How to argue?

[Spock]

If a person in my present situation was to ask you how you prove to yourself that you exist, could you? Do you have a concise concept that could be written here? This is very discouraging to me. I’m sinking into apathy.

Your question is unclear. What do you mean by “proving” to yourself? To prove something - in general terms means to reduce it to something even more basic. There is nothing more basic than accepting one’s own existence. It requires no proof.

To doubt one’s own existence would be truly insanity. After all if you doubt your own existence, effectively you ask: “do I exist”? But then who is the one who posits this question? Is it “you”? Then why do you doubt? Or who does the doubting?

The “cogito ergo sum” is basic. Though it could be substituted by “coito ergo sum”…

 

[JDaniel]

Your question is unclear. What do you mean by “proving” to yourself? To prove something - in general terms means to reduce it to something even more basic. There is nothing more basic than accepting one’s own existence. It requires no proof.

To doubt one’s own existence would be truly insanity. After all if you doubt your own existence, effectively you ask: “do I exist”? But then who is the one who posits this question? Is it “you”? Then why do you doubt? Or who does the doubting?

The “cogito ergo sum” is basic. Though it could be substituted by “coito ergo sum”…

But, if everything is illusion, then even my thoughts of myself can’t be certain. (I hope I’m not going insane.) What if it’s just me that exists - nothing else - just me? Even this conversation then is an illusion. The argument that it is “I” who asks the question could be palindromic. Like an illusion of me looking into a mirror at me, the Illusion.

I thought I had a pretty good handle on the certitude of reality, but, the more I think it through, the more doubts I have. Think about the idea of the supposed reality called the present. You asked above, "Who is it that posits this question?’ But, the instant the sound from asking it disappears, the “present” is gone. It’s just gone.There’s nothing except the seeming experience that I can’t even get a grip on myself. I seem to have accepted that I have a memory of what just occured, but, that’s in my mind, too. And, the instant after I think it, it, too, is gone. I don’t even know why I am writing so carefully.

jd

 

[Detales]

Yes, jd, that is the part the Church doesn’t address. It is why I had to go outside it to realize that what you are asking is not a “who” question, it is a “what” question. You are lucky, in a way. You have the luxury of treating it as a nice philosophical question. I had to deal with it as an existential reality, haveing been pushed through the crack, not even knowing it was there.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This thread is not aimed at provoking a discussion, rather it is the collection of a few thoughts I gathered while reading these boards. Naturally, I welcome any all all replies.

In my opinion far too many posters use ineffective arguments, which could not possibly be persuasive to the discussion partner, because they use incorrect “tools”.

When arguing with a Catholic, you are in an easy position: you can use any all platforms, the Cathecism, the Magistretium, the Bible, the Sacred Tradition, and any secular arguments you may think of.

When arguing with a Protestant, the “toolset” becomes smaller. Since Protestants do not acknowledge anything but the Sola Scriptura, your arguments should be based upon the Bible and nothing else, apart of course using secular arguments (if you so choose).

Finally, when arguing with an atheist (no need to capitalize it), the only convincing arguments are the non-religious, secular ones. Since atheists do not believe in the Bible, the Cathecism, the declarations of the pope, or any revelation, it is ineffective to use any of these methods to support your position. Naturally, they are great to clarify your position, but you should never think that you actually presented an argument.

This is the true and acceptable “ad-hominem” method. Base your arguments on what your opponent considers correct, not what you think is correct. The discussions will be much more fruitful. Obviously this is just a friendly advice, nothing more.

Have a nice day!

\//

One correction - which has probably been made dozens of times in this thread by now, but bears repeating: not all Protestants are upholders of Scriptura Sola; & still less do all Protestants believe in it in a form familiar to Catholics. Calvinist theology is based on a doctrine of Scriptura Sola, but it does not exclude other sources - Scripture is “sole” in that it is the sole final judge of religious matters; IOW, it is not trumped any other source of theological knowledge. The religious ghround for its unique status is that “what the Bible says, God says”. (Which is why it is next to impossible to persuade Calvinists that RCs are Christian: God or IOW the books of Daniel & Revelation condemn RCism by anticipation. If God does that, whqat Christian will dare to say otherwise ?) And what the Bible means as “what God says”, is dependent on the Holy Spirit who opens it up to the believing Christian - not on the text by itself.​

