Water cannot be transformed into good wine

[Spock]

So, do you mean that had we come up with a different set of arbitrary axioms , we might not have figured out how to describe physical reality mathematically ? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Exactly. The chosen axioms were selected, because they were useful to model reality. But one can select other axioms, and they might have other uses. Observe chess, with its arbitrary pieces and rules. Those axioms do not mimic reality, but they give us an excellent mental exercise in the form of a great game (which is actually a stylized war game).

 

[Spock]

I think it could be taken more specifically – that I’m not convinced of the veracity of the proposition that if God cared about Spock’s salvation he would prove himself to Spock’s satisfaction. I understand that Spock asserts that his demand is reasonable, but does he somewhere show why it is reasonable?

It is reasonable because if one has more information, one is in a better position to make good, informed decisions. To be precise, to demand full responsibility and not give full information is manifestly unjust. That is why my request is reasonable.

 

[davidv]

It is reasonable because if one has more information, one is in a better position to make good, informed decisions. To be precise, to demand full responsibility and not give full information is manifestly unjust. That is why my request is reasonable.

It appears to me that you don’t understand fully what you are responsible for and what information is needed to carry it out. Apparently you have chosen not to trust those who propose that God loves us and wants us to be with Him in eternal happiness. Why would you not want eternal happiness? Why do you think the cost (trust) of this immensely valuable happiness is too high?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

It is reasonable because if one has more information, one is in a better position to make good, informed decisions. To be precise, to demand full responsibility and not give full information is manifestly unjust. That is why my request is reasonable.

I agree with you to the point that responsibility to know requires information if the requirement is to be a just one. However, I’m not clear why justice would demands full information rather than adequate information.

VC

 

[Spock]

I agree with you to the point that responsibility to know requires information if the requirement is to be a just one. However, I’m not clear why justice would demands full information rather than adequate information.

Excellent point. The only trouble is that adequate information is subjective. What is adequate for me is not necessarily adequate for you, and vice versa. With full information there is no ambiguity, is there? But your point is taken, as long as the information is adequate for me, I have no more demands.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Obviously? Not at all. I have met quite a few excellent, non-dogmatic people here, with whom I could conduct a most satisfying and mutually beneficial conversation. I learned from them and they learned from me. Unfortunately, you are not one of them, more is the pity. That is why I usually do not respond to your posts.

In other words, you ignore my posts because they refute your bias dogmatic and warped understanding of the scientific method. I am sorry if i don’t easily roll over to the irrationalities of scientism.

 

[Spock]

It appears to me that you don’t understand fully what you are responsible for and what information is needed to carry it out.

It is asserted that at the end of this life I will be judged immediately, and the sentence will be handed down - for all eternity. If it happenes that I died in the state of unrepented mortal sin, then I will be thrown into the eternal fire. That is pretty serious, as far as I am concerned. In order to make an informed decidsion here and now, I need the following information:

1. God actually exists, and not just a figment of your imagination.
2. God is what the church asserts about him.
3. I need the fully official list of all the “mortal” sins. (Needless to say I do not believe that loving my wife in an “unendorsed” position is a “mortal sin”.)

None of these is available.

Apparently you have chosen not to trust those who propose that God loves us and wants us to be with Him in eternal happiness.

Of course I do not trust them. With all due respect, I would not trust the huge percentage of the believers around here to tell me the correct time. Maybe you are not aware, but the level of rationality on these boards is extremely low. There are only very few people around here whose word is worth to listen to. I do not see any sign of God’s “love” for us. Love does not pick and choose, love cares about even the small things.

Why would you not want eternal happiness? Why do you think the cost (trust) of this immensely valuable happiness is too high?

Well, I think that eternal “anything” is a horrible idea.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Excellent point. The only trouble is that adequate information is subjective. What is adequate for me is not necessarily adequate for you, and vice versa. With full information there is no ambiguity, is there? But your point is taken, as long as the information is adequate for me, I have no more demands.

Adequate information might be subjective, and responsibility might be subjective as well – in other words, ones responsibility might be correlated to one’s information.

What do imagine “full information” means?

 

[samiam1611]

Not surprisingly, I agree with Spock and disagree with the rest of y’all

From the Catechism:

Faith is a grace:

Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’”

This says to me that if we do not have faith, it is God’s fault for not giving us it.

…so either it’s God’s fault, or God does not exist and the above section and everything based on it is written by fallible men under the delusion that the Holy Spirit was guiding them.

 

[Spock]

Adequate information might be subjective, and responsibility might be subjective as well – in other words, ones responsibility might be correlated to one’s information.

