?

Log in

Theism's Journal [entries|friends|calendar]
Theism

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

The Dogma of Faith [19 Mar 2011|12:56am]

sheliazhenko
Believing in the Greatest Value of Human as a way to God:

http://ludstvo.org.ua/doctrine_en.html

What do you think about this new religion?

post comment

Can anybody help to find publisher for Poesophy, pleease. [25 Jul 2008|05:38pm]

milosvet

This  is experimental direction in a science and the literature through merge of poetry and a science (philosophy). This direction did not exist till now in the pure state. Earlier there was a direction in poetry? Philosophical poetry (Empedocl, V. Solovyov, M.Voloshin, I.Brodsky, O.Khajyam, etc.), but did not exist directions in a science of philosophy in rhyfm philosophical gamble. One of representatives of German classical philosophy F.Schelling, named a similar direction didactic poetry.

post comment

Poesophy. part. 2 [25 Jul 2008|05:37pm]

milosvet

Will

 

The will is authority above itself,

the authority is will above others.

The will recovers a direction,

and doing the world destiny,

freedom of destiny in the world-

the will inspires in a pressure.

The duty as the center of will -  Good Honour,

freedom as the center of a duty – The good Gospel’s message.

The reason is a duty a measure,

a belief is a freedom’s share,

outside of reason will -belief,

but in reason belief - will.

 

 

 

5 comments|post comment

Poesophy part.1 [25 Jul 2008|05:36pm]

milosvet

Time

 

Time is something an average  between

that the friend the friend is pregnant:

movement and an idea.

The first the last the clothes called time,

dresses in sense.

Temporariness inside of sense - moves,

immovable in sense - It is thought.

I also do the conclusion

that time is think of a seed:

outside of an idea time - movement,

but in an idea movement - time.

 

 

post comment

Defining Theism and Deism. [13 Apr 2008|09:56pm]

criticalhit
Does anyone have good and distinguishing definitions for theism and deism?

I always thought Theism means believing a God exists, Atheism and not believing in God, and polytheism as believing in many gods. Deism I think refers to believing in some kind of supreme entity but trying to be pinned down or believing a specific religion, which would include the denial of miracles, etc.

If anyone can clarify these two terms, that would be most helpful. Thanks.
2 comments|post comment

Theological contemplations [15 Dec 2007|12:06pm]

xmeatlessx
I put together a little logical argument for the existence of God by piecing together a few separate arguments into one. Is the result logical?:

Premise one: All material effects have causes.
Premise two: The entirety of material existence is a collective effect.
Premise three: All material effects must be accounted for in the cause.
Premise four: Consciousness and individuality are part of existence.
Conclusion: Therefore, the original cause of existence must be a conscious individual whose personal existence is independent of any previous cause.

Clarification:
When searching out the cause of existence, one must invariably come to a point where there is an original cause, which itself is without a cause. If every material effect has a cause, this first ‘cause’ must be something which cannot be defined as material; it operates under a different set of principles from what we call ‘matter’. If that cause operates under a different set of principles than anything we are familiar with, how can we speak about it? Since we are familiar with the effect of that original cause, and that effect is subject to the material rule that all effects must be accounted for in the cause, i.e. an effect cannot posses more than what is found in the cause, then by looking at the effect, we can at least understand some details about the cause. Consciousness, individuality and personality seem to be intrinsic aspects of existence; one must assume their presence in the cause of existence. Therefore, the cause of all existence must be a conscious individual, whose existence is independent of any previous cause.
4 comments|post comment

Aquinas [18 May 2007|12:35am]

opiatelemur
I know this is a simplistic question, but I don't understand what Aquinas means by "enunciable." Also, I don't quite know what to make of "belief by supposition" or of "necessity of supposition."

Any help will be appreciated.

cross-posted
2 comments|post comment

theodicies and arguments from evil [17 Nov 2006|11:36am]

sullenoddity

Can anyone direct me to some contemporary theodicies and/or arguments from evil that are worth their salt? I've already covered Plantinga 's Free Will Theodicy and Hick's Soul Building Theodicy, along with Hume and Mackie's arguments from evil, but would like some more arguments to work from. 

I'm looking for anything, but it would be really helpful if there are any decent arguments for the punishment theodicy and karma (addressing moral and natural evil for both the individual and humanity as a whole). And quality inductive arguments from evil.

Thanks

2 comments|post comment

Is a balance possible? [21 Sep 2006|01:28pm]

howarddygo
Hi! This is basically a Christian entry on theism, but it can apply a bit to other forms of theism.

