God2


 * Can you tell me how Aquinas' Argument from Degree proves the existence of god? I bet you can't.

The Argument from Degree says a bachelor has a least dirty shirt in his apartment, which is a tautology, but it doesn't follow that he has a clean shirt. The being with the greatest perfection is not necessarily a being with infinite perfection.

Modern cosmology says that the universe had a beginning. The bible says so too. God is the uncaused "cause" of the universe. If the universe is not eternal, it had to have a cause.
 * Creationists believe there is a first cause that is eternal - either God, or the universe.

The concept of "eternity" depends on a discredited view of absolute time. Space-time (also known as the gravitational field) is part and parcel of the universe that had a beginning. It follows, then, that the universe is both finite in duration yet has also existed for all time.


 * I don’t even know what you mean by “Absolute Being.” Necessary Being more indicates the fact that God necessarily exists than the fact that His essence is existence.

We have discovered that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed (ie. from mass to motion). This makes the universe itself a necessary being. If you add a necessary creator being into the mix William of Ockham will "Tut tut" from on high.


 * I don’t even know what you mean by “Absolute Being.” Necessary Being more indicates the fact that God necessarily exists than the fact that His essence is existence.

Essence is the set of attributes pertaining to a thing (ie. a stone has the essence of hardness and weight). You claim that God has the necessary attribute of existence. However, existence itself is not an attribute. First you have a thing, then you may speak of its attributes.


 * Technically, the Gospels and the Epistles are corroborating accounts, but you find a way to reject it anyway. So I don’t think the number of sources has anything to do with it. And our expectations regarding what we think God would do does place a role in whether we think it...

Gospels:

"Good Master, what shall I do that I may have eternal life?"

"If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments."

Epistles:

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

And that pretty much wraps it up for corroboration.


 * The Teleological Argument is actually about the per se cause of the tendency of each creature to an end. The origin of species via evolution is completely irrelevant, as evolution is a per accidens cause.

Natural selection and deep time results in the simulacrum of design. Aquatic mammals resemble fish because their form, after many reproductive iterations, is optimal for their environment. A valid argument from design must first rule out whether the design is merely apparent.


 * Uh, Paul describes Himself as an Apostle, so he does actually indicate that he at least received instruction from Jesus after His death, which is of course described in more detail in Luke.

Matthias was selected to replace Judas.

In Luke 22:30 Christ says, "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Does that mean Matthias gets to boot to make room for Paul, or does it mean Paul is not an Apostle?


 * The argument from evil against the existence of God is unsound — the force it carries is purely emotional, not reasonable.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - God

"The LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth." - Daniel

'Nuff said.


 * I bet you don’t even know the most proper definition of God traditionally.

Traditionally the Hebrews were henotheists who believed in the existence of many gods, but were loyal to the god of Abraham. Then Yahweh was defeated by Marduk and the priests on the Babylonian Vacation reinvented the word to mean the lord of all, and deprecated the others.


 * "The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." Huxley is wrong on that. Is that clear now?

Q. Will you answer one simple question?

Atheist: Yes Theist: Yes Agnostic: No

Q. Do you believe in the existence of God?

Atheist: No Theist: Yes Agnostic: