Alan, maybe you can tell me if there is a specific god you think of?

Shiva, Freya, Manitou, Aphrodite, Anannuki, Osiris or Zarathustra?

Well, I do believe that if you believe there is a god that lords over you then there will be one for you in the end even though it may be a creation of your own higher self. So I have no problem with someone holding the belief if they could just see clear to avoid making the discussion about their "superior" god. I don't even mind invoking a god in discussions if we could just avoid the assumption that this so called ONE GOD must work as any one person sees it. To me it's all part of the consciousness pool. Consciousness is always what it is and it animates all that is physical in one fashion or another. The limitations of the physical body can limit our ability to express our consciousness, but once the body is shed it's all equal. I mean maybe. I think its as good an explanation as an all powerful god looming over us and expecting worship.

Beau,
"Well, I do believe that if you believe there is a god that lords over you then there will be one for you in the end even though it may be a creation of your own higher self."

One of many variations of handing over varying degrees of control over your self to others, whether the so called lord/master (or societal establishment) grumble or whisper. My higher/total self is my god, and the idea for me to bend over backwards to my true self is silly to the point of being laughable. And a salute isn't needed nor is it a requirement to say 'yes, master' when I see the image in the mirror, or in focus 34/35. I can live with others' gods, as long as they stay out of my face, or I'll become in-yo-face. I connect the dots to Monroe's polite and thus somewhat diffuse explanation of gathering escape velocity, but each to his and her own progression.

Beau and Supermodel,

When you decry the notion that a God would want us to worship him, what if this worship is acknowledging and giving thanks for the love and truth in our lives?  Seen in this light, worship is simply appreciation of love and the desire to give thanks for love and truth.  I see no reason not to worship the foundation of love in our lives.  Who could not embrace that?

Just my two cents.......

supermodel wrote on Dec 5^th, 2010 at 10:38am:




Thomas Aquinas: Arguments for the Existence of God.   




E:\Archive(2005-6) « (e)mergent Voyageurs_files\Thomas Aquinas Arguments for the Existence of God.htm

  • Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God • Thomas Aquinas: Arguments for the Existence of God. • Proof of God by Kurt Gödel • The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas: Five Arguments for the Existence of God.
Summa Theologiae, Question 2, Article 3:


It seems that God does not exist, for if one of two contrary things were infinite, its opposite would be completely destroyed. By "God," however, we mean some infinite good. Therefore, if God existed evil would not. Evil does exist in the world, however. Therefore God does not exist.

Furthermore, one should not needlessly multiply elements in an explanation. It seems that we can account for everything we see in this world on the assumption that God does not exist. All natural effects can be traced to natural causes, and all contrived effects can be traced to human reason and will. Thus there is no need to suppose that God exists.

But on the contrary God says, "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14).

Response: It must be said that God's existence can be proved in five ways. The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved.

verything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it. A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing.

Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized. For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot.

Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things. For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold.

Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect.

Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence.

If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed.

If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false.

Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

The fourth way is based on the gradations found in things. We find that things are more or less good, true, noble, etc.; yet when we apply terms like "more" and "less" to things we imply that they are closer to or farther from some maximum.

For example, a thing is said to be hotter than something else because it comes closer to that which is hottest. Therefore something exists which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being; for, as Aristotle says, the truest things are most fully in being.

That which is considered greatest in any genus is the cause of everything is that genus, just as fire, the hottest thing, is the cause of all hot things, as Aristotle says. Thus there is something which is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection in all things, and we call that something "God."

The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see that some things lacking cognition, such as natural bodies, work toward an end, as is seen from the fact hat they always (or at least usually) act the same way and not accidentally, but by design.

Things without knowledge tend toward a goal, however, only if they are guided in that direction by some knowing, understanding being, as is the case with an arrow and archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to their end, and we call this being "God."

To the first argument, therefore, it must be said that, as Augustine remarks, "since God is the supreme good he would permit no evil in his works unless he were so omnipotent and good that he could produce good even out of evil."

To the second, it must be said that, since nature works according to a determined end through the direction of some superior agent, whatever is done by nature must be traced back to God as its first cause. in the same way, those things which are done intentionally must be traced back to a higher cause which is neither reason nor human will, for these can change and cease to exist and, as we have seen, all such things must be traced back to some first principle which is unchangeable and necessary, as has been shown.

___________________________________________

 

Pat wrote:  'What you describe, with another name besides GOD, I can accept and am inclined to believe.  I tend toward the Monroe and Campbell views of the source of creation and love or PUL.  But I don't want to use the term God and have anyone think I accept a Catholic or protestant or Muslim or whatever view of their one and only GOD.'

I agree. It seems to me that a person may say that they are an athiest while another may regards themselves a theist. But on closer questioning, the two may actually be holding very similar views- the athiest having a vague sense of 'something bigger' while the theist rejects the 'white haired old guy in the sky' model. I think its important not to get too hung up on labels as they can give a sense of separation where none actually exists.

You all can worship the tree in your backyard if you wish.

I don't feel separated from ANY source or feel the need to figure out who or what created me so that I can give thanks to it. It's a complete and utter waste of time.

If that's what YOU want to do then by all means do it. I'm tired of posts on this board addressed to certain groups of people asking why they believe what they do.

I am an atheist that's all there is to it. I don't go around making threads to Christians or people of other religions here questioning why they believe what they do.

Thomas Aquinas arguments for  God's existence? Give me a break.

I'm not trying to go there and make this a religious debate. I don't like to get into those because I like to come here with like minded people.

That's my dos centavos on that issue.