1) Zasto spoznaja Boga mora biti u hriscanskom duhu?  Kakve su to pretpostavke unapred !?

150 godina, a 

2) Kakve ima veze spoznaja Boga sa sujeverjem !? 
2) Ima dosta pametnih ljudi "razumom" a da imaju "zatupelu" klicu (to je vecinski stvar osecaja, a ne razuma, idealno je imati oboje u harmoniji) Citaj bolje sta pisem. Mada, Apologetika je namenjena bas takvim ljudima (koji se pozivaju na razum i argumente) da "razumom" pokusaju da docaraju postojanje Boga. Nevezano za religiju!!!

Ja sam propratio celu temu osim zadnjeg dokaza. Procitaj je i ti i daj komentar! A ne ovako napamet! (pretpostavljam da si se uvredio ili ko zna sta, pa si pisao stvari cisto da nesto napises)

Placem od smeha. Hvala ti za link od srca     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia Carrera, (1973–   ) Actress (pornographic)   American pornographic actress.   "I've always been an atheist; science explains everything."[10]

Hahahahahahahaa

Nisam mislio naucen - obrazovan .. nego "naucen da ne vjeruje -indokriniran da zanemari tu navodnu klicu"
kroz skolu i tzv. materijalisticki pristup, savremenu nauku.

E bas to sa klicom me nervira o tome pricam!!!

Kako bi bilo da ja kazem
"svi su ljudi ateisti po prirodi samo se malo zafrkavaju, ali svi duboko u sebi znaju da su to izmisljotine"

Razumijes? Ja stvarno nemam osjecaj da Bog postoji.
Ja jednostavno mislim da postoje 2 (tj 50) razlicitih prica i istina, i svako sebi uzme koju hoce.

Ne predstavlja mi problem da nekad u crkvi zapalim svijecu (par puta sam naiso s drugom kojem to znaci ili kad je neka svecana prilika svadba, ako neko insistira....)
- ne jede mi ljeba, ali bi isto mogao zapaliti i u budistickom , taoistickom. hindu... - jednako vjerujem...
Ono cisto radi metafizike, nemam nikakvu odbojnost.. prema religiji(ama)...
(osim prema islamu, zbog jelte istorije al opet mislim da je isto)

Shvatam ja tu ideju, i sta bi to trebalo da predstavlja, ali ne mislim da stvarno postoji.

U tom smislu cu reci nekad "hvala Bogu", "daboga" ali u istom znacenju kao i "kakve sam srece", "to je sudbina"
a u srecu i sudbinu takodje ne vijerujem.

Добро, следе још уверљивији докази па ћемо да видимо шта ћеш онда да кажеш.

@ThePhilosopher

Nemozes ubaciti kocku(religiju) u trougao(nauku), ja cu pre da verujem svom razumu i tome sto se moze doazati naucnim metodom. Ako je tebi potreban Bog ili religija uopste da bi imao nekakav smisao tvog postojanja na ovoj zemlji nemoj da mislis da to vazi i za mene. Ja preferiram da JA nadjem smisao svog zivot, ne treba mi niko da mi to da kao lepo upakovan paket. "Evo ti to je tvoj smisao zivota, samo radi sta tu pise i bice sve u redu". Zivot nije skripta, nije kao u filmu gde se zna kakav je kraj, zivot je vise iprovizacija.

Ajde ismejavaj se Douglas Adams(Author) ili Woody Alenu(Comedian and film director)
Isto mogu i ja izabrati najgore scene iz biblije i ismejavati se tome, ali necu jer ja nisam kao ti.

Људи, другари, овде смо да се дружимо, разменимо мисли, по нешто и научимо, али не и да се свађамо, препуцавамо, натежемо и једимо...




Дакле, тема је: Апологетика - докази за постојање Божије

Silvanus je u pravu. Mada ja ovo ne shvatam kao svadjanje vec kao razmenu misli 

Savet nofx-u i Slagvortu
--> procitajte gnoseoloski dokaz. On je po mom misljenju najupecatljiviji za "razumne" ljude. Vidim da i vi cvikate od religije i ponasate se bas kako sam prognozirao kada sam dao review istorijsko-religijskog dokaza.

Zasto su ljudi ateisti, nemam snage da objasnjavam preko foruma... Ali "klica" definitivno postoji.

