Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[Vera_Ljuba]

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.

I already asked you a couple of times, do NOT try to put words into my mouth.

 

[davidv]

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

What is wrong with an answer that accurately declares that an argument misrepresents the position argued against? The implication that there is a contradiction in the Trinity by declaring it 3=1 is a clear misrepresentation of the teaching of the church, aka a straw man.

So, what you declared, without evidence, was a non answer, was in fact the most honest answer the could be given.

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.

Statements like these that clearly reflect a misunderstanding of the Church teaching is also credibility tarnishing.

 

[PRmerger]

I already asked you a couple of times, do NOT try to put words into my mouth.

Oh, that’s something I *never *do, Vera.

I never put words into your mouth.

Never ever.

 

[PRmerger]

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?

I already asked you a couple of times, do NOT try to put words into my mouth.

Oh, and just so we’re clear, the “YOU” in bold is a rhetorical, generic “YOU”, not a personal you.

But, how would you (a personal you) answer the 6000 year old earther who says that the earth is only 6000 years old?

You wouldn’t say: science tells us that the earth is billions of years old?

That wouldn’t be your response?

Also, if the 6yoe says, “Science has been wrong about what causes ulcers!” in response to your comment, you wouldn’t say, “That’s a strawman”?

That wouldn’t be your response?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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

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

I mean: there are only so many places to go wrong in such a simple statement.

The trinity requires that God has at least 3 internal distinctions, or it does not.
Divine simplicity says that God has no internal distinctions (i.e. not even between himself and his properties), or it does not.

If the trinity does not require that God have at least 3 internal distinctions, then the three persons of the trinity cannot be distinct from one another.

If divine simplicity does not say that God has no internal distinctions, then we’re no longer talking about the Catholic God:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-on-divine-simplicity.html

There is also no distinction within God between any of the divine attributes… it is de fide, an absolutely binding, infallible, irreformable teaching of the Church, denial of which amounts to heresy.

 

[PRmerger]

The trinity requires that God has at least 3 internal distinctions, or it does not.

God is One, but not solitary.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

God is One, but not solitary.

I’m not hearing a direct response.

The trinity requires that God has at least 3 internal distinctions, or it does not.

Which is it? If you can’t/won’t answer and resort to evasions, I claim that my previous characterization:

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

is not a straw man.

Indeed, you seem to be echoing the earlier post I quoted which claimed that “He transcends individuality.” If you’ll recall, I characterized such appeals as:

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.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not hearing a direct response.
Which is it? If you can’t/won’t answer and resort to evasions, I claim that my previous characterization:is not a straw man.

Indeed, you seem to be echoing the earlier post I quoted which claimed that “He transcends individuality.” If you’ll recall, I characterized such appeals as:

I think you are correct in that there are appeals to [A] when questions on the Trinity are brought up.

But I don’t think [A], where A = transcendence answers your questions. So no one should be responding, “Well, 3 = 1 is possible because God is transcendent”

But I do think that appeals to [A] are valid where A = God is mystery.

Now, to be sure, I can accept that you feel that this is a diversion…but I also feel you should recognize that it’s entirely logical for a theology to assert: there are some things about God which we cannot fully apprehend.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Oh, and just so we’re clear, the “YOU” in bold is a rhetorical, generic “YOU”, not a personal you.

Fine. Sometimes I also use the “generic” you, but in those cases I always explicitly say it, to avoid confusion. Maybe you would consider to use the same practice. By the way, who are those “generic you’s” that I am supposed to be a part of?

But, how would you (a personal you) answer the 6000 year old earther who says that the earth is only 6000 years old?

You wouldn’t say: science tells us that the earth is billions of years old?

That wouldn’t be your response?

Also, if the 6yoe says, “Science has been wrong about what causes ulcers!” in response to your comment, you wouldn’t say, “That’s a strawman”?

That wouldn’t be your response?

No, it would NOT be. The reason is simple. I despise those posters who give a one line answer, without explaining the reason. I would either simply disregard the YEC person, or I would explain why I discard his “argument”. Probably the first one, because I do not like to talk with idiots.

But, as I said, I despise the “strawman” or “caricature” types of answers.

 

[Aloysium]

God is One and He is Love.
As much as a “one-dimensional” thinker may wish otherwise, God transcends us.
We are made in His image however, existing as the totality that is the relationship between self and other.
We too become love, united with the beloved to whom we give of ourselves.
It would seem reasonable that this would make no sense to those who do not know Him.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it would NOT be. The reason is simple. I despise those posters who give a one line answer, without explaining the reason. I would either simply disregard the YEC person, or I would explain why I discard his “argument”. Probably the first one, because I do not like to talk with idiots.

Don’t be such a literalist, Vera.

It’s like a sister being told she’s like the Prodigal Son because she left home, got into drugs, but is being welcomed home. The sister responds, “How can I be like the Prodigal Son since I’m not a son?”

Clearly, she needs to think in the abstract.

But I think you understood my point despite the above deflection.

You would recognize that, indeed, there are some things which are arguments that are straw men, and to point it out is nothing more, and nothing less, than what is required.

