Hypothetical: Non-Theist despite evidence

[JRKH]

I can see why. Instead of defending your teachings, you’d rather invoke them. If that is the case, we’ll have to claim stalemate.

Where in the OP did you ask us to “defend” teaching? You posted some views on a couple of issues and we responded (mainly with corrections to your misunderstandings of actual Catholic teaching) and mostly you simply rejected our explanations.

So I really don’t think this has anything to do with anyone’s ability to “defend” a teaching.

But if that what floats your boat…go ahead and claim victory…But the Truth remains…

Good night

Peace
James

 

[JohnMichaels]

If that is the case, we’ll have to claim stalemate.

But if that what floats your boat…go ahead and claim victory…But the Truth remains…

I don’t give you permission to claim I claim things I do not claim. so there!

Cheers!

 

[JohnMichaels]

I have not read the majority of the thread. I apologize if I am repeating anything. Do not respond to me if you do not wish to.

Could you clarify a few things here? God is real and we know he’s real. Check. Does (2) imply that we know that the God of a particular theological system is real, ie. we know God is real in the way that Catholics conceive of him?

We do not, or at least not in this little fantasy I created. You’re correct, it would be the end of the debate.

Loosely worded, I’d be a deist. I had to say he was revealed, otherwise the debate would be “Is it your God, or this God” and I didn’t want that
I settle on Yahweh.
I was a deist for many years. Couldn’t bring myself to follow a dogma based on how some of them made me feel inside.

This exercise was to see if I’d feel the same way in the face of opposition (defending the views of the Church without invoking it is because the Church says it is)

So far, not so much.

Cheers!

 

[polytropos]

Loosely worded, I’d be a deist. I had to say he was revealed, otherwise the debate would be “Is it your God, or this God” and I didn’t want that

So you know that a God exists but know nothing of His nature? What makes you call Him God? Would you be a deist because you would know that a God exists but, not knowing His nature, you would make an assumption about it?

 

[JohnMichaels]

Where in the OP did you ask us to “defend” teaching? You posted some views on a couple of issues and we responded

:compcoff:

I’ll argue that I’d still not wish to follow the Catholic dogma. Based solely on my objections with (at a minimum) my current understanding of a few of the teachings.

You’re right, I only said I objected. You could have then replied “Ok cool”
But you did not, I think you understood the exercise

:banghead:

 

[JohnMichaels]

So you know that a God exists but know nothing of His nature? What makes you call Him God? Would you be a deist because you would know that a God exists but, not knowing His nature, you would make an assumption about it?

Well I give you Yahweh. How many religions follow Yahweh? How many different ways do they teach?
The Jehovah’s Witness follow Yahweh, they just call him another name. They’re also a cult. But hey, who’s stopping them?

I’m not making assumptions really. God is inside us. It is my belief (I invoke my deist right to use that) God wouldn’t want me to do things that made me miserable, would he? Forget what you know, Boil it down and ask yourself what would God want. Not because someone told me this is what God wants.

So, I’m arguing the position God wouldn’t expect me to follow something I consider wrong, morally ethically, however you define wrong.

I admit though, it’s limited to my understanding of the teaching.
So if I say I disagree with X, you would then explain why I’m wrong to hold that view.
My mind can absolutely be changed in some instances. I keep bringing up DADT

A homosexual’s right to be openly gay in the Military. I don’t think the Church covers this, but since on the whole it’s pretty down on homosexuality I think it did have a say in these laws.
But, I agree. Why do you need to be openly gay? That doesn’t mean you can’t BE gay and serve, you just can’t go around telling it to other men/women who aren’t. Which is fair, because that makes them uncomfortable.
However what 2 people do in their bedroom is not my concern, & I don’t believe it would be God’s either.

But yea, the whole thing has been kinda going like that.
Sorry for summing it up in a LONG way heh

 

[polytropos]

I’m not making assumptions really. God is inside us. It is my belief (I invoke my deist right to use that) God wouldn’t want me to do things that made me miserable, would he? Forget what you know, Boil it down and ask yourself what would God want. Not because someone told me this is what God wants.

This seems like an ironic passage. I don’t think I am making any assumptions, but you are assuming God wouldn’t want you to do things that make you miserable. What is inviolable about your conscience? Why would that be the structure of morality? If is a God (deist or otherwise), I think we can pretty reasonably narrow the possibilities down to some sort of normative morality or the absence of morality. It does not seem like, if something created this world for a purpose, the morality it would adhere to would be the hallmark of western liberalism (ie. don’t bother other people).

So, I’m arguing the position God wouldn’t expect me to follow something I consider wrong, morally ethically, however you define wrong.

