Reply to Church attendance continues to plummet

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Church attendance continues to plummet"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity  and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with  -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above[/quote]

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god.  I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.[/quote]

It's called Deism, it has "[i]existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution[/i]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW [b]there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.[/b]

[/quote]

There's no evidence for any of it.  That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith.  Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.[/quote]

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.”  The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there. [/quote]

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place.  If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.[/quote]

So, you haven’t read him then. [/quote]

Sigh.  Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. [b]This is God.[/b] God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. [b]Therefore, the First Cause is God.[/b]

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. [b]This means something must exist at all times. This is God.[/b]

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. [b]This perfect being is God[/b].

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. [b]This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God[/b].

Everything in bold is a presupposition.  Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.[/quote]

Well!  I am truly impressed!  Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive. [/quote]

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence.  Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"[i]But no[/i]" you will respond. "[i]it can't be those things because it [b]has [/b]to be god, because...[/i]"

...and there you have it.[/quote]

I must disagree. [b]What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”[/b]  Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died. [/quote]

You say: [b]"What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”[/b]

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also.  Aquinas "[i]claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?[/i]"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"[i]Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required.[/i]"[/quote]

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable. [/quote]

But you don’t rebut any of the points I made, or quoted, or from the link?[/quote]

Correct.  Because pp can't rebut your points, they instead express concern about your obvious failure to read the Angelic Doctor in Latin (or a good English translation).[/quote]

One wonders -- would pp express such concerns about anyone they were in conversation with about this issue, or just people who disagreed with them?[/quote]

One wonders, -- would you need to ask that question if you had substantive responses to the points about flaws in Aquinas' circular and presuppositional logic?

DP.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics