Searching for the Truth

[JP2Admirer]

Thanks guys

Well there is evidence for his existance, all you need to do is look at the world and how complex and brilliant it is. For example thehuman body and how the smartest scientists can not work out how the brian works but yet the human brain is a million times more complexed than any computer. That is evidence that he can design and create but what i find hard is evidence for his as an entity. . i cant see, hear or touch him. . .

Thanks for offering to help

Joe

I would recommend St. Thomas’ five ways; (I think its the third question in the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologica.) If you can handle the philosophical lingo, then I would suggest On Being and Essence, also by Thomas.

The most difficult thing for us as human beings, where knowledge begins in the senses, is attempting to “imagine” immateriality. Quite frankly, our minds rely on images to make concepts intelligible.

I would also recommend reading Aristotle’s De Anima, as it explains what I think is the only real valid epistemology there is. Of course, there are disputes about this. Aristotle actually explains the “dematerializing” of an object by stating we should imagine a snub nose (poor Socrates) and then “hollow it out.”

The terms philosophers like Aquinas use is “abstraction.” You can think of a given multiplicity, say, 3 men. Now abstract the concept “man” and you have the idea of man without an image. (There is a lot of background that goes into metaphysical understanding, and a lot of dispute amongst Thomists. I personally subscribe to existential Thomism, so that is the “flavor” you’re getting from me.)

Another way to “imagine” immateriality is by the concept “double.” No image accompanies it – it’s an immaterial concept. Or, like Descartes says (yes he is good for something) he can present to his mind’s eye a triangle, but he cannot present to his mind’s eye a chiliagon (1000 sided figure), yet he understands the concept.

This, at least, is a stepping stone to understanding what you cannot see.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thanks guys

Well there is evidence for his existance, all you need to do is look at the world and how complex and brilliant it is. For example thehuman body and how the smartest scientists can not work out how the brian works but yet the human brain is a million times more complexed than any computer. That is evidence that he can design and create but what i find hard is evidence for his as an entity. . i cant see, hear or touch him. . .

Thanks for offering to help

Joe

yes, empirical evidence is difficult to come by, of course thats because empiricism is great for science, but it runs out of steam when it comes to phenomenon that arent physical such as free will and consciousness. unfortunately, it is the only method of reasoning that is really taught in school any more.

so you need to know how G-d exists as an entity. ok.

first we start with our own existence. cogito ergo sum. i know that i am. i also know that i am not my own cause. that would require me to pre exist myself in the order of causality. an impossibility. i therefore need a cause for my being. i am then what is called contingent, or dependent on a previous cause. now this chain may be infinite or not, but in either case, in order to explain the existence of contingent beings, we reach a necessary being, one that must exist, in order for anything else to exist. after all no contingent being or group of beings can come into existence without this necessary being. hence, the reason we call it the necessary being. this being must itself be the very act of being, or existence itself. why? because if you do not have existence itself, then you would have a literal “nothing” and there is no such thing as as ‘nothing’.

ergo. G-d is the being whose very essence is existence as Aquinas would say. though i prefer the term ‘maximal state of being’

its been a while since i had to make that argument, and its late. but i know it will cause more questions than it answered. feel free to ask.

 

[Joe_Scott]

Thanks warpspeed

At first I looked the paragraph you wrote and freaked out, but after reading it a few times I understood. You spoke a lot of logic and it was very helpful.
There are still so many questions I have but I don’t want to bombard you with them.

I will think about what yo have said

Thanks again

Joe

 

[wanstronian]

If you are looking for evidence of God’s existence, you are wasting your time - there is none. In a way I suppose that’s the point - if you have evidence then you don’t have faith. The best you’ll get is phenomena that you can interpret as evidence if you really want God to be true, and are prepared to evaluate the ‘evidence’ only at a superficial level.

Tell me - why do you want to believe? What do you think belief will bring you?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thanks warpspeed

At first I looked the paragraph you wrote and freaked out, but after reading it a few times I understood. You spoke a lot of logic and it was very helpful.
There are still so many questions I have but I don’t want to bombard you with them.

