I want to know more about Aethism! help me please

[davidv]

I doubt Dameedna does!

Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of people, regardless of their faith, or lack there of as well, who lack either the available information, the desire, imperative or the ability in some cases (particularly lay people, in my experience, amongst the religious) to devote themselves to rigorous thought, but rather are content with a mishmash of what they are told (often sloppily and vaguely) and what they read in the lowerbrow ‘comic’ strips.

The Catholic Church, among many other great faiths, have awe-inspiring traditions of erudition, inquiry and questioning any and all preconceived notions, and it wasn’t so long ago at all that this was considered entirely vital for the health of the Catholic faith. I have become appalled by the apparent lassitude about classical education and reason now displayed among many Catholics, and the entire USA for that matter, at least here and elsewhere as well.

Please bring that back! How I want so much to feel the same respect for those at least the rudiments of good education I once did for the much of my earlier life! Yes, a personal plea, but from the bottom of my heart.

Very well put. Thank you. I believe that this circumstance is largely the result of the great wealth available in the USA. It has become more important cheer on your favorite sports team or pop star that pursus information and reason in the more meaningful areas of life. That you have lamented this condition is evidence to me that there is a “better” condition for “man” than the one you described.

 

[MegaTherion]

This has probably already been mentioned, but if not . . .

When i meet a thoughtful atheist, i like to ask two questions:

1. *]Of all the scholarly journals in all the libraries and databases in all the world, how much of that total body of knowledge do you yourself actually know? Perhaps 0.001%?

1. 
   I would agree that .001% is far too high a number.
   
   To write the real number, we’d need more zeros than I’m willing to type out right here.
   
   But then again, just because I don’t personally know everything written in every scholarly journal doesn’t mean anything. Information contained in those journals is part of our collective human knowledge, and nothing in that knowledge is evidence that a god exists.
   

   Let’s say you actually know 0.1% of all there is to know, are you really willing to dismiss the probability that sound evidence for God does not exist in the 99.9% of knowledge you know nothing about?

   Let’s assume I know .00000000000001% of all there is to know – feel free to plug in a few google zeros extra if you’d like.
   
   Might there be sound evidence that god exists out there in the rest of the universe? Sure. There might be. There also might be sound evidence that the Hindu gods exist, that the Zoroastrian gods exist, that leprechauns exist, that zombies exist, that there is a Grand Unification Theory.
   
   But I won’t accept any of those things until I see the evidence for one of them.
   
   We’re not discussing the possibility of any of those things (any of them is possible) – we’re discussing whether we should believe in them, whether there is sufficient evidence to compel belief.
   
   There’s not.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Atheism is Lies. Lies from The Liar and father of Lies. Lies have nothing to do with Truth. Every Lie is an act of rejecting Truth. God is Truth.

 

[Leela]

Atheism is Lies. Lies from The Liar and father of Lies. Lies have nothing to do with Truth. Every Lie is an act of rejecting Truth. God is Truth.

I’m confused. You say that “God is truth,” but truth is just the property that all true sentences have. For example, one could say that it is true that you think “atheism is lies,” but I can’t see how one could equate the the truth of such a claim with God. This seems like a huge category error since God is generally understood to be a personal diety. How could a personal diety also be the property that all true sentences have in common?

 

[MindOverMatter]

The mere fact that an author can attribute miracles to Jesus is no more proof of their actual occurance than are the mention of Mohammed’s miracles in the Quran.

I never made an argument pretending to prove that Jesus performed miracles; so your rebut is irrelevant. My argument was challenging demeeda’s claim that just because a group of theologians and philosophers doubt that Jesus performed miracles that therefore this is proof that he did not do miracles. That was the problem i had. I really don’t care if you don’t believe in miracles; what you believe is entirely your prerogative. Nobody asks you to come here. But if you make a claim or pretend to know something with out backing up your assertions then expect to be challenged.

If the bible can be said to prove the divinity of Jesus .

Again; i never said that the bible can be used to prove the divinity of Jesus Christ. Please stop putting words in to my mouth. If i make that claim then you can challenge my claim if you wish.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m confused. You say that “God is truth,” but truth is just the property that all true sentences have. For example, one could say that it is true that you think “atheism is lies,” but I can’t see how one could equate the the truth of such a claim with God. This seems like a huge category error since God is generally understood to be a personal diety. How could a personal diety also be the property that all true sentences have in common?

I believe that God is the root of all truth; and thus is the ultimate truth about reality.

 

[Leela]

I believe that God is the root of all truth; and thus is the ultimate truth about reality.

Hi MindOverMatter,

It sounds like what you are saying is that “2+2=4” is a true statement, so it comes from God in some way. If I say that I am typing on my computer right now (which I am), the truth of that statement also comes from God? But if I say that I am not typing on my computer, that statement is false and does not come from God? But both statements came from me. One was true and the other was false.

I still can’t see how the truth or falsehood of my claim that I am typing on my computer right now has anything to do with a personal deity. Instead it seems to only have to do whether whether or not I am in fact typing.

Further, you say that God is the ultimate truth about reality, but you have not said what this true statement is. Saying “God is truth” or “God is the truth” or “God is ultimate truth” still sounds like a category error. “True” is something we say about statements. What statement are you saying is true?

Best,
Leela

 

[MindOverMatter]

Further, you say that God is the ultimate truth about reality, but you have not said what this true statement is. Saying “God is truth” or “God is the truth” or “God is ultimate truth” still sounds like a category error. “True” is something we say about statements. What statement are you saying is true?

Best,
Leela

All truths are derived from and are made possible in respect of objective reality. If God is the root of Objective reality, then God is the ultimate truth of that reality insofar as all truths are true because they are rooted eternally in God and exist fundamentally because of the nature that is God. This is what one ought to mean by the statement “God is ultimate truth”; because God is the ultimate underlying fact about reality.

Your writing or typing something, is only true because there is such a thing as a reality in which such a truth has potential. My saying that it is true that you are typing something, is not merely clarifying a statement, but rather i am clarifying an objective fact about reality. You are truly typing something as apposed to not typing at some point in time. Therefore truth has an objective application in some shape or form. There is no such thing as a truth that does not at least have its roots in objective reality; even if it is a tautology, it is still grounded in the truth that reality exists. Existence is a truth that must be true before anything can be possibly true, simply because things are true in existence. God, for the Christian, is Existence. Therefore, for the Christian, God is ultimate truth. Thus, it is impossible for there to be such a thing as nothing, or something coming from nothing because truth applies to real things in some shape or form. Therefore the ground of all being is an eternal truth, and all other truths that exist are as such because of the nature of this ultimate being…

For example, it is true that a triangle has three-sides. Now; we have never seen a naturally occurring perfect triangle; but it is still a logically truth, only because of the fundamental reality in which it is true. There are two main truths. Actual truths, and logical truths. God is both, so far as he is the root of all logic and is also eternally actual; or rather, pure actuality. For the Christian, God is a necessary truth. And then there are truths that are true only because there is an ultimate truth which Christians call God. Some might argue, that if there is such a thing as truths there must be one ultimate all embracing eternal truth about all truths which explains itself, and all other truths.We believe that God is the root of all truth; therefore we say that a triangle has three-sides because of the nature that is God. Thats what i mean when i say God is the root of all truth.

Of coarse; i my self am a bit wobbly on truth. But i think the above is basically correct. Perhaps somebody else might want to comment.

Start a new thread on “God is truth”.