One of the questions I often grapple with is the balance between following a certain code of ethics and the power of faith and forgiveness. Basically, a big chunk of Christianity says that forgiveness is the key as no one is good enough to claim they deserve redemption. So, eventually, the question will be raised, does being ethical even matter? Again, eventually, connected to this is another question: can one remain unethical if one truly accepts and believes in forgiveness? Does an ethics of love come out from accepting forgiveness in its fullest and unconditional sense?

There are a lot of other items that should be discussed here, but it would take up too much space. But I'm wondering how God, again I am coming from a Christian interpretation of God, might decide.

I am also wondering if this entry should be here or somewhere else. Then I am reminded that whatever we say, we speak of God. So, what the heck. Let's take a gamble here.
17 comments|post comment

A firm agrument against agnosticism [14 Dec 2005|03:05pm]

xmeatlessx
I was listening to a lecture the other day given by a religious leader who was invited to give a talk in front of a university psychology class with the hopes of the students understanding better the influence of religion on ones psychology. The guest speaker ended up giving an incredibly logical and concise argument that the philosophy of psychology rests on the idea that the metaphysical exists in an absolute state, suggesting that there is actually something that must be referred to as absolute happiness. He then went on to say that having accepted this, one must then accept the concept of a personal God in order to proper justify an absolute metaphysical existance, because if absolute beauty has to exist it then suggests that there is a person who is able to possess such absolute qualities, and that person can only be a personal God. I won't get into the details of the argument because it was a 2 hour lecture, and it isn't entirely relevant for what I wanted to point out with this post.
During the lecture, a few things were said about the agnostic position. The first being that someone who is a 'soft' agnostic cannot reply to someones firm belief in God with the phrase "That's just your opinion", because to actually be able to logically say that firm belief in a specific concept of God is ONLY an opinion requires one to actualy know for a fact that it is ONLY an opinion, and since 'soft' agnostics claim that they don't know anything about whether God exists, or what His qualities are, they are not in a position to be able to claim that anothers convictions are just a matter of opinion.
After hearing this, I thought further, and realised that there are also aspects of the 'hard' agnostic view that are also self contradictary. A 'hard' agnostic is one that claims that they don't know whether God exists or not and also claims that it is impossible for others to know for sure of the existance of God. However, this stance starts in a position of already claiming to know what the qualities of God would be should he exist. One of the biggest theological issues is the question of the nature of the relationship between God and the world. Is it that God is entirely transcendant from all that we can experience, or is He entirely imminent in the world, or is He both transcendant AND imminent at the same time? This question is relevant because if God is entirely transcendant, then He is beyond all ability to comprehend, in fact his existance has little to no relevance in our lives. But if God exists in any way that isn't entirely transcendant, than it is possible to say that one can become aware of His existance and qualities (and the question of how is the matter of religious practice).
In order to actually hold the 'hard' agnostic view that 'I don't know if God exists, and you can't either', you must be certain that the qualities of God, were He to exist, are entirely transcendant. Yet, to claim that you don't know if God exists, but that you know what His nature would have to be for Him to exist is abit of a contradiction, which in the end renders the 'hard' agnostics argument completely invalid as a philosophical stance.
Furthermore, by adding the ontological argument for the existance of God into the equation this 'hard' agnostic stance further seems to fall apart. he idea that 'God is that being of whom there is no greater' means that if your idea of Gods nature does not describe a being of whom there is no greater, than you are not actually describing Gods nature fully. And techincally speaking, a being who is able to be both transcendant AND imminent AT THE SAME TIME is certianly a greater being than one who can only exist in trancsendance. Therefore, by the very definition of God you HAVE to be referring to a being who is able to be percieved in reality by one in this world. And in order to say that you absolutely have to abandon the 'hard' agnostic world view. And if you still claim to follow the 'soft' agnostic world view, you would be a fool not to search out that method by which knowledge of God can be obtained.
18 comments|post comment

bible-off [08 Dec 2005|08:41pm]

munchkinprince
My World History teacher is challenging students in the middle of class to use scripture to fight what he says. Unfortunately, I'm not that big of a reader, so I could use some help with this...

I need the verse that says that to be a christian, you must believe the bible(or something to that effect). He says he has friends that are christian but don't believe any words the bible says. I KNOW that's a verse, but I don't know where.

I also require any verses that can be used to go against slavery. There has to be something... but I don't know what...


Any help is greatly appreciated!
12 comments|post comment

[28 Nov 2005|08:03pm]

napoleonofnerds
My public school district's school committee (which I'm on) is trying to create a policy for Religious Holidays, and are having trouble with it. What do you all think would be a fair policy on holidays?

