Loving goodness of god's grace

[yiostheoy]

The notion of faith as mentioned in the New Testament is mostly an invitation to become brainwashed.

If you want any real assurance of the existence of a God or Gods then you need to turn to Philosophy first, and specifically to Aristotle and Aquinas.

Aristotle the ancient Greek philosopher tells us that with all the heavenly bodies in the night sky obviously in motion -- Sun, Moon, planets, comets, and meteors -- then there must obviously also be some Prime Mover who put them into motion.

This is an intuitive notion from Earth experience that nothing moves here either unless someone moves it, throws it, launches it, or flings it etc.

Aquinas adds 5 more "proofs of God" to the body of philosophical thought. One of these includes the Prime Mover argument as well.

So the good news is really that Philosophy indicates there must be a God or else everything else would not be here.

From this good news as your starting point, you or anyone else can then decide which of the current 12 major world religions you would like to choose to become your own specific faith-based system.

Your proof has come from Philosophy, and then your faith can focus on Religion.

Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

The notion of grace in the New Testament is that God, whom we have already proven to exist thanks to Aristotle in 350 BC, needed not to consider humankind in their weak mortal state.

However even so, God has provided a way through repentance, good works and baptism to become a member of the household of God.

Grace is God's having provided this way.

As such repentance, good living, and baptism are essential to obtaining this "salvation".

Many modern Protestant groups have warped this notion of Grace into a new meaning such that there are NO requirements needed by humankind at all. This warped carte blanche "gift" mostly makes these Protestants feel good about nothing.

However you would first need to throw away much of the writings of Matthew and of James in order to justify this new modern Protestant heresy. Matthew speaks of good works in his Chapter 25, and James tells us that faith without works is dead.

 

[ding]

The notion of faith as mentioned in the New Testament is mostly an invitation to become brainwashed.

If you want any real assurance of the existence of a God or Gods then you need to turn to Philosophy first, and specifically to Aristotle and Aquinas.

Aristotle the ancient Greek philosopher tells us that with all the heavenly bodies in the night sky obviously in motion -- Sun, Moon, planets, comets, and meteors -- then there must obviously also be some Prime Mover who put them into motion.

This is an intuitive notion from Earth experience that nothing moves here either unless someone moves it, throws it, launches it, or flings it etc.

Aquinas adds 5 more "proofs of God" to the body of philosophical thought. One of these includes the Prime Mover argument as well.

So the good news is really that Philosophy indicates there must be a God or else everything else would not be here.

From this good news as your starting point, you or anyone else can then decide which of the current 12 major world religions you would like to choose to become your own specific faith-based system.

Your proof has come from Philosophy, and then your faith can focus on Religion.

Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia

You do realize that I have been making the arguments of Aquinas except that I have done so using science to show it, right?

 

[yiostheoy]

If you are going to play with the Bible, then you need to play with all of it, not just with some of it.

Note however that Eusebius points out that Hebrews and Revelation are both dubious forgeries.

 

[ding]

If you are going to play with the Bible, then you need to play with all of it, not just with some of it.

Note however that Eusebius points out that Hebrews and Revelation are both dubious forgeries.

Are you asking me? Which part am I not playing with?

 

[BreezeWood]

Your proof has come from Philosophy, and then your faith can focus on Religion.

some look at the genome of life for their proof, not sure philosophy alone is proof enough and for religion how much is subliminal politics at least in their publications.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You do realize that I have been making the arguments of Aquinas except that I have done so using science to show it, right?

Well, why are ya doing that?

 

[ding]

You do realize that I have been making the arguments of Aquinas except that I have done so using science to show it, right?

Well, why are ya doing that?

Why not?

Science confirms the logic.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You do realize that I have been making the arguments of Aquinas except that I have done so using science to show it, right?

Well, why are ya doing that?

Why not?

Science confirms the logic.

Scientific proof is a myth. Its very nature demands that more questions always be asked. Always.

To claim that science confirms logic is not logical, Ding. It's crying in the wilderness.

Your persistence is admirable, misguided as it may be. I just searched through some of your old postings, just to get a better idea of your mindset, prior to deciding whether or not I felt like engaging you in those couple of recent replies to me. My suspicion was largely confirmed. I just don't know if there's anything to be had by engaging you. Respectfully speaking. You're a pilosopher with a rudimentary understanding of the natural sciences, but it doesn't appear that you understand the nature of science. Again, I say this respectfully.

 

[ding]

You do realize that I have been making the arguments of Aquinas except that I have done so using science to show it, right?

Well, why are ya doing that?

Why not?

Science confirms the logic.

Scientific proof is a myth. Its very nature demands that more questions always be asked. Always.

To claim that science confirms logic is not logical, Ding. It's crying in the wilderness.

Your persistence is admirable, misguided as it may be. I just searched through some of your old postings, just to get a better idea of your mindset, prior to deciding whether or not I felt like engaging you in those couple of recent replies to me. My suspicion was largely confirmed. I just don't know if there's anything to be had by engaging you. Respectfully speaking. You're a pilosopher with a rudimentary understanding of the natural sciences, but it doesn't appear that you understand the nature of science. Again, I say this respectfully.

