A subjective-objective question: How do you know that I exist?

[Shike]

(continued)

But take a biological entity, which looks like a “human” but cannot perform the activities (since he is dead or in persistent vegetative state), and you are not talking abot a human being any more - the word is a “has been”. What makes us what we are is the activity of our brain.

First, I assume you are aware of some of the scientific findings that out of the many people who have been declared brain dead, a sizable amount still do have brain activity.
Second, just because someone doesn’t continually exercise a capacity doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it. Sure, I agree that someone who dies is no longer human. But that is because they no longer have the capacity of life and life is one of the defining characteristics of being who we are. I agree that the capacity of thought is one of the defining characteristics of being human… but one must be careful because that capacity is more or less developed at different stages—though present throughout.
Third, I see no reason why you should privilege the activity of the brain over other organs of the body such as the heart. The heart pumping blood is just as much a bunch of meaningless particles bumping into each other as the brain is. Basically, you’re doing an awful lot of philosophy (hierarchy of goods) for someone who is so against it. And from my point of view, speculation at that.
And fourth, do you ever see the activity of another’s brain? If you do not, then how do you know that they are human… oh, that’s right, by their other actions and not just their brain activity.

Stephen Hawking cannot run. He cannot type. He cannot read without someone turning the pages for him.

He is the kind of being that naturally runs, types, reads, ect. Just because he cannot exercise those capacities doesn’t mean that he doesn’t possess them by virtue of being human.

But what he can do, better that anyone around, is to think. To exercise his mind. That is the one and only activity that is required to be a human.

So which is it. Is the quality of the thought primary or is it the capacity to think that is more fundamental? You make it sound like Hawkings is his own species. I would love to see how you place individual thoughts into a hierarchy of goods.

What you call material “causality” is trivial. Of course I agree that things are made of some material substance. (If you agree that you should deny all the gods, demons, angels, devils… I hope you do). Final “causality” makes no sense at all. Both the “efficient” and “formal” causalities are so vague that they carry no information.

First, please elaborate your philosophical argument for the non-existence of gods, demons, angels, devils from the definition of material causality—I am extremely, overwhelmingly interested in what you would say.
Second, it appears that you do not understand final causality… but, unless solipsism is true and you are the singularity, then there might exist a truth that you do not grasp.

I’d like to make another plug for Edward Feser’s book The Last Superstition. It goes into more depth than I have here and helps clear up many of the profound misunderstandings of Aristotelian metaphysics. It’s also a short read.

It’s a good read if you are up to the challenge. If you are open, you will learn a lot!

 

[Borz]

First, Aristotle’s 4 causes are not trivial. Again, tautologies are trivial and his 4 causes are not tautologies.

Do you really think that only tautologies are trivial?

Here is a cute, folksy weather forecast for you:

When the ducks keep swimming without any aim,
The weather will change, or may stay the same.
The amount of information contained in the 4 causes precisely equals the information in this little poem: ZERO.

 

[tonyrey]

But everything starts with the physical reality.

How would you would prove that assumption?

Our only direct knowledge is of our **intangible **mental activity…

 

[Shike]

How would you would prove that assumption?

Our only direct knowledge is of our **intangible **mental activity…

Our knowledge is first and foremost about concrete things in experience. That we know we know only comes afterwards.

 

[Shike]

Do you really think that only tautologies are trivial?

Here is a cute, folksy weather forecast for you:

When the ducks keep swimming without any aim,
The weather will change, or may stay the same.
The amount of information contained in the 4 causes precisely equals the information in this little poem: ZERO.

Sure, I agree, not only tautologies are trivial. But because the 4 causes are so basic and foundational, it may be easier to fall into the delusion that they are tautologies. IE> things are made out of what they are made out of, things are what they are, they do what they do… If I remember correctly I have run into others who have made this mistake.

That said. The four causes are at the beginning of Aristotelian metaphysics. They are part of the basics. If you’re looking for information, then you will be pleased to learn that
once the four causes are accepted, and by implication the reality of existing things and change (things which are presupposed by science), classical theism logically follows (in the very formal sense of logically).

Who knew?

I can talk all day about how 1 + 1 = 2 is trivial, that even a kindergartner knows it. Nonetheless it is part of the basics of arithmetic and needs to be mastered before more interesting knowledge follows.

