Existence of God
The famous Christian theologian, St Thomas Aquinas ( 1225-1274 ), in his book Summa Theologica gives 5 'proofs' ( quinque viae ) for the existence of God, and the famous Indian philosopher, Udayanacharya ( 12 century ), in his book Nyaya Kusumanjali gives 9 'proofs'.
All these 'proofs' are based on inferences ( which is called 'anumana pramana' in Indian philosophy ), and not on direct perception ( called 'pratyaksha pramana' or revelation ).
The problem, however remains : what to do with the question posed by Ivan Karamazov to his younger brother Aloysha in Dostoevsky's famous novel ' Brothers Karamazov ' : if there is a God, why do million of children in the world suffer ? ( see my blog ' Dostoevsky and the cold weather '). Millions of children in the world who have done no harm to anyone, are yet hungry, shivering in the cold, often beaten cruelly by elders, deprived of good education and love and affection, and homeless ? If there is a God, why does he not give these children food, proper clothes, a home, proper education, love and affection, etc ?
So if there is a God, he is either all powerful, or good, but he cannot be both
Some people say that there must be a Creator of this world.
This statement presumes that everything must have a creator. In that case, the Creator of the world must also have a creator, i.e. a super Creator, and this super creator must also have a creator, i.e. a super super Creator, and so on.
This is known as the fallacy of the infinite regress.
The truth is that the only reality is matter ( or matter-energy, since energy has been proved by Einstein to be a form of matter ), which is in motion, according to some laws which can be discovered by scientific research.
If it is asked where did matter come from, the answer is that matter came from matter. If we start with the assumption that everything must have a creator, we fall into the fallacy of infinite regress, as explained above.
The truth is that there is no God, no angels, no soul, no spirits, no ghosts, no fairies, no witches, etc. In other words, there are no supernatural entities.
The truth is that all religions are superstitions, and the truth lies in science, which is not final as religion claims to be , but is constantly developing.
PROTIP; U CAN'T
>>8125911
>Sigma in place of Epsilon
FUCKING ALT RIGHT KEKS REEEEEEEEE
>>8125911
>This statement presumes that everything must have a creator. In that case, the Creator of the world must also have a creator, i.e. a super Creator, and this super creator must also have a creator, i.e. a super super Creator, and so on.
This is probably one of the dumbest things anyone could say. Please end yourself.
>>8125925
You don't really explain why it is dumb,instead resorts to name calling.
>>8125929
Not the guy,but mainly because it is a product of getting the very definition wrong and then establising the argument on that.
>>8125911
>This statement presumes that everything must have a creator. In that case, the Creator of the world must also have a creator, i.e. a super Creator, and this super creator must also have a creator, i.e. a super super Creator, and so on
dumblerooni. everything has a cause and if you go by that infinite regress, sometime there will be no universe (which most scientists believe that at a point there was no universe), and at that point, it had to be created by something not-temporal, not-material, powerful, omnipresent and not-caused, so there is not Creator of the creator.
>>8125939
Of what????
>>8125952
Of god or "the first cause",as the theists call it.
It's almost like asking, which batman film came before the first one.
And by messing up the definition it is you who is committing the "infinite regress" fallacy and not the thests.Needless to say a fallacy alone don't refute an argument.
>>8125929
Allow me to explain, then: one, a being that has existed for all of eternity never had a beginning, a start, or a birth, or a conception of any kind, meaning that it does not require a creator; two, the laws of physics and logic are essentially the rules by which the universe plays its game, and God created the universe--an act which not only directly defies them but creates them as well, so he is very likely not subject to them, especially when you consider all the other voodoo shit in the bible.
>>8125911
God transcedes existence, time and space.
>>8125911
You assume you know what is good. Suffering in this world will seem nothing compared to the glory of the next. Ivan's argument is awfully presumptuous. But it doesn't seem fair if you only consider justice in this world, I agree.
And you also assume that everything must have a creator. Tbh this is just speculation. We can't understand God, don't try too hard.
>>8125971
It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.
>projecting logic onto a perfect being
>projecting YOUR morality onto God's morality
>projecting empiricism onto a perfect being
Troll somewhere else.
