Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Gin Saké, The Anonymous, USFREEDOM911, Primavera, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Legion Troll, canceled.2021.2, CFM, Superfreak, volsrock, Yurt, Earl, Terri4Trump, Lord Yurt, OG Yurt and Yakuda


Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 95

Thread: God -- really?

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    7,663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,799 Times in 1,892 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 272 Times in 258 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I think the metaphysical speculations of a prime mover go back before Aristotle and Plato, to the pre-Socratic Ionian Greek philosophers.
    If you have that information with a source I would read it.

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    7,663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,799 Times in 1,892 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 272 Times in 258 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post

    Every nation and polis I am aware of before the 18th century had a state religion, so I am not inclined to hold it against Aquinas for participating in a state religion.
    I was not referring to state religion. Just religion.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    34,929
    Thanks
    13,241
    Thanked 9,803 Times in 7,524 Posts
    Groans
    409
    Groaned 2,201 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Christian existentialists like Kierkegaard considered God radically transcendent and beyond human ability to know or rationalise. From that perspective, every religion is just presenting a different face of God. "God" could literally be a human construct for any creative force beyond our comprehension.

    I think Steven Hawking is asking the wrong question. Science is very good at reasoning "how" things happen. But it is not really intended to answer "why" things happen
    =Cypress;4053904 Christian existentialists like Kierkegaard considered God radically transcendent and beyond human ability to know or rationalise. From that perspective, every religion is just presenting a different face of God. "God" could literally be a human construct for any creative force beyond our comprehension.
    I agree with this.

    I think Steven Hawking is asking the wrong question. Science is very good at reasoning "how" things happen. But it is not really intended to answer "why" things happen
    Maybe 'why' doesn't enter into the equation? (Like, why did Dinosaurs roam the Earth for 200 million years?)

  4. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    8,769
    Thanks
    3,358
    Thanked 6,392 Times in 4,026 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 142 Times in 127 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    I agree with this.



    Maybe 'why' doesn't enter into the equation? (Like, why did Dinosaurs roam the Earth for 200 million years?)
    Or better yet, why do we waste our limited time on earth at JPP?
    "Where the people fear the govt. you have tyranny. Where the govt. fears the people you have liberty."

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    Jack (11-19-2020)

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    34,929
    Thanks
    13,241
    Thanked 9,803 Times in 7,524 Posts
    Groans
    409
    Groaned 2,201 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Or better yet, why do we waste our limited time on earth at JPP?

    It's sad when you have nothing better to do than sit at a keyboard and argue with anonymous internet personas.

  7. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    27,713
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 13,138 Times in 8,367 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,304 Times in 2,135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Plato did not argue for belief. Not sure what you're asserting. In many ways, Plato was more a rationalist than Aristotle.
    Augustine’s application of Plato to explain God as opposed to Aquinas borrowing from Aristotle

  8. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    7,663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,799 Times in 1,892 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 272 Times in 258 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Augustine’s application of Plato to explain God as opposed to Aquinas borrowing from Aristotle
    Okay. Not sure why you posted that. How was that an answer to my question?

    Plato did not argue for belief.

  9. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    27,713
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 13,138 Times in 8,367 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2,304 Times in 2,135 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    Okay. Not sure why you posted that. How was that an answer to my question?
    I was responding to “Plato did not argue for belief. Not sure what you're asserting. In many ways, Plato was more a rationalist than Aristotle,” didn’t see a question there

  10. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    7,663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,799 Times in 1,892 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 272 Times in 258 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    I was responding to “Plato did not argue for belief. Not sure what you're asserting. In many ways, Plato was more a rationalist than Aristotle,” didn’t see a question there
    WHERE DID PLATO ARGUE FOR BELIEF?

  11. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    34,433
    Thanks
    16,764
    Thanked 22,759 Times in 11,713 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,276 Times in 2,043 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I think Steven Hawking is asking the wrong question. Science is very good at reasoning "how" things happen. But it is not really intended to answer "why" things happen
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post

    Maybe 'why' doesn't enter into the equation? (Like, why did Dinosaurs roam the Earth for 200 million years?)
    Mechanistic explanations for how things happen is important, but to many of the greatest philisophers and intellects in western history, it is does not provide true knowlege of ultimate reality.

    I understand mechanistically that a quantuum singularity may have resulted in the universe we observe. The "why?" question is what has occupied natural philosophers and the naturally inquisitive

  12. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    34,929
    Thanks
    13,241
    Thanked 9,803 Times in 7,524 Posts
    Groans
    409
    Groaned 2,201 Times in 2,031 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Mechanistic explanations for how things happen is important, but to many of the greatest philisophers and intellects in western history, it is does not provide true knowlege of ultimate reality.

    I understand mechanistically that a quantuum singularity may have resulted in the universe we observe. The "why?" question is what has occupied natural philosophers and the naturally inquisitive

    The "why?" question is what has occupied natural philosophers and the naturally inquisitive
    Which implies there is a reason. Maybe there is no reason.

  13. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    7,663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,799 Times in 1,892 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 272 Times in 258 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Which implies there is a reason. Maybe there is no reason.
    Exactly.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to BidenPresident For This Post:

    Jack (11-19-2020)

  15. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    34,433
    Thanks
    16,764
    Thanked 22,759 Times in 11,713 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,276 Times in 2,043 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I think the metaphysical speculations of a prime mover go back before Aristotle and Plato, to the pre-Socratic Ionian Greek philosophers.
    Quote Originally Posted by BidenPresident View Post
    If you have that information with a source I would read it.
    I do not have a link, but these are my notes from a class on Greek philosophy I took.
    It was Xenophanes of Miletus I was thinking of, a 6th century BCE pre-Socratic Ionian philosopher.

    Xenophanes was a religious thinker. He offered a fundamental critique of Greek polytheism. Instead of many gods, he believed that “god is one.”
    1. Xenophanes’s god was able to move all things by his mind alone. But this god itself does not move.
    2. For Xenophanes, god is the archę; god is Being.

    Souce credit: Professor Daniel Roochnik, Boston University

  16. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    7,663
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,799 Times in 1,892 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 272 Times in 258 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I do not have a link, but these are my notes from a class on Greek philosophy I took.
    It was Xenophanes of Miletus I was thinking of, a 6th century BCE pre-Socratic Ionian philosopher.
    Thanks. I actually know Roochnik, he was a professor at mine at Penn State.

    Here is a quotation attributed to Xenophanes: "But without toil he sways all things by the thought of his mind.

    He always remains in the same place, without moving at all; nor does it suit him to go about here or there." https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/cl...esocratics.htm

    Aristotle considers God to be the cause of all motion. But God is not the cause of the physical universe.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to BidenPresident For This Post:

    Cypress (11-19-2020)

  18. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    34,433
    Thanks
    16,764
    Thanked 22,759 Times in 11,713 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,276 Times in 2,043 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Which implies there is a reason. Maybe there is no reason.
    Exactly. Maybe reality is nothing but a subatomic collection fermions, hadrons, and bosons and there is no deeper reality than that.

    On the flip side, we have pretty good mathematical equations which mechanistically describe how space, time, energy, matter are all interrelated, interchangeable. But a lot of people think it is interesting to ask why it should be like that.

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •