The Precision of Design

[tonyrey]

“Man’s utmost knowledge is to know that we do not know God.” St Thomas Aquinas.
I think I’ll take him off my list of great philosophers…

St Thomas does not mean we cannot know God in any way whatsoever. The fact that he was a Christian shows he believed we can know God through Jesus. What he means is that we cannot know God in the same way as we know anything else because God is perfect and exceeds our understanding. Apart from grace and revelation our knowledge of God proceeds from negation, from determining what God is not, and from the use of analogy: “God prepossesses in Himself all the perfections of creatures, being Himself absolutely and universally perfect. Hence every creature represents Him, and is like Him, so far as it possesses some perfection: yet not so far as to represent Him as something of the same species or genus, but as the excelling source of whose form the effects fall short, although they derive some kind of likeness thereto. …When we say God is good, the meaning is not, God is the cause of goodness, or, God is not evil; but the meaning is, Whatever good we attribute to creatures pre-exists in God, and in a higher way…He causes goodness in things because He is good.”

 

[Detales]

“By faith you ask the question and by faith you’ll answer it.” By guess and by golly, eh?

 

[reggieM]

“By faith you ask the question and by faith you’ll answer it.”

By guess and by golly, eh?

That may be your method, I’m not sure. But rather than think that, I proposed that you use faith based on evidence rather than mere guesswork.

 

[Fran65]

“Man’s utmost knowledge is to know that we do not know God.” St Thomas Aquinas.

I think I’ll take him off my list of great philosophers…

Its more subtle than it appears on first reading. It refers to many things, for example the ineffability of God, our limited minds and capacity for understanding the things of God. Aquinas isn’t saying that we *can’t *know God, but he does argue that to know Him (even if not fully) God must through grace join with us that we might know Him.

 

[Detales]

“*I proposed that you use faith based on evidence *” That’s what I mean: why would I go by guess and by golly? I understand that faith is trust based on evidence, but again, it is not knowledge. You are trusting that after 2000 years and all the shenanigans surrounding the founding of a temporal institution that claims to have solely and correctly interpreted the teachings of one Man few of whose words we have left, half of which are possibly attributable to other sources, all set in a story that easily bears a completely different understanding. To me, that is like being like the last person in line in a game of telephone where I have to trust my life to people in between me and the original message, the original message not even being in English. I can’t muster that much trust, won’t, and don’t need to. The teachings from which Catholicism derived are still alive and well by a means far more secure than mere faith. Before you have faith, or while, if it doesn’t interfere with your clarity, “Know thySelf” Even better, understand clearly what “you” are not!

 

[reggieM]

“*I proposed that you use faith based on evidence *” That’s what I mean: why would I go by guess and by golly?

You are required to guess because you don’t know the answer. That’s why you asked me questions – as you’re doing now. You’re asking me why I said something. Clearly, you don’t know. By faith, you think you can learn something, or that your questions are good, or that you have an inkling of an idea – this is all faith-based. The nature of your discussion here is an expression of a faith-based mind. You are not communicating knowledge, but rather probing in the dark.

I understand that faith is trust based on evidence, but again, it is not knowledge.

I fully agree.

You are trusting that after 2000 years and all the shenanigans surrounding the founding of a temporal institution that claims to have solely and correctly interpreted the teachings of one Man few of whose words we have left, half of which are possibly attributable to other sources, all set in a story that easily bears a completely different understanding.

I am trusting the founding of this divine and eternal institution to solely and correctly have preserved the teachings of this one Man-God, whose words live in His successors.

On the other hand, I could accept your interpretation of the story – but I’d need a lot more evidence about your divine calling and mission.

To me, that is like being like the last person in line in a game of telephone where I have to trust my life to people in between me and the original message, the original message not even being in English.

Certainly, I can trust Pope Benedict and the unbroken apostolic succession of bishops that have preserved and taught the Catholic Faith – or, I could trust you as possessing the true source and meaning of the “original message”. Why would I follow your teachings? Who else does so? Who can I ask about your personal revelation, about your moral character, about the signs that God has placed on you to mark you as a divine prophet? Those things would help.

