Thoughts on the gay cake case

[PRmerger]

Besides most atheists do not deny God’s existence,

LOL!

they simply point out that God is an undefined entity.

That’s a very peculiar assertion.

The classical definition of God, as defined by philosophers for millenia, is that God is the immaterial necessary being who is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Perhaps if you could articulate the Catholic’s apologia for infallibility first.

Right now it appears as if you don’t understand the arguments the Church presents for infallibility.

After you correctly articulate the Church’s position, then we can chat.

Well, the claim is that the Holy Spirit will guide the church in matters of faith and morals. Then there is the claim that Christ personally founded the church, and promised that not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. Then there is the claim that the Magisterium is infallible in the case of faith and morals.

But these are only the claims of the church. Where is the proof for them? Do you have anything more substantial? I am all ears.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that is not how the dialog plays out.

Egg-zactly. Thanks for making my point.

My example of atheist/Believer dialogue is “not how the dialogue plays out”.
And that’s why I used it as a counterpoint to your example of atheist/Catholic dialogue.

Both are "not how the dialogue plays out’.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The classical definition of God, as defined by philosophers for millenia, is that God is the immaterial necessary being who is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient.

Except that omnipotent and omniscient are undefined attributes. Most “philosophers” like to play fast and loose with esoteric words; they make up new concepts and most people are scared to point out that “the emperor has no clothes”. They don’t dare to point out that many of these concepts are meaningless, because they are scared to be labeled as “ignoramuses”. Well, I am that street urchin, who is not afraid to point out that “omnipotent” and “omniscient” are meaningless, undefined concepts - along with the “necessary being” or “absolute perfection”. I am not afraid to say that “efficient causation” or “essence” are nonsensical concepts.

I am quite familiar with the reasoning of Plantinga, Anselm et al. None of them holds any water. But this is not the place to go into detail. If you are so inclined, pick whichever definition you like most, and start a thread about it.

 

[PRmerger]

You are right. No one here has said it. But actions speak louder than words, don’t they?

Indeed, they do. Now, if you can offer any examples of Catholics here who have acted in any contemptuous way towards homosexuals, then please provide these examples.

Otherwise, your accusations that some Catholics here on this thread have some hateful actions towards homosexuals is perilously close to violating the 8th commandment.

And I do not generalize. Some people are quite tolerant towards the homosexuals in general, but not tolerant toward what they do in the privacy of their home.

Well, yeah. Just like I hope you would be tolerant towards wife beaters, but not tolerant towards what they do in the privacy of their home, yeah?

Thank you. I am quite familiar with them. They are even less convincing than Aquinas’ Five ways.

Really. You’ve read all of them?

That would make your reference to Aquinas’ 5 ways curious, then, because those 20 arguments include Aquinas’ 5 ways.

The logical conclusion when you say they are “less convincing than Aquinas’ Five ways”, when they ARE Aquinas’ 5 ways, expanded, is that you haven’t even considered 1 of them.

That’s what the evidence tells me, anyway, from your post.

And I like using evidence to make conclusions.

Nevertheless, since you claim to be “quite familiar” with them, why don’t you offer which of the 20 you fine the most compelling.

NB: It is understood that you don’t find any of them convincing, but which one is the “best of the worst”?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, the claim is that the Holy Spirit will guide the church in matters of faith and morals. Then there is the claim that Christ personally founded the church, and promised that not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. Then there is the claim that the Magisterium is infallible in the case of faith and morals.

But these are only the claims of the church. Where is the proof for them? Do you have anything more substantial? I am all ears.

I applaud your correct elucidation of Catholic apologia for infallibility.

As far as proof for her claims, I think, first, in order to provide proof to an atheist we have to first provide proof for God’s existence. Then for Christ’s divinity.

Right now, since you deny both, don’t you think it’s rather otiose to attempt to offer apologia for infallibility when you don’t even believe in the divinity of Christ?

