What would you do if it were proven...?

[Candide_West]

Perhaps this is because you’ve never experienced this “concept” and had it become a Person. *

Since you have no idea what I have and haven’t experienced there doesn’t seem to be any basis for this comment.*

I have made quite a point which I think was quite clear about the difference between using concepts to describe or identify somethings state or action and something or someone being a concept. Please feel free to respond to this if you have any further comments on this point.*

Again, then it is clear that you have never taken a Philosophy class or engaged in simple logic. *

Now, to be sure, repeating contradictory POV is inutile, but the point remains that if they’re contradictory, “I believe “x” is true” and “I believe ‘non-x’ is true” both cannot be true. *Either one is, or none is. *Can’t be both, yes?

This seems a bit odd. You imply that my point is flawed or illogical and then agree with it and (if I’m taking your meaning correctly as “repeating contradictory points of view cannot resolve a conflict”) you also seem to have conceded that my original point was in fact correct.*

What say you, do you now agree that “Until this behaviour [people from the various different religions each stating that their religion is absolutely right on various “Truths” which conflict with other religions “Truths”] ceases, (or there is nobody left who has a different opinion) the situation remains irresolvable.”

Note I’ve inserted the antecedent for “this behaviour” into*the quote above for clarity.

Well, I can’t disagree with you here. *They do not suffer any “visible” ill affects. *But, of course, the damage to one’s soul isn’t visible, is it? *The soul, by its nature, is immaterial and cannot have visible effects. *

Ok, good so it looks like you have now agreed with my original statement of*

“Since there is no enforcement, no visible consequences…”

Agreed?

'Tis true, this. *And it illustrates my point, Candide. *You don’t know, do you? *

Ok, I think I get this now. You are saying that I don’t know with absolute certainty. Of course this is true. Just as I don’t know with absolute certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. However, it is reasonable to operate under the assumption that they live happy, normal lives and are not drug addicts etc, because that matches all the available data. Just as expecting the sun to come up tomorrow morning is reasonable because that matches all available data.

I have not maintained this at all.*

Fair enough, so we can operate under the assumption that they live the happy, normal lives they appear to?

I am merely proposing that you don’t know how the sinful behavior of your friends and family affects their happiness. *It’s simply not visible to you.

Obviously there is a huge amount of evidence (direct and indirect) that my catholic friends (both those who subscribe exactly to official catholic doctrine and those who don’t) are living happy, normal lives. Of course it is theoretically possible that they are actually maintaining an amazingly realistic facade and in reality they are all (including those who apparently follow official doctrine) are actually chronically depressed drug addicts.*

But given the evidence it is reasonable to assume they are not.

It seems the same could be said about you and your opinions, eh?

You could but that would be a rather odd thing to say. It’s quite obvious what evidence could convince me of the contrary to my point of view - any of my friends showing signs of depression, drug addiction, getting divorced, careers going downhill etc.*

Instead all the evidence supports that they live happy, normal lives. Now is there any evidence that could convince you that these people are actually living normal happy lives as they appear to be?

To the degree that hindus, muslims and atheists are living their life consonant with the Truth is the degree that joy is in their lives.

As I said, I can assure you that this is wrong. Once I was christian and living a life which you would probably perceive to be much more “consonant with the truth” than I am now. Yet I am much happier and have more joy in my life now.*

As for your first hand experience, I venture to say that you or your spouse are products of divorce in your family of origin, or have been married before, yes? IOW, divorce has impacted your family, yes? *

Nope, afraid not.*

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Ladies and Gentlemen-

You might have noticed that I have removed a substantial amount of this thread due to uncharitable and off topic comments from a number of sources.

Please remember to make sure each post is first on TOPIC, and secondly is charitable. We really don’t need any snarky comments muddling an already very complex discussion right?

Thank you for your cooperation and God bless -

Rachel

 

[Candide_West]

Indeed. Christianity is the only religion that could be proven false, clearly and definitively, by one piece of evidence. That is, if the bones of Christ were ever found, Christianity would be done! finished! kaput! destroyed!

2000 years of people searching…and still…nothing.

Even if bones were discovered how could it be proved they were those of Jesus? DNA tests seem out of the question…

Too true. Too true.

So you are saying that Christianity could not in fact be proven false by this evidence.

 

[Pieman333272]

So you are saying that Christianity could not in fact be proven false by this evidence.

Yes it could. If the Gospels were proven to be forgeries or Jesus to be non-existent, then it would be disproven.

 

[Betterave]

No, the degree to which their True Map is consonant with the Catholic True Map is the degree to which Catholics agree with them. The accuracy of each True Map is actually dependent on the accuracy against the real world (which none of the religions have found a effective way to measure but instead just keep saying “we know ours is right because out God said so”).

