What is your source?

[Psychotheosophy]

…it may be a very fruitless dialogue, seeing the tenacity with which most forumers compile responses.

I think your right.
Maybe I can unite the related discussions,
Into one discussion.
(However, I will have to compile some responses again)

1. The only thing we can know and trust,
   Which exists outside of reason,
   Is that we all naturally desire
   The Principles of Happiness, Goodness, Existence, Love and Truth.
   (From St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica,”)

As Catholics,
These are all names for one “God.”

We do not logically deduce these Principles,
We simply know them.

Existence is the principle of logic
(Logical contradictions subtract existence;
A + -(A) = 0)

We also all have an inclination toward sin.
Sin is a separation from God
Therefore,
Sin lacks logic.

So,

We can only trust the word of someone
Until after they have completed
It’s correlated action?

What if we need to know immediately?

And so we use logic. Not some mysterious “special knowing.”

Why should we trust the word of Einstein on physics? Or Wolfgang Puck on cooking? Or Vince Lombardi on coaching?

These people are experts in the fields that they have devoted themselves to.

And they devoted themselves to it,
Because it made them Happy,
And they tried to do a Good job.

Though they do not become Happiness itself,
They do share in it.

We trust people like Einstein because his assertions are grounded in logic and his theories and hypotheses are testable and replicable. This isn’t true of the Saints. There is no conceivable way that anyone will ever put Religion (many as there are) on an equal footing with empirical observation and reason.

Principles are reflected in sensory things,
But can not be directly sensed.

But by studying sensory things,
We can understand principles.

Why should we trust the word of Einstein on physics? Or Wolfgang Puck on cooking? Or Vince Lombardi on coaching?

Chef Gordon Ramsey,
From the TV show, “Hell’s Kitchen”
(I understand he was an excellent soccer player.)

He follows principles of good cooking and good coaching,
And tries to pass on the principles of good cooking to his students.
But they follow the cooking principles only if they seem Good.

Likewise, the writings of Catholics are also legitimate
In so far as they follow God,
That is, the Principles.

The Church, the “Body of Christ,” is therefore legitimately hierarchical,
But its leaders are required to try to follow the principles
In their writing and preaching.
(“It’s better for us to obey God than men!” (Acts 5:29))

(The Summa, I believe, was considered one of the required miracles for St. Thomas’ canonization by the Church.)

Of course, the difficulty in judging
Whether others are following the principles
By judging their behavior,
Is that following principles can require contrary behaviors.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Principles are reflected in sensory things,
But can not be directly sensed.

But by studying sensory things,
We can understand principles.

So it is with gravity; but what of God? He remains ever-obscure, even given this explanation. At what point, if any, can we say, “okay, this is definitely God”? For every seeming truism there is about God, there is something rather in depth to be said instead for the natural world. (This may be a tangent to your original post, but you’ll suffer it, I’m sure, since you’re leading the way).

 

[Psychotheosophy]

At what point, if any, can we say, “okay, this is definitely God”?

At the beginning.

You have to define “this” and “God,”
Before you compare them,
Or else you are just
Comparing unknown variables.

You could say something like,

X = something we all naturally seek
Y = Happiness
Then compare.

So it is with gravity; but what of God? He remains ever-obscure, even given this explanation.

Principle is,
The principle of,
The principle of gravity.

The Principle of Principle is itself,
And we say God = Principle.

Does this reduce the obscurity?

For every seeming truism there is about God, there is something rather in depth to be said instead for the natural world. (This may be a tangent to your original post, but you’ll suffer it, I’m sure, since you’re leading the way).

I would be happy to suffer it,
But I’m not really sure what you’re saying.
Could you give an example?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Principle is,
The principle of,
The principle of gravity.

The Principle of Principle is itself,
And we say God = Principle.

Does this reduce the obscurity?

Maybe I can be more clear,

Good cooking is sensory (like the body).
The principles of good cooking are not sensory, but unite and govern good cooking (like the soul).
The Principle of Goodness (God) unites and governs the principles of good cooking.

One who is unscrupulous (lacks principle),
Is associated with evil,
And a lack of Goodness is evil,
Then we say, Principle = Goodness (God).

Therefore,

By being a good cook,
A person can draw closer to God
(Though not just through cooking, but in his entire being.)

At the beginning.

You have to define “this” and “God,”
Before you compare them,
Or else you are just
Comparing unknown variables.

