Gnostic Atheism

[reggieM]

I’m not demanding a proof of the trinity, I’m demanding that the trinity not be provably-false.

If you are using logic to prove that the doctrine on the Trinity is false, then your approach fails for reasons I’ve given.

We learned the doctrine of the Trinity from the teaching of Christ. It is not an idea that was deduced through logic or philosophical speculation. The teaching was given as true statement which can only be accepted on the basis of Faith. The teaching cannot be falsified by human reasoning since it transcends reason.

The idea that a Being can exist outside of space, outside of time and as an immaterial quality - is an idea that Transcends human reason. Logic can give us certainty that such a Being must exist. But it cannot analyze the various dynamics and inner nature of that Being.

Jesus taught us that the inner nature of God is three divine persons. We accept that not because we have some rational means of validating that it is true or false. But we accept it as an authoritative, divine teaching that comes from God.

If God explained to you directly, how he created the universe out of nothing - do you think you could explain it in logical, scientific terms?

I’ll add, JK - I think the challenge for you is on the first philosophical proofs (first cause, atributes, etc) - not on the Trinity. I gave a scale or path of analysis before - understanding the Trinity, a Faith-based teaching, can only come after a person believes that God exists.
After that, if you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then you also have no grounds for believing the Trinity.

Early Christian heresies (and they continue today), denied the existence of the Trinity, or the relationships of persons. The monophysites, Arians, Modalism – there were many.
But every one of them, started with belief that God exists, and some Faith that Jesus gave true teaching. Accepting that Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trinity - comes from New Testament analysis, not from mathematical analysis or logical syllogisms Alone (much logic was used to arrive at the full doctrine of the Trinity, but that logic could only begin after the New Testament was accepted as the true Word of God, giving True data to analyze).

Again, if you don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then you’ve got your “falsification” already. Why bother talking about the Trinity?

P1 If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, only God could reveal it (since it cannot be derived logically from anything observable in human experience)
P2 Jesus was the only person who ever spoke directly of this doctrine
P3 Jesus did not receive a revelation from God
C The doctrine of the Trinity is false

This is easy. You only need to cite P3. Anything thereafter that follows as a “Revealed Teaching” is false.

Again, you have to go up the ladder towards an understanding of the nature of God.
You can’t analyze Revealed teachings unless you believe there is a divinely appointed Revealer capable of giving them. Otherwise, you’re not analyzing them for what they are.

Jew and Muslims criticize the teaching on the Trinity by comparing it with their own, believed to be, Revealed texts. That, at least, makes sense.

For you, you have to start with:

We are looking for the best, most reasonable explanation for …
The origin of what we know of matter, space, time energy. Call it the universe.
Or, beyond that, the origin of all contingent reality.

Possible answers:

1. It has no origin and always existed
2. It was created by a self-existing being

I believe those are your two options. Which do you choose?

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m demanding that the trinity not be provably-false.

Just caught this last bit…

One philosopher to another, you know falsity and contradiction aren’t the same, right?

Falsity pertains to soundness and contradiction shows an invalid structure. So even if they did contradict, if you wrote “therefore the claim is demonstrated as false” on a test, you’d get the big red “X”. The claim is shown as invalid. Its truth value is undetermined based on just this info given.

Can an argument be invalid and still true? Sure. That’s why the “Fallacy” fallacy exists.

You also assume the principle of excluded-middle. Eastern philo bears no such rule. “God is subject only to western philo” is an interesting implicit axiom that is simply that - axiom. Free to accept or reject with no penalty to rationale.

More importantly, in order for contradiction to exist, it is incumbent on the presenter to show that the terms in question must be contradictory. They must show that if one is false, the other must be true. And that if one is true, the other must be false.

“God must either be one or he must be three. He cannot be both”.

Good luck proving that beyond another “self-evident axiom”.

There are rules to this stuff. And most of it is a hell of a lot harder to properly do than most people think.

But I do enjoy your posts. I’ll remember you as “R” guy.

 

[PRmerger]

The nihil obstat and imprimatur means that someone endorsed by the Catholic church as knowledgeable about church teaching has reviewed the article and found that it does not contain any blatant errors regarding church teaching.

Then you need to change your statement as it is quite misinformed.

A nihil obstat and imprimatur do NOT mean what you said here:

1. a nihil obstat + imprimatur document specifically endorsing the teaching

 

[PRmerger]

1. a nihil obstat + imprimatur document specifically endorsing the teaching

A lot of people who don’t really know anything about Catholicism have made the same mistake, but a nihil obstat and the imprimatur is NOT a statement “endorsing the teaching”.

Rather, they are a declaration that there is nothing contrary to the Catholic faith in the contents of the text.

An imprimatur is not an endorsement by the bishop of the contents of a book, not even of the religious opinions expressed in it, being merely a declaration about what is not in the book.–Imprimatur - Wikipedia

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.–source

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Then you need to change your statement as it is quite misinformed.

A nihil obstat and imprimatur do NOT mean what you said here:

Then please provide a link to a resource which says otherwise. If some catholics will assert heresy to attempt to win a debate, I’m not about to just accept a Trump-ean “wrong.” What you said:

]The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.