Zasto mislite da su religija i nauka nespojive? Pa ja se prvi pronalazim na obe strane. Lightsoft je pokusao da kroz jednu drugu temu objasni nauku i Bibliju. Kvantna fizika, teorija struna, i tako dalje. Citajte, informisite se 

Ako stvarno verujete razumu vise nego srcu, pratite temu bez predrasuda. Jer postoje i "razumski dokazi".

Nemoj, molim te da tako banalizujes stvar Vera nije nametanje Vidim da ste ogorceni na hriscanstvo. Verovatno ga shvatate kao neko oduzimanje slobode, kao neko nametanje, kao nametanje pravila i nacina zivota...

Ako obratis paznju citajuci gnoseoloski dokaz, ne pise nigde da postoji "hriscanski" Bog Vec samo da Bog postoji.

E sad, meni je bitno samo da malo "progledate" (bez ikakve uvrede, neka ovo najtoplije zvuci ) i da postanete teist citajuci ovu temu.

Pozdrav 

Richard Dawkins, The god delusion, Chapter 3

THOMAS AQUINAS' 'PROOFS'
The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth
century don't prove anything, and are easily - though I hesitate to
say so, given his eminence - exposed as vacuous. The first three are
just different ways of saying the same thing, and they can be con-
sidered together. All involve an infinite regress - the answer to a
question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum.
1 The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover.
This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God.
Something had to make the first move, and that something we
call God.
2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect
has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress.
This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call
God.
3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time
when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist
now, there must have been something non-physical to bring
them into existence, and that something we call God.

All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and
invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted
assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we
allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to
an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need
one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with
any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence,
omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such
human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading
innermost thoughts.

Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logi-
cians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If
God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene
to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means
he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not
omnipotent. Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in
equally engaging verse:
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God
to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big
bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown.
Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously mis-
leading. Edward Lear's Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets
invites us to 'Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into
the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight
or perhaps nine times.' Some regresses do reach a natural
terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you
could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why
shouldn't you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even
smaller smidgen of gold? The regress in this case is decisively
terminated by the atom.

The smallest possible piece of gold is a
nucleus consisting of exactly seventy-nine protons and a slightly
larger number of neutrons, attended by a swarm of seventy-nine
electrons. If you 'cut' gold any further than the level of the single
atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a
natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress. It
is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the
regresses of Aquinas. That's putting it mildly, as we shall see later.
Let's move on down Aquinas' list.

4 The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world
differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But
we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum.
Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness
cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maxi-
mum to set the standard for perfection, and we call that
maximum God.

That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelli-
ness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect
maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a
pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute
any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equivalently
fatuous conclusion.

5 The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design. Things
in the world, especially living things, look as though they
have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed
unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer,
and we call him God.* Aquinas himself used the analogy of an
arrow moving towards a target, but a modern heat-seeking
anti-aircraft missile would have suited his purpose better.

The argument from design is the only one still in regular use
today, and it still sounds to many like the ultimate knockdown
argument. The young Darwin was impressed by it when, as a
Cambridge undergraduate, he read it in William Paley's Natural
Theology. Unfortunately for Paley, the mature Darwin blew it out
of the water. There has probably never been a more devastating
rout of popular belief by clever reasoning than Charles Darwin's
destruction of the argument from design. It was so unexpected.
Thanks to Darwin, it is no longer true to say that nothing that we
know looks designed unless it is designed.

Evolution by natural selection produces an excellent simulacrum of design, mounting
prodigious heights of complexity and elegance. And among these
eminences of pseudo-design are nervous systems which - among
their more modest accomplishments - manifest goal-seeking
behaviour that, even in a tiny insect, resembles a sophisticated heat-
seeking missile more than a simple arrow on target. I shall return to
the argument from design in Chapter 4.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND
OTHER A PRIORI ARGUMENTS

Arguments for God's existence fall into two main categories, the a
priori and the a posteriori. Thomas Aquinas' five are a posteriori
arguments, relying upon inspection of the world. The most famous
of the a priori arguments, those that rely upon pure armchair
ratiocination, is the ontological argument, proposed by St Anselm
of Canterbury in 1078 and restated in different forms by numerous
philosophers ever since. An odd aspect of Anselm's argument is that
it was originally addressed not to humans but to God himself, in
the form of a prayer (you'd think that any entity capable of listen-
ing to a prayer would need no convincing of his own existence).

It is possible to conceive, Anselm said, of a being than which
nothing greater can be conceived. Even an atheist can conceive of
such a superlative being, though he would deny its existence in the
real world. But, goes the argument, a being that doesn't exist in
the real world is, by that very fact, less than perfect. Therefore we
have a contradiction and, hey presto, God exists!

