Another serious reason why these conversations are futile

[Neil_Anthony]

The latter. “Self-causation” does not make any sense to me. I say about the Universe exactly what you say about God. You dont’ say that God is “self-caused”, you say that God does not require a cause. At least that is how I read you. Maybe I am mistaken. You can enlighten me.

Maybe “self-caused” isn’t the right term… What I’m trying to say is that this transcendent creator has properties that make it exist of itself. If we could understand what it is, and how it works, it would be evident that it requires nothing else to bring it in to existence, and that it must exist, and always must have existed and always will exist.

I don’t pretend to know what properties would lead to this existence-of-itself. I just speculate that there must be something with that property, otherwise nothing would exist at all.

In and by itself there is nothing wrong with pure speculation. But if it stays at the “pure” speculation level, if it does not lead anywhere, then it becomes “empty” speculation. A metaphorical statement is useful if it leads to understanding. The trouble in your statement that is does not help at all. What do we do with “God does not really ‘act’, but performs something similar, and it seems that there would be something like a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ associated with it, but it is not really the case”? And what is wrong with assuming that there is “time” in the realm where God dwells?

I say that he can’t operate within time because he is the creator of time - at least the time dimension that we are in. I suppose his nature could include another time dimension, I’ll call it meta-time, which God meta-acts within.

One example of such a meta-act would be the creation of space-time. It wasn’t created at a point in our time, since time did not yet exist. This meta-time could be very similar to what we know as time, or different.

What do we gain my using an analogy that doesn’t get concluded with specifics? I think it allows us to know a bit about the unknowable by comparing it to something we know. This is why religions give God ridiculously human characteristics - because that’s all we really know to explain it with. It doesn’t mean that God really gets angry and jealous… its just a way to explain it to people.

Indeed there are some very basic concepts which are self-evident. These are called axioms or principles. Substitute the “universe is self-caused” with the “universe is uncaused” and I see nothing problematic with that. I would agree that the ideas that “the universe is self-caused” is nonsensical.

Well, the thing about axioms is that you can only hope that other people agree with you on them, because I don’t think there’s a way to prove them. What do you say to someone who says that 2 + 2 equals 4 in every example he can think of, but he isn’t sure that its always true? Or someone who says that two sentences can contradict yet both be true? I really don’t know what to say to someone who, presented with the same knowledge about the universe that I have, concludes that it could be self-caused, or exist in and of itself. Unfortunately I think the debate just ends there…

 

[Spock]

Maybe “self-caused” isn’t the right term… What I’m trying to say is that this transcendent creator has properties that make it exist of itself. If we could understand what it is, and how it works, it would be evident that it requires nothing else to bring it in to existence, and that it must exist, and always must have existed and always will exist.

I don’t pretend to know what properties would lead to this existence-of-itself. I just speculate that there must be something with that property, otherwise nothing would exist at all.

To our best knowledge the preservation laws hold. That means that matter/energy/momentum cannot be created or destroyed. That qualifies as a property for existence-of-itself. And there is nothing mysterious about it.

I say that he can’t operate within time because he is the creator of time - at least the time dimension that we are in. I suppose his nature could include another time dimension, I’ll call it meta-time, which God meta-acts within.

One example of such a meta-act would be the creation of space-time. It wasn’t created at a point in our time, since time did not yet exist. This meta-time could be very similar to what we know as time, or different.

That is how I see it, too.

What do we gain my using an analogy that doesn’t get concluded with specifics? I think it allows us to know a bit about the unknowable by comparing it to something we know. This is why religions give God ridiculously human characteristics - because that’s all we really know to explain it with. It doesn’t mean that God really gets angry and jealous… its just a way to explain it to people.

Fine. We are steadily approaching to the God of agnosticism. As such, phrases like “God loves us” loses meaning, since “love” when applied to God is not even similar to love as applied to humans.

Well, the thing about axioms is that you can only hope that other people agree with you on them, because I don’t think there’s a way to prove them. What do you say to someone who says that 2 + 2 equals 4 in every example he can think of, but he isn’t sure that its always true? Or someone who says that two sentences can contradict yet both be true?

There are people who assert that nothing is “real” and everything is merely the figment of their imagination (solipsists). Of course, as soon as they say it, they contradict themselves. They “declare” their own insanity, since only insane people would try to communicate with their own imaginary discussion partners. And why would any sane person consider the ideas of an insane person?

I really don’t know what to say to someone who, presented with the same knowledge about the universe that I have, concludes that it could be self-caused, or exist in and of itself. Unfortunately I think the debate just ends there…

It might. It was fun while it lasted.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To our best knowledge the preservation laws hold. That means that matter/energy/momentum cannot be created or destroyed. That qualifies as a property for existence-of-itself. And there is nothing mysterious about it.

See, that must seem logical to you, but to me it seems impossible that the matter has just “always been there”. It makes me ask “how did it get there, and where did the law of conservation of matter and energy come from?”

Fine. We are steadily approaching to the God of agnosticism. As such, phrases like “God loves us” loses meaning, since “love” when applied to God is not even similar to love as applied to humans.

Yes, and I suppose that’s about as far as I think logic on its own can take us. Or at least, the logic I’m smart enough to understand. I know Thomas Aquinas took it further to study the nature of God using logic, but I haven’t studied it, and I really don’t have an opinion on whether those arguments are logically provable.