I can’t muster that much trust, won’t, and don’t need to.

I think you do muster that much trust, but you send it in a different direction. You put a lot of trust in yourself. Somehow, you’ve determined that you possess knowledge about things, and you don’t require the faith that the Holy Church teaches us to possess. You cannot be decieved or mistaken in your own views.

That’s a bold claim. You’ve assured yourself that you are correct and that your personal ideas about God are true.

The teachings from which Catholicism derived are still alive and well by a means far more secure than mere faith. Before you have faith, or while, if it doesn’t interfere with your clarity, “Know thySelf” Even better, understand clearly what “you” are not!

The teachings of Catholicism are given via Faith. If there is a religious teaching about God, his Will, His Nature and His desire for you and for all mankind – which does not require faith, then it is not compatible with Catholicism.

We would call it a false-religion. You would have truths that the Catholic Church does not possess. Many prophets claim the same kind of thing, so that’s not unusual.

But the claims of self-styled prophets must be tested.

I am open to what you have to say, but for me, it needs to go beyond mere assertions and provide some evidence that what you have to say is true.

I can see the Catholic Church as a visible sign of God. I can see the saints and prophetic teachers and mystics of the Church also – I see their struggles and how they convinced authorized teachers who tested them. I see their powers and manifestations of the Spirit.

You may have all of these things also – I don’t know. All I can judge is what you post on this site and when I see contradictions (such as criticism of a faith-based position while you use precisely that position yourself in trying to overcome your own ignorance), then I question whether you’re an authentic prophet or just someone who has convinced himself of some things.

What marks of sanctity can I observe also? Again, I see the Catholic saints. I can trace them back to the apostolic age. I see the trust they gained, the works they offered and the unity of doctrine that they proclaimed. They have a heritage and lived in a path of holiness that is well-documented.

 

[Benadam]

Knowledge is a union of likeness. As it pertains to God ,knowledge begins in faith. Faith initiates and enables absolute knowledge.

 

[Detales]

ReggieM, let me try to make it simpler: Faith=by guess and by golly. I’m not asking, I’m saying. There is nothing faith based about my statements, I am speaking about my experience. So I am not sure what it is you think I am probing.

"*I am trusting the founding of this allegedly and by its own criteria divine and eternal institution to solely and incorrectly have claimed to have preserved the teachings of this one ? Man-God, whose misinterpreted words live a shadow existence in far lesser men who have contrived to claim to be His successors. *

My Divine calling and mission is exactly and precisely the same as yours, save we are clearly on different parts of the Way. The evidence I am using includes yours, but includes material and experience not included in your current understanding, as far as I can tell. Trust a Pope if you must, or any other. And there is certainly no *need *to trust me. That could be silly. But you can trust yourself, and you can trust your experience, and you can certainly trust, if anything, the lineage of Understanding that Christianity is founded on from before the Church. As for signs and marks, ours pretty well match, I’d say. You are clearly intelligent, just trained differently. I was lucky. I had everything I thought I knew yanked out from under me and had to start from a new premise. It turned out that the least helpful in the matter was the Church.

I can be deceived in many things. But I am not deceived as to the nature of my own Being. In fact, on Awakening, many have been known to say, as do I, “I have not been deceived!” And my ideas “about” God are on a rather different basis than yours, and they are anything but personal.

“The teachings of Catholicism are given via Faith.” which is the best reason to shun them and start over. And it is not that the Church doesn’t have certain truths, it ignores them and veils them into obscurity. For my part, I’d rather go direct.

“I can see the Catholic Church as a visible sign of God.” Yes, but from the correct perspective, what isn’t? but from that same perspective it can be seen that certain mental constructs are more true to fact than others.

“You may have all of these things also – I don’t know.” I have tested. You can go to the thread called Why do you think Gos allowed Protestantism and read post #825 and see my qualifications as a Catholic. On that foundation I tested the Church for years as to an adequate response to my experience and its failed, in all its forms accessible to me, to provide anything remotely reasonable as a response.

