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

[trinitybeliever]

Er, not sure I’m following you. You appear to be saying that if your beliefs changed then we would cease to exist. This seems somewhat unlikely.

It is true none the less.

For you to prove that God does not exist you would need to disprove this…
John Chapter 1
1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
He was in the beginning with God.
3
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Awhile back, I had posed an alternative question for those of you unwilling or unable to comprehend existence in the absence of God, that retains the essence of the OP. (I hope you don’t mind Candide.) What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that your concept/understanding of God was completely wrong? Like, the Wiccan Horned God and Triple Goddess, or some sort of pantheism where god is not a personal god or creator, he is more like an it - the universe. Whatever, just something utterly different than your current belief. Can those of you that have issues with the OP answer that?

I would argue that such a thing is not possible. imagine a world full of Greek gods and goddesses. Everyone of them would need a cause, back until you reach the bare act of existing. At which time the regress halts because the negation of the act of existing is the act of being nothing or it is to say “nothing exists” which is a logical contradiction and therefore an impossibility. Therefore the only possible state of reality is for the act of existing to be manifest.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Hmmm tricky indeed and interesting. However, I think on this point I come down on the other side. People may aim at objectivity in making judgements but not always. Sometimes people happily make judgements without any attempt at objectivity (ie people judge what foods they like best etc, these are deliberately purely subjective judgements). However,*I would argue that judgements by their nature must contain at least a proportion of subjectivity. And the more of a judgement something is the more it is subjective.

The reason I say this is that in those areas where there is the most direct and consistent information we consider there to be little judgement to be made and little subjectivity (and people are most consistent in their “judgements”).The less you have direct, consistent information the more something comes down to judgement and the more subjective it becomes (and the more peoples “judgements” differ).
*

Surely you can? Surely you must if you are to make any judgments (about anything)?

Is this about having an objective perspective? If so then I don’t agree, I’m open to be shown I’m wrong here, but I can’t see how you can have an objective perspective. As far as I can see it’s a contradiction.*

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.)

Not at all, I wasn’t dismissing anything. I simply think that we should always be free to change our opinions. Restriction to a single viewpoint (on pain of death) either self imposed or from an external source seems like a bad idea for the reasons given before - self imposed tends to lead to closed mindedness etc.*

Perhaps an example would help. I can see something happen and be absolutely 100% convinced of what happened on the basis of the evidence of my own eyes. However, if someone then showed me sufficient additional information that I was actually somehow wrong, I’d take into account the additional information and presumably change my mind about what I saw happen. I wouldn’t kill myself over it.

This is essentially what those posters have said - that they are so committed to what they believe that if some additional information came to them that showed them their current view is wrong, they’d commit suicide. Where such statements are true the individual has a difficult challenge in making an unbiased assessment of the arguments for and against the religion - that if they come down against then they’ll kill themselves. Something of a bias seems inevitable.

In any case this limit is evidently not necessary to be Christian since many other Christians do not impose it on themselves.
*

“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.

indeed you must

 

[Candide_West]

And getting back to Rahner:

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).

I am not repeating Rahners point. I was disagreeing with the point that you can only uses words for things you have experienced. I agree that the word (and concept) exist. As do those other concepts I mentioned. But do not agree that this means I have experienced god (or levitation etc). It only means I am aware of the concept.

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.

I was responding to where you wrote “if he [an atheist] truly wanted the word god to be dead…” if an atheist in fact doesn’t want the concept dead, then the silence ceases to be useful. As I said previously.

As for the word really referring to the concept… Fair enough.

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.”*

This would appear to be a bald assertion. Why can we only question “radically” if we do so with reference to God?

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.

Agree that humans throughout our evolutionary development have believed in thousands upon thousands of different superstitions and Gods. Humans have used them to explain everything from existence itself to why it rains.*

Also agree that if humans lost the ability to question themselves then we would have lost an important part of our self awareness and that would be a change from how we tend to think of ourselves as sentient beings (and in my opinion a negative one).