From there it’s all about prayer, spiritual experiences, trying to get to “know” God as a person, rather than a subject of logical inquiry, and revelation from God.

There are people who assert that nothing is “real” and everything is merely the figment of their imagination (solipsists). Of course, as soon as they say it, they contradict themselves. They “declare” their own insanity, since only insane people would try to communicate with their own imaginary discussion partners. And why would any sane person consider the ideas of an insane person?

Well, I think there’s a difference between a complete solopsist and someone who disagrees about things you consider axiomatic. Someone who thinks that 2+2 isn’t necessarily always 4 might still be worth talking to about other things.

 

[JDaniel]

Show me what the negative ramifications might be of two loving people expressing their mutual caring and desire to make the other one happy in a way that does not involve the possibility of procreation.

Really. You don’t know the answers to that? Now I am a relationship advisor?

I fail to see a problem here. Ethnic idenity leads to “us vs. them” type of attitude, which is detrimental.

And when the Western nations are overcome by the Eastern nations, and the people of the Western nations are told how to practice a new religion, and what to wear, and women are brought down to a much lower rank than they can now possibly conceive, and children’s hands are cut off for stealing a little food - because they’re hungry, and one’s enemies are beheaded, and women do not get fair trials or, fair sentences, for messing around, then you will ask me the same question, I presume?

This is the saddest and most depressing comment I have ever seen. I am actually left speechless. What could I say to explain how wrong your perception is? (And, yes, I know exactly what you are referring to.)

Spocker: I am sorry to have depressed you so. But, existing in the absence of my precious Lord, depresses me even more, I think. I am saddened by your statements. I find it almost impossible to reconcile that a very gifted and intelligent person could hold your beliefs and be happy. Unless, nah, it wouldn’t be possible that your happiness is derived from attempting to demoralize the theists herein? Nah, I’m so stupid!

God bless,
jd

 

[Man]

I was not talking about unbridled promiscuity. I was talking about disregarding the procreative part of sexuality, which has nothing to do with STD’s, and which actually enhances the happiness. I was talking about masturbation, which is predominantly practiced by teenagers, and which teaches them about their own bodies, their own likes and dislikes. Sexuality is not an easy “stuff”, people differ in the preferences. To learn about their own bodies is a must, if one wishes to have a happy sexual life. I was talking about the consensual activity of adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Marriage is not a necessary factor in obtaining happiness. I was talking about active birth control, which liberates people from the possibly unwanted consequences of healthy sexual behavior. All of these are prohibited under the Catholic teaching, and these teachings make no sense at all.

My point was that this particular discussion is irrelevant, especially if we were to review what is actually known about all the behaviors mentioned above. It seems like the best things for any particular individual and for society in general, for their health, and ultimately, yes, their happiness, is, in most cases, to guide them toward controlling their sexual appetite, and guiding them to keep their sexual behaviors within the confines of marriage. Making a whole bunch of exceptions doesn’t help with this objective, it actually increases risky sexual activity. Do we really know the prospects of remaining married of married people who use birth control versus those who don’t? I think from the statistics involved with NFP that those not using contraceptives have healthier relationships. Again, other than a discussion of applied natural law, this should not be a real barrier to believing in someone who made you.

From a constructor’s point of view, free will is like a computer “bug”, an unwanted deviation from the expected behavior. When a constructor wishes to create something, he establishes the tolerance for accepted and unaccepted behavior and puts in proper measures that the behavior will stay within the desired parameters. If I would be a constructor of a sentient car (for example), I would grant it a certain amount of freedom. This is a good way to avoid “micromanagement”, not to worry about every conceivable situation and program for it (which is impossible anyhow), to give general “guidelines” of acceptable behavior and absolute, unsurpassable control to prevent anything undesired. For example, the car would be free to adjust its behavior, according to road and weather conditions. But the car would not be free to choose and drive over a cliff. In a very good sense, something similar is applicable to us, except the amout of freedom we “enjoy” is way too much. Why should we be “free” to actively harm others? Only a lousy contructor would grant that kind of freedom - provided of course that the construcor considers it undesirable. (If the constructor wants and prefers that kind of behavior, wants to watch how much pain a suffering can we inflict on each other, then that is a whole different ballgame).

If God exists, questioning why things are the way they are hardly disproves His existence.

Thus, the question is whether or not evil’s existence is indicative of a God that is not all Good. Perhaps it is merely indicative of a God that allows people to move away and hide from Him, thus evil is merely the absence of good.

Generally speaking, there are three possible ways to make sure that the creation “works, as intended”. One is to put in external controls, where the circumstances will not allow unwanted behavior. (Like we are unable to kill by simply “wishing” to kill.) Another one to establish internal control, where we would not even think about killing (like some very good people would never consider it as an option). The third one is to allow to kill, to be able to desire to kill, and then introduce a command, like “thou shalt not kill”. Of all the three possible solutions, the third one is downright despicable. Let’s be blunt about it, this “solution” is the sign of a lazy and/or incompetent constructor, who did not go through the motions of doing a proper job, and uses the “command” to hope that his creation will work, “as intended”. If I were the supervisor of such a constructor, I would fire him on the spot for incompetence.

The more extreme the rule you break the more quickly you are likely to meet your Maker. (The Prodigal Son)

Why would anyone (especially the rescued person) care about the volitional aspect of the human firefighter? Makes no sense at all to “value” the human over the “robot”.

