The five proofs of God's existance, as according to Thomas Aquinas~

1) All things are in motion (relativistically speaking). in order for an object to become in motion from a position of rest, a force by another object must act on it. necessarily, this cause has another force which caused it. moving backwards in time, we see a chain of causes and effects... HOWEVER, we know that this chain does not repeat infinately, thus there must have been a primary cause capable of acting not only on the other, but also on the self. God must therefore exist as the First Uncaused-Cause.

2) Nothing can cause its own existance. instead it must have an external efficient cause. likewise knowing that the universe is not infinite, we therefore know that there must have been a primary and unique efficient cause which alone was not dependant upon the other for its existance. this primary efficient cause is God.

3) If it is possible for a thing to not exist, then we understand that at some time in history it indeed did not exist. Hence there is a time when nothing existed (empirically observed fact). however, knowing that nothing can be its own efficient cause, there must have been something which existed at the time and which has no possibility of ever not existing. this by definition existant being caused the existance of the others at a time when there is nothing.

4) By judgement we know that there is a relative scale by which we measure certain things in our existance. namely, something can be hotter than the other. the objective scale from this comes from the comparison the the maximum. thus the better is only more than the good because it more closely resembles the maximum of the "perfect." we know that the maximum must exist... as the hotter is necessarily more closely resembling the hottest (a physical which exists) our being is greater than that of an animal because it more closely resembles the maximum of the Supreme Being, which also must therefore exist.

5) Natural bodies which have no intelligence inherant to them (such as, say, the moon) still manage to move in ways which continually obtain the best result. granted that these bodies have no inert intelligence to either determine the best result, nor to set themselves to acheive such a result. ergo, if there are intelligent laws of physics which innanimate objects follow, these laws and motions must have been established by an outside Being capable of setting the universe to proper action.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 09, 2004

Answers

topping for comment...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 09, 2004.

anselm's ontological arguement:

1) We begin by conceiving of the thing which no greater can be concieved of (ie the greatest thing possible to be thought of). we must recognize that this concept necessitates perfection, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. Even the atheist must realize that the greatest thing that can be conceived of is a God figure.

2) We look then to the question of existance. if we possess a thought, such as a certain amount of money... certainly it is greater for that money to exist for us in reality than simply in our understanding. as such (being that it is greater to exist than not to) we must recognize that if we concieve of the greatest thing that can be conceived, then that thing must exist in reality (or else it would be inferior to those things which exist).

3) ergo, if we can conceive of a being which no greater thing can be conceived of, this thing MUST exist or it is contradictory to its definition. therefore, God, being the subject which no greater can be conceived of MUST exist.

4) This existance is seperated from simple fanciful factors by virtue of the fact that God alone is unique in one specific factor: dependance. Take the concept of a non existant greatest island. one could argue that our concept of this greatest island would necessitate its existance, and if it doesnt necessitate the existance, than we cannot postulate that God exists in this manner. HOWEVER, we define an island as the land which is surrounded by water... if we remove the water, there is no longer an island, ergo the island is dependant on the other for its existance. God is the only subject which is not dependant on the external for His existance and ergo is unique in the matter of existance.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 09, 2004.

Regarding Aquinas:

Proofs 1,2,3, and 5 are based on Aquinas's understanding of the natural world. We've advanced quite a bit since then with the result that the more we know the more we realize how much we don't know. We are much more humble today than we were in Aquinas's time. I don't think that you will find any physicist today making the assertions about the natural world that Aquinas made so boldly and arrogantly 735 years ago.

Proof no. 4 shows only that God exists as an abstract creation in the minds of men such as Aquinas. Not all men are religious and share Aquinas's concept of sin vs. the perfect good.

I think you will agree that Aquinas did not approach the question of God's existence with an open mind. He set out to "prove" something that he already accepted as true. He had an agenda.

Man has so much more to learn about the natural world that for us to think -- at this stage in our development -- that we know how the world came about is like a 6-year-old thinking that he knows how babies come about.

One thing we do know is that science has seriously undermined the credibility of both the Bible and the Church.

Regarding Anselm:

I can't understand what he's saying and I have no inclination to expend the effort to find out. Why? Because I need emprical proof of God's existence, not philosophical proof.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 09, 2004.

I should say that I need "evidence" rather than "proof" of God's existence.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 09, 2004.

Actually, scinece has nether undermined the Bible, nor the Chruch. In fact, my zeal came form sicence. I grew uop a sicnece nerd. The Bible is the most accurate book ever compile don Human nature.

Which is, I remind everyone here, its sole intent. Itsnot a book of Physics of chemistry, and those sceces cannot undermine the booj since they baed little rrlation to it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 10, 2004.

Actually, scinece has nether undermined the Bible, nor the Chruch.

Then why were Galileo and John Scopes put on trial?

The Bible is the most accurate book ever compile don Human nature.

I agree that one can learn a lot about human nature from the Bible. But as a purely human work of literature we can expect that.

Which is, I remind everyone here, its sole intent.

I disagree. The intent of the Bible is for God to reveal Himself to man. I see nothing in the Bible which indicates that it was authored by someone of supernatural intelligence.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 10, 2004.

Actually, scinece has nether undermined the Bible, nor the Chruch. Then why were Galileo and John Scopes put on trial?

{Funny You mention Scopes. I happen to live in Dayton Tennessee. The popular myht is that scopes was a brilliant science teacher, who taughr evolution to children, and a bunch of closed minded fundamentalists, who refused ot listen to reaon and sicnece, had passed a law outlawign this, and sciopeds was put on tial. A clear case of sicence VS religion, right? Well, no. See, earlier that year, the Butler Axct was pased in NASHVILLE,, agaisnt the wishes of the Governor who went on public record sayign the law was ridiculous, and no one woidl ever be tried by it. All the textbooks had evolution in them, an dno one was goign to replace them all.

Thats when the district atterny for Rhea County got invovled. Tou see, Rhea county wanted to improve tourism. The saggign economy and low sale of goods had caused issue with all but the major sink comany. So, to rectify this, they wanted soemthign big to attract attention tot he small town. So, they contacted the ACLU, and concocted a show trial. Then, they got a student teacher ( A Gym Teacher, by the way, who volunteered to substetute for sicnece classes, teahc evolutio, and be out on trial, the plaque commemoratign the meetign between Scopes and the District aterny , which took place casually in a drug store, can be seen to this very day if you go down main street)

The trial existed for one putpose and one purpose only. To draw attention to rhea county.

The ACLU hired the two greatest lawyers of the time, william Jenings Bryan, for prosecution, and Clarency Darrow, for defence. Unlike the movie " Inherit the wind" scopes did not spend a single night in jail, was not houdned by the asses, and was never harrassed. Darrow was wlecomed with open arms, and remarked this was among the friendliest community he had ever visited. The trial lasted, if memory serves, about 3-4 months. Nontheless it was not sinece VZSS religion, it was over the butler act and rather or not it had been violated. Dispite the showtrial nature of this case, and in spite of the three ring circus they madethe courthouse into with monkeys and postes and flags and the now infamous slang term " Teh Monkey Trial", no phyiscal evidence was entered into the cae, and the debate ewasnever over if evolution contradicted the Bible, or if evlution where true r not. The trial consisted of rater or not Scopes had iolated the Butler act, and rather or not the Butler act was legally binding.

So scopes was NOT put on trial because sicencde cntradicted religion.

As for Gallilio, we have discussed him on this baord as well. He was persecuted frst not by the Chruhc, but by the secular centists who wher using Aristotles theories as fact. Aristotle, I remidn you, was a Pagan. The chruhc actually defended Gallilio at first, protectign hiagaisnt persecution. However, they insisted that he teach his idea as a theory, and not a fact. ( What we know now aside, this was a good policy, since they had no way to verify his claims.)

Gallilio insisted on teahcign it as a fact, but although this made for a few runins, it was not until he critisised the Pope's ability to interpret scriotue that he was brought before the Iquesition.

Strictly speaking, Gallilio was a victim of the inquesition because he denied Papal autority, and because he taight a theory which he coudl not prove as fact. Not because he taight sicnece which went agaisnt Chruch teaching, I dobt you can find an official Chruch document that proclaism the Earth the centre of the Universe.

Please get the facts right. Gallilio I can at leats Understand, but tryign to say Scopes was placed on trial because sicnece contradicted rleigion is ridiculous.}-Zarove

The Bible is the most accurate book ever compile don Human nature.

I agree that one can learn a lot about human nature from the Bible. But as a purely human work of literature we can expect that.

{Can we? its insights are often too accurate. especially for the times. conrast it with the other most brilliant owrks of the age, the Iliad, Palto's republic, ect, ad you will se eit stands alone as the most advnaced collection of its time.}-Zarove

Which is, I remind everyone here, its sole intent.

I disagree. The intent of the Bible is for God to reveal Himself to man.

{Which means its about a relationship between God and Man. Which is the relm of Osycology. Granted, it invvles God's Psycology as well, but lets not kid ourselves and make out lie this is somwehow fundamnetally different form psyclogy just because Gdo is invovled.}- Zarove

I see nothing in the Bible which indicates that it was authored by someone of supernatural intelligence.

{ Be that as it may, the real qeastion is is it accurate, and can we learn rom it?

Their was an old parable from Tibet. a student was troubled once. Teh ancient scroll of wisdom seemed to have no auhtor. He took it to his master and said " Maser, many scrolls where written by great masters fo the past, and wer reverence them, but this one has no clear indicator of an author. How can we rely on it, if we do not know who wrote it?" The master replied " My son, des the scroll contain wisdom? Have you seen vlaue in its word?" The student replied " Yes, but if it is not fom a master, it must be worthless." The master asked again " My son, what is more important, the words of a master, or te words of truth?" The stident said " The words of truth" the master relied then " And this is why we revernece this scroll."

Rather or not God was the author of the scirptures, or if others wrte them abotu God is of no consequene to me. I fnd them an invaluabe resource for learning, building a relationshp with God, and finding the meaning of human actions. I fin deapth and insight that I fund in no other soruce. I find a clarity, a urpose, and an integrety that I find no where else.

It is a book that literlaly saved my life, and I have seen its message aid others in their own.

This, strictly speaking, is the importance of the book, not rather or not the authors ( Plural) where possessed by God or merely wrote abotu God.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 10, 2004.

OH , one last note abouthe Scopes Trial... it was not the Chruch that held it, it was the state of Tennessee Vs John Scopes. Saying that the Chruch was agisnt Science in the matter of Scopes is wrong o htat alone even if the myht was correct and Finda,entalist Christaisn refused to hear the truth. The trouble was that it was NOT a fundamentalist Christain courthouse, nor a Fudnamentalist Chfristain Minister who sat as Judge.It was the State of Tennessee Against a substetute Teacher named John Scopes, who had violated state Law.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 11, 2004.

even more amazing...DC, and everyon else, irnoge the thread now...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 11, 2004.

Sorry , Zarove, I didn’t mean to ignore your post on Galileo and Scopes. I found it to be very interesting and informative. In fact, it led me to do some research on the Scopes trial. I found that there is a book about the Scopes trial called Summer for the Gods by Edward J. Larson which won the Pulitzer Prize for history. I’m going to buy it because it sounds like a fascinating case where the real story is very different and far more complex than what I and most others had been led to believe.

Nevertheless, I don’t see how this refutes my assertion that science has undermined the belief in the Bible. Even if teaching evolution was not the real reason Scopes was put on trial, the fact remains that evolution is at odds with what the Bible teaches. I will admit that evolution is just a theory but it does provide a possible explanation as to the origin of man.

The same goes for Galileo. Regardless of the real reason for his trial, the fact remains that heliocentricism is at odds with the Bible, which depicts a flat, immovable earth and a sun that moves across it:

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-” (Job 38:4-6)

“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” (Psalm 104:5)

“Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.... In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.” (Psalm 19:1,4-6)

“The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Furthermore, the Bible leads us to believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old whereas science says that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Also, you were the one who first mentioned on this board the spontaneous, uncaused appearance and disappearance of particles that is observed in quantum physics, which provides an alternative to relying on God as a first cause.

Rather or not God was the author of the scirptures, or if others wrte them abotu God is of no consequene to me.

I don’t think you understand the problems created if God is not the author of Scripture. The Bible is reduced to simply a collection of writings by men speculating about God and writing stories about Him. There is no assurance as to what is fact and what is fiction.

Furthermore, a key dogma of the Catholic Church -- which states that God is the author of Scripture -- would be wrong and deliver a fatal blow to the Church’s claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

So if the Bible is just a man-made work of literature and the Church is just a man-made institution, where is God? What evidence do I have that He exists? And even if I do feel that a God or Gods exist, what am I supposed to think about Him or Them?

I fnd them an invaluabe resource for learning, building a relationshp with God, and finding the meaning of human actions. I fin deapth and insight that I fund in no other soruce. I find a clarity, a urpose, and an integrety that I find nowhere else.

It is a book that literlaly saved my life, and I have seen its message aid others in their own.

This, strictly speaking, is the importance of the book, not rather or not the authors (Plural) where possessed by God or merely wrote abotu God.

But couldn’t we also say, "This is the importance of God: believing in Him regardless of whether or not He actually exists."

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 12, 2004.

Sorry , Zarove, I didn’t mean to ignore your post on Galileo and Scopes. I found it to be very interesting and informative. In fact, it led me to do some research on the Scopes trial. I found that there is a book about the Scopes trial called Summer for the Gods by Edward J. Larson which won the Pulitzer Prize for history. I’m going to buy it because it sounds like a fascinating case where the real story is very different and far more complex than what I and most others had been led to believe.

{O know, few peopel know the facts well on tat case, and most use the fictional acocunt, " Inherit the wind" as an authriity, but Inherit the wind was social commentary based on macartheism that only loosley followed the trial hisotry and magnified the event to show narrow mindedness in the form of Christain fundamentalism.

I will reccomend soem books to you though, on the scopes trial, as I have a library and can easily look into what the town historians saym but you cant cross reference withte ease I can, so I have to double check ebfore I reccomend.}-Zarove

Nevertheless, I don’t see how this refutes my assertion that science has undermined the belief in the Bible.

{Because neither of those theings where really abouthte Bible to begin with!}-Zarove

Even if teaching evolution was not the real reason Scopes was put on trial, the fact remains that evolution is at odds with what the Bible teaches. I will admit that evolution is just a theory but it does provide a possible explanation as to the origin of man.

{Clarrence darrow actually argued at oen point that the evolutionary theory wa compatabke with the Bible, and indeed, many scholars and theologians have adopted he evoluitonary Modle, while claimign no contradiciton. This is not a new ohenomenon either, in the centuries preceeding Christs advdnt, soem Jews said the earth was invented in stages, rather than created in a single week, and even Saint Jerome thught the ppening passages of Genesis where allegorical, rather than literal. Beleif in the Bible doesnt rest on beleif in the Creation acocunt spacificlaly, sicne their are many takes that stretch back into antiquity.}-Zarove

The same goes for Galileo. Regardless of the real reason for his trial, the fact remains that heliocentricism is at odds with the Bible, which depicts a flat, immovable earth and a sun that moves across it:

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-” (Job 38:4-6)

{Sorry DC. this doesnt relaly say " The earth is a flat, immutable object, and the sun orbits it", it does say the Earht has dimensions, wich we can measure. No Passage on the Bibe actually refers to the Earth as Flat, it does refer to it as a circle, which can lso be translated sphere ( Hebrew doesnt have seperate words for thr two, at leats not ancient Hebrew) and even the passagre you quoted doesnt say the earht is flat, or that the sun revolves aroudn it.}-Zarove

“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” (Psalm 104:5)

{Yeah and I told my mother that I dotn sleep while movign when she asked if I wanted to take a ap in the car. well, if that where genuinly true, then I woudl never sleep sinse the earth, and by default I myself, are both always in motion... I think you are readign too much into it, andmissing the point of the Psalm. Overliteralism, especisaly of a vers ein isolation, is the baine of any real understanding. By the way my verison reads differently...

5. Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Remvoed differs form movied. woudlt you say? Likewise, th refernece is to God creatign it, and its stability, not to its motion in l,iteral space, and sice its a psalm, some poetic licence shoudl be afforded.}-Zarove

“Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

{Thats onlhy refering to the satability of the land, and not to the planets motion aroudn the sun... again, beign overliteral here...and missing the context...}-Zarove

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.... In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.” (Psalm 19:1,4-6)

{And every time somone mentions sunrise, it mans they beleive the sun goes aroudn the earth... again, poetic licence shoudl be afforded soem parts, its clear this is poetic in nature and not literal...}- Zarove

“The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

{Again, even today we use the term sunrise, it doesnt mean the sun literlaly rises, and the poin of eclesiasties was about he futility of life and its vanities and how things tend to continue, it is not, however, a sicnece text book but oen of philoosphy. It said this ti make a poin about life, not to dictate absolute truths about astronomy.}-Zarove

Furthermore, the Bible leads us to believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old whereas science says that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

{Which we have covered, the debate is ancient, and extends bakc to before the ime of Christ. Their ar emany approaches to the Bible, usign only one, and forcign everyone else to use it, is called creatign a straw man.}-Zarove

Also, you were the one who first mentioned on this board the spontaneous, uncaused appearance and disappearance of particles that is observed in quantum physics, which provides an alternative to relying on God as a first cause.

{Not nessisarily, since by all rights the particles shoidl not spontaneously come into being, we have obseferved that they do, but we cant explain how. Plus their is the queasion " What is God?" I am not a fundamentalist, neother are mosg posters here. So I am not realy sure what you want of us, but most ar eopen to differing interpretations of God, suh as God being the dreamer and we the dream, as an analogy.

Many Particle Physisists beleive in God, by the way, Few are fundamentalist Christains,, but a large percentage are Beleivers nonehteless. They merley see God differently than the average beleiver, and odnt think creation is a finished product.}-Zarove

Rather or not God was the author of the scirptures, or if others wrte them abotu God is of no consequene to me.

I don’t think you understand the problems created if God is not the author of Scripture. The Bible is reduced to simply a collection of writings by men speculating about God and writing stories about Him. There is no assurance as to what is fact and what is fiction.

{Not so. we discused sicnece, well, just tday i got soem books on scnece from waldenbooks. The thing is, their considered authoritative because we have imperical Data to bakc them. Same wihthe Bible.

Its not speculation, they write what they knew. I mean, soem of them met Jesus and soent three years withhtem, others had first hand expeirnce with God's Holy psirit and knew what it had taught htem. Theyw here auhtorities who knew their mateirals and wher eocmmissioned by this spirit to write these texts. Just ecause they are the auhors dosnt mean theyr merley speculating abotu God. Any mor ehtan if I write to you abotu semone I know. I am not speculating if I tell you what i now of soemone, nor wher ehtey speculatign when they told what they knew of God.}-Zarove

Furthermore, a key dogma of the Catholic Church -- which states that God is the author of Scripture -- would be wrong and deliver a fatal blow to the Church’s claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

{Actually the cousil of Nicea claimed that the works had ot be writen by n aposlte or an aposltes Companion, they did NOT beleive God personally wrote these books. Nor is that the Catholic posiiton today. Nor is it mine ( and since Im the resedent noincatholic...) Again, texts which are fdn useful for teahcing, contain much truth, and where divinely inpsired, but still wirtten by men, men who are nonetheless authorities in the feild in which tey seak and who are guided by the Holy spirit, are still valuable to read. }-Zarove

So if the Bible is just a man-made work of literature and the Church is just a man-made institution, where is God?

{Thats where yo err. Catholis claim God founded the Cruch in th peson of HJesus Christ, so its both human and divine. The Human Athors fo the sciroruees where guided by the Holy spirit, and well learned in their feild. They knew what they where tlakign about and where guided by God, but stkill wrte their own works. In the same way, the hcurh, thoug run by Men, is designed to convey God's grace and truth, and teach othrs how to live. This has been my understanding of it. A Human instetution, run by men.}-Zarove

What evidence do I have that He exists?

{Plenty, we shall cover it in two weeks when I open my thread.}-Zarove

And even if I do feel that a God or Gods exist, what am I supposed to think about Him or Them?

{Try askign them, reading of them, and learning. No one ever limited tyou tot he Bible, but I can tell you form expeiurnce that it is the best book on the topic. But by all means, read others.}-Zarove

I fnd them an invaluabe resource for learning, building a relationshp with God, and finding the meaning of human actions. I fin deapth and insight that I fund in no other soruce. I find a clarity, a urpose, and an integrety that I find nowhere else.

It is a book that literlaly saved my life, and I have seen its message aid others in their own.

This, strictly speaking, is the importance of the book, not rather or not the authors (Plural) where possessed by God or merely wrote abotu God.

But couldn’t we also say, "This is the importance of God: believing in Him regardless of whether or not He actually exists."

{Close. A better statement woidl be " We beleive in God as an ideal, even if the spacific intety doesnt exist". Soemthign can be said of the ideal, which is, itsself, a grand one. However I beleive God does exist, and will discuss that in one of my three threads for you, once I have htem finalised.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 12, 2004.

"the fact remains that evolution is at odds with what the Bible teaches. I will admit that evolution is just a theory but it does provide a possible explanation as to the origin of man."

A: Biological evolution is certainly not at odds with what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that God created all things, which of course includes all species of living things. It does not however reveal the natural processes through which God created these things. Why would it? It was never intended to be a book of science. Based on what the Bible tells us, we accept that God created the current land masses and mountain ranges and oceans of the earth. However, we know that these were not always as they are now. Continents which were connected are now separate. Oceans covered what are not the tops of mountain ranges. Yet the Bible doesn't say anything about continental drift and plate tectonics, which we know are among the mechanisms which resulted in the current geophysics and geography of the earth. The Bible likewise tells us that God created all living things. But it doesn't explain how species of living things gradually disappear and are replaced by new species, a dynamic which clearly happens. If God designed and set in motion the forces and processes that result in ongoing change in the physical/biological universe, then God obviously is responsible for the existence of all that now exists, as well as everything that previously existed but no longer exists. Science suggests that the first life came about by combinations of non-living matter, through a process of gradual change. The Bible says that God fashioned the body of man "from the dust of the earth", but says nothing at all about the process involved. Where is the conflict? Conflict arises only when science attempts to step outside its realm into the area of spirituality, something it has neither the tools nor the knowledge to address. Evolution is not "a possible explanation as to the origin of man" because man alone of all material beings possesses an immortal spiritual nature which could not be the result of any biological process. Once God created man's body from the dust of the earth, by whatever process He used for that purpose, He then "breated" into that biological creation the spiritual nature which defines human beings. When science sticks to topics that are within its area of capability, there is no conflict between science and divine revelation. Truth cannot contradict truth. But when science tries to play theologian, conflict arises, not between divine revelation and legitimate science, but between legitimate science and pseudoscience which attempts to dabble where it doesn't belong.

"the fact remains that heliocentricism is at odds with the Bible, which depicts a flat, immovable earth and a sun that moves across it"

A: It was not the writers of the Bible who originated geocentric theories, but the scientists of the day. If a religious writer of this day and age wants to coment about DNA, he will have to rely on the scientific experts of today. If they are wrong, then so will the rest of us be wrong, since we have no-one to reveal scientific truth to us but the scientific community. Heliocentrism isn't at odds "with the Bible". It is at odds with previous scientific theories, which were held at the time on the word of the scientific community of the time, and which were not surprisingly mentioned in various written works of the time - including the Bible. Also, please keep in mind the use of popular vernacular. In this technological day and age, the meteorological experts still give us the time of "sunrise" and "sunset" every day. So the use of such terms does not necessarily indicate belief that the earth is flat.