I will think about what yo have said

Thanks again

Joe

this is what i do. when youre ready, feel free to ask what ever you want. there will be lots of questions. im happy to learn new things with you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you are looking for evidence of God’s existence, you are wasting your time - there is none.

off the top of my head

1. there is no possible scientific explanation for free will
2. there is no possible scientific explanation for self awareness.
3. the mathematical odds of Messianic Prophecy make Christs Divinity undeniable.
4. i have no musical talent, but i can play the ukulele. there is no possible scientific explanation for that phenomenon.

In a way I suppose that’s the point - if you have evidence then you don’t have faith.

Faith isnt about belief in G-ds existence. faith is a theological virtue, its trusting in G-ds Love for you, that He has a plan that will result in your Salvation, if you cooperate.

The best you’ll get is phenomena that you can interpret as evidence if you really want God to be true, and are prepared to evaluate the ‘evidence’ only at a superficial level.

dont make the typical blanet assertionns, say specifically which phenomenon might that be?

Tell me - why do you want to believe? What do you think belief will bring you?

considering the massive amount of evidence from witness statement to mere rational examination, how does your disbelief benefit you?

 

[wanstronian]

off the top of my head

1. there is no possible scientific explanation for free will
2. there is no possible scientific explanation for self awareness.

For both of these, you are conflating ‘possible’ with ‘current.’ For the former in particular, there’s no evidence that free will even exists. You’re very quick to forecast that a scientific explanation is impossible. How do you arrive at this conclusion? Where’s your evidence?

1. the mathematical odds of Messianic Prophecy make Christs Divinity undeniable.

No they don’t. We’ve been over this before.

1. i have no musical talent, but i can play the ukulele. there is no possible scientific explanation for that phenomenon.

Stupid argument. You must have some musical talent or you wouldn’t be able to play the ukelele. Alternatively you play the ukelele very badly, because you are able to move your fingers to make a tune, but are unable to realise when your timing or tuning is off. What’s your method of measurement for musical talent? What’s your definition of ‘can play’ an instrument? It’s hilarious that this argument makes your top four!

Faith isnt about belief in G-ds existence. faith is a theological virtue, its trusting in G-ds Love for you, that He has a plan that will result in your Salvation, if you cooperate.

Maybe you’re right and the OED’s got it wrong… But this isn’t a point I feel particularly strongly about, so you’re welcome to your interpretation of the word.

dont make the typical blanet assertionns, say specifically which phenomenon might that be?

As an example - your (Aquinas’) contingency argument. As another, any of the arguments from incredulity or arguments from Authority. But it applies to any of the ‘evidence’ that I’ve ever seen presented on this forum.

considering the massive amount of evidence from witness statement to mere rational examination, how does your disbelief benefit you?

Well, as we’ve discussed before, your naive belief that the bible etc. represent credible witness statements, and your peculiar application of the word ‘rational’ (meaning, apparently, ‘irrational’) don’t actually stand up to proper scrutiny. You’ve never admitted that this is so, but that doesn’t stop it being so.

My disbelief doesn’t benefit me, but that’s not the point. I asked Joe why he wanted to believe in God. I don’t want to believe in God, and I don’t want to not believe in God. Personal desire doesn’t come into it, which is a simple concept that you, in previous threads, have shown that you are unable to grasp. However Joe wants to believe but doesn’t, quite. I wanted to know what his motivation was for wanting to believe. It’s a simple question, undeserving of attack.

 

[JP2Admirer]

My disbelief doesn’t benefit me, but that’s not the point. I asked Joe why he wanted to believe in God. I don’t want to believe in God, and I don’t want to not believe in God. Personal desire doesn’t come into it, which is a simple concept that you, in previous threads, have shown that you are unable to grasp. However Joe wants to believe but doesn’t, quite. I wanted to know what his motivation was for wanting to believe. It’s a simple question, undeserving of attack.

