Mirdaths Logic.

[Dranu]

1A.2: Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

Things do not exist through sheer force of will or imagination on our part, and that goes double for gods.

First off, thanks for posting it. Now I am sure we are both on the same page. However my objection B and especially A still holds. All St. Aquinas is showing is either one of two things in this argument:

1.)* That logic is not attuned to reality (I highly doubt a theologian of his level would make such a ridiculous claim), for if it is attuned, God necessarily exists by this argument. If not we are reduced to radical skepticism.*
2.)That it is not the best of tools to use against the non-theist who rejects the concept of ‘That than which none greater can be conceived’, in the first place, and more arguments should be put forth to prove ‘That than which none greater can be conceived’ is a meaningful concept, since once that is excepted, the person will have no choice but to accept St. Anselm’s proof. Now I agree with #2 (though I think it is blatantly obvious that the term is meaningful), but it still says nothing about St. Anselm’s proof. What would be needed is to rather show that ‘That than which none greater can be conceived’ is not a meaningful concept. Something which cannot even be done, as I believe it would lead to a contradiction or the infinite regression of being stuck on the one ‘side’ of a round square .

Restating Pascal’s Wager isn’t helping, I can tell you that much

Positive value? I do not have to look over my shoulder constantly for vengeful deities or malicious demons; I am the source of my own good and my own evil. When I do good, it is not out of fear of hell or greed for heaven. I don’t get to make excuses or pretend that I’m more selfless than I am. May not sound positive to you, and it is a great responsibility, but it’s one I am proud to bear.

Hey it was worth a shot right? I wouldn’t dismiss what I said too quickly though and slipping in a dogmatic rejection of it (not saying you did, I’m just saying).

What you follow with though, I do have two or three questions about it:

“* I am the source of my own good and my own evil.*”
1.) Do you hold that your good comes from you alone? That seems to me to be a much much greater and complex claim than saying God exists.

“When I do good, it is not out of fear of hell or greed for heaven. I don’t get to make excuses or pretend that I’m more selfless than I am.”
2.)Have you read much of Plato or St. Augustine? Because ultimately fear or desire of ‘pleasurable’ heaven is a very childish view to hold for following religion (though it certainly is a starting place). The love of ‘the Good’ is the true aim of it. On to that, why does doing what is good and being rewarded with good (rather the Good) need to be negative? It seems to me to be the more orderly of the options.

I’m not so presumptuous as to make odds on God’s existence. It’s a complete unknown. What I would lay money on is the proposition that I, barring personal revelation and/or psychosis, will never know whether God exists.

Again, God seems more certain than math itself. Where do your doubts lie that cannot be attributed to other things you believe to exist without seeing, as well?
Note: Not that I think visible objects are more acceptable as real, in fact I think just the opposite.

 

[Mirdath]

Now I agree with #2 (though I think it is blatantly obvious that the term is meaningful), but it still says nothing about St. Anselm’s proof. What would be needed is to rather show that ‘That than which none greater can be conceived’ is not a meaningful concept. Something which cannot even be done, as I believe it would lead to a contradiction or the infinite regression of being stuck on the one ‘side’ of a round square .

Where Aquinas apologizes for the unbeliever here isn’t in the idea that one can’t think of ‘that than which none greater can be conceived’: it’s that imagining things doesn’t create them.

1.) Do you hold that your good comes from you alone? That seems to me to be a much much greater and complex claim than saying God exists.

Yes and I don’t see it being so, respectively. Could you elaborate on how the idea that human actions are good and evil in and of themselves is greater and more complex than the idea of a supreme being?

2.)Have you read much of Plato or St. Augustine?

Some of each.

Because ultimately fear or desire of ‘pleasurable’ heaven is a very childish view to hold for following religion (though it certainly is a starting place). The love of ‘the Good’ is the true aim of it.