 

[Borz]

That said. The four causes are at the beginning of Aristotelian metaphysics. They are part of the basics. If you’re looking for information, then you will be pleased to learn that once the four causes are accepted, and by implication the reality of existing things and change (things which are presupposed by science), classical theism logically follows (in the very formal sense of logically).

Oh brother.

1. I accept that objects are made of matter.
2. I also accept that the pattern is important. (Charcoal and diamond both consist of carbon atoms, with different arrangement).
3. I do NOT accept that matter/energy are the result of some activity of a causative agent. This would be the end result of the whole exercise, if it were successful.
4. I also reject that objects move toward a certain end.

But you can present your thesis, if you want to. I already looked at the “proofs” of Aquinas, and all I saw was a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, liberally sprinkled with logical fallacies.

Now, the funny thing is that the catholic church does not have any, officially accepted “philosopy”. They can be thomists or molinists, and both are fine. They can follow Scotus, if they are so inclined. One would have thought that during the last 2000 years the church would have had the time to develop a cohesive philosophy. No such luck, just like there is no official list to enumerate which verses are to be read literally, and which ones are to be taken allegorically.

All I found in the catecism was a bunch of generalities, like “one can KNOW God’s existence by employing pure reason” (no revelatio needed). Guess what, I became excited when I saw that. Maybe there is a good, rational, officially endorsed “proof” out there. But I came away disapponted. There was nothing else. Just the empty assertion.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sure, I agree, not only tautologies are trivial. But because the 4 causes are so basic and foundational, it may be easier to fall into the delusion that they are tautologies. IE> things are made out of what they are made out of, things are what they are, they do what they do… If I remember correctly I have run into others who have made this mistake.

That said. The four causes are at the beginning of Aristotelian metaphysics. They are part of the basics. If you’re looking for information, then you will be pleased to learn that
once the four causes are accepted, and by implication the reality of existing things and change (things which are presupposed by science), classical theism logically follows (in the very formal sense of logically).

Who knew?

I can talk all day about how 1 + 1 = 2 is trivial, that even a kindergartner knows it. Nonetheless it is part of the basics of arithmetic and needs to be mastered before more interesting knowledge follows.

 

[Shike]

1. I do NOT accept that matter/energy are the result of some activity of a causative agent. This would be the end result of the whole exercise, if it were successful.
2. I also reject that objects move toward a certain end.

But you can present your thesis, if you want to. I already looked at the “proofs” of Aquinas, and all I saw was a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, liberally sprinkled with logical fallacies.

Now, the funny thing is that the catholic church…

We’ve been through this before. You want to turn this into a Religion (read Christianity, Catholic) versus Science debate. Besides such a dichotomy being laughable, I have not appealed to any religious authority in our discussion–in fact, you are the only one who has done any appeal to authority, back when you said ‘most scientists say…’

Any time you have change you have a composite of principles that requires an explanation outside the composite. If you say that change just “is” then you present yourself a very bizarre paradox of there being no causal chains when the various sciences are in the business of finding causal chains. Good luck.

Reject that objects move towards a certain end all you want. But at the most fundamental level, capacities are eminent examples of final causality… and that can’t be denied without manifest contradiction. Good luck.

As for the liberal sprinkling of logical fallacies of Aquinas’ 5 ways, it is partly the result of your differing metaphysical presuppositions–and those need to be argued for and not presumed. Read Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition. It’s a short read and it will be well worth your time.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Oh brother.

1. I accept that objects are made of matter.
2. I also accept that the pattern is important. (Charcoal and diamond both consist of carbon atoms, with different arrangement).
3. I do NOT accept that matter/energy are the result of some activity of a causative agent. This would be the end result of the whole exercise, if it were successful.
4. I also reject that objects move toward a certain end.

All you have said here is that you reject things because they don’t coincide with how you would like to view the world.

You are not very good at philosophy.

But you can present your thesis, if you want to. I already looked at the “proofs” of Aquinas, and all I saw was a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, liberally sprinkled with logical fallacies.

More assertions. Ah…but you are good at assertions. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Now, the funny thing is that the catholic church does not have any, officially accepted “philosopy”. They can be thomists or molinists, and both are fine. They can follow Scotus, if they are so inclined. One would have thought that during the last 2000 years the church would have had the time to develop a cohesive philosophy. No such luck, just like there is no official list to enumerate which verses are to be read literally, and which ones are to be taken allegorically.

Red-herring and a straw-man.