How about the desire for personal perfection? It’s a notion we’ve lost in post-Enlightenment modernity.

His motivation, it seems to me, is that he can see that there is some awesome show behind the curtain of the ephemeral immediate. He said it himself when marvelling at how awesomely intricate human existence really is. I personally had a similar experience on my road to faith – there was simply too much that was awe inspiring about existing to not have belief.

The great lie of empiricism and Enlightenment thinking in general has been that it purports to look at reality objectively. Quite simply it is impossible to approach questions about reality without some conceptual framework to work within. The problem is that relation is a fundemental category that was overlooked by empiricists. Alas! They too approached “science” with a viewpoint. Yet they still lie about their “viewpoint neutrality.”

Empiricism runs into all kinds of logical problems, and is a genius masquerade of a specific worldview pretending that it is not a worldview; that it is “scientific.” It really is the noble lie of the Enlightenment and although I do not ascribe to Nietzsche’s philosophy, I am grateful to him for pointing out the perspecitvism of the Enlightenment. Philosophically speaking, the chimera of viewpoint neutrality is dead; yet our empiricists still believe they are "objective’ and everyone else is biased.

Simply put, empiricism is a method for interpreting the world that has its own difficulties like dealing with immaterial concepts or accounting for why things exist in the first place (i.e. for Hume everything is on the surface, existent things have no substances, but are merely a “string of accidents.” Well, if there are no substances, we have two logical courses that follow – Either 1) nothing exists because we fall into an infinite regress in virtue of accidents inhering in nothing or 2) monism, which contradicts empirical reality, i.e. you and I are different because we have different bodies, we are different individuals – all is not one on the level of experience.)

So I think we need to put to rest the idea that there is such thing as viewpoint neutrality. While I would agree there are ways of approaching truth that are less biased, we still all have our biases. And so I might recommend treating those we disagree with as if they are “medieval” simply because their approach is different than ours. There is still room for philosophy even in empirical circles because ultimately philosophy governs its methodical approach. We ought not ignore logic simply because we cannot see its results.

So I, for one, applaud our friend for seeking answers – nothing wrong with that.

 

[wanstronian]

How about the desire for personal perfection? It’s a notion we’ve lost in post-Enlightenment modernity.

His motivation, it seems to me, is that he can see that there is some awesome show behind the curtain of the ephemeral immediate. He said it himself when marvelling at how awesomely intricate human existence really is. I personally had a similar experience on my road to faith – there was simply too much that was awe inspiring about existing to not have belief.

Right - so assume there’s ‘an awesome show.’ Why does it have to have originated from God? If Joe wants to know what’s behind the ‘curtain of the ephemeral immediate,’ why not approach it from as neutral a standpoint as he can muster, so that he can answer the question - if it can be answered - as truthfully as possible? Instead he says, “I want to believe in God” - thereby already limiting his journey. Either he’ll believe in God or he won’t - he’s excluded himself from any other result. What’s to say the answer isn’t something else - something that he’s cutting himself off from the possibility of discovering by desiring a specific conclusion?

The great lie of empiricism and Enlightenment thinking in general has been that it purports to look at reality objectively. Quite simply it is impossible to approach questions about reality without some conceptual framework to work within. The problem is that relation is a fundemental category that was overlooked by empiricists. Alas! They too approached “science” with a viewpoint. Yet they still lie about their “viewpoint neutrality.”

Well, do you think it’s fair to say that their viewpoint is one that works consistently and objectively? You’re right, context is important, but if one finds a context that works, over and over again, then surely it’s as close to being right as it’s possible to be with any confidence? Otherwise there’s no point really trying to understand anything - we might as well just have any old random thought and stubbornly hold it to be the truth no matter what.

Empiricism runs into all kinds of logical problems, and is a genius masquerade of a specific worldview pretending that it is not a worldview; that it is “scientific.” It really is the noble lie of the Enlightenment and although I do not ascribe to Nietzsche’s philosophy, I am grateful to him for pointing out the perspecitvism of the Enlightenment. Philosophically speaking, the chimera of viewpoint neutrality is dead; yet our empiricists still believe they are "objective’ and everyone else is biased.

