Revelation?

[davidv]

It is not an either/or question.

We are at the same page now.

That is subject of discussion. But before that is good also a part of our subjective realities?

It is not clear to me what you are asking.

In reality, what is objective outside an intellect is neither good or evil.

The existence of God is an objective good.

That is intellect duty to attach a label on a objective reality as good depending on whether it is pleasing to the agent or do otherwise if it is unpleasant. Can we agree up to this point?

No agreement here. Pleasantness is not a valid criteria for defining a good. This is evident in this life. For example, most physical exercise for the purpose of good health involves some unpleasantness.

So please read the previous comment.

The previous comment is not helpful in addressing the point.

 

[Bahman]

Man, do you ever sleep?

Linus2nd

Thank you for your concern. And yes, I get enough sleep.

 

[Bahman]

It is not clear to me what you are asking.

Because it is useful to have a clear definition of evil and good. Because we want to make sure if we are biased toward good or evil when it comes to our judgment of a holy book. Do you believe that good and evil are subjective reality? What are your definition of good and evil then?

The existence of God is an objective good.

That is acceptable but evil and good are subject reality from Gods perspective.

No agreement here. Pleasantness is not a valid criteria for defining a good. This is evident in this life. For example, most physical exercise for the purpose of good health involves some unpleasantness.

So physical exercise could be neither good nor evil since having a good health without any constraint in habit is of course better. Don’t you agree?

 

[Bahman]

cont…

Revelation isn’t just information for our intellect to process; Revelation is the revealing of God himself. As such, it requires the whole man, both intellect and will. So how can we judge that Revelation is true? Certainly divine facts demonstrate the truthfulness of Revelation; our intellect apprehends that only God’s intervention and stamp of approval to the event could make what happened possible. But another way is perceiving beauty; the beauty that comes from God, maybe Jesus’ actions or the charity of the saints, touches our hearts and we know that what is hidden behind the beauty which we see with our natural reason must be true. And when we accept in faith we can “see” the Beauty itself with the eyes faith gives us (of course this should be distinguished from the “sight” we receive in the beatific vision).

But beauty is only a subjective reality, like ugly, good, evil, etc. Why we are biased to accept beauty rather than ugly? Is beauty good criteria for understating the truth. The truth could be beautiful, ugly or neither.

 

[empther]

Bahman’s post 42

Either you hate evil or not. **How you could hate evil if it doesn’t substantially exist? :bigyikes: ** How you could like evil and be in another side?

How can evil substantially exist?

 

[davidv]

Because it is useful to have a clear definition of evil and good. Because we want to make sure if we are biased toward good or evil when it comes to our judgment of a holy book. Do you believe that good and evil are subjective reality?

No, I don’t believe this. Much of reality is objective. Some of reality is subjective, like feelings and opinions.

What are your definition of good and evil then?

Good - That which is consistent with a being’s true purpose.
Evil - Absence of some good.

That is acceptable but evil and good are subject reality from Gods perspective.

How do you know this is God’s perspective? I cannot accept this claim.

So physical exercise could be neither good nor evil since having a good health without any constraint in habit is of course better. Don’t you agree?

No I don’t agree. Physical exercise is a good because it contributes to fulfilling the purpose of a person.

 

[AndrewW94]

Quotations from Bahman (post 14)

So by no you accept that God could do so, why he didn’t so? I would be happy to have your opinion rather than a link. That helps me to save my time and helps you to convey what you have learn the best possible form. But for now lets assume that “no” is the correct answer.

Logical Fallacy
From the fact that God could have created a universe that is better, it does not follow that He was obliged to do so. Consider the following analogous argument:
There exists some integer x such that x > 5. Therefore God can create a greatest integer.

Or to phrase it another way, let is suppose that God can create a countably infinite number of universes and that there is a bijective function *F *that maps each universe to its “goodness index” in the ring of integers. Now suppose God creates a universe with a “goodness index” of 9 E 1,000,000,000,000. Ah ha you exclaim! God could create a better universe. True. But there is no greatest integer. There is no universe so good that God cannot make a better one.