As above, disagree that we couldn’t do this without a God concept.
*

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.

Fair enough, that’s your opinion. To me it does indeed appear to be a bald assertion and therefore unconvincing.

Thanks for writing back on this.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide, of course I think losing the gift of freedom to choose right from wrong is bad.

As if!

And yet you disagreed when I said “being limited to a single opinion is a limitation on freedom (and a negative one at that)???”

To quote, you said “Absolutely not! ”

Have you changed your mind? Perhaps you could explain your position here because as far as I can tell you have now agreed with my original point which you said you disagreed with.

The fact is, we *have *the choice–it has been given to us by the Creator, and no one can remove it from us. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that the Church somehow removes this freedom from us.

It’s exactly the opposite, Candide. You would not know that you have freedom of choice were it not for the Catholic Church preserving this truth and proclaiming it for 2000 years.

Obviously, I am not operating under this misapprehension, I feel we have covered this point repeatedly and at great length. Once again, you are the only person who has suggested that the church removes peoples freedom to choose. In fact I have expressed exactly the opposite opinion. As you know full well since you have responded to that post as well.

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!

That is an exceptionally poor metaphor. A more apt metaphor would me more like a Catholic standing somewhere saying “I’m in Manhattan”, another catholic 500 miles away saying “Nope, he’s wrong, I’m in Manhattan”, a Muslim 5000 miles away saying “they’ve both got it wrong, I’m the one who’s in Manhattan”, a Hindu 10,000 miles away… etc and a atheist standing there saying “you can’t all be right, this argument has been going on for thousands of years and has resulted countless thousands of deaths, I don’t think you guys can resolve this as long as you just keep saying that the others are wrong”.

It is always possible that one of the religions is right, but nobody is going to resolve anything by just keeping repeating their own opinions as “truth” as they have been all these years. This is what I have pointed out, as long as you keep saying things like “well we know we’re right because we’ve got the magisterium” and muslims, hindus etc all say similar things then the situation remains irresolvable.

Tis true, this.

People argued also about whether the world was flat or round, and yet, it seems, there really is a Truth. It turns out, the world is round.

Indeed, but people didn’t resolve the argument by simply keeping saying “it’s flat”, “no, it’s round”, “no, it’s flat”… etc which is what the worlds religious people do (as you demonstrated with the magisterium comment). They resolved it by gathering real information about the world.

'Tis true, this, also. But, why do you limit Truth to merely a concept? Who says it can’t be a Person? Where is it written this must be so? Is it absolutely true that truth is merely a concept?

Because truth refers to a concept, if you make the word “truth” refer to a person then it ceases to refer to the concept, it then refers to a person. You can just as easily say that truth is a brick. All that means is the word “truth” means “a brick” and you need a new word to refer to the concept of truth. A person can no more be the concept “truth” than a person can be the concept “around” or “smoothness” or “temperature”.

Alas, for the atheist this may be true. You are like a person staring at a skyscraper saying “I cannot figure out how to get to the top. The elevator is broken.” And the Believer says, “Well, we know the Engineer, so we’ll get you to the top, without your having to climb 50,000 stairs at that!” But, sadly, you turn away and say, “No, it is irresolvable. I’ll just enjoy the view from down here, thank you.”

Again, spectacularly poor metaphor.

What I have done is (as per my metaphor above) point out that catholics and people of many other religions are entirely confident that they have the “truth” but they are all different “truths” and often contradictory. This conflict has been going on for thousands of years and is still continuing. Catholics keep saying “yeah but we’re actually right” as of course do the other groups. Until this behaviour ceases, (or there is nobody left who has a different opinion) the situation remains irresolvable.

 

[Candide_West]

LOL! A drug addict is living a happy, normal, moral and happy life, eh?