The logical conclusion of this position is that God is morally neutral and does not care what people do (as long as their consciences are clean?). People disagree as what is right and wrong; God wouldn’t expect someone to follow something that he or she considers wrong; God would have to be neutral, on your conception.

You said above, “Forget what you know, Boil it down and ask yourself what would God want. Not because someone told me this is what God wants.” It would seem, on your conception, that God doesn’t want anything - besides, perhaps, your conscience to remain clean.

This doesn’t really seem like Yahweh.

A homosexual’s right to be openly gay in the Military. I don’t think the Church covers this, but since on the whole it’s pretty down on homosexuality I think it did have a say in these laws.

I doubt the Church had any specific say in DADT laws. It would not have needed to, since society as a whole agreed with such laws a few decades ago. I do not know how the Church feels about them being revoked.

Why do you need to be openly gay? That doesn’t mean you can’t BE gay and serve, you just can’t go around telling it to other men/women who aren’t. Which is fair, because that makes them uncomfortable.
However what 2 people do in their bedroom is not my concern, & I don’t believe it would be God’s either.

So you are supposing that God does not want people to be uncomfortable about other people’s actions, but does not care about intrinsic acts. If God does not have any normative interest in actions, why would he care about people being comfortable, or about adhering to your conscience?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I didn’t read anything past this line. I’m going under the guidelines I set. If you want to debate me personally, send me a message on yahoo. I’ll win there easier

It’s always easy to win when you’re your own judge.

I’m trying to follow the rules. I am a deist in this exercise.

A deist would not pray.

I just got home, so, I’ll read the rest of this and reply a lil later

turns out, I didn’t need to. Just more verse. I only quote verse cause you’d know it better than I. I don’t need the verse. In my exercise I am a deist. & btw, never? it did when I was young

So God spoke to you personally when you were young, but now you don’t believe he exists? That doesn’t add up.

I brought it up as one of two stances I have heard from the church. Apologies if you thought I wanted to defend both. Basically it was listed for you to pick one, then defend it’s counter points to me

We’re either gonna play by the rules of the exercise, or we can play off the site me & you

Perhaps I am not understanding the rules of the exercise. The only “rule” I see at work so far is that when someone tries to make a logical argument to you, you reply by concocting some fantasy world where God agrees with whatever you say . Not a very productive form of debate.

 

[JohnMichaels]

This seems like an ironic passage. I don’t think I am making any assumptions, but you are assuming God wouldn’t want you to do things that make you miserable. What is inviolable about your conscience? Why would that be the structure of morality?

I tried saying I prayed and the Lord revealed himself to me, & confirmed in me I was living the truth. But people got offended, so

If is a God (deist or otherwise), I think we can pretty reasonably narrow the possibilities down to some sort of normative morality or the absence of morality. It does not seem like, if something created this world for a purpose, the morality it would adhere to would be the hallmark of western liberalism (ie. don’t bother other people).

I’ll agree with you, but add I also think that God’s purpose wouldn’t be willful exclusion of some of his creations. God makes no mistakes, or so I’ve been told.
If feels wrong to me, is right to you. Can we both be right? Does he want me to feel this horrible feeling inside, where I could almost cry, & obey regardless…or am I right? If you’re right, then what we can gather is that he had in store for me feeling this way. But why? I can think of none.

The logical conclusion of this position is that God is morally neutral and does not care what people do (as long as their consciences are clean?). People disagree as what is right and wrong; God wouldn’t expect someone to follow something that he or she considers wrong; God would have to be neutral, on your conception.

Man! You beat me too the whole “follow something morally wrong” part!
To the bold, who said that? Now you want me to say, hey…do what you want so long as you see it as ok. That flies in the face of my argument. By that logic (and it has been presented to me) a rapist would be fine, cause it feels good to the rapist. I’m not saying that, that’s the extreme brought to me by people who cannot fathom I hold these views.

It would seem, on your conception, that God doesn’t want anything - besides, perhaps, your conscience to remain clean.

I think you misread me, is all

So you are supposing that God does not want people to be uncomfortable about other people’s actions, but does not care about intrinsic acts. If God does not have any normative interest in actions, why would he care about people being comfortable, or about adhering to your conscience?

In this particular case, I wasn’t really trying to imply God wanted one or the other.
When the law was being revoked, gay rights advocates fought on the side of removing the law (I consider myself an advocate of equal rights, gay or woman or black or whatever)
I know there was opposition to this. Those who wished the law remain in tact. Since I’m almost certain no secular groups were fighting that fight I assume the Church did.