If love of the Good is the true objective, why the need for a carrot and stick? Put the Good out there for all to see; if it is truly Good, why would it not be loved?

On to that, why does doing what is good and being rewarded with good (rather the Good) need to be negative? It seems to me to be the more orderly of the options.

It is, as you said, childish.

Again, God seems more certain than math itself. Where do your doubts lie that cannot be attributed to other things you believe to exist without seeing, as well?

Your certainty in God does you credit, but do keep in mind that what you’re trying to do is a lot like explaining colors to someone blind since birth. Think of faith as a ‘sense’ that some (you) have, and others (me) lack.

I can’t think of anything I believe to exist as a thing without empirical observation. Got an example?

 

[Dranu]

Mirdath:

Where Aquinas apologizes for the unbeliever here isn’t in the idea that one can’t think of ‘that than which none greater can be conceived’: it’s that imagining things doesn’t create them.

And again, St. Anselm’s argument doesn’t say that, it merely shows that if "That than which none greater can be conceived’ is a meaningful concept, then it must necessarily exist.

Yes and I don’t see it being so, respectively. Could you elaborate on how the idea that human actions are good and evil in and of themselves is greater and more complex than the idea of a supreme being?

Certainly. But first let me touch on your point.
Do you derive your existence from yourself? No. So your own nature is not your doing. Furthermore, do you sustain your own existence, or is it dependent on something else? If your nature is not your own doing (even if you accept free will) isn’t it possible, and even likely, that it is also (certainly not only) due to your nature that you do some good and bad things? Added to that, without your own substance existing (even as just a will), how could you even do anything. Furthermore, if they have a direction, what is needed for them to be able to have a direction?

Now this is far more complex than the most simple being, first cause, and a first principle for logic, simply because it rests on so many more assumptions than God. God needs no assumptions, as the non divisible definition sustains itself. No other term can do so.

If love of the Good is the true objective, why the need for a carrot and stick? Put the Good out there for all to see; if it is truly Good, why would it not be loved?

It is not that it is a carrot on a stick thing, it is merely that it is a necessary condition following God. The idea is justice is real.

It is, as you said, childish.

childish only if it is the seeking for the ‘pleasurable’ heaven, just because doing what is best for others is also the best thing for the self, says nothing about it being wrong. If I did good for another knowing that it would be worse for me in the long as well as short term, I would be doing a great thing, but at the same time an evil would creep in, and that evil is injustice. So is this an argument from a feeling or am I perhaps missing something?

I can’t think of anything I believe to exist as a thing without empirical observation. Got an example?

Ya, math and the law of non contradiction. But also (to flip the question on its head) causality chains, gravity, the heliocentric model, and the very keyboard in front of you. Now those last few are a bit extreme, but you do ‘believe them to exist as a thing without empirical observation’ since it is not by the 5 senses that you understand them as things, but with the mind’s eye that you come to recognize them as a thing, which is completely without an empirical observation. It is conceivable that your 5 senses are not real and you are just a mind. In that sense you can more clearly see that it is not by empirical observations that you know things.

Let me just add this, you are very civil for a self proclaimed non-theist (personaly I think that any ‘non-theist’ who love good, in fact love God even if they don’t know it). Most discussions I have (on other forums) always carry so much emotional baggage. Hopefully I am being civil too .

 

[Mirdath]

And again, St. Anselm’s argument doesn’t say that, it merely shows that if "That than which none greater can be conceived’ is a meaningful concept, then it must necessarily exist.

The problem is that concepts do not exist merely because we tell them to. Nor is existence necessary for greatness: consider Zeus, whom we both do not believe in, yet who is one of the most enduring legendary figures ever.

Do you derive your existence from yourself? No. So your own nature is not your doing. Furthermore, do you sustain your own existence, or is it dependent on something else?

On the first matter, I blame my parents On the second, I do not think my existence depends on much else than my ability to obtain food, water, and shelter.