“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” (Psalm 104:5) “Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

A: Yes? And you are suggesting that the earth can be moved? The writers of the day would never have denied that God, who created the earth, could move it if He so desired. The passage simply acknowledges our own limitations. We must accept what God has ordained, what God has set in place. We cannot change it.

"It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.” (Psalm 19:1,4-6) “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

A: Again, we use the same terminology today.

"Furthermore, the Bible leads us to believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old whereas science says that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old."

A: Nonsense. The Bible indicates no such thing. Such a conclusion can be fabricated only by the most tortuous misinterpretaions of various isolated words and verses. And such a theory was in fact fabricated by fundamentalists for a very specific purpose - to create the impression that the amount of time required for biological evolution never existed. There is nothing in the biblical texts, honestly and rationally interpreted, that suggests any specific age for the earth. This is clearly a case of setting out to produce a desired result, and doing whatever is necessary to produce it.

"Also, you were the one who first mentioned on this board the spontaneous, uncaused appearance and disappearance of particles that is observed in quantum physics, which provides an alternative to relying on God as a first cause".

Saying that a particle has an "uncaused" appearance is simply another way of saying that the physicists conducting the studies do not yet understand the causes. In any case, all such studies are conducted within the bounds of an existing universe, governed by forces and laws, mahy of which we have not even discovered. It would be unwarranted to assert that anything we see happening in an already existing universe could also happen before the universe itself existed. Particles cannot come into existence "from nowhere", precisely because "nowhere" no longer exists! But they can come into existence from unknown causes, because human ignorance exists everywhere.

"Furthermore, a key dogma of the Catholic Church -- which states that God is the author of Scripture -- would be wrong and deliver a fatal blow to the Church's claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit."

A: Which is impossible by definition, since God Himself has stated that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to all truth. Which is why the Church holds this belief.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2004.

Response to Zarove and Paul M.---

Even if you can reconcile everything in the Bible with modern science, the statement that I made in one of my first posts in this thread still stands: I see nothing in the Bible which indicates that it was authored by someone of supernatural intelligence.

In other words, the cosmological viewpoint of the Bible is reflective of the times in which it was written. There is nothing in the Bible that has advanced man's scientific knowledge. Wouldn't it be great if there were some verses in the Bible which seemed nonsensical when they were written but whose truth was later revealed by modern science?

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 12, 2004.

Wouldn't it be great if there were some verses in the Bible which seemed nonsensical when they were written but whose truth was later revealed by modern science?

you mean, like, if the bible claims that the earth is the center of the universe, and einstein came along and proved that it very well could be... oh wait, that already happened.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 12, 2004.

"There is nothing in the Bible that has advanced man's scientific knowledge."

A: There is also nothing in a cookbook that advanges our knowledge of carpentry and plumbing. It isn't the reason the book was written, so why would there be? The Bible advances our knowledge of God and His plan for us. That is its purpose. It is not intended to advance our knowledge of anything else.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 12, 2004.

Even if you can reconcile everything in the Bible with modern science, the statement that I made in one of my first posts in this thread still stands: I see nothing in the Bible which indicates that it was authored by someone of supernatural intelligence.

{Which matters why? Again, even if only mere Humans write it, the fact remains that what they write was of imenent practical vlaue. So much s that book after book after book drw on it as an inspiraitonal sourc eto understndign the Human codition, and relevant hisotry fo the Middle east for a Jeihs Perspective. Considerign this vlaue, I ask again, what matters of its authorship if its right?}-Zarove

In other words, the cosmological viewpoint of the Bible is reflective of the times in which it was written.

{Thjis is actually false, as much int he Bible is counercultural tot he time it was written. IE, Monotheism was not he Norm for th Old Testament times iN Caanan. The idea of Natural proccesses as Natural was also forign to the cultures of Palistine at the time. ( MAke no mistale, the Bible has natural proccesses, caused by natural eevents, whereas the other cultures tended to think the gods caused everyhting. God only spacificlaly cuased soem tings, whereas the rest was natural progression.) Likeewise, Linear thinking and hte abiity to distinguish past form future origionate din semetic cultures and spread, thus allowign us to date and make sence of the world aroudn us, which was in great excess of the current understansing of the time. Likewise, Biographical texts where not realy known, and hte firts man of whom we have a Biography was King David. The Book of ecclesiasties is well ahead of its time as well in philiisphy when contrasted ot similar works of the period.We saw it, and copied its style, and thus advanced. of coruse, sine hte Bible was used in its tiem to advance, we have surpassed it now, butthe basic truths is revelas are still relevant, espeiclalyt partainitng to God and Man and the nature of Humanity.}-Zarove

There is nothing in the Bible that has advanced man's scientific knowledge.

{Odd, since this isnt quiet true. I canot think of the name right now, but oen man read a passagein the Bibek about " Currnts" in the ocran,a n set out to fnd them. He did. Likewise, Arceology, Psycology, and many more feilds havebenefited form the Bible. But, granted, not on a whole scale level, but as Paul oted, since th eprupose for most of the books was neither cientiifc advancement or offerign exlanation for how the owrld worked, this is moot.

The Bible deals with many htings, God, Humanity, relationships, ect... it does not, however, direclty relate to or pertain to scientific inquery. The Bible ws compiled to help us live our life, an direct us in how we shoudl live a moral, ethical, prodictive life. It was not designed as a sicnce textbook.}-Zarove

Wouldn't it be great if there were some verses in the Bible which seemed nonsensical when they were written but whose truth was later revealed by modern science?

{The difficulty is twofld. The first is, their are soem thigns that shere Nonsensical when written that later turned out to be true. IE, the currents that where mentioned.

Likewise, you seem to forget the Bible is not a book, but rather 66, r to a catholic 72, books. Eack book has a spacific reason to exist. Soem are Hisotry texts. In most Hisoty texts I own, sicnetific knoledg eis not enumerated, simpleybecause it woudl be superfluous, why shoudl we hold a different standard to chronicles or Kings? Other books are Philosophical in nature, such as ecclesiasties, Wisdom, Sirach, ect... these books stand a greater chance to mention sicnece, bt their overall putpose is ti describe the Human consdiiton. woudl we take the writigns of Carl Jung and complain they hteir are few references to Astronomy in them No, since that was not his pupose. Commentaries on human nature are about Human nature,not Evolutiin, Physics, or chemistry. Likewise, soem books are lawbooks, such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Do Law Books even today mention sicence excessively/ Not unless its a patent law or a code of ethics, but sicnetific princioles arent relaly relevant and arent relaly mentioned. Soem books arent books at all, btu atre letters, such as Paul's General epistles, which extorted repentance and taught a better manner of conduct and how to Seek God, none of which requires diversion into the sicneces. The Propjetical books where either about repentance, Gods Judgement, o future events noen of these thigns need sicnetific detail either.

Again, the purpose of the books shoudl be condsidered, an if thy arnet sicnece books, r relaly relate to sicnece per sey, why complain?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CO,), September 12, 2004.

“Regarding Aquinas: Proofs 1,2,3, and 5 are based on Aquinas's understanding of the natural world. We've advanced quite a bit since then with the result that the more we know the more we realize how much we don't know.” (DC)

Please explain what, if anything, in each of Aquinas’ proofs above, you think has been negated by subsequent advancements in understanding of the natural world. As far as I can see such advancements have only confirmed the truth of what Aquinas said.

“ We are much more humble today than we were in Aquinas's time. I don't think that you will find any physicist today making the assertions about the natural world that Aquinas made so boldly and arrogantly 735 years ago.”

Yeah I see you’re a real humble guy DC. Physicists don’t discuss this subject because it’s not physics, its natural theology (theosophy). I don’t think you would find any physicist today saying that Aquinas’ reasoning CONFLICTS with the laws of physics either. Aquinas wasn’t a physicist, he was a theologian. And as for being arrogant, he described all the mighty works he labored on as “so much straw”.

“Proof no. 4 shows only that God exists as an abstract creation in the minds of men such as Aquinas. Not all men are religious and share Aquinas's concept of sin vs. the perfect good.”