Sounds an awfully lot like what I said.

The situation is this:

Document says: “The church teaches divine simplicity!”

Church says: “Document is free from doctrinal error!”

I say: “Document that the church has certified ‘free from doctrinal error’ says that church doctrine is divine simplicity”

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds an awfully lot like what I said.

Nope.

You made the rookie mistake here of assuming that the NO and Imprimatur mean that it’s an endorsement.

But now you know and I trust you’ll never try to say something like this again.

1. a nihil obstat + imprimatur document specifically endorsing the teaching.

At least, not if you want to sound informed.

And I am 100% certain that you will use this correction sometime in the future for some pitiful Catholic who makes the same mistake you did.

And I will cheer you on.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You made the rookie mistake here of assuming that the NO and Imprimatur mean that it’s an endorsement.

Oh wow. The fact that I used the word endorsement in the same sentence as NO+Imprimatur was enough to get you so excited that you couldn’t tell what the subject or the object of the endorsing was.

The document endorsed [the idea that the church doctrine is divine simplicity]

The NO+Imprimateur did not endorse the document. It just certified that the document’s statements about doctrine were without error.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh wow. The fact that I used the word endorsement in the same sentence as NO+Imprimatur was enough to get you so excited that you couldn’t tell what the subject or the object of the endorsing was.

The document endorsed [the idea that the church doctrine is divine simplicity]

The NO+Imprimateur did not endorse the document. It just certified that the document’s statements about doctrine were without error.

Then I suggest you retract this:

1. a nihil obstat + imprimatur document specifically endorsing the teaching

 

[PRmerger]

Oh wow. The fact that I used the word endorsement in the same sentence as NO+Imprimatur was enough to get you so excited that you couldn’t tell what the subject or the object of the endorsing was.

The document endorsed [the idea that the church doctrine is divine simplicity]

The NO+Imprimateur did not endorse the document. It just certified that the document’s statements about doctrine were without error.

I think the point has been made.
The correction received.
I rest.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

QED

You raise an important point. As an agnostic, I await the Second coming, not because I want to be saved, but rather it’s because at that time I expect to have full knowledge (empirical verification!!) of God’s existence and why he allows such and such. After that, then I’ll worry about being saved.

 

[PRmerger]

You raise an important point. As an agnostic, I await the Second coming, not because I want to be saved, but rather it’s because at that time I expect to have full knowledge (empirical verification!!) of God’s existence and why he allows such and such. After that, then I’ll worry about being saved.

What would that empirical knowledge look like to you?

And how would you be able to falsify it?

 

[reggieM]

You raise an important point. As an agnostic, I await the Second coming, not because I want to be saved, but rather it’s because at that time I expect to have full knowledge (empirical verification!!) of God’s existence and why he allows such and such. After that, then I’ll worry about being saved.

Yes, but we’re also called to have Faith. That’s the reason we’re on earth. Jesus had harsh words for people who refused to have faith. They wanted only what they could control - only their own verifications of everything.

But living by Faith is the challenge! Yes, we have to take a leap - trust God. But He will and does catch us, and carry us along.
If everything had to be done through empirical proofs, we never would make progress. There would be no need for faith.
We learn that in human terms - when you love someone.
“Trust me” - she may say to you.
Would you say, “sorry, no way. I’m not going to trust you unless I see absolute proof”. ?
That’s not how love works. We have faith in the other person’s love for us. Showing trust is a sign of love.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, but we’re also called to have Faith. That’s the reason we’re on earth. Jesus had harsh words for people who refused to have faith. They wanted only what they could control - only their own verifications of everything.

But living by Faith is the challenge! Yes, we have to take a leap - trust God. But He will and does catch us, and carry us along.
If everything had to be done through empirical proofs, we never would make progress. There would be no need for faith.
We learn that in human terms - when you love someone.
“Trust me” - she may say to you.
Would you say, “sorry, no way. I’m not going to trust you unless I see absolute proof”. ?
That’s not how love works. We have faith in the other person’s love for us. Showing trust is a sign of love.

That is exactly how the con-artists work. They say: “Trust ME!”. And when the poor old lady hands over her life’s savings, then she finds out that she has been “had”. Remember Jim and Tammy Baker? The consummate con-artists, who fleeced innumerable old folks? That was their approach: “Trust ME”. Every con-artists says: “Trust ME”.

It is very dumb to trust someone unconditionally, who did not YET prove his worthiness. Love has nothing to do with this. This is called gullibility. Yes, if you had evidence, there would be no need for “faith”. Trust needs to be earned. And earing that trust is a long process. First you give a little trust, in small matters. If the other party seems to be trustworthy, then you raise the “stakes”. Eventually, you might trust the other one in real important matters. That is how we acted with our financial advisor. He gave us good advice in small matters, so our trust grew. And when it came to really serious matters, his advice was good. That is how rational people behave.

