I see this as not truly engaging the question, i realise you are quite confident if not absolutely sure of your faith but none the less, the hypothetical permits existence without God, if you cannot follow the hypothetical, then why participate?Flawed premise. We would not “do” anything because we would not exist. Try again.
Existence is not possible without G-d because G-d is the act of existing itself. Any other definition of G-d is not the Christian definition, and we are not required to defend your definition of G-d, just ours. It is a common mistake for atheists to expect us to defend their definition of god and its an even more common mistake for some well meaning Christian to try.
This is tricky. Your judgment is obviously subjective, but it is also a judgment, and as such it cannot be purely subjective. Judgments, as such, aim at objectivity. Thus I would claim that the exclusion of objectivity from your perspective would preclude you from making any judgments. If you are making judgments at all (and you are), then your perspective simply cannot be purely subjective.
Surely you can? Surely you must if you are to make any judgments (about anything)?
Essentially, then, you are either dismissing a priori the possibility that religion can be true? Or even that thoughts can be true? Or you simply don’t accept to be bound even be the truth? It sounds like you have a very different idea of what freedom actually is - for a Christian the truth certainly “limits” us (how could it not?), but it is also what sets us free. Without truth, freedom is meaningless (just as without objectivity, judgments are meaningless.)
“Of course,” you say? But of course I will have to retort that I think you are mistaken: this is not at all a purely subjective statement from your purely subjective viewpoint.As for why I consider it to be a waste, no this isn’t in relation to a specific objective end. It is merely that I find that most people enjoy most of their lives, even those who have felt suicidal at various points in it. Therefore in committing suicide they have lost the opportunity of that additional happiness. Secondly suicide tends to cause a great deal of misery for those friends and family who are still alive. Something which is difficult to recover from, hence time spent in misery instead of the happiness which I think everyone would (subjectively) prefer.
All of this is purely subjective of course (from my subjective viewpoint)
I’m sure you believe that.
OK.
OK.
It seems that you are just repeating Rahner’s point: “we can say that what is most simple and most inescapable for man with regard to the question of God is the fact that the word “God” exists in his intellectual and spiritual existence [which existence he experiences, obviously]” (p. 45).
Firstly, Rahner never claimed that atheists necessarily want other people to stop believing. Secondly, I think Rahner is obviously referring to the concept when he speaks of the word ‘God.’ It is the word which evokes the concept and gives it an existence in man’s intellectual and spiritual life. Thirdly, the point of remaining silent is just what Rahner said: without silence, one prolongs the existence of God as part of man’s spiritual and intellectual existence.
Of course you’re able to actively question yourself and the process you use to question (I’m not sure what you mean by questioning the questions themselves). Rahner’s point seems to be that it is only when you do so with reference to God that you are able to do so radically, such that you are “brought face to face with the single whole of reality,” “with the single whole of [your] own existence.”
Rahner’s point, then, must obviously be that man is a religious animal, essentially. This is an anthropological fact, but also a fact that follows from the preceding point about man’s ability to radically address himself to the whole of existence and to the whole of himself. If man lost this radical ability, he would lose something which properly defines his dignity as a human being.
It might seem like a bald assertion, but I think it is true, and can be seen to be true. (That is: the concept of God creates us because it is what makes us men.) That might sound like another bald assertion, but sometimes that’s just how the truth sounds, before you come to understand it.
No hypothetical in which G-d is not the act of existing, is consistent with our definition of G-d. The OP posits a concept of G-d which may or may not exist. G-d is logically necessary by our definition. Therefore the OP is asking us to defend a concept of G-d different than our own. The OP is essentially a strawman argument.
The OP proposes a counterfactual. It can be translated thus:
Why respond to the OP if you do not plan on following it’s guidelines?
This is the nature of discourse on the CAFs, FilthyTugboat. There are multiple ways to post here. One can
(Believe me, I’ve been on lots of threads like that!)You kinda dodged the question yourself. You said what would convince you (in very vague terms I might add) and complained about the concept of God. You didn’t really say what you would do if all your terms were met, which would also be a given in the scenario. Obviously if something were proven to exist it would be reconciled with science, history, and philosophy appropriately.