I think we do have pretty good methods of making maps of what real religious arguments look like in the real world, that’s very much an empirical enterprise, and it seems to me, with due respect, that what you present here as your “True Map” of how religions assess their own relative accuracy with respect to “the real world” is pretty much phony. So the question is: where did you come up with this, as you apparently believe, True Map of the general nature and success of religious apologetics in “the real world” (which, again, to me looks more like a True Caricature)? Your True Map looks to me like the product of and productive of closed-mindedness towards the real-world reality of intelligent religious reasoning.

P.S.: For some reason, along with all the snarky garbage, our moderator has seen fit to expunge my reply to your post #697, which I’m pretty sure wasn’t snarky and was on topic. Please let me know if you’d like me to take another shot at responding to it.

 

[tonyrey]

Ladies and Gentlemen-

You might have noticed that I have removed a substantial amount of this thread due to uncharitable and off topic comments from a number of sources.

Please remember to make sure each post is first on TOPIC, and secondly is charitable. We really don’t need any snarky comments muddling an already very complex discussion right?

Thank you for your cooperation and God bless -

Rachel

Well done, Rachel! I was beginning to doubt whether this really is a Christian, let alone Catholic, forum…

 

[samiam1611]

Well done, Rachel! I was beginning to doubt whether this really is a Christian, let alone Catholic, forum…

I was thinking it could use a little moderator intervention too. glad it wasn’t closed though

 

[tonyrey]

So you are saying that Christianity could not in fact be proven false by this evidence.

It could be proved false in principle but I specified that it seems as if a DNA test is out of the question. That is not the sole means by which it could be falsified.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

As I said, I can assure you that this is wrong. Once I was christian and living a life which you would probably perceive to be much more “consonant with the truth” than I am now. Yet I am much happier and have more joy in my life now.*

It would be interesting to know what is the source of that joy since ultimately you are doomed by either of two facts:

1. There is no life after your death.
2. There is a life after your death, but the path you have chosen is into darkness, rather than light.

 

[samiam1611]

Yes it could. If the Gospels were proven to be forgeries or Jesus to be non-existent, then it would be disproven.

In this case, I’m wondering, purely hypothetical of course, would you maybe become Jewish? or would you doubt Jewish scripture too? Would you still believe in God? Would you seek out another religion that you thought could be true?
That is good you would be open to accepting that the gospels are forgeries or that Jesus was non-existent bc it shows you’re not too stubborn and close-minded! (I am not suggesting that is the case of course, I am just saying it’s good you wouldn’t ignore the evidence if some was discovered! If that is what you’re saying. For what it’s worth, I think he existed, he just wasn’t divine)
I do wonder though what you are anyone out there would do if Christianity was disproven.

 

[samiam1611]

Candide

As I said, I can assure you that this is wrong. Once I was christian and living a life which you would probably perceive to be much more “consonant with the truth” than I am now. Yet I am much happier and have more joy in my life now.*

It would be interesting to know what is the source of that joy since ultimately you are doomed by either of two facts:

1. There is no life after your death.
2. There is a life after your death, but the path you have chosen is into darkness, rather than light.

I wouldn’t consier no life after death to be doom! I look forward to death actually. Life is hard! Eternal life is depressing to me, whether it be heaven or hell. I would need a break from it all. An end in sight.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

samian

**I wouldn’t consier no life after death to be doom! I look forward to death actually. Life is hard! Eternal life is depressing to me, whether it be heaven or hell. I would need a break from it all. An end in sight. **

You look forward to nothingness? Your idea of death is relief from this life?

Be careful what you wish for!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Eternal life is depressing to me,

Your idea of heaven is depressing to me too simply because your expression of it is devoid of its true meaning. Good thing I have different understanding of what heaven is.

 

[Pieman333272]

In this case, I’m wondering, purely hypothetical of course, would you maybe become Jewish? or would you doubt Jewish scripture too? Would you still believe in God? Would you seek out another religion that you thought could be true?
That is good you would be open to accepting that the gospels are forgeries or that Jesus was non-existent bc it shows you’re not too stubborn and close-minded! (I am not suggesting that is the case of course, I am just saying it’s good you wouldn’t ignore the evidence if some was discovered! If that is what you’re saying. For what it’s worth, I think he existed, he just wasn’t divine)
I do wonder though what you are anyone out there would do if Christianity was disproven.

I don’t know if I would be Jewish, because I don’t know how much I would trust the OT without the NT to go with it. I guess I could be Jewish, I see the most probable alternative being a theist without any religious alignment or a Unitarian Universalist.

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying that Christianity could not in fact be proven false by this evidence.

Please define “this evidence”.

 

[samiam1611]

You look forward to nothingness? Your idea of death is relief from this life?

Yes, and yes.