But how many times did God prove his trustworthiness in small matters? Help you out in need? Heal you when you are sick? Feed you when you are hungry? Enumerate the instances when this happened. And then look around in the neighborhood, in the next country, in the next continent. How many times did you see God come to the rescue of the poor, the downtrodden, the tortured ones?

 

[goout]

That is exactly how the con-artists work. They say: “Trust ME!”. And when the poor old lady hands over her life’s savings, then she finds out that she has been “had”. Remember Jim and Tammy Baker? The consummate con-artists, who fleeced innumerable old folks? That was their approach: “Trust ME”. Every con-artists says: “Trust ME”.

It is very dumb to trust someone unconditionally,

Another atheist with a false image of Christianity.
I am sorry for you, and I am sorry for those of us Christians who may have scandalized you.

 

[reggieM]

… I am sorry for those of us Christians who may have scandalized you.

Ditto to that thought.
Yes, I can understand if hurt or lack of trust came from scandalous behavior of Christians - and there’s no excuse for that. All we can do is to sincerely try to do better.

 

[reggieM]

That is exactly how the con-artists work. They say: “Trust ME!”. And when the poor old lady hands over her life’s savings, then she finds out that she has been “had”. Remember Jim and Tammy Baker? The consummate con-artists, who fleeced innumerable old folks? That was their approach: “Trust ME”. Every con-artists says: “Trust ME”.

Yes, you’re right and a lot of harm was done to others from that sort of thing. We need not mention the scandals of Catholic priests also. I know my own behavior is not what it should be – and I don’t like that.

I’d just say, though Vera - we do need to try to trust one another. Yes, there’s good reason to be resentful or hurt. It’s hard not to say “they’re all like that”.
But I hope you will find good, trustworthy Christians on your journey in life. Nobody’s perfect, but when we give trust it can often come back to us.

But how many times did God prove his trustworthiness in small matters? Help you out in need? Heal you when you are sick? Feed you when you are hungry? Enumerate the instances when this happened. And then look around in the neighborhood, in the next country, in the next continent. How many times did you see God come to the rescue of the poor, the downtrodden, the tortured ones?

Those are important questions and I would not take them lightly or answer in a glib manner. I can only say for myself, I’ve experienced God’s trustworthiness in the small matters of life. It is something built up over time - just as you said. Little by little, a mutual relationship. But it’s a two-way conversation - speaking and listening. It takes some watchfulness.

Some years ago I started a journal to jot down the little things where I saw God’s hand in my life. Little coincidences. Little moments of rare beauty. Small good that happened that were totally unexpected. Things to be thankful for.

That journal has been quite an amazing thing over time – looking back at those things. Some, totally amazing, even though only I would think so (because of the details of my life).

But one thing I can’t do is determine how many times God has done that for anyone else. I know people who, in my opinion, are in desperate situations. But in many cases, they have more faith and more joy than I do.
In Catholic history, we find that with the saints and martyrs. They were deprived of everything - tortured, impoverished.
So, we don’t know what others experience - unless they share that with us.
And if they share it – we might be suprised at how many times people want prayers more than anything else. They know that is what will help them the most.

In any case - I appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

[goout]

Ditto to that thought.
Yes, I can understand if hurt or lack of trust came from scandalous behavior of Christians - and there’s no excuse for that. All we can do is to sincerely try to do better.

And this works both ways. There is also no excuse for persistent obstinacy.

 

[PRmerger]

Another atheist with a false image of Christianity.
I am sorry for you, and I am sorry for those of us Christians who may have scandalized you.

Yeah. I reject the Christianity that atheists reject too.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, you’re right and a lot of harm was done to others from that sort of thing. We need not mention the scandals of Catholic priests also. I know my own behavior is not what it should be – and I don’t like that.

I’d just say, though Vera - we do need to try to trust one another. Yes, there’s good reason to be resentful or hurt. It’s hard not to say “they’re all like that”.
But I hope you will find good, trustworthy Christians on your journey in life. Nobody’s perfect, but when we give trust it can often come back to us.

The trust should be cautious first, and then it can grow. I have met MANY wonderful trustworthy Christians in my life, just many people of other denominations, and even (GASP!) atheists. No group of people has “dibs” on being kind, loving, trustworthy.

Those are important questions and I would not take them lightly or answer in a glib manner. I can only say for myself, I’ve experienced God’s trustworthiness in the small matters of life. It is something built up over time - just as you said. Little by little, a mutual relationship. But it’s a two-way conversation - speaking and listening. It takes some watchfulness.

Good for you. Just curious: “how would you know that all those signs actually came from God?” Is it possible that you conditioned yourself to see everything that is “good” must have come from God, and everything that is “not good” came from some other source? You need to do some serious soul-searching for this…

In any case - I appreciate your thoughts on this.

The appreciation is mutual.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Another atheist with a false image of Christianity.
I am sorry for you, and I am sorry for those of us Christians who may have scandalized you.

Nonsense. I have never met personally any Christian whom I could not like, or trust or even love. All the negative examples came from this board (and some other ones). Of course I had a conversation with some nice Christians on this board - but VERY few. Fortunately I don’t need to have a personal relationship with the counter-examples.