God is not a...

  • Thread starter Thread starter e_c
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aha…

Organized religion is criticized in Jethro Tull’s Aqualung, ELP’s “The Only Way (Hymn)” ,King Crimson’s “The Great Deceiver” and Radical Primacy’s “Dead Fruit” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock

Funnily enough, I’ve been listening to Aqualung this morning.
 
Bradski said:
I seem to remember a prog rock band called Radical Primacy. Didn’t I see them at the Isle of Wight many years ago? Too pretentious for my tastes…
Click to expand...
Well, I typed in “radical primacy rock group”… and I DID get ONE hit… YOUR post… 🙂
Bradski said:
Or maybe he’s confusing it with radical prostatectomy…
Click to expand...
Could well be… or maybe radical hysterectomy. One can never know where these brand new phrases come from.
Bradski said:
Aha…

Organized religion is criticized in Jethro Tull’s Aqualung, ELP’s “The Only Way (Hymn)” ,King Crimson’s “The Great Deceiver” and Radical Primacy’s “Dead Fruit” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock

Funnily enough, I’ve been listening to Aqualung this morning.
Click to expand...
Oh, how I love Jethro Tull. Especially when working out on the rowing machine.

(Sitting on a park bench, eyeing little girls with bad intents.
Snot’s running down his nose, greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes…)

From the top of my head… Much more informative than other things I could mention.
 
e_c said:
This is exactly how we “define” God in the Western canon of philosophy, at least in the Aristotelian and Thomistic traditions.
Click to expand...
Yes but that is not the “Essence of God” which is undefineable dear friend.

The Aristotelian and Thomistic definitions are in reference to the Word, the Primal Will of God, not His Essence.

.
 
Solmyr said:
Hebrews 11:1 says: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”… which translates into: “believing without evidence”.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are many Catholic definitions of faith, just like there’s many definitions of love.

But what you say about regarding Hebrews 11:1 (to which I say a hearty amen!) is NOT, at all, “believing without evidence”.

Unless you are of the opinion that evidence is only “that which we can see”?

So, if that’s your position, I suppose you don’t believe that:
  • quarks exist
  • atoms exist
  • Patagonia exists (assuming you’ve never been there. If you have, then substitute any other country you’ve never seen)
  • your mind exists
  • pi exists
  • 0 exists
  • Pluto exists
  • PRmerger exists (which is supremely amusing, since you’re engaging in a dialogue with someone you don’t even believe exists. Very funny to think of an atheist in discourse with an imaginary creature! :))
NB: pictures, of course don’t count. Otherwise, I could offer this as proof of God’s existence:



So what a corner you’ve put yourself into.

Either evidence is what we can see…but then you’re really stuck with a very, very narrow view of the world…

OR…

“What we do not see” but have evidence for is perfectly reasonable to believe in.

Just like you believe in quarks, even if you can’t see them.
 
Servant19 said:
Yes but that is not the “Essence of God” which is undefineable dear friend.

The Aristotelian and Thomistic definitions are in reference to the Word, the Primal Will of God, not His Essence.

.
Click to expand...
You’ll get no debate from me. It’s why I used quotes around “definition”…
 
Solmyr said:
Hebrews 11:1 says: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”… which translates into: “believing without evidence”.
Click to expand...
I have been giggling all day at work about the thought of you being a man of faith, too. A man who “believes without evidence”, since, according to you, when you believe in something that “we do not see”, that’s “believing without evidence”.

You “believe without evidence” that I exist, since you’re chatting with me but do not see me. You have NEVER seen me.

You “believe without evidence” that twin primes exist, yet you* “do not see”* them.

You believe in neural processes, but you “do not see” them.

You believe in the prehistoric caveman, but you “do not see” them.

You believe in the mind, but you “do not see” it.

My, my, my! Aren’t you a man of faith, who “believes without evidence” and believes in a whole lot o’ things that you *“do not see”! * 😃
 
Bradski said:
Aha…

Organized religion is criticized in Jethro Tull’s Aqualung, ELP’s “The Only Way (Hymn)” ,King Crimson’s “The Great Deceiver” and Radical Primacy’s “Dead Fruit” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_rock

Funnily enough, I’ve been listening to Aqualung this morning.
Click to expand...
Well…

Without organized religion you wouldn’t have:

-the scientific method
-the university system
-hospitals
-the Gregorian calendar
-some of the greatest architecture in the world…

So…

 
Solmyr said:
Anselm’s naïve “reasoning” has been rejected EVEN by Catholic philosophers, who understand that “existence” is not just another ho-hum “attribute”, which is either present or absent. (If you actually KNOW Anselm’s argument)
Click to expand...
Please back up your claim.

