Please explain

[Linusthe2nd]

Because that is the job of professional and amateur philosophers.

It is not an argument. It is an observation.

And it is not even a unique observation. Think about many other areas: evolution, global warming, any number of conspiracy theories, Monty Hall problem… I am pretty sure that you have some opinion (at the moment it doesn’t matter what that opinion is) about at least some of those questions. There are arguments that you consider persuasive. Yet many people are not persuaded by them. Why? Don’t you think that the real cause for that is “ignorance, bad will, moral corruption, etc.”?

Whenever you see “But they are financed by X!”, the observation is of a similar type.

If the fact that someone is not persuaded by the argument must always mean problem with the argument and not with the listener, there wouldn’t be many good arguments left for anything…

And in this case we have at least one source that was given incorrectly. That is sloppy research. Are you certain that it is the only instance…?

Well said. How many understand Quantum Mechanics or even Calculus or Chemistry or computer programming. I have to admit ignorance to all of these .

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Are there no philosophers in the church? If the “task” of the church is to bring the “good news” to everyone (including those atheists who only listen to reason and shun “faith” and “revelation”) then it is the bare minimum to tailor the arguments to the level of understanding of the audience. The ones who reject the existing arguments are millions… some of average intelligence, some on the level of Mensa, some in-between and some are below average intelligence. But they all have one thing in common, they all reject the unsubstantiated claims of “faith”, and they are all willing to listen to the arguments of reason. Where are those arguments?

If the church has those compelling arguments but does not share it with us, then it does not fulfill its mission. It cannot say: “but you are too dumb to understand my superior arguments, so I will not even bother to share them”. Let’s hear them and then we can start a meaningful conversation. Are you in the position to argue for the church? We are ready to listen.

MPat can answer for him/her self but I have a comment or two. You objection seems unfair. Have you gone all through the philosophy, apologetic, and theological forums? Have you been listening to CA on the radio each evening? Have you been watching or listening to EWTN? Have you looked at " Strange Notions, " strangenotions.com/ ? Take a look at the story of the atheist professor who became Catholic, take a look at the 20 " Proofs " for God’s existence. Have you read the Bible. Have you read CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, St. Augustine, the Fathers of the Church?

Now if you are going to just sit there with you arms folded, a frown on your face, and say, " Prove to me that God exists, I bet you can’t, " what can you really expect from us or the Church? And that is the impression I am getting from your comments. I don’t think you have made much of an effort so far, I think you are just trying to " stir the pot. "

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

A quick google shows that the quote is definitely not from the catechism, which instead makes this claim:

CCC 36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”[sup]11[/sup] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

The claim is not about God’s existence!!! The claim is that God reveals his nature through that which he made (it cites Dei Filius 2, which is headed “Revelation”). So for instance, the orderly laws of nature tell us that God is not capricious.

Another quick google linked to this page which explains the thinking, from a book by Robert Gasgoigne.

I’m not a Catholic, and am also regularly accused by a small minority of posters of being unwashed and ignorant for not accepting so-called “proofs” of God, but I don’t think they reflect the teaching of the Church. If you read chapter 3 of Dei Filius, it also obstinately refuses “proofs” in favor of faith through grace:

Answer:

Forgive us, we don’t know it all either, so we progress slowly and cautiously being aware of our own fallibility, and humbly accept our limitations. So we try our best, and keep going.

The claim is about God’s existence, before we can know about God, we must necessarily know that He exists. We can know by the light of human reason that God does exist, but it is only through Revelation that we know His nature, “I Am Who Am” I am Existence Existence is prior to knowledge about God. We discover by right reason, right logic, objective truth regarding the Universe of the existence of God.

