People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God

[Spectorland]

I have above-average intelligence, as do my Mother and my eldest daughter...and we believe in God.

[Duckside]

I have above-average intelligence, as do my Mother and my eldest daughter...and we believe in God.

Ok... Why.

[Spectorland]

Well....

1. Logic (St. Thomas Aquinas would be proud)
2. Common Sense (although George Carlin would disagree)
3. There had to have been a Prime Mover (God the Creator - keeps things in relative order - nature itself, as it is fallen, would tend toward disorder)

[DaWoad]

Well....

1. Logic (St. Thomas Aquinas would be proud)
2. Common Sense (although George Carlin would disagree)
3. There had to have been a Prime Mover (God the Creator - keeps things in relative order - nature itself, as it is fallen, would tend toward disorder)

1. tell us of your logical proof of god
2.see above
3. No . . .no there didn't (and things do trend towards disorder even in nature)

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Well....

1. Logic (St. Thomas Aquinas would be proud)
2. Common Sense (although George Carlin would disagree)
3. There had to have been a Prime Mover (God the Creator - keeps things in relative order - nature itself, as it is fallen, would tend toward disorder)

[Allbeama]

This is nonsense, and title is misleading. What it shows is people in those particular academics are less likely to believe in god.


All throughout history and in current times, the vast majority of truly great inspiring, and creative people have believed in God. Not necessarily the Christian God as is so often tied to the word God, but just believing in a higher power/creator and life after death.

Take great actors, and big music artists for example, very creative and inspiring people that the vast majority of the time are spiritual people and believe in god. Very rarely will you come across a great atheist, because they are in general; ignorant, shallow, uninspiring people.


Atheism is just another form of ignorance like certain organised religions, usually believed by anti-Christians who find it impossible to separate 'god' from Christianity.

sorry but atheists are not ignorant, shallow, uninspiring, or unimaginative just because you say so. prove this is true please.
( I think I'm late on this anyway)

[Spectorland]

Five proofs of the existence of God:

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

The Argument of the First Cause
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus :

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

The Argument from Contingency
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.

The Argument from Degree
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.

The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God :

All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

I hope this at least answers your question in part.

[Duckside]

Well....

1. Logic (St. Thomas Aquinas would be proud)
2. Common Sense (although George Carlin would disagree)
3. There had to have been a Prime Mover (God the Creator - keeps things in relative order - nature itself, as it is fallen, would tend toward disorder)

1.due to russel's teapot, logic proves there is no god
2. Common sense is not always true. Lrn 2 quantum physics.
3. If god created the universe, who created god?
Also, nature creates more disorder than it creates order. Lrn 2 2nd law of themodynamics.

[Spectorland]

Point taken....common sense is not always true.

But take it from a legal standpoint. The standard of proof for an indictment is "reasonable cause to believe," (NYSCPL) i.e., if given the facts of a case, one would have reasonable (based on common sense and deductive logic) cause to believe a crime was committed.

From St. Thomas Aquinas's five arguments, one would have reasonable cause to believe that God exists, and is in control of the universe. Not all logic proves no God, and Aquinas gives us 5 examples.

God always was, is and shall be. This is one of the basic dogmata in Christianity, not just Catholicism.

[DaWoad]

Five proofs of the existence of God:

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

The Argument of the First Cause
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus :

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

The Argument from Contingency
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.

The Argument from Degree
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.

The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God :

All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

I hope this at least answers your question in part.

1)the unmoved mover:
The big bang satisfies this with absolutely no difficulty, has SOME scientific backing and doesn't require infinite regression. Just because you say there must be a mover does not make it the case (false sililogism)

2)The first Cause: See above except add to this the fact that god would also have had to be created by your logic leading to an inifinit regression. logic fail.

3)Only apllies to basic physics there are many things that exist in potentia E=MC2 alone proves that matter and energy are transferable. Thus your argument fails. (energy in the form of heat could, at one time, have been spred so thin as to be in a complete equilibrium. this is known as the heat death of the universe. Assuming that was the case a single even (such as those theorized by string theory or multiverse theory or just a whole bunch of others) would have cause the "creation" of matter.