 

[PRmerger]

By the way, who are those “generic you’s” that I am supposed to be a part of?

People who point out straw men arguments.

 

[PRmerger]

The reason is simple. I despise those posters who give a one line answer, without explaining the reason. I would either simply disregard the YEC person, or I would explain why I discard his “argument”.

Incidentally, this reminds me of an article I read by apologist John Martignoni.

"I often ask people to draw a big circle on a piece of paper. I then tell them that circle represents all those who were redeemed by Christ’s death on the cross. In other words, the circle represents all of humanity, because Jesus died that all men might be saved. He paid the price for all men’s sins, whether any given individual accepts that or not.

Next, I ask them to draw a smaller circle within the first circle. I tell them that this second circle represents those who have not only been redeemed, but who have also been saved. Which means that those outside of that second circle represent the redeemed and unsaved. I then ask, “What is the difference between the two circles – between the redeemed and unsaved and the redeemed and saved – is it something Jesus did, or is it something that the saved did?”

The response was this:

“This particular gentleman looked at the paper for a few seconds and then he looked at me and said, “Salvation has nothing to do with sets and subsets,” and immediately proceeded to change the topic.”



That’s the response when someone understands the bigger point, but doesn’t wish to acknowledge this understanding.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Don’t be such a literalist, Vera.

Should I be an “allegoricist”? (If there is such a word.) As long as there is no “Catholic annotated Bible” you don’t have a leg to stand on. Is the story of the “talking snake” literal, or allegorical? And if its allegorical, what was the actual event? Is the story of Jesus walking on water literal or allegorical? Is the story of the resurrection and ascension literal or allegorical? Was the story of Noah’s ark literal or allegorical?

You would recognize that, indeed, there are some things which are arguments that are straw men, and to point it out is nothing more, and nothing less, than what is required.

Pointing it out without an explanation is insufficient and quite insulting. It is insulting because it assumes that the poster is dishonest.

People who point out straw men arguments.

If you ever catch me issuing a one-liner saying “that is a straw man argument” - without going into details and explanations, please rub my nose into my excrement.

 

[PRmerger]

If you ever catch me issuing a one-liner saying “that is a straw man argument” - without going into details and explanations, please rub my nose into my excrement.

Emmm…why would I do that?

It’s not permissible in your world to tell someone that she’s presenting a straw man argument in one line?

 

[PRmerger]

Should I be an “allegoricist”?

You should stop finding minutiae (and what’s minutiae if not tens of thousands of decimal points not being mentioned) to object to.

As long as there is no “Catholic annotated Bible” you don’t have a leg to stand on.

sigh.

You seem to keep forgetting that you’re on a Catholic forum, and what Catholicism professes.

We do not use the Bible Alone as our source of dogma/doctrine.

Thus, we don’t need a “Catholic annotated Bible”, because we have Tradition, the Church, the Magisterium.

 

[PRmerger]

The answer was and still is:

"How could I know what your proposed deity can or cannot do?
​

Our proposed deity has the ability to creatio ex nihilo.

So, you don’t need to know anything more than that in order to answer my question.

All you need is to apply logic.

And to have some intellectual honesty.

If a deity can create the entire universe out of nothing, do you think it’s out of the realm of possibility for this deity to be able to walk on water?​

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Emmm…why would I do that?

Because I ASK you to point out an inconsistency in my stance. I pride myself to be consistent - even if pride is a “mortal sin”.

It’s not permissible in your world to tell someone that she’s presenting a straw man argument in one line?

No, not without an explanation.

We do not use the Bible Alone as our source of dogma/doctrine.

If you declare that the Bible (composed and written by Catholics) is an irrelevant collection of writs, there is no problem. But that is NOT what you profess.

Thus, we don’t need a “Catholic annotated Bible”, because we have Tradition, the Church, the Magisterium.

And all that cannot declare which verses are literal and which ones are allegorical. The problem is that this distinction is important. Maybe you don’t care if there was a literal “Adam and Eve”, and a literal “talking serpent”, and a literal flood, etc… and that is fine if only you would come clean and declare that all that is just a fairy tale… but I cannot see that happening.

Our proposed deity has the ability to creatio ex nihilo.

So, you don’t need to know anything more than that in order to answer my question.

But I do. To create from ex nihilo does not logically lead to the ability to defy the laws of nature.

 

[PRmerger]

I pride myself to be consistent - even if pride is a “mortal sin”

This, again, is not a correct articulation of Catholic teaching.

Taking pride in oneself would never be a mortal sin.
Nor even is, as you state: "pride is a ‘mortal sin’ "

Maybe you read this on another denomination’s website, but it’s not Catholic teaching.

And perhaps you meant that pride is a* capital* sin…but even so, it wouldn’t apply to taking pride in yourself being consistent.

 

[PRmerger]

No, not without an explanation.

It this part of your “preference” code?

And if so, am I permitted to have a different “preference”?

Or, is there an objectively right way to express when things are straw men and it’s the way you propose: “one must always offer an explanation!”