Many Christians hold a much less carefully articulated doctrine, & these seem to be the ones of whom Catholics are most aware: they include people like the KJV-onlyists, non-denominationalists, restorationists, Oneness Pentecostals & Dispensationalists: & a lot of these do not like to be called Protestants, as many of them see Protestantism as hardly less evil than Catholicism.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Calvinist theology is based on a doctrine of Scriptura Sola, but it does not exclude other sources - Scripture is “sole” in that it is the sole final judge of religious matters; IOW, it is not trumped any other source of theological knowledge. The religious ghround for its unique status is that “what the Bible says, God says”. (Which is why it is next to impossible to persuade Calvinists that RCs are Christian: God or IOW the books of Daniel & Revelation condemn RCism by anticipation. If God does that, whqat Christian will dare to say otherwise ?) And what the Bible means as “what God says”, is dependent on the Holy Spirit who opens it up to the believing Christian - not on the text by itself.

could you go into a little more depth here? im not really catching all of it.

Many Christians hold a much less carefully articulated doctrine, & these seem to be the ones of whom Catholics are most aware: they include people like the KJV-onlyists, non-denominationalists, restorationists, Oneness Pentecostals & Dispensationalists: & a lot of these do not like to be called Protestants, as many of them see Protestantism as hardly less evil than Catholicism.

i was made to go to protestant (nazarene) churches for years as a kid, and i always thought the various protestants were in general agreement concerning sola scriptura, do they also have those kind of differences in sola fide?

thanks.

 

[Chancellor]

JustHuman

Thank You. I am Catholic by choice but avoid apologetics because I recognize that I find apologetics offensive to me intellectually. Somehow I ended up inside through an extremely narrow path where words like aniconic, aconceptual, silent, symbolic and so forth are given alot of room and where the mystery is not prematurely packaged into dogma. Salman Rushdie says that atheists (like himself) are “obsessed with God”. At times I have met so-called atheists that were more courageous in facing and accepting reality than many so-called believers.

May you find acceptance and blessing here.

Chancellor

 

[Detales]

“At times I have met so-called atheists that were more courageous in facing and accepting reality than many so-called believers.”

Yep

 

[JDaniel]

“At times I have met so-called atheists that were more courageous in facing and accepting reality than many so-called believers.”

Yep

So, there is no god. There’s just what? Me? My mind? My emotions? No soul? Can anybody show me me? Can anybody ground me? People are starting to think I’ve flipped out. I don’t think I have. I just wonder if anything is worth it anymore. What is there to look forward to? You live, you die. Like some bug, or germ.

I don’t think it’s me that’s flipped out. Everyone else has flipped. If, in fact you exist.

Sorry.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So, there is no god. There’s just what? Me? My mind? My emotions? No soul? Can anybody show me me? Can anybody ground me? People are starting to think I’ve flipped out. I don’t think I have. I just wonder if anything is worth it anymore. What is there to look forward to? You live, you die. Like some bug, or germ.

I don’t think it’s me that’s flipped out. Everyone else has flipped. If, in fact you exist.

Sorry.

are you ok?

are you haveing a little existential tweak out?

 

[JDaniel]

are you ok?

are you haveing a little existential tweak out?

I don’t know. I got into some heavy reading about how it is impossible to truly know the present. The thing we call the present is so fast that it is impossible for the mind to grasp, or, this is all illusion. In my heart, I hope you are warpspeedpetey. But, I don’t know. You could just as easily be an invisible friend that I’ve made up because living here is lonely.

Does that make any sense? You seem grounded. How do you ground yourself, I mean, in reality? How do you do it?

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t know. I got into some heavy reading about how it is impossible to truly know the present. The thing we call the present is so fast that it is impossible for the mind to grasp, or, this is all illusion. In my heart, I hope you are warpspeedpetey. But, I don’t know. You could just as easily be an invisible friend that I’ve made up because living here is lonely.

Does that make any sense? You seem grounded. How do you ground yourself, I mean, in reality? How do you do it?

jd

the eucharist, confession, frequent prayer.

if this life is illusion or there is no G-d, then there is no reason for me to do anything. all i can do is trust in G-d, its either that or i let the inner monster out, doing whatever i can, that i can get away with.

so i choose to trust in G-d, the alternative is a meaningless life.

but i dont, why? because i logically know there is a G-d, i know spritualy there is a G-d, and i know He is the only trustable thing, so i would urge you to the frequent sacraments.

im going to bed, le me know whats up in the morning.

