OK, let's assume a creator

[Los_Angeles]

But I am asking the exact opposite! The cathecism explicitly says that the God’s existence can be known through reason alone, but it does not say how it can be known. Which one of the hundreds of “proofs” is endorsed by the church? One or more or all of them? Where do I ask for proving a “negative”?

Yes I understand.

Without changing my position that is in agreement with the Catholic Church, I ask anyone reading this to please provide evidence how it is in fact possible to know that there is one God by reason alone. I couldn’t do it myself from my own experience: I needed the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church.

Furthermore when in history has there ever been a society or culture not influenced by revelations from God via the Jewish or Catholics that has arrived at the concept of one God by reason alone?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Spock]

You find as “empty” the Catechism’s statement regarding the ability to know with certainty** how **can one know God’s existence. With this I agree.

Thank you.

On the other hand, because the CERTAINTY with which you proclaim the futility of finding a “non-revelation type” argument for God’s existence exceeds the CERTAINTY with which one can know God’s existence, your position stands on the fine line of hypocrisy.

Your rebuke is taken, cheerfully. I will have to amend what I said: “I have never seen a proof for God’s existence, which would lead to the existence of a ‘deistic’ type of god, which would be convincing for me”. Is this sufficiently humble? I have to add, that several times I explicitly stated that I only speak for myself, even if I put forth my ideas in a general fashion.

Furthermore, where you confronted with an argument proposing HOW God might exist, I am CERTAIN that you would dismiss it with a hand-waving response, which I would attribute to the lack the seriousness for a truly intellectual dialogue or the lack of the intellectual wherewithal to engage one.

I offer in evidence for my opinion posts #30, #60, and #84 on this thread.

I went back and read those posts again. I fail to see how my response qualifies as “hand-waving dismissal”. I took your post seriously, and analyzed it seriously, and responded to those points which I found in error. And I explained why I found them erroneous. What is “hand-waving” about this? I hope you don’t mean that only uncritical acceptance would qualify as “non-hand-waving”. You say that you are “CERTAIN” that I would dismiss anything and everything with some “hand-waving”. If this is your honest opinion, then I would suggest to ignore my posts. Why would you waste your time in engaging in a conversation with someone who will dismiss your argument, not matter how pertinent and correct they are?

 

[Spock]

I also find it dubious that you have personally analyzed every single argument for God, under professional tutelage, and deemed through the perfect use of your reason that all are faulty.

There are not too many. I read them and discussed them here. So far all the ones were faulty.

The Church does not endorse a highly specific argument, because she leaves it up to reason, which is a human trait. It is our responsibility to use reason to determine whether God exists.

That does not wash. The church has many theologians and philosophers, who put the cathecism together. The cathecism is supposed to be the tool to teach the people about catholicism. It is supposed to be the official clarification to aid and assist the general public. To be vague concerning a topic of such high importance is inexcusable.

Those theologians and philosophers are supposed to have spent a lot of time to separate the wheat from the chaff, and therefore they are the “authority”. When I ask some hard questions, I am frequently told: “this is the official stance of the church”. And when I look for the “meat”, I find nothing specific. Just some generic assertions.

I am going to do some admitted speculation here. There are no specifics, because the writers of the cathecism do not want to be caught with their “pants down”. They are aware of the holes in those so-called proofs. Yes, this is a speculation on my part, nothing more. But I find it highly plausible.

 

[Spock]

Well, I could not find the page. Oh well… I disagree with your definition though. (It is not a definition though. It is just an example with variables. Perhaps, the “higher degree” is your definition?) I am not superior to you in martial arts. I am just better. I am not superior to you in playing and teaching trumpet. I am just better. As far as creator/creation goes, I am not superior to my mom or dad in martial arts. I am just WAY better.

If we cannot agree on such a simple concept, how can we agree on more complicated ones? “Better” or “way better” is “superior” - as far as I am concerned. If you wish to use “better”, “stronger”, “smarter”, “more capable” instead of “superior”, that is fine by me. I don’t know what your problem is with “superior”…

 

[Spock]

Admittedly, that site was pretty comical. But, as you stated, none of those are nowhere near what the argument says. There are “non-revelation” types of arguments out there. (I will assume that “non-relevation” means “non-biblical” but correct me if I am wrong.) There are plenty of them. But, when it comes to proving God, the intellectual assent is unsatisfactory. I have never heard of anybody saying, “This argument is irrefutable. Therefore, God exists.”

That is what I wanted to express.

And your last sentence says your conviction already. There is nothing any being in existence can do about that… Or is there?

Since I am not omniscient, there could be. I should have said: “I have never seen one”.

