Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[JapaneseKappa]

How it that a contradiction? What could be more simple than a divine trinity? And yet so complex? Ha ha! I am surprised at an Asian finding this unusual.

The trinity is defined as having three internal distinctions, and simplicity as having no internal distinctions.

 

[ccmnxc]

I deny that “the infinity and transcendence of God” is anything other than a get-out-of-jail card. We can reason about infinite things. People have successfully done so. I also believe that your use of “transcendence” is just a way to re-introduce fuzziness. For any apparent contradiction, you will simply say “well God is transcendent, so that contradiction doesn’t apply” without specifying exactly what it is about transcendence that makes it not apply. In my view, it is just a way to disguise the fact that you’re saying “logic doesn’t apply” in order to escape what are plainly contradictions.

I’m aware you deny it, but you don’t have good grounds for doing so. Regarding the infinite, I do not deny that you can reason about infinite things, else I’d be able to say literally nothing about God. Rather, I am denying that we cannot properly understand the infinite such that every (or even most) truths about it will be accessible and intelligible to us. We can make apophatic claims and claims via analogy, though.
As far as transcendence, I do find it amusing that you accuse me of error here for claims I don’t even make, but rather which you presume I will make. So why would transcendence gesture towards our inability to know God’s essence? Well, given the analogy of being, we understand “is” or “exists” to have different if analogous meanings. Our intellects are privy to some, but given that God stands as an infinite limit case to the analogy of being, we would expect there are modes of existence or truths about being that we cannot comprehend and thus cannot put into words. This would be my justification in saying that for any alleged contradiction, one can always appeal to a mysterian sense of “is” or “being.” And again, the analogy of being was hardly concocted to try to salvage the Doctrine of the Trinity, for example - it was around prior to that. So again, we have independent principles that can be used to defend the coherence of God. And again, this shouldn’t be surprising. Given that God is what He is, we would expect apparent contradictions to arise.
To put it another way, positive statements about God, with regard to Church teaching and the like, are actually true but epistemologically indeterminate in meaning, because we are not in a position, epistemically, to know and understand the precise meaning of the terms used. This brings us to your quip here, then:

The trinity is defined as having three internal distinctions, and simplicity as having no internal distinctions.

The first part of your statement is correct, the second part is not. All simplicity says is that there is no composition in God. For example, one can make logical distinctions and yet not introduce actual composition or division into God. Now, applying what I said above to the Trinity, we affirm that each Person of the Trinity is God, but that no Person is another Person. My contention here is that the “is” in these statements has an analogous but epistemically unreachable meaning in comparison to how we might normally use the word “is.” This is why it must be revealed. But Church teaching on the matter affirms the above statement on the Trinity as being true, we just don’t understand how - hence its status as a mystery.

Now, I know the charge is gonna come down the pipe that this is all too convenient and that one cannot properly attribute any contradiction to God, which seems like cheating. But this all flows from the principle that we cannot establish a contradiction in a concept or proposition if we cannot fully and determinately understand said concept or proposition first (or at least fully and determinately understand the aspects that we are claiming to be contradictory), and this principle seems entirely fair. The pill becomes easier to swallow once we get some epistemic humility and acknowledge that there are some things we can know a little bit about but which we cannot go super far on.

So you’re saying that your argument against the claim that God is not well defined and has many competing conceptions is the source which claims:

For one thing, not every argument for God’s existence will get you to the specific conception of God needed in order to establish the plausibility of a resurrection.

as though there are many competing conceptions of God?

I never denied that there are many competing conceptions of God; all I did was deny that it was my problem, as I’m only interested in defending a particular conception (or range of conceptions) of God anyways. I acknowledge as a practical matter that might make things obnoxiously complicated for you since there are so many conceptions to sort through, but I don’t see how that presents an actual intellectual difficulty I have to contend with.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The first part of your statement is correct, the second part is not. All simplicity says is that there is no composition in God. For example, one can make logical distinctions and yet not introduce actual composition or division into God. Now, applying what I said above to the Trinity, we affirm that each Person of the Trinity is God, but that no Person is another Person. My contention here is that the “is” in these statements has an analogous but epistemically unreachable meaning in comparison to how we might normally use the word “is.” This is why it must be revealed. But Church teaching on the matter affirms the above statement on the Trinity as being true, we just don’t understand how - hence its status as a mystery.