4)Again a false siliogism. "Perfection" is a human creation. Simply because one claims that perfection must exists does not mean this is true. (more importantly how do you deifne perfection? If its in terms of efficiency single celled creatures are farm more perfect than people suggesting god must be lowlier than a single celled organism right?)

5)All natural bodies do not act towards a means. It is only that all bodies that still exist are GOOD at existing. I suggest you read up on evolution.

Look your using things that applied in pre-medival society. I suggest you update your arguments.

[Spectorland]

Dogmatic atheism is an oxymoron anyway.

[Samatolian City-States]

Dogmatic atheism is an oxymoron anyway.

What's the point of atheism if you're just going to subscribe to dogma?

[DaWoad]

Point taken....common sense is not always true.

But take it from a legal standpoint. The standard of proof for an indictment is "reasonable cause to believe," (NYSCPL) i.e., if given the facts of a case, one would have reasonable (based on common sense and deductive logic) cause to believe a crime was committed.

From St. Thomas Aquinas's five arguments, one would have reasonable cause to believe that God exists, and is in control of the universe. Not all logic proves no God, and Aquinas gives us 5 examples.

God always was, is and shall be. This is one of the basic dogmata in Christianity, not just Catholicism.

none of those examples work . . .they are all based on things tat we're disproven AGES ago.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Five proofs of the existence of God:

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

The Argument of the First Cause
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus :

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

The Argument from Contingency
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.

The Argument from Degree
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.

The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God :

All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

I hope this at least answers your question in part.

The contingent argument fails because we now know that quantum fluctuations can occur in vacuum. It also fails because even if some ground of all being were necessary (which it isn't), there is no need for it to be a conscious entity, let alone the god of your particular religion.

[Duckside]

Five proofs of the existence of God:

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

The Argument of the First Cause
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus :

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

Thanks for agreeing with me. Why add an extra being (god) when it can end with the universe's creation?

The Argument from Contingency
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.

Our planet is a speck of dust in a universe unimaginably huge. Chances are, we would get created even if the odds are a trilion trilion to one. Also, who created god.

The Argument from Degree
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore perfection must have a pinnacle.
This pinnacle is whom we call God.

if god is perfect, why, and how did He/She/It create imperfection?
Also, god created us in his/her/its image, as we are imperfect beings, he/she/it is imperfect.

The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God :

All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

I hope this at least answers your question in part.

What guides god towards his/her/its ends?

In conclusion,
Lrn ur material b4 posting or gtfo.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

3. There had to have been a Prime Mover (God the Creator - keeps things in relative order - nature itself, as it is fallen, would tend toward disorder)

Quantum fluctuations in vacuum.

[Braaainsss]

Five proofs of the existence of God:
The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

Some things are moved.
Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.

The Argument of the First Cause
The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus :

Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
This causer is what we call God.

A.K.A. the Cosmological Argument:

What caused God?

The Argument from Contingency
The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):

Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
This being is whom we call God.

Non-sequitur.

The Argument from Degree
The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
Therefore perfection must have a pinnacle.

Just because you can imagine it, does not mean it exists.

The Teleological Argument
The teleological argument or argument of "design" (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God :

All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
This being is whom we call God.

Again, who created God? And the first premise is false.

[Spectorland]

Christianity presents a set of theological facts formally defined (dogmata, and usually by the Church's Authority these are defined) or not (common doctrines).

To subscribe to a Church (be it Catholic or otherwise), one must accept, first of all, any dogmata, then common doctrines which have stood by tradition, then any solution as part of a debatable doctrine (not yet defined), and then the practices, formalities, etc. These are usually picked up by education, erudition or attendance of the Church.

I call myself a Catholic, and so do my daughters. Therefore, our theological thought, or licit dissent, must be exercised within a system of principles (set down by Its authority) and fundamental regulation (i.e., to preserve from heresy). If we transgress even one step from the system, we could be heretics, blasphemers, sacrilegious or, at worst and at the most extreme, apostates.

[Duckside]

Christianity presents a set of theological facts formally defined (dogmata, and usually by the Church's Authority these are defined) or not (common doctrines).

To subscribe to a Church (be it Catholic or otherwise), one must accept, first of all, any dogmata, then common doctrines which have stood by tradition, then any solution as part of a debatable doctrine (not yet defined), and then the practices, formalities, etc. These are usually picked up by education, erudition or attendance of the Church.