Let me translate this infantile argument into the appropriate
language, which is the language of the playground:
'Bet you I can prove God exists.'
'Bet you can't.'
'Right then, imagine the most perfect perfect perfect
thing possible.'
'Okay, now what?'
'Now, is that perfect perfect perfect thing real? Does it
exist?'
'No, it's only in my mind.'
'But if it was real it would be even more perfect,
because a really really perfect thing would have to be
better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I've proved that
God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All atheists are fools.'

I had my childish wiseacre choose the word 'fools' advisedly.
Anselm himself quoted the first verse of Psalm 14, 'The fool hath
said in his heart, There is no God,' and he had the cheek to use the
name 'fool' (Latin insipiens) for his hypothetical atheist:
Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in
the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater
can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he under-
stands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the
understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing
greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understand-
ing alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding
alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is
greater.

The very idea that grand conclusions could follow from such logo-
machist trickery offends me aesthetically, so I must take care to
refrain from bandying words like 'fool'. Bertrand Russell (no fool)
interestingly said, 'It is easier to feel convinced that [the ontological
argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where
the fallacy lies.' Russell himself, as a young man, was briefly
convinced by it:
I remember the precise moment, one day in 1894, as I was
walking along Trinity Lane, when I saw in a flash (or
thought I saw) that the ontological argument is valid. I
had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco; on my way back, I
suddenly threw it up in the air, and exclaimed as I caught
it: 'Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound.'
Why, I wonder, didn't he say something like: 'Great Scott, the
ontological argument seems to be plausible. But isn't it too good to
be true that a grand truth about the cosmos should follow from a
mere word game? I'd better set to work to resolve what is perhaps
a paradox like those of Zeno.' The Greeks had a hard time seeing
through Zeno's 'proof that Achilles would never catch the
tortoise.** But they had the sense not to conclude that therefore
Achilles really would fail to catch the tortoise. Instead, they called
it a paradox and waited for later generations of mathematicians to
explain it (with, as it turned out, the theory of infinite series con-
verging on a limiting value). Russell himself, of course, was as well
qualified as anyone to understand why no tobacco tins should be
thrown up in celebration of Achilles' failure to catch the tortoise.
Why didn't he exercise the same caution over St Anselm?

I suspect that he was an exaggeratedly fair-minded atheist, over-eager to be
disillusioned if logic seemed to require it.*** Or perhaps the answer
lies in something Russell himself wrote in 1946, long after he had
rumbled the ontological argument:

     The real question is: Is there anything we can think of
     which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown
     to exist outside our thought? Every philosopher would
     like to say yes, because a philosopher's job is to find out
     things about the world by thinking rather than observing.
     If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure
     thought to things. If not, not.

My own feeling, to the contrary, would have been an automatic,
deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a signifi-
cant conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the
real world. Perhaps that indicates no more than that I am a scientist
rather than a philosopher. Philosophers down the centuries have
indeed taken the ontological argument seriously, both for and
against. The atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie gives a particularly
clear discussion in The Miracle of Theism. I mean it as a compli-
ment when I say that you could almost define a philosopher as
someone who won't take common sense for an answer.

The most definitive refutations of the ontological argument are
usually attributed to the philosophers David Hume (1711-76) and
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant identified the trick card up
Anselm's sleeve as his slippery assumption that 'existence' is more
'perfect' than non-existence. The American philosopher Norman
Malcolm put it like this: 'The doctrine that existence is a perfection
is remarkably queer. It makes sense and is true to say that my future
house will be a better one if it is insulated than if it is not insulated;
but what could it mean to say that it will be a better house if it
exists than if it does not?'46 Another philosopher, the Australian
Douglas Gasking, made the point with his ironic 'proof that God
does not exist (Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo had suggested a
somewhat similar reductio).
1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.
2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.
4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-
existence.
5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.
6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more for-
midable and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.
Ergo:
7 God does not exist.

Needless to say, Gasking didn't really prove that God does not
exist. By the same token, Anselm didn't prove that he does. The
only difference is, Gasking was being funny on purpose. As he
realized, the existence or non-existence of God is too big a question
to be decided by 'dialectical prestidigitation'. And I don't think the
slippery use of existence as an indicator of perfection is the worst
of the argument's problems. I've forgotten the details, but I once
piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the
ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need
to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong.