I think that many people respect firefighters for choosing to risk their lives on behalf of others. I certainly value living people, like my mother, for example, and do see that valuing her more highly than a robot is certainly valid and defensible.

When I talk about God, I always talk about the human concept of God. This human concept, as introduced by the apologists is loaded with contradictions, loosely defined attibutes and outright nonsense.

Here is a huge load of possibility loaded into a paragraph. These are things that we could address one by one, as many apologist spend their time doing and instructor do as well. This does not seem to be satisfactory for some. Perhaps we should consider that the Subject, God, is not contained in some box to be measured. Instead, He is defined as an infinite being, see all time in a single act, and knowing all things, both things that are impossible for mankind as a group to even accomplish, much less a single individual.

 

[Abba]

I tried before to suggest that we should attempt to find common ground, by defining basic terms (existence, evidence, love, good, evil, and so on) in a mutually acceptable fashion. Those terms then could serve as a starting point to allow meaningful conversations. Those threads all fizzled out very quickly, which is unfortunate.

However, there is another obstacle, which is even more serious. During conversations it will inevitably pop up that we are not supposed to issue judgmental comments regarding God. Usually they are in the form of “who are you to criticize God?” or “how dares the pot question the maker?”. These comments are always the last resort, when there is no rational answer.

I don’t think that this post will change your minds. As before, these attempts to rational discourse are futile. If some of you would start to think about it, it would be great. But I don’t hold my breath.

Hello Spock,

I have a decent understanding of where you are at and I understand your frustration. My family is sleeping now and I finally get a little me time and I wish to share my two cents worth.

I use to watch Star Trek and my favorite character was, of course, Spock. I think it is safe to assume that you chose that username because you highly value logic and reason. Equipped with logic and reason you have set out on a journey for God - with the intent to find out once and for all if he is an illusion or if he is real. How am I doing so far?

Well, I must say, Spock, that sounds like a very logical approach.

Now, you seem to already have a certain ‘definition’ of this God that you are seeking. Could you please describe your God a little?

I can tell you a little about the God creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen - the God of the Bible, the one and only God, the living God, the fountain of life, three persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - one God. The God that is Love. This may sound a little cliche’ to you - this whole religious verbage. I understand. But, I am not using cliches, I am really using these words to communicate with you. I have meticulously selected them.

Notice that I wrote - LIVING GOD. So, he is not who I want him to be nor who you may have conceived him to be, he already is, he is who he is. He said it himself: I AM WHO I AM. If we take a linguistic analytical view of that description we note that he does not utilize anything in his creation to demonstrate his identity - that tells us a lot.

It is difficult to put aside our definition of God and our pride and the way we have decided would be the way to find him or confirm his existence or non-exisence. You are not the first to be trotting down this road and you will not be the last. Don’t waste your time, I can tell you that the road you are in does not lead to God. He has ordained that that road will not lead to him. So, take a look at the map again.

You have a preconceived paradigm. You have God figured out - if indeed he exists. Really? Now, I can appreciate that you are an intelligent and well educated person. I am not so fortunate. I recognize that I am not only ignorant but, I can really be stupid at times. No, this is not false humility. I am being totally sincere. I thank God for not making intelligence and education a requirement to come to know him. To the contrary, if we depend on our intelligence to find him we get lost in the darkness. Even children can come to know God: Matthew 21: 14-16. biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2021:%2014%20-16&version=NIV

What do you think of the God of Psalm 139? biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20139&version=NIV

It seems to me, Spock, that you are trying to make H2o with only H. You are not giving God any credit. Maybe, he has ways for people to find him that do not included the exclusive use of the human intellectual prowess?

Peace,

Abba

 

[Abba]

P.s. Thought you may like to read this:

What is the answer to the problem of evil? There is no rational answer. The Old Testament comes close to it in the book of Job. Here is a man who was good, wealthy and, Satan asks God to tempt him. So, Satan, sometimes is the cause of many of the ills of good people. And God said, you may touch his flesh, but you may not touch his soul. And poor Job looses all of his flock, all of his children and the only thing God leaves him is Mrs. Job. And she was to heighten his trials for she said: Curse God and die!
The consolers come or rather the counselors. Three of them. And they give every explanation possible to JOb. Job is not satisfied with them and Job asks questions: Why was I born? Why was I ever nestled at my mother’s breast? Why did I ever see the light of day?

And God appears…

Now, if God were a broadway dramatist he would have answered all the questions of Job and made the answers click. But, what does God do? God asks Job questions; Where was thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Upon what are it’s bases grounded? Who laid the corner stone there of? Where is the hiding place of darkness? Out of whose womb came the ice? The frost from heaven, has thou gendered it? Cans’t thou make the evening star arise upon the children of men? AS a mouse eaten peano key could not understand why anyone should sit at a stoll and play tchaikowsky, so the human mind cannot comprehend God’s ways

But, God did say to Job about the counselors and let that always be a lesson to them. God said, offer some sacrifices to make up for their stupid answers.

But, there was no answer for the question of evil.