You’re saying that those who don’t believe in God have no concept of good or evil and are utterly amoral. The fact is that we ALL know naturally what is good (though we may be confused about the finer points). Aquinas is saying that because we do know good exists, and goodness like all charcteritstics is defined by reference to a maximum, there must be a maximal good, which he calls God.

“I think you will agree that Aquinas did not approach the question of God's existence with an open mind. He set out to "prove" something that he already accepted as true. He had an agenda. “ And you don’t have one? “Man has so much more to learn about the natural world that for us to think -- at this stage in our development -- that we know how the world came about is like a 6-year-old thinking that he knows how babies come about.”

Actually I know a 6 year old who knows that mommy and daddy love each other so much that God let them make his baby sister. I’d say he has got the essential gist of how babies come about.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), September 15, 2004.

Response to paul h. ----

you mean, like, if the bible claims that the earth is the center of the universe, and einstein came along and proved that it very well could be... oh wait, that already happened.

You mean Einstein was a geocentricist? Please explain.

But even if geocentricism turned out to be true that finding would not fit my criteria as evidence that the Bible was authored by a supernatural intelligence rather than by man. Why? Because man believed in geocentricism when the Bible was written.

In order to fit my criteria as evidence that it was authored by a supernatural intelligence, a verse would have to be one which we could say, "There is no way that a man could have written that. Such knowledge did not exist at that time."

Response to Paul M. ---

The Bible advances our knowledge of God and His plan for us. That is its purpose. It is not intended to advance our knowledge of anything else.

Fine. But the author's credentials must be established first so that we can trust that the author knows what he is talking about. If the author is God, that is, a man writing under the inspiration of God, then we need some credible evidence to substantiate that. But no such evidence is provided. In fact, the evidence shows that the Bible is merely a collection of writings by men who had no superior knowledge at all of the natural world, so why should we trust what they say about the supernatural?

For example, Genesis tell us how the world was created. Wouldn't it be great if it hinted at the big bang theory? No such luck. Furthermore, after giving us one account of creation it then gives us a second account that conflicts with the first account. So right off the bat the Bible contradicts itself.

And when the Bible talks about the sun, none of the verses hint at heliocentricism. It is true that some verses can be interpreted as modes of expression that we still use today, such as the sun rising or setting, or the sun being stopped in midday during battle to aid Joshua, or that the earth cannot be moved.

But two passages in particular sound very geocentric:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.... In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat." (Psalm 19:1,4-6)

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Response to Zarove ---

Again, even if only mere Humans write it, the fact remains that what they write was of imenent practical vlaue. So much s that book after book after book drw on it as an inspiraitonal sourc eto understndign the Human codition, and relevant hisotry fo the Middle east for a Jeihs Perspective. Considerign this vlaue, I ask again, what matters of its authorship if its right?

But is the Bible right? That's the question. It certainly isn't right all the time, is it? Should revere it as some sacred text given to us from on high and which we must slavishly obey?

Since the Bible was written by Jews we can expect that it would be a valuable source of Middle Eastern history from the Jewish perspective. And if many people find the Bible to be inspirational that's fine. But authoritative? As in "we must do this or believe that because the Bible says so." No, not authoritative.

...much int he Bible is counercultural tot he time it was written. IE, Monotheism was not he Norm for th Old Testament times iN Caanan.

I've got some shocking news for you, Zarove. Genesis starts off polytheistic. Yeah, it's a shocker to me, too. But there's no way around it:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

But the original Hebrew word is "Elohim," which is plural. So the proper translation is: "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth." That's why when Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit we read:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22)

In this passage "Lord God" is Yahweh, the chief God. It is probably better translated as "the Lord of the Gods." Note how Yahweh is saying that man has become "like one of us."

The idea of Natural proccesses as Natural was also forign to the cultures of Palistine at the time. (MAke no mistale, the Bible has natural proccesses, caused by natural eevents, whereas the other cultures tended to think the gods caused everyhting. God only spacificlaly cuased soem tings, whereas the rest was natural progression.)

It seems to me that the Bible has God causing everything. Maybe I've missed something. What "natural processes caused by natural events" are you referring to?

Likeewise, Linear thinking...Likewise, Biographical texts...Currnts in the ocran...Likewise, Arceology, Psycology,...

Yeah, but did the Bible give us sliced bread? Really, Zarove, where are you getting this stuff? :)

Again, the purpose of the books shoudl be condsidered, an if thy arnet sicnece books, r relaly relate to sicnece per sey, why complain?

Because whenever the Bible does refer to nature -- such as the creation of the world, the origin of man, properties of the sun and the earth -- it often gets it wrong. So we must treat the Bible the same way we treat any other piece of literature: profit from the good things it has to offer in the way of wisdom, information, and inspiration; but don't believe everything you read.

Response to Steve ---

Please explain what, if anything, in each of Aquinas’ proofs above, you think has been negated by subsequent advancements in understanding of the natural world. As far as I can see such advancements have only confirmed the truth of what Aquinas said.

Proofs 1, 2, and 3 are just variations on the theme of God as the first cause, which is necessary because -- as we all know -- everything must be caused by something else.

But it is not true that everything must be caused by something else. Quantum physics has demonstrated that particles can appear and disappear without a cause. Here one moment, gone the next, then back again somewhere else. There is true spontaneity in nature.

You can argue that there is a cause and we just haven't found it yet. That may be true and that's why we must keep looking. But if God doesn't need a cause why then why do we insist that nature needs a cause?

Proof no. 5 is negated by the concept of evolution and our knowledge of the age of the universe. It is true that world may look very orderly to us now but that's only because the world has had billions of years to sort things out. There was lots of exploding, colliding, and collapsing going on in that time. Order emerged out of chaos because whatever couldn't survive, didn't. No guiding hand was necessary to create the harmony we now see.

Proof no. 4 is philosophical rather than scientific. I don't understand it, to tell you the truth. It almost seems like saying that God exists because we have created Him.

Aquinas is saying that because we do know good exists, and goodness like all charcteritstics is defined by reference to a maximum, there must be a maximal good, which he calls God.

I still don't understand why God -- the maximal good -- cannot simply be a creation of man's mind. Also, God's behavior in the Bible is rather disturbing at times, falling well short of the "maximal good" as I would judge it.

I don’t think you would find any physicist today saying that Aquinas’ reasoning CONFLICTS with the laws of physics either. Aquinas wasn’t a physicist, he was a theologian. And as for being arrogant, he described all the mighty works he labored on as “so much straw”.

You certainly won't find any physicist making the categorical statements about nature that Aquinas did. That's why he strikes me as arrogant. Actually I know a 6 year old who knows that mommy and daddy love each other so much that God let them make his baby sister. I’d say he has got the essential gist of how babies come about.

Your son, I presume? What he knows depends on what you've told him. But suppose his only source of information was another 6-year-old? And suppose that 6-year-old's only source of information was from other 6-year-olds, and so on? That's the situation man is in when speculating about how our world came about. Even more so during Aquinas's time 735 years ago. Maybe in another 735 years we'll know enough about the natural world to say that it probably is the work of an Intelligent Creator. But to say that now is just pure speculation.

And you don’t have one(an agenda)?

My only agenda is truth. The fact is that I would like to be wrong. I would like to believe that in the end God will make everything right. The good will be rewarded, the bad will be punished, and the repentant will find mercy if they are sincere, amend their ways, and are willing to take their just punishment. I would like to believe that I will see my loved ones again.

But I cannot believe anymore without evidence that it is true. Otherwise I'm just engaging in a childish fantasy.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

DC,

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 15, 2004.

Response to Paul M. ---

The Bible advances our knowledge of God and His plan for us. That is its purpose. It is not intended to advance our knowledge of anything else.

Fine. But the author's credentials must be established first so that we can trust that the author knows what he is talking about. If the author is God, that is, a man writing under the inspiration of God, then we need some credible evidence to substantiate that. But no such evidence is provided. In fact, the evidence shows that the Bible is merely a collection of writings by men who had no superior knowledge at all of the natural world, so why should we trust what they say about the supernatural?

