Existence, the first occasion to sin

[Prophesy]

If life for fallible beings presents countless occasions to sin, then merely existing is an occasion to sin and should be avoided. Avoidance of existence is the remedy to prevent sin.

Thoughts?

Andy

Existence is more so an occasion of glory and love.

-Prophesy

 

[AndyF]

This amounts to nihilism which is an incoherent philosophy. To deny the value of existence - which is implied by your overwhelming aversion to sin - is to deny the value of reasoning and thereby cut your intellectual throat!

Implication seems to be a springboard for presumption with you. I’m truly interested in having a good dialogue with you, but not on these terms.

Andy

 

[AndyF]

Didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that existence is always good? Or, that “beingness is goodness”?

Could he ever say it isn’t without consequences to him?

 

[djeter]

**Didn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that existence is always good? Or, that “beingness is goodness”?

Could he ever say it isn’t without consequences to him? **

---

Existence is derived from our creation which Genesis says God told us was “good.” One of the great mysteries of our existence is that man is the creature whose life ceases to have any more value as soon as he regards nothing as more valuable than his life.

"Life has a foundation. It is willed; and the fact that its being is willed and is a good that ought to be defines its rank. **The primordial “datum” of life — like every gift — carries not just the price and value of itself; by its very essence it has the preciousness that comes from being a gift given. **As Luther says, its proper rank is not its property, “in the way that a painted board has its color.” Even existence itself is not a property (in Kant’s language, it is not a predicate). I “have” a clothing size but is it really also true that I “have” this “having”? **Could I say that I “have” being and life in the same way that I have my eye color? **

To be sure, I am the one who is and who lives — and I am not simply “lived” or, if you’ll pardon the expression, “being-ed.” But being and life are not something that I have. And when somebody loves me, could I really say that I have my being loved in the same way that I have a certain weight and body size? No, it is something “posited,” as Kant says; or, to put it with Luther, it comes to us “from the outside,” “ab extra,” for **it is granted to us by freedom. **

To sum up: to live is to be because one’s being is willed. And the doctrine of creation says that every life is so willed. Whatever people might say, the fact remains that none of us merely “happened.” Every one of us is called. Every one of us was given — to himself and to others."Jörg Splett

And more here: **Life needs to be accepted, that is, it needs to be lived. But it is lived when it comes into play, when it is risked, when it is staked on the game (instead of being buried, as in the parable of the talents).

If the holiness of life is based on the fact that life is a gift, then the recipient demonstrates his nobility by refusing to snatch up and cling to the gift “as something to be grasped at” (Philemon 2:6). Life as gift comes to fulfillment in the acceptance of oneself when it is handed on to others: life given away. The grace and nobility of life consists in the fact that “no one lives for himself” (Romans 14:7). **

Once you say that life or existence is not “good,” you deny all the Christian philosophers and Scripture itself. Best of luck with that line of thought.

dj

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks, but Greylord is not a name befitting someone who cuts his own firewood and works for a living. “greylorn” is a carefully chosen and entirely appropriate name.

Thank you, greylorn, for another entertaining post. We may not agree but you are forthright rather than forlorn. For the life of me I can’t see how “greylorn” is appropriate but it’s none of my business.

Forgive my choice not to requote nitwit philosophers. I invite you to take a close look at the moral teachings of Christ. Then, the behavioral teachings, which seem to me to set an even higher level of standards. Stories like the Parable of the Talents, the Vineyard Workers, the turkey who sat himself at the top perch of the dinner table, Christ was not out in the world reiterating the commandments or clarifying the Torah. The teachings that stick in my mind have nothing to do with what people commonly regard as “moral standards.” How did he address prostitution/adultery? Something like, “Let he who is without blame toss out the first stone.”

IMO Christ was trying to tell people how not to behave like mindless, rule-following, hypocritical jerks,

(If you were choosing a long-term companion, would you rather have someone who slipped a little but gave a lot, or some righteous Bishop who’s never spilled beer on his silken gown?)