But if you are going to grant God’s existence and the divinity of Christ for the sake of this discussion, then we can chat!

 

[PRmerger]

Of course not all Catholics “hate” gays, but quite a few of them do… and their hatred also must be tolerated (usual disclaimer).

What the…??

Who says that Catholic hatred of homosexuals “also be tolerated”?

Can you please 'splain where that statement is borne from?

 

[PRmerger]

Except that omnipotent and omniscient are undefined attributes

So is the mind.

Yet I presume you believe in its existence, yes?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

My example of atheist/Believer dialogue is “not how the dialogue plays out”.
And that’s why I used it as a counterpoint to your example of atheist/Catholic dialogue.

Both are "not how the dialogue plays out’.

Well, in that case would you point out where I made a mistake in presenting my hypothetical Catholic’s argument? I did not use the quote feature, but those were the exact arguments I read and heard throughout the years.

I, however, pointed out explicitly where your hypothetical atheist does not represent the general atheist view. The average atheist simply finds the offered evidence lacking.

Well, yeah. Just like I hope you would be tolerant towards wife beaters, but not tolerant towards what they do in the privacy of their home, yeah?

I would suggest not to confuse beating someone with loving someone. We are not tolerant to the action of “beating” someone, but we must be tolerant to professing the belief that “one should not spare the rod”, when raising children (hmmm… where did I read that??). Professing a belief is not the same as putting it into practice. (I am still against the idea of “thought crime”).

Really. You’ve read all of them? yeah?

Of course. Not fun read to be sure.

That would make your reference to Aquinas’ 5 ways curious, then, because those 20 arguments include Aquinas’ 5 ways.

The logical conclusion when you say they are “less convincing than Aquinas’ Five ways”, when they ARE Aquinas’ 5 ways, expanded, is that you haven’t even considered 1 of them.

Have you heard the phrase: “sometimes more is less”?

Nevertheless, since you claim to be “quite familiar” with them, why don’t you offer which of the 20 you fine the most compelling.

NB: It is understood that you don’t find any of them convincing, but which one is the “best of the worst”?

I can only offer the worst of the worst: “The Pascal’s Wager”. Then comes the “common consent”, or the “argument from desire”… not just not compelling but simply childish. The Anselm’s GCB is very bad, too. Let’s just declare a photo-finish. All come out last, but some are lagging behind even then. Just like: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

Who says that Catholic hatred of homosexuals “also be tolerated”?

I still do not accept the concept of thought-crime. Any hatred by any person must be tolerated - as long as it is not put into practice. The freedom of conscience is important, even it that conscience is “ill-formed”.

So is the mind.

Yet I presume you believe in its existence, yes?

That is not a good analogy. With the omnimax attributes the “basis” is fine. We all know what “knowledge” is all about. We also know what “power” or “ability to do something” is all about. The problem comes when these meaningful concepts are blown up to create “infinite attributes”.

The mind is simply an activity of the brain, just like walking or dancing are the activity of the muscles in the legs. The mind is not an ontologically existing “entity”, just like there is no ontologically existing “walking” or “dancing”.

As I said the problem arises when one attempts to created “infinite attributes”. Any attribute is a limitation. If an object has the attribute of “small”, it lacks the attribute of “large”. If someone has the attribute of “smart”, he lacks the attribute of “stupid”. Christians tried to overcome this problem by creating “infinite” attributes, like “omnipotent” and “omniscient”. One can have a hazy idea what these words mean, but when you start to analyze them deeper, they are undefined.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I applaud your correct elucidation of Catholic apologia for infallibility.

Thank you, that is very kind.

As far as proof for her claims, I think, first, in order to provide proof to an atheist we have to first provide proof for God’s existence. Then for Christ’s divinity.

Right now, since you deny both, don’t you think it’s rather otiose to attempt to offer apologia for infallibility when you don’t even believe in the divinity of Christ?

