The most important question of all

[Epic Beard Man]

In which case my lack of knowledge doesn't affect anything, right?

I mean my life would will be the same regardless of whether God exists and I don't know about it or God doesn't exist in which case there'd be nothing to know anyway.

You assume your life will be the same..

 

[Nakosis]

You assume your life will be the same..

Why shouldn't I?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is there a God ?

Geneticist Francis S.Collins. Made a valid point. "If there is no God, then there is no life beyond the present one, no higher authority on moral issues".

The answer however is certainly not evident.
Atheists view this question through the lens of materialism and a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life.
Evolutionist Richard C.Lewontin made his bias clear: "We (atheist) have a prior commitment to materialism, ... materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Hence, materialists embrace the only alternative they have- evolution.

Regrettably, many of the world's religions have added to the confusion by teaching things that contradict not only scientific knowledge but unambiguous scriptural doctrines, replacing them with their own.

In the 13thcentury, " Saint" Thomas Aquinas, called the Angelic Doctor, advocated the death sentence for heresy. The "right" of the church to torture and burn heretics was, in fact, a horrible corollary to the unscriptural doctrines of hell and purgatory. The church tortured in the name of a God whom she blasphemously claims is a torturer himself.

Faced with conflicting theories and philosophies, many give up their search for the truth about God's existence.

But what could be more worthwhile and of greater consequence- than finding a trustworthy answer to such a fundamental question ?

Actually a god is not necessarily required in order for there to be an afterlife. As far as accepting that a god exists, I simply require verifiable evidence for the claim. If requiring verifiable evidence in order to believe something means that I view the question through 'the lens of materialism' (whatever that's supposed to mean) then so be it. If viewing the question through some other lens means that I'll accept claims WITHOUT verifiable evidence, then I don't want to have anything to do with it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Is there a God ?

Geneticist Francis S.Collins. Made a valid point. "If there is no God, then there is no life beyond the present one, no higher authority on moral issues".

The answer however is certainly not evident.
Atheists view this question through the lens of materialism and a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life.
Evolutionist Richard C.Lewontin made his bias clear: "We (atheist) have a prior commitment to materialism, ... materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Hence, materialists embrace the only alternative they have- evolution.

Regrettably, many of the world's religions have added to the confusion by teaching things that contradict not only scientific knowledge but unambiguous scriptural doctrines, replacing them with their own.

In the 13thcentury, " Saint" Thomas Aquinas, called the Angelic Doctor, advocated the death sentence for heresy. The "right" of the church to torture and burn heretics was, in fact, a horrible corollary to the unscriptural doctrines of hell and purgatory. The church tortured in the name of a God whom she blasphemously claims is a torturer himself.

Faced with conflicting theories and philosophies, many give up their search for the truth about God's existence.

But what could be more worthwhile and of greater consequence- than finding a trustworthy answer to such a fundamental question ?

Why is this the most important question? I'm not convinced it is.

 

[nPeace]

Existence is a given. What is God?

That's a far more important question.
A myth?
A legend?
A story?
An illusion?
A delusion?
Is it self?
Is it everything?
Is it love?
Is it the universe?
Is it a feeling?
An emotion?
A sense?
A voice?
A calling?
A title?
A person?
A place?
A state of mind?
A state of nevermind?

I could keep going.

A mighty one?

 

[Neuropteron]

WITHOUT verifiable evidence, then I don't want to have anything to do with it.

..................

That is a reasonable stance to take anything else, would be gullibility. That is why God has given us evidence of his existence, otherwise Paul could not claim that there is an "evident demonstration of reality".

Cheers.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there a God ?

Geneticist Francis S.Collins. Made a valid point. "If there is no God, then there is no life beyond the present one, no higher authority on moral issues".

The answer however is certainly not evident.
Atheists view this question through the lens of materialism and a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life.
Evolutionist Richard C.Lewontin made his bias clear: "We (atheist) have a prior commitment to materialism, ... materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Hence, materialists embrace the only alternative they have- evolution.

Regrettably, many of the world's religions have added to the confusion by teaching things that contradict not only scientific knowledge but unambiguous scriptural doctrines, replacing them with their own.

In the 13thcentury, " Saint" Thomas Aquinas, called the Angelic Doctor, advocated the death sentence for heresy. The "right" of the church to torture and burn heretics was, in fact, a horrible corollary to the unscriptural doctrines of hell and purgatory. The church tortured in the name of a God whom she blasphemously claims is a torturer himself.

Faced with conflicting theories and philosophies, many give up their search for the truth about God's existence.

But what could be more worthwhile and of greater consequence- than finding a trustworthy answer to such a fundamental question ?