If your nature is not your own doing (even if you accept free will) isn’t it possible, and even likely, that it is also (certainly not only) due to your nature that you do some good and bad things?

My nature simply is; what I do with it is another matter entirely.

God needs no assumptions, as the non divisible definition sustains itself. No other term can do so.

God needs no assumptions, assuming God’s around. That’s kinda the sticking point. And all arguments toward God’s existence, up to and including Anselm’s, rely on assumptions.

It is not that it is a carrot on a stick thing, it is merely that it is a necessary condition following God. The idea is justice is real.

And then we get into the problem of evil. Honestly, I wouldn’t have a problem with believing in a less-than-omnibenevolent God (worshiping is a different question); that concept actually makes some sense to me, although I see no evidence for it either. But the Christian insistence on God’s being ultimate goodness, rather than being completely beyond good or evil, strikes me as rather Panglossian.

childish only if it is the seeking for the ‘pleasurable’ heaven, just because doing what is best for others is also the best thing for the self, says nothing about it being wrong. If I did good for another knowing that it would be worse for me in the long as well as short term, I would be doing a great thing, but at the same time an evil would creep in, and that evil is injustice. So is this an argument from a feeling or am I perhaps missing something?

You may be right. This ‘morality of reward’ does not seem to be nearly a full exercise of the faculties of reason God supposedly bestowed upon us. I suppose Jesus repeatedly referred to humanity as ‘sheep’ for a reason though

Also, my being horrifyingly vain might have something to do with it.

math and the law of non contradiction.

I do not believe either of those ‘exist’ as things in themselves.

But also (to flip the question on its head) causality chains, gravity, the heliocentric model, and the very keyboard in front of you.

All observable, if not in themselves then in their effects – much like the passage of Yosemite Sam through a wall is observable not only by witnessing it, but also by looking for mustachioed-midget-shaped holes.

Now those last few are a bit extreme, but you do ‘believe them to exist as a thing without empirical observation’ since it is not by the 5 senses that you understand them as things, but with the mind’s eye that you come to recognize them as a thing, which is completely without an empirical observation. It is conceivable that your 5 senses are not real and you are just a mind. In that sense you can more clearly see that it is not by empirical observations that you know things.

Solipsism and the ‘brain in a jar’ scenario are ironclad. But in the absence of evidence for either, I work with what I have.

Let’s take my keyboard. It is palpable, has mass, can be seen, the working of the keys is all too audible, and it seems to have been the victim of a few drink spills going by the tactile sensations I’m getting. I’ll pass on smelling and licking it.

I am pretty sure there’s a keyboard here, through no other exercise than that of three senses. Those senses can be fooled, true, but if they are being fooled then this really doesn’t matter, now does it?

Let me just add this, you are very civil for a self proclaimed non-theist (personaly I think that any ‘non-theist’ who love good, in fact love God even if they don’t know it). Most discussions I have (on other forums) always carry so much emotional baggage. Hopefully I am being civil too .

I don’t think I’m particularly special for a non-theist – maybe for those who love to talk about it! The most vocal members of any group are almost always the ones who shouldn’t be.

No complaints about your manners from me either

 

[punkforchrist]

And here we part ways. Particular abstract items are not necessary to the proper function of every possible universe. Can’t you imagine a universe without hatred, anger, lust, or fear? Your religion teaches that our own was once like that, and will be again.

The particular abstract objects you are mentioning are all of the moral category. I was only talking about descriptive abstracta, like propositions, sets, numbers, and laws of logic. These abstracta do hold in all possible worlds, as you seem to agree. Now, if they are mental concepts, are they not concepts of a necessary mind?

To answer your question, though, I do believe there are possible worlds without instantiations of moral deficiencies. However, we’re talking about universal categories, which are strictly abstract. Being a moral realist, it’s difficult for me to imagine a possible world in which hatred would be morally commendable had any human beings existed.