{tHE PROBLEM IS, YOU ASSUME THEY DIDNT UNDERSTAND THE NATURAL WORLD. yOU GO TO SKEOPTICAL SORUCES THAT USE QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT AND THAT DONT VEEN BOTHER TRYIGN TO GET AT WHATS ACTUALLY BEIGN SAID OR DISCUSSED. Like your " Bible is Geocentirst" claim. No passage oin the Bible expressly states the Sun revovles around the earth, and the evidence form the skeptic that makes the Bible geocentiristic is , well... distorted.}-Zarove

For example, Genesis tell us how the world was created. Wouldn't it be great if it hinted at the big bang theory? No such luck.

{But wouidl that have been vlauable for the peopel who coudlt understand it? And dont you think that the central point shoudl be relaly what we are interested in?}-Zarove

Furthermore, after giving us one account of creation it then gives us a second account that conflicts with the first account. So right off the bat the Bible contradicts itself.

{This is actually a canard. The " Teo creation acocunts" so popular with skeotics and critics, as wdll as Soem modern schoalrs, is a joke. Chapter 1 is not a seperate creation acount, follwoed by a conflicitng accoun in Chapter two. The evnts of Chapter two postcede those of chapter one, chapoter 2 is NOT a second, alternate creation account.}-Zarove

And when the Bible talks about the sun, none of the verses hint at heliocentricism.

{Really? In addition to Heliocentrism beign actually wrong ( The Universe does NOT revolve around the sun, the sun revovles around the core of our Galaxy which isself revvles around he cente of the Universe), thi sint quiet true.Ill look uo the verses in a bit, bu ttheir are verses oen can use to sipport Heliocentrism, which, of coruse, woidlstill miss the point.}-Zarove

It is true that some verses can be interpreted as modes of expression that we still use today, such as the sun rising or setting, or the sun being stopped in midday during battle to aid Joshua, or that the earth cannot be moved.

{Very good, so you see how foolish sleptics are when they say such and try to use thrm as evidence, whent he passage is usually tlaking abotu soemthign wholly different.}-Zarove

But two passages in particular sound very geocentric:

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.... In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat." (Psalm 19:1,4-6)

{Again, the Psalms are lyrical poetry, takign them literlaly is a fools game.}-Zarove

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

{This verse is just using an expression... again, similar to me sayign "Sunrise" or " Sunet" to-day... you went form saying " exressions we stil use today" to using an expression as proof of Geocentrism. Why cant this verse just be an expression? Do you even kow what the pasage is talkign about?}-Zarove

Response to Zarove ---

Again, even if only mere Humans write it, the fact remains that what they write was of imenent practical vlaue. So much s that book after book after book drw on it as an inspiraitonal sourc eto understndign the Human codition, and relevant hisotry fo the Middle east for a Jeihs Perspective. Considerign this vlaue, I ask again, what matters of its authorship if its right?

But is the Bible right?

{Yes. It is.}-Zarove

That's the question. It certainly isn't right all the time, is it?

{Well i certainly never saw any real problems with it.}-Zarove

Should revere it as some sacred text given to us from on high and which we must slavishly obey?

{We obey God, not scrioltrues. The Scirptrues merley tezhc us about life, relationsuips, and above all God. We obey th principle they teach, not the book that teaches the principle. }-Zarove

Since the Bible was written by Jews we can expect that it would be a valuable source of Middle Eastern history from the Jewish perspective. And if many people find the Bible to be inspirational that's fine. But authoritative? As in "we must do this or believe that because the Bible says so." No, not authoritative.

{It is authoritative though. Again, the men who wirte it where authorities on the topics they wrote. They knew of life, love, oain, and sorrows, and of God's grace and slavation. To this end, the Bible's authority is unchallenged, because it was wirtten by authorities, and is as authoritative, if not more so, than " A breif history of Time", or the US COnstetution. If it was wirtten BY an authority, spoekn of in the field they where an authority in, then it is an authoritative source.}-Zarove

...much int he Bible is counercultural tot he time it was written. IE, Monotheism was not he Norm for th Old Testament times iN Caanan.

I've got some shocking news for you, Zarove. Genesis starts off polytheistic. Yeah, it's a shocker to me, too. But there's no way around it:

{Hehehe, yeah right, I am hardt shocked since I know Hebrew and know about " Elihom" beign " The gods", and I also know its not true...sorry...}-Zarove

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

But the original Hebrew word is "Elohim," which is plural.

{Sorry, your wrong/ The word elohim CAN be plural or singular. The word Bara, however, is singlar. in Hebrew, the Verb Tence often signifies the number of the noun, rather plural or singular, rather than the noun itsself. You cannot make the term read " In the beginning the gods created", since that woidl be Bree'shiyt baro' 'Elohiym 'eet hashaamayim w'eethaa'aarets. The hebrew reads

Bree'shiyt bara' 'Elohiym 'eet hashaamayim w'eethaa'aarets.

Bara, not Baro.

This proves you read too mamny Skeptic websites and books, and dont relaly bother checkign the real facts. Their is no way you can translate the text to read " In the beginning, the gods created the heavens and the Earth", because the erb Tence is SINGULAR. Its not PLURAL.

So, sorry, Im not that shocked. }-Zarove

So the proper translation is: "In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and the earth." That's why when Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit we read:

{Sorry, this is nonsence. If you coidl read Hebrew you woudl relaise the proper translation is " In the beginning, God created...", not " In the beginning the gods created..." , again, Bara, not Baro, was used as the Verb, and it is impossible to make the verb tence sinfgular read as a plural in Hebrew. Dont lecture me on it, Im actually trying to make a Bible translation. I know. }-Zarove

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22)

{And if you relied on more htan skeprical soruces and hte Bible aloine, you woudl relaise whats beign discussed. The archane Quabballah ( not the new age nonsence) and the Talmud, and the writitngs of the Jewish Fathers, and all commentaries form the DSS, make it quiet clear that this was the host he was addressing. ( Hist beign assembely of angels here.) Your basign your interpretation on the " Correct" translation where " the gods" created everything, which betrays your attemot here.

You arent realy searchign ouththe matter, your just lookign into skeptical claims of th Bible and accepting their word for it without queastionign it.}-Zarove

In this passage "Lord God" is Yahweh, the chief God.

{False. in CHapter three Yahweh is the ONLY God mentioned, their is no "Cheif god". Pleae stop reaidng SAB and Infidels.}-Zarove

It is probably better translated as "the Lord of the Gods." Note how Yahweh is saying that man has become "like one of us."

{I hate when yo sat " Probabely"... the word for Lord is Adoni. The word Adoni doesnt appear... the reason Bible translations use " Lord God" is because their is such revernce for the name Yahweh that its never used. The correct term is Judge yahweh or god Yahweh. The term Elohim can mean Judge, but usually means god ina generic sence. The correct translation is actually foudn in the Jerusalem Bible, where he is called " god Yahweh". I am grudged to admit that sicne I am a KJVer, and since the JB is a bit liberal, but it is the correct translation. He was not " The cheif of the gods", as you an tor soruces so badly assert.}-Zarove

The idea of Natural proccesses as Natural was also forign to the cultures of Palistine at the time. (MAke no mistale, the Bible has natural proccesses, caused by natural eevents, whereas the other cultures tended to think the gods caused everyhting. God only spacificlaly cuased soem tings, whereas the rest was natural progression.)

It seems to me that the Bible has God causing everything.

{But it also seems to you that the " Shocking" revelation that Polytheism is int he Bibel wodul be new to me...I know all the dirty litle arguemts you will use already, and have answered them dozens of times, they usually are all badly informed.

Read the Bible more and ee for yourself tour error here.}-Zarove

Maybe I've missed something. What "natural processes caused by natural events" are you referring to?

{God, accoridng to scriotrue, set up natural proccesses. WSe will discuss it later sicne I want you to prove the polytheism claim, and contradict the milions of schoalr and hebrew speakers who think Bara is a singular verb and no a plural.}-Zarove

Likeewise, Linear thinking...Likewise, Biographical texts...Currnts in the ocran...Likewise, Arceology, Psycology,...