That would be nice. But I do not see an official teaching along those lines. It is ironclad: "I heard about the teaching, therefore I cannot claim ignorance (invincible or otherwise) and since I did not repent (how could I repent, if I don’t accept that I am guilty of anything) and therefore my “reward” is eternal torture. That is the teaching as far as I know.

What do imagine “full information” means?

That is particular to the question.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That is particular to the question.

I’d imagine so. In particular to your question, if you please.

 

[davidv]

It is asserted that at the end of this life I will be judged immediately, and the sentence will be handed down - for all eternity. If it happenes that I died in the state of unrepented mortal sin, then I will be thrown into the eternal fire.

Is this unjust? Why?

That is pretty serious, as far as I am concerned. In order to make an informed decidsion here and now, I need the following information:

1. God actually exists, and not just a figment of your imagination.
2. God is what the church asserts about him.
3. I need the fully official list of all the “mortal” sins. (Needless to say I do not believe that loving my wife in an “unendorsed” position is a “mortal sin”.)

None of these is available.

So you say. I don’t trust that you are speaking truthfully.

1. Why do you need a recipe for learning of God from the signs of Him in His creation?
2. Why is this a problem?
3. Why do you need a list? One uses their God given intellect to judge specific situations against basic principles.

Of course I do not trust them. With all due respect, I would not trust the huge percentage of the believers around here to tell me the correct time.

Who is asking you to trust individuals. Church teaching can be acquired without the bias of individual Catholics.

Maybe you are not aware, but the level of rationality on these boards is extremely low.

Such cannot be said about the offical teachings of the Church.

There are only very few people around here whose word is worth to listen to. I do not see any sign of God’s “love” for us. Love does not pick and choose, love cares about even the small things.

Such is the human nature - much unloving. All contrary to Church teaching, however.

Well, I think that eternal “anything” is a horrible idea.

Why should we take your thinking this seriously?

 

[ManOnFire]

My point is that if science is forever impotent to find the answer to why we exist, then why worry about the exact science behind changing water into wine? Since it’s physically impossible to change water into wine, then either Jesus was a con artist, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. The existence of the universe either has no reason for it’s existence, or it was a miracle. Science is forever impotent to prove either. It’s logical to believe that a creatorless universe SHOULD have a scientific explanation for it’s existence, but it never will, since absolute nothing can’t naturally evolve into the first something without a supernatural event. So science is wrong “somewhere” in this argument due to the paradox of the creation of a creatorless existence. Since logic dictates that some supernatural event had to happen, then “miracles” are still on the table of “possible” since science is wrong “somewhere.”

greylorn,

you claimed that my last sentence would be correct if I omitted the word supernatural. Why? As a deist who believes that at least one supernatural event occurred (since it’s scientificially impossible for the universe to magically evolve from a creatorless nothing), how can you claim that the creation of the universe is a valid supernatural event but water into wine is not? Science can’t prove either. You weren’t present for either. What compelling reason do you have to believe in one supernatural event but not the other?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Adequate information might be subjective, and responsibility might be subjective as well – in other words, ones responsibility might be correlated to one’s information.

I’ve heard that before from religions that state that they are centered around the “one true God.” For example a Muslim had declared that the only way some one may possibly get into heaven having not believed in Allah is if the person were completely ignorant of Allah’s teaching. But since he had just informed the audience of the Quran our only choices at that point were to either believe or to be prepared to wear garments “cut from fire” while boilg fluid is poured on our heads in hell (Quran 22:19-22).

Half my lifetime ago I remember asking some church leaders what would become of those that lived in nations where Christianity wasn’t widespread and the opportunity to learn of it was slim to nil. From what I was informed Yahweh would judge them differently. I couldn’t help but get the feeling at the time that it was conjecture. Do you know if there was something in scripture supporting this view?

 

[Spock]

I’d imagine so. In particular to your question, if you please.

I already gave that particular list. Here is a repost:

1. God actually exists, and not just a figment of your imagination.
2. God is what the church asserts about him.
3. I need the fully official list of all the “mortal” sins. (Needless to say I do not believe that loving my wife in an “unendorsed” position is a “mortal sin”.)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Spock,

Apologies if you already went through all of this, I’ll take a closer look at the thread.

In regard to point #1, what do you imagine “full information” regarding it to be?