The fact that people have taken other philosophical approaches to reality is entirely irrelevant in regards to the validity of Metaphysics. Also, Thomism in relatively recent times has been regarded higher than any other system of philosophy by Popes and religious authorities of the church, although you are certainly free to explore other avenues since it is not the duty of the church to have an official philosophy; although they do have an official “theological”.

All I found in the catecism was a bunch of generalities, like “one can KNOW God’s existence by employing pure reason” (no revelatio needed). Guess what, I became excited when I saw that. Maybe there is a good, rational, officially endorsed “proof” out there. But I came away disapponted. There was nothing else. Just the empty assertion.

Another straw-man. Its not the responsibility of the Catechism to provide philosophical evidence of Gods existence although it does make note of the possibility of a philosophy. The Catechisms job is to merely state the theological axioms and beliefs of the Catholic faith; for example the belief that God, according to his ontological attributes, can be known by the light of human reason.

But of course, it takes an honest kind of reasoning to achieve that kind of knowledge. Something you evidently don’t have.

 

[Shike]

Taken from Edward Feser’s most recent article on his blog.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/reading-rosenberg-part-vi.html#more

(Rosenberg’s problem, as I have noted before, is that like so many atheists he thinks of teleology entirely on the model of Paley’s watch – where the teleology involves the functioning of parts relative to a complex whole, and where the function is imposed from outside on parts that would not otherwise have it – instead of thinking of it in Aristotelian terms, in which teleology is intrinsic to natural phenomena rather than externally imposed, and where the functioning of parts in relation to a complex whole is only one, relatively rare instance of teleology among others.)

I think Borz may think of final causality in these terms, which is stopping him from seeing the bigger Aristotelian picture.

 

[Borz]

We’ve been through this before. You want to turn this into a Religion (read Christianity, Catholic) versus Science debate.

Where did this come from? I am simply listening to what you say, and where it is appropriate, I state my agreement or disagreement, as the case may be. I am not “interested” in anything at all. The whole thread is about how do we know that there is a person at the other end of the conversation. I already gave the answer. You have not even attempted to give an answer. You speak of “whatness”, and when I ask to describe the “whatness” of a car, or a person, all you can do is say: “well look at it”. It is so shallow.

The truth is all you can do is speak in generalities, and when I ask for actual, down to Earth examples, you evade. If the general principles cannot be translated into individual problems, they remain a “pie-in-the-sky”. There really is no reason to continue.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The truth is all you can do is speak in generalities, and when I ask for actual, down to Earth examples, you evade. If the general principles cannot be translated into individual problems, they remain a “pie-in-the-sky”. There really is no reason to continue.

In other words you only want physical evidence. How incredibly circular.:yawn:

 

[Shike]

Where did this come from? I am simply listening to what you say, and where it is appropriate, I state my agreement or disagreement, as the case may be.

First, you state much more than your agreement or disagreement, as the case may be. And well you should since we are in a philosophy sub-forum. And I would hope you would do more, as I have a couple posts now that are unaddressed, rather than attacking the Church as an institution that cannot come up with a coherent philosophy when such a task has never been in its job description. The Church has a hard enough time helping people interpret Scripture rightly, it doesn’t need another job, however impossible it would be.
Second, what else am I to conclude from you when you start bringing religious authority into the conversation and our previous discussion? It was a non-sequitar. Totally from left-field (too kind: outer-space).

The whole thread is about how do we know that there is a person at the other end of the conversation. I already gave the answer. You have not even attempted to give an answer. You speak of “whatness”, and when I ask to describe the “whatness” of a car, or a person, all you can do is say: “well look at it”. It is so shallow.

First, my answer to the OP was my first post in this thread. Read it.
Second, anything you point to on a car is part of its whatness. I don’t know how much more simple I can get (besides, you are most likely confusing formal causality with essences). I have a car outside. It has 4 tires and each of them is part of my car’s whatness. The windshield, that too. So is the green paint and the engine. The seats and even the air freshener dangling from the rear-view-mirror (just kidding, I don’t have an air freshener, but I included it to help the illustration).

All these are part of my car’s whatness. I don’t know how more simple or concrete I could put it.

 

[Borz]

…attacking the Church as an institution that cannot come up with a coherent philosophy when such a task has never been in its job description.

Does the church have a “job description”?

The Church has a hard enough time helping people interpret Scripture rightly, it doesn’t need another job, however impossible it would be.