I mean: iep.utm.edu/div-simp/

Divine simplicity is central to the classical Western concept of God. Simplicity denies any physical or metaphysical composition in the divine being. This means God is the divine nature itself and has no accidents (properties that are not necessary) accruing to his nature. There are no real divisions or distinctions in this nature. Thus, the entirety of God is whatever is attributed to him. Divine simplicity is the hallmark of God’s utter transcendence of all else, ensuring the divine nature to be beyond the reach of ordinary categories and distinctions, or at least their ordinary application. Simplicity in this way confers a unique ontological status that many philosophers find highly peculiar.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

We are talking about what your objections are. You think it’s wrong (despite your claim that you can’t say what’s right and wrong for others) for Christians to believe in Jesus, whom you describe as a “legend”.

What is “wrong” in this respect? I equate it to the belief that the Loch Ness monster exists. I see nothing “wrong” with that either. It is their belief.

Where it is similar, it is similar.
Where it’s dissimilar, well, it’s…dissimilar.

The question is: “Are the existence of Japan and the miracles in the Bible equally well established or is there a significant difference between then, and if so, in whose favor?”

But let’s get to the crux of your objection: you don’t believe in God, therefore you don’t believe a man can walk on water.

Except for good stage magicians. youtube.com/watch?v=dycpIPTFJ04

 

[PRmerger]

Except for good stage magicians. youtube.com/watch?v=dycpIPTFJ04

Except for good stage magicians?

Huh?

Let me try to flesh out your position: are you proposing that if God exists, he couldn’t incarnate, and then walk on water?

Only a “magician” (that is, a fraud) could do this?

Or, are you willing to acknowledge that if God exists, then God could certainly walk on water?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Your exact wording was:
"PRmerger:

But let’s get to the crux of your objection: you don’t believe in God, therefore you don’t believe a man can walk on water.

And to that I answered that stage magicians (definitely humans) CAN walk on water. I did not say anything about God’s existence nor his magical abilities.

Let me try to flesh out your position: are you proposing that if God exists, he couldn’t incarnate, and then walk on water?

How could I know what your proposed deity can or cannot do? All I hear is what you say about God, but you cannot offer any evidence for your words.

As a matter of fact, all I see is that you define God with some characteristics, and if anyone criticizes it, your only answer is: “but that is not God”. It is easy to utter a “definition”, but you need to prove that your definition has its referent in reality. I can certainly “define” a “seven headed, fire breathing dragon”, but that will not make this dragon a reality.

And, as usual, you sidestep the question:

“Are the existence of Japan and the miracles in the Bible equally well established or is there a significant difference between then, and if so, in whose favor?”

Let’s hear your answer. After all you said that every evidence must be evaluated on its own merit. So what about the hearsay evidence for the Loch Ness monster, the alien abductions by little green men, the golden tablets of the Mormons…

 

[PRmerger]

I mean: iep.utm.edu/div-simp/

Everything in the quote you referenced:

Nothing in the quote you referenced contradicts the dogma of the Trinity.

There is no need to create a false dichotomy.

 

[PRmerger]

Your exact wording was:

And to that I answered that stage magicians (definitely humans) CAN walk on water. I did not say anything about God’s existence nor his magical abilities.

Great.

But you acknowledge that if God exists, then God could walk on water, yeah?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But you acknowledge that if God exists, then God could walk on water, yeah?

I already answered this in the previous post. But you never answered my question about the evidence for the Loch Ness monster, the alien abductions, the golden tablets of the Mormons… it would be rather polite to answer my questions.

 

[PRmerger]

I already answered this in the previous post.

Sorry. I don’t see it.

Can you please answer?

If God exists, then there’s no problem with him walking on water, yes?

And then I will answer your questions.

 

[PRmerger]

The question is: “Are the existence of Japan and the miracles in the Bible equally well established or is there a significant difference between then, and if so, in whose favor?”

Actually, since I have a general bonhomie, I will answer even if you have not yet fulfilled my request.

They are different.

But the miracles of the Bible are something that we believe because

1. we know God exists, and if God exists, then miracles are possible
2. we trust in the testimony of those who saw these miracles, and then proclaimed them to the world…

just like you trust in the testimony of complete and total strangers…

for some very, very important things.

 

[PRmerger]

As a matter of fact, all I see is that you define God with some characteristics, and if anyone criticizes it, your only answer is: “but that is not God”.

Well, yeah.

You do it, too.

You might say, “The MMR vaccine does not cause autism!”
and an anti vaxxer says, “Well, this gene has been identified as causing autism!”

And no one would fault you for saying, “Emmm…but that is not the MMR.”

So, again, please do not permit for yourself what you object to in others.

 

[PRmerger]

So what about the hearsay evidence for the Loch Ness monster, the alien abductions by little green men, the golden tablets of the Mormons…

They are fanciful.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Sorry. I don’t see it.