Until…

Until the good Lord came down from heaven. He broke thru this world of sin and evil. He entered into it and made it a part of himself. Identified himself with evil. Sinless, he was nevertheless made sin…This is the only answer there is for the problem of evil. Our Lord took it upon himself. (Bishop Sheen).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

1. In general, there are two types of causes. They are either functional unintelligent causes, or they are intelligent causes.
2. Out of nothing comes nothing. If there is truly nothing then nothing can truly come of it.
3. Anything that is potentially real requires an existential cause in order to be real. An existential cause is that which has reality and also has the authority to give reality to new things that were at one time a non-reality. This type of cause is not to be confused with functional causes, such as the hand moving the ball. Forms have functions that our true of that particular form. I do not deny that a thing could move according to its own nature; this is a possibility, since things could conceivably move according to information as opposed the mechanical means. However, moving according to its own nature is not the same as being the cause of motion itself; since it is only the “kind” of motion that it is the cause of. The existence of change is still required before forms can perform their own kinds of motion. It is impossible for potentiality or change to come out of nothing by itself, and this is where an “existential cause” is necessary.
4. The universe is by intrinsic definition, dynamic; and that is to say it exists by a constant becoming. Its entire body of being is an expression of potentiality; each part of it evolves into reality in-so-far as each part of it is a changing entity. Thus each part of it at one point was unreal and each part of it is contingent upon that which is real. Energy, the substrate of all matter, is also a potentially real being, because change is intrinsic to the existence of energy. If there were no change it would be meaningless to speak of the existence of energy, since its being is intrinsically an expression of change.
5. Therefore, insofar as out of nothing comes nothing, and that everything changing needs an “existential cause”, we have to admit that the universe as an existential whole has a cause that is not changing. It must be a being which exists without potentiality. Also, insofar as this being is the cause of that which is potentially real, it must be perfectly real. That which is potentially real, cannot be real of its own accord, since it does not have a reality of its own making. Thus there is only one kind of cause that can share reality, and in order to share reality that cause has to be a perfect and pure reality with no cause. More importantly this cause by definition is not the physical universe.
6. According to the first, second, and third premise, the first cause cannot be an unintelligent cause, because such a cause would require change in-order to have functionality. There can be no such thing as a timeless unintelligent functionality. Thus a timeless perfect intelligence with a perfect will is the only alternative. A perfect intelligence already knows perfectly what it will do, and thus does not need the progression of change in-order to know what it wills. What it knows and what it wills exists in the same timeless instant.

 

[Spock]

See, that must seem logical to you, but to me it seems impossible that the matter has just “always been there”. It makes me ask “how did it get there, and where did the law of conservation of matter and energy come from?”

I understand your stance. But you do not ask where does God’s omnipotence (or omniscience, etc…) “come from”? You take it for granted. If you look at our positions formally, there is no difference. We both take certain things for granted. The only difference is that we take different things for granted. To ask where do the laws governing matter “come from” is to assume that these laws or properties are not inherent to matter. I see no reason to ask these questions, just like you see no reason to ask where does God’s omnipotence (or omniscience, etc…) “come from”. The interesting problem is here would be the definiton of omnipotence? What is the definition of omniscience?

Well, I think there’s a difference between a complete solopsist and someone who disagrees about things you consider axiomatic. Someone who thinks that 2+2 isn’t necessarily always 4 might still be worth talking to about other things.

How can one question definitions? Definitions are either useful or not. How could one say that “married bachelors” may exist? Certainly a set of axioms (definitions) can lead to a logically inconsistent system, but in that case one must deny the law of “non-contradiction”. And in such a system there is are no true or false propositions, therefore no rational discourse can take place. Yes, a psychiatrist may conduct a conversation with someone who denies that 2 + 2 makes 4, but only as a professional, who wants to find out the level of the insanity of the patient.

 

[Spock]

Really. You don’t know the answers to that? Now I am a relationship advisor?

Well, if you can asnwer the question, fine. If you cannot, that is fine as well. But if you do, please share it wih me.

And when the Western nations are overcome by the Eastern nations, and the people of the Western nations are told how to practice a new religion, and what to wear, and women are brought down to a much lower rank than they can now possibly conceive, and children’s hands are cut off for stealing a little food - because they’re hungry, and one’s enemies are beheaded, and women do not get fair trials or, fair sentences, for messing around, then you will ask me the same question, I presume?

You are too pessimistic. And remember, these days not even the pope has quarrels with Islam any more.

Spocker: I am sorry to have depressed you so. But, existing in the absence of my precious Lord, depresses me even more, I think. I am saddened by your statements.

This is how I understood your previous post: “This life is so horrible on its own, that the only reason you do not take Rev. Jones’ poison is that you hope for a better life afterwards. You do not find anything in this life which makes it worth living.” Of course I find this sad to the extreme! I did not think that anyone still considers this world a vale of tears.

I find it almost impossible to reconcile that a very gifted and intelligent person could hold your beliefs and be happy. Unless, nah, it wouldn’t be possible that your happiness is derived from attempting to demoralize the theists herein? Nah, I’m so stupid!

I do not engage in Schadenfreude. My life is as happy as can be. I am reasonably healthy, have a wonderful wife, family, grandson and a lot of friends. I will not be happy to leave it, but since it is inevitable, my concern is to enjoy life here and now, and I plan to leave good memories. If it would turn out that this existence is not “all”, I would be happy about that, too. After all, if there is God, he would not be so unreasonable as to punish me for my lack of belief. But I see no reason to assume that.