I don’t think therefore that everyone ought to run out the doors of the local Parrish. But I did see two things: One, people think according to their comfort of habit, similarly to the different animals that attend to the instinctual realms given their state of awareness. Humans do it by default. Two, it takes a shock, perhaps of a particular kind, to see clearly that one’s mind is contents, not Substance. Knowing this, all contents can be accepted or not, and restructured according to Substance. that is not for everybody, and I don’t even recommend trying, But for the sake of a few who might understand, I feel conscience bound to say that there is another way, a way from belief. Jesus didn’t believe. As did others, He Knew. Our distancing ourselves by accepting misinterpretation is the only cause for need for belief.

So I am not claiming to be a prophet, that is something you put on me, I am claiming by experience and practical trial that there is an understanding Foundational to Christianity that has been occluded by faith. As for miracles and signs, the greatest is to be able to change your own mind based on something that isn’t in it.

 

[tjm190]

Although I’m a not an atheist, let’s see how well I can defend the naturalist side-
Let us say you a pair of dice, each of which has millions and millions of faces. You roll your dice a large number of times and record your results of each roll. In the end, you have a list of numbers. One list of numbers. Think about that. Out of the 10^(insert large number here) possibilities you have arrived at this solution. Can you conclude that, since the odds of this particular sequence of numbers occurring is essentially zero, there has been some outside force that caused that almost impossible solution?
You can not- because you realize that, while there were many possibilities, SOMETHING had to happen. And although because there were so many possible somethings that could have happened each one was very unlikely, that does not mean that the particular something that did happen is the result of some manipulation of the odds.

The design argument relies on the assumption that the current outcome was the only possible outcome- it ignores the fact that when the hypothetical cosmic dice were rolled, other outcomes were possible.

 

[tonyrey]

Although I’m a not an atheist, let’s see how well I can defend the naturalist side-
Let us say you a pair of dice, each of which has millions and millions of faces. You roll your dice a large number of times and record your results of each roll…I
The design argument relies on the assumption that the current outcome was the only possible outcome- it ignores the fact that when the hypothetical cosmic dice were rolled, other outcomes were possible.

1. Where did the cosmic dice come from?
2. What causes the cosmic dice to roll?
3. How and why has the outcome of the rolling of the dice produced the knowledge that dice have been rolled and the power to choose whether or not to roll more dice?

 

[tjm190]

1. Where did the cosmic dice come from?
2. What causes the cosmic dice to roll?
3. How and why has the outcome of the rolling of the dice produced the knowledge that dice have been rolled and the power to choose whether or not to roll more dice?

I thought this was a discussion on the appearance of design in our universe, not the origin of matter/energy/space-time

 

[tonyrey]

I thought this was a discussion on the appearance of design in our universe, not the origin of matter/energy/space-time

Even if we disregard the origin of matter and space-time the origin of energy is certainly relevant because Design presupposes that the cosmic dice are caused to roll in a certain way, i.e. the energy is directed and purposeful. And even if we disregard the origin of energy the origin of knowledge and free will is at the core of the Design argument. Is it credible that they have emerged from thoughtless processes?

 

[reggieM]

ReggieM, let me try to make it simpler: Faith=by guess and by golly. I’m not asking, I’m saying. There is nothing faith based about my statements, I am speaking about my experience. So I am not sure what it is you think I am probing.

If you’re merely making declarations about your experiences, then you’re incapable of having a discussion. For you, it would be a one-way talk track. Everyone would have the privilege of listening to your knowledge, but you would not be willing to understand another person’s view. This may be because, perhaps, you claim to know what I am, what I’m thinking, my experiences of faith and my own knowledge.

If you’re claiming that, then you’re claiming supernatural powers - at least on the order of a mystic or prophet. Again, I don’t see the evidence that you are such. You’ve denied this claim later in the post – but you here claim that you don’t need to “probe” anything in order to understand. But you cannot be equipped with every possible bit of knowledge about God and the universe. Again, I do not see that.

You don’t know me and you don’t know my future. You accept, by faith, that you do or perhaps that you don’t need to. So, I see that as a ffaith-based view.

