Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[AlNg]

things of our everyday experience have causes.

I don’t think so. I don’t see the cause as to why on some occasions you want vanilla ice cream and at other times you want chocolate. It is a free choice which is independent of any deterministic cause. For example, someone claims the specific choice is caused by your mood. But this is nonsense, because you can be in a bad mood and still freely choose one or the other. Having a free choice means that there are some events without deterministic causes.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t see the cause as to why on some occasions you want vanilla ice cream and at other times you want chocolate

Not seeing is not the same as not existing. The causes of our preferences in such matters, proximate, what we recently saw, smelled, thought, etc., or remote, such as what we were given as a child, had in school, ate on a bad date, etc., can exist without us being able to elucidate them.

The causality may not be something everyone believes or excepts, but denying such a principle probably makes dialogue impossible, as it sets people in different universes, even bigger than the generational gap that plagues us here.

 

[Wesrock]

We would object to the idea that all causes produce necessary effects. Something such as a voluntary will would be caused insofar as it is ontologically dependent on something else for its continued operation. That is, it is caused to be what it is: a will capable of voluntary choices. We could also view this from a different angle, in which such choices are caused by a feeling of hunger, specific tastes, the presence of the object desired, and so on, but again with no need to affirm that the effect proceeds from the cause in a necessary instead of voluntary motion.

 

[AlNg]

feeling of hunger, specific tastes, the presence of the object desired,

Regardless of a specific feeling of hunger, specific tastes, the presence of the object desired, or a particular mood, you still have the free choice as to whether or not you will choose to buy a vanilla or a chocolate ice cream. Suppose for example that you hunger for a vanilla ice cream. Even so, you remain free to choose a chocolate ice cream cone.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

feeling of hunger, specific tastes, the presence of the object desired,

Regardless of a specific feeling of hunger, specific tastes, the presence of the object desired, or a particular mood, you still have the free choice as to whether or not you will choose to buy a vanilla or a chocolate ice cream. Suppose for example that you hunger for a vanilla ice cream. Even so, you remain free to choose a chocolate ice cream cone.

Agreed. The choice is free. I wouldn’t say the movement of the will (if you’ll allow me to call it that) is uncaused, though.

 

[Gorgias]

That is where your job starts. I gave you a possible solution, which you don’t like, because it contradicts your null-hypothesis.

Have you ever had that experience where you’re talking to someone, and in the course of conversation, they use a term in a way that demonstrates they have no idea what that term means? It tends to end the conversation in a hurry, at least for me.

Have a wonderful day.

 

[Sophia]

Have you ever had that experience where you’re talking to someone, and in the course of conversation, they use a term in a way that demonstrates they have no idea what that term means?

Oh, yes. It happens to me frequently. Unfortunately with you, too, as the other party. I was hoping that you are little better than the run-of-mill “apologist”.

It tends to end the conversation in a hurry, at least for me.

No, I don’t prefer to leave the other party “wallowing” in his ignorance. Instead of running away, I like point out exactly where the error lies, and then I like to enlighten him how to realize the mistake. So they can learn something new.

This post of yours was a perfect example of presenting an empty argument. Just a few meaningless sentences, generic in nature. I already pointed out that God (or the devil) is in the details. But you refuse to learn.

You said - semi-correctly this:

I described it qualitatively: it’s the same epistemology that science uses. (And no, I’m not talking about the “scientific method” – I’m talking about the approach that says “investigate, think, reason, conclude.” We know truth in similar ways – even if we use different tools in various disciplines.)

You don’t understand that this IS the scientific method. “Investigate, think, reason and conclude”. Perfectly well said! It is used by every branch of objective studies. The only difference is in the step of “investigate”. In physics we use the methods of physics. In chemistry we use the methods of chemistry. Every specific branch uses its own specific method, based upon the specialty. No sane person would demand that you prove the existence of demons by using chemical means.

I was asking (in vain) what is the specific method used in theology, angelology and demonology. The method is whatever you wish to employ, with the same restrictions as we demand for any and all disciplines. Repeating again, since you tend to forget: "Any and all methods are accepted, as long as they are objective, measurable, repeatable and one is not required to accept your conclusions a priori.” Not that big a deal. It did not “single out” God, it is the same whether you have a proposition about angels, demons, the soul, some paranormal activities, alchemy or astrology - or any branch of natural sciences.