So much of this is speculative or just mistaken.

A few core points of disagreement, in the order that you mention them:

1) Whether a God exists is a function of how you define that God and what your expectations are, nothing more.

2) Afterlife is not necessarily keyed to a God. Morality is if anything hindered by the hypothetical existence of one.

3) Ultimately, it is utterly unimportant whether there is a God. Except perhaps to the extent that one might motivate a person at the individual level, that is.

4) Atheism does not imply materialism.

5) The origin of life is not really significant from a religious perspective.

6) You have offered no fundamental question, or even a very significant one that I can see, sorry.

 

[Neuropteron]

The book I quoted from is the exact chapter where
You then linked his argument to the ridiculous medieval Church doctrines about hell-fire and purgatory - Aquinas did not do that - he based his argument on scripture...and if you were around in 13th century you would almost certainly have been convinced by it because you buy almost the same argument to justify the "shunning" of erstwhile members of your Congregations who are guilty of "heresy" - except you call it "apostasy". Both the Watchtower and Aquinas based their arguments principally around the principle in 1 Corinthians 5:6 and the example of capital punishment in the Mosaic Law and both you and he made the "negative influence" of wilful wrongdoers on the rest of the congregation the main concern. That is really the only principle that Aquinas was concerned with - the overall good of society - that moved him to support capital punishment (which was, in any case, the norm in those days).

Aquinas writes:

Furthermore, just as a physician looks to health as the end in his work, and health consists in the orderly concord of humors, so, too, the ruler of a state intends peace in his work, and peace consists in “the ordered concord of citizens.” Now, the physician quite properly and beneficially cuts off a diseased organ if the corruption of the body is threatened because of it. Therefore, the ruler of a state executes pestiferous men justly and sinlessly in order that the peace of the state may not be disrupted.

Hence, the Apostle says, in 1 Corinthians (5:6): “Know you not that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump?” And a little later he adds: “Put away the evil one from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13)...​

...Indeed, in the law which says “You shall not kill” there is the later statement: “You shall not allow wrongdoers to live” (Exod. 22: 18).​

The Watchtower publication Keep Yourselves in God's Love has an appendix that uses the same argument - but the other way round - i.e. it goes Mosaic Law to Corinthians - to justify disfellowshipping and shunning.

...reflect on the severe cutting off mandated in God’s Law to Israel. In various serious matters, willful violators were executed. (Leviticus 20:10; Numbers 15:30, 31) When that happened, others, even relatives, could no longer speak with the dead lawbreaker. (Leviticus 19:1-4; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 17:1-7) Though loyal Israelites back then were normal humans with emotions like ours, they knew that God is just and loving and that his Law protected their moral and spiritual cleanness. So they could accept that his arrangement to cut off wrongdoers was fundamentally a good and right thing.—Job 34:10-12. 10 We can be just as sure that God’s arrangement that Christians refuse to fellowship with someone who has been expelled for unrepentant sin is a wise protection for us. “Clear away the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, according as you are free from ferment.” (1 Corinthians 5:7)
​

And by the way, it wasn't Jesus who made the comment about leaven and lumps - it was Paul.

So - OK - I know you did not intend to open a debate on the similarities between Aquinas' medieval Church reasoning and 21st century Watchtower teachings - remarkable though that is - but if you take away the mischaracterization of Aquinas' argument from your OP, all you have really said is "people have different ideas about God - how do we know which is right?" - isn't it?

I'm guessing that your intention was to lead people to the conclusion that the "answers" are to be found in the Bible...and therefore to the more specific conclusion that we need to find someone (or more specifically some - perhaps God-appointed - organization) that knows how to interpret the Bible correctly...yes?

But should we really be trusting an interpreter that essentially uses the same kind of logical thought patterns that the medieval Church used to justify capital punishment for heresy?

Should we even be putting our trust in a collection of writings that are - it would seem - so open to ghastly misinterpretation that Aquinas was able to make a perfectly logical case for capital punishment for heresy based on the same scriptures?

I'm sorry if I seem to be reframing your debate - but I think these are very pertinent questions. Don't you?

............

It would be naive to think that anyone can be lead to a conclusion with a few words and some questions on a forum, so no, that is not my intention.

As for your question on whether I think your questions are pertinent, the answer is no, because charged questions seldom are.

 

[blü 2]

Geneticist Francis S.Collins. Made a valid point. "If there is no God, then there is no life beyond the present one, no higher authority on moral issues".

The more we understand what life is, the more it seems obvious that it ceases at death. Life is a biochemical pattern: if once that pattern is irreversibly lost, humans go to a 'life beyond the present one', then so should goats, crows, sharks, black widow spiders, geckos, sardines, fire ants, everything that was ever alive.