Simply put, empiricism is a method for interpreting the world that has its own difficulties like dealing with immaterial concepts or accounting for why things exist in the first place (i.e. for Hume everything is on the surface, existent things have no substances, but are merely a “string of accidents.” Well, if there are no substances, we have two logical courses that follow – Either 1) nothing exists because we fall into an infinite regress in virtue of accidents inhering in nothing or 2) monism, which contradicts empirical reality, i.e. you and I are different because we have different bodies, we are different individuals – all is not one on the level of experience.)

So I think we need to put to rest the idea that there is such thing as viewpoint neutrality. While I would agree there are ways of approaching truth that are less biased, we still all have our biases. And so I might recommend treating those we disagree with as if they are “medieval” simply because their approach is different than ours. There is still room for philosophy even in empirical circles because ultimately philosophy governs its methodical approach. We ought not ignore logic simply because we cannot see its results.

So I, for one, applaud our friend for seeking answers – nothing wrong with that.

Not at all, but a desire to reach a specific conclusion is not the way to arrive at the **right **conclusion, other than by extreme coincidence.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

In order to have faith in God you have to do something,

Every blessing

Eric

 

[JP2Admirer]

Right - so assume there’s ‘an awesome show.’ Why does it have to have originated from God? If Joe wants to know what’s behind the ‘curtain of the ephemeral immediate,’ why not approach it from as neutral a standpoint as he can muster, so that he can answer the question - if it can be answered - as truthfully as possible? Instead he says, “I want to believe in God” - thereby already limiting his journey. Either he’ll believe in God or he won’t - he’s excluded himself from any other result. What’s to say the answer isn’t something else - something that he’s cutting himself off from the possibility of discovering by desiring a specific conclusion?.

I think you are letting your Enlightenment ideals cloud your thinking here. Explain to me a “neutral standpoint?” I agree with the idea that we ought to try to not allow a predetermined end cloud our reasoning. This is a very serious, in my opinion, intellectual crime. But his idea that God might be what is behind the show was brought about by him experiencing things. That is, it is not a false conclusion as for him the premises seem to suggest the conclusion that there is a God.

I also think it is a mistake made all too often in our post-rationalist age to state that thinking is only clouded by theological premises. To approach questions as an atheist is to approach truth with an altogether different set of biases and it certainly is not value or viewpoint neutral. And that’s the hub – your contention is that to approach questions of truth from the standpoint of God’s existence is to attempt to reach a predetermined end (which indeed is a crime that many theologians have committed). My contention is that empiricism, atheism, and intellectual defeatism (another name for skepticism) are value loaded viewpoints that cloud thinking just as much as approaching questions from the standpoint of God existing.

You can be a very good philosopher and arrive at God’s existence (just ask Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Avicenna, Socrates, and many others) while viewing things as they exist in themselves, rather than making them what they want them to be.

Believe me, the answers I have found in Catholicism and its intellectual tradition have often been far from what I’ve *desired, *until I reasoned through to the conclusions that her tradition has drawn out. The fact is, it is much easier for the Self to reign supreme if God does not exist. Indeed, my faith has directed me to truths I never would’ve discovered had I approached the world with the view that God doesn’t exist.

Long story short, approaching truth from the perspective of God does not necessarily cloud ones reasoning. And it has to ability to cloud ones thinking just as much as atheism has the ability to cloud one’s thinking.

Not at all, but a desire to reach a specific conclusion is not the way to arrive at the **right **conclusion, other than by extreme coincidence.

I agree that it is a mistake to “desire to reach a specific conclusion” but I think our friend was suggesting that the premises are leading him to the conclusion that God exists.

I have always found it curious that atheists tend to think of someone with faith as somehow desiring God to exist. It probably stems from Nietzsche’s claim that the weak need a reason to preserve themselves in this tragedy of life. Frankly, my life get’s much more difficult the more orthodox I become. Believe me, the radical dictates of Christ are anything but easy. But with reason, I have determined that His dictates are supremely rational, and therefore worthy of my assent.