The order in the laws of nature are one of the true effects that lead to a demonstration of His existence. and Divine Intelligence For order to exist there must be a cause, or orderer. When considering the Universe the order is so great, and far reaching that it could only be attributed to a “Divine Intelligence”, an Intelligent Designer we call :God" The effects are true ways to get to the First Cause. Once we get to the unCaused Cause which is alway prior to the effect, we get to God. The Universe can not cause itself, if it did, it would have always existed, and this is contrary to human experience, the criterion of all our knowledge., and contrary to right logic.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I think you have read the Catechism with a prejudiced mind ( I don’t mean in a hostile mind necessarily but more with the idea that you were going to object to every thing you could conceivably object to, a kind of game ).

No, that is unfair. I have my prejudices - just like everyone else - but I am open to rational arguments. I have learned many new things from both theists and atheists alike, and when their arguments made sense, I happily abandoned my incorrect notions and preconceptions.

And if the task of a university is to teach, let’s say, Mathematics to every student, then “it is the bare minimum to tailor the arguments to the level of understanding of the audience”…?

Of course! You cannot teach calculus to someone who has not mastered algebra. But no level of knowledge is needed to show that a rock exists. It is evident to anyone. And if someone is a solipsist and denies it, all you have to do is hit him on the head with it.

Search and you will find. Forums, blogs, scholary papers…

Ah, but that is the ultimate cop-out. But you are wrong. I already did. Looked at Aquinas, Molina, Duns Scotus, Kreeft, Feser, etc… and all of them were found wanting. I am already past this open-ended search. That is why I am asking if there is any specific, OFFICIAL text to support what the catechism asserts. The church does not even have an OFFICIAL philosophy.

Also, let’s not forget that you are not complaining that arguments are not available (they are available and you have even said that you have read them, although you do not like them).

It is not a matter of “liking”. I found all of them erroneous and as such incorrect.

You are complaining that you didn’t find the arguments in some short summary of teaching of the Church.

If an ailment has ten different “cures”, then it has no actual cure. The buzzword is not “short” it is OFFICIALLY endorsed.

 

[Hee_Zen]

MPat can answer for him/her self but I have a comment or two. You objection seems unfair. Have you gone all through the philosophy, apologetic, and theological forums? Have you been listening to CA on the radio each evening? Have you been watching or listening to EWTN? Have you looked at " Strange Notions, " strangenotions.com/ ? Take a look at the story of the atheist professor who became Catholic, take a look at the 20 " Proofs " for God’s existence. Have you read the Bible. Have you read CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, St. Augustine, the Fathers of the Church?

Why ALL? Do you actually admit that they are ALL deficient in some respect? That one needs to read EVERY text? I probably read more than the average Joe Schmoe. And I have a decent IQ to comprehend what I read.

Now if you are going to just sit there with you arms folded, a frown on your face, and say, " Prove to me that God exists, I bet you can’t, " what can you really expect from us or the Church?

I expected someone to show that the claim in the catechism namely that “God can be known by pure reason (without faith and revelation) from the created things” is not just an empty claim, that it has some “meat” behind it. .

And that is the impression I am getting from your comments. I don’t think you have made much of an effort so far, I think you are just trying to " stir the pot. "

You jumped to premature conclusions. Well, using your metaphor, the pot does not smell like roses.

 

[inocente]

The difference is just “fluff”. What it says is that “God… can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason”. The rest is just a “filler”, with VALUE (LOW-VALUE) as it would be stated in COBOL .

COBOL? Are you talking to me from 1968? Tune in, turn on, drop out. Not so much natural reason as a natural mystic blowing through the air (Bob Marley methinks).

It is an indirect claim. It asserts that God’s "EXISTENCE" can be known by using only reason, without revelation and without faith. I was asking about the “how”?

Is “indirect claim” Cobol for “clutching at straws”.

Not really. it does not. The orderly laws of nature do not point to any creator. Many people confuse “order” with “design” - but that only shows their lack of understanding.

Agreed, but if there is a God then the orderly laws of nature tell us something about him.

If there is no God then fine, we need to explain the orderliness in some other way. For instance the multiverse, an infinite number of other regions where the physical constants are not quite right for life to develop. That’s an explanation. Whether an infinite number of universes is a better explanation than one god is a matter of opinion. What’s your explanation?

 

[Hee_Zen]

COBOL? Are you talking to me from 1968?

I was around back then, yes. Unfortunately COBOL is still widely used in business programming. (Yuck!) But my point was that the difference between the precise quote and my quote has no informational value (LOW-VALUE). I quoted the important part, but omitted the “chaff”.

Agreed, but if there is a God then the orderly laws of nature tell us something about him.

And so does the Ebols virus, leprosy, malaria… etc. But the question is still the same: “is there a fully rational demonstration of God’s existence” without referring to faith and revelation? Without worrying about the specific attributes that God allegedly has? Just the basic question, how can one know (not assume, but KNOW) that there is God?

If there is no God then fine, we need to explain the orderliness in some other way.

No, we do not. Any explanation is a reduction of something to something even more fundamental. And the Universe is the ontological foundation of everything and as such the final ontological entity - the basis of all explanations. It plays the same role as the axioms in the formal systems. One cannot question the validity of axioms. One cannot ask: “why these axioms, and not others”? Axioms are what they are. The Universe is what it is. There is no infinite descent in explanations, one must stop somewhere.

Believers stop at God. Atheists stop at the universe. To go past the universe to God can be summarized as: “an unknowable being using unfathomable methods made the universe somehow happen”. And they offer it as an “explanation”! It is the absolute antithesis of an “explanation”, it says that explanation is impossible now and forever.

For instance the multiverse, an infinite number of other regions where the physical constants are not quite right for life to develop. That’s an explanation. Whether an infinite number of universes is a better explanation than one god is a matter of opinion. What’s your explanation?

As I said right above, there is none, and there is no need for one.

 

[inocente]

You are mincing words. The Church as the one source for defining and handing Christ’s Revelation in faith and morals, does not know a specific " proof " for God’s existence. But following St. Paul and other instances in Scripture, the Church merely states that such is the case, that there are " converging and convincing arfguments," which allow us to attain certainty about the truth, that God exists, and that he is a personal God, and that he is the principle and origin of all that exists. You confuse these proofs with scientific proofs. The Church says that these are not scientific truths but ways of coming to God, they may easily be rejected or remain unknown to certain people for a variety of reasons. You seem to be convinced that everyone is capable of understanding these truths, which is not true. And some may recognize their validity and still reject them. So, whether everyone accepts them or not, they are still true - even " as the sun comes down. "

I was responding to your claim that "the Church carefully refuses to mention specifically which arguments are “converging and convincing …] demonstrating God’s existence”. Try reading beyond CCC 31. What’s that in 32-35? It’s the arguments you claim the Church refuses to mention specifically!!!

But we digress, since the OP doesn’t refer to that but is instead a misquote of CCC 36, in the next section, headed THE -]PROOFS/-] KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH.

Not joshing at all. The Church has always said, " God Exists " is an article of faith. All the creeds begin with it. And further, the Church has made it Defined Dogma. So while one can come to a conviction that God exists, from reason, one must still believe it. And one can believe without having reached any sort of knowledge through natural reason.

And you accuse me of mincing. Heh. You do not need a logical proof that someone loves you. You trust they love you. Faith is trust, not logical proof.

We are not talking of " proofs " in the scientific manner but of " converging and convincing arguments. " And indeed they are open to all men except the mentally challenged. See para 30.

I don’t see how that follows from what I said, which was "When the authors of the CCC said “known”, I think we should take them at their word. Otherwise the next sentence doesn’t follow. “Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation”. We don’t need proofs to be able to welcome God’s revelation. But we do need to know who God is to be able to welcome God’s revelation. "

See paras 32-35. You seem fixated on the type of arguments Aquinas makes but there are other kinds of proofs or " converging and convincing arguments. " And certainly God does give all of us to form " converging and convincing arguments, " except the inept or the culpably willfull or stubborn. And " God never makes proofs " is certainly wrong, he made them in the things he has made, they reflect his nature and shout his existence - unless one is blind, stubborn, or culpably willfull.

You seem fixated on implying I’m fixated, when I never mentioned Aquinas or science. But I’m glad you finally found CCC 32-35.

I wouldn’t say they are especially convincing arguments though, since they all concern how human beings, or at least some human beings, think about the world rather than how the world is objectively.

The epithet “blind, stubborn, or culpably willful” is raw ad hominem. It implies that a claim is so abysmally indefensible that bullying opponents into acceptance is the only strategy left. So it’s counter-productive, it doesn’t help your case. Imho.

And it also means that we have an intellect we can use and should use to see God’s existence and nature through the things he has made. And such knowledge prepares us for faith, as the Church says. But if for some reason we have not made the necessary connections between nature and its creator, Faith will serve. God created nature, he meant for us to reflect on that. But some can’t or won’t - and some are just too stubborn to.

This is a strange argument. When a lost soul walks into your church, tell them about Christ. Don’t be embarrassed, don’t try to make it intellectual, God is not a passive subject to be debated. Let God into their heart, help God act in them. Surely?

Well. What did he say that you thought so important.

And reeling from finding out that the author he dismissed is actually a professor in the Department of Theology and Philosophy at a Catholic University, Linus tried to cover his retreat.

It was no biggy, I thought Gasgoigne does a good job of explaining the theology.

And note you have not cited any source for your interpretation.

No. A " proof " does not lead us to love, only Faith does that. And we are saved through Love, called Charity.

I think that’s what I said,. Nice to see you’ve come round.

Besos
Lucy (psychiatric help 5 cents)

 

[inocente]

The claim is about God’s existence, before we can know about God, we must necessarily know that He exists. We can know by the light of human reason that God does exist, but it is only through Revelation that we know His nature, “I Am Who Am” I am Existence Existence is prior to knowledge about God. We discover by right reason, right logic, objective truth regarding the Universe of the existence of God.

I see a few problems here. We don’t need to know that God exists in order to be able to say what God would be if He does exist. We could be agnostic, and still ask what kind of god does monotheism claim? We can rule out lots of possibilities and home in on what such a god must necessarily be like without even asking whether that god exists. And also, lots of people just believe in God without needing any logical argument.

The order in the laws of nature are one of the true effects that lead to a demonstration of His existence. and Divine Intelligence For order to exist there must be a cause, or orderer. When considering the Universe the order is so great, and far reaching that it could only be attributed to a “Divine Intelligence”, an Intelligent Designer we call :God" The effects are true ways to get to the First Cause. Once we get to the unCaused Cause which is alway prior to the effect, we get to God. The Universe can not cause itself, if it did, it would have always existed, and this is contrary to human experience, the criterion of all our knowledge., and contrary to right logic.

Only trouble is, this is close to a god-of-the-gaps argument, where god stands in for what we can’t explain. And as our knowledge increases, as it surely must, this god has less and less to do. A thousand years ago some people thought God had angels push the Sun across the sky. Then the angels were put out of a job when we learned more.

 

[Sarcelle]

Created things may also be understood as the order that exists in the universe. I am a scientist, and when I contemplate nature, from its most basic laws to its most complex behavior, I see such beauty, symmetry, and “rightness” that I am convinced that it was created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and loving God.

As Droning Mary wrote, different people have different ways of understanding the order of creation. A non-scientist may look at the starry sky on a clear night and just feel the power and majesty of God. Another person might perceive it in living things. Another might perceive it in the complexity of weather. “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31)

I once read in a Peter Kreeft book that the highest number of believing scientists can be found in the fields of astrophysics and cellular biology. The lowest number is in the field of clinical.psychology. Mr. Kreeft goes on to say that one is likely to believe in God when studying divine order rather than human disorder.