I made a bet yesterday with a friend of mine. I plucked down a few coins and said that you will disappear from the conversation. So far I am winning, and I would prefer to lose. After all I am ignorant of the methods to discover angels, gods, demons or souls. I wanted to learn.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Saint Thomas of Aquinas had a theory:

God is the Unmoved Mover.

There was nothing.

Something created the Whole Universe from nothing.
Science even states this.

That something is God.

 

[Gorgias]

Oh, yes. It happens to me frequently. Unfortunately with you, too, as the other party. I was hoping that you are little better than the run-of-mill “apologist”.

Nice try.

You’ve proven your mettle (or lack thereof). If all you’ve got now is insults, then you can shout them to the empty air.

I made a bet yesterday with a friend of mine. I plucked down a few coins and said that you will disappear from the conversation. So far I am winning, and I would prefer to lose. After all I am ignorant of the methods to discover angels, gods, demons or souls. I wanted to learn.

Sucker’s bet. Does he know your tactics? Or was he just betting that I suffer idiocy patiently?

Look: you asked for an epistemology, and I gave you a qualitative description. You thought I was talking about the scientific method, and I informed you that I am not – rather, merely about the epistemological grounds with undergird both the scientific method and theological discussion.

You asked not for “methods to discover angels, gods, demons or cults”, but for an epistemological basis. You’ve gotten what you asked for.

If you want to learn, you might consider listening more and offering insults less.

Jesus had an interesting turn of phrase for your modus operandi: “like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, but you did not dance. We sang a dirge, but you did not weep.’”

 

[Sophia]

Look: you asked for an epistemology, and I gave you a qualitative description.

Yes, and I accepted it as an abstract description of how to gain knowledge in all the different branches of study, regardless of specifics. At the same time I emphasized that the “qualitative” definition is insufficient. It is useless in any specific field. You might have just said: “Go forth and think”. You still did not get the principle that “God (or the devil) is in the details”.

You asked not for “methods to discover angels, gods, demons or cults”, but for an epistemological basis.

Of course that is exactly what I asked, many times. Not just implicitly, but explicitly. Without an actual, explicit method you have nothing. So far you were either unable or unwilling to provide the actual methods of “theology, and associated subjects”.

It was interesting when you included the word “investigate” in your definition. Because that is the crux of the matter. How do you “investigate” gods, angels and demons? The inclusion of the word “investigate” was your downfall, because it exposes your lack of specifics. From that moment onward you had to start dancing around, denying what the subject is - because you wanted to avoid the call of the street urchin: “The emperor has NO clothes!”

 

[Gorgias]

At the same time I emphasized that the “qualitative” definition is insufficient. It is useless in any specific field.

Then don’t ask for an epistemology.

How do you “investigate” gods, angels and demons?

The same way all scholars do: use the materials at hand.

Let me go find a friend to bet with. I’ll bet him that, when I mention the sources for research and debate in theological matters, you’ll scoff and insult them. I’m sure I’ll win.

 

[Sophia]

Then don’t ask for an epistemology.

I guess, you still don’t understand that the devil is in the details. And that I asked for the specifics.

The same way all scholars do: use the materials at hand.

Ah, the details Not actually an avalanche of them to be scared of.

I’ll bet him that, when I mention the sources for research and debate in theological matters, you’ll scoff and insult them.

Go ahead. If those sources are objective, measurable, repeatable and one is not required to accept your conclusions a priori - you can bet your last penny that I will respect them - and you will win! I guess you need the repetition: I already enumerated these simple requirements several times. I also added that these are the necessary requirements for each and every claim, NOT just the theological ones. The requirements are not created to make your life (or the life of other apologists) more difficult. Theological claims do not enjoy a special privilege. Nor are they encumbered by special requirements.

So present your specific arguments how can one evaluate claims about gods, angels and demons (also the “soul”) and let the fun begin. I can hardly wait.

 

[Wesrock]

Go ahead. If those sources are objective, measurable, repeatable and one is not required to accept your conclusions a priori - you can bet your last penny that I will respect them - and you will win! I guess you need the repetition: I already enumerated these simple requirements several times. I also added that these are the necessary requirements for each and every claim, NOT just the theological ones.

Please demonstrate your claim that objective, measurable, repeatable, and non a priori sources are necessary requirements for every claim using only objective, measurable, repeatable, and non a priori sources. You did say every claim. Your own words. So back up your claim so as to avoid special pleading.

 

[Sophia]

Please demonstrate your claim that objective, measurable, repeatable, and non a priori sources are necessary requirements for every claim using only objective, measurable, repeatable, and non a priori sources. You did say every claim. Your own words. So back up your claim so as to avoid special pleading.

What is your problem? First of all I was talking about claims of the objective reality, not some subjective evaluation of it.

If the claim is about the objective reality, then the method to substantiate it also must be objective. What can we do with a subjective opinion? If the event is not measurable, how do you decide if he claim is correct or not? If the event is not repeatable all you have is a one-off event, and no assurance that it will happen again. What use is that?

God is part of the objective reality. God has a constant two-way interaction with our physical world. People open up a communication channel with God millions of times every day - in the form of supplicative or intercessory prayers. God sometimes grants those requests, and other times refuses them. All these are excellent, objective, measurable and repeatable events to have an interaction with God.

So I don’t know what you point is. Unlike Gorgias, maybe you will come clean.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Please demonstrate your claim that objective, measurable, repeatable, and non a priori sources are necessary requirements for every claim using only objective, measurable, repeatable, and non a priori sources. You did say every claim. Your own words. So back up your claim so as to avoid special pleading.

What is your problem? First of all I was talking about claims of the objective reality, not some subjective evaluation of it.

If the claim is about the objective reality, then the method to substantiate it also must be objective. What can we do with a subjective opinion? If the event is not measurable, how do you decide if he claim is correct or not? If the event is not repeatable all you have is a one-off event, and no assurance that it will happen again. What use is that?

God is part of the objective reality. God has a constant two-way interaction with our physical world. People open up a communication channel with God millions of times every day - in the form of supplicative or intercessory prayers. God sometimes grants those requests, and other times refuses them. All these are excellent, objective, measurable and repeatable events to have an interaction with God.

So I don’t know what you point is. Unlike Gorgias, maybe you will come clean.

This isn’t what you said before. You were quite clear and very adamant (you used bold type even!) that each and every claim must be demonstrated by objective, measurable, repeatable sources. That is clearly self-defeating. You didn’t make any distinction that you were only referring to ontological claims. Though it should be noted that how we can come to real knowledge about reality seems to be a real feature of reality. Anyway, the claim that epistemology precedes ontology is also a claim that can’t be demonstrated by objective, measurable, and repeatable sources.

At the very least, claims about appropriate epistemology are reasoned a posteriori. We should be careful about ruling out certain epistemologies a priori, as well. All of this undermines your holier-than-thou approach to proper epistemology. What can we do with subjective opinion, after all? You use the same a posteriori reasoning skills to determine an epistemology as Gorgias and others do.

Speaking of a priori claims, the idea that our perceptions track reality is taken a priori. It’s not something that can be demonstarted through objective, measurable, repeatable sources, nor is it something that can be reasoned a posteriori.

And speaking of a posteriori claims, it should be noted that, while the ontological argument is an a priori claim, the cosmological arguments are not. They’re a posteriori.

And the claim that God is “part” of objective reality doesn’t fit, either. It’s even less appropriate than saying an author is part of the mental reality of a story, setting, and characters in his head.

 

[Sophia]

This isn’t what you said before. You were quite clear and very adamant (you used bold type even!) that each and every claim must be demonstrated by objective, measurable, repeatable sources.

Do you really think that I should repeat every proposition issued in every post of this thread? Over 450 posts? If you are interested, you can follow the thread back to its origin. If you prefer I am willing to give you a synopsis. Just let me know.

 

[Gorgias]

If those sources are objective, measurable, repeatable and one is not required to accept your conclusions a priori

When one is dealing in empirical measurements and the scientific method, then “objective, measureable, repeatable” is a reasonable set of standards.

When one is dealing in history and in the written record, those are not the standards.

It’s almost as if we were standing on a soccer pitch and you said, “please explain soccer to me – but you are only allowed to do so by making recourse to baseball.” No one would accept those terms, since they’re absurd in that context!

Same here: not all explanations must (or should) use the ground rules of science. Until you recognize this, ‘no explanation is possible’ (to steal a phrase from Aquinas)…

 

[Gorgias]

So I don’t know what you point is.

The point is that your grounds – your attempt at defining an epistemology, or a method, or whatever you want to call it – are unreasonable in the given context.

