Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter blase6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
davidv said:
Because it is a Divine institution that was promised by God to receive all truth.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you can only cite the Church’s message to defend that it is certainly true! Before one can accept it as certainly true it has to be shown from absolute logic that for it to not be certainly true is impossible.
 
blase6 said:
The problem is that you can only cite the Church’s message to defend that it is certainly true! Before one can accept it as certainly true it has to be shown from absolute logic that for it to not be certainly true is impossible.
Click to expand...
Why is this a problem? Why do you think I can “only cite the Church’s message to defend that it is certainly true”?

My gift of faith says it is not a problem.
 
davidv said:
Why is this a problem? Why do you think I can “only cite the Church’s message to defend that it is certainly true”?

My gift of faith says it is not a problem.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between faith and logically certain knowledge. But lots of people here don’t get that.
 
blase6 said:
Because faith involves living as if an uncertain set of facts is true. If there is certain knowledge, no faith is necessary to believe it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a strange argument from one who claims there is no certain knowledge of anything.

Also this is pretty strange definition of faith.
 
davidv said:
Sounds like a strange argument from one who claims there is no certain knowledge of anything.

Also this is pretty strange definition of faith.
Click to expand...
It is not a strange definition of faith. I do not claim that there cannot be certain knowledge of anything. I can start with the self evidence of existence being real. Then I can say that since I think and experience, that I must be real. My experiences in themselves are real. But the thought of an external world and anything in such a world, is beyond what I can know for certain.

I see that it is most reasonable to act as if God exists, and that is the wisest course of action. But I cannot say for sure if my beliefs correspond to reality certainly. That cannot be tested.
 
blase6 said:
It is not a strange definition of faith. I do not claim that there cannot be certain knowledge of anything. I can start with the self evidence of existence being real. Then I can say that since I think and experience, that I must be real. My experiences in themselves are real. But the thought of an external world and anything in such a world, is beyond what I can know for certain.

I see that it is most reasonable to act as if God exists, and that is the wisest course of action. But I cannot say for sure if my beliefs correspond to reality certainly. That cannot be tested.
Click to expand...
How many will follow you to heaven with this kind of teaching?
 
davidv said:
How many will follow you to heaven with this kind of teaching?
Click to expand...
Simply, if people accept Pascal’s Wager, which shows that it is better to live as if God exists than not, and develop their character in accordance with this thought, then reasonable people would be motivated to believe in God.
 
blase6 said:
Simply, if people accept Pascal’s Wager, which shows that it is better to live as if God exists than not, and develop their character in accordance with this thought, then reasonable people would be motivated to believe in God.
Click to expand...
You didn’t propose Pascal’s Wager. You were lamenting lack of certainty. If certainty is lacking why would anyone accept the wager?
 
davidv said:
You didn’t propose Pascal’s Wager. You were lamenting lack of certainty. If certainty is lacking why would anyone accept the wager?
Click to expand...
The wager does not provide certainty. It just shows how assuming that something uncertain is true is the best option.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Sounds like a rash judgment to me, which also falls under a commandment.
Click to expand...
A few years’ back, I saw a thread where a couple of Catholics were earnestly discussing quantum physical explanations of transubstantiation. Now I don’t believe in transubstantiation, but that still seemed very sad to me.

You might say that on the other hand it’s fine to explain the Eucharist using medieval concepts like substances and natures. But with both that and the quarks all I see are reductionists who can’t live with mysteries, and reductionists are reductionists whatever the century.

So to all those who cannot abide the mystery of an undeserved Gift, and wish to rationalize it away with their philosophy, I say no, Christians preach Christ crucified. ‘Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."’ 🙂
 
inocente said:
seemed very sad to me.
Click to expand...
Not for nothing, but do you “ever” post without insulting someone? What is sad “specifically”?

I heard more about Linus this week than I heard any logical responses.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Not for nothing, but do you “ever” post without insulting someone? What is sad “specifically”?

I heard more about Linus this week than I heard any logical responses.
Click to expand...
I’m just a loveable little fuzz ball :D. Inocente really loves me, without me to punch around life would been just too booing :D.

Linus2nd
 
inocente said:
A few years’ back, I saw a thread where a couple of Catholics were earnestly discussing quantum physical explanations of transubstantiation. Now I don’t believe in transubstantiation, but that still seemed very sad to me.

You might say that on the other hand it’s fine to explain the Eucharist using medieval concepts like substances and natures. But with both that and the quarks all I see are reductionists who can’t live with mysteries, and reductionists are reductionists whatever the century.

So to all those who cannot abide the mystery of an undeserved Gift, and wish to rationalize it away with their philosophy, I say no, Christians preach Christ crucified. ‘Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."’ 🙂
Click to expand...
What the Catholic Church teaches is certainly no concern of non-Catholics. And to accuse the Church of " reductionist " thinking amounts to an ad hominem slurr which violates the rules here. And to accuse the Church of rationalizing amounts to the same thing.

So no, the Church is teaching exactly what Christ taught. He was pretty specific in what he said, he had a chance to back out of its meaning and he refused to do so, even though many of his disciples " no longer followed him. " Perhaps you should re-read John’s discourse on the Eucharist and think about it some more. 🙂

Linus2nd
 
blase6 said:
The wager does not provide certainty. It just shows how assuming that something uncertain is true is the best option.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you think about it, people do make their ideological choices based upon Pascal’s wager. It’s just that in addition to evaluating the risk/reward ratio of any belief system, they also factor in its likelihood of being true. If you think that a particular belief system is intellectually untenable, then there’s no need to be concerned about its risk/reward ratio. Thus Christians can disregard Islam, Jews can disregard Hinduism, and atheists can disregard theism, because each considers the likelihood of the other being true, as inconsequential.

And voila, the world is the way it is, because everyone thinks that they’re right. Or perhaps more accurately, everyone thinks that you’re wrong. Or perhaps even more accurately, you can’t prove that I’m wrong, therefore my ideology is just as valid as your ideology.

So given such a backdrop of subjective truth, what’s the best ideology of all…do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.

If done correctly, you could call this being a Christian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top