Not time travel, "only" time viewing?

[Kathrin]

I am not sure here: are you saying looking at the results of science is asking for signs? I don’t think that is what is meant. The Church is fine with us looking at science. God’s hand created the world. We behold the wonder of his work there. This is a good thing. Fully founded reason and research cannot in the end contradict the faith. God made the world and he gave us revelation. God won’t contradict himself. Here is a CCC quote, if you like:
159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."38

I just read that part of the catechism recently, and I liked it a lot!!! Like, in the end all science will anyway say the same as our faith does, because it is all god’s world.

Honestly, I am not really sure now what made me write that about not tempting God or asking for signs.
It does feel somehow like a lack of trust if we need to “verify” whether our Faith tells the truth. Faith by its intrinsic meaning also implies trust, doesn’t it? Otherwise it would be called knowledge.

 

[TarkanAttila]

There is no contradiction. There is no intrinsic meaning to anything, but we can assign a meaning if we so choose.

IOW:

1. The universe has no intrinsic meaning.
2. You can give it meaning.
3. Therefore the universe has meaning.

Hm. Alright. I’ll grant it’s a verifiable conclusion. That does not mean it is true or desirable, though.

As I’ve made abundantly clear, the meaning of my life in that situation would be either to wait for death to come, or to end as many others’ lives as I could.

Now, excuse me, but in your model, if we are to follow this logic, who are you to say your meaning is better than mine? What somehow makes desiring pleasure better than desiring death in a universe where death is the only final thing?

I did not say it does. However if someone uses a good strategy to maximize one’s pleasure - on the long run, even if it does not last until eternity ends - then it does.

Actually, no it doesn’t. Because, first of all, a “decent and ethical” life is either a subjective preference, or it is an intrinsic, extra-scientific standard. Decency and ethics are not intrinsic to our biology. If you look at history, that becomes abundantly clear.

Second, no matter how much pleasure you max out on, whether by hedonism or epicureanism, you will still die, and ultimately all your hard work to derive pleasure will be gone. You cannot feel anything when you are dead.

All pleasure-seeking in a meaningless universe is vanity. It is like chasing the wind.

I did not deny it.

Nor did I. Yet you acted as if somehow you were revealing a brand new fact I was never aware of.

I’m quite aware of the two baser motives which lead a person to Heaven - fear of Hell, and desire of Heaven. But there is a third, one all Christians should be (and which I am) shooting for: simply, love of God for Himself. That is, love of the Source. Of Love. Of Life. Of Truth.

Actually, not eternal “death”, rather eternal suffering.

You’re arguing a Catholic, here, Farien. On a Catholic forum. Argue by Catholic definitions:

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

Fire can either be a sign of light, or it can be a sign of death. Fire either provides light, or destroys life. It kills living things in a way few other things can - totally. A third degree burn destroys the flesh almost completely. It cannot be resuscitated.

God, by Catholic definitions, is the source of Life. If you are separated from the source of Life, you must necessarily be eternally dying, mustn’t you?

If it is not real, then you are in the same boat as I am, except you sacrificed your exeistence for a chimera.

But Christianity is true. It has been proven to be so.

Even if it were not true, again, it has been logically and historically proven to be so, so you could hardly blame me (or anyone else) for thinking it were. (The same could be said of your atheism, I don’t doubt.)

And for the Christian who is compelled by the proof to live as if his life has intrinsic worth, it’s sensible for us to tell others that they, too, have intrinsic meaning.

But for you, who are compelled by the proof to believe there is no intrinsic meaning to life, it makes absolutely no sense to live as if you have a purpose to your life - never mind that purpose being to tell others they have no purpose to their lives.

I said I would live as I would if I were convinced atheism were true, because I would be convinced there would be no point to my life. Therefore, there would only be two options: either wait for my life to end, or make it end since that would be the inevitable end result anyway.

But I would never go about telling others their lives had no meaning. What good would that do? It would not give my life, or theirs, any more purpose to know it had no purpose.

May as well leave people in their delusions and just wait for the inevitable - or just shoot myself if I felt like it.

All that is part of the mythology, unsupported by anything.

Genetic fallacy.

 

[Farien]

1. The universe has no intrinsic meaning.
2. You can give it meaning.
3. Therefore the universe has meaning.

Hm. Alright. I’ll grant it’s a verifiable conclusion. That does not mean it is true or desirable, though.

Desirable? For whom?

As I’ve made abundantly clear, the meaning of my life in that situation would be either to wait for death to come, or to end as many others’ lives as I could.

Yes, you did. And if you choose the second option, the people will object, and will make your remaining existence rather uncomfortable. If you say that you would not care, then you decieve yourself.

Now, excuse me, but in your model, if we are to follow this logic, who are you to say your meaning is better than mine? What somehow makes desiring pleasure better than desiring death in a universe where death is the only final thing?

As long as you live, you do not have the option. Your own body will fight you, if you try to hold your breath.

Actually, no it doesn’t. Because, first of all, a “decent and ethical” life is either a subjective preference, or it is an intrinsic, extra-scientific standard. Decency and ethics are not intrinsic to our biology. If you look at history, that becomes abundantly clear.

Of course. So what? Most people are not mathematicians and have no idea about the optimal way of conflict resolution (see game theory). That does not mean that there is no optimal solution.

Second, no matter how much pleasure you max out on, whether by hedonism or epicureanism, you will still die, and ultimately all your hard work to derive pleasure will be gone. You cannot feel anything when you are dead.

True, but irrelevant.

I’m quite aware of the two baser motives which lead a person to Heaven - fear of Hell, and desire of Heaven. But there is a third, one all Christians should be (and which I am) shooting for: simply, love of God for Himself. That is, love of the Source. Of Love. Of Life. Of Truth.

So what? If you can love a chimera, that is your business. If you say that you have absolute, positive information that God exists, then you are delusional. In either case, you waste my time. The fact that you capitalize “love”, and “life” and “truth” make it obvious that I am wasting time.

God, by Catholic definitions, is the source of Life. If you are separated from the source of Life, you must necessarily be eternally dying, mustn’t you?

Sorry, nonsensical definitions will not get you any award. I read the catechism, and I am genuinely unimpressed.

But Christianity is true. It has been proven to be so.

If that would be the case, then there would be no need for “faith”.

Sorry, this is getting tedious. And I am bored. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[Pug]

I just read that part of the catechism recently, and I liked it a lot!!! Like, in the end all science will anyway say the same as our faith does, because it is all god’s world.

Honestly, I am not really sure now what made me write that about not tempting God or asking for signs.
It does feel somehow like a lack of trust if we need to “verify” whether our Faith tells the truth. Faith by its intrinsic meaning also implies trust, doesn’t it? Otherwise it would be called knowledge.

Oh, I think I know what you mean. When I tell my husband that the library hours have been changed, so it is not open at X time anymore, it drives me nuts that he won’t believe me until he personally verifies for himself that the hours changed. (Don’t worry, he only sometimes behaves this way! ) It probably pricks my pride that he won’t trust me.

If we are still withholding our trust from God, like our trust is provisional until verified, this may be a problem, faith-wise. It probably wouldn’t be a fun way to live a Christian life, either.

I’d look at this device not as a test, but as a potential source of knowledge, like it could be used to located kidnapped children, if it really worked. That would be an example of digging something up that I mentioned in my post to Farien (though I mostly meant like archeology digging at the time).