Christ’s teachings were brilliantly presented and full of human sense. They stand by themselves as legitimate insights and human guidelines whether Christ was the Son of God (a meaningless concept, when analyzed) or another bearded hippie dressed in a robe.

Your “salvation” lies in your acceptance of the moral teachings of Christ. In the end what counts is how we live rather than what we think we believe!

I’m not big on authority figures. I’ve never been seriously lied to by regular people, the kind you meet on the job, alongside the road with a stalled car, in a bar or engineering lab. The big lies I’ve had to deal with have come in faculty meetings, high level business conferences, political rallies, and sermons— all led up by some self-important pretentious clown. A title behind an author’s name is no assurance of truth or intelligence between a book’s covers.

I used to hang out with a Buddhist friend. We’d share a hot tub now and then. He’d bring Cuban cigars, and I’d bring a bottle of port. He’s written a few books which I haven’t read (he didn’t read mine either). He’d spent a month or so in India learning from some high mucky-muck lama, and held weekly teachings attended by devotees from miles around. He’d generally be no fun whatsoever for the first half hour or so, but after awhile he’d let loose of his credentials and we’d just be two bearded old goats, buck naked in a hot tub, stinking of cigars and unfit to drive, but well-qualified to delve into the mysteries of the universe. Then, finally, with his knowledge hanging on a shrub along with his bathrobe, his inherent wisdom would manifest and he became a conversational joy.

I’d trade an entire eternity in heaven for a half-hour in a hot tub with Jesus Christ, and I’d bring both the cigars and the wine.

Your taste for the hot tub, cigars and wine would disappear long before the end of the world.

I don’t know what Christ’s “moral” teachings are, meaning that no particular moral precepts come to mind when I scan my brain in hopes of finding some. I only pay attention to the first three books of the N.T, since John’s stuff is so obviously an invention of his personal socialistic mysticism. There is this absurd claim that seems to say, ‘No one gets to heaven except through me,’ I hope that the real J.C. said nothing of the kind, for it is totally inconsistent with the quality and style of his other teachings. It excludes way too many good people, and if its true, I’m not getting there and do not want to be there.

I have devoted a major section of one of my book chapters to the thesis that Christ’s teachings are wonderfully independent of any theology whatsoever, and could happily form the basis for a theology-independent religion.

I disagree absolutely with your insistence upon tying Christ’s teachings to any theology whatsoever. In fact, I can make a case that the Church betrayed Christ’s marching orders by ever getting into theology. Christ didn’t teach theology— he taught behavior. The early Church was built upon the foundation of those clear and simple teachings. The last thing it needed was theology.

I actually started a thread on that subject once, but it got smothered by dogmatists.

I discuss the issue at great length and in an orderly, logical manner in my book. Nonetheless I’ll try a preliminary answer to your question, attenuated for this thread.

First, there is an incorrect assumption behind most everyone’s paradigm set which affects all questions about human purpose. It is that God created the human soul and body both. I regard that hypothesis as incorrect, and if I was required to answer the “purpose or reason” question under the constraint of such an hypothesis, I would have no intelligent answer.

IMO an intelligent answer to the question can only be developed under a different hypothesis. Mine is that the entity commonly known as “soul” was not created by God, This opens up a variety of interesting possibilities, beginning with the idea that the soul’s first purpose is to develop consciousness.

Keats thought life is “a vale of soulmaking” but that presupposes we have the power to do so and where did that originate?

I hope the tornadoes are not in your vicinity…

 

[PRmerger]

I invite you to take a close look at the moral teachings of Christ. Then, the behavioral teachings, which seem to me to set an even higher level of standards. Stories like the Parable of the Talents, the Vineyard Workers, the turkey who sat himself at the top perch of the dinner table, Christ was not out in the world reiterating the commandments or clarifying the Torah. The teachings that stick in my mind have nothing to do with what people commonly regard as “moral standards.” How did he address prostitution/adultery? Something like, “Let he who is without blame toss out the first stone.”