 

[Spock]

Yes I understand.

Without changing my position that is in agreement with the Catholic Church, I ask anyone reading this to please provide evidence how it is in fact possible to know that there is one God by reason alone. I couldn’t do it myself from my own experience: I needed the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church.

Let’s wait and see. Theoretically it is possible. We can start with an existing phenomenon, make inferences from it, and at the end of logical chain we can arrive at the notion of a creator. But it is important not to make unsupported assumptions, like “everything that started to exist, must have an external cause for its existence” (this is just an example of a faulty starting point).

 

[Los_Angeles]

Let’s wait and see. Theoretically it is possible. We can start with an existing phenomenon, make inferences from it, and at the end of logical chain we can arrive at the notion of a creator.

Yes Spock, but this is my point: all of us Catholics and Athiests included in this discussion that are familiar with Christianity already know the goal of what we are trying to prove - one God that is personal, as the Catechism says.

I am wondering if anyone is aware of there ever having been a society or religion that from purely human reason alone arrived at a Christian or Jewish concept of God totally independent of revelations from Jews or Christians.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[Spock]

Spock:

There are, for the Catholic, two different kinds of causation. The first, and most primary type is that of creation. (And, I already proved to you that the definition a Catholic uses has considerably more propriety than any of the newer derivatives.) Allow me now to begin by explaining the difference between a cause and a principle. A principle is that from which anything flows in any manner whatsoever. - Summa Theologica, I, q. 33, a. 1. “Principle” comes from the Latin word principium, which means “beginning”. For example, a point is the beginning or principle of a line. A principle, therefore, is a source or starting point. It implies a process and an order within that process. A principle is not necessarily a cause, although it may be a cause as a parent is a cause of a child. But, as in the earlier example of the point and the line, the point is not the cause of the line.

A principle implies orderly origin; but it does not imply dependence. Cause, on the other hand, necessarily involves dependence. Indeed, a cause is a principle, but it is a principle from which anything proceeds with dependence. In other words, the effect depends upon the cause for its being or for its coming-to-be. Now, that which is dependent upon its antecedent for its being or coming-to-be cannot be greater than its antecedent. It may be or become superior in some respect, but, not in any essential respect. For example, a child may grow to be taller than his father.

Although it seems as though we ought to be able to use a computer building another computer as a counterexample, we cannot. The procedent computer is dependent upon the antecedent computer, if not completely for its being, it is at least dependent upon it for its coming-to-be. With the exception of the universe’s dependence on its creator for its being, this is precisely the relationship the universe has with its creator. It is dependent upon its creator not only for its being, but also for its coming-to-be.

While the procedent computer may be said to be greater than its antecedent, it can’t be – precisely because it is dependent upon it for its being or its coming-to-be. It is illogical to conclude that the antecedent computer is somehow less superior than its effect if the effect is dependent upon it for its being or its coming-to-be.

In the same way, either computer is dependent upon its maker(s). It is dependent upon its maker(s) for its being and for its coming-to-be. A maker can unplug it and smash it to smithereens, or, the maker can simply refuse to build it.

The creator of the universe must be greater than its creation. (In anticipation of an obvious rebuttal, by asserting that the universe is self-sustaining, I would suggest that this would be nothng more than a naked assertion, devoid of logic, and devoid of science.)

We simply do not speak the same language.

Your definition of “superior” is different from mine. To say that the antecedent creator is “superior” to the creation, just because without the creator the creation would not come into existence is arbitrary, irrelevant and nonsensical for me. Using your father-son example: the son can be smarter, stronger, healthier, more handsome, more successful, more “virtuous”, etc, etc… in other words, the son is superior to the father in every respect. To say that the father is “superior”, because without the father the son would nor come into existence is completely irrational - for me. As I said, we don’t use the same the language. And I don’t care if your usage is the “officially accepted Catholic usage”, or simply your own. What you say makes not sense at all - for me. (And I have to add this, every time, it seems, so there will be no misunderstanding. It sure is boring to be forced to add such an obvious disclaimer every friggin’ time).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

But it is important not to make unsupported assumptions, like “everything that started to exist, must have an external cause for its existence” (this is just an example of a faulty starting point).

This is not unsupported. Its a necessary expression of rationality, like out of nothing comes nothing.

 

[Spock]

This is not unsupported. Its a necessary expression of rationality, like out of nothing comes nothing.

There are two errors here. I am not going to point them out here, because that would derail the thread. In another thread I will be happy to point them out to you.