I used to work as a research assistant to pay my way through university, working with astrophysicists. I was an atheist back then and much to my surprise most of those I worked with were devout Christians, the rest were devout Jews.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was responding to your claim that "the Church carefully refuses to mention specifically which arguments are “converging and convincing …] demonstrating God’s existence”. Try reading beyond CCC 31. What’s that in 32-35? It’s the arguments you claim the Church refuses to mention specifically!!!

We are going to make you an expert on Catholic theology yet. Even now you know more than most Cathlics ( I mean the average pew warmer ). But once again you paint with a too narrow brush. Those items in 32-35 are types or examples of the kind of arguments which can show to an open and intelligent mind that God exists. They are not premise, middle, conclusion arguments. And they are only examples, see the 20 proofs for Gods existence by googling " Strange Notions " ( boy oh boy there is a lot there for you to complain about ).

And you accuse me of mincing. Heh. You do not need a logical proof that someone loves you. You trust they love you. Faith is trust, not logical proof.

So true. But it is psychologically satisfying, and productive of spiritual insight if one can actually reason from first principles to the author of these first principles. If one can understand as well as believe, it makes our appreciation of our creator much deeper.

I don’t see how that follows from what I said, which was "When the authors of the CCC said “known”, I think we should take them at their word. Otherwise the next sentence doesn’t follow. “Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation”. We don’t need proofs to be able to welcome God’s revelation. But we do need to know who God is to be able to welcome God’s revelation. "

That does seem contradictory. I think the authors have expressed something poorly or perhaps the proof readers missed something ( there is a later edition, at least one ), or perhaps the translation is poor. I lean to the latter. So what could the quoted sentence mean? I think one has to say that what the authors are trying to say, but said poorly, is that first; all men do have this capacity ( except those severely, mentally handicaped ), and secondly; once we have faith that God exists or know that God exists ( no matter how we know this, it may be a spark of grace out of the blue, it happens all the time ), that knowledge makes us or inclines us to accept the totality of Divine Revelation.

I wouldn’t say they are especially convincing arguments though, since they all concern how human beings, or at least some human beings, think about the world rather than how the world is objectively.

None of them at all? How about the 20 Arguments for God’s Existence by Peter Kreeft ( strangenotions.com/god-exists/ )? Surely something appeals to you?

The epithet “blind, stubborn, or culpably willful” is raw ad hominem. It implies that a claim is so abysmally indefensible that bullying opponents into acceptance is the only strategy left. So it’s counter-productive, it doesn’t help your case. Imho.

You refuse to face reality. It may hurt to tell the truth but sometimes it has to be said. If you don’t the child will be spoiled and evil will pollute the culture. Political correctness is what is killing us now.

This is a strange argument. When a lost soul walks into your church, tell them about Christ. Don’t be embarrassed, don’t try to make it intellectual, God is not a passive subject to be debated. Let God into their heart, help God act in them. Surely?

Lucy, you have tried that trick before. Have you never attended a Catholic Mass. Be sure to let me know if you hear a sermon grounded on philosophy. I readily admit that some of our pastors give modest sermons and usually limited to 10 minutes but then they have more to give than the non-Catholic pastor. In a few minutes the priest consecrate the bread and wine and give the poor soul ( if a Catholic in the state of grace ) Christ the Resurrected God-Man himself. Go to Mass some time, live, not on T.V., the experience is different.

And note you have not cited any source for your interpretation.

How about the Encyclical " Humani Generis " by Blessed Pius XII, strangenotions.com/god-exists/, quite interesting. How about this from paragraph 2:

" 2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful. "

Pax
Charlie :tiphat:

P.S. So you are old enough to remember the hey days of Cobol. That makes you nearly as old as me .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I once read in a Peter Kreeft book that the highest number of believing scientists can be found in the fields of astrophysics and cellular biology. The lowest number is in the field of clinical.psychology. Mr. Kreeft goes on to say that one is likely to believe in God when studying divine order rather than human disorder.

I used to work as a research assistant to pay my way through university, working with astrophysicists. I was an atheist back then and much to my surprise most of those I worked with were devout Christians, the rest were devout Jews.

Would you mind giving us an account of your road to faith and then to Rome? It might throw some light on some of the things we have been discussing.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[MPat]

No, that is unfair. I have my prejudices - just like everyone else - but I am open to rational arguments. I have learned many new things from both theists and atheists alike, and when their arguments made sense, I happily abandoned my incorrect notions and preconceptions.

And where are the rational arguments substantiating those claims? Or are we supposed to believe them on “faith” (this time it really is “faith” as you understand it, as we have no supporting evidence at all, other than your claim) and “revelation” (from you)?

That is, if you were not “open to rational arguments”, would you know that? And would you proclaim that? I don’t think that is certain… If it was, we would be hearing more people claiming they are not open to rational arguments…

Of course! You cannot teach calculus to someone who has not mastered algebra. But no level of knowledge is needed to show that a rock exists. It is evident to anyone. And if someone is a solipsist and denies it, all you have to do is hit him on the head with it.

And are you sure you have mastered “the equivalent of algebra” in this case…? How many other people have done so?

Actually, since it is clear you didn’t find out what Church means by “created” until this thread (for the simple reason that that is what you asked about in the original post), I don’t think your background is sufficient to get to conclusions of investigation right now…

Also, I don’t think you have really argued with a solipsist… But I have seen at least one in this forum recently. Feel free to try.

Ah, but that is the ultimate cop-out. But you are wrong. I already did. Looked at Aquinas, Molina, Duns Scotus, Kreeft, Feser, etc… and all of them were found wanting. I am already past this open-ended search. That is why I am asking if there is any specific, OFFICIAL text to support what the catechism asserts. The church does not even have an OFFICIAL philosophy.

Actually, it does. It is Thomism. It is not hard to find out.

So, now that you know that, will you suddenly accept the “Five ways”? Somehow I doubt that. Yet if that is the case, why demand the “official” arguments? What difference would that make? Do you also demand the “official” proof of Pythagoras’ theorem?

It is not a matter of “liking”. I found all of them erroneous and as such incorrect.

It can be shown that you claim so. I don’t think something more can be shown using the evidence that you have made available.

If an ailment has ten different “cures”, then it has no actual cure. The buzzword is not “short” it is OFFICIALLY endorsed.

Really? You mean that if there is more than one type of antibiotics, then we cannot kill a single bacteria? That looks, um, originally silly… Would you like to reword that…?

So, you claim that you are open to rational arguments, that you investigated the arguments by some philosophers and rejected them. Yet what facts are available to us?

You have claimed that your quote comes from Catechism. it was shown that it is not from there, yet you didn’t correct your claim (there was no “Oh! So that is what Catechism is!” or “Sorry, I must have forgotten where that was from.”) after multiple occasions to do so. It does not make much of a difference to us (it is a dogma anyway), but it does show that your investigation was not very thorough.

We also know that you didn’t know what Church means by “created” until recently. That’s OK - we all learn. But the moment when you learn something that basic it is not a good moment to finish such investigation.

Finally, you complain that the arguments are not “official”. I find it hard to take such complaints seriously…

No, those facts to not demonstrate that the conclusion you have reached is wrong. But they do demonstrate that the process you have used to reach that conclusion is far from perfect. I think you should redo your investigation…

 

[Hee_Zen]

Actually, since it is clear you didn’t find out what Church means by “created” until this thread (for the simple reason that that is what you asked about in the original post), I don’t think your background is sufficient to get to conclusions of investigation right now…

Creation is a simple concept, to make something “new”. Nowhere is it restricted to creation “ex nihilo”. **Some **people asserted that but they did not quote OFFICIAL church documents to substantiate that claim. When a writer CREATES a new novel, no one (in the right mind) denies that it is “merely” an artifact not a “true creation”, because it uses the existing alphabet. When a composer CREATES a new musical piece it is still a creative process, even if he uses the already existing scale.

Actually, it does. It is Thomism. It is not hard to find out…

Not true. Thomism is widely followed, but that is all. There are many who follow Molina and other philosophers.

But, just for the fun of it, let’s contemplate that “creation” really means “ex nihilo”. In this case the quoted text degenerates to a logical error called circular reasoning, Something along these lines:

The phrase “created things” means everything that God created ex nihilo.
Therefore the existence of “created things” directly points to God’s existence.

This is the quintessential “DUH” moment.

 

[Hee_Zen]

A typo needs fixing:

When a writer CREATES a new novel, no one (in the right mind) denies that it is “merely” an artifact not a “true creation”, because it uses the existing alphabet.

The correct wording:

When a writer CREATES a new novel, no one (in the right mind) asserts that it is “merely” an artifact not a “true creation”, because it uses the existing alphabet.

Sorry about that. Of course an “ex nihilo” creation (if such an event could be substantiated) would be also correctly called “creation”, but only as a subset of the more general concept.

 

[inocente]

I was around back then, yes. Unfortunately COBOL is still widely used in business programming. (Yuck!) But my point was that the difference between the precise quote and my quote has no informational value (LOW-VALUE). I quoted the important part, but omitted the “chaff”.

Agreed. I was bowled over to hear the name Cobol. Respect.

And so does the Ebols virus, leprosy, malaria… etc. But the question is still the same: “is there a fully rational demonstration of God’s existence” without referring to faith and revelation? Without worrying about the specific attributes that God allegedly has? Just the basic question, how can one know (not assume, but KNOW) that there is God?

You can’t, not in the sense of cast-iron logic. Anyone can drive a coach and horses through every so-called proof. It’s a hobby of mine, as is driving a coach and horses through every so-called disproof.

No, we do not. Any explanation is a reduction of something to something even more fundamental. And the Universe is the ontological foundation of everything and as such the final ontological entity - the basis of all explanations. It plays the same role as the axioms in the formal systems. One cannot question the validity of axioms. One cannot ask: “why these axioms, and not others”? Axioms are what they are. The Universe is what it is. There is no infinite descent in explanations, one must stop somewhere.

Believers stop at God. Atheists stop at the universe. To go past the universe to God can be summarized as: “an unknowable being using unfathomable methods made the universe somehow happen”. And they offer it as an “explanation”! It is the absolute antithesis of an “explanation”, it says that explanation is impossible now and forever.

If you’re saying that it’s pointless to repeatedly ask questions which can’t be answered, I’ve some empathy.

But in my experience most people believe or disbelieve by intuition and then, if they feel the need, post-rationalize their belief. I used to know two well-educated atheists who, separately, believed in heaven. Neither believed in any agency but they believed heaven is there just the same. Which might be taking intuition a bit far.

Most Christians I know start from Christ, not from any abstracted “explanation”. In real life, the real problems are about living and dying and having babies and getting sick, about what it means to be a human being, questions which can’t be answered with logical proofs.

As for explanations of why there’s something rather than nothing, there’s a very honest and mature bit of philosophy in a Hindu hymn:

*Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say

When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He. -
books.google.es/books?id=HJs64QawLccC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=Who+really+knows,+and+who+can+swear,&source=bl&ots=8tFPbbiNaT&sig=b4S19QwKbWLKEPAEE0RNRxt80w4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_MpHVMuDK8HYaqyLgYAM&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Who%20really%20knows%2C%20and%20who%20can%20swear%2C&f=false*

 

[Hee_Zen]

Agreed. I was bowled over to hear the name Cobol. Respect.

Thanks I wish I would be half my age (it would be the value of the 4 by 4 magic square) - with all the knowledge stored in my brain still there (of course!). If I could send back a message to my twenty years old self, it would be very simple: “borrow as much money as you can and buy Microsoft shares at the IPO”.