 

[Spock]

My point was that this particular discussion is irrelevant, especially if we were to review what is actually known about all the behaviors mentioned above. It seems like the best things for any particular individual and for society in general, for their health, and ultimately, yes, their happiness, is, in most cases, to guide them toward controlling their sexual appetite, and guiding them to keep their sexual behaviors within the confines of marriage. Making a whole bunch of exceptions doesn’t help with this objective, it actually increases risky sexual activity. Do we really know the prospects of remaining married of married people who use birth control versus those who don’t? I think from the statistics involved with NFP that those not using contraceptives have healthier relationships.

There is no statistical evidence for that. Life is risky, no matter how we view it. There are acceptable risks and there are unacceptable ones. But “one size fits all” is demostratebly untrue.

Again, other than a discussion of applied natural law, this should not be a real barrier to believing in someone who made you.

Indeed. But the question is not just a faceless, generic “maker”, it concerns the non-generic God of Christianity. We can restrict the conversation to the generic version of “god” (uncapitalized) if you wish.

If God exists, questioning why things are the way they are hardly disproves His existence.

Thus, the question is whether or not evil’s existence is indicative of a God that is not all Good. Perhaps it is merely indicative of a God that allows people to move away and hide from Him, thus evil is merely the absence of good.

The dilemma is a bit more complicated. An alleged good God cannot allow “senseless, unnecessary suffering”. There are 3 usual defenses when considering the problem of evil.

Number one is that all the seemingly unneccesary sufferings logically and inevitably lead to some “greater good”, which is impossible to achieve even for God, his omnipotence notwithstanding. In this defense the suffering is a logical prerequisite. (The proponents are of course unable to show what this greater good might be, and how does the suffering lead to it.)

Number two is a total opposite, it says that a lot of evil and a lot of suffering is the result of God granting us free will. Here the unnecessary suffering is a logical consequence. This defense is ridiculous. There is no logical path that would lead to the actuality of suffering, only to the potentiality of it. To allow unnecessary suffering as a logical consequence of “free will” still contradicts God’s alleged goodness.

Number three is the outright denial of suffering. It comes up sometimes when the suffering of animals is discussed. Some people deny that the animals actually “suffer”. I have no idea how can they say that, maybe they think that the animals actually “enjoy” being burned alive in a wildfire?

I think that many people respect firefighters for choosing to risk their lives on behalf of others. I certainly value living people, like my mother, for example, and do see that valuing her more highly than a robot is certainly valid and defensible.

You are confusing “emotional love” with “agape”.

Here is a huge load of possibility loaded into a paragraph. These are things that we could address one by one, as many apologist spend their time doing and instructor do as well. This does not seem to be satisfactory for some. Perhaps we should consider that the Subject, God, is not contained in some box to be measured. Instead, He is defined as an infinite being, see all time in a single act, and knowing all things, both things that are impossible for mankind as a group to even accomplish, much less a single individual.

Let me stress this again. When I speak of God, I am not talking about an entity with certain characteristics. I am talking about the human concept, and I am questioning the ideas like “all-knowing”, or “infinite being”.

 

[Spock]

I use to watch Star Trek and my favorite character was, of course, Spock. I think it is safe to assume that you chose that username because you highly value logic and reason. Equipped with logic and reason you have set out on a journey for God - with the intent to find out once and for all if he is an illusion or if he is real. How am I doing so far?

Not bad, but not on the mark either. I am much more interested in people, how do they think. If it would turn out that the believers are right and I am wrong, that would be wonderful.

Now, you seem to already have a certain ‘definition’ of this God that you are seeking. Could you please describe your God a little?

That would lead to a whole different conversation, but I can do it. Suppose that there is an entity (let’s call it God), who created this particular universe (which is a subset of the universe where God dwells). I would assume that this God is incredibly knowledgable and powerful, especially compared to us. Not “all-knowing”, since that is sheer nonsense. It would be a reasonable being, neither benevolent nor malevolent. If you are so inclined, I would suggest to read Stanislaw Lem’s short story (less than 20 pages) titled “Non Serviam”. It appeared in the book “A Perfect Vacuum”, and I am sure you can find it in your library. The story influenced my thinking, and it describes God as I imagine him/her/it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I understand your stance. But you do not ask where does God’s omnipotence (or omniscience, etc…) “come from”? You take it for granted. If you look at our positions formally, there is no difference. We both take certain things for granted. The only difference is that we take different things for granted. To ask where do the laws governing matter “come from” is to assume that these laws or properties are not inherent to matter. I see no reason to ask these questions, just like you see no reason to ask where does God’s omnipotence (or omniscience, etc…) “come from”. The interesting problem is here would be the definiton of omnipotence? What is the definition of omniscience?

I do wonder where God’s omnipotence and omniscience come from, but I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it because I recognize that it’s almost certainly beyond my comprehension. I look at the things in the physical world, and I feel reasonably sure that I see how they work, and that there’s no explanation for where they come from without invoking something transcendent. Then I just hypothesize that there must be something in the transcendent world that has properties, that I can’t even begin to think about, which do not require further explanations of where they come from. Properties that would not beg the question 'where did this come from".

In other words, all I see in the physical world is more questions and mysteries. It doesn’t make sense, to me, on its own.

Why do you ask the definitions of omnipotent and omniscience? I would just go to the dictionary and paste them in. I don’t know what you’re getting at?

How can one question definitions? Definitions are either useful or not. How could one say that “married bachelors” may exist? Certainly a set of axioms (definitions) can lead to a logically inconsistent system, but in that case one must deny the law of “non-contradiction”. And in such a system there is are no true or false propositions, therefore no rational discourse can take place. Yes, a psychiatrist may conduct a conversation with someone who denies that 2 + 2 makes 4, but only as a professional, who wants to find out the level of the insanity of the patient.

