Posted by Ergo Sum:
"Assume that "one can rightly NEVER say anything of God"... Then it logically follows that all and any sort of description or effort at explaining the concept and nature of God is entirely futile among both the believers and the Atheists..."
What I meant by that was . . . Assume for a moment that God does exist. He is infinite and we are not. Ipso facto, we can never fully get at the essence of Him, we can merely come to a continually greater awareness of Him. I'm sorry about my incoherence. If you could ever express the full nature of any one thing, say your a really great writer, or an amazing scientist, why is it that you can fully express it, what it is? It is a finite thing. Take for example, some thing which you know exists and is true, not neccesarily God, but anything. Can you ever fully express the fullness of that thing? Perhaps. I could probly fully explain scientifically, biologically, all aspects of a rock, I can get at the essence of rock. However, the next step, take love and emotion: It just gets harder to put into words the more meta-physical that thing is. Love is a noun. It exists. But can you really get at the essence of its mystery? And lastly, as far as the mind can ever stretch, to think of God, the concept of God. How much harder then it is to express his nature. You can get pretty close and not be wrong, you're just not able to get at it fully, in words.
"...but, the believers still believe despite any possible way of verifying their beliefs (not through logic, not through objective experiences, not through rational, non-mystical, independent observation)..."
yes. Faith and reason may seem to conflict. Where specifically do you see the conflict between faith and reason?
"Assume that "one can rightly NEVER say anything of God"... Then it logically follows that all and any sort of description or effort at explaining the concept and nature of God is entirely futile among both the believers and the Atheists..."
What I meant by that was . . . Assume for a moment that God does exist. He is infinite and we are not. Ipso facto, we can never fully get at the essence of Him, we can merely come to a continually greater awareness of Him. I'm sorry about my incoherence. If you could ever express the full nature of any one thing, say your a really great writer, or an amazing scientist, why is it that you can fully express it, what it is? It is a finite thing. Take for example, some thing which you know exists and is true, not neccesarily God, but anything. Can you ever fully express the fullness of that thing? Perhaps. I could probly fully explain scientifically, biologically, all aspects of a rock, I can get at the essence of rock. However, the next step, take love and emotion: It just gets harder to put into words the more meta-physical that thing is. Love is a noun. It exists. But can you really get at the essence of its mystery? And lastly, as far as the mind can ever stretch, to think of God, the concept of God. How much harder then it is to express his nature. You can get pretty close and not be wrong, you're just not able to get at it fully, in words.
"...but, the believers still believe despite any possible way of verifying their beliefs (not through logic, not through objective experiences, not through rational, non-mystical, independent observation)..."
yes. Faith and reason may seem to conflict. Where specifically do you see the conflict between faith and reason?
posted by Velvet at 7:33 PM
6 Comments:
Ergo Sum said...
You are quite a challenge! I love the intellectual joust! ;)
haha! thanks! :)
i am sorry.
my fault.
by rightly i meant fully...accuretely.
more later-no time now to write...
again sorry my fault.
I believe (similar to what Aquinas believed) that any concept of God SHOULD BY DEFINITION include the attributes of a perfectly Intelligent, perfectly Rational, and perfectly Logical Being. THus, a potential Being possessing such infinitely beautiful logic, infinitely profound intelligence, should atleast in some tiny and small way be perceivable to us by our serious attempts at being rational and logical to understand that Being (or come closer to an understanding of It).
very well said!!! i completely agree!!!
Thus, a logical analysis of the concept of God leads me to major contradictions and therefore I must reject the hypothesis that God exists and accept the null hypothesis
YOUR REASONING HERE SEEMS PERFECLTLY "RIGHT ON" i have nothing to say- i agree. and ithink possibly the contradictions you have come across in you research and investigation as to God's existence may still have explanations. lets keep investigating, hmm?
Now, Faith. Faith is the exact opposite of the rational method I just described. The method of Faith begins as such: Believe that God exists. Then show that God exists. Then express wonder at the fact that God exists. Then admire the fact that God exists.
hmmm, i disagree with your definition of faith. faith is acceptance of what is. faith is not a blind thing. faith is 'the conviction of things unseen' well? where does a conviction come from? one must see evidence in order to be convinced. this evidence CAN and should include reason and logic, not exclude it. IF one is convinced, convicted, it must come from reasoning...reason leads to faith and faith should to reasoning...like aquinas!! he questioned everything about the faith that he could possibly come up with...but he was taught the faith and THEN questioned...but it can go either way i could question first and then accept...wither way their needs to be present a willingness to ask all the questions before accepting blindly..and so is every believer responsible for this..and must be ready to "give an account" logically, for what he believes...does this makes sense? i know i am very unclear and incoherent so forgive me for that...!! sorry!
Aquinas, among other doctors, displayed this appalling laziness of thought. In their effort to reconcile faith with reason and put on a facade of intelligibility upon mysticism, they propagated this false notion. THe method works as such: Faith -- God exists and He has created this Universe. Then "rational proof": This Universe is so intelligent and orderly, surely there is an intelligent God that made all of this. THerefore, God must exist because the universe that we just assumed is so orderly and that we just assumed was made by God is the proof that God made the Universe and therefore must exist!!
i am pretty sure you have something wrong with your idea of thomistic thinking...i will do some more research on his "proofs"...i know nothing off my head right now. i also know i disagree with aquinas on certan points becasue of course he was wrong about some things. the point is...he may have had a flawed reasoning about this i don't know. even if he did, the point i am making is just because he may have reasoned falsely in this instance doesn't mean God doesn't exist. it may imply solely that his particular "proof" may have been wrong. also i think we should re-examine his thinking on this matter, as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home