You can’t, not in the sense of cast-iron logic. Anyone can drive a coach and horses through every so-called proof. It’s a hobby of mine, as is driving a coach and horses through every so-called disproof.

Completely agree with the first part. The second part depends on the precise definition of God. If the definition of God contains a logical contradiction, then such a being cannot exist. This is why I would love to start with a somewhat boring but necessary preamble of defining the terms of the discussion. Most people are not interested.

If you’re saying that it’s pointless to repeatedly ask questions which can’t be answered, I’ve some empathy.

Sure, but that is not exactly what I meant. At the age of three all of us went through the “WHY” period. I was only referring to the fact that one must start somewhere - with axioms in the formal sciences, and basic principles in the natural sciences - which cannot be meaningfully expected to “prove” - since they are basis of all the subsequent proofs.

But in my experience most people believe or disbelieve by intuition and then, if they feel the need, post-rationalize their belief. I used to know two well-educated atheists who, separately, believed in heaven. Neither believed in any agency but they believed heaven is there just the same. Which might be taking intuition a bit far.

There was Paul Erdos (a very famous Hungarian mathematician) who firmly believed in the existence of “THE BOOK”, which contains the most beautiful and elegant proofs of all the mathematical theorems. He did not believe in any god, but he believed in THE BOOK.

Most Christians I know start from Christ, not from any abstracted “explanation”. In real life, the real problems are about living and dying and having babies and getting sick, about what it means to be a human being, questions which can’t be answered with logical proofs.

As for explanations of why there’s something rather than nothing, there’s a very honest and mature bit of philosophy in a Hindu hymn:

*Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say

When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He. -
books.google.es/books?id=HJs64QawLccC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=Who+really+knows,+and+who+can+swear,&source=bl&ots=8tFPbbiNaT&sig=b4S19QwKbWLKEPAEE0RNRxt80w4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_MpHVMuDK8HYaqyLgYAM&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Who%20really%20knows%2C%20and%20who%20can%20swear%2C&f=false*

A beautiful poem, thanks for sharing it.

 

[inocente]

Pax
Charlie :tiphat:

P.S. So you are old enough to remember the hey days of Cobol. That makes you nearly as old as me .

Sorry ran out of time, might not get back until Friday, will respond then.

PS. I seriously doubt anyone is as old as you . I wasn’t around quite that early, but along with Saint Ada Lovelace and Saint Alan Turing, everyone in information technology has heard of Saint Grace Hopper, inventor of Cobol.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Commodore_Grace_M.Hopper%2C_USN%28covered%29.jpg/192px-Commodore_Grace_M.Hopper%2C_USN%28covered%29.jpg
RIP Grace.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sorry ran out of time, might not get back until Friday, will respond then.

PS. I seriously doubt anyone is as old as you . I wasn’t around quite that early, but along with Saint Ada Lovelace and Saint Alan Turing, everyone in information technology has heard of Saint Grace Hopper, inventor of Cobol.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Commodore_Grace_M.Hopper%2C_USN%28covered%29.jpg/192px-Commodore_Grace_M.Hopper%2C_USN%28covered%29.jpg
RIP Grace.

Was beginning to worry about you. Glad to hear you are just busy.
Didn’t know Grace invented Cobol. But I did know she was a legend in the Armed Services. She could have made much more at AT&T or IBM.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Hee_Zen]

Was beginning to worry about you. Glad to hear you are just busy.
Didn’t know Grace invented Cobol. But I did know she was a legend in the Armed Services. She could have made much more at AT&T or IBM.

We are getting further and further away from the topic of this thread. It does not matter, however. The original creators of “Linux” were two college students, who were challenged by their professor… They “created” the new operating system and made it available for everyone, to use and to enhance it. It was not a “creation ex nihilo”, they built upon the already existing UNIX operating system. But who is to deny that they “created” something NEW?

It would be nice to return to the actual topic of the thread. Any chance of that?