??? Surprising point of view for you PR, I’d have thought you’d disapprove of drug addiction as much as I do…

…Er, hold on, you weren’t suggesting that the above was MY opinion were you??? If so that’s to say the least somewhat absurd.

I’m afraid that my Catholic friends (as I said previously) live perfectly happy, normal lives and are certainly not drug addicts (for that matter I don’t know any drug adicts full stop). They do however disagree with the Catholic church on a variety of points of morality and (again as I have said) do not suffer any visible consequences from this.

What visible consequences would you be looking for? Leprosy, perhaps?

Nothing so extreme, perhaps simple things emotional instability, having difficulty with motivation, not building successful and happy families… something like that. Of course none of those extreme signs you mentioned (drug addiction, suicide, etc) are present either.

And why should consequences to living a life of sin be necessarily visible to you, an intruder in their lives?

This seems like something of an arrogant statement since you know nothing about how close a relationship I have with them and you have assumed that I am an “intruder”. I can tell you from first hand experience that my friends live happy, successful lives and have developed their own views about morality which are different from that of the Catholic church. You can if you wish choose to believe that I’m wrong, as I guess you can about all those other millions of catholics who (as we agreed) do the same thing. But that amounts to little better than sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “I know they’re suffering for it really, they just don’t show it”

As an aside, do you believe divorce to be a positive or a negative in society? For that surely is a very “visible consequence” in our society for those who choose to separate themselves from The Way.

In itself a negative, as is being married to someone who you don’t love. But as previously pointed out my catholic friends do not suffer from such events.

Excellent.

So you are professing that we dismiss only the NT narratives because they were “written in a different language, by people with a culture and education vastly different from ours and living conditions which are virtually unrecognisable.”

Why should we dismiss them but not Ptolemy, the Persian poets, Archimedes?

Nope, once again you are replying to things I didn’t write. Strange since you even gave a link to what I did write, so I assume you must have read it.

1. I didn’t say we should dismiss the NT narratives (as I said I think we have a lot to learn from history and old beliefs).
2. I didn’t say that something being written in a different language etc would be justification for dismissing it.

What I did say is that I think that it is probably inevitable that catholics will in practice have a wide range of different opinions about moral issues etc (as we have agreed they do) and gave reasons supporting that statement. Allow me to break them down more simply:

• The lack of enforcement or consequences make them free to do so.
• The complexity of the issues and lack of reference to first principles or empirical data mean that the issues are considered open to opinion.
• The difference in culture / language etc make the original sources seem to many catholics both disconnected from our lives and no longer applicable.

I only brought up the Greeks in response to your comment that the NT texts weren’t written in English. So, if you dismiss the NT texts because they’re old and…

It seems that you are agreeable that ancient texts do have something to offer. But, for some reason not the NT texts.

Hopefully you are now clear that I have said nothing like what you thought I did. So the issue should be resolved (fingers crossed).

 

[PRmerger]

And yet you disagreed when I said “being limited to a single opinion is a limitation on freedom (and a negative one at that)???”

Candide, being limited to a single opinion–when it is the correct opinion–is not a limitation.

Now, of course I don’t believe one should only have a single opinion for what’s the best ice cream.

But I do believe that one should have a single opinion as to whether women have souls or not.

Do you see the difference here? The former is preference, and the latter promotes an absolute truth.

Once again, you are the only person who has suggested that the church removes peoples freedom to choose.

I stand corrected. If you are proclaiming that the Church proposes Truth rather than imposes Truth, then you are quite consonant with Catholic teaching!

In fact I have expressed exactly the opposite opinion. As you know full well since you have responded to that post as well.

I must have misunderstood and thought you were claiming that the Church limits our freedom.

That is an exceptionally poor metaphor. A more apt metaphor would me more like a Catholic standing somewhere saying “I’m in Manhattan”, another catholic 500 miles away saying “Nope, he’s wrong, I’m in Manhattan”, a Muslim 5000 miles away saying “they’ve both got it wrong, I’m the one who’s in Manhattan”, a Hindu 10,000 miles away… etc and a atheist standing there saying “you can’t all be right, this argument has been going on for thousands of years and has resulted countless thousands of deaths, I don’t think you guys can resolve this as long as you just keep saying that the others are wrong”.