If it is so impossible, why do you think you can tackle it? And the church did an abysmal job at “interpreting” the scripture “correctly”. The first necessary part would be to separate the wheat from the chaff - to give an enumerated list of the verses which are supposed to be “literally true” and the ones which are supposed be to taken allegorically.

First, my answer to the OP was my first post in this thread. Read it.

I did. It was not too bad. You said: “Before I answer that question, it is important to keep in mind that I already know that you exist. You may respond “Do you?” To which I will respond, “yes”! With this truth in mind, my questioning can now begin.” The point is that you gave no reason “WHY” do you think that the other person exists. And you never examined the question: “what is a person anyway?”.

Second, anything you point to on a car is part of its whatness. I don’t know how much more simple I can get (besides, you are most likely confusing formal causality with essences). I have a car outside. It has 4 tires and each of them is part of my car’s whatness. The windshield, that too. So is the green paint and the engine. The seats and even the air freshener dangling from the rear-view-mirror (just kidding, I don’t have an air freshener, but I included it to help the illustration).

All these are part of my car’s whatness. I don’t know how more simple or concrete I could put it.

Except you are talking about the “whatness” of one specific “car”, and not about the “whatness” of cars in general. You point out that your specific car has 4 tires. There are other “alleged cars” with 3 tires only… are they also cars, or not?

You seem to miss the problem here. If there is such a thing as an “abstract car” the concept or embodiment of “car-ness”, it should give us the guidelines to decide if something is “really” a car or not? Is a matchbox toy-car really a “car” or not? What about a car with a steam-engine? Or one with a nuclear energy source? Or one with a wind-up “fly-wheel?” Is that a “car”?

 

[Borz]

Just a short analysis to close this futile conversation. If there would be a truly valid proof of God’s existence, there would be a few, easy to see corollaries.

Number 1, the church would gobble it up and would include it into the catecism.
Number 2, the church would shout it out from the rooftops around the world, as a major breakthrough against all the “false” religions and the “despicable” infidels.
Number 3, all the newspapers around the world would have screaming headlines, like: “Two thousand years old controversy solved: There IS God!!”
Number 4, the need for faith (in god’s existence) would be rendered unnecessary, it would become null and void. If one can know something (anything) fully rationally, then it would eliminate the need for “faith”. By the way, this also proves that reason and faith are irreconcilable. Faith is only needed if the belief is unreasonable.

And one more observation. Why this desperate attempt to “prove” god’s existence? After all “faith” is superior to reason - according to the Holy Scriptures. (“The wisdom of the world is folly with God”, and “You must be like children…” and “Blessed are the meek…” right? Luther expressed it so perfectly: “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”, and “Reason must be trampled underfoot”.) Why try to use the inferior “reason”? Maybe, just maybe, deep inside you guys know that “faith” is really inferior?

 

[Shike]

Does the church have a “job description”?

Yes.

If it is so impossible, why do you think you can tackle it?

Your reply sounds good until one realizes that I am not defending any specific text and its rightful interpretation. Basically, there are many ways of coming to know God. It would be foolish if an institution such as the Church would bind itself to one way, one specific set of ways in the discipline of philosophy nonetheless, and ignore the rest. Especially since not every age appreciates reason the same (like ours) and especially since that although such a set of proofs do show the existence of God, there still is need for revelation.

And the church did an abysmal job at “interpreting” the scripture “correctly”. The first necessary part would be to separate the wheat from the chaff - to give an enumerated list of the verses which are supposed to be “literally true” and the ones which are supposed be to taken allegorically.

The Word of God is rich in meaning. It might be impossible to enumerate all the possible insights and valid understandings. But when someone goes off the deep end and contradicts the deposit of faith it is very likely that they are misinterpreting the passage–and I do find this to be the case every time.

The point is that you gave no reason “WHY” do you think that the other person exists. And you never examined the question: “what is a person anyway?”.

I most certainly did. I think the other person exists because I know the other person exists. And I know the other person exists because I experience that person and my senses are generally reliable–to state otherwise is to overthrow the foundation of our knowledge.
A person is a rational animal. We’ve been through this.

Except you are talking about the “whatness” of one specific “car”, and not about the “whatness” of cars in general. You point out that your specific car has 4 tires. There are other “alleged cars” with 3 tires only… are they also cars, or not?

Whether you can or cannot see this I do not know. But I think it is apparent to others who are reading this thread that you are confusing essential whatness with whatness. I submitted that a car might not have an essential whatness. But I think the majority of people, when they use the term “car”, mean a vehicle with 4 wheels that is used for transport and is not a truck.