Equally, there's no coherent definition of a soul, such that if we found a suspect, we could determine whether it were a soul or not. Hence there's no coherent hypothesis as to how 'life beyond the present one' could even be possible. Instead, all we have are agreeable stories, that we heard, or made up ourselves: not a testable hypothesis from horizon to horizon.

Atheists view this question through the lens of materialism and a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life.

No coherent alternative is on the table. What choice do we have?

Evolutionist Richard C.Lewontin made his bias clear: "We (atheist) have a prior commitment to materialism, ... materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

I'll happily allow as many divine feet in the door as are shown to exist. Lots of weird things are true: the world isn't flat, the sun doesn't go round it, there is no lumeniferous ether, you can't go faster than c, comparing physical frames of reference requires relativity theory, the world unlocked by the double slit experiment can be deeply counterintuitive, and so on.

So all that's needed to persuade me that gods and souls are part of objective reality, not simply imaginary, is first, a satisfactory definition of a god, and of a soul, so we know what we're actually looking for, and second, a satisfactory demonstration that we've found it.

Does that seem unreasonable to you?

Hence, materialists embrace the only alternative they have- evolution.

Not only materialists embrace evolution: it's recognized by many churches. Denying evolution is even sillier than denying the periodic table, since the underlying perception of evolution is much simpler.

Faced with conflicting theories and philosophies, many give up their search for the truth about God's existence.

The trouble, as I mentioned, is that 'god' has no useful definition. There is no coherent concept of what a real god is. But I gather that doesn't matter, since imaginary gods are readily saleable.

 

[QuestioningMind]

..................

That is a reasonable stance to take anything else, would be gullibility. That is why God has given us evidence of his existence, otherwise Paul could not claim that there is an "evident demonstration of reality".

Cheers.

Sorry, but I have yet to see a single shred of verifiable evidence for any god's existence. Just because some guy named Paul wrote it in a book doesn't make it so. I suspect that if you had actual verifiable evidence you would present it, instead of quoting from someone who's been dead for centuries.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

.. That is why God has given us evidence of his existence.... .

Really? Where? You cannot use your bible as evidence-- it's your claim, here.

 

[sayak83]

..................

That is a reasonable stance to take anything else, would be gullibility. That is why God has given us evidence of his existence, otherwise Paul could not claim that there is an "evident demonstration of reality".

Cheers.

Paul was wrong in his claims.

 

[Neuropteron]

the important questions. What is the nature of this thing, and what relationship do I have (or should I have) with it? [/COLOR][/FONT]

......
It seems to me that establishing the existence of someone is a natural progression and comes before discussing his nature or the relationship we can have with him/her.

 

[Quintessence]

......
It seems to me that establishing the existence of someone is a natural progression and comes before discussing his nature or the relationship we can have with him/her.

That's fair, but personally, I never ask the question "does this exist" because if I can even ask the question, the answer is already "yes." I might ask "in what way do I experience this," but I never ask "does this exist." Asking the question automatically means it exists as an idea or concept... which in turn means I can ask "what is the nature of this concept" and "what relationship ought I to have with this concept." I don't call things "not real" or "not existing" simply because I only experience them through imagination, story, or philosophy.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Geneticist Francis S.Collins. Made a valid point. "If there is no God, then there is no life beyond the present one, no higher authority on moral issues".

That doesn't follow at all. He should stick to genetics and now I question his ability to analyze genes.

Atheists view this question through the lens of materialism and a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life.

I'm a materialistic theist. I don't think it's rational to use magic to explain nature. If God has a nature, He is natural. If we are in His image, He is natural. If He participates in nature, He is natural.

Regrettably, many of the world's religions have added to the confusion by teaching things that contradict not only scientific knowledge but unambiguous scriptural doctrines, replacing them with their own.

Why would I expect all the world's religions to agree? The bible can't even avoid contradicting itself.

But what could be more worthwhile and of greater consequence- than finding a trustworthy answer to such a fundamental question ?

What if the question is not fundamental but largely irrelevant?

Let's say that you have two loving parents and just before they croak of old age, they reveal you were adopted. Do you suddenly go wild and start killing people? No. Because parents are irrelevant. You are who you are regardless of label. You are not a descendant of dirt. You are a primate. The universe was already fine with this, so it doesn't matter if you're not.

But, outside of that, to some people its worthwhile but I dont see it worthwhile for the benefit of the whole.

Exactly. Unless you're clergy, it doesn't pay the bills, so to speak.

I agree, that is the case, with most people.