And yet you don’t think losing this gift is a bad thing? How do you reconcile this?
Perhaps, but as different people reach different perceptions of “Truth” this leads to the irreconcilable differences I mentioned previously.*
As indeed are theists of the various different religions. As above, the number of times violence has and is resorted to because of such conflicts support this.
I am aware that you have that opinion. As we both know, others have different opinions. For instance Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc are all “believers” but the “Truth” they believe in is different to the “Truth” you believe in.
…For you, but the conflicts with people of other views (as I said) remain unresolved and seemingly unresolvable.And, thus, it all resolves rather nicely. *
But you are not resolving truths here, you are reaching the opinions that you started out with anyway. And as we have agreed, even other Catholics have views which differ widely on what is Truth (or right, or moral) let alone people from other religions.*
Except that those Catholics I know who do this live healthy, normal, moral, and happy lives. So it hardly seems appropriate to talk about drug addiction etc.*
Er, no we shouldn’t dismiss their works, I never said we should. Nor indeed anything close to such a suggestion.I take it you never studied the Greek philosophers in college, Candide? *The truths proclaimed by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle were written in a different language, by people with a culture and education vastly different from ours and living in conditions which are virtually unrecognizable. *
…
We should dismiss their works, then, in your paradigm because they didn’t write in English? *
Really, Candide?
I believe that God exists. If one were to “prove” to me that God didn’t exist, and I believed it, I am very sure that God would end up pursuing me and putting me back on track. After all, the only reason that I’m Catholic is because God has led me to this religion…
We can understand the context based on the Gospels themselves and other history from the time. The Christian scribes weren’t the only people with a habit of writing stuff down.
The problem was, humbleness actually was not valued by the Jewish population. The lower you were, the worse you were, attitude or not.
A valid point, but remember that the criterion is being used for a specific claim and can be combined with other criteria.
Crucifixion was one of the most brutal and feared forms of punishment, for only the worst of the worst. There is no way the Jews, let alone the Romans, saw an ounce of nobility in somebody who was crucified, especially for violating one (or several) of their social taboos.
I didn’t talk about this. I said that there is no reason for Matthew to make it more extraordinary.
Think about it. Matthew loaded every story with Scripture which it fulfilled, with the highest class people witnessing it, with Jesus being the best he could be. What does he do after all that? He reports a prophecy-shattering empty tomb witnessed by two radically emotional women. That’s all of Meier’s criteria fulfilled, except one which is non-applicable, even when you contextualize.
Except that he was punctured in the side, and blood and water came out - a sure sign that he was dead. Anatomy confirms this.
Paul, Mark, internal reconstruction, reconstruction based on other Synoptic, reconstruction based on secular history.
Being counterfactual and being a strawman do not seem to be mutually exclusive. It still doesn’t seem to represent our idea of G-d. To me it reads “what if existing did not exist”.
Pointing out the flaw in the OP is participating.
This is a Catholic board, specifically a Catholic philosophy board. It seems reasonable to think that it is directed at the Catholic idea of G-d. The OP posits a concept of G-d that can fail to exist. our concept of G-d is one who cannot fail to exist. Those are two very different ideas.
Candide, of course I think losing the gift of freedom to choose right from wrong is bad.
Yes, again, sadly, in your own words “that’s exactly why it’s irresolvable.” Atheists are going around unable to resolve the Truths of one’s existence. It’s like they’re cluelessly trying to get to Manhattan from Brooklyn. People are showing the The Map and they’re saying, “Nope, it’s irresolvable. No one can find Manhattan from Brooklyn.” Meanwhile, people following The Map are happily enjoying Manhattan!
Tis true, this.
Flawed premise. We would not “do” anything because we would not exist. Try again.
:doh2:Evidently, you and I see things differently. Truth is not a hypothetical. I participate because I love you. What about you?