Yikes. Have you guys ever read past the first two questions of the Summa?
www facebook com/justicekatju/posts/1217947988245745
NICE meme anon.Too bad /lit/ didn't googled it sooner.
Also literally who ?
>>8126066
>Literally who
He is one of the most prominent supreme court judges of our nation
>>8126025
>you can't out logic god haha that's the point xP
consider suicide
>>8126096
Xddddddd IM LE PERFECT AND CAN DO LE ANYTHING SO THERE I WIN PRAISE DAWKINS
>>8125967
Special pleading is not an argument.
>>8125929
Just read Aristotle's Metaphysics or Aquinas to see good arguments for why an infinite series of causes is stupid. You didn't bring up Aquinas without having read and understood him, right?
>>8126091
says a lot about your nation,anon/
>>8125929
Because God being an all powerful being makes him subject to an immunity from established rules of the universe, where as scientific things are not.
One thing I always think of is, if suddenly things were created from nothing for no reason, why isn't it still happening today?
How exactly can matter have always existed? What is the working theory for this?
Normally the argument boils down to: Either there is an all powerful creator, or suddenly everything came into existence for no reason at all and then never again also for no reason at all.
As for why children suffer, I think it's to test faith. God wants us to have faith in Him, even in the face of adversity. If everything was glorious and he was seen by everyone daily they may act without sin, but would that make them good people truly if it meant they would resort to sin if he were to turn his back even for a second?
Really the question seems to be, is it better to be forced to be virtuous, or to choose to be of your own accord because of your own beliefs and what you were taught?
The answer appears to be the latter, and leaves some questions that can really only be completely answered either in the after life or after hours of meditation/prayerful consideration which can only be achieved by holding on to your faith to guide you.
christians would not struggle with the problem of evil if they truly understood the depravity of their own sin
>>8126141
this shit's beyond argument my man
>>8126214
Haha no.
>>8126229
Then refute it.
>>8126264
Just go through the thread I am sure some one dented it.
>>8126270
That is just you being lazy.And also unoriginal.Needless to say you yourself can't refute it.
>>8126281
I am being lazy. But Google is your friend. If you actually cared for a differing opinion.
I really hate it when people present hundred year old ideas as if they just thought them up
Meme loving fucks
If it is asked where did God come from, the answer is that God came from God. If we start with the assumption that everything must have a creator, we fall into the fallacy of infinite regress, as explained above.
Schopenhauer dealt with this semitic garbage once, and for all.
Oh hey look, a guy who hasn't actually read Summa Theologica.
If you had actually read the thing before criticising it based solely on someone else's (faulty) conclusions on it , you'd find that this isn't rocket science.
Go get a copy of the book, there's a kindle version that's free or you could probably find a pdf file somewhere .
Now read the part on the "goodness" of God, and the question of evil.
Now seeing as you probably are too mentally retarded to glean anything from the passage then I'll spoon feed it to you :
"God's endless goodness is such, that brings goodness out of evil"
Whether you agree with this or not is a matter of theological debate, but the point is that you have jumped to a conclusion without actually reading on the subject matter!
You are the cancer that's killing /lit/ you copulating sodomite
why assume effects have causes
things are because they are
this is how existence manifests; existence exists; quit being flies on wheels
>>8125911
tl;dr
seems like one of those muh so smart atheistic kids
>>>/reddit/
>>8126459
Well if his supreme court has such an imbecile then I pity OP and his country
shut up and go read Spinoza instead of Thomas d'Aquin OP. Everything is God, and if he had the will to stop children suffering he would express a lack of something and wouldn't be perfect. Thus, he wouldnt be God.
>>8125911
>PROTIP; U CAN'T
i bet u spent a lot of time trying to lead up to this
nice babby bait tho my senpai
>>8126053
How can something that doesn't exist cease to exist? That makes no sense.
>>8125911
>see my blog
lmao
"What does it matter whether God speaks to us amid thorns or amid flowers?"