I have met at least one educated person who denies that 2+2 is always 4. In fact he is a psychologist, not a psychological patient He just said that he accepts that 2+2=4 is a useful rule for things we experience from day to day, but that he isn’t sure it always applies everywhere. shrug I didn’t know what else to say.

I also know someone who is pretty smart who says that it is okay to believe in contradictions. She isn’t otherwise insanem but she insists that contradictions are good. shrug I can’t make sense of it, and got tired of trying to convince her otherwise. What can you do?

 

[Spock]

I do wonder where God’s omnipotence and omniscience come from, but I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it because I recognize that it’s almost certainly beyond my comprehension.

Do you mean that they are not God’s inherent properites, rather they are “imposed” on God from some external source?

In other words, all I see in the physical world is more questions and mysteries. It doesn’t make sense, to me, on its own.

Oh, there are questions, problems everywhere in the physical world. That is why we hypothesize about them and try to make sense of them. This is where science comes into the picture. The actual questions are problems are so plentiful and so exciting that I see no reason to ponder artifical ones. Like how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle? Or what is to the north from the North Pole? Or why is it that the virtual size of the Sun and the Moon (looking from the Earth) happens to be the same?

Why do you ask the definitions of omnipotent and omniscience? I would just go to the dictionary and paste them in. I don’t know what you’re getting at?

Those were just examples of problematic concepts. And no dictionary can help there.

I have met at least one educated person who denies that 2+2 is always 4. In fact he is a psychologist, not a psychological patient He just said that he accepts that 2+2=4 is a useful rule for things we experience from day to day, but that he isn’t sure it always applies everywhere. shrug I didn’t know what else to say.

Based upon the axioms, 1 + 1 = 2… or 1 + 1 = 10, or 1 + 1 = 1. These are not contradictory, they are the results of the selected axioms.

I also know someone who is pretty smart who says that it is okay to believe in contradictions. She isn’t otherwise insanem but she insists that contradictions are good. shrug I can’t make sense of it, and got tired of trying to convince her otherwise. What can you do?

Nothing. Leave them alone.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Do you mean that they are not God’s inherent properites, rather they are “imposed” on God from some external source?

I believe they are God’s inherent properties, but I was admitting that I have no idea how the question “how did they become God’s properties” would be answered. I just imagine that the question would somehow be answered if we could understand God.

Oh, there are questions, problems everywhere in the physical world. That is why we hypothesize about them and try to make sense of them. This is where science comes into the picture. The actual questions are problems are so plentiful and so exciting that I see no reason to ponder artifical ones. Like how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle? Or what is to the north from the North Pole? Or why is it that the virtual size of the Sun and the Moon (looking from the Earth) happens to be the same?

Well, I find scientific questions interesting too. But I’m more attracted to the deeper questions. (Not the ridiculous questions you pose, but others). There are some deeper questions that I’m sure you would agree should be taken seriously, for example:

Q: Is reductionism the best way to arrive at answers to questions about the physical world? Is it the only way?
or
Q: What are the limits of the types of answers that the scientific method can provide to us?

I guess I find that scientific analysis has become predictable. We keep discovering smaller particles, and those particles turn out to be made of even smaller particles. Then we take those particles apart and find smaller ones. I’m much more interested in the question of what is the ultimate limit of reducing these particles down further and further. That’s what fascinates me, and it seems to me that it lies outside the realm of science to answer it.

 

[Spock]

Well, I find scientific questions interesting too. But I’m more attracted to the deeper questions. (Not the ridiculous questions you pose, but others). There are some deeper questions that I’m sure you would agree should be taken seriously, for example:

Q: Is reductionism the best way to arrive at answers to questions about the physical world? Is it the only way?
or
Q: What are the limits of the types of answers that the scientific method can provide to us?

I guess I find that scientific analysis has become predictable. We keep discovering smaller particles, and those particles turn out to be made of even smaller particles. Then we take those particles apart and find smaller ones. I’m much more interested in the question of what is the ultimate limit of reducing these particles down further and further. That’s what fascinates me, and it seems to me that it lies outside the realm of science to answer it.

Reductionism is nonsense. We cannot reduce the properties of charcoal and diamond to the fact that they are both composed of 6 carbon atoms. No scientist worthy of his salt would attempt to try reduce the transparency of water to the 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom. As a matter of fact, “reductionism” is just a red herring introduced by some ignorant people. Of course the lack of reductionism does not introduce the need to assume something “supernatural”. The “so called problem” that “love” cannot be directly reduced to the elementary particles in the brain is exactly the same as if one would wish to reduce “walking” to particles making up our leg muscles.

The answer to your second question is: “we don’t know”. I strongly suspect that the properties within a black hole cannot be examined directly, since gravity will not allow any information bearing particles to escape. But we must resort to “we don’t know”, as the only honest answer. Nevertheless, the track record of science is very good. So I stay optimistic.

About the smaller and smaller “elementary particles”. This is also a fascinating question. We just have to wait and see how it folds out. However, the question of “ultimate reality” is not relevant. As soon as we shall have a theory which accurately predicts something, that theory will be “good enough” to consider “ultimate”.