As JP2 said, “the Gospel does not promise a comfortable life to anyone. It is a challenge.” I don’t desire God to exist to satisfy some psychological need. Life is much harder knowing that He is because He makes demands on my behavior. He requires perfection – virtue – and simply put, virtue is not easy.

 

[Betterave]

My disbelief doesn’t benefit me, but that’s not the point. I asked Joe why he wanted to believe in God. I don’t want to believe in God, and I don’t want to not believe in God. Personal desire doesn’t come into it, which is a simple concept that you, in previous threads, have shown that you are unable to grasp. However Joe wants to believe but doesn’t, quite. I wanted to know what his motivation was for wanting to believe. It’s a simple question, undeserving of attack.

It is a simple question and a good one. Your own position is also an interesting one. Do you really think that your own motivations are perfectly transparent to you? Do you think an intelligent person who has thought about the God-concept can or should have the attitude that he neither wants to believe in God, nor wants to not believe in God? How can you/why should you keep your personal desire out of it? Have you considered that that may not be a realistic attitude, unless you just happen to know nothing about the God-concept? I’ll suggest to you that it would be very unusual to find a genuinely neutral person, the kind of person you take yourself to be. When people look carefully and honestly at themselves I think they usually discover that the heart does have its reasons, of which reason knows not (Pascal).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

For both of these, you are conflating ‘possible’ with ‘current.’

i meant exactly what i said. there is no possible scientific explanation.

For the former in particular, there’s no evidence that free will even exists.

except for those trillions of free will decisions that humans make every hour. id call that one of the best tested ideas ever.

You’re very quick to forecast that a scientific explanation is impossible. How do you arrive at this conclusion? Where’s your evidence?

physical causation of free will is incompatible with both possible states of the universe, determinant and indeterminant. determinant, you have no choice your act is decision is predetermined from the starting state of the system. indeterminant, each of your decisions is not your choice because they are random.

No they don’t. We’ve been over this before.

and youve never made more than that blanket assertion. but the math doesnt lie. and thats the resaon for the blanket assertion

Stupid argument. You must have some musical talent or you wouldn’t be able to play the ukelele. Alternatively you play the ukelele very badly, because you are able to move your fingers to make a tune, but are unable to realise when your timing or tuning is off. What’s your method of measurement for musical talent? What’s your definition of ‘can play’ an instrument? It’s hilarious that this argument makes your top four!

i thinks much more sad, than hilarious that this argument makes the top four, im going to call it my argument from ukulele

Maybe you’re right and the OED’s got it wrong… But this isn’t a point I feel particularly strongly about, so you’re welcome to your interpretation of the word.

yes, faith is a technical virtue.

newadvent.org/summa/3004.htm

As an example - your (Aquinas’) contingency argument.

ill be happy to defend heirarchical causality. if its such a easy target, you should be able to knock it right out.

As another, any of the arguments from incredulity or arguments from Authority. But it applies to any of the ‘evidence’ that I’ve ever seen presented on this forum.

so your phenomenon is a couple of formal logical fallacies, and a jab at an agrument that stumped bertrand russel?

im not eve sure what the fallacies hve to do with it.

Well, as we’ve discussed before, your naive belief that the bible etc. represent credible witness statements,

what evidence do you have that they are not credible witness statements?

and your peculiar application of the word ‘rational’ (meaning, apparently, ‘irrational’) don’t actually stand up to proper scrutiny. You’ve never admitted that this is so, but that doesn’t stop it being so.

if i am irrational then is suspect you can show how. it shouldnt take an admission if your assertion is true, you should be able to demonstrate it.