Rudimentary understanding of the natural sciences? Well... I've been a practicing engineer for over thirty years so I'm pretty grounded in science. I'm not sure what qualifications you have in science though as you seemed to think non-newtonian fluids somehow negated the fact that cold is extant. But if you believe I am unworthy of your engagement because my scientific knowledge is lacking, all I can say is dunning effect. And I say that with all due respect.

As to your assertion that scientific proof is somehow a myth...

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al. Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either. So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al, or that everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. Which seems to be the point you are making. The problem with this position is that you would have be prepared to know next to nothing your whole life which is an untenable position.

Either way, your call.

 

[ding]

Just to be clear here... it is the second law of thermodynamics that proves that this universe had a beginning and is not infinite acting. It is also the second law of thermodynamics that tells us that there must be a first cause that is not a material thing.

Additionally, it is the creation of space and time itself which proves the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created.

Laws which predestined that intelligence would arise. Which means that the potential for intelligence existed before space and time itself.

 

[harmonica]

.....what about the murders/rape/robberies/war/genocide and everyday Christians being hateful/sinful/etc?

 

[ding]

the nature of science

Science is the study of nature to discover and understand the order within nature so as to make predictions about nature.

What exactly am I missing?

Engineering is the commercial application of science.

 

[Taz]

Just to be clear here... it is the second law of thermodynamics that proves that this universe had a beginning and is not infinite acting. It is also the second law of thermodynamics that tells us that there must be a first cause that is not a material thing.

Additionally, it is the creation of space and time itself which proves the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created.

Laws which predestined that intelligence would arise. Which means that the potential for intelligence existed before space and time itself.

Prove it.

 

[ding]

Just to be clear here... it is the second law of thermodynamics that proves that this universe had a beginning and is not infinite acting. It is also the second law of thermodynamics that tells us that there must be a first cause that is not a material thing.

Additionally, it is the creation of space and time itself which proves the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created.

Laws which predestined that intelligence would arise. Which means that the potential for intelligence existed before space and time itself.

Prove it.

How else do you believe the universe was created if not through the laws of nature?

 

[Taz]

Just to be clear here... it is the second law of thermodynamics that proves that this universe had a beginning and is not infinite acting. It is also the second law of thermodynamics that tells us that there must be a first cause that is not a material thing.

Additionally, it is the creation of space and time itself which proves the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created.

Laws which predestined that intelligence would arise. Which means that the potential for intelligence existed before space and time itself.

Prove it.

How else do you believe the universe was created if not through the laws of nature?

No, I said "prove it", not ask me a question.

 

[ding]

Just to be clear here... it is the second law of thermodynamics that proves that this universe had a beginning and is not infinite acting. It is also the second law of thermodynamics that tells us that there must be a first cause that is not a material thing.

Additionally, it is the creation of space and time itself which proves the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created.

Laws which predestined that intelligence would arise. Which means that the potential for intelligence existed before space and time itself.

Prove it.

How else do you believe the universe was created if not through the laws of nature?

No, I said "prove it", not ask me a question.

The proof is in the question.

If the universe was created following the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation then those laws existed before space and time itself.

 

[Taz]

Just to be clear here... it is the second law of thermodynamics that proves that this universe had a beginning and is not infinite acting. It is also the second law of thermodynamics that tells us that there must be a first cause that is not a material thing.

Additionally, it is the creation of space and time itself which proves the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created.

Laws which predestined that intelligence would arise. Which means that the potential for intelligence existed before space and time itself.

Prove it.

How else do you believe the universe was created if not through the laws of nature?

No, I said "prove it", not ask me a question.

The proof is in the question.

If the universe was created following the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation then those laws existed before space and time itself.

You don't know that and the laws of nature could have been wrapped up in the BB. You'd have to prove it solidly either way.

 

[ding]

Just to be clear here... it is the second law of thermodynamics that proves that this universe had a beginning and is not infinite acting. It is also the second law of thermodynamics that tells us that there must be a first cause that is not a material thing.

Additionally, it is the creation of space and time itself which proves the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created.

Laws which predestined that intelligence would arise. Which means that the potential for intelligence existed before space and time itself.

Prove it.

How else do you believe the universe was created if not through the laws of nature?

No, I said "prove it", not ask me a question.

The proof is in the question.

If the universe was created following the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation then those laws existed before space and time itself.

You don't know that and the laws of nature could have been wrapped up in the BB. You'd have to prove it solidly either way.

You mean like inflation theory and multiverses?

That’s how we know the laws of nature existed before space and time.

 

[Taz]

Prove it.

How else do you believe the universe was created if not through the laws of nature?

No, I said "prove it", not ask me a question.

The proof is in the question.

If the universe was created following the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation then those laws existed before space and time itself.

You don't know that and the laws of nature could have been wrapped up in the BB. You'd have to prove it solidly either way.

You mean like inflation theory and multiverses?

That’s how we know the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Inflation theory is, well, a theory, it's actually in the name. And multiverses also have not been proven as fact. Got anything else or is that it?