Your idea of heaven is depressing to me too simply because your expression of it is devoid of its true meaning. Good thing I have different understanding of what heaven is

I’d be interested in what you think the true meaning of heaven is. (yours and whoever else.) I think of it as being able to see my dog again, and being able to eat all the chocolate that I want. I think of it as all of the good things in this life and none of the bad. Don’t get me wrong, that sounds awesome. I would eventually want to just rest in peace though.
If your view of heaven is like “being on God’s loving embrace” or something like that, it will be hard for me to grasp but I would still like to hear it. If it’s any sort of conscious thought though, it would not be more desirable to me than nonexisting.

 

[PRmerger]

If so that would perhaps explain some of the apparent inconsistency. But appears to leave you supporting an action which leads to closed mindedness.*

To paraphrase Chesterton: the point of having a mind is to close it on truth.

Perhaps we could sensibly say that you have acknowledged that I have never said that the catholic church does enforce anything.

Well, then,

So if you’re talking about <another extraneous entity which “externally enforced” a belief> then I must politely beg out of the discussion, because, I, frankly, couldn’t care less about some arcane dictator or entity throughout history who imposed his truth on another.

So you don’t think it leads to closed mindedness? This seems to contrast with the above. Or perhaps you don’t consider closed mindedness to be a limitation?

“An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or Practical reason is idiocy. If a man’s mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut.” --CS Lewis

 

[PRmerger]

Secondly, it seems to make little sense as a sentence. “Being limited to a single opinion” surely this must be a limitation? How can being limited to something not be a limitation?*

Because there is the One Answer, so one need not consider the other options as having any utility.

Take the flat earth reference. Surely you do not believe it is a limitation to proclaim this:

[SIGN]The Earth is round![/SIGN]

You have not addressed the problem of knowing what is the “correct opinion”. By nature of being an opinion it is subjective and people do not agree on what is “correct”.

This is true. Opinions are merely a preference, I suppose. As in, “It is my opinion that turnips taste great mashed.”

One would look quite foolish saying, “It is my opinion that the earth is round.”

So if I used the phrase, “correct opinion” I will amend in the future.

Let’s say that person X from a different religion says that if *Christianity was proven correct he’d kill himself. But that isn’t a limitation to him because Christianity is wrong anyway. Would you say that is a limitation? Or closed minded? Or a perfectly reasonable position?

I would maintain that it is a perfectly un-reasonable position. If Christianity is true, the one must believe it. Only the insane believe that which is not true or continue to proclaim that which they know is not consonant with reality as true.

Finally, the problem exists that the same data can be interpreted is various different ways. As indeed different religions do.

True indeed. As I stated–some maps, even if they’re wrong, get some things right (i.e. “Canada is north of the US”)

Being limited to a single opinion in the context we are discussing *fixes an individual with one interpretation.

Ok. That’s fine when it is the correct interpretation.

I am of the “opinion” (amend that to certainty) that women have equal dignity to men. That is the correct interpretation of God’s creation of humanity.

This is a key problem when further information comes to light which does not fit the previous opinion. The individual in question has no choice but to ignore or disbelieve the information. Even if it is in fact perfectly valid.*

This is begging the question.

If it’s a correct interpretation, then there* is* no " further information comes to light which does not fit the previous opinion."

To wit: there will be no “further information” forthcoming that contradicts the fact that women have inherent dignity and worth equal to men.

 

[Candide_West]

Yes, Candide. This is another basic principle of philosophy.

One cannot prove something’s non-existence. It’s a nonsensical request.

I think perhaps my wording of the OP could have been better. It certainly seems to have caused some confusion around the use of the word “proven”.

The key point is that while you cannot prove in an absolute sense that God doesn’t exist, it is however, possible to prove it to an individuals satisfaction. Both of my hypotheticals are in fact possible and indeed have occurred many times.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, this is nothing to do with the subject at hand. What I have done is point out that people of different religions “know” that contradictory “truths” are correct. And as long as the “X is right, my God said so”, “no X is wrong, my God said so”… Argument continues (as it has for thousands of years) the situation will remain irresolvable.*

I don’t understand why you’re under the misapprehension that having 2 contrary opinions necessarily means that the “situation will remain irresolvable.”

There are people who have proposed opinions contrary to Catholicism–let’s take the JWs who say that humans should not receive blood transfusions. Christianity believes otherwise.

Do you really think this is irresolvable?

The matter has been resolved! Even if some continue to proclaim to the contrary.

That God is Trinitarian has been resolved! Even if some continue to proclaim to the contrary.

That Jesus is God has been resolved! Even if some continue to proclaim to the contrary.

That Mary was ever-virgin has been resolved! Even if some continue to proclaim to the contrary.

etc

etc

etc