Do you believe in God?

[Red Orc]

Quite true about the influences of each other on the gospels - tho' Paul being closer in time than Mark & Luke is all very well, but not necessarily a deciding factor. To return to my fave analogy ATM, Stalin was closer in time to Marx than we are, but that doesn't make Stalin more right about Marx than ... say... me.

Indeed the Romans made Christianity the state religion, and then got St Augustine to write a book proving we were all going to hell, unless we do what the Pope says... and he's got a triple crown not because he likes Rugby but because he thinks he's the Roman Emperor (pontifex maximus = chief bridge builder - between mankind and the gods. It's an old pagan priesthood title which I delieve was once held by Julius Caesar).

[Red Orc]

Sorry Obviousman - you made some points which are definitely worth coming back on - haven't got my medieval philosophy books to hand, but I think it was decided that god is unknowable precisely as a result of Thomas Aquinas (or was it Thomas a Kempis? I can never remember) trying to rationalise god's existance... even the church decided it wasn't very convincing.

As to humans being incapable of acting decently, I really hope you're wrong. I BELIEVE that you're wrong, but I can't claim it's an unassailable fact - I just can't begin to think we're all horrible because I can't see how that could help me to go on living. If humanity really is that bad, it would probably be for the best if we all just died now - but as I say, I think it's obvious that people are nice, and it's situations which make them behave badly. If people are s**t, I really do think it's got more to do with ignorance and fear than inherent badness. It's also a bit to close to the doctrine of original sin for my non-religious tastes... (this is by way of being the light-hearted bit). I find Winnie the Pooh a great comfort sometimes...

[Obviousman]

Sorry Obviousman - you made some points which are definitely worth coming back on - haven't got my medieval philosophy books to hand, but I think it was decided that god is unknowable precisely as a result of Thomas Aquinas (or was it Thomas a Kempis? I can never remember)

Well, I don't feel like going upstairs to check out what Thomas said, so I don't really know, I just remember that he did try to prove Gods existance

As to humans being incapable of acting decently, I really hope you're wrong. I BELIEVE that you're wrong, but I can't claim it's an unassailable fact - I just can't begin to think we're all horrible because I can't see how that could help me to go on living. If humanity really is that bad, it would probably be for the best if we all just died now - but as I say, I think it's obvious that people are nice, and it's situations which make them behave badly. If people are s**t, I really do think it's got more to do with ignorance and fear than inherent badness. It's also a bit to close to the doctrine of original sin for my non-religious tastes... (this is by way of being the light-hearted bit). I find Winnie the Pooh a great comfort sometimes...

Well, I do not say humans cannot act right, far from, I'm quite a positive person myself, and I try to believe as many fairy tales as I can so I sure hope this is not the case ...

But I wanted to point that you can't help to be a leader or a follower, without this being necessarily a bad thing, and also I tried to point out that you've got to see what Marx wrote more as some utopian thing, like Thomas More's book... They both make some great points on where the world should evolve to, but this doesn't make you to be wanting to live in eg. Utopia, because it is a very gray state, and though most of his (realistic points) we're evoluated to allready, look at socialism (well, not Blair-like , but descent socialism, with social security, retirement and all that)...

Therefore, I think, we'll be most surely getting to a world like Marx' utopian civilisation, but this can take ages, and the literal society he described will be outdated by the time we get there... Than we'll get another chap, with his own ideals, some bastards'll screw it up, and slowly, the best parts will get implemented over the time after him...

[markfiend]

Is it Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine that came up with the ontological proof of the existence of God?

...after googling, no it's St Anselm. Clicky

Anselm presents the ontological argument as part of a prayer directed to God. He starts with a definition of God, or a necessary assumption about the nature of God, or perhaps both.
"Now we believe that [the Lord] is something than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Then Anselm asks: does God exist?
"Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not?"
To answer this, first he tries to show that God exists 'in the understanding':
"But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying – something than which nothing greater can be imagined – understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is."
Anselm goes on to justify his assumption, using the analogy of a painter:
"For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
"Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding."
Now Anselm introduces another assumption:
"And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater."
(For example, most people would prefer a real £100 rather than an imaginary £100.)
"Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be."
Anselm has thus found a contradiction, and from that contradiction, he draws his conclusion:
"There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."

If you can understand that without your brain turning to jelly...

[Obviousman]

Oh, and by the way, in dutch it's Thomas van Aquino, so I guess it'll be Thomas Aquinas in English, although I don't know where he's from...

[Obviousman]

Is it Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine that came up with the ontological proof of the existence of God?

Well, probably both of 'em, there tended to be a whole bunch of chaps trying to prove gods existance

Tomorrow I'll go and search my Philosofy book of last year, and give you Thomas' proof (if someone hasn't been quicker )

[Red Orc]

Ah, sorry, can't agree.

I think Marx wasn't a utopian at all, what I've read shows him painting an absolutely accurate picture of the horror of society as was and as we know it too, with a nice line in hope for the future in the shape of the one group in society who have the power to REALLY change things, not just swap one set of leaders for another...

But then again this might not be the place for long arguments on the meaning of history etc...

and there have now been about six postings on medieval philosophy since then, which doesn't make this more coherent....