 

[Shike]

Number 1, the church would gobble it up and would include it into the catecism.

The Church thinks the existence of God is evident everywhere in creation. She thinks that anyone who tells himself otherwise has ulterior motives, however deeply hidden they may be. People can’t bear the weight of the sins that they have committed, so it’s not surprising that people would want to say that there is no God. It makes life easier.

Number 2, the church would shout it out from the rooftops around the world, as a major breakthrough against all the “false” religions and the “despicable” infidels.

You need more precision. That classical theism is logically inescapable does not prove the truth of the Catholic Church and all of Her tenets.

The Church endorses Aquinas as a Doctor of the Church. Although that is not the kind of backing you are looking for, I have yet to find a flaw in the 5 ways when fully worked out. But then it requires someone to do the work and actually get in Aquinas’ shoes and take on some of his presuppositions; it requires one to learn Aristotelian metaphysics.

It seems like you want someone to force you to believe in God’s existence. He would much rather have you freely seek Himself out yourself. To illustrate the farce that you are putting on, just look at the time when you practiced the “Rosary Experiment”. You wanted some inescapably undeniable revelation, for yourself only no less. I’m sorry, but that’s a silly thing to base the denial of God on. You’re older and you should know better.

Number 3, all the newspapers around the world would have screaming headlines, like: “Two thousand years old controversy solved: There IS God!!”

Atheism is a rather new phenomenon. Sure there were always atheists here and there, but let’s just say they have started to multiply.

Number 4, the need for faith (in god’s existence) would be rendered unnecessary, it would become null and void. If one can know something (anything) fully rationally, then it would eliminate the need for “faith”. By the way, this also proves that reason and faith are irreconcilable. Faith is only needed if the belief is unreasonable.

Hmmm. I don’t know how I can say this without being sarcastic. Umm.
First, the need for revelation isn’t excluded by the knowledge of the existence of God. Even the Bible says that demons know God exists. There’s something much more to all this than just knowledge of God.
Second, Faith and reason go hand in hand. For anything that contradicts reason cannot be Faith, and anything that contradicts Faith cannot be reason. That’s the journey of my life and I have yet to find a valid argument against one tenet of the Catholic Faith. I know it’s a strong claim, but it is true.

And one more observation. Why this desperate attempt to “prove” god’s existence?

I’m not desperate, I’m not even trying to prove God’s existence. I wonder why you think I am?
Catholics aren’t Lutherans. Faith and reason go hand in hand. That’s why we also accept science. Maybe you should read the encyclical by Pope John Paul II on Faith and Reason–he was a philosopher, you know.

I’m not the one trying to limit the power of reason. You are the one making a negative claim on our ability to reason. And without reason at that. I’d rather keep the discussion civil and on topic and with arguments only, none of this sarcastic banter back and forth. Though I fear this is all you want. It seems like you only want to pretend like you’ve never heard these ideas before only to mock your interlocutor.

There has been ample opportunity to revise your concepts, because at least a couple were quite apparently mistaken. You have no business on a philosophy forum if you do not care to learn.

 

[Borz]

The Church thinks the existence of God is evident everywhere in creation. She thinks that anyone who tells himself otherwise has ulterior motives, however deeply hidden they may be. People can’t bear the weight of the sins that they have committed, so it’s not surprising that people would want to say that there is no God. It makes life easier.

What a joke. The church “thinks”. Just like the church “thinks” that god’s existence can be known by rational means without revelation. The church can utter all these propositions without any proofs attached to them. For you it is sufficient. “The church says it, I believe it, that is the end of it” - to paraphrase the protestant bumper sticker. Guess what. Nothing the church says is a proof of anything - even an evidence of anything. God is not evident anywhere. I say that everyone who thinks otherwise has ulterior motives. They are scared of the prospect of oblivion, so they invent an “afterlife” as a crutch. Is my propostion nonsensical to you? So is your argument to me. I do not accept the concept of “sin”, so I do not need to make my life easier.

The Church endorses Aquinas as a Doctor of the Church. Although that is not the kind of backing you are looking for, I have yet to find a flaw in the 5 ways when fully worked out. But then it requires someone to do the work and actually get in Aquinas’ shoes and take on some of his presuppositions; it requires one to learn Aristotelian metaphysics.