Beyond this, your knowledge would be very much limited if you were unable to communicate it successfully. You might claim that everyone who does not understand your view is “ignorant”. But you do not likewise probe the idea that perhaps you are not able to communicate your message well enough.

Again, I don’t know what view you take on this. But I would say that if you take the view that anyone who doesn’t understand what you’re saying is thereby proven “ignorant”, then I’d see that as a definite sign of narcissism (of the kind very common to self-proclaimed prophets).

But then again, you may well be much more reflective, humble and rightly skeptical of your own claims than it appears you are so I cannot and would not dare to judge.

The evidence I am using includes yours, but includes material and experience not included in your current understanding, as far as I can tell.

Again, a faith-based claim. You don’t know me or my experiences – but you draw conclusions and make claims.

Trust a Pope if you must, or any other.

It might surprise you (and here I do see signs of arrogance) but I’m not looking for your advice or permission on this. On the contrary, I note your rejection of Christ’s teaching in favor of your own and I find that to be a very serious error and flaw. So, no, I wouldn’t say that we’re on the same path at all. The path that Christ calls us to is a narrow one – requiring sublimation to God through His Church.

And there is certainly no *need *to trust me. That could be silly.

If you’re not trustworthy, then there is little need for this discussion. You cannot cite anyone who will vouch for your prophetic/mystical stature, thus far, so I don’t have a reference. I don’t know if you have disciples or followers, but I’d assume that you do – or that you’ve started some kind of church or group of some kind.

Again, lacking that and having to rely on your own personal visions and knowledge, known to you alone, supported by your own claims of greatness and wisdom … I find little there to trust and no way to validate anything you’ve claimed. There are any number of raving lunatics who claim that no one in the entire world is as wise, mystically-aware, holy, intelligent or great as they are. So again, I don’t know – are you merely a part of that community of self-validated teachers?

I can be deceived in many things. But I am not deceived as to the nature of my own Being. In fact, on Awakening, many have been known to say, as do I, “I have not been deceived!” And my ideas “about” God are on a rather different basis than yours, and they are anything but personal.

I’m open to whatever ideas about God you may have. It appears that you had some kind of private, personal revelation and you’ve accepted this as an ultimate truth against the teaching and practice of the Church.

So, I’d not only be interested in what you have to teach about God, but also how you validate it and how you’d expect anyone to believe what you’re saying.

Even Christ had to work miracles to prove his Divinity and the truth of His message. One could say the same about numerous saints. So, while I am not asking you to work a miracle to prove something to me, I am wondering why you think I (or anyone else) would think that your private vision is correct?

… continued

 

[reggieM]

… continued from previous

ou can go to the thread called Why do you think Gos allowed Protestantism and read post #825 and see my qualifications as a Catholic.

Yes, I did. I wouldn’t say that you had a long track record or that you were tested in the hardships that one should expect in the faith. You have, it seems, a good technical knowledge and grasp on the teachings, but the practice is extremly important also. We’ve all vowed ourselves to God and the Church through Baptism and Confirmation.

On that foundation I tested the Church for years as to an adequate response to my experience and its failed, in all its forms accessible to me, to provide anything remotely reasonable as a response.

Ok, that’s understandable. But how have you tested yourself with what you’ve experienced?

Jesus didn’t believe. As did others, He Knew. Our distancing ourselves by accepting misinterpretation is the only cause for need for belief.

Well, we might forget Jesus’ cry – “Father, why have you forsaken me?” Or again, “if it be Thy will, let this Cup pass from me.”

This is the dark night. This is where there is merit – not in whatever kind of knowledge we claim, but rather in the fidelity we show when there is little consolation of knowledge. So, Jesus taught us the value of Faith since He suffered the darkness Himself.

But again, I can accept that many people reach very high mystical states – as many of the saints have done, and they “see God” in a sense, in a true manner. They do transcend faith, as the apostles did at the Transfiguration. But these states are only reached through faith and they require a continued faith to be sustained.