However, despite my feelings I was with the Church (even though that really is a loose way to be “with” the Church, since I’m sure it’s not really that important to it)
I was also in favor of civil unions. Why? It was fair. It kept Marriage in tact (not that I minded really, the institution of marriage is so degraded now, & yes that’s another thing I support the Church on)

I could go on and on you see. I hope I’ve somewhat explained…a little?

 

[JohnMichaels]

It’s always easy to win when you’re your own judge.

I mean I can take this argument back a few layers, remove all my concessions. It would be a much more fair debate for me. But, thats ok here is ok too, watch

A deist would not pray.

Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God

1. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind

I wouldn’t pray why?

So God spoke to you personally when you were young, but now you don’t believe he exists? That doesn’t add up.

I meant to say I prayed when I was young. You said "This is not even worth answering. You’re an atheist, so clearly this did not happen. Nor would it ever happen.
I asserted to you it did indeed happen, many times in fact. I was a deist for years. Then agnostic for years. It was a process

Perhaps I am not understanding the rules of the exercise. The only “rule” I see at work so far is that when someone tries to make a logical argument to you, you reply by concocting some fantasy world where God agrees with whatever you say . Not a very productive form of debate.

Man…Where have I heard that before…

 

[JohnMichaels]

you reply by concocting some fantasy world where God agrees with whatever you say . Not a very productive form of debate.

In addition, I wouldn’t say that at all. There are a number of things I’d say God would disagree with, that I do.

Using his name in vain, for example. It’s a filthy habit I’ll admit, I try to break it. honestly
I don’t take well enough care of the gifts he’s given me. I’m going through a divorce you know, I’d bet it makes him as sad as it does me.

(real life bled over into character there for a second, apologies )

 

[prodigalson2011]

I mean I can take this argument back a few layers, remove all my concessions. It would be a much more fair debate for me. But, thats ok here is ok too, watch

Ok. I’m watching.

Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God

Deism is the belief that they are not only sufficient, but singularly so. Deism rejects a) revelation (so if you want to be a deist in this case, you contradict your own conditions) and b) God’s personal involvement with the universe and, specifically, human beings.

Theists believe that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine God’s existence. They just also believe that He has revealed Himself personally.

I wouldn’t pray why?

For the aforementioned reasons.

I meant to say I prayed when I was young. You said "This is not even worth answering. You’re an atheist, so clearly this did not happen. Nor would it ever happen.
I asserted to you it did indeed happen, many times in fact. I was a deist for years. Then agnostic for years. It was a process

When I said “Nor would it ever happen,” I did not mean that you would never pray. I meant that God would never tell you that “there was no sin in His eyes.”

You are contradicting your own conditions. You have assented in your O.P. to presuppose the existence of the God we, as Catholics, worship. That God very much sees sin.

Man…Where have I heard that before…

If the shoe fits…

 

[polytropos]

I tried saying I prayed and the Lord revealed himself to me, & confirmed in me I was living the truth. But people got offended, so

Do you mean that this is part of your thought experiment? If you were certain that God told you what you were doing was the truth, then what you were doing would be the truth. So if this is part of the thought experiment, then the thought experiment assumes that your way of living is right, which would mean that a Catholic way of life is not right. So then nothing we should say should change your mind.

I’ll agree with you, but add I also think that God’s purpose wouldn’t be willful exclusion of some of his creations. God makes no mistakes, or so I’ve been told.

God does not willfully exclude some of his creations. God wills that every man spend eternity with Him. When we allow our intellects and wills to be disordered by sin, it is a matter of metaphysical necessity that we are separated from God after death, against God’s will.

If feels wrong to me, is right to you. Can we both be right? Does he want me to feel this horrible feeling inside, where I could almost cry, & obey regardless…or am I right? If you’re right, then what we can gather is that he had in store for me feeling this way. But why? I can think of none.

We cannot both be right.

I’m not really clear on what you are saying in the bolded portion. Are you saying that you would feel horrible if I were right about God’s will? And so God’s will must be as you conceive it?

I think that people have worldviews and they don’t want them to be wrong. It’s upsetting to find out that your worldview is wrong - or, perhaps, liberating. I was an atheist for several years, and I initially felt pretty bad when I started to feel like my worldview was incorrect. But I’ve come to love God and Catholicism. I don’t think that a “horrible feeling” is not a reliable indicator of what God - however conceived - wants.

To the bold, who said that? Now you want me to say, hey…do what you want so long as you see it as ok. That flies in the face of my argument. By that logic (and it has been presented to me) a rapist would be fine, cause it feels good to the rapist. I’m not saying that, that’s the extreme brought to me by people who cannot fathom I hold these views.