 

[Detales]

jd, That sentence no way implies the necessity of no God! That sentence, to me, simply refers to the observation that whatever label is put on someone, there are way more “hats” worn by that person than that one label indcates. Some of these hats include or exclude areas of experience, knowledge, whatever, under other hats of the same or other persons. Under any one of these, any person may be “saner” or not than another person, eg a believer vs an atheist in a matter of particular skill or expertise. That may distribute as well over “wearers of groups of hats” (people) as well.

Certainly I exist as a perception in your mind. That is mutual. That perception, though, is not equal to the person as such, or to that person as part of a continuum.

You will always have the body needed to express your state of being, this life or next, lol! “This is always already the “other” world.”

My Mentor defined “soul” as “The feeling of being ‘I am.’” Stability is a matter of being grounded in THAT, as all contents of mind are indeed by their nature temporary. What there is to look forward to is an increasingly rich experience of what might be called “the Beatific Vision” if you want to keep it forward somewhere like a carrot. Soul is unassailable and permanent. Perception and experience of it may be built by assiduous self examination, preferably guided by someone who’s permanently there. “Gnothi Seauton.” That is why it is not good to put too much stock in dogma, books and argumentation. Too easy to get lost, especially if one is too much right brain. God is All. Parts is parts.

 

[JDaniel]

the eucharist, confession, frequent prayer.

if this life is illusion or there is no G-d, then there is no reason for me to do anything.

That’s really where I’m at. (That was great! Ending a sentence with a preposition.) I am really beginning to think there’s no reason for to do anything. I hope I’m not bugging you with this. It’s my quandary.

all i can do is trust in G-d, its either that or i let the inner monster out, doing whatever i can, that i can get away with.

But, what if, seriously, G-d isn’t real?

so i choose to trust in G-d, the alternative is a meaningless life.

That’s the way I feel.

but i dont, why? because i logically know there is a G-d, i know spritualy there is a G-d, and i know He is the only trustable thing, so i would urge you to the frequent sacraments.

Well, you’re stronger than me. I’ll get it back - I hope. I’m going to keep working on it.

As for the sacraments, I have been. I’ve been keeping Lent just about perfectly. You say you “trust in G-d” How?

im going to bed, le me know whats up in the morning.

Sorry to put all of this on you. Thanks for your kind help. I would like to talk again in the morning.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

jd, That sentence no way implies the necessity of no God! That sentence, to me, simply refers to the observation that whatever label is put on someone, there are way more “hats” worn by that person than that one label indcates. Some of these hats include or exclude areas of experience, knowledge, whatever, under other hats of the same or other persons. Under any one of these, any person may be “saner” or not than another person, eg a believer vs an atheist in a matter of particular skill or expertise. That may distribute as well over “wearers of groups of hats” (people) as well.

Certainly I exist as a perception in your mind. That is mutual. That perception, though, is not equal to the person as such, or to that person as part of a continuum.

You will always have the body needed to express your state of being, this life or next, lol! “This is always already the “other” world.”

My Mentor defined “soul” as “The feeling of being ‘I am.’” Stability is a matter of being grounded in THAT, as all contents of mind are indeed by their nature temporary. What there is to look forward to is an increasingly rich experience of what might be called “the Beatific Vision” if you want to keep it forward somewhere like a carrot. Soul is unassailable and permanent. Perception and experience of it may be built by assiduous self examination, preferably guided by someone who’s permanently there. “Gnothi Seauton.” That is why it is not good to put too much stock in dogma, books and argumentation. Too easy to get lost, especially if one is too much right brain. God is All. Parts is parts.

Thank you, detales. I am thinking about all that you have said. I will have some questions to ask you, but, in the morning. My meds are starting to kick in.

jd

 

[Detales]

jd, I don’t believe that anyone here is trying to be flip or cavalier. The questions you are asking are serious questions. Nisargadatta said that “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking, for it destroys your world.”* It is very common for someone of whatever faith to experience a crisis when their questioning goes deeper than the superfical daily presentation of their beliefs. If this is happening to you, be glad in your difficulty, for it is the spiritual equivalent of the growing pains of puberty. At least you are having them, as many do not ever get that far.

It is a difficult time, and potentially dangerous, but the Love of God permeates all. Trust in God beyond your beliefs and you shall see.

Bindar Doondat

* Of curse that means the world as percieved by an immature stance. At the same time the revalation of the world as it IS begins to dawn.

 

[rookieonedge]

I just want to add something about the problem of existence and existential meltdowns, although I write in plain-speak, not with the “tongues of angels” or philosophers/mathematicians, so please bear with my humble offering.