Do we need to be able to judge revelation in order to understand its trueness? Now I open the trap this time. There are two options:

1. Yes. What is the point of revelation then since it was accessible to our mind?
2. No. How we (human being including Church Authority) could interpret the context without a sense of judgment? Revelation in this case is meaningless to us since we could not judge its trueness.

Logical Fallacy
You equivocate on the term “judge” leading to an erroneous dilemma. Consider the analogous argument:

Do we need to be able to judge mathematics in order to understand its trueness [truth]?

1. Yes. What is the point of books and teachers then since it was accessible to our mind?
2. No. How can we do mathematics? Mathematics in this case is meaningless to us since we could not judge its trueness [truth].

Of course this argument is just as absurd as yours. You can rely on authorities. Note that no one person has, and probably no one person ever will, verify all branches of mathematics. This does not show that math is worthless or even that it is not grounded in reason. We trust other people to do this. Whenever you use a map or a GPS you trust someone else’s authority–and you have no idea who they are! In the same way, based on our reason’s examination of the Faith and on the miracles that give testimony to its veracity, it is eminently reasonably to accept all that the Church teaches on the authority of the Church, without examining it, even to the extent that humans can examine the Faith. (Note also that a serious examination of the Faith will take an enormous amount of effort).

Finally:

I agree that I did evil, but evil could be good if it could put people in contradiction, making them to think through.

Evil can never be good. However, trying to trap someone in a discussion isn’t necessarily evil. But now, since I have shown you some flaws in your arguments I want to challenge you “to think through” your position. Give the Catholic Faith some serious consideration. Don’t settle for these flimsy arguments.

 

[CrossofChrist]

But beauty is only a subjective reality, like ugly, good, evil, etc. Why we are biased to accept beauty rather than ugly? Is beauty good criteria for understating the truth. The truth could be beautiful, ugly or neither.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/601/contemplation_of_beauty_cardinal_joseph_ratzinger.html

But I went on a tangent, since that’s not about why we need Revelation, but more a way of how we know it is true.

 

[Bahman]

Quotations from Bahman (post 14)
Logical Fallacy
From the fact that God could have created a universe that is better, it does not follow that He was obliged to do so.

I was talking about perfect creation rather than a better creation?

Logical Fallacy
You equivocate on the term “judge” leading to an erroneous dilemma. Consider the analogous argument:

Do we need to be able to judge mathematics in order to understand its trueness [truth]?

1. Yes. What is the point of books and teachers then since it was accessible to our mind?
2. No. How can we do mathematics? Mathematics in this case is meaningless to us since we could not judge its trueness [truth].

No. We have been learning mathematics through history by getting involved in intellectual activity which leaded to creativity. The mathematics is our own creation.

 

[CrossofChrist]

No. We have been learning mathematics through history by getting involved in intellectual activity which leaded to creativity. The mathematics is our own creation.

We came up with mathematics, but its rules are already out there in creation, and therefore we know math is based on things that are objectively true in the world. Otherwise math wouldn’t work.

 

[Bahman]

We came up with mathematics, but its rules are already out there in creation, and therefore we know math is based on things that are objectively true in the world. Otherwise math wouldn’t work.

There are areas of pure math which they were not come out to our mind because they have simple representation in nature.

 

[AndrewW94]

I was talking about perfect creation rather than a better creation?

This is irrelevant. It’s like saying, “I was talking about the highest integer, not higher integers.” There is no highest integer. There is no universe so good that God cannot make a better one.

No. We have been learning mathematics through history by getting involved in intellectual activity which leaded to creativity. The mathematics is our own creation.

Leaving aside your claim that “mathematics is our own creation.” Which you have not and cannot show, I stick to my point. You accept most areas of mathematics not because you reasoned through them but because you trust someone else. This does not mean that mathematics is unreasonable. When someone recognizes that they have a limited intellect they can quite reasonably decide to trust the Church, based on rational arguments, miracles, and above all, grace.