IMO Christ was trying to tell people how not to behave like mindless, rule-following, hypocritical jerks,

(If you were choosing a long-term companion, would you rather have someone who slipped a little but gave a lot, or some righteous Bishop who’s never spilled beer on his silken gown?)

Christ’s teachings were brilliantly presented and full of human sense. They stand by themselves as legitimate insights and human guidelines whether Christ was the Son of God (a meaningless concept, when analyzed) or another bearded hippie dressed in a robe.

Interesting thread; trenchant post. I’ve been lurking…

One question: how do you, as a non-Christian, respond to objectors who claim that Jesus never really taught anything new? That is, his “turn the other cheek” et al are simply reiterations of ancient wisdom.

 

[4Horsemen]

Thank you, greylorn, for another entertaining post. We may not agree but you are forthright rather than forlorn. For the life of me I can’t see how “greylorn” is appropriate but it’s none of my business.
.

Although the post was addressed to greylorn, I just want toss in my 2 cents worth if you don’t mind.

Maybe a better moniker would be Gandalf the Grey until he re-enters the Church, then greylorn can be Gandalf the White.

It seems the supposition is that because of our existing, all of humanity is bound to sin since existence presupposes it. That is flatly wrong!

God created us as free individual persons with the ability to choose right from wrong. Adam and Eve could have chosen correctly, that is, not to eat the fruit from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. In other words, they refused to obey God and their own conscience.

Besides, everything God created is “good” as God says so Himself. Existence, itself then, is not an occasion of sin or the first occasion of sin. It probably is a mind set on self instead of on God with inordinate desires to please the self and, therefore, become like gods. That was the temptation of the serpent.

However, there is one human being who resided on this earth besides Jesus who was sinless. That being of course is His Mother Mary. She was made immaculate because God foresaw her life as she chose it living in Him and not for herself.

 

[tonyrey]

Although the post was addressed to greylorn, I just want toss in my 2 cents worth if you don’t mind.

 

[fhansen]

If life for fallible beings presents countless occasions to sin, then merely existing is an occasion to sin and should be avoided. Avoidance of existence is the remedy to prevent sin.

Thoughts?

Andy

Yes, or better yet, choosing to love God and neighbor is a remedy for sin-then we can keep the existence part, too.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, or better yet, choosing to love God and neighbor is a remedy for sin-then we can keep the existence part, too.

Indeed. There’s no such thing as a free lunch - or life!

 

[greylorn]

Keats thought life is “a vale of soulmaking” but that presupposes we have the power to do so and where did that originate?

Greylorn regards human life as an opportunity to develop the soul, the entity responsible for our occasional genuine thoughts, IOW, enhance the consciousness level of soul through experience, knowledge, and action. We do not have the power to make a soul, nor does God, even if He should want to do so. You’ll have to read my forthcoming book if you want to know how the soul originated, if that was your question.

 

[greylorn]

Although the post was addressed to greylorn, I just want toss in my 2 cents worth if you don’t mind.

Maybe a better moniker would be Gandalf the Grey until he re-enters the Church, then greylorn can be Gandalf the White.

It seems the supposition is that because of our existing, all of humanity is bound to sin since existence presupposes it. That is flatly wrong!

God created us as free individual persons with the ability to choose right from wrong. Adam and Eve could have chosen correctly, that is, not to eat the fruit from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. In other words, they refused to obey God and their own conscience.

Besides, everything God created is “good” as God says so Himself. Existence, itself then, is not an occasion of sin or the first occasion of sin. It probably is a mind set on self instead of on God with inordinate desires to please the self and, therefore, become like gods. That was the temptation of the serpent.

However, there is one human being who resided on this earth besides Jesus who was sinless. That being of course is His Mother Mary. She was made immaculate because God foresaw her life as she chose it living in Him and not for herself.