There are so many topics/sub-topics I’d like to comment on, but I’ll just cover a couple since I have to catch a plane, and time is limited. No time to dissect words or parse thoughts/concepts/opinions.

We are all dying – whatever our age is, as is the human condition from birth. The purpose of our existence is to seek and find TRUTH. We can come to the TRUTH when “you seek Me with all your heart, you will find me.” (Of course, I should look up the reference; please excuse me this time). We may have an “ephiphany” in our lifetime as did Dedalus (if I recall the name correctly) in James Joyce’s “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” in which he discovered, not God per se, but that GOODNESS, TRUTH, AND BEAUTY were one and the same. The Spirit leads us on the path we are on through genetics, our choices, the environment – all according to God’s will.

In the 16th century, St. Teresa of Avila, along with spiritual directors of the time, considered the soul to be host to the intellect and the will, while the emotions were on a lesser plane (if memory doesn’t completely fail me). Nowadays, we don’t express this sentiment, but it conveys a certain reality, or way of thought that explains our condition. Perhaps.

As for “existential tweaking”, it may be that most of us need to be struck off our high horses. I know I did. In college I went through a devastating experience, probably set off by events in my life as well as a pseudo-intellectual interpretation of philosophy/psychology courses that led to the feelings of “angst” common among youth and often adults as well.

However, God eventually rescued me because I went seeking Him a few years out of school. Btw, my education is no where near the venerable posters, having a mere B.S. in Elementary Education. However, I did try to continue my education and took several math courses but got derailed by another pregnancy. (I love my children dearly and desperately and want for them the very best–faith in God’s purpose for them). Anyhow, God rewarded me with “signs and wonders” which I don’t expect anyone to believe seeing I, myself, would be hesitant to believe anyone else’s experiences. One poster has this quote at the bottom of his/her posts: “Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known.” (Blaise Pascal)

As for jd, surely you jest. Are you playing philosophical trivia? I have a question for you: Please tell me how many angels are there dancing on the head of a pin (lol). That’s an old philosophical conundrum.

Must take off (not at warp speed, thank God!)
God bless all posting on this site. It’s one of the best, although I still have much more exploring to do. Just a rookie!

 

[Detales]

Rookie, though iI might use slightly different terminology due to my way of experience, I find myself very much agreeing with you. Surprisingly, to me, especially about St Theresa.

I am obviously not one of the “venerable posters,” lol as I barely made it through community college. But I did have a Mentor who was a voracious BE-er, who read and owned mountains of books, was accomplished to a very high degree in many areas, and was visited by people whom you would recognize from the international news for advice. I guess he rubbed off on me, and that is a great point of gratitude in my life.

I clearly understand about not believing other’s “experiences.” That is a tricky area at best. I have no doubt, though, that you have had such. Probably those are far more common than acknowledged, but passed over or rejected due to faith, emotion, or intellect. I can only say that the soul Knows, and that the intellect influenced by ignorance knows in a different mode, and that can yet be clouded by emotional turbulence. But as you say, we are dying, each one, and like you, it took a major shock in my high school/college period to send me looking. It behooves us here to help each other in sincerity and humility.

Such a shock as you experienced is commonly known to percipitate a search, but my seemingly rather thorough Catholic school education did not prepare me for mine. When it came, in fact, it and the clergy really offered me no support except to say “believe and it will pass.” That was not sufficient for me, and I am very grateful for the enrichment of my subsequent journey, as it has re-instated a foundational Meaning for understanding the Church. I don’t think that that understanding makes me very welcome in some faith circles, but I earned it through honest inquiry and work. I can only report that it was a journey of great significance and discovery that resulted in an ability to disolve, at least in my own life, many obstacles that would have earlier proved perhaps insurmountable. I am happy to say that what I have learned is yet unfolding in its parcticality.

 

[AndyF]

Detales:

The negative and the positive are not equivalent.

The issue is the “middle.” If everything were either-or, then no problem (no middle). But the world we live in is a lot of neither-nor. There’s your difference.

AndyF

 

[Detales]

Sorry, Andy, I’m just having my coffee hre on the rolling foothills, and the sun is just creeping up after that horrible time change. Would you mind please to clarify what positive and negative are not the same and which "middle you are addressing? Thanks for your indulgance.

Bindar

 

[grannymh]

In the 16th century, St. Teresa of Avila, along with spiritual directors of the time, considered the soul to be host to the intellect and the will, while the emotions were on a lesser plane (if memory doesn’t completely fail me). Nowadays, we don’t express this sentiment, but it conveys a certain reality, or way of thought that explains our condition.