But that’s ok… we get what your game is. You don’t have to come clean.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

The supposition already has been raised but not with the phraseology ‘proven.’
Set aside for a moment from where creation and nature came.
Every person has an impetus for thinking, speaking, and behaving.
In the following article Pope Benedict xvi in 2000 speaks on something
called ‘Practical Atheism’ and it’s dangers.
All of history bears this out. The Declaration of Independence declares
are entitled to certain rights; like self-determination as long a it doesn’t
impinge on another person or person’s self determination from
“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” However many of the Founding
Fathers were Christian or Deist is debated; but along with Christians
enjoying more conscience, rights of religious observance publically
according to conscience (not ‘just Church worship’ - which comes from
oppressive regimes to placate while suppressing conscience in word and deed)
~~ however, even the Deists came from a background which thought of the
Judaeo Christian ethic as ideals.
~My point regarding your question? If it is widespread in cultures that
there is no God; that the forces of creation and nature are just arbitrary
and not part of an All Powerful All Knowing sending God, Who Sends
God’s Word everywhere to be Omni-present — then someone’s unfeathered
ego arbitrarily according to a conscience formed many ways that does
not objectively strive to bring about the good of the other; because of things
like it interferes with personal comfort, or even if losing control of situation
brings about the common good without any objective oppression on the person,
(i.e. starvation, thirst, lack of protection with real threats of bodily harm);
will impinge on other’s freedoms to serve his or her ego. And history is full
of examples when groups of egos with a common goal of retaining power
over others; oppressing anyone who gets in their way.
We are now living in a culture; where by harsh peer pressure by honey
speech playing at heart stings seduction for a long time, resulting
in legislating and adjudicating more and more to suppress and oppress
the Judaeo Christian ethic. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen prophesied that
with it becoming more and more difficult to practice Christianity in conscience
observance, that more and more Christians are letting themselves be filled
with complacency of things contrary to Christianity - and mixing them into
their lives - that Christendom defined as many keeping in practice the
Judaeo Christian ethic, even if they aren’t regular Church goers; that
they gradually assimilate things that oppose Christianity that more and more
oppression of the Judaeo Christian ethic will happen; and vast numbers of people
will not even notice because they gave up authentic Christianity. Non Catholic
David Wilkerson of The Cross and The Switchblade fame warned that
the spirit of accommodation of things opposing the Judaeo Christian ethic
is becoming widespread. (cont…)

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Well, it seems to me the answer to your question is self-evident; Soviet Union
type oppression happens, totalitarian (despot) or what Pope Benedict xvi
calls the dictatorship of moral relativism (despots) happens. With the Creeds of our land, the rights afforded us in the Constitution — it is also evident that there is a wide
spread lukewarmness due to the ‘powerful delusion,’ that while authentic Christianity
has been gradually oppressed by more and more intellectual elite becoming of ‘one mind’ to at least by peer pressure, even purposeful humor to marginalize Christianity;
the true conduit to God through Jesus Christ for true freedom — as oppressive
in one’s personal life; and everyone’s rights. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
~ John Adams 1798 The delusion is that there is no real suppression or oppression;
or that it isn’t dangerous. Or they put so much onus on the parents in this oppression; that raising awareness with more and more visibility in the hedgerows and highways — and higher levels of stewardship does not get in the minds of many perceived joint culpability. We must lift more than our finger to help them in various ways.
~
Jesus Christ said to take up your cross and follow Me if you want to be My disciple.
The Apostles exhorted that all true Christians will suffer for their faith. Many Christians suffer because of the way their children turned away from the faith;
(I don’t want to discuss culpability, but it is regards to the above already written.)
some are truly suffering to strive to win back freedom. Many with solidarity with
our brothers and sisters in the womb who die painfully by the thousands every single day. Many suffer because various levels of Stewardship in The Church down to the laity; in real human issues where deep concern and efforts to alleviate suffering must
be done; do not realize the dangerous pervasiveness to use those real human
concerns with creative subterfuge by the intellectual elite of one mind on many issues of freedom used to suppress the Judaeo Christian ethic as a ‘straw man,’ to help their agenda that suppresses freedoms and promotes the culture of death. Without clear sustained creative exhortations and actions for widespread visible clarity as to the oppression of freedoms and life; along with bringing light to the other concerns — only aids and abets the continued and war of attrition to take away the Judaeo Christian ethic freedoms.
God Bless, peace, and warm regards.