Some things that have been vaguely talked about:

1. We, inexplicably, take Good Friday off.
2. There is something sort of resembling a guideline from about 1980 which says that that there should be no tests or projects for the Jewish Holidays.
3. There is nothing that says they need to excuse your absence if you need to leave or miss school for a religious observance.
4. One of the crazier administrators once tried to ban all forms of religious expression, even for acedemic purposes, from the High School. For a year, nobody learned Mendelian genetics or the Protestant Reformation or read The Crucible (or the Inferno, or Le Mort D'Arthur, or...). This administrator was probably certifiable, and was fired at the end of the year. This was some years ago, before I remember.
5. We have many Muslim kids, and any policy that doesn't have a bright line must logically include Ramadan, which would kill most of first term.

I have no idea what to do. Thoughts?

x-posted: catholicism, catholic_heresy, ljcatholics, religiousdebate, theism
1 comment|post comment

what if [09 Nov 2005|11:17pm]
muechlemorder
Something is a continuing cause of the universe if and only if it causes each state of the universe. Something is an originating cause of the universe if and only if it causes the earliest state of the universe. If time is continuous, "the earliest state" may refer to an instantaneous state or (if the universe's history is half-open in the earlier direction) to a temporally extended state of some given length.

If big bang cosmology is true, the universe began to exist about 15 billion years ago with the big bang. The big bang is the earliest state of the universe; "the big bang" may be taken to refer to a singularity that constitutes the first instantaneous state of the universe or (if one "cuts out" the singularity) to an explosion that constitutes the first half-open state of some brief length, e.g. the Planck length, 10-43second. In my discussion, I shall treat the big bang as a logically possible example of an earliest state of the universe.

Considerations of agent causality are not germane to our discussion; our topic is the cause of the universe's beginning to exist, not the cause of God's act of willing that the universe begin to exist. We are not examining the relation between God (the agent) and his act of willing (the effect), but the relation between his act of willing (an event) and the beginning of the universe (another event). Thus, definitions of agent causality are irrelevant to our arguments; we are interested only in definitions of event causality, where the cause and effect are both events.
13 comments|post comment

All men are evil [09 Nov 2005|11:07pm]
muechlemorder
obviously the meaning of life is different for everybody and not everyone has a set meaning for life. This is what i get out of it and this is my current standby for it until someone with higher insight can provide with me a better way. Either way it would fit my philosophy. Allow me to explain....

For me life is this:
for me I have found that I am a more logical thinker than someone guided by faith...it is my very burning question for life's meaning that has directed my into my path of philosophy.

People who live a life of faith have one accepted a story with years questionable credibility. Even if they "created" thier own religion then they are accepting a story with no credibility. People who live by faith are ones who need to believe that everything has purpose because if not then thier is a chance they dont have a purpose and if noone or just "you" didnt have a purpose then you wouldnt "be".Allow me to explain...

It is in human nature to want to survive. Everybody can agree with that and everyone knows that someday you will die. Even though it's in our nature to survive our advanced brains take it a step further...death.we ask ourselves;What happens after I die, I can only keep myself alive for so long, What is my fate when I "die". Since we dont know what happens to us when we die then then the only thing we can do is assume. If you dont know something you guess or assume, that is what we do. So how could we guess what happens to us when we die. You cant just make up something that doesnt make sense. It has to fit with the fact you were alive. The connection has to be made. Life and death. Every major religion on this planet "makes sense". It explains everything. Purpose is given. If we were here for a reason then that would be the ultimate connection with life and death. Now we can explain our existence and no longer fear death..an end to the very thing you are in nature to defend...you life. Oh wait! now just because you have reason for your existence doesnt mean you have reason for death...why do we die...just because we're put here...why do we leave...why does our purpose serve only temporarily.

...Well if we as mortals were to end...then we end...what would be the reason of coming back if we had no point being here in the first place...well since we were here for a reason and we serve our "purpose" then we dont need to come back again into our same reality or level of being. You serve or do..then it is done. It is simpler to think that something is done...then it isn't done again.

Now we explained death..you exist for a reason and when your done...you die,end. So what happens next,since the only reason we are concerned or even could think of fathom the idea of another realm of being is that we are forced to leave the realm we're in. We stop "being" in the aspect we know of. So if we we're to continue being at all then we would have to live in a diffrent realm of reality. A different level of "being". So the connection of life and the meaning of it in contrast to death and what happens needs to connect. It is simpler that way and based on how human think then that's what needs to happen.

religion is born...people are now put here for a reason and when we die we still "live". Everybody wins. Now of course it leaves a very wide door open for the individual person but for overall human curiosity and fear it works.