 

[Mirdath]

The particular abstract objects you are mentioning are all of the moral category. I was only talking about descriptive abstracta, like propositions, sets, numbers, and laws of logic. These abstracta do hold in all possible worlds, as you seem to agree.

I do not. So going further in that direction would seem to be irrelevant.

 

[punkforchrist]

I do not. So going further in that direction would seem to be irrelevant.

I don’t see how this doesn’t invariably result in self-contradictions, then. If there are no necessary abstracta, then there is a possible world in which bachelors are married.

 

[Mirdath]

I don’t see how this doesn’t invariably result in self-contradictions, then. If there are no necessary abstracta, then there is a possible world in which bachelors are married.

According to your faith, we exist in a real world in which God is human and in which one is three, so I don’t see why that comparatively mundane idea is so hard for you to accept. It’s not like we’d have much hope of understanding any mode of thought going on in a possible universe that’s more relaxed about A and not-A.

 

[punkforchrist]

According to your faith, we exist in a real world in which God is human and in which one is three, so I don’t see why that comparatively mundane idea is so hard for you to accept.

I wasn’t offering an argument for the Incarnation or anything, but rather just a very minimalistic notion of a deity. In any case, Jesus is not both God and not-God. Instead, He is both God and human. A and B, as opposed to A and ~A.

It’s not like we’d have much hope of understanding any mode of thought going on in a possible universe that’s more relaxed about A and not-A.

I agree that we wouldn’t, but why not?

 

[Mirdath]

In any case, Jesus is not both God and not-God. Instead, He is both God and human. A and B, as opposed to A and ~A.

I fail to see the difference. God is not-human, human is not-God.

I agree that we wouldn’t, but why not?

Simply put, our minds don’t work that way.

 

[punkforchrist]

I fail to see the difference. God is not-human, human is not-God.

Jesus, according to Catholic teaching, has two distinct natures: one human, and the other divine. In order for this to be a contradiction, one of his natures in particular would need to be both A and ~A. Hence, there’s no contradiction.

Simply put, our minds don’t work that way.

Is it possible they could have evolved that way? I don’t see how this doesn’t presuppose the logic that is allegedly contingent. In order to make a claim about any hypothetical world, we have to have a rational standard by which we determine whether this world is possible.

 

[Mirdath]

Jesus, according to Catholic teaching, has two distinct natures: one human, and the other divine. In order for this to be a contradiction, one of his natures in particular would need to be both A and ~A. Hence, there’s no contradiction.

Technically correct – although one must first accept that a thing may possess multiple natures.

Is it possible they could have evolved that way? I don’t see how this doesn’t presuppose the logic that is allegedly contingent. In order to make a claim about any hypothetical world, we have to have a rational standard by which we determine whether this world is possible.

‘Possible’ is underselling it, wouldn’t you say? A mind better suited to the rules of universe A is pretty likely going to be selected out right quick in a radically different universe B. This isn’t a hard and fast rule, of course – some cases might show advantages in the ‘wrong’ universe, but in general someone with a maladjusted mind is probably boned.

I’m not presupposing a consistent, contingent logic for each and every universe. We can tell this one abides by the law of noncontradiction and so on, but we really can’t make that statement for all possible universes.

 

[punkforchrist]

Technically correct – although one must first accept that a thing may possess multiple natures.

Yes, but that’s a question of a different metaphysical sort. I’m only talking about possible worlds theory.

‘Possible’ is underselling it, wouldn’t you say? A mind better suited to the rules of universe A is pretty likely going to be selected out right quick in a radically different universe B. This isn’t a hard and fast rule, of course – some cases might show advantages in the ‘wrong’ universe, but in general someone with a maladjusted mind is probably boned.

It doesn’t follow that if we can’t understand x, then x must be possible in world y. True, it also doesn’t follow that if we can’t understand x that x cannot be possible in y, but we’re talking about self-contradictions, not just things that surpass our intellectual capacities.