Thanks for correcting. I can go with this metaphor as well.

For, in the end, there is an absolute truth, yes? Either the Catholic is right, and he is, objectively, in Manhattan. Or he’s not. He can’t be in Manhattan and the Muslim 5000 miles away also be in Manhattan.

And, it’s quite resolvable: someone–or no one– is in Manhattan. One just needs to look at The Map to discern who’s there and who’s not.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed, but people didn’t resolve the argument by simply keeping saying “it’s flat”, “no, it’s round”, “no, it’s flat”… etc which is what the worlds religious people do (as you demonstrated with the magisterium comment). They resolved it by gathering real information about the world.

'Tis true, this.

And Catholicism keeps promoting this "real information’ about the world.

Because truth refers to a concept, if you make the word “truth” refer to a person then it ceases to refer to the concept, it then refers to a person. You can just as easily say that truth is a brick. All that means is the word “truth” means “a brick” and you need a new word to refer to the concept of truth. A person can no more be the concept “truth” than a person can be the concept “around” or “smoothness” or “temperature”.

Candide, do you not see, every single day, hundreds of thousand of examples of a concept becoming a person? It’s called “a baby”.

The concept of “union” becomes a real person, aka “a baby”, when a man and woman entertain the concept of “union”.

So, if “union” can be a “baby”, why can’t “truth” be a Person?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, spectacularly poor metaphor.

Perhaps. As all analogies do, they will eventually fail.

But I think my point was quite well illustrated in the analogy.

What I have done is (as per my metaphor above) point out that catholics and people of many other religions are entirely confident that they have the “truth” but they are all different “truths” and often contradictory. This conflict has been going on for thousands of years and is still continuing. Catholics keep saying “yeah but we’re actually right” as of course do the other groups.

True…true. Nothing here I disagree with.

Until this behaviour ceases, (or there is nobody left who has a different opinion) the situation remains irresolvable.

How so?

Truth cannot be reasoned? Is that the atheist position you’re proferring?

 

[PRmerger]

'Tis true, this.

And Catholicism keeps promoting this "real information’ about the world.

Candide, do you not see, every single day, hundreds of thousand of examples of a concept becoming a person? It’s called “a baby”.

The concept of “union” becomes a real person, aka “a baby”, when a man and woman entertain the concept of “union”.

So, if “union” can be a “baby”, why can’t “truth” be a Person?

Oh! Oh! I just got another inspiration! It segues nicely with the above proposition.

Love is another concept which becomes a person, is it not? When a husband and wife come together in the marital embrace, sometimes their love is sooo much of a concept that, 9 months later, you can actually hold this Love and give her a name!

 

[PRmerger]

??? Surprising point of view for you PR, I’d have thought you’d disapprove of drug addiction as much as I do…

…Er, hold on, you weren’t suggesting that the above was MY opinion were you??? If so that’s to say the least somewhat absurd.

Well, then, good. On this also we are agreed.

But it would help, Candide, if you would provide an antecedent to your prepositions. A basic rule of grammar is pronoun/antecedent agreement. (See “Top Ten Grammar Problems”) and Fifth Grade resources. )

When I posited:

Another is the chaos and despair that occurs when we choose not to follow The Way. We see the resulting destruction when families divorce. We see the disordered lives that follow those who are addicted to pornography, drugs, alcohol, etc.

You responded with:

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.

Now, the antecedent for “this” was “those who are addicted to pornography, drugs, alcohol, etc”.

If you were referring to something totally different, say, “Catholics who eat turnips”, then as most of us here are not mindreaders and cannot guess as to what “this” actually meant in your mind, you ought not use prepositions.