The ontological argument, like all a priori arguments for the
existence of God, reminds me of the old man in Aldous Huxley's
Point Counter Point who discovered a mathematical proof of the
existence of God:

     You know the formula, m over nought equals infinity, m
     being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the
     equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by
     nought. In which case you have m equals infinity times
     nought. That is to say that a positive number is the prod-
     uct of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the
     creation of the universe by an infinite power out of no-
     thing? Doesn't it?

Or there is the notorious eighteenth-century debate on the existence
of God, staged by Catherine the Great between Euler, the Swiss
mathematician, and Diderot, the great encyclopedist of the
Enlightenment. The pious Euler advanced upon the atheistic
Diderot and, in tones of the utmost conviction, delivered his
challenge: 'Monsieur, (a + bn)/n = x, therefore God exists. Reply!'
Diderot was cowed into withdrawal, and one version of the story
has him withdrawing all the way back to France.

Euler was employing what might be called the Argument from
Blinding with Science (in this case mathematics). David Mills, in
Atheist Universe, transcribes a radio interview of himself by a
religious spokesman, who invoked the Law of Conservation of
Mass-Energy in a weirdly ineffectual attempt to blind with science:
'Since we're all composed of matter and energy, doesn't that
scientific principle lend credibility to a belief in eternal life?' Mills
replied more patiently and politely than I would have, for what the
interviewer was saying, translated into English, was no more than:
'When we die, none of the atoms of our body (and none of the
energy) are lost. Therefore we are immortal.'

Even I, with my long experience, have never encountered wishful
thinking as silly as that. I have, however, met many of the wonder-
ful 'proofs' collected at http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
,a richly comic numbered list of 'Over Three
Hundred Proofs of God's Existence'. Here's a hilarious half-dozen,
beginning with Proof Number 36.

36 Argument from Incomplete Devastation: A plane crashed
killing 143 passengers and crew. But one child survived
with only third-degree burns. Therefore God exists.

37 Argument from Possible Worlds: If things had been
different, then things would be different. That would be
bad. Therefore God exists.

38 Argument from Sheer Will: I do believe in God! I do
believe in God! I do I do I do. I do believe in God!
Therefore God exists.

39 Argument from Non-belief: The majority of the world's
population are non-believers in Christianity. This is just
what Satan intended. Therefore God exists.

40 Argument from Post-Death Experience: Person X died an
atheist. He now realizes his mistake. Therefore God exists.

41 Argument from Emotional Blackmail: God loves you.
How could you be so heartless as not to believe in him?
Therefore God exists.
 
_______________________________________________________________________

* I cannot help being reminded of the immortal syllogism that was smuggled into
a Euclidean proof by a schoolfriend, when we were studying geometry together:
'Triangle ABC looks isosceles. Therefore . . .'

** Zeno's paradox is too well known for the details to be promoted out of a foot-
note. Achilles can run ten times as fast as the tortoise, so he gives the animal, say,
100 yards' start. Achilles runs 100 yards, and the tortoise is now 10 yards ahead.
Achilles runs the 10 yards and the tortoise is now 1 yard ahead. Achilles runs the
1 yard, and the tortoise is still a tenth of a yard ahead . . . and so on ad infinitum,
so Achilles never catches the tortoise.

 ***We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicized tergiversation
of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been
converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all
around the Internet). On the other hand, Russell was a great philosopher. Russell
won the Nobel Prize. Maybe Flew's alleged conversion will be rewarded with the
Templeton Prize. A first step in that direction is his ignominious decision to accept,
in 2006, the 'Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth'. The first holder
of the Phillip E. Johnson Award was Phillip E. Johnson, the lawyer credited
with founding the Intelligent Design 'wedge strategy'. Flew will be the second
holder. The awarding university is BIOLA, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.
One can't help wondering whether Flew realizes that he is being used. See
Victor Stenger, 'Flew's flawed science', Free Inquiry 25: 2, 2005, 17-18;
www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=stenger_25_2.


Slede jos

• The argument from beauty
• The argument from personal 'experience'
• The argument from scripture
• The argument from admired religious scientists
• Pascal's Wager
• Bayesian arguments

gde ima da se skine prevod 

U pravu si gottago. Ajde malo svojom glavom nofx, mogao sam i ja copy paste 


E super, znaci sada si teist. 

Стварност је Божија воља. Наука се бави проучавањем стварности, тј. објашњавањем Божије воље. Дакле, наука и Бог нису уопште у супротности... Дакле, Бог постоји!