I’m not presupposing a consistent, contingent logic for each and every universe. We can tell this one abides by the law of noncontradiction and so on, but we really can’t make that statement for all possible universes.

If the law of non-contradiction does not hold for all possible worlds, then it is both possible and not possible that it holds for said worlds. Should we really believe this?

 

[Asuno]

And here we get into a variation on the problem of the hypostatic union. X possesses simultaneously natures A and B, whether that be God and Man or Love and Logic. I am not a Thomist; I do not buy the idea that something can possess dual natures.

How can you say that? Or have you not heard of quantum physics? Don’t you know that light itself functions both as a particle and a wave, simultaneously? If duality can exist on the physical (albeit quantum) level, then why not mental… or spiritual?
Mirdath:3202469:

I do not discount personal revelation as an excellent reason to believe in God. That revelation, though, is valid only for the person to whom it is given: others have no such certainty.

Oh, so you have no trust in that person, then? Everyone who experiences God in this manner is what, delusional? I don’t think so. But then, you don’t think so either, or so I gather from your statement. So is it because you yourself have had no direct experience that you disbelieve? That’s hardly logical; to discount all those who have ever had a direct experience of something just because you haven’t?

Let me set this scenerio up for you. Say there is a village full of only blind people. Most of the people there have never seen before, but some have seen before but later lost their sight. They tell the others who have never seen before of a world of “sight” that exists all around them, they just can’t see it right now. They tell the others that they all will see (let’s leave how up to the imagination for now) this world of sight one day.

Now one blind man, who has never seen before, addresses all the other blind people, telling them there’s no such thing as this world of “sight”. Can you imagine the reaction of those who had seen, who are now being told that “they were mistaken”? Can you imagine the reaction of those who had never seen but desparately hope to see one day, only to be told such a thing as “sight” doesn’t exist? Now imagine that the blind speaker bases his argument on the fact that he himself has never seen. Would you (imagine yourself as a fellow blind man in this case) believe him? Or would you believe the others who say they have seen before, but can’t prove it now because now they can’t see? Ask yourself honestly; which one are you?

Let’s take this one step further; the blind speaker is a man of some learning in this village, and he decares that because there is no verifiable way to prove this world of “sight” exists, then it should not be taught nor spoken of; the others shouldn’t waste their time or energy chasing after what doesn’t exist, and if they do, they’re just being stupid. Does that one man, just because he refuses to believe in the world of “sight”, have the right to do that? If he is so confident there is no world of sight, why does he insist on crushing the hopes of those who believe the testimony of those who have seen?

Please answer me that.

 

[Mirdath]

It doesn’t follow that if we can’t understand x, then x must be possible in world y. True, it also doesn’t follow that if we can’t understand x that x cannot be possible in y, but we’re talking about self-contradictions, not just things that surpass our intellectual capacities.

But it does follow that x may be possible in a certain universe, which is all I have said. Universes which entail a contradiction in terms of their own rules are not included in the set of possible universes; those with different rules are.

If the law of non-contradiction does not hold for all possible worlds, then it is both possible and not possible that it holds for said worlds. Should we really believe this?

The law of non-contradiction reaches to the ends of the universe. Beyond it, into others? I’m not so sure.

Asuno:

How can you say that? Or have you not heard of quantum physics? Don’t you know that light itself functions both as a particle and a wave, simultaneously? If duality can exist on the physical (albeit quantum) level, then why not mental… or spiritual?

A compound nature is different from a composite. Otherwise I would have rightly been shot down completely by the simple and undeniably correct assertion that I possess a human nature and a mammalian nature.

Oh, so you have no trust in that person, then? Everyone who experiences God in this manner is what, delusional? I don’t think so. But then, you don’t think so either, or so I gather from your statement. So is it because you yourself have had no direct experience that you disbelieve? That’s hardly logical; to discount all those who have ever had a direct experience of something just because you haven’t?