 

[Pieman333272]

Let’s use the standard “tactics” employed by the posters around here: “obviously did not understand those arguments”. How do you like this “method”? Don’t you find it insulting? I do, when it is used. It is not fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

I don’t understand what you mean, but the psychotic “How does it feel NOW? HA HA! HA HA HA!” babbling doesn’t help. If you mean the reason I found 90% of the arguments to be epic train wrecks is because I “obviously did not understand those arguments”, then you are mistaken.

For example, every form of both the problems of evil and hell are purely emotional. I have issued challenges to 4 separate atheists here for a deductive form of the problem of evil - 2 quit on me, one responded with ad homenim, and one responded with a circular argument. I have yet to see an example of either problem which functions without somebody at least IMPLYING “I wanted God to do what I want when I wanted it and he didn’t so he isn’t real!!!” or some egotism like that.

As another example, I’ve researched the Christ Myth hypothesis deeply and every form I’ve seen either involves fabricating or hiding something important.

This is not the place to go into details, and besides the “temporary” ban is still in effect. Maybe that “temporary” ban will be lifted sometime in the future, and then we can get into that discussion (if we are still alive and around).

Take it to the back fence and link it there. The mods will understand if we start the ball rolling here.

 

[Spock]

Is this unjust? Why?

Gimme a break. To demand full responsibility and NOT giving out the proper information is unjust. If you cannot see that, there is nothing to talk about.

So you say. I don’t trust that you are speaking truthfully.

Ah, yes. So now I am liar.

1. Why do you need a recipe for learning of God from the signs of Him in His creation?

Who says it is his creation? You try to use the hypothesis as a supporting argument. Elementary fallacy.

1. Why is this a problem?

Because the church’s teaching is self-contradictory.

1. Why do you need a list? One uses their God given intellect to judge specific situations against basic principles.

My intellect and the basic principles tell me that having sex without the intent to conceive (and trying to prevent it) is a rational position (and it is not necessarily a “missionary” position… on the very contrary).

Who is asking you to trust individuals. Church teaching can be acquired without the bias of individual Catholics.

No, because that teaching always comes through the mouth of individuals. And because there is NO officially declared and endorsed list of teachings anywhere. The church’s teaching is kept ambiguous.

Such cannot be said about the offical teachings of the Church.

Sure it can. The teaching is full of contradictions.

Such is the human nature - much unloving. All contrary to Church teaching, however.

I am talking about the apperent lack of “love” from God, who OBVIOUSLY does not care about our existence here and now.

Why should we take your thinking this seriously?

You really should not make such knee-jerk answers. You asked if I would not like “eternal bliss”, and if I would consider the price too high. I answered that I find any kind of eternal a horrible idea - in other words (if I really have to explain in detail) I was talking about my personal opinion. It is not “binding” on anyone else. You should take it seriously, because to doubt it would call me a liar again, and in one post it is enough to call someone else a liar once. By the way, you are getting very close to get on my ignore list. Of course it should not matter to you. After all I am just a lying infidel.

 

[Pieman333272]

Gimme a break. To demand full responsibility and NOT giving out the proper information is unjust. If you cannot see that, there is nothing to talk about.

Come ON Spock, you know the Church teaches you aren’t in a state of mortal sin if you don’t KNOW the sin is mortal when you commit it. At least pretend that there’s a rational argument you can impose against the Church for it’s “failure” to teach you every mortal sin in the book.

Sure it can. The teaching is full of contradictions.

Give me 3 examples in Church moral teaching where it contradicts another moral teaching of itself. Cite Papal Encyclicals and the Catechism.

 

[Spock]

If you mean the reason I found 90% of the arguments to be epic train wrecks is because I “obviously did not understand those arguments”, then you are mistaken.

So you say. You could start to prove it.

For example, every form of both the problems of evil and hell are purely emotional.

There is no need to get emotional about it. The principle that allowing unncessary suffering is “evil” is a basic principle.

The ONE and ONLY proper defense against the problem of evil would be a case-by-case clear argument which would explain why that particual instance of suffering was logically necessary to bring forth a greater good, which would not have materialized if the suffering would have been just one iota less. That is all. Yes, you heard me, each and every one instance needs explanation. The usual nonsense, that “maybe” there was some unknown and unknowable “greater good”, if only we would have known about it, is ridiculous. William Lane Craig uses that kind of a nonsense. The funny stuff is that you cannot even explain even one instance, much less all of them.

If the examples brought up are emotionally charged, that is not a problem. After all unnecessary suffering should be an emotionally chared issue. But here is a non-emotional problem: what is the greater good coming from allowing a cockroach being burned to death in a wildfire? No one feels particlarly “emotional” about the fate of a roach, but its suffering of of a fiery death is unnecessary, even if its death might be useful.