You could say something like,

X = something we all naturally seek
Y = Happiness
Then compare.

Reason begins with definitions,

And since the unknown is not known,
Then unknown definitions,
Must be received,
From an external source.

We all naturally desire Happiness,
But not from our own powers (such as reason),
We say Happiness moves us to it (Him).

However,

Since we can reject Happiness,
To receive Happiness,
Requires humility.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

At the beginning.

You have to define “this” and “God,”
Before you compare them,
Or else you are just
Comparing unknown variables.

You could say something like,

X = something we all naturally seek
Y = Happiness
Then compare.

Exactly. Choose any variable you want. X might be that we can imagine (even vividly) that which is not. We may perceieve, incorrectly, that a person hates us when, in fact, he or she doesn’t. We may perceive, incorrectly, that a person loves us when, in fact, there is not first a Person there to love us. Y may be some observed phenomenon that we say is a miracle. I heard a friend of mine once say that a night of fervent prayer cured a girl of intolerable kidney stones which don’t, as he has asserted, “just disappear on their own” (apperently, to the doctor’s amazement, the stones had disappeared). In fact, medical science tells, they are quite prone to passing spontaneously. Z might be the overwelming sensation that something benign is governing not only the universe but it’s beloved inhabitants. Of course, we know such experiential events must apply to other religious experiences and that such “transcendence” can happen independently of Religion. There’s no point at which you can confidently say “this [variable] is God.”

Principle is,
The principle of,
The principle of gravity.

The Principle of Principle is itself,
And we say God = Principle.

Does this reduce the obscurity?

Not so much, I’m sorry.

Maybe I can be more clear,

Good cooking is sensory (like the body).
The principles of good cooking are not sensory, but unite and govern good cooking (like the soul).
The Principle of Goodness (God) unites and governs the principles of good cooking.

One who is unscrupulous (lacks principle),
Is associated with evil,
And a lack of Goodness is evil,
Then we say, Principle = Goodness (God).

Therefore,

By being a good cook,
A person can draw closer to God
(Though not just through cooking, but in his entire being.)

I kind of follow the analogy, but it is merely descriptive (it replaces one word - God, or God’s Nature - with another, such as “goodness” or “good cooking”) and presupposes the very thing it parallels. It doesn’t give us any further insight into whether we should believe such a God exists.

Reason begins with definitions,

And since the unknown is not known,
Then unknown definitions,
Must be received,
From an external source.

We all naturally desire Happiness,
But not from our own powers (such as reason),
We say Happiness moves us to it (Him).

However,

Since we can reject Happiness,
To receive Happiness,
Requires humility.

Let me itemize this more succinctly (and in a slightly different order):

1. People want to be happy because God has placed the desire within us (not because we reasoned otherwise)
2. Happiness - that which is given by God - brings us closer to God
3. We can reject happiness
4. Therefore, receieving happiness requires humility (God requires one disposition so that we may experience another so that we may, in turn, become closer to Him)

(Let me know if I’m understanding this correctly)

Aside from being non-sequitur, these statements don’t give me any reason to believe in God that isn’t already part of the natural world. People may desire happiness because it is less taxing on the mind and body than gloom. Happiness is also a human definition: what we call happiness may be more simply put as experiencing greater positive affect than negative. Even souless animals desire that (and maybe plants on some very primitive level). Finally, I can’t imagine anything bringing people closer to God; who can possibly know how God wants us to behave to communicate with Him? Can God want, being fully omnipotent. As soon as we make assertions about God, we have dozens of difficulties about why God demands such specific things from stupid and finite people, and always in the form of conjectures.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

There’s no point at which you can confidently say “this [variable] is God.”

From you profile, I’m wondering,
How do you define God,
Love, Truth,…?

Not so much, I’m sorry.

What would clarify it?

Aside from being non-sequitur,…

Yes, I seem to have missed a few steps.

…presupposes the very thing it parallels.

Could you demonstrate how this is an error within the argument?

People may desire happiness because it is less taxing on the mind and body than gloom. Happiness is also a human definition: what we call happiness may be more simply put as experiencing greater positive affect than negative.

I’m glad you agree that,
All people naturally desire to follow the Principle of “Happiness” (as a single subject).

these statements don’t give me any reason to believe in God that isn’t already part of the natural world.

How would principle be sensory?

I would be happy to suffer it,
But I’m not really sure what you’re saying.
Could you give an example?

You never answered this question,
Could you give me a concrete example?