St. Pio, for example, suffered bitter, mystical wounds for 50 years – every day, 24/7. He didn’t need “faith” to see the stigmata. He “knew” where they came from. But it was faith that gave him those wounds, and he did suffer from the dark night.

So I am not claiming to be a prophet, that is something you put on me, I am claiming by experience and practical trial that there is an understanding Foundational to Christianity that has been occluded by faith.

Again, I don’t want to disrespect your spirituality. You may be blessed in some way that I cannot understand. But I hope you can accept that it should be your task to build some kind of basis upon which a person can evaluate what you’re saying. Otherwise, you merely appear to be a person who has had some kind of personal vision and has therefore rejected the Catholic Church. That is not a compelling story.

As for miracles and signs, the greatest is to be able to change your own mind based on something that isn’t in it.

That may be a great miracle, but I wouldn’t say it’s the greatest. Certainly, raising a person from the dead, as St. Peter did – that’s a much greater miracle as I see it.

So, lacking miracles, lacking anyone to testify to the truth of your vision and teaching – or even of your moral qualities … we still have your claim of special knowledge about God.

This knowledge has enabled you to dispense with the need for sacraments or any spiritual direction from a priest.

So, as I see it – you’ve cut yourself off from sacramental absolution. This is a major problem as I see it.

Even the greatest of the Desert Fathers confessed their sins to a priest.

 

[Detales]

ReggieM~~"This may be because, perhaps, you claim to know what I am, what I’m thinking, my experiences of faith and my own knowledge. I don’t know who you are; I do know what you are: Conscious awareness Being. I don’t know your experience with faith; how could I. I know mine. Faith is inadequate as a category to deal with Reality because it is part of the veil. What sort of knowledge do you have? Do you know?

"*If you’re claiming that, then you’re claiming supernatural powers - at least on the order of a mystic or prophet. Again, I don’t see the evidence that you are such. You’ve denied this claim later in the post – but you here claim that you don’t need to “probe” anything in order to understand. But you cannot be equipped with every possible bit of knowledge about God and the universe. Again, I do not see that. * I am not claiming “supernatural” powers. That’s silly. And I do claim that it is essential to probe: OneSelf, as in “Know thySelf.”

"*You don’t know me and you don’t know my future. You accept, by faith, that you do or perhaps that you don’t need to. So, I see that as a faith-based view. * All I am sure about your future is that eventually you will wake up. “Wacht Auf!”

"Beyond this, your knowledge would be very much limited if you were unable to communicate it successfully. You might claim that everyone who does not understand your view is “ignorant”. But you do not likewise probe the idea that perhaps you are not able to communicate your message well enough. This is an interesting point. You are right. I cannot communicate what I know. I only hope that someone will have or has had a similar experience to mine and we can talk. This has happened several times on here. I’m not jiving; I’m talking about a Real perception about oneSelf that is available if one does the work.

"Again, I don’t know what view you take on this. But I would say that if you take the view that anyone who doesn’t understand what you’re saying is thereby proved “ignorant”, then I’d see that as a definite sign of narcissism (of the kind very common to self-proclaimed prophets). Everyone is ignorant one way or another to one degree or anther. It is a condition of humanity. That certainly includes me. But all I am saying is that there is another way of knowing, one which enlarges the meaning of the Gospels immeasurably. Even if you say that they are already immeasurable, that does not apply to each one’s understanding of their Significance. The map is not the territory. You are talking about the map, and I am talking about the territory.

"*Again, a faith-based claim. You don’t know me or my experiences – but you draw conclusions and make claims. *Sorry if that seemed too large. I merely meant that I have a very strong Roman Catholic background and therefore have a comprehension of your standpoint which is amazingly similar to what mine was before things changed for me.

"It might surprise you (and here I do see signs of arrogance) but I’m not looking for your advice or permission on this. On the contrary, I note your rejection of Christ’s teaching in favor of your own and I find that to be a very serious error and flaw. So, no, I wouldn’t say that we’re on the same path at all. The path that Christ calls us to is a narrow one – requiring sublimation to God through His Church. You mistake confidence for arrogance, as is common. I was merely saying I don’t care whom you trust. And I emphatically do not reject the Teaching of the Christ. My life cannot be founded on anything other. I just don’t play “Church telephone.”