Let’s play ‘finish the sentence’: extraordinary claims require…

Would you (imagine yourself as a fellow blind man in this case) believe him? Or would you believe the others who say they have seen before, but can’t prove it now because now they can’t see? Ask yourself honestly; which one are you?

Neither.

Does that one man, just because he refuses to believe in the world of “sight”, have the right to do that? If he is so confident there is no world of sight, why does he insist on crushing the hopes of those who believe the testimony of those who have seen?

Who’s crushing hopes? If it makes you any happier, I don’t hold that the existence of God can be disproven, so take heart and calm down a little. There’s no reason to be rude.

 

[punkforchrist]

Mirdath:

The law of non-contradiction reaches to the ends of the universe. Beyond it, into others? I’m not so sure.

Just to clarify, I’m not talking about alternate universes. When I talk about other possible worlds, I only mean alternative instantiations of the reality (i.e. universe) we live in.

By the way, I appreciate all the time you’ve taken to respond to these posts. I’m sure you’re busy, and it doesn’t help that you’ve been outnumbered in this thread.

 

[Dranu]

Since I missed a bit I’ll try to limit my response to the most salient points so that you don’t have to handle too much cross-fire Mirdath

Mirdath:

The problem is that concepts do not exist merely because we tell them to. Nor is existence necessary for greatness: consider Zeus, whom we both do not believe in, yet who is one of the most enduring legendary figures ever.

(note: the below is Mirdath’s response to math and law of non-contradiction)
I do not believe either of those ‘exist’ as things in themselves.

First and most importantly, back to St. Anselm. Sure something that does not exist in reality can still have greatness, but that is not what St. Anselm argues, he argues in intelect AND in reality. Surely the concept of Zues existing in both is greater than just him existing in the intelect right?

Maybe I can kill two birds with one stone here. Now we do not say ‘God exists in reality’ and thus He does, but rather we say ‘God’, and we see that logic seems to show He exists by St. Anselm’s proof. Now this brings me to a point on all logical ‘concepts’. A very important question that is: “There must be a connect between our logical concepts and reality for us to yeild true observations about reality, so what is that connection? Do the things we call concepts have some binding effect on reality?”
Now if logic yeilds truth, then we can in fact say something exists based on reason. In fact that is the thing we do all the time, because all talk of truth is based on reason.

Solipsism and the ‘brain in a jar’ scenario are ironclad. But in the absence of evidence for either, I work with what I have.

Let’s take my keyboard. It is palpable, has mass, can be seen, the working of the keys is all too audible, and it seems to have been the victim of a few drink spills going by the tactile sensations I’m getting. I’ll pass on smelling and licking it.

I am pretty sure there’s a keyboard here, through no other exercise than that of three senses. Those senses can be fooled, true, but if they are being fooled then this really doesn’t matter, now does it?

Where is the evidence of the real world existing as the reasonable man would accept it? Why do you suspend judgement on God’s existence (which is far more simple and knowable) but not on something far more complex and uncertain?

As for the keyboard, the judgement of it as an existing thing is,again, clearly done without the senses. Certainly the senses give you the (name removed by moderator)ut, but your sense might not even be real and you might be all mind. It is not that I believe you are all mind, just that it reinforces the fact in the primacy of the reason, without which we would not come to know anything.

God needs no assumptions, assuming God’s around. That’s kinda the sticking point. And all arguments toward God’s existence, up to and including Anselm’s, rely on assumptions.

No, God needs no assumptions, our knowing God needs an assumption, but not the definition of God himself. As to our knowledge of anything, it needs the assumption that knowledge is knowedge, truth is truth, and one could go on infinitely. Again St. Anselm does not assume God’s existence in reality, he proves it.

PunkforChrist:

By the way, I appreciate all the time you’ve taken to respond to these posts. I’m sure you’re busy, and it doesn’t help that you’ve been outnumbered in this thread.