That surely would help. The trouble is that the proof must be fully secular or rational. No mentioning of “revelation”, or “miracles”, or any unsubstantiated phenomena. I admit that this is a serious limitation, but if you wish to conduct a conversation, then you need to limit yourself to something I can comprehend.

But if you are going to grant God’s existence and the divinity of Christ for the sake of this discussion, then we can chat!

I would be willing to accept (for the sake of discussion) that the physical universe is “not all there is”. That there is something “out there” which is not physical, yet has the ability to interact with the physical reality. There will be the interface problem, of course. If there is an interaction between the non-physical and physical realms, then the non-physical can be detected at the point of the interface.

Also you would need to explain just how can a non-physical entity interact with the physical realm. There are all those “new-agers”, who believe in telekinesis, and stuff like that, but none of those claims have ever been substantiated.

Of course I am aware that there are many “non-physical” entities, namely: “actions, attributes and relationships”. But all of those require a physical underpinning, and all of them are “inert”, unable to effect the physical reality. So there are a lot of hurdles for those who wish to establish the existence of this “non-physical, yet active” being.

And even if they are successful, that would be a far cry from establishing the existence of Yahweh, and Jesus, not to mention the angels, the demons and maybe ghosts? It is your call, if you wish to go there.

 

[minkymurph]

If they secretly build weapons, then “no”. But if they simply engage in non-harmful activity, then “yes”. It is just the good, old “live and let live” principle.

The reason I said do we need to know is if they are engaging in non-harmful activity, it is none of our business. We do not need tolerance if what people do impacts on our lives in some way, but when it is done in private and none of our concern tolerance is irrelevant.

I’m a great believer in minding my own business. It’s a belief that has served me well.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The reason I said do we need to know is if they are engaging in non-harmful activity, it is none of our business. We do not need tolerance if what people do impacts on our lives in some way, but when it is done in private and none of our concern tolerance is irrelevant.

I’m a great believer in minding my own business. It’s a belief that has served me well.

It is a very wise principle.

Here is an old joke for you. I hope you will like it.

An elderly woman calls the police and complains that the couple across the street engages in some disgusting sexual practices, which make her very uncomfortable. Two policemen come to investigate, and when they look at the house, they see nothing objectionable at all. They say it to the old woman, who replies: “Not where you stand, from there you can’t see it”. And she climbs up on top of the wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod, and leans out sideways… then says: “But if you come up here, you will see what I am talking about!”.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, in that case would you point out where I made a mistake in presenting my hypothetical Catholic’s argument? I did not use the quote feature, but those were the exact arguments I read and heard throughout the years.

Well, if I heard only those arguments, I would have been an atheist as well. Or at least, not a Catholic.

So that’s why it’s good for you to be here so you can consider some actual apologia for our POV.

 

[PRmerger]

I would suggest not to confuse beating someone with loving someone.

And no on here has done that as far as I can tell.

We are not tolerant to the action of “beating” someone,

Egg-zactly. So what someone does in the “privacy of his home” can be something we would NOT tolerate. That is, if we are to be a moral society.

but we must be tolerant to professing the belief that “one should not spare the rod”, when raising children (hmmm… where did I read that??).

No idea.

 

[PRmerger]

I can only offer the worst of the worst: “The Pascal’s Wager”.

Well, if you actually read the argument, you would see that it’s not a proof for God’s existence at all. It simply is either an impetus to get you started–kind of like an appetizer that whets the palate for considering the actual arguments for God’s existence…or after one has considered all the arguments and one is still wavering, PW simply pushes one to the “Belief” side because of logic.

It is not an argument at all for God’s existence.

Then comes the “common consent”, or the “argument from desire”… not just not compelling but simply childish. The Anselm’s GCB is very bad, too. Let’s just declare a photo-finish. All come out last, but some are lagging behind even then. Just like: “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.

What is wrong with St. Anselm’s argument?

And what is wrong with this argument: whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

I still do not accept the concept of thought-crime. Any hatred by any person must be tolerated - as long as it is not put into practice.