You say, Aquino, and I say, Aquinas... sorry, doesn't really fit the song terribly well. But the point I was trying to make was that not even the church believed you could demonstrate the existence of god, which I would have thought would have rendered their argument somewhat suspect in the eyes of anyone with critical reasoning. Still, most people just do/believe what they are told most of the time (getting back to the discussion of politics, I accept that is true, but I don't believe is has to be so).

[markfiend]

It's too late on a Friday for trying to think

[Obviousman]

Ah, sorry, can't agree.

I think Marx wasn't a utopian at all, what I've read shows him painting an absolutely accurate picture of the horror of society as was and as we know it too, with a nice line in hope for the future in the shape of the one group in society who have the power to REALLY change things, not just swap one set of leaders for another...

But then again this might not be the place for long arguments on the meaning of history etc...

Well, I think painting an accurate picture is not enough to say you're doing more just thinking about a bit, but then, we'll never know what he really was up to, since Das Kapital was never finished... And of course I love to hope along with you

And please go ahead, i like those arguments (but perhaps that's just me , don't know )

[Obviousman]

It's too late on a Friday for trying to think

Too late ?

School's out, thinking time's just starting

[Red Orc]

Ah, Obviousman, it's a pleasure to debate with a philosopher, it really is. I too love the arguments, but let's face it, we must have bored about 90 people by now. As I said, maybe this isn't the place, implying that there might be some other forum/thread where we could argue Marxism until
1 - the revolution comes home, or
2 - we all die hideously in the wars and environmental and social destruction that capitalism rains down on us.

You may not accept that that's the choices, but that's what I believe at any rate. As Rosa Luxemburg said - socialism or barbarism. We've already got the barbarism.

PS is this the 'god' thread or the politics thread I was discussing with you on earlier??!?

[Obviousman]

Ah, Obviousman, it's a pleasure to debate with a philosopher, it really is.

A (future) economist really, we economists like to claim everything, and therefore, all my books mention Marx as one of the big economists of the past centuries... So all this thinking about is purely an economic thing (well, basically he is multi-disciplinary, and that's what I like to be too, really )

I too love the arguments, but let's face it, we must have bored about 90 people by now. As I said, maybe this isn't the place, implying that there might be some other forum/thread where we could argue Marxism until
1 - the revolution comes home, or
2 - we all die hideously in the wars and environmental and social destruction that capitalism rains down on us.

You may not accept that that's the choices, but that's what I believe at any rate. As Rosa Luxemburg said - socialism or barbarism. We've already got the barbarism.

PS is this the 'god' thread or the politics thread I was discussing with you on earlier??!?

Well, I oblige nobody to read this, do I , so lets build up some arguments until there comes up another fine thread to discuss all this

I do like the Rosa Luxemburg quote, by the way, very much, never heard it before...

And I don't have a clue where you were discussing with me, I'd suggest you check out your message history, right now, I'm just enjoying my recent discovery that forums are there not only to be read, but to contribute yourself too

[Red Orc]

1 - Rosa Luxemburg said that the choice for humanity was socialism or barbarism - the comment that we already have the barbarism was my comment on the last 100 years. (Other socialists also said the socialism or barbarism thing - I think Engels, maybe more than him. 100 years ago, they had a pretty good idea of the way things were going...)

2 - I didn't mean that you were a philosophy graduate, just that you seem to 'love debate/wisdom' (ie 'philo-sophia') - economics is probably a good place to start with Marx, if you can get your head round it, because I'm buggered if I understand it. It's more the political application of his investigations that interests me.

3 - you're quite right, of course - we aren't forcing anyone to read this.

4 - 'message history'?? totally new at this meself, don't know how it all works.

[Obviousman]

2 - I didn't mean that you were a philosophy graduate, just that you seem to 'love debate/wisdom' (ie 'philo-sophia') - economics is probably a good place to start with Marx, if you can get your head round it, because I'm buggered if I understand it. It's more the political application of his investigations that interests me.

3 - you're quite right, of course - we aren't forcing anyone to read this.

4 - 'message history'?? totally new at this meself, don't know how it all works.

On the philosophy thing I was just having a bit of a laugh, so nevermind, I got your point

And the message history, I once saw in my profile (when you click it next to a message), you can find all the messages you posted...

[canon docre]

Holy s**t!

[Black Alice]

Holy s**t!

- knew he couldn't be trusted!

[Obviousman]

Well, I knew I liked his face from the first time he appeared on that balcony

By the way, has anyone else seen his speech in German today? He was rather funny (in a german kind of way, of course)

And I love his accent, both in Italian and German

[Black Alice]

I liked it last week when radio 4 reported that he was hoping to open a dialogue with other faiths, particularly the jewish and islamic faith, and then they said he spoke in Latin - way to open a dialogue!!

[Obviousman]

I liked it last week when radio 4 reported that he was hoping to open a dialogue with other faiths, particularly the jewish and islamic faith, and then they said he spoke in Latin - way to open a dialogue!!

Well, it's just everybody'd understand it

Would be a bit like an Indian/Buddhist priest (or however such a thing is called) asking for it in Sanskrit

[dead stars]

I believe in God. But I keep God and religion separated.

[James Blast]

I believe in God. But I keep God and religion separated.

wish I'd said that