What Catholic philosophers reject Anselm’s definition of God as “that which nothing greater can be imagined”.

Please cite your sources.

Now, please don’t waste your time in offering examples of Catholic philosophers who reject Anselm’s ontological argument.

We are talking about St. Anselm and his definition of God.

So, names of these philosophers, what documents did they reject his definition, and links to these, please!
 
Solmyr said:
I would prefer to see some minimal courtesy and not call someone “REALLY, REALLY MORONIC ATHEISTS” who happen to quote the scriptures correctly. Of course you can get away with such an uncharitable comment, while us, heathens would be punished for it, and justly so.
Click to expand...
It’s certainly permissible for me to call someone I dialogued with on Facebook a moronic atheist. It’s no one you know here, so…🙂

And please, stop with the “there’s a double standard” for atheists vs believers.

I refer you to this believer, who used the word “moron”, in reference to me, but received no banning. And you’ll have to take my word that she was not suspended.

And I can give you a list of a whole lot of banned Catholic posters, should you care to actually embrace the reality of judicious moderation of those in the tribe vs those not in the tribe. PM me and I’ll give you the list.
 
PRmerger said:
And speaking of bizarre, let’s limn here all of the outre or illogical or double-standard proposals that I’ve seen by atheists:
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
Oh, and here’s another:

Says the atheist:
-You believers just have a “God of the Gaps” mentality–you don’t know the answer, therefore, “God is the explanation”. That’s just bogus. What is inexplicable now, Science will figure it out one day.

(Yeah, it’s a “Science of the Gaps” mentality, but that’s ok for atheists to embrace because…well, because. Just because.)
Click to expand...
I can’t believe I forgot this…the most outre of outre arguments/positions that I’ve heard an atheist propose.

Said the atheist: Perhaps the rules of logic, science and common sense cannot be invoked when discussing the origins of the universe.

http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/tumblr_mxhltfFuHg1t0d58ao1_.gif
 
PRmerger said:
Unless you are of the opinion that evidence is only “that which we can see”?
Click to expand...
I was absolutely certain that you are one of those “literalist” types, who are unable to comprehend that empirical evidence is NOT restricted to “visual” evidence. Thanks for not disappointing me.
PRmerger said:
Now, please don’t waste your time in offering examples of Catholic philosophers who reject Anselm’s ontological argument.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you, it is the crux of the game. No wonder that you don’t like it.
 
Solmyr said:
I was absolutely certain that you are one of those “literalist” types, who are unable to comprehend that empirical evidence is NOT restricted to “visual” evidence. Thanks for not disappointing me.
Click to expand...
So which is your position, Sol?

You can’t say: “It’s literal for you but not for me!”

So, do you believe in things which you haven’t seen?

Yes, or no?

Pretty simple question, although I predict you will equivocate and divert and not answer.

No matter.

I think my point was received and understood.

You, too are a Man of Faith.

And I find that supremely amusing. 🙂
 
Solmyr said:
Unfortunately for you, it is the crux of the game. No wonder that you don’t like it.
Click to expand...
So…you *can’t *name any Catholic philosophers who object to Anselm’s definition of God being that which nothing greater can be conceived.

QED.

(Again).
 
So there is some carnage on this thread, but I promised I would do a recap post, so, here it is. Especially since it is a common/recurring theme.

God is not a moral agent.

This flows from His radical primacy - He is absolutely first, in all things. Is something good? Compare it to God. Is something just? You must compare it to God’s will, since He is the source of that being’s order.

God decides to make someone suffer. Is He doing wrong? No, we don’t even need to ask the question. A man is making someone suffer. We can ask if this is wrong, because God has imposed an order and purpose into men which may be being violated in this instance. But when God does something that seems “mean” to us, or fails to do something that we would be obliged to do, the question is not admitted - “Did God do something wrong?” No, He is the measure for righteousness, since justice is necessarily oriented around the Creator and His purposes for His creation. But He knows better His own designs. We must simply discern our place, our purpose, and act accordingly. His place and purpose are far higher than ours.

It would be like asking if the original piece of metal that we base the “pound” around weighed a pound. Of course it does - it is its definition.

We must simply accept that God is not accountable to us, thinks higher thoughts than us, and is not subject to any rules except those to which He has bound Himself through promises, and the principle of non-contradiction, which in fact is simply part and parcel of the Logos. Just because we “ought” to do something does not mean that God ought to do the same thing. We ought to do something because of God’s command to do it, either through revealed truth or through our nature. God is privy to both, but is above both as He has given both. We are sure of this because He is UTTERLY FIRST in all things. All comes from Him, all is ordered back toward Him. So it makes no sense to question or analyze God’s actions as if He were a moral agent… He is not a moral agent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top