My disbelief doesn’t benefit me, but that’s not the point. I asked Joe why he wanted to believe in God. I don’t want to believe in God, and I don’t want to not believe in God. Personal desire doesn’t come into it, which is a simple concept that you, in previous threads, have shown that you are unable to grasp. However Joe wants to believe but doesn’t, quite. I wanted to know what his motivation was for wanting to believe. It’s a simple question, undeserving of attack.

if personal desire doesnt come into it then you should be able to debate the issue and win, not jump threads, or otherwise dodge

my contention is that you want to disbelieve regarless of the rationality of the position. if i am wrong, then let us discuss the specific matter or matters that cause your disbelief and i will happily deconstruct them for your edification.

 

[wanstronian]

i meant exactly what i said. there is no possible scientific explanation.

Then there is no point continuing because, as in every other thread in which I have engaged with you, you cannot (or will not) recognise and acknowledge the deep logical flaws in your arguments - chief of which is a tendency to make assertions for which you can provide no evidence except your own opinion. Your statement above is a case in point. It’s laugably fatuous and demonstrably fallacious.

 

[Joe_Scott]

Looking at this form a neutral point of view i think i have to agree with wanstronian in the end.

The arguements he put forward are much stronger and much more logical then the Thiest arguement.
If you want to know why i think this just ask and i’ll explain

 

[JP2Admirer]

Looking at this form a neutral point of view i think i have to agree with wanstronian in the end.

The arguements he put forward are much stronger and much more logical then the Thiest arguement.
If you want to know why i think this just ask and i’ll explain

Please do explain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then there is no point continuing because, as in every other thread in which I have engaged with you, you cannot (or will not) recognise and acknowledge the deep logical flaws in your arguments - chief of which is a tendency to make assertions for which you can provide no evidence except your own opinion.

then you wont have a problem posting the threads and post numbers where you assert this occurred?

Your statement above is a case in point. It’s laugably fatuous and demonstrably fallacious.

if this is domonstrably fallacious, then please demonstrate the fallacy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Looking at this form a neutral point of view i think i have to agree with wanstronian in the end

.

there is no such thing as a neutral point of view. one is a theist or not a theist. there is no halfway point.

The arguements he put forward are much stronger and much more logical then the Thiest arguement.

i have yet to see an argument on the subject we are talking about. please post where these were made. maybe im missing something.

If you want to know why i think this just ask and i’ll explain

John Paul the Greats admirer already asked for an explanation, please.

 

[Holly3278]

Greetings to you, Catholics and others.

I have been on a spiritual journey as of late, and I have learned much.

I was an atheist just a year ago or so. Today, I’m a Deist with no particular beliefs about God.

Recently, however, I have found myself considering the claims of the Catholic Church. I believe if there is any truth to the claims of Jesus, then his truth is best represented in the Catholic Church.

Right now, I seem to have hit a roadblock. I don’t know whether I’m a Christian or a Deist. I just can’t get any further.

I ask, are there any others out there who have/had the same problem? Do you have any experiences with “spiritual writer’s block”?

I apologize for any mistakes in my post as I am not a native English-speaker.

I have not had this problem but I can assure you of my prayers.

 

[wanstronian]

then you wont have a problem posting the threads and post numbers where you assert this occurred?

My previous post highlighted one such assertion.

if this is domonstrably fallacious, then please demonstrate the fallacy.

Well, it should be obvious, but the statements

1. there is no possible scientific explanation for free will

and

1. there is no possible scientific explanation for self awareness.

and

1. i have no musical talent, but i can play the ukulele. there is no possible scientific explanation for that phenomenon.

are all clear examples of the bare assertion fallacy. You claim it, but can’t prove it. In the first two examples, you don’t know what science will discover. In the third, you provide no yardstick for measuring musical talent, or the extent of your ability to play the ukelele.

Your statement

1. the mathematical odds of Messianic Prophecy make Christs Divinity undeniable

is also fallacious, because the evidence to which you refer is available to everybody, but it doesn’t stand up to the sort of scrutiny that is necessary for evidence to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ I’ve explained this to you before, but you just deny it without recourse to any kind of justification.

Your method of debating is just to repeat what you said previously, as if stubborn dogmatic repetition somehow adds validity. It doesn’t.