While I accept the concept of a Creator, that comes from a moderate study of the workings of the universe, physics, astronomy, biology, etc, plus my personal calculation of the odds against interesting structures arising from random events, and the sheer absurdity of Big Bang theory.

In other words, I regard the “scientific” interpretation of the fundamental beginnings and workings of things as a pile of absurd nonsense which some human beings who should know better made up.

I regard the various religious interpretations of the beginnings and workings of things in exactly the same way. Scripture, the Bible and its contents, are entirely the inventions of human beings, who claimed them to come from God, and which are agreed upon by other men as being of divine origin. Men agreeing with men, etc.

The only Bible I find legitimate is the one certain to have been written only by God. That is the physical universe. Atoms and newts and eyes and black holes represent the true and certain writings and creations of God. When human inventions and theories contradict this one true Bible, or simple logic, I reject them.

 

[greylorn]

Interesting thread; trenchant post. I’ve been lurking…

One question: how do you, as a non-Christian, respond to objectors who claim that Jesus never really taught anything new? That is, his “turn the other cheek” et al are simply reiterations of ancient wisdom.

I say, “So what?”

I do not accept all of Christ’s teachings, and doubt very much that he is the genuine author of the stuff I reject. Moreover, I don’t treat Christ as an authority figure, or as any more a son of God than I am.

His teachings are valuable on their merits. It makes no difference to me if he learned them studying in Tibet, brought them along from a previous incarnation on Arcturus IX, or made them up. He took the trouble to gather them and present them in a manner that some people would understand-- no easy feat.

I take and recommend this approach for all teachings: Eschew authority, do your own thinking and research, and accept ideas only on their merits. Put more simply, it is up to every man to take personal responsibility for the beliefs he chooses to accept.

 

[PRmerger]

His teachings are valuable on their merits. It makes no difference to me if he learned them studying in Tibet, brought them along from a previous incarnation on Arcturus IX, or made them up. He took the trouble to gather them and present them in a manner that some people would understand-- no easy feat.

Fair enough.

However, to say, then, that Jesus’ importance in history is because of his teachings–not because he was God–seems, well, a bit lame.

Why put any importance on a figure who taught nothing new?

And clearly, he presented them in a manner that most people did *not *understand.

I take and recommend this approach for all teachings: Eschew authority, do your own thinking and research, and accept ideas only on their merits. Put more simply, it is up to every man to take personal responsibility for the beliefs he chooses to accept.

Again, this seems to be a fair approach.

However, in reality no one lives according to this paradigm that you profess. Even you.

For example, I doubt that you’ve been to Manila, but you accept that it’s the capital of the Philippines because you’ve deferred to some authority (the atlas, your 4th grade teacher, your father…) that has proclaimed this to be true.

I doubt that you eschew the authority of the airline and do your “own thinking and research” on the capabilities of the pilot whose hands you put your life into. You accept that the airline has declared him/her able to fly an aircraft.

No one lives according to this paradigm. You, like everyone else, put faith in lots of things.

Just sayin’…

 

[4Horsemen]

While I accept the concept of a Creator, that comes from a moderate study of the workings of the universe, physics, astronomy, biology, etc, plus my personal calculation of the odds against interesting structures arising from random events, and the sheer absurdity of Big Bang theory.

What’s the use of believing in a Creator when you also believe He had nothing to do with the making of the soul as you mentioned in a different post (somewhere?)? The calculation of the odds of universal constants arising for an anthropic universe is astronomical. So you then believe that we needed a Creator to produce an anthropic universe. (I already know your idea of God is different from the Christian God from previous discussion.) The Big Bang theory is widely accepted. Is it because you don’t believe in the finitude of past time that you call the Big Bang theory an “absurdity?”

In other words, I regard the “scientific” interpretation of the fundamental beginnings and workings of things as a pile of absurd nonsense which some human beings who should know better made up.

I suppose we’ll have to wait for your book to present a workable theory and correct all the errors of science.