"If you’re not trustworthy, then there is little need for this discussion. You cannot cite anyone who will vouch for your prophetic/mystical stature, thus far, so I don’t have a reference. I don’t know if you have disciples or followers, but I’d assume that you do – or that you’ve started some kind of church or group of some kind. I didn’t say you couldn’t or shouldn’t trust me, I said you don’t need to. I even emphasized that. I make no claims of comparison, so you don’t need to find a voucher for me. I do not seek nor have disciples, I have friends. And there is only One Church.

"Again, lacking that and having to rely on your own personal visions and knowledge, known to you alone, supported by your own claims of greatness and wisdom … I find little there to trust and no way to validate anything you’ve claimed. There are any number of raving lunatics who claim that no one in the entire world is as wise, mystically-aware, holy, intelligent or great as they are. So again, I don’t know – are you merely a part of that community of self-validated teachers? My vision and Knowledge in this matter is anything but personal. It is not known to me alone, as it has been known for 5000 years at least, likely far more, and forever in another sense.And yep, that would be a good description of most believers, save that there are so many no one notices. The only validation there can be is Self validation. Go and see.

"I’m open to whatever ideas about God you may have. It appears that you had some kind of private, personal revelation and you’ve accepted this as an ultimate truth against the teaching and practice of the Church. So far your receptivity is no indication of openness on your part, and neither is your misunderstanding of my intent or meaning. And “ultimate truth” could never be against the Church, though in a higher understanding parts of in would tend to fade, and others would become transparent, as now they are not. That is my experience; it might become yours or not. Up to you, totally.

…continued

 

[Detales]

I have nothing to teach about God. God IS. If you wish to know God, look deeply at God’s image and likeness and release your limited thoughts about Divinity. You would then see that what I say needs no validation. And I give not a whit what anyone thinks of my “private vision,” they ought to have their own. Then we could talk. This has happened. Quite exciting!

"*Yes, I did. I wouldn’t say that you had a long track record or that you were tested in the hardships that one should expect in the faith. You have, it seems, a good technical knowledge and grasp on the teachings, but the practice is extremely important also. We’ve all vowed ourselves to God and the Church through Baptism and Confirmation. * Now who is reading who’s mind?

"Ok, that’s understandable. But how have you tested yourself with what you’ve experienced? At last, an intelligent question. The test of Reality is “Does it change?” The “I” of you or of me does not change. The part that changes, person, is the realm of the contents of awareness, which is programmable by experience and education. It is the acquired aspect of the human that is mistaken for “I,” as in “I know that my faith is the one true, etc” When you are able to see by experience that everything you think yourself to be is contents, and not Substance, you will understand yourSelf and religion on an entirely different footing. The only danger is that the intellectual part of your brain is so strongly trained it overshadows even divinity. In that case, Jesus could sit next to you on the bus, an you wouldn’t know. And if He opened His mouth to teach, you would happily, perhaps, crucify Him yet again. What I am saying is that unless you experience your persona to be only and entirely in the subject/object realm, you will naturally mistake teaching.

That might better be translated as “…why hast Thou glorified me?” and the Cup, the Grail had to pass from Him or the sacrifice would be useless. And as far as faith in the dark night of the soul, you can call it that if you will. He had not yet passed the three days in hell.

"* But I hope you can accept that it should be your task to build some kind of basis upon which a person can evaluate what you’re saying.* It has been built. Even Jesus proclaimed it. It is called, amongst many other names, the Perennial Philosophy. I only stumbled upon it and Discovered. As to special knowledge of God, there is no other kind. God is not in a book, nor in practices, nor in traditions. And if as the Church say, that a sacrament is an outward sign of inward grace, than I have received that many times over. even daily, and as a constant. My leaving the Church as I knew it was the act that allowed my reconnection with Divinity. I know that is far fetched, but it is closer than the nose on your face.