Ya I’ll second that

 

[Asuno]

---

How can you say that? Or have you not heard of quantum physics? Don’t you know that light itself functions both as a particle and a wave, simultaneously? If duality can exist on the physical (albeit quantum) level, then why not mental… or spiritual? ***

A compound nature is different from a composite. Otherwise I would have rightly been shot down completely by the simple and undeniably correct assertion that I possess a human nature and a mammalian nature.

Wow. You really don’t understand. Either that, or no one has ever explained this aspect of the faith to you. Okay, I’ll attempt it. For Jesus, assuming the form of man did give him a compound nature, not merely a composite one. He is wholly God and wholly man, not ‘part God’ and ‘part man’.

***Oh, so you have no trust in that person, then? Everyone who experiences God in this manner is what, delusional? I don’t think so. But then, you don’t think so either, or so I gather from your statement. So is it because you yourself have had no direct experience that you disbelieve? That’s hardly logical; to discount all those who have ever had a direct experience of something just because you haven’t? ***

Let’s play ‘finish the sentence’: extraordinary claims require…

And, I’m waiting?.. Your point is?.. Extraordinary claims require nothing from the receiver of the extraordinary event. Are you still looking for evidence? The receiver says it happened. What it boils down to is trust. As in, have some. Look, if it was just a few people now and then, and they were people of questionable charectar, I could see your point. But we’re actually talking about quite a few out there who have experienced the touch of the Divine - and yes, myself included - and I’m fairly sure that most if not all of them have fairly good charectar. So why won’t you put any stock in what we say? How many witnesses do you require to an extraordinary event - like my witness to a miracle - before it’s enough to convince you it was real? Would any amount of witnesses ever be enough, or are you truly only swayed by ‘logic alone’?

When the miracle at Fatima happened about a hundred or so years ago, thousands of people witnessed it, many from twenty (and I think possibly thirty) miles away. Yet many in Europe still chose to ignore it. As a result, the private revelations the three children had went ignored by the governments in power; and as a result of that, WWII happened, and the rise of the Soviet Union, all of which could have been avoided if people had just listened. (And then you wonder why I get frustrated…)

---

Would you (imagine yourself as a fellow blind man in this case) believe him? Or would you believe the others who say they have seen before, but can’t prove it now because now they can’t see? Ask yourself honestly; which one are you? ***

Neither.

That’s not really an answer. Please specify, then, what are you in this particular ‘thought experiment’? A non-participant is the only other option…unless you’re the blind speaker. Is that it, then? Would you be him?

---

Does that one man, just because he refuses to believe in the world of “sight”, have the right to do that? If he is so confident there is no world of sight, why does he insist on crushing the hopes of those who believe the testimony of those who have seen? ***

Who’s crushing hopes? If it makes you any happier, I don’t hold that the existence of God can be disproven, so take heart and calm down a little. There’s no reason to be rude.

I’m not trying to be rude, I’m trying to understand this ‘logic only’ stance of yours. The last question - where I took it “one step further” - is actually a bit off topic. I’m asking you, do you think that person has the right to tell other people that they’re stupid, liars, or worse, delusional? Because I’ve run into this often, and it upsets me to see there are so many who are willing to do exactly that, up to and including to tell me to shut up about it.

 

[Mirdath]

Just to clarify, I’m not talking about alternate universes. When I talk about other possible worlds, I only mean alternative instantiations of the reality (i.e. universe) we live in.

Understood. I’m being a little more speculative.

By the way, I appreciate all the time you’ve taken to respond to these posts. I’m sure you’re busy, and it doesn’t help that you’ve been outnumbered in this thread.

Not a problem, and your civility (and Dranu’s too, lest I forget) is much appreciated in kind

Dranu:

First and most importantly, back to St. Anselm. Sure something that does not exist in reality can still have greatness, but that is not what St. Anselm argues, he argues in intelect AND in reality. Surely the concept of Zues existing in both is greater than just him existing in the intelect right?