I call myself a Catholic, and so do my daughters. Therefore, our theological thought, or licit dissent, must be exercised within a system of principles (set down by Its authority) and fundamental regulation (i.e., to preserve from heresy). If we transgress even one step from the system, we could be heretics, blasphemers, sacrilegious or, at worst and at the most extreme, apostates.

And finally, lrn 2 argue.
Posting random "facts" does not constitute an arguement.

[Spectorland]

I am certainly not going to risk hellfire, and I would advise my children the same.

Plus, pursuant to Vatican I, science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

I did learn my material, thank you very much.

[DaWoad]

Christianity presents a set of theological facts formally defined (dogmata, and usually by the Church's Authority these are defined) or not (common doctrines).

To subscribe to a Church (be it Catholic or otherwise), one must accept, first of all, any dogmata, then common doctrines which have stood by tradition, then any solution as part of a debatable doctrine (not yet defined), and then the practices, formalities, etc. These are usually picked up by education, erudition or attendance of the Church.

I call myself a Catholic, and so do my daughters. Therefore, our theological thought, or licit dissent, must be exercised within a system of principles (set down by Its authority) and fundamental regulation (i.e., to preserve from heresy). If we transgress even one step from the system, we could be heretics, blasphemers, sacrilegious or, at worst and at the most extreme, apostates.

1)Christianity presents a set of theological . .. beliefs. Facts require evidence.

2)So why would you subscribe to a system of belief that forces you to think certain things? Why not simply decide what to believe yourself THEN find a system that matches those beliefs?

3)So what your saying is that dissent leads to damnation thus if you we're to hear any proof that those thightly held doctrines of yours were false all you could do is close your eyes and sing "lalalalal" to yourself to drown them out? and you see nothing wrong with this?

[DaWoad]

I am certainly not going to risk hellfire, and I would advise my children the same.

Plus, pursuant to Vatican I, science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

I did learn my material, thank you very much.

you learned church doctrine that applied (some of it) up until 1 hundred years ago at BEST. If you we're truely faithful your faith could stand up to modern realities. I find that your determination to live in the 1800s shows a remarkable amount of insecurity.

[Braaainsss]

I am certainly not going to risk hellfire, and I would advise my children the same.

Plus, pursuant to Vatican I, science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

I did learn my material, thank you very much.

So basically you've let yourself be intimidated by the church's descriptions of eternal torment into accepting its dogma at face value. Plus that means you'll be extra disappointed when you find out after you die that Pastafarianism is the right religion and have to spend eternity in the Ninth Circle of FSM Irony Hell, which is reserved for people who follow a religion because they're afraid to go to hell.

[Spectorland]

I am not going to have my faith and philosophy impugned by dogmatic atheism disguised as legitimate science which, according to Vatican I, is not opposed to faith, as aforementioned.

My children go to Catholic School. They have no problem with the Theological system in which they are taught to believe, at their varying levels since they are of varying ages. They receive positive reinforcement of any dogmata they are taught or tradition- and time-tested doctrines.

I do, and can by the norms of licit dissent, have disagreements with the Church as to common doctrines, especially as it revolves around homosexuality in general. I am a bisexual. I understand the same-sex attraction. I also understand the Church's position, and have found some reconciliation therewith, but not 100%. I do nto have to, and neither do they, until the common doctrine be defined or tested for longevity as a set doctrine.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I am not going to have my faith and philosophy impugned by dogmatic atheism disguised as legitimate science which, according to Vatican I, is not opposed to faith, as aforementioned.

My children go to Catholic School. They have no problem with the Theological system in which they are taught to believe, at their varying levels since they are of varying ages. They receive positive reinforcement of any dogmata they are taught or tradition- and time-tested doctrines.

I do, and can by the norms of licit dissent, have disagreements with the Church as to common doctrines, especially as it revolves around homosexuality in general. I am a bisexual. I understand the same-sex attraction. I also understand the Church's position, and have found some reconciliation therewith, but not 100%. I do nto have to, and neither do they, until the common doctrine be defined or tested for longevity as a set doctrine.

Quantum fluctuations in vacuum aren't exactly speculation. They are an integral part of the well-tested standard model.