Some people even today argue that our senses do not portray reality “accurately”, and wonder what reality “really” looks like. Or how do we tell, if we live in the Matrix or not. Such questions are nonsensical. Reality is what we percieve. Those who say that the senses do not “accurately” portray reality, actually insist that our senses are an impediment to understand reality. What they really say is: “we cannot see, because we have eyes”, and “we cannot hear because we have ears” - and that is truly nonsense. If you stop to think about it, the only reason people “doubt” the sensory information is that we can misinterpret the visual information. No one would say: “I think that I smell a rose here, but maybe I smell a pile of dung, and my sense of smell ‘deceives’ me”. Vision is the only sense which works from afar, and we are able to misinterpret what we see (think of a mirage). No one can misinterpret a beating for a caress, can they? No one can misinterpret a musical note to a thunder.

 

[Man]

There is no statistical evidence for that. Life is risky, no matter how we view it. There are acceptable risks and there are unacceptable ones. But “one size fits all” is demostratebly untrue.

No statistical evidence of what? Oh, there is statistical evidence. Your assertion seems to be that its existence does not matter because something different might make some people happier, or, how can I know unless I try everything else, perhaps. However, the teaching is quite correct in stating a very orderly format for society, that of chastity, and the use of the sexual faculties only inside of a marriage. Sure there will be failures, and some people deviate from this norm, but, I think its dishonest to defend the deviations as just as valid and healthy for society. I think such an assertion is both ultimately dishonest, and statistically invalid.

Indeed. But the question is not just a faceless, generic “maker”, it concerns the non-generic God of Christianity. We can restrict the conversation to the generic version of “god” (uncapitalized) if you wish.

Out of respect, I looked back to track this discussion. I was responding to a rather generic example of a computer program you gave. A discussion of Natural Law may or may not be valuable in determining the reality of God. If one derives from Natural Law all correct things without the guidance of a religion then, that does not disprove God, but possibly proposes a connection between God and that individual. Generally, however, deviations from Catholic Natural law are guided by self interested motives. And then, of course I moved on to the problem of Good-Evil.

The dilemma is a bit more complicated. An alleged good God cannot allow “senseless, unnecessary suffering”. There are 3 usual defenses when considering the problem of evil.

Number one is that all the seemingly unneccesary sufferings logically and inevitably lead to some “greater good”, which is impossible to achieve even for God, his omnipotence notwithstanding. In this defense the suffering is a logical prerequisite. (The proponents are of course unable to show what this greater good might be, and how does the suffering lead to it.)

Number two is a total opposite, it says that a lot of evil and a lot of suffering is the result of God granting us free will. Here the unnecessary suffering is a logical consequence. This defense is ridiculous. There is no logical path that would lead to the actuality of suffering, only to the potentiality of it. To allow unnecessary suffering as a logical consequence of “free will” still contradicts God’s alleged goodness.

Number three is the outright denial of suffering. It comes up sometimes when the suffering of animals is discussed. Some people deny that the animals actually “suffer”. I have no idea how can they say that, maybe they think that the animals actually “enjoy” being burned alive in a wildfire?

Why do you believe that a Good God cannot allow any suffering, when I clearly defined evil as the absence of Good. It is like saying that if warm exists that cold cannot exist, in that cold is ‘merely’ the absence of heat or warmth to be more true to the comparison.

You propose that God cannot derive good from evil as well, you seem to just sit omnipotence aside. If you believe in Heaven then merits can adjust the situation for just reason, even if we don’t fully understand. Further, many people learn lessons from failure, so, in many cases people do benefit from suffering.

Given that God is the Good, if God gives man free will, then it is altogether logical that should they decide in whatever way to disconnect from God, that there would be less good in the world and that suffering would increase.

I do not know why one would outright reject the reality of suffering.

You are confusing “emotional love” with “agape”.

Howso, does not ones or could not love for one’s mother correspond to both?

Let me stress this again. When I speak of God, I am not talking about an entity with certain characteristics. I am talking about the human concept, and I am questioning the ideas like “all-knowing”, or “infinite being”.

It does not seem reasonable to reject the concept of God based on the difficulty of accepting the idea of an all-knowing and infinite being.

 

[JDaniel]

I understand your stance. But you do not ask where does God’s omnipotence (or omniscience, etc…) “come from”? You take it for granted. If you look at our positions formally, there is no difference. We both take certain things for granted. The only difference is that we take different things for granted. To ask where do the laws governing matter “come from” is to assume that these laws or properties are not inherent to matter. I see no reason to ask these questions, just like you see no reason to ask where does God’s omnipotence (or omniscience, etc…) “come from”. The interesting problem is here would be the definiton of omnipotence? What is the definition of omniscience?

Spock:

Your paragraph above is not well thought out. (Don’t worry though, I do that occasionally, too!) You said, “But you do not ask where does God’s omnipotence (or omniscience, etc…) ‘come from’?” but, with a mere moment’s thought, you know that is not true. That question has been asked thousands of times (perhaps more) over the past several millennia. In fact, it is sill being asked and answered. And when it was asked, it was answered. Revelation answered it. Yet, when science was asked the similar question about matter, it came up with the Big Bang Theory.

You further ask, “To ask where do the laws governing matter ‘come from’ is to assume that these laws or properties are not inherent to matter.” But, since you must accept that matter is finite and came to be by some inexplicable act, how can it - as thoughtless, finite and contingent as it is - be the cause of its own laws? It would certainly help some cause or other, if it had.