" the gate leading into life is narrow and cramped and few are finding it..."(Matt 7:13)

Jesus brags about that but all I see is someone who doesn't really want company.

I don't agree with Aquinas - personally I don't believe the death penalty is ever justified - and certainly not for 'heresy' - as long as there are obviously (as there always are and always gave been) more humane methods available.

I'm more of the "prevention, then rehabilitation, then, if absolutely necessary, "social removal".

Thing is you don't know the above.

If a religion says "If you do X, you get a cookie" and I can't find any cookies despite people doing X, then the idea that maybe there is no evidence of participation is valid.

The book you are quoting from is called the Contra Gentile and is written by the Catholik Church. I was, -albeit loosely- refering to general history.

You're one of THOSE who deny that the Catholics are Christians, aren't you? Yawn.

A mighty one?

Whose armies can be defeated by chariots of iron, who can't tell a Hebrew from an Egyptian, and can't enter a US school without permission?

That is a reasonable stance to take anything else, would be gullibility. That is why God has given us evidence of his existence, otherwise Paul could not claim that there is an "evident demonstration of reality".

Paul is a moron, a Trojan Horse who decided he couldn't stop the Way through stoning so he co-opted it instead.

 

[atanu]

Is there a God ?

To me more immediate and important question to seek answer for is "Who asks that question?"

 

[Epic Beard Man]

That doesn't follow at all. He should stick to genetics and now I question his ability to analyze genes.


I'm a materialistic theist. I don't think it's rational to use magic to explain nature. If God has a nature, He is natural. If we are in His image, He is natural. If He participates in nature, He is natural.


Why would I expect all the world's religions to agree? The bible can't even avoid contradicting itself.


What if the question is not fundamental but largely irrelevant?

Let's say that you have two loving parents and just before they croak of old age, they reveal you were adopted. Do you suddenly go wild and start killing people? No. Because parents are irrelevant. You are who you are regardless of label. You are not a descendant of dirt. You are a primate. The universe was already fine with this, so it doesn't matter if you're not.


Exactly. Unless you're clergy, it doesn't pay the bills, so to speak.


Jesus brags about that but all I see is someone who doesn't really want company.


I'm more of the "prevention, then rehabilitation, then, if absolutely necessary, "social removal".


If a religion says "If you do X, you get a cookie" and I can't find any cookies despite people doing X, then the idea that maybe there is no evidence of participation is valid.


You're one of THOSE who deny that the Catholics are Christians, aren't you? Yawn.


Whose armies can be defeated by chariots of iron, who can't tell a Hebrew from an Egyptian, and can't enter a US school without permission?


Paul is a moron, a Trojan Horse who decided he couldn't stop the Way through stoning so he co-opted it instead.

Religion can say whatever but God is different. People constantly think God is stuck in a book.....

 

[Jumi]

Is there a God ?

Geneticist Francis S.Collins. Made a valid point. "If there is no God, then there is no life beyond the present one, no higher authority on moral issues".

***

But what could be more worthwhile and of greater consequence- than finding a trustworthy answer to such a fundamental question ?

There is God, but the answer is not found in writing, it is found within our own mind. Paradoxically wanting to find the answer can be detrimental to getting it, it's like building walls around it made from speculation. In my opinion.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Is there a God ?

Geneticist Francis S.Collins. Made a valid point. "If there is no God, then there is no life beyond the present one, no higher authority on moral issues".

The answer however is certainly not evident.
Atheists view this question through the lens of materialism and a philosophy that assumes purely material causes for the origin of life.
Evolutionist Richard C.Lewontin made his bias clear: "We (atheist) have a prior commitment to materialism, ... materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Hence, materialists embrace the only alternative they have- evolution.

Regrettably, many of the world's religions have added to the confusion by teaching things that contradict not only scientific knowledge but unambiguous scriptural doctrines, replacing them with their own.

In the 13thcentury, " Saint" Thomas Aquinas, called the Angelic Doctor, advocated the death sentence for heresy. The "right" of the church to torture and burn heretics was, in fact, a horrible corollary to the unscriptural doctrines of hell and purgatory. The church tortured in the name of a God whom she blasphemously claims is a torturer himself.

Faced with conflicting theories and philosophies, many give up their search for the truth about God's existence.

But what could be more worthwhile and of greater consequence- than finding a trustworthy answer to such a fundamental question ?

When I was atheist I wasn't a materialist... I believed materialism and consciousness existed duly in the same physical structures and I still believe that.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

When I was atheist I wasn't a materialist... I believed materialism and consciousness existed duly in the same physical structures and I still believe that.

"was an atheist" so what are your metaphysical beliefs today?