So the 5 proofs are convincing if one accepts their irrational foundation? How come that I do not accept them? Am I deceiving myself out of fear that god will judge me unworthy?

It seems like you want someone to force you to believe in God’s existence. He would much rather have you freely seek Himself out yourself. To illustrate the farce that you are putting on, just look at the time when you practiced the “Rosary Experiment”. You wanted some inescapably undeniable revelation, for yourself only no less. I’m sorry, but that’s a silly thing to base the denial of God on. You’re older and you should know better.

I was TOLD that it WILL work as stipulated… It did not. Is it my fault that the suggestion of those believers was faulty?

Atheism is a rather new phenomenon. Sure there were always atheists here and there, but let’s just say they have started to multiply.

In a sense you are right. As the old saying goes: “pretty much everyone believed in god, until some people wanter to ‘prove’ it”. That was when the whole house of cards collapsed.

First, the need for revelation isn’t excluded by the knowledge of the existence of God.

If there would be an actual “proof” for god’s existence, than there would be no need for revelation IN THAT RESPECT. And it would make huge headlines all around the world. It does not and the papers are in the business of selling papers. They would try to include even bogus claims. But the claim that god’s existence is “proven” does not even pass the muster of the Natinal Enquirer, which habitually presents two-headed sheep on their front page. That is how “trustworthy” the “proof” of god’s existence is. Not even the tabloids will take it… shouldn’t that tell you something?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

… shouldn’t that tell you something?

It tells me that you will present any nonsense in-order to avoid the reality of God.

You have not shown us why the arguments are irrational, you have merely asserted that they fail or that they are based on irrationality. People who do that in fact want the arguments to be irrational, they want them to fail, and it is in your own selfish interests to arrogantly dismiss anybody who attempts to prove otherwise, because you think that if you speak arrogantly enough that therefore you will be mistaken for an intelligent person. The problem with that line of thinking is the fact that you have not presented any rational grounds for dismissing the arguments. Which really gives us no reason whatsoever to think that you are an honest thinker.

You are deceiving yourself, and now you are attacking people who believe in God because you so desperately want to believe that your self-deception is true.

Its no wonder that you don’t believe in right and wrong; the last thing you want to do is feel guilty.

 

[Shike]

We are sufficiently off topic. This is what you want, I presume.

What a joke. The church “thinks”. Just like the church “thinks” that god’s existence can be known by rational means without revelation. The church can utter all these propositions without any proofs attached to them. For you it is sufficient. “The church says it, I believe it, that is the end of it” - to paraphrase the protestant bumper sticker.

Well, like I said. I’ve looked into Aquinas’ proofs. I have yet to find an objection that cannot be honestly answered. And it seems to fit quite nicely with what the Church says.

They are scared of the prospect of oblivion, so they invent an “afterlife” as a crutch.

Except that hell would seem to be worse than oblivion.

So the 5 proofs are convincing if one accepts their irrational foundation? How come that I do not accept them? Am I deceiving myself out of fear that god will judge me unworthy?

I see no grounds to think the metaphysical presuppositions are irrational. In fact, they are argued for. What you claim should be at the end of an argument. I would really like to see one. Not to mention I would really like to see your presuppositions argued for.

I was TOLD that it WILL work as stipulated… It did not. Is it my fault that the suggestion of those believers was faulty?

It’s not so much that the suggestion of the believer (as far as I remember it was singular) was faulty, as that you weren’t very open to him about your motives. It’s apparent you aren’t open to learning… you still don’t realize that you confuse essential whatness with whatness, even after I have pointed it out many times. You practice ‘any port in a storm’… well, at least when you were attempting a response.

In a sense you are right. As the old saying goes: “pretty much everyone believed in god, until some people wanter to ‘prove’ it”. That was when the whole house of cards collapsed.

Except that atheists are very much the minority still. And if you pay any attention to demographics, it looks like it isn’t going in the atheists’ favor.

If there would be an actual “proof” for god’s existence, than there would be no need for revelation IN THAT RESPECT. And it would make huge headlines all around the world.

You must be joking. No, not in this day and age. 1) because the format isn’t geared towards meticulous philosophical systems, and 2) most people don’t have the attention span for it.

Why do we still have people who argue against the universality of the law of non-contradiction? It’s because it’s not exactly the same thing as math… and some people are nuts.

Not even the tabloids will take it… shouldn’t that tell you something?

When’s the last time you read a serious philosophical argument in a tabloid?