Let me know if I misrepresent your views.

However, I used the term “logical conclusion” because I was arguing that the bolded portion was the logical conclusion of “the position [that] God wouldn’t expect me to follow something I consider wrong, morally ethically, however you define wrong.” You are claiming that this does not entail complete moral relativism. How so? Is it just you that God wouldn’t expect to follow what just you consider wrong? Would God expect other people not to follow what they consider wrong? Some other people? Just not rapists? Why not rapists? If it is something in the nature of the act (of what you consider morally wrong vs. what a rapist considers morally wrong) then what you are saying does not seem to be any sort of principle in itself, and would seem to piggyback on God having some other (unstated) standard which you are right now managing to adhere to.

If you do not think your argument collapses into moral relativism, state why not.

(I consider myself an advocate of equal rights, gay or woman or black or whatever)

How about the unborn?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Do you mean that this is part of your thought experiment? If you were certain that God told you what you were doing was the truth, then what you were doing would be the truth. So if this is part of the thought experiment, then the thought experiment assumes that your way of living is right, which would mean that a Catholic way of life is not right. So then nothing we should say should change your mind.

Exactly. It’s a rigged game.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Pay close attention now, I’m gonna slow it down. You really need to understand the words, so I’ll help you

Ok. I’m watching.

Deism is the belief that they are not only sufficient, but singularly so. Deism rejects a) revelation (so if you want to be a deist in this case, you contradict your own conditions) and b) God’s personal involvement with the universe and, specifically, human beings.

Theists believe that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine God’s existence. They just also believe that He has revealed Himself personally.

Lets start with

Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God
Observation:the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information.

1. You’ve picked the correct one*
2. In the present, he’s been revealed to all - and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind
   Revealed: make (previously unknown** or secret information) known to others.

Clearly, I observed his existence. So, Why again would I then not pray to God? I’d need his guidance in choosing the correct path to follow, no?

** what was unknown was existance

• Yahweh

When I said “Nor would it ever happen,” I did not mean that you would never pray. I meant that God would never tell you that “there was no sin in His eyes.”

Now we’re getting somewhere. Why not? I’m not saying he exempts ALL sin, just in the matters in which I prayed for answers. So then, why wouldn’t he reveal to me answers to questions I have of a serious nature, if I prayed to him in search of truth?
it’s one thing if you claim he wouldn’t speak to me at all, than when you determine what he would or wouldn’t tell me. Please, elaborate.

If the shoe fits…

You didn’t get the joke

 

[JohnMichaels]

Do you mean that this is part of your thought experiment? If you were certain that God told you what you were doing was the truth, then what you were doing would be the truth. So if this is part of the thought experiment, then the thought experiment assumes that your way of living is right, which would mean that a Catholic way of life is not right. So then nothing we should say should change your mind.

Absolutely not. None of the arguments presented made a good case. I can quote some, if you’d like. I’d be happy to go back over some low-lights.
So I fell back to that position. I learned it from you all

God does not willfully exclude some of his creations. God wills that every man spend eternity with Him. When we allow our intellects and wills to be disordered by sin, it is a matter of metaphysical necessity that we are separated from God after death, against God’s will.

Explain to me the bold part, please.

We cannot both be right.

I’m not really clear on what you are saying in the bolded portion. Are you saying that you would feel horrible if I were right about God’s will? And so God’s will must be as you conceive it?

What I’m saying is this. When you’re in the Church you defend the teachings. Some of them, I so morally disagree with it brings me to tears. If those teachings are right, then somehow God’s plan is for me to feel this way, and yet follow regardless. Why?
It makes more sense the other way to me, but if you can prove otherwise have at it. I’ve yet to hear something other than the Church says so. But why should I morally be OKAY with these things? Or, is that not a requirement? I can despise the things the Church does, and yet still be a member?

Let me know if I misrepresent your views.

However, I used the term “logical conclusion” because I was arguing that the bolded portion was the logical conclusion of “the position [that] God wouldn’t expect me to follow something I consider wrong, morally ethically, however you define wrong.” You are claiming that this does not entail complete moral relativism. How so? Is it just you that God wouldn’t expect to follow what just you consider wrong? Would God expect other people not to follow what they consider wrong? Some other people? Just not rapists? Why not rapists? If it is something in the nature of the act (of what you consider morally wrong vs. what a rapist considers morally wrong) then what you are saying does not seem to be any sort of principle in itself, and would seem to piggyback on God having some other (unstated) standard which you are right now managing to adhere to.

If you do not think your argument collapses into moral relativism, state why not.