Is this a moral absolute you are proposing?

Do you think some people could be intolerant to hate and step in to stop someone from thinking hateful thoughts about, say, African Americans?

For them it would be moral to do so?

That is not a good analogy. With the omnimax attributes the “basis” is fine. We all know what “knowledge” is all about. We also know what “power” or “ability to do something” is all about. The problem comes when these meaningful concepts are blown up to create “infinite attributes”.

I don’t find it difficult to think in the abstract.

That some people do…well, I guess I just feel a bit bemused about this and have some sort of pity for that inability.

 

[PRmerger]

I would be willing to accept (for the sake of discussion) that the physical universe is “not all there is”. That there is something “out there” which is not physical, yet has the ability to interact with the physical reality. There will be the interface problem, of course. If there is an interaction between the non-physical and physical realms, then the non-physical can be detected at the point of the interface.

No, PA.

In order to offer apologia for the infallibility of the Church, you must first concede *the divinity of Christ. * Not the existence of something else “out there”.

For the sake of the discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

That surely would help. The trouble is that the proof must be fully secular or rational. No mentioning of “revelation”, or “miracles”, or any unsubstantiated phenomena. I admit that this is a serious limitation, but if you wish to conduct a conversation, then you need to limit yourself to something I can comprehend.

Firstly, 19 of the arguments were completely secular and rational.

Secondly, rejecting miracles as de facto inadmissible is begging the question.
Why wouldn’t miracles be a proof for God’s existence?

I mean, really, if even ONE miracle occurred, that would be proof, wouldn’t it?

“I don’t believe in miracles therefore you can’t use them as proof of God’s existence” is a really…IRRATIONAL…approach to considering the existence of God, don’t you think?

One would think that any true seeker would be open to all arguments and proofs, no?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Well, if I heard only those arguments, I would have been an atheist as well. Or at least, not a Catholic.

So that’s why it’s good for you to be here so you can consider some actual apologia for our POV.

As always I am happy to learn. The problem is that there are unquestionable dogmas, and the final argument is always: “the church is infallible because it claims infallibility”. This is a circular argument.

So what someone does in the “privacy of his home” can be something we would NOT tolerate. That is, if we are to be a moral society.

Of course. We would not tolerate burning tires in your own back yard, because it would intrude into our airspace. But what two consenting people do to each other in their home is no one’s business.

No idea.

Proverbs 13:24 also Proverbs 23:13.

Well, if you actually read the argument, you would see that it’s not a proof for God’s existence at all. It simply is either an impetus to get you started–kind of like an appetizer that whets the palate for considering the actual arguments for God’s existence…or after one has considered all the arguments and one is still wavering, PW simply pushes one to the “Belief” side because of logic.

It is not an argument at all for God’s existence.

If so, then it should not be included in the 20 proofs.

What is wrong with St. Anselm’s argument?

The concept of Greatest Conceivable Being is nonsense. What you imagine to be “greatest” is probably different from someone else’s “greatest”. It is subjective, contingent upon what one considers to be “great”. Moreover, the idea of “greatest” is a composite attribute, and its constituent parts are subjectively selected.

And what is wrong with this argument: whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

QED.

Three things are wrong with it. 1) You assume without any reason that “everything that has a beginning has an external cause for its existence”. That is an unfounded metaphysical assumption. 2) You assert that the universe had a beginning - presumably the Big Bang. That is not true. The current form of the universe started then, but our physics cannot say anything about the events prior to the first milliseconds. 3) You assume a causative agent outside the universe. Causation (along with space and time) are only defined within the universe. These categories are inapplicable TO the universe.

These some of the recurring errors in the offered “proofs”. There are more, individual ones.

Do you think some people could be intolerant to hate and step in to stop someone from thinking hateful thoughts about, say, African Americans?

To step in and stop someone would mean to act, to force someone. Don’t confuse thinking about something and acting upon that thought. But I am probably wasting my time… after all you believe in thought crimes, and I don’t.