I can’t imagine anything bringing people closer to God;

The desire to be brought closer to God.

Who can possibly know how God wants us to behave to communicate with Him?

I think you would have to first define God.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I can wait for responses to my questions,
But let me add this…

What we call happiness may be more simply put as experiencing greater positive affect than negative.

Though people may feel closer to,
Or further from
Happiness,
This is not Happiness.

Since Happiness is a single subject,
Then, if Happiness is absent from Happiness
Happiness no longer exists.

Since people can have an absence of Happiness
(As you indicated),
People are not Happiness.

Therefore,

To be happy,
(Sharing in Happiness)
One must give oneself completely
To Happiness.

From you profile, I’m wondering,
How do you define God,
Love, Truth,…?

Certainly,

God could be both Love and Happiness,
Yet still be the same single subject.

Just as a man can be both a father and a son,
In relationship to different individuals.

(However, we say God is Son to his own Fatherhood,
And Father to His own Sonship)

 

[StrawberryJam]

How do we know God is happy or loving? We see this claimed by christians but I wonder why the insistance on these attributes.

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

From you profile, I’m wondering,
How do you define God,
Love, Truth,…?

Hardly. I don’t necessarily define God; what you’re asking me to do is presuppose something. If a definition had to be extracted from me I would say that God is that which no higher thing can be conceived.

What would clarify it?

Full, unfragmented sentences would probably do the trick. I enjoy the prose, but I find it a bit hard to follow.

Yes, I seem to have missed a few steps.

Could you demonstrate how this is an error within the argument?

I don’t know that there is an argument to prove erroneous. You’ve structured metaphors in place of God. Whether the analogy is apt or not is of no concern; I still have to presuppose God exists before I see metaphorical gambits as reflective of Him.

I’m glad you agree that,
All people naturally desire to follow the Principle of “Happiness” (as a single subject).

What exactly do you mean by the principle of happiness? That people desire subjective good over subjective bad is nothing short of, or more than, survival instincts.

How would principle be sensory?

It’s not sensory. But how are principles (I’ll go out on a limb and assume that this is what you’re driving at) beyond nature (i.e., supernaturally imposed or suggested)?

You never answered this question,
Could you give me a concrete example?

I did. They were my X, Y, and Z exmaples. Was there something further you wanted me to draw reference from, concerning the natural world?

The desire to be brought closer to God.

A desire that is forced to speculate as to the reciprocation it inspires is reasonable, but a desire that is forced to speculate as to the existence of the beloved is absurd. A desire to be brought closer to something that is not certainly or even vaguely known is unthinkable for me. What would be the evidence for such a bond? That you feel that it is actual and not perceived?

Though people may feel closer to,
Or further from
Happiness,
This is not Happiness.

Why not?

Since Happiness is a single subject,

What do you mean by this?

Then, if Happiness is absent from Happiness
Happiness no longer exists.

I suppose so.

Since people can have an absence of Happiness
(As you indicated),
People are not Happiness.

Therefore,

To be happy,
(Sharing in Happiness)
One must give oneself completely
To Happiness.

What do you mean by “give oneself completely to Happiness?”

Certainly,

God could be both Love and Happiness

Why should anyone suppose either of those? God could be futility, marbles, deception, or chocolate cake. What is the meaning of such attributions?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

How do we know God is happy or loving? We see this claimed by christians but I wonder why the insistance on these attributes.

Whether Christian, agnostic, or other,
Saying God is Happiness
Must be revealed to us
(Such as by scripture.)

Considering that your profile
States that you are agnostic,

I think the real question is,

“Why do agnostics and atheists,
Convert to something like Catholicism,
And believe that their happiness is this mysterious God?”

Love can make us happy,
Does that have anything to do with it?

I don’t necessarily define God

Do you necessarily define any of the words you’ve used?

A desire that is forced to speculate as to the reciprocation it inspires is reasonable, but a desire that is forced to speculate as to the existence of the beloved is absurd. A desire to be brought closer to something that is not certainly or even vaguely known is unthinkable for me. What would be the evidence for such a bond? That you feel that it is actual and not perceived?

Why should anyone suppose either of those? God could be futility, marbles, deception, or chocolate cake. What is the meaning of such attributions?

Your confusing me.

When you say “beloved,”
Do you mean "“marbles,” or “chocolate cake?”

 

[Voice_of_Reason_1]

Chocolate cake; it’s the most palatable God.