 

[Abba]

I am wondering if anyone is aware of there ever having been a society or religion that from purely human reason alone arrived at a Christian or Jewish concept of God totally independent of revelations from Jews or Christians.

Yes, I am.

I would say that Socrates and Plato did exactly that, that is, to arrive at the recognition of One (God). I think they may have even tasted the idea of a personal God. I think Plato and Socrates were able to advance so much and come so close to the Truth because God himself, who is the one who reveals himself to whomever he wishes and gives wisdom of himself to whomever he wishes, blessed Socrates and Plato with the grace. The Crito concludes: “Soc. Then let me follow the intimations of the will of God.” classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

Note, there are a bunch of atheists in the intellectual world who are trying to turn Plato upside down to suit their interests. Beware. For example, there is the famous Professor Barbara Nussbaum who claims Plato gave up the idea of the One in her book the Fragility of Goodness. She writes down how to read Plato with certain particular interests in mind (this of course she does not admit) and pretends that it makes sense and it is still Plato. Pure, yet, eloquent hallucinations. If there is a crime that can be spoken of in the intellectual arena is exactly that committed in that book! It would be better if it comes to be known as the F.O.G. as a British man once re-titled it. Lol, those British have a knack for these things.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

Ditto.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

If we cannot agree on such a simple concept, how can we agree on more complicated ones? “Better” or “way better” is “superior” - as far as I am concerned. If you wish to use “better”, “stronger”, “smarter”, “more capable” instead of “superior”, that is fine by me. I don’t know what your problem is with “superior”…

I have no problem with “superior”. I just have the problem with your definition is all. Nothing more than that. This has been my point for a few pages now.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

We simply do not speak the same language.

Your definition of “superior” is different from mine. To say that the antecedent creator is “superior” to the creation, just because without the creator the creation would not come into existence is arbitrary, irrelevant and nonsensical for me. Using your father-son example: the son can be smarter, stronger, healthier, more handsome, more successful, more “virtuous”, etc, etc… in other words, the son is superior to the father in every respect. To say that the father is “superior”, because without the father the son would nor come into existence is completely irrational - for me. As I said, we don’t use the same the language. And I don’t care if your usage is the “officially accepted Catholic usage”, or simply your own. What you say makes not sense at all - for me. (And I have to add this, every time, it seems, so there will be no misunderstanding. It sure is boring to be forced to add such an obvious disclaimer every friggin’ time).

Personally, I am just saying that (in this case) the son cannot be superior in any respect. (I cannot speak for others on here.) That does not necessarily mean that the son has to be inferior though.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Yes, I am.

I would say that Socrates and Plato did exactly that, that is, to arrive at the recognition of One (God). I think they may have even tasted the idea of a personal God. I think Plato and Socrates were able to advance so much and come so close to the Truth because God himself, who is the one who reveals himself to whomever he wishes and gives wisdom of himself to whomever he wishes, blessed Socrates and Plato with the grace. The Crito concludes: “Soc. Then let me follow the intimations of the will of God.” classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

Note, there are a bunch of atheists in the intellectual world who are trying to turn Plato upside down to suit their interests. Beware. For example, there is the famous Professor Barbara Nussbaum who claims Plato gave up the idea of the One in her book the Fragility of Goodness. She writes down how to read Plato with certain particular interests in mind (this of course she does not admit) and pretends that it makes sense and it is still Plato. Pure, yet, eloquent hallucinations. If there is a crime that can be spoken of in the intellectual arena is exactly that committed in that book! It would be better if it comes to be known as the F.O.G. as a British man once re-titled it. Lol, those British have a knack for these things.

Great! Thanks for that info.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[JDaniel]

We simply do not speak the same language.

Your definition of “superior” is different from mine. To say that the antecedent creator is “superior” to the creation, just because without the creator the creation would not come into existence is arbitrary, irrelevant and nonsensical for me.

That is your entire problem: you want to use your own exquisite whim to define the words of philosophy. This is a philosophy forum. If you can’t grapple with the words used by our predecessor philosophers, perhaps you shouldn’t be here.

Using your father-son example: the son can be smarter, stronger, healthier, more handsome, more successful, more “virtuous”, etc, etc… in other words, the son is superior to the father in every respect. To say that the father is “superior”, because without the father the son would nor come into existence is completely irrational - for me.

And that is precisely why you believe the computer to be “superior” to the builder.

As I said, we don’t use the same the language. And I don’t care if your usage is the “officially accepted Catholic usage”, or simply your own. What you say makes not sense at all - for me.

And, that is why your belief that the computer is superior to the builder makes no sense to me.

(And I have to add this, every time, it seems, so there will be no misunderstanding. It sure is boring to be forced to add such an obvious disclaimer every friggin’ time).