I don’t find it difficult to think in the abstract.

I have no problem with it either. So, please tell me what does “omnipotence” and “omniscience” mean. Precisely. The naïve definitions “omniscience is knowing everything” and “omnipotence is the ability to do everything” will not cut it.

In order to offer apologia for the infallibility of the Church, you must first concede *the divinity of Christ. * Not the existence of something else “out there”.

Sorry, that would be the first step. What you propose is way down the line.

Firstly, 19 of the arguments were completely secular and rational.

They are all wrong.

Secondly, rejecting miracles as de facto inadmissible is begging the question.
Why wouldn’t miracles be a proof for God’s existence?

What is a miracle? Something that cannot happen in nature? Something that requires a supernatural cause? The problem: “how do you know what can or cannot happen in nature”? That would require some kind of omniscience. Second, “how do you know that a supernatural intervention occurred”? After all the supernatural is not supposed to be observable, it cannot be tested.

There are all sorts of “claims” for miracles. But as we know claims are dime a dozen.

One would think that any true seeker would be open to all arguments and proofs, no?

No, only the rational ones. The ones which do not require an a-priori acceptance of the claim.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course not all Catholics “hate” gays, but quite a few of them do… and their hatred also must be tolerated (usual disclaimer). Though the phrase “hate the sin, but love the sinner” is preposterous. To claim to love someone, but hate what they do is ridiculous. People cannot be separated from their actions.

Apply this to yourself. Do you indulge self-hatred when you mess up and commit some stupid or even hateful act? The fact that you cannot separate what a person does from what a person is (as a transcendent entity that spans time and space and that can change over time and space) means your relationships with others must be as changing as cyclonic winds.

It also means that Christ’s prescription to love your enemies must be a senseless and preposterous admonition since the only reason we could possibly have for considering someone an enemy in the first place is that they do hateful things to us or to those we care about. So to love your enemy makes only as much sense as loving someone who does something hateful, i.e., that which you would call ridiculous and preposterous.

That is simply trivial. The question is what are those “relevant” differences.

Marriage - as we know it TODAY - is quite young. Not a long time ago almost all marriages were arranged, based upon fiscal and power considerations. In the “higher” classes the preservation of power and wealth were the guiding lines, for the poor people the fecundity of the women was of prime importance, since most children died in infancy or a young age, and an ample supply of them was needed to maintain the workforce. Just read up on the “wonderful” Victorian era where children worked 14 hours a day. Where the chimney-sweepers sent slim, young children into the still hot chimneys, and if they could not tolerate the burning hot environment, there were other ones who were available.

Yes, due to technology, we do not need that many underpaid children in the workforce. Today the procreation is left to the individual couples, who do NOT need or want many children to survive in their old age.

The reproductive aspect of marriage is much less important than it used to be. Today the quality of life is in the focus. Fewer or no children is the norm in the industrialized societies. That is what is reflected in the evolution of marriage. You cannot point to any real disadvantage that the gay marriage brings. Look at the neighborhoods which are occupied by homosexual couples. They are clean, friendly and prosperous.

Nice little piece of mythology but what does that have to do with the fact that children need and greatly benefit from having both of their biological parents and siblings care about and nurture them until they have their own families.

Fewer or no children is the norm because more and more in modern industrialized societies are self-absorbed and are less and less ready and able to care about anything except good times and having stuff. Living in “clean, friendly and prosperous” neighborhoods where everybody shares the ideal of “good times” and “having stuff” means no one is around to challenge the sense of self-absorption that more and more think is the epitome of human existence. Well… at least until death stares them in the face and they realize how empty “good times” and “having stuff” really is.

Ah, so you believe that the “unwashed” masses are so easy to manipulate? Maybe they grew up and do not swallow the propaganda of your side any more…

I suspect most don’t even understand the “propaganda” because they haven’t taken the time to engage with it.