Can you please answer?

If God exists, then there’s no problem with him walking on water, yes?

And then I will answer your questions.

The answer was and still is: “How could I know what your proposed deity can or cannot do? All I hear is what you say about God, but you cannot offer any evidence for your words.”
So I have no information about God’s abilities.

They are different.

But the miracles of the Bible are something that we believe because

1. we know God exists, and if God exists, then miracles are possible
2. we trust in the testimony of those who saw these miracles, and then proclaimed them to the world…

Fine. So you believe the testimony of people whose identity is unknown, whose testimony is unverified. Well, each 'is own. But your word: “We KNOW that God exists”, should be toned down. You may say that your strongly believe that God exists, but that is NOT knowledge. That is why people are called “believers” and not “knowers”.

just like you trust in the testimony of complete and total strangers…

for some very, very important things.

My previous, unanswered question was: “How many airlines crashed due to the pilot being drunk?” I don’t know of any. And with many thousands of flights every hour I am quite confident that the next time I board on a plane, the pilot will be sober. So “hearsay” stories are NOT equal. The ones describing the pilot training and continuous testing are extremely precise and describe a very rigorous set of circumstances.

Of course, if you believe what the unknown people allegedly said about some supposed events in the unknown past… that is your business.

But don’t even think about drawing a parallel between the two situations.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The trinity is defined as having three internal distinctions, and simplicity as having no internal distinctions.

Everything in the quote you referenced:

Nothing in the quote you referenced contradicts the dogma of the Trinity.

There is no need to create a false dichotomy.

Unless you’re saying that God transcends numbers in such a way that 3 = 0, there is a clear contradiction.

 

[PRmerger]

Unless you’re saying that God transcends numbers in such a way that 3 = 0, there is a clear contradiction.

There is no proposition in Catholicism that 3 = 0.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

There is no proposition in Catholicism that 3 = 0.

Actually, to be precise, it is “3 = 1”, but that is still a contradiction.

They are fanciful.

And you know that, how? Why do you discard the testimony of others, while you wish others to accept your testimonies. Double standard, eh?

You might say, “The MMR vaccine does not cause autism!”
and an anti vaxxer says, “Well, this gene has been identified as causing autism!”

And no one would fault you for saying, “Emmm…but that is not the MMR.”

So, again, please do not permit for yourself what you object to in others.

Don’t even think about putting words in my mouth. A sentence of “You might say” is projecting your ideas unto me, and you are not qualified to do that.

Let me try to flesh out your position: are you proposing that if God exists, he couldn’t incarnate, and then walk on water?

Only a “magician” (that is, a fraud) could do this?

Or, are you willing to acknowledge that if God exists, then God could certainly walk on water?

If God really became a human, then he would be affected by gravity, so he could NOT walk on water. If, however there would be some apparition, which looked like a human (but only was a fake), then God is simply a super-magician, who can create convincing holographic images. Is that the accurate interpretation of your beliefs?

 

[davidv]

Actually, to be precise, it is “3 = 1”, but that is still a contradiction.

What was written is a contradiction. However, what was written is a straw man of Church teaching.

and you know that, how? Why do you discard the testimony of others, while you wish others to accept your testimonies. Double standard, eh?

Don’t even think about putting words in my mouth. A sentence of “You might say” is projecting your ideas unto me, and you are not qualified to do that.

If God really became a human, then he would be affected by gravity, so he could NOT walk on water. If, however there would be some apparition, which looked like a human (but only was a fake), then God is simply a super-magician, who can create convincing holographic images. Is that the accurate interpretation of your beliefs?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What was written is a contradiction. However, what was written is a straw man of Church teaching.

As usual, whenever there is something that you (in general) are unable to answer, it becomes a “straw man” or a “caricature”.

The church teaches the divine simplicity, namely that God has no “parts”. And also teaches the Trinity - which is also declared to be a mystery. So the contradictions (of which there are many) are redefined to be “mysteries”. And then you are surprised when you lose credibility.

 

[PRmerger]

As usual, whenever there is something that you (in general) are unable to answer, it becomes a “straw man” or a “caricature”.

This reminds me of the 6000 year old earthers.

The 6yoe person says: the earth is 6000 years old!
You say: nope. Science tells us that that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
6yoe says: Oh really? How is that when your science got it wrong about ulcers being caused by stress. It turns out that it’s caused by helicobacter pylori.
You say: That’s a a straw man. No one here has proposed that science always gets it right.

Annnnd the 6yoe says: As usual, whenever there’s something that you are unable to answer, it becomes a “straw man”.

Except, sometimes things really are a straw man, yeah?