If we are here for a reason then who put us here...why...how....all the questions you can think of... nothing that is equal to us could possible produce us...it has to be something more....for ages man has looked onto the night and wondered why....what makes sense...

God makes sense

a figure...usually in the form of a man...who is all powerful created everything...

there is no other....

just try to fathom how many people have walked this earth...during that time and that many people were here with different points of views and ideas and thoughts running through their head.

so many reasons and possibilities for why we are here and what happens to us when we die...it is a survival technique...

like I had stated before if we had no reason being here and spiritual connection then nothing would separate us from the other animals... and our advance brains cant handle that....

human mentality lead us to religion...enough said
55 comments|post comment

[09 Nov 2005|09:21pm]

gloriouswang
The following pieces of information are the pretenses that I am basing this article on:

a.) God is a perfect being.
b.) God created us, along with the rest of the world.
c.) We are imperfect.

If we all agree this is true, these are the things that don't make sense:

1. A perfect creator would not create imperfect beings. In a state of omnipotency a creator would only create something that reflects his skill: Perfect. Since we are not perfect, His perfection cannot be true.
2. God, in a perfect state, would have no desire or reason to invent something that is lesser than him. Once something achieves a perfect state the only course available is lesser perfection. Anything other than another perfect thing God would make would only be a showing of a less-than-perfect being. The only course He would take is to stop doing anything and simply exist in his sublime state. The creation of us is illogical.
3. Some may argue that He is perfect and yet we are not, and we simply cannot comprehend His mysterious ways. He exists in perfection and we simply do not. It is also believed that God interacts and intervenes with our plane of existence. If that is the case, why does he leave the world imperfect? Why does he leave us imperfect? Having an imperfect world that He directly interacts with must mean that he cannot make it perfect. Some may say then that he is perfect and does not interact with us. That cannot be true because the Bible records many interactions with God, proving that he must interact with us, therefore this point still applies.
4. Someone once said that God is in everything. If that's true, God must be in everythin that exists in the world. Yet everything in the world is not perfect. If the world is not perfect, and he is a part of our world, He is not perfect.
37 comments|post comment

Viruses [19 Oct 2005|07:14am]

virilescence
Is a virus alive, or not?

Though they vary as science evolves, the basic requirements for life are that it must:

* Reproduce
* Obtain and use energy
* Grow, develop, and die
* Respond to the environment

Arguably, a virus does all or none of these, or simply some. Though they reproduce, they cannot do so without another living cell--they are purely parasidic. However, they do have their own DNA, which evolves/mutates over generations as it meets resistance [environmental response?], though one unit in itself shows no developmental stages except for the infusion of its data into another cell, inside of which it uses the cell's resources to multiply.

Scientists have been going crazy on this matter for years... can religious philosophy provide a perspective here?
12 comments|post comment

[18 Oct 2005|01:41pm]

eppiffanie
Is theology a science?
Why or why not?
19 comments|post comment

[15 Oct 2005|08:41pm]

saraporah
Purely philosophically speaking — that is to say, aside from specifics of doctrine such as the divinity of the person in history called Jesus — what distinguishes Christianity from other ways of communicating with and relating to the divine? The only thing I can think of that, philosophically speaking, is specifically characteristic of Christianity is charity (i.e. "Christian love"). Either C.S. Lewis or Pascal (I've been reading both Mere Christianity and Pensées lately, so I can't remember which one) has stated that Christianity simply is charity. That is the whole of it. The other parts of Christianity only elaborate on that one fundamental part. Many of my family and friends are Christian, so on authority of the aura or "vibe" I get around Christians, I would tend to agree that charity is the sole defining philosophical characteristic.

Thoughts?
9 comments|post comment

[09 Oct 2005|09:50pm]

saraporah
Hello, I'm new to this community. But I'm going to skip introductions and just go straight to the meat.

Are there any dualists out there? That is, does anyone subscribe to the doctrine that there are two equally powerful forces out there, Good and Evil? I've recently read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, and he argues against Dualism by saying that the simple fact that we call one good and the other evil means we are comparing both to a single standard and ranking one above the other. However, I don't see why human opinions have anything to do with the relative power of good and evil. Just because we may like good better than evil, I don't see that that precludes there being an equally powerful evil force out there against us all. Or, better, we don't even have to know which is more powerful, good or evil. Maybe it's an ongoing cosmic battle whose ultimate fate is undetermined.

Thoughts?
28 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]