The questions concerning God’s Omnipotence and Omniscience have been asked for centuries, and answered by Revelation, as well as by many of the most intelligent men that have ever lived throughout history.

Is tossing Revelation no different than tossing the science book?

How can one question definitions? Definitions are either useful or not.

You also know that such a proposition is vague and useless.

How could one say that “married bachelors” may exist?

They don’t? Not even in Massachusetts or California?

Certainly a set of axioms (definitions) can lead to a logically inconsistent system, but in that case one must deny the law of “non-contradiction”. And in such a system there are no true or false propositions, therefore no rational discourse can take place. Yes, a psychiatrist may conduct a conversation with someone who denies that 2 + 2 makes 4, but only as a professional, who wants to find out the level of the insanity of the patient.

But, such a system does not exist. Even in those few systems that are partially devoid of rigorous logic, comparatively few people follow them - and several of them have begun their very own systems of psychiatry.

God bless,
jd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Reductionism is nonsense. We cannot reduce the properties of charcoal and diamond to the fact that they are both composed of 6 carbon atoms. No scientist worthy of his salt would attempt to try reduce the transparency of water to the 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom. As a matter of fact, “reductionism” is just a red herring introduced by some ignorant people. Of course the lack of reductionism does not introduce the need to assume something “supernatural”. The “so called problem” that “love” cannot be directly reduced to the elementary particles in the brain is exactly the same as if one would wish to reduce “walking” to particles making up our leg muscles.

Hmm… I thought all those things could be reduced to the atomic level… Diamonds are more dense because of the way the atoms are packed together, light passes through diamonds because of … well… something to do with the crystal structure. etc.?

The answer to your second question is: “we don’t know”. I strongly suspect that the properties within a black hole cannot be examined directly, since gravity will not allow any information bearing particles to escape. But we must resort to “we don’t know”, as the only honest answer. Nevertheless, the track record of science is very good. So I stay optimistic.

By “the limits of science” I was thinking more about things like… theories about other universes that we can’t detect, based on untestable hypotheses. Or art. Can art be explained by science? Do you expect that some day art will be considered a science?

About the smaller and smaller “elementary particles”. This is also a fascinating question. We just have to wait and see how it folds out. However, the question of “ultimate reality” is not relevant. As soon as we shall have a theory which accurately predicts something, that theory will be “good enough” to consider “ultimate”.

Some people even today argue that our senses do not portray reality “accurately”, and wonder what reality “really” looks like. Or how do we tell, if we live in the Matrix or not. Such questions are nonsensical. Reality is what we percieve. Those who say that the senses do not “accurately” portray reality, actually insist that our senses are an impediment to understand reality. What they really say is: “we cannot see, because we have eyes”, and “we cannot hear because we have ears” - and that is truly nonsense. If you stop to think about it, the only reason people “doubt” the sensory information is that we can misinterpret the visual information. No one would say: “I think that I smell a rose here, but maybe I smell a pile of dung, and my sense of smell ‘deceives’ me”. Vision is the only sense which works from afar, and we are able to misinterpret what we see (think of a mirage). No one can misinterpret a beating for a caress, can they? No one can misinterpret a musical note to a thunder.

Well can you prove, using science that we all perceive sensory stimulus in the same way? I don’t think you’re giving their theories fair consideration. It sounds to me like you have made scienctific observation your magic Key to all knowledge, and you stop thinking logically whenever you come up against the limits of what science can do. It’s exactly the same as what you see happen to religious people when you ask questions that they don’t know the answer to - it unsettles them, their world starts to seem uncertain, and they get emotional and start talking nonsense. Seriously, thats what all humans do when their cherished assumptions are questioned. I think it applies to people with a religious belief in science too.

I’ve just gotten used to admitting that I really don’t know much about hardly anything! I have various theories of how thigns might work or might not work… and I just gave up trying to find clear answers. shrug it’s less upsetting to debate when you really aren’t sure! haha!

 

[JDaniel]

You are too pessimistic. And remember, these days not even the pope has quarrels with Islam any more.

Actually, I’m not pessimistic, but, I’m not optimistic either. I’m cautious. If you live in the US, it is hard for me to believe that you can say that. The Pope must deal with them as he can. They practically own Italy.

This is how I understood your previous post: “This life is so horrible on its own, that the only reason you do not take Rev. Jones’ poison is that you hope for a better life afterwards. You do not find anything in this life which makes it worth living.” Of course I find this sad to the extreme! I did not think that anyone still considers this world a vale of tears.

Rest assured, that’s not what I meant at all. Do not be sad for me. Instead, be sad for those for whom this life is the ultimate raison d’etre. I do not. Although I regard it highly, to me it is only number two among the list of reasons for living. You miss the point: it is not that I discount this life as somehow not worth living, I simply do not fear what is beyond it.

I do not engage in Schadenfreude.

Wow! There’s a word I haven’t heard in a long time. I am happy to say, neither do I.

My life is as happy as can be. I am reasonably healthy, have a wonderful wife, family, grandson and a lot of friends. I will not be happy to leave it, but since it is inevitable, my concern is to enjoy life here and now, and I plan to leave good memories. If it would turn out that this existence is not “all”, I would be happy about that, too. After all, if there is God, he would not be so unreasonable as to punish me for my lack of belief. But I see no reason to assume that.

Well, I sure hope you know what you’re doing. I’d prefer to leave Purgatory with you rather than before you!

God bless,
jd