I regard the various religious interpretations of the beginnings and workings of things in exactly the same way. Scripture, the Bible and its contents, are entirely the inventions of human beings, who claimed them to come from God, and which are agreed upon by other men as being of divine origin. Men agreeing with men, etc.

For those who believe, no explantion is necessary.
For those who don’t believe, no explanation is sufficient.

In his book, New Proofs for the Existence of God, Robert Spitzer outlines a metaphysical argument for God’s existence. He discusses the following:

I. Proof of at least one unconditioned reality.
II. Proof that unconditioned reality itself is the simplest possible reality.
III. Proof that unconditioned reality itself is absolutely unique.
IV.Proof that unconditioned reality itself is unrestricted.

Also, included in the book is Bernard Lonergan’s proof for God’s existence which may be stated:

If the real is completely intelligible, then God exists.
But the real is completely intelligible.
Therefore, God exists.

The only Bible I find legitimate is the one certain to have been written only by God. That is the physical universe. Atoms and newts and eyes and black holes represent the true and certain writings and creations of God. When human inventions and theories contradict this one true Bible, or simple logic, I reject them.

If you see the universe as “the Bible” which was "written only by God, then you have to believe that God, the Creator, is outside His universe or transcendent. From there, one can arrive at other philosophical understandings, as well a the moral code, partially through reason, but directly from Revelation. (I know you believe in an objective reality. Would you consider God the objective reality?)

 

[greylorn]

Fair enough.

However, to say, then, that Jesus’ importance in history is because of his teachings–not because he was God–seems, well, a bit lame.

Lame? Perhaps to someone who insists upon getting his “truth” from recognized authority figures. Not to me. Christ is gone, and despite beliefs, he’s not coming back, having work to do elsewhere. What remains but his teachings?

The world has known a number of valuable people who made great contributions to human understanding. Have you heard of Confucius? How about Newton, Einstein, and Max Planck, all of whom were probably more intelligent than Christ and did not claim godhood as a consequence?

Uri Geller and a large number of psychics can perform inexplicable manipulations of parts of the physical universe, the kinds of things regarded as miracles by primitive Hebrews who would have worshiped a time traveler with a Zippo lighter and an Uzi.

The only things important about Christ, or any other human beings, are the teachings a very few of them leave behind. IMO, of course.

Why put any importance on a figure who taught nothing new?

You are missing my point entirely. I do not put any importance on the figure. You do.

The need to derive your opinions and beliefs from authority figures is your problem, not mine. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself.

And clearly, he presented them in a manner that most people did *not *understand.

That’s about the most absurd comment I’ve read on CAF. Did you hear that from Nancy Pelosi? Or was that a test? How do you suppose that Christianity overwhelmed Roman paganism and became a world wide religion, with few understanding Christ’s teachings?

greylorn:

I take and recommend this approach for all teachings: Eschew authority, do your own thinking and research, and accept ideas

only on their merits. Put more simply, it is up to every man to take personal responsibility for the beliefs he chooses to accept.

…in reality no one lives according to this paradigm that you profess. Even you.

For example, I doubt that you’ve been to Manila, but you accept that it’s the capital of the Philippines because you’ve deferred to some authority (the atlas, your 4th grade teacher, your father…) that has proclaimed this to be true.

I doubt that you eschew the authority of the airline and do your “own thinking and research” on the capabilities of the pilot whose hands you put your life into. You accept that the airline has declared him/her able to fly an aircraft.

No one lives according to this paradigm. You, like everyone else, put faith in lots of things.

Manila was exactly where people said it was. People living there, and in the jungle towns, seemed to think that it was their capitol city, but they may have been misinformed. Whatever, it had an international airport. Between the jeepnies and Gigi, I remember Manila well.

Reading lessons would relieve you of much of your confusion. Had you actually read what I wrote, included above with highlights to catch your limited attention span, you’ll note the words “ideas” and “beliefs.” Or, perhaps you won’t.