How about the unborn?

If I’m not wrong, I think you’re going for the ol’ “You can’t have a true moral compass without the bible” or some variation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism <— not a bad place to start

I am not going to sit here and carve out a social structure in this thread, only offer that one could be constructed without Church intervention.

However, if I was mistaken on your intent, please correct me

Cheers!

 

[JohnMichaels]

Exactly. It’s a rigged game.

You don’t get to be mad because I’m playing by your rules, you know

 

[ColdComfort]

two reasons

1. If I do not allow those terms, it’s an atheist debate. forbidden here
2. arrogance

Incorrect. & also a little correct. Bold is correct, but atheism is a disbelief. In the debate, I expressly acknowledge existence. So, no atheism in the thread. Just an atheist pretending to be a deist for debate purposes.

You mad bro?

No i’m not mad if you mean angry. If you mean crazy that is debatable with good points to made for and against.

Thanks for being honest about why you framed the argument as you did and what arguments you really will accept. Conversation over for me tho’

 

[JohnMichaels]

Exactly. It’s a rigged game.

What you aren’t getting is in my view, God’s love is unconditional. In reality. No prerequisites. God disagrees with some of the things I do, and hey maybe even I disagree with some of the things God does. But I love him, & he loves me. This goes without question. It is unconditional.

That makes a lot of sense doesn’t it.

The alternative, does not. At least not to me. & you’ve done nothing but present to me why it should be making sense, other than your version of God says so.& the authoritative church says so, with these conditions in mind (then you list)

I am absolutely puzzled at how you can view the game as rigged. It’s only fair if I allow your ways to be right, and unquestioned? man…that’s hardcore

 

[polytropos]

Absolutely not. None of the arguments presented made a good case. I can quote some, if you’d like. I’d be happy to go back over some low-lights.
So I fell back to that position. I learned it from you all

Help me understand the logic here. You thought the arguments presented were bad, so you fell back to appealing to spiritual experience?

But the spiritual experience has no bearing on the thought experiment? You are not affirming that you know that God thinks your moral compass is right?

Explain to me the bold part, please.

Man’s end is to be ordered towards truth, ie. to recognize the truth (about himself, as well as God) and to direct his will toward it. Sin is just acting in opposition to truth (and since it is a function of intellect and will, it damages the part of the soul which Catholics, or Thomists specifically, hold to be immaterial and eternal). What I am saying here is that the damage done to our soul necessitates that those in a state of mortal sin cannot spend eternity with God.

What I’m saying is this. When you’re in the Church you defend the teachings. Some of them, I so morally disagree with it brings me to tears. If those teachings are right, then somehow God’s plan is for me to feel this way, and yet follow regardless. Why?

You are brought to tears now, or you would be brought to tears if they were true?

In any case, let’s suppose those teachings are right. Is it impossible for you to feel that way? No. There are people who are committed (let’s say) to staunchly socially conservative values, who believe in God and would also be moved to tears if those teachings were false. So whether you feel bad about it does not have any bearing on the truth or falsity of the claims.

It makes more sense the other way to me, but if you can prove otherwise have at it. I’ve yet to hear something other than the Church says so. But why should I morally be OKAY with these things?

I can read the thread, and I’m not convinced that no one has said anything other than “the Church says so.” But I can’t really respond to a blanket “these things.” In our discussion, you’ve brought up DADT, which you seem somewhat fine with… but also question the Church’s potential involvement with. So I don’t know.

If I’m not wrong, I think you’re going for the ol’ “You can’t have a true moral compass without the bible” or some variation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism <— not a bad place to start

No, that is not my implication. I am only starting from your statement (“God wouldn’t expect me to follow something I consider wrong, morally ethically, however you define wrong.”) and trying to figure out on what basis you prevent it from collapsing into moral relativism. I didn’t say it had to collapse into moral relativism, just that in itself it doesn’t seem to provide any consistent moral standard.

As I said, “If it is something in the nature of the act (of what you consider morally wrong vs. what a rapist considers morally wrong) then what you are saying does not seem to be any sort of principle in itself, and would seem to piggyback on God having some other (unstated) standard which you are right now managing to adhere to.” I was not saying that you could not have a consistent ethics, just that starting from “God wouldn’t expect me to follow something I consider wrong” would not seem to get you there. Your statement does piggyback on a then-unstated standard (humanism).

So it is not the fact that you can’t follow what you consider wrong; that is not any basis for morality. It’s that you believe humanism is the correct morality, and you think God would agree with you. (Please correct me if I’m wrong. I am just trying to figure out what exactly you’re claiming.)