Is it? I think the legend of Zeus would suffer considerably were his reality demonstrated. People would be less likely to look past his dalliances with Europa, Io, Callisto, Ganymede, and the rest; they’d complain of his picking favorites in war, of his treatment of his worshipers, and on and on. The same could be said for a real case: does an ancient king of Thebes have anything to add to the legend of Heracles?

And the problem remains: conceiving of something, no matter how great the idea may be, does not force it to exist. To reuse one of my favorite examples, I can imagine a burrito than which no greater burrito can exist – but I’ll still have to make do with the excellent but imperfect burritos served by the taqueria up the road.

Where is the evidence of the real world existing as the reasonable man would accept it?

Right in front of us. Even if it’s an illusion, it’s a very good one – good enough to work with.

Why do you suspend judgement on God’s existence (which is far more simple and knowable) but not on something far more complex and uncertain?

Simple, maybe. Knowable, no. Strictly speaking, I don’t know that I’m sitting here typing – but I’m pretty sure I am. I have no way of knowing God, save through faith, which doesn’t seem to be happening. Poses an interesting question, actually: if hell is the absence of God, am I not already there?

St. Anselm does not assume God’s existence in reality, he proves it.

Anselm indicates God’s possibility, but proves nothing. Which is really all that can be said for any argument for God.

 

[Mirdath]

Asuno:

Wow. You really don’t understand. Either that, or no one has ever explained this aspect of the faith to you. Okay, I’ll attempt it. For Jesus, assuming the form of man did give him a compound nature, not merely a composite one. He is wholly God and wholly man, not ‘part God’ and ‘part man’.

First off, I’ll thank you to refrain from accusations of ignorance. I do know what I’m talking about, and if I happen to see it differently from you, call me a heretic, not an idiot. Proper use of invective is always important to a civilized debate.

Anyway, Summa, III.2.4: The Person or hypostasis of Christ may be viewed in two ways. First as it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple, even as the Nature of the Word. Secondly, in the aspect of person or hypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature; and thus the Person of Christ subsists in two natures. Hence though there is one subsisting being in Him, yet there are different aspects of subsistence, and hence He is said to be a composite person, insomuch as one being subsists in two.

I have never said that Jesus is held to have ‘partial’ natures: quite the opposite, in my first two posts to this thread. I’ve simply said I don’t buy it.

Does Jesus’ divine nature build upon his human nature, as my human nature builds upon my mammalian nature? If so, why wouldn’t the Mormons be right when they say we’re all capable of apotheosis?

Extraordinary claims require nothing from the receiver of the extraordinary event.

Unless the recipient wants to be believed, that is. Here, try this on: I can bend spoons with my mind. I’m not going to tell you how, I’m not going to demonstrate it for you, and I’m not even going to show you spoons I have bent. Just trust me, I can do it.

Would any amount of witnesses ever be enough, or are you truly only swayed by ‘logic alone’?

I doubt it and no, respectively. If I am the recipient of divine revelation, I expect I’d believe. Logic doesn’t seem to be the right tool to use here.

Please specify, then, what are you in this particular ‘thought experiment’? A non-participant is the only other option…unless you’re the blind speaker. Is that it, then? Would you be him?

I’d be the person saying ‘hey, believe what you want, I’m not gonna say definitively it isn’t true but I don’t see it’.

I’m asking you, do you think that person has the right to tell other people that they’re stupid, liars, or worse, delusional?

What’s worse about being delusional and honest?

That said, I quite intentionally haven’t cast aspersions on anyone’s intelligence, honesty, or sanity – as, thankfully, at least everyone else in the thread has. I don’t know what you’ve got that gives you faith, and I don’t think I ever will.

But if you wanna post in a callout thread dedicated to what I think, expect to hear it. If you don’t like what you hear, move on.