Let’s make the assumption that intelligence is more perfect than non-intelligence.
Then, let’s prove that what is less perfect cannot account wholly for the more perfect. Of course, we observe more perfect beings coming from less perfect ones, as in the theory of Evolution, but we can’t say that the ORIGIN of more perfect being counts as their EXPLANATION. And why? Because there must be at least as much perfection in the cause as in the effect, otherwise the surplus of perfection of the effect (what effect has that the cause doesn’t) would have no reason at all. It would be too much. It would be unintelligible, and it should not exist.
We can say, besides, that what is less perfect lacks some perfection that what is more perfect has. But one cannot give what one does not have. Therefore, what is less perfect cannot account for all the perfections of what is more perfect.
And now let’s come to the point: what is not intelligent cannot explain what is intelligent, since what is intelligent is more perfect. Therefore, our intelligence must be explained BY ANOTHER INTELLIGENCE.
And why must we explain our intelligence at all? Because there are many intelligences in the world. So we have the choice: if we let these intelligences unexplained, there will be as many brute facts. But if we explain all these intelligences by only one superior intelligence, that of a supernatural beings, there will be less brute facts, and this will be better. Reality will be more intelligible.
thats just wrong then your stopping the flow of both wordviruses of both christians and satanists who believe in the same thing that has its own problems and being tools of the “god” is annoying and evil ways to play with us its wrong and i dont have a reason to respect this kind of thing. :evil:
Sam, I’ve seen you make a million of these “I can prove God exsists” posts. You just can’t prove God exsists or doesn’t. It’s impossible. It can’t be done through reason at all since by its nature God exsists outside our plane and our laws of reason.
see the changes you need negative to get positive even though
its not supposed to be there but think again you need to notice
positive and negative purposes to realize that you cant reach perfection
and knowone told you to believe in anything either by standing alone you change without it you “will break like pottery from a scepter” so without
false>true
neutral>chosen one
fear&love>fate
ignorance>belief
evrything needs itself friends or more effections it still
needs itself think about it “father,son,holy spirit”
now in that correct order we are the last we determine what to do with
oursleves but the bible only has a prophecy we are the effection belief
or not.
like morpheus said you have to become this (lifts a battery)
showing me that we effect the entire fate machine with our souls
at risk or not that is the power of the battery power is its soul
its flesh is metal we are flesh needed for a divine metal its a good
possibility :D.
Well that’s looking at (many, not all) western theists. Many eastern relegions, (Bhuddism in particular,) wholeheartidly believe in the elevation of man to perfection, (nirvana.)
Faith has nothing to do with proving the existence of God or not, since Artistotle the pagan demonstrated this in his time. It is the term of his metaphysics. He even said something rather poetic - quite unusual on his part - which goes something like “the more I look at the first principles the more I feel like a bat bedazzled by the sun”. What faith is is to believe in what the First Being “reveals” about itself. In the catholic religion, the possibility of having knowledge of a First Being through ones reason was touched upon in the encyclical letter “Fides et Ratio”.
Yes, I am familiar with the long tradition of Catholic philosophy and I actually have used St. Aquinas as an argument for first cause. But all that has done is give evidence of God’s exsistence, not proof. An athiest could just as easily give evidence against God’s exsistence.
Of course, many of those buddhist of which you speak are atheist. And pretty much all doaist are. But I agree the east seems to have this stuff down more.
Well, it’s really just two points of view. The west takes extraverted attitude towards relegion, the east takes an introverted attitude, (as observed by Jung.)