Yeah, but did the Bible give us sliced bread? Really, Zarove, where are you getting this stuff? :)

{Same place I get most things, form actual study rathe rhtan kisten to trash tlak form atheists... where did you get the " Shocking" revelation about a Polyhteistic Bible?}-Zarove

Again, the purpose of the books shoudl be condsidered, an if thy arnet sicnece books, r relaly relate to sicnece per sey, why complain?

Because whenever the Bible does refer to nature -- such as the creation of the world, the origin of man, properties of the sun and the earth -- it often gets it wrong.

{No itdoes't/ Even the " Troubling" ecclesiasties verse you used was just an expression. Mainly its your bad exegesis, not the Bible, hats in error. And your skeptic sources. }-Zarove

So we must treat the Bible the same way we treat any other piece of literature: profit from the good things it has to offer in the way of wisdom, information, and inspiration; but don't believe everything you read.

{ Thats rich comign form someone who tokld me the Bibel in Genesis 1:1 shodl read " In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the Earth"...sorry to repeat myself but its absurd that soemone who knwos Hebrew ( me) Is lecutred by soemone who clealry dosnt knwo Hebrerw ( You) based on you blindly beleivign sources like Internet Infidels. I mean, relaly, where dd you sull that/ Did you check their facts? Are you willign to disregard them as false?}-Zarove

Response to Steve ---

Please explain what, if anything, in each of Aquinas’ proofs above, you think has been negated by subsequent advancements in understanding of the natural world. As far as I can see such advancements have only confirmed the truth of what Aquinas said.

Proofs 1, 2, and 3 are just variations on the theme of God as the first cause, which is necessary because -- as we all know -- everything must be caused by something else.

But it is not true that everything must be caused by something else. Quantum physics has demonstrated that particles can appear and disappear without a cause.

{Now you misunderstand quantum Mechanics. It states particles came form no where that we knwo of, it does not say ty emerged wothout a case!}-Zarove

Here one moment, gone the next, then back again somewhere else. There is true spontaneity in nature.

{ Except mahbe not, superstirng theory may state that these " New " partices arent relaly new, but travelign throguh wormholds and disappearign to appear elsewhere. Other theories tate their new, but cuse is unknown.}-Zarove

You can argue that there is a cause and we just haven't found it yet. That may be true and that's why we must keep looking. But if God doesn't need a cause why then why do we insist that nature needs a cause?

{ Because we know Natre had a cause, rea dup on the Big Bang theory...}-Zarove

Proof no. 5 is negated by the concept of evolution and our knowledge of the age of the universe. It is true that world may look very orderly to us now but that's only because the world has had billions of years to sort things out. There was lots of exploding, colliding, and collapsing going on in that time. Order emerged out of chaos because whatever couldn't survive, didn't. No guiding hand was necessary to create the harmony we now see.

Proof no. 4 is philosophical rather than scientific. I don't understand it, to tell you the truth. It almost seems like saying that God exists because we have created Him.

Aquinas is saying that because we do know good exists, and goodness like all charcteritstics is defined by reference to a maximum, there must be a maximal good, which he calls God.

I still don't understand why God -- the maximal good -- cannot simply be a creation of man's mind. Also, God's behavior in the Bible is rather disturbing at times, falling well short of the "maximal good" as I would judge it.

I don’t think you would find any physicist today saying that Aquinas’ reasoning CONFLICTS with the laws of physics either. Aquinas wasn’t a physicist, he was a theologian. And as for being arrogant, he described all the mighty works he labored on as “so much straw”.

You certainly won't find any physicist making the categorical statements about nature that Aquinas did. That's why he strikes me as arrogant. Actually I know a 6 year old who knows that mommy and daddy love each other so much that God let them make his baby sister. I’d say he has got the essential gist of how babies come about.

Your son, I presume? What he knows depends on what you've told him. But suppose his only source of information was another 6-year-old? And suppose that 6-year-old's only source of information was from other 6-year-olds, and so on? That's the situation man is in when speculating about how our world came about. Even more so during Aquinas's time 735 years ago. Maybe in another 735 years we'll know enough about the natural world to say that it probably is the work of an Intelligent Creator. But to say that now is just pure speculation.

And you don’t have one(an agenda)?

My only agenda is truth. The fact is that I would like to be wrong. I would like to believe that in the end God will make everything right. The good will be rewarded, the bad will be punished, and the repentant will find mercy if they are sincere, amend their ways, and are willing to take their just punishment. I would like to believe that I will see my loved ones again.

But I cannot believe anymore without evidence that it is true. Otherwise I'm just engaging in a childish fantasy.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Response to Andy S ---

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Evidence that the Catholic Church is a divinely guided institution. I now see her as simply a product of the times. She is not transcending the times at all. She embraces -- albeit slowly in many cases -- whatever the fashion may be. She is not infallible as she claims to be.

Evidence that the Bible is divinely written. It has all the features of a collection of ancient, man-made literature. Nothing more.

Since I no longer see God revealing Himself to man through the Church or the Bible, what am I left with to believe that God exists? I guess God would have to reveal Himself directly to me. He can if He wants to. If He doesn't then that means either that He doesn't care or He isn't there.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), September 15, 2004.

Why do to see God as " the gods" in Genesis? Read my new thread for it, sicne this oen got too long...What if your skeptic informaiton is worng?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Part of my reply was lost alas.here is the rest.

I still don't understand why God -- the maximal good -- cannot simply be a creation of man's mind.

{Well for starters Man dosnt tend to make up purely good gods, or woudl make gods who allowed their lusts access... why nto a god that was OK with fornication, for instance? Sping seems to liek the idea... But the real queastion is not raher or not mn coidl habe made up the ultimate good, but if its real or not.}-Zarove

Also, God's behavior in the Bible is rather disturbing at times, falling well short of the "maximal good" as I would judge it.

{Hardly, if you read SAB or Infidels maybe, but most of the "Bad" htings God did arednt rellay bad, Ive hard all the argumens and hey aent goignt o be new. Just like your " The gods create the heavens and th earth" thing...}-Zarove

I don’t think you would find any physicist today saying that Aquinas’ reasoning CONFLICTS with the laws of physics either. Aquinas wasn’t a physicist, he was a theologian. And as for being arrogant, he described all the mighty works he labored on as “so much straw”.

You certainly won't find any physicist making the categorical statements about nature that Aquinas did. That's why he strikes me as arrogant.

{ Funny, phsysisst d make categorical sttademenrs baotu nature... and its not arogant to present what you know or beleive.}-Zarove

Actually I know a 6 year old who knows that mommy and daddy love each other so much that God let them make his baby sister. I’d say he has got the essential gist of how babies come about.

Your son, I presume? What he knows depends on what you've told him. But suppose his only source of information was another 6-year-old? And suppose that 6-year-old's only source of information was from other 6-year-olds, and so on? That's the situation man is in when speculating about how our world came about.

{Again, the Bible istn speculation... thats your arogance speaking.}- Zarove

Even more so during Aquinas's time 735 years ago. Maybe in another 735 years we'll know enough about the natural world to say that it probably is the work of an Intelligent Creator. But to say that now is just pure speculation.

{The Bibel spends actually less time on the topic of cratin, however assertign a beelif in God as creator is not harrogant, any more than assertign belief in anythign else. }-Zarove

And you don’t have one(an agenda)?

My only agenda is truth.

{No its not.You disproce this when you recycle crap off secweb and SAB. You use biased soruces and even start talkign liek them. "Freethinker", "Seekign truth", ect...

If you relaly sought truth, you woudl have wueastioned the artivles you read and foudn the answers. The simple fact is a basic lexigcon for the Hebrew language, or even a basic understandign of the text in hebrew, woudl ahve eliminated your misconception you arrogantly posted as " Shocking", about how Genesis 1:1 is "Correclty translated" as " In the beginning, the gods created the heavens and the Earth." Yes im haerping, but you arent seekign truth since you use moronic arguments form wrogn soruces and dotn even bother chekcign their facts, you just beleive whatever they tell you!}-Zarove

The fact is that I would like to be wrong.