Then, Spock, our dialog is finished. But, that is perhaps what you want.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

That is your entire problem: you want to use your own exquisite whim to define the words of philosophy. This is a philosophy forum. If you can’t grapple with the words used by our predecessor philosophers, perhaps you shouldn’t be here.

Why don’t you bring up the supporting evidence from “philosophers” who agree with your “definition”? Mine is supported at that link:

websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/superior?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=superior&sa=Search#922

1. Of high or superior quality or performance; “superior wisdom derived from experience”; “superior math students”.[Wordnet]
2. Of or characteristic of high rank or importance; “a superior ruler”.[Wordnet]
3. (sometimes followed by `to’) not subject to or influenced by; “overcome by a superior opponent”; “trust magnates who felt themselves superior to law”.[Wordnet]
4. Written or printed above and to one side of another character.[Wordnet]
5. Having an orbit farther from the sun than the Earth’s orbit; “Mars and Jupiter are the closest in of the superior planets”.[Wordnet]
6. Having a higher rank; “superior officer”.[Wordnet]
7. (often followed by `to’) above being affected or influenced by; “he is superior to fear”; “an ignited firework proceeds superior to circumstances until its blazing vitality fades”.[Wordnet]
8. Belonging to the part of an axillary flower which is toward the main stem; posterior.[Websters]
9. Above the ovary; – said of parts of the flower which, although normally below the ovary, adhere to it, and so appear to originate from its upper part; also of an ovary when the other floral organs are plainly below it in position, and free from it.[Websters]
10. More comprehensive; as a term in classification; as, a genus is superior to a species.[Websters]
11. Beyond the power or influence of; too great or firm to be subdued or affected by; – with to.[Websters]
12. Higher or greater in excellence; surpassing others in the greatness, or value of any quality; greater in quality or degree; as, a man of superior merit; or of superior bravery.[Websters]
13. Higher in rank or office; more exalted in dignity; as, a superior officer; a superior degree of nobility.[Websters]
14. More elevated in place or position; higher; upper; as, the superior limb of the sun; the superior part of an image.[Websters]
15. Pointing toward the apex of the fruit; ascending; – said of the radicle.[Websters]
16. Adjective base of the adverb superiorly.[Eve - graph theoretic]
    I looked at all the available definitions, and nowhere have I seen that “the creator is always superior to the created, because the created could not exist without the creator”.

Then, Spock, our dialog is finished. But, that is perhaps what you want.

No, I did not want that, but I will have to accept it. Having spent a lot of time around here, so far I have never met anyone, who did not distort the meaning of simple, everyday words, and refused to admit it. So, maybe it is futile for me to hang around. I will think about it.

 

[In_Spiration]

I smell a possible fallacy.

By the way, Spock, you never did address my post on page #2. However, I’m not going to press you on it or anything, since I’ve been too busy to engage in anything like the back-n-forths others have offered. Just throwin’ it out there, in case you missed it.

 

[JVSantos]

“An overweening desire for knowledge brings many distractions and much delusion.
Many like to be considered learned and to be praised for their wisdow; how much knowledge there is which adds nothing to the good of the soul!”

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Why don’t you bring up the supporting evidence from “philosophers” who agree with your “definition”? Mine is supported at that link:

websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/superior?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=superior&sa=Search#922

No, I did not want that, but I will have to accept it. Having spent a lot of time around here, so far I have never met anyone, who did not distort the meaning of simple, everyday words, and refused to admit it. So, maybe it is futile for me to hang around. I will think about it.

This last paragraph is an utter statement of hubris. How are you so sure YOU were not distorting any meanings of simple, everyday word and refusing to admit it?

We can pick 1 definition from that list and we will STILL disagree. I think the creation CANNOT be superior in ANY respect from any of those definitions. You think the creation CAN be superior in ANY respect from any of those definitions. I completely disagree with your use of it and you disagree with my use. The difference between us is that you refuse to see it how I see it. I know how you see it which is exactly the reason why I agree that with the way YOU are using it, you are right. I just disagree with how you are using it.

Perhaps, some people did distort it. I certainly did not. I do not think you did either. But, you are the close-minded one here. I kept saying that with your use of superior YOU are right. With my use, I am right. But you insist that I am wrong without even looking at just maybe I am right with my use because fact is, I AM right with my usage of the word “superior”.

