life comes..from liFE]..This is God..[SUSTAINING..ALl life.

Aquinas's Proofs 4 and 5

4 - GREATEST BEING:..Some things..are greater..[BETTER/Worse]..than others...Whatever is great..to any degree..gets its greatness from that..which is the greatest.[FIRST..PRIMo/PROTO/ALPHA]

I+F/So there is.a greatest being,
which is the source of all greatness...[we see it best..in other]..This is God.[with/us]

5 - we/see..the fragility..of earth..IS By INTELLIGENT DESIGNER:..
Many things in the world..that lack intelligence..act for an end/RESULT..FROM EXPECTANT CAUSE...[by logic/by REASON]..

Whatever acts for..an end..[purpose]..must be directed by an intelligent being...OR BY HIS Will..So the world must have an intelligent designer...as his will is reflected..by our WILL..This is THE WILL..OF God.

Web resources

Click below..to read Aquinas's writings:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm

Click below to read..an article about Aquinas:

http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/14663b.htm

DARE ASK..if..not/WHO/WHY WHEN..then..WHAT HOW ?
[reveal..the science..now..]

George,

While the problem of what we can and cannot know is an interesting one, it is irrelevant here. This ‘But what can we really know?’ approach is an appeal to a sort-of solipsism; it is a big red herring and is only ever raised by theists to divert attention from the fact that they have no rational justification for their beliefs. It’s also often used as a method of shifting some of the burden onto the non-believer so that they too feel they need to defend a position that doesn’t actually require defending at all.

I don’t really care about what we can and can’t know. I’m more interested in what you believe and whether it can be rationally justified, because we don’t wait for knowledge to act, we act according to our beliefs. And an appeal to the haziness of certain concepts is not the first place someone goes when they have good reasons for their beliefs.

<<So what I wrote was relevant to BOTH what Einstein believed as well as what a Christian believes, although the latter believes also in the adequacy (again a term borrowed from philosophy of science) of the Christian model of the divine.>>

You can’t get around this by pointing out that Christianity is just one possible model of the divine realm, because that model makes specific claims that should negate the problems and barriers that your post to Trav mentioned.

<<This is a subjective complaint, not an argument.>>

Actually, it’s an objective observation and a valid argument, because what Christian theology states is independent of what I may or may not want it to state; that the Christian god has an important message for us all and wants to share it would have to be one of the most unambiguous and universally agreed upon tenets of Christian theology. Furthermore, it would make no sense for me to complain about a god, that I don’t believe in, not providing evidence for its existence.

Continued...

…Continued

<<Why did God make Himself “known” to others but not to me? Why do others understand mathematics more than I?>>

This clarification and maths analogy are, only relevant to a god who is not willing or able to communicate with us in any reliable or effective manner, or only wants to communicate with certain people. They do not apply to the Christian god.

<<These questions cannot be answered by your “brain” only by your “heart”.>>

This is rather unfortunate given that our “hearts”, time after time, prove themselves to be an incredibly unreliable source of information. As I said earlier, there is only one reliable pathway to truth, given what we currently know. As someone who has always tried to make out that religious belief need not be irrational, I was blown away to read this from you.

<<How can you understand mathematics, if you close your “brain” and how can God make himself known to you if you close your “heart”?>>

There are multiple problems with this. Firstly, it forgets that I had once had my “heart” well and truly open - filled with personal revelation ‘n’ the lot. Secondly, it assumes that my “heart” is now closed somehow. Finally, it forgets that anything that could qualify as a God would not be stopped by such a trivial barrier.

Contrary to what many Christians claim, our free will would not be affected if God’s existence were self-evident.

AJ/QUOTE..<,..Contrary to what many Christians claim, our free will would not be affected if God’s existence were self-evident.>>

so many..issues with that..first..kids often behave different
with/others..than they do with their parents..i know i post a little more gently..with the old/young or female/..i know i shouldnt modify..yet i do.

next..to have a self evident god..how would we feel..'sin'
god dont judge us..others [peers]..judge us..once you know god is eternal/infinite..omnipresent..[the bE ALL that ends within us all]....you begin thinking..in those terms..you have changed.

recall aj..the 50 percent of the angels that rejected..gOD
[the 50..percent..even now runninG DEMONS RAGged in hell..THING IS
THOSE WITH GUILT..NEED TO BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD[mainly cause they got the wrong IDEA..of god[and even of good]..and evEN OF LOVE

IE EVIL..SO LOVES ITS VILE
the god of love dont judge what we love
ie in hell..we are sorted..by our freewill works..we dun here

thus the lovers of murder..share the same hell/murdering only each other[you love to murder..how much more you will love BEING THE VICTIM..[karma/works]..like racist hell is true hell..all them racists of all CREED BREED Colors..hating only themselves.

the sheeple with the sheep/the boats with the boat
the wheat WITH the wHEAT..the tares with..the tares

we become that we love..and the unique thing about the atheist HELL..is..for THOSE there to hold their faithlessness..in the face of overwhelming proofs..the rejected..unthinkingly.

WE ALL BEGAN IGNORANT
IGNORANCE..IS A THING REVEALED..ONLY BY KNOWING TO ASK THE RIGHT....QUESTION...to the wise..there are no dumb questions.

AJ, the issue as I see it is that there is no such thing as worldview independent evidence. Especially when we’re analyzing worldviews. Every person has a difference lens through which they’ll view things and interpret evidence. Parts of this lens may be formed by prior beliefs or presuppositions, while it’s also influenced by our own prior experiences and environment. Further, the various layers of beliefs and views all interact with each other.

As an example, many people have found that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is strong or even highly compelling, while others claim it is laughably weak. One key difference is prior beliefs about the character of the universe. Do supernatural events happen? Are they likely? Even possible? Different answers to this question could be influenced by philosophical considerations and personal experiences, and yet the answers given will profoundly impact on how one assesses the historical claims of Jesus Christ

Okay then, Trav. I’m happy to go with everything you’ve said in your first paragraph because I don’t think it really matters.

Let’s say we can’t know anything, everything is subjective and there is no such thing as objectivity. Now how do we decide what is reasonable to accept as likely to be true as we go about living our lives? Most people make such decisions in most areas, but some have been conned into not doing it when it comes to religious belief.

So how do we determine what it reasonable? We have methods and we have consensus in some ways. Is there an absolute and discrete point by which we can determine whether or not it is reasonable to accept a claim? No. And each claim will be different because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, while trivial claims don’t. It’s a constant process of comparing and contrasting various claims: Will accepting a claim be worldview altering? Will accepting a claim change everything else that you had accepted before? How big of an impact will it have on you if you’re wrong?

For example, compare a claim from someone that they own a dog, with the claim that they were abducted by aliens for a week while a clone took their place when they were gone. It would be good enough to take the former on someone’s word alone because we know that dogs exist and people own them. The latter, on the other hand, exceeds the boundaries of what we already understand, and accepting it on someone’s word alone would require that we abandon other claims that we accept for very good reasons. Now where one draws the line on what is reasonable to accept and what is not is entirely up to the individual, but where it is actually rational to draw the line isn’t just a matter of subjective personal opinion. Which is why we can look at people experiencing serious delusions and conclude that it is reasonable to lock them away for their safety and everybody else’s.

Continued…