{Yiu are wrong, your apprach is worng, and you managed to make me angry because I see another decpetion becoming a fruitive reality. }- Zarove

I would like to believe that in the end God will make everything right. The good will be rewarded, the bad will be punished, and the repentant will find mercy if they are sincere, amend their ways, and are willing to take their just punishment. I would like to believe that I will see my loved ones again.

{ Then why not try to undertsand the mateiral you are revieing? Just be hioenst, and stop readign skeptic garbage. This diesnt mean read Christaun apologetics either, jjuts try ti find the truth.Truth, not arguments.}-Zarove

But I cannot believe anymore without evidence that it is true. Otherwise I'm just engaging in a childish fantasy.

{We have ecvidence, but frst you must undertsand wt it is we are tryign to prove.}

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 15, 2004.

Hi DC,

You replied, Evidence that the Catholic Church is a divinely guided institution. I now see her as simply a product of the times. She is not transcending the times at all. She embraces -- albeit slowly in many cases -- whatever the fashion may be. She is not infallible as she claims to be.

Are you distinguishing between the Church's official teachings and the people who make up the Church? If you look at the Church's teachings, I disagree. One example is the teaching on artifical contraception and the meaning of marriage. In my view, these are counter to the world and the times we live in. Even the teaching on the Eucharist is counter not only to logic, but the world and current trends in various Christian denominations as a whole.

You also said, Evidence that the Bible is divinely written. It has all the features of a collection of ancient, man-made literature. Nothing more.

I agree that it is a collection of ancient literature and written by human beings, yet divinely inspired. To be more specific, what evidence could someone provide to you that it is divinely inspired? Do you have an example? Would the words have to speak to your heart, or would it have to be something more physical?

You also replied, Since I no longer see God revealing Himself to man through the Church or the Bible, what am I left with to believe that God exists? I guess God would have to reveal Himself directly to me. He can if He wants to. If He doesn't then that means either that He doesn't care or He isn't there.

What about revealing himself to you through nature or other people? How do you know he isn't revealing himself to you everyday? Again, what kind of revelation are you looking for? Does it have to be a physical manifestation of God or are you looking for something that touches your soul? What would convince you DC?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 16, 2004.

you managed to make me angry because

Zarove,

positive thought, DC didnt make you angry, DC did something which you ALLOWED rankle you. ultimately your reaction to stimuli is 100 percent in the realm of your control... thus you should never seek to place responsibility for your reactions on others.

for example, my step sister did something dumb. when i asked her why she did it, she said that our parents had absolutely forbid her, and it was their fault for MAKING her do it. i had a heck of a battle trying to explain to her how it was a ball in her own court, and she was the only one who could take any blame for her own actions.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 16, 2004.

Nonetheless it was worth it, since I got to clear up a common atheist Charge, and even a slightly more rare charge... the whole " Elohim means gods so Genesis chapter 1 s relaly polytheistic" charge, which is bantied about as if valid, dispite the verb tence and script beign onviously singular. I only wihs DC knew Hebrew so I coidl explain the tences a bit more thouroughly, I strive for simplicity when sich occures. Then again, had DC knwon Hebrew, he would have known better and I wouldnt have really had any occassion to open the newer thread.

Likewise, the deutoronomy Passage... DC foudn an article with a translTION THAT, AT LEATS ACCORTDIGN TO HIM, MADE " mUCH MORE SENCE" DISPITE ITS OBVIOUS CNRADICTION TO THE ORIGIONAL hEBREW OF EITHER THE mESSORITE LINE OR EVEN THE dss Minority line he used.( The DSS had the Mesorite renderign as well.)

Likewise, the new translaiton, in which el gave his son Yahweh the peopel of Israel, didnt make senced in light of the preceeding vrses which claim Yahweh as the creator tf the Universe. what we hav is Yahweh cratign all peoples, some falling away an d no longer beign his children, and a group he called to be his children.

Yet in the new version, we have him claimed as the creator of all people, some fallign away into wickedness and error, then el coming aling and giving him soem people...

That makes more sence???

I think he just wants it to make more sence so as to confirm his current atheistic stance, but qhen read in contexxt the new rendering for verses 8 and 9 of the 32 chapter of Deuteronomy make no snece in his new way.

So at leats my anger wroth soem fruit.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 16, 2004.

There is also the fact to consider that, in the 39th Verse, it makes it plain that the auhtor of Deutoronomy was a Monotheist.

39: See now that I, even I, am he; there is no god beside me. I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and no one can deliver from my hand.

Funny hting is, this was all written, even by the JEPD Documentary Hypothatis people, by the same person...

So, we went form el givign his son, Yahweh, his people as an inheretance, which makes much more sence than the wya all other trnaslatiosn read, to Yahweh declaring hismelf the only god...

Whats worse, Yahweh claims this repeatedly in the verses emidealey following the 8th and 9th and 10th verses. For insatnce, how doew DC explain verse 21 in context?

21:They made me jealous with what is no god, provoked me with their idols. So I will make them jealous with what is no people, provoke them with a foolish nation.

The whole list below makes it very clear that their is but one god, Yahweh.

He just looked at the 8th and 9th verses, saw how hat oen guy revised them ( A guy with an obviosu agenda, PH.D or not) and asusmed it made more sence to read it that way, even if the other verses flatly contradict it in the selfsame chaoter, not even that far form it!

How coudl El, Yahwehs father, have given him his people and apprortoend the naitosn, only o have Yahweh delared both before the 8th and 9th verses and after by the author to be the only god???

The " New and Improved" and " Much more correct" version that makes " Much more sence" makes the text incomprehensale since it means that in one verse we start off monotheistic, then move to polyhteism for only two verses, then resume monotheism!!!

Im sorry, but thats just ludicrous.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 16, 2004.

There is also the fact to consider that, in the 39th Verse, it makes it plain that the auhtor of Deutoronomy was a Monotheist.

granted that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible, that would mean that deutoronomy and genisis have the same author, making the question of multiple Gods a moot point (or, at least, a deficiency in the hebrew language in the ability to distinguish between one and many... much the same way that it often fails to distinguish between present and future tense).

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), September 16, 2004.

It also cant distinguih beteeen an infinete expance and a limited one,thus the " Firmament" of the heavens... Skeptics fai to really realise how primative the Hebrew tounge is, and how they had to speak to convey ideas.

That was another " Bible error"m the firmament of the heavens, it is supposed by Skeptics ( Esp. on the web) that this means the authors of the Bible thought their was a dome over the (flat, immobile) earth, when in relaity their is no wordin Hebrew to convey a neverendign expance...

The limitatiosn of the Language aren't relaly considered by skeptics, they just try to make it as advanced a language as either english or Modern Hebrew...Then tell me how wrong I am, even if they cant read hebrew themselves!!!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 16, 2004.

Other problems include the fact that the "Pliral" word elohim is used in relation tot he goddess Ashteroth.

the KJV renders it this way.

33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.

But, accordign to DC, it shodul read...

33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the gods of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the gods of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.

Just like verse 5...

5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

Shoidl be ...

5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the gods of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

The word elohim must alwyas be plura, therefore it was plural when referign to Ashterath...

The word used for "goddess" is Elohim... If the word elohim was always pural and indicated Polytheism as DC stated, we have to wornder how many Ashteroths their where... since hte text talks abptu her in both singular ( as a name, Ashteroth) and plural ( As elohim). Ir, he can just listen to me and relaise the word Elohim isnt always plural...his choice relaly...

-- Zarove...the Translator... (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 16, 2004.

Oh and sorry for running on wihthtis stuff... just it irks me to see lame Atheist attakcs on the Bihble thta are discredited beign perpetrated, and peopel liek DC being foolish enough to beleive them...

The Term elohim is always plural when it disproves the Biblical Monotheism, but can be a singular when referig to a pagan god...So much for the PH.D...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), September 16, 2004.