The Infinitely lazy God?

[shunyadragon]

No I provided the sources you just disagreed with them which is fine. I didn't come back to TWeb to get involved in this tit for tat so I will just say this. You will be going onto my ignore list if you keep this bullheadness up.

I made a sincere effort to review your references and found nothing referencing citations from early church fathers, nor early theologians to support your contention that there was a diversity of opinions concerning the interpretation of Genesis. My search revealed that prior to the 1600s I have found nothing in referencing an alternative to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Orthodox or not, prior to the 1600's there was no other alternative view.

You only referenced Gleason L. Archer and Dr. John Millam (a chemist), and both primarily discussed recent academics on the interpretation of Genesis. Neither directly cited the reference to what the early church fathers, nor early theologians believed and taught.



Really????? How long have you been posting here and you still don't know what is meant by the term orthodoxy? Honestly I've had enough now. Just go onto my ignore list. This just proves my point.[/QUOTE]

[JonathanL]

Agreed, the source of the translation was not an accurate translation. according to this the creation may took 6,000 years.

The translation I references was in error, your correct.

Not an accurate translation? Dude, it was a completely different text.

[JimL]

This is very confused. Please cite exactly which of Aquinas' arguments you're responding to.

If you know the argument then you should know I responded to all of it.

1) Aquinas claims God to be the unmoved mover. Answer: If God is not in motion himself, then how does he initiate motion?

2) Aquinas claims there must be a first cause. Answer: If God himself does not require a cause, then neither does the Cosmos/energy require a cause.

3) Aquinas claims the need of a necessary existence distinct from contingent existences. Answer: In the universe Necessity and contingency are reflexive as in energy and matter (E=mc2). So contingent things are not dependent upon a distinct cause. Cause and effect are of one and the same source.

4) Aquinas argues that there are degrees of goodness and that therefore God is the greatest good. Answer: If there are degrees of goodness, there are also degrees of evil, ergo God must also be defined as the greatest evil.

5) Aquinas argues that the apparent intelligence seen in the order and perfection of nature requires an intelligent creator. Answer: Why then doesn't God himself need an intelligent designer?

[Yttrium]

4) Aquinas argues that there are degrees of goodness and that therefore God is the greatest good. Answer: If there are degrees of goodness, there are also degrees of evil, ergo God must also be defined as the greatest evil.

I'm tempted to comment on several things in your post, but this one is most puzzling to me. Good and evil are contrasts. I'm not sure how you could have God being both the greatest good and greatest evil. There would then be no distinction between good and evil. The contrasts would be meaningless. I would think that if God represents the greatest good, then anything opposed to God's standards would be evil.

[shunyadragon]

Found your evidence on Aquinas yet? Let's see you cite his actual argument, or a modern version of it, and support your claim that it is circular, and assumes God's existence from the beginning.

Still waiting....

Source: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

B.Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
C.Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
D.Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
E.Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
F.Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)

© Copyright Original Source

Part I assumes that there must be an unmoved mover since everything moves. Part II assumes there is there is a First Efficient Cause that is Divine. It is possible the First Cause is simply Natural Law. Part III Assumes a necessary being not dependent on anything else. Part IV assumes there must be a Absolute God Being. Part V assumes a Great Designer is necessary to explain complexity in nature.

None of these assumptions are necessary.

[shunyadragon]

But "science" is doing just that. If the physical brain can account for all mental function then there is nothing left for the soul to do. So you disagree with with the claim that the physical brain can account for all mental properties?

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

This was a different question having nothing to do with science, so once again: So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

The Spiritual Laws of Moses were infallible for his time, as the Baha'i spiritual Laws are infallible for the Age of Baha'u'llah.

[shunyadragon]

Not an accurate translation? Dude, it was a completely different text.

True it is from on of the church fathers.

[seer]

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

You don't even understand the teaching of your own faith. If science is correct there is no need for the soul, yet according to your teachings rationality, intellect, emotion, etc... are dependent on the soul, the soul, not the physical mind, is what generates these mental properties. And that is at complete odds with what "science" is presently claiming.

The Spiritual Laws of Moses were infallible for his time, as the Baha'i spiritual Laws are infallible for the Age of Baha'u'llah.

You are a slippery one. So the "spiritual Laws" of Moses were infallible, but his other teachings weren't?

[shunyadragon]

You don't even understand the teaching of your own faith. If science is correct there is no need for the soul, yet according to your teachings rationality, intellect, emotion, etc... are dependent on the soul, the soul, not the physical mind, is what generates these mental properties. And that is at complete odds with what "science" is presently claiming.

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

You are a slippery one. So the "spiritual Laws" of Moses were infallible, but his other teachings weren't?

NO.

[seer]

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

You are just trying to have it both ways. There are no mental properties without the soul Shuny according to your religion. It is not about falsifying anything - but if it is, science has falsified the need for a soul. A man's mental faculties come from the rational soul, not the physical brain. According to your teachings.

NO.

So your prophet could be wrong about a number of things he wrote.

[shunyadragon]

You are just trying to have it both ways. There are no mental properties without the soul Shuny according to your religion. It is not about falsifying anything - but if it is, science has falsified the need for a soul. A man's mental faculties come from the rational soul, not the physical brain. According to your teachings.

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

[seer]

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

If the physical brain can account for mental properties then your religion is WRONG. Get it? Because mental properties are generated from the SOUL, not the BRAIN. Get it?

[shunyadragon]

If the physical brain can account for mental properties then your religion is WRONG. Get it? Because mental properties are generated from the SOUL, not the BRAIN. Get it?

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

[seer]

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

Then science is WRONG. The brain can NOT account for all mental properties, since it is the SOUL that accounts for mental properties. You can not have it both ways Shuny, it is straight forward logic. You can keep repeating yourself but you are exposed.

[firstfloor]

Then science is WRONG. The brain can NOT account for all mental properties, since it is the SOUL that accounts for mental properties. You can not have it both ways Shuny, it is straight forward logic. You can keep repeating yourself but you are exposed.

What is the soul? What are mental properties? And in what way does the soul account for mental properties? And, most importantly, how have you come by this knowledge?

I think that everything you claim to know about the soul and what it does comes from literature and traditions that at no point bear on the real world.

Science has discovered exactly what you are and if you don’t like what science tells you about yourself then in a sense you don’t like yourself either.