There is a difference between facts, such as the location of Manila and the competency of an airline pilot, and ideas, such as the beliefs of various religions and sciences. I’m willing to trust astronomers’ observations and accept that the universe is expanding, but I completely reject their belief in the reason for the expansion, Big Bang theory. I’m willing to believe in the statistical competency of an airline pilot, and the mechanics who swapped out the plane’s engines, despite my awareness that this might not be my statistically lucky flight. I accept the risk.

Just sayin’…

May I recommend that you hold the “sayin’” until you do some honest readin’ and thinkin’?

 

[PRmerger]

Lame? Perhaps to someone who insists upon getting his “truth” from recognized authority figures. Not to me. Christ is gone, and despite beliefs, he’s not coming back, having work to do elsewhere. What remains but his teachings?

The world has known a number of valuable people who made great contributions to human understanding. Have you heard of Confucius? How about Newton, Einstein, and Max Planck, all of whom were probably more intelligent than Christ and did not claim godhood as a consequence?

Uri Geller and a large number of psychics can perform inexplicable manipulations of parts of the physical universe, the kinds of things regarded as miracles by primitive Hebrews who would have worshiped a time traveler with a Zippo lighter and an Uzi.

The only things important about Christ, or any other human beings, are the teachings a very few of them leave behind. IMO, of course.

You are missing my point entirely. I do not put any importance on the figure. You do.

The need to derive your opinions and beliefs from authority figures is your problem, not mine. Maybe you should try thinking for yourself.

That’s about the most absurd comment I’ve read on CAF. Did you hear that from Nancy Pelosi? Or was that a test? How do you suppose that Christianity overwhelmed Roman paganism and became a world wide religion, with few understanding Christ’s teachings?

Manila was exactly where people said it was. People living there, and in the jungle towns, seemed to think that it was their capitol city, but they may have been misinformed. Whatever, it had an international airport. Between the jeepnies and Gigi, I remember Manila well.

Reading lessons would relieve you of much of your confusion. Had you actually read what I wrote, included above with highlights to catch your limited attention span, you’ll note the words “ideas” and “beliefs.” Or, perhaps you won’t.

There is a difference between facts, such as the location of Manila and the competency of an airline pilot, and ideas, such as the beliefs of various religions and sciences. I’m willing to trust astronomers’ observations and accept that the universe is expanding, but I completely reject their belief in the reason for the expansion, Big Bang theory. I’m willing to believe in the statistical competency of an airline pilot, and the mechanics who swapped out the plane’s engines, despite my awareness that this might not be my statistically lucky flight. I accept the risk.

May I recommend that you hold the “sayin’” until you do some honest readin’ and thinkin’?

Wow.

Perhaps I’ve hit a nerve?

The degree of acerbity in your response is puzzling, greylorn, given that I have said nothing which prompts such a response. My post was nothing if not charitable and trenchant.

However, I will continue to dialogue as I believe you have not ever considered the points I’ve proferred.

 

[PRmerger]

You are missing my point entirely. I do not put any importance on the figure. You do.

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood. Did you not say you were writing a book about his teachings?

To dedicate a chapter of a book to someone on whom you place no importance is rather bemusing.

Or do you write about figures of no importance? If so, does not writing about them then, by definition, make them important? At least in your own eyes?

 

[greylorn]

What’s the use of believing in a Creator when you also believe He had nothing to do with the making of the soul as you mentioned in a different post (somewhere?)?

I’ve already given you the answer to that. All you need to do is read it.

The calculation of the odds of universal constants arising for an anthropic universe is astronomical. So you then believe that we needed a Creator to produce an anthropic universe. (I already know your idea of God is different from the Christian God from previous discussion.) The Big Bang theory is widely accepted. Is it because you don’t believe in the finitude of past time that you call the Big Bang theory an “absurdity?”

Big Bang theory is absurd on several counts.

1. 
   *]The thing which went bang has not yet been competently defined. It has recently been dubbed, “a singularity.” This is the stupidest thing astronomers have done since placing the earth at the center of the universe, and stems from the same incompetent thinking.
   
   *]A singularity is a purely mathematical concept. You can create your own by dividing any number by zero. It is strictly a mathematical concept. When a singularity appears in the answer to a physics test problem, the student gets an F. Why?
   
   *]Because the existence of a physical singularity is impossible. Unless you happen to be a perfesser.
   
   *]If a primeval physical singularity existed, it would contain all the mass-energy in the universe. That would make it the God of all black holes. It would be completely wrapped in spacetime. What could cause it to explode? There has never been an answer to that question.
   
   *]For further study, read the lead story of the April 2011 issue of Scientific American. Or simply read the front cover, which echoes what I’ve been saying for the last twenty years.
   
   Since Big Bang theory was developed by science as its own answer to Creation by God, and is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to belief in an almighty God, why would any intelligent Christian want to believe in it? Is the Church that dreadfully confused?
   

   I suppose we’ll have to wait for your book to present a workable theory and correct all the errors of science.

   It does not correct all the errors— just the big and important ones.
   

   For those who believe, no explantion is necessary.
   For those who don’t believe, no explanation is sufficient.

   I believe, and insist upon a competent explanation. Therefore, the above refrain is irrelevant drivel.
   

   In his book, New Proofs for the Existence of God, Robert Spitzer outlines a metaphysical argument for God’s existence. He discusses the following:
   
   I. Proof of at least one unconditioned reality.
   II. Proof that unconditioned reality itself is the simplest possible reality.
   III. Proof that unconditioned reality itself is absolutely unique.
   IV.Proof that unconditioned reality itself is unrestricted.
   
   Also, included in the book is Bernard Lonergan’s proof for God’s existence which may be stated:
   
   If the real is completely intelligible, then God exists.
   But the real is completely intelligible.
   Therefore, God exists.

   Again, I can only offer a similar response. None of these clowns has bothered to competently define the necessary and essential properties of God. So, what are they talking about?
   
   If I am to assume that they accept the Thomist properties, then it behooves them to apply their logic explicitly to the existence or not of a Creator with those properties, as opposed to a Creator with different properties. These arguments are simply the drool of pseudo-intellectuals who IMO badly need to master a basic physics class.
   

   If you see the universe as “the Bible” which was "written only by God, then you have to believe that God, the Creator, is outside His universe or transcendent.

   That’s nonsense. I know you did not make that up yourself because you are intelligent. Show me an engineer who can make a machine which exists outside the engineer’s space of existence. You’ve been reading too many silly philosophy books.
   

   From there, one can arrive at other philosophical understandings, as well a the moral code, partially through reason, but directly from Revelation. (I know you believe in an objective reality. Would you consider God the objective reality?)

   Christians are not the first humans to devise a moral code. All cultures have one, and all are different. Some are more successful than others. The success of a moral code often depends upon the quality of codes with which it must compete, and upon circumstances. Mine is learned from a variety of different teachers, including Christ, Mickey Spillane, Keith Laumer, Bruce Lee, and Machiavelli.
   
   God, as I define the concept, is an objective reality. God as defined by the Church cannot be brought into the realm of objective reality, since that definition is of a singularity. You know how keen I am about singularities.

 

[PRmerger]

The world has known a number of valuable people…

Hey, greylorn, in my paradigm every people is valuable.

who made great contributions to human understanding. Have you heard of Confucius? How about Newton, Einstein, and Max Planck,

Sheesh. No need to introduce condescension. We were having a very fine dialogue without that.

I’ve noticed that the degree of acerbity and sarcasm expressed is proportionate to the degree that Catholics propose irrefutable arguments.

all of whom were probably more intelligent than Christ and did not claim godhood as a consequence?

This is a straw man, unless, greylorn, you have some books which details the IQ of Christ? Otherwise, it is an unsupported argument. Which is especially egregious coming from a man who espouses to be so into facts