>>8125911
Your argument falls down on the assumption that suffering can only be a bad thing - this is not so. God is ombipotebt, and he is purely good, yet he allows suffering so that something greater can come out of it. A good example of this can be found at the beginning of the Silmarillion, where God's final song weaves into itself and integrates into its own beauty and music all the attempted discordancies of Satan. It is also put well in the Eastertide saying "Felix Culpa", or the phrase "oh happy sin, that won us so great a saviour." God can bring good out of everything, and his greatness can be discovered in redemption more than in creation. As St John Chrysostom said in the 4th century, "We have lost paradise but have received heaven, and therefore the gain is greater than the loss."
God himself came on earth as man, and Jesus endured our lot - he was tempted, and he suffered. In doing this he made himself present in the darkest places so that we may find hope, sense, and consolation in our own sufferings.
Creation is moving towards a final perfection, but it is not there yet, and that is why we must still endure the suffering of sin, of death, and of the world. Ultimately all is made right again is Gods hands, because this life is only half the story.
>>8127140
>God is ombipotebt
>>8126479
Pantheists pls go
>>8127140
Except that's all fantasy fiction.
>>8127157
That's your dogma
OP indicated from the beginning that he was dealing with Christian theology
>>8127170
No, it's the opposite of dogma.
>subjecting God to social or biological concepts
>>8127183
Yeah, it's like subjecting unicorns to equestrian concepts.
theres nothing here to refute. it is not even a logical argument.
it just jumps from saying "wait, there's a problem here" to "matter came from matter duh lmao"
>>8127192
Semantically, God is not a unicorn though, clever boy
>If there is a God, why does he not give these children food, proper clothes, a home, proper education, love and affection, etc ?
Catholics generally believe that unbaptised infants who die in their infancy go to an eternal paradise like the one Adam & Eve were in originally. Baptised infants go to straight to heaven and see the very face of God and all the angels and saints for all eternity. Generally, everyone gets what they deserve. Those that die without having had a proper home, education, food, love, etc., will be treated FAR more leniently on Judgement Day. Those that have had so many opportunities will be judged far more harshly - the general rule is, the more you have, the more God expects of you. There are countless souls in hell that wish they had starved to death as infants, because if they had they would have sinned less and would be suffering less in hell. The reason why we have to come into this world and suffer in the first place is because of Adam's sin which brought death and sin upon us all; but by being baptised in Christ, who suffered the cross, our suffering becomes a means of sanctification.
Remember that this is the world that spat on and murdered the Son of God; it's an evil world and you shouldn't let yourself be scandalised when it seems God isn't around. The reason God doesn't seem present is because we've divorced him. If you want to see God, examine your own conscience.
tl;dr wait and see, God will settle the score.
>>8127220
Of course "he" is.
>>8127227
Except none of that shit is in the bible.
>>8127227
Very good
>>8125911
>This statement presumes that everything must have a creator. In that case, the Creator of the world must also have a creator, i.e. a super Creator, and this super creator must also have a creator, i.e. a super super Creator, and so on.
>This is known as the fallacy of the infinite regress.
Read Aristotle you dumb ass.
>>8126389
in what book? genuiely interesed. I remember that Schopi thought that religion was a good tool to keep in check the masses.
>>8125911
> Refute this
nah
there was never any logical reason to believe in a god past "i don't understand this, thus something i can't understand must explain it"
the only reason people today believe in a god is some extension of the above, or because someone told them they should believe in god, such as the church, the bible, their parents, etc
people who claim atheists are just as deluded as people that believe in god because atheists cannot be sure god does not exist are presupposing that the premises that god exists and that god does not exists are equal in terms of logical thought based in evidence, while this is completely fallacious.
If you believe in god, I would genuinely like to know your reasons for your faith.
>>8128011
I cannot stress this enough; read Summa Theologica
It was written to explain the Christian faith and the reasoning behind it as well as answers to the arguments against it.
>>8128556
It's sophistry and nonsense. Avoid.
Your problem is that you are trying to understand God as a fact when God is a metaphor. God is a metaphor for that which is beyond all categories of thought. Like the Tao, you can reference God but you cannot touch upon it directly. Once you have attached anything to the concept you have immediately excluded something.
>>8127248
>implying sin and death are more powerful than the cross
>>8130394
Nice atheism, heretic.
>>8130791