You are not superior to anybody here in logic. Certainly not me. We are on the same grounds here. If we disagree with a simple definition, then clearly it will eternally be a moot point. Move on. Continue the debate somewhere else. But, do not be condescending in saying that we are the ones distorting reality because for you, reality is already distorted. If you think I am being mean, then I am sorry. I am really not. I am just saying how it is. You are no better than nobody here. And nobody here is better than you. Certainly not me. You can say that you are not claiming to be better, but your words certainly do not show it. You might say the same for me, but that is far from the truth. I just want everybody on the same level because everybody IS on the same level. I was atheist. I know how condescending they are and not willing to accept that perhaps they are not seeing something everybody else does.

Sorry… I just want fairness here. Your original plan was to just use logic and reason. I gave it and you ignored it. (I realize you have your hands full with other posts but this is your thread. Certainly, you would have known that Catholics were going to chime in.) For other people on here, you just say they are wrong and do very little to provide logical proof. If there is a disagreement, you posit that the other person is dead wrong and give the same exact reason when that reason is already objected.

You wanted to see how logical we are. Frankly, I have seen how illogical you are and do not be insulted because clearly you see how illogical we are by saying we are wrong with most things (if not everything) we say. Admit it. Both sides have bias. As for me, the only bias I give is that I call my Creator (several pages ago) God. What difference does it make though that I call this Creator God? Go back and reread my position. Perhaps, you might disagree still but you can at least show me some respect and see how I got to those conclusions. I gave 0 auxilary assumptions. Perhaps one but I explained why it was not auxilary.

 

[Abba]

I am happy to acknowledge that some people in your camp agree with me.

Dear Spock, greetings to you,

May the peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and may the Holy Spirit illuminate your thoughts.

Spock, what do you say we clean up this thread a little bit and get back to business?

Let’s begin by addressing the ‘camp’ business. This misconception is a perfect example of an equivocation. I am not participating in this thread as a member of a team that is out to beat you and prove you wrong. NOT ME. I don’t have time to play those games. I hope you are not participating to win and prove or convince yourself that you are correct in your thinking. I hope that you are participating with a genuine interest to find out if you are correct or incorrect. If we truly set on a journey to seek truth, not pretend to be doing so nor to be playing games, it stands to reason that we must proceed with an open mind. Otherwise, what is the point? Now, it seems as though you are participating in this forum to compare and evaluate your understandings with those of Catholics teachings and understandings. You want to evaluate your reasoning and understandings and weight them out. Well, let us see.

I also want to clarify for you that no member here has the authority to ask you to leave. I hope you do not feel any pressure to do so. I am Catholic and I do not have more authority on this forum than you do. People are free to participate in the threads they want to and no one is oblige to participate in any particular thread. I am particularly enjoying your company very much. I am more interested in discussing with you than with Catholics right now. To paraphrase from my unpublished manuscript; you are my poorest of the poor. I am so blessed and my heart is filled with joy, peace, love and wisdom - I am rich. The reason this is the case is because I know certain things that you do not know. I hope you do not take offense in what I have shared. I just want to let you know that I am very interested in your threads, I hope I wasn’t too clumsy in expressing myself. I want to help you find the truths that you are seeking. I do not mean this in a condescending manner.

I am participating in this thread to help you come to recognize the existence of God and help you to address some of the ‘perceived’ intellectual obstacles that you are confronting in order to clear the way for you to come to recognize truths that not even Socrates and Plato had the blessing to know and acknowledge. I cannot find the place in the Bible right now, but, somewhere in the New Testament it is written something to the effect that the people who were alive in the time of Jesus were greatly blessed because many before them wish to have come to know so much (and Socrates and Plato always come to my mind when I read that little section).

There is something else that needs to be ironed out, that is that you are not taking responsibility for being the first one to compare a human being to another and deduce that one is ‘superior’ to the other. I don’t want to review the thread right now, but, it is in there. To clean this thread, we need to eliminate arguments that are discarded and not pretend they were never there etc…Also, you need to address certain assumptions for which you have not provided logical deductions, you cannot just ignore an objection and keep going.

Finally, I continue to agree with you regarding that something can **‘create’ **something that can do a function better than the ‘creator’ and to use your own example, children may be able to do something better than their parents (e.g. mathematics). What needs to be clarified here is the inapplicability of your analogies to certain wider concepts. Remember, one thing is to CREATE and another is to COMBINE from already existing matter, yet another, is to DISCOVER. Until you iron these things out, this thread is not going to advance.

You have been and continue to be in my humble prayers,

Peace,

Abba

P.s. Spock, you are not being as logical as you think that you are being. Someday, you may come back to this thread and notice. Then again, you can re-read it and rectify certain things so we can carry on. At least, if I cannot contribute, I would like to keep reading it if it advances.