At any rate, we are both agreed that drug addicts are not happy, so

And, whether these Catholics you know who aren’t following The Way are happy, how would you know? Do you have access to their pharmacy? Are you certain they’re not on anti-depressants? Have you sat in on their marital counseling sessions? How do you know they’re not addicted to anything?

 

[samiam1611]

Oh! Oh! I just got another inspiration! It segues nicely with the above proposition.

Love is another concept which becomes a person, is it not? When a husband and wife come together in the marital embrace, sometimes their love is sooo much of a concept that, 9 months later, you can actually hold this Love and give her a name!

Good one!

 

[trinitybeliever]

Er, not sure I’m following you. You appear to be saying that if your beliefs changed then we would cease to exist. This seems somewhat unlikely.

Candide- 2nd time. Any response?

It is true none the less.

For you to prove that God does not exist you would need to disprove this…
John Chapter 1
1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
He was in the beginning with God.
3
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

[Betterave]

It clearly posits a concept of G-d that is not the same as the Catholic concept of G-d.

No, it clearly doesn’t. It simply posits the possibility of it being proven to someone’s satisfaction that the Catholic concept of God is non-referring.

As to the rest. We do indeed believe that G-d is the very act of existing, Actus Purus. That’s basic Catholicism 101.

No, we don’t believe that. God is identical to HIS OWN act of existing. He is not identical to “the” act of existing (i.e., to any act of existing whatsoever).

No one is claiming that G-d is the same as everything else.

You may not realize it, but that is what is implied by your ineptly qualified formulation of the Catholic position.

Being is still divided by necessity and contingency as usual. We also believe that no logically contingent being can exist without a necessary being. Hence we do believe that nothing can exist apart from G-d.

Yes, but that is irrelevant, since we don’t believe that that is self-evident, and that it is impossible for anyone to become convinced otherwise. Again, you’re attacking a straw man here (more properly, you’re committing an ignoratio elenchi).

 

[Betterave]

Seriously? You might want to look up the definition.

LOL! Might I? Why is that? (You might want to try being a little less arrogant and a little more dialogically engaged. That would show you actually cared about the truth, instead of just talking about it.)

Hypothetical s are arguments based on conjecture.

No, they’re not. A hypothetical is not an argument at all. It is a statement of what can be expected to happen in a certain situation. For example, if I am to read the book on my desk, I will have to open it up. That is a hypothetical statement, it’s not an argument, and it is true.

The truth is never irrelevant, it is absolute.

I have a book on my desk with the number 19 written on the cover. That is the truth. The truth, however, is often irrelevant.

 

[trinitybeliever]

LOL! Might I? Why is that? (You might want to try being a little less arrogant and a little more dialogically engaged. That would show you actually cared about the truth, instead of just talking about it.)

"Hold on now, directly to the name calling and insults?:tsktsk:

No, they’re not. A hypothetical is not an argument at all. It is a statement of what can be expected to happen in a certain situation. For example, if I am to read the book on my desk, I will have to open it up. That is a hypothetical statement, it’s not an argument, and it is true.

**Merriam-Webster:

Definition of HYPOTHETICAL: being or involving a hypothesis : conjectural

Synonyms: academic (also academical), conjectural, theoretical, speculative, suppositional
Antonyms: actual, factual, real**

**Definition of HYPOTHESIS

1
a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
**

I have a book on my desk with the number 19 written on the cover. That is the truth. The truth, however, is often irrelevant.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

"Hold on now, directly to the name calling and insults?:tsktsk:

Where is the name calling and insults for which you give accusation?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, it clearly doesn’t. It simply posits the possibility of it being proven to someone’s satisfaction that the Catholic concept of God is non-referring.

For those who are theists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does not exist”

For those who are atheists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist”

It seems clear to me that they are referring to a different kind of god. One that can fail to exist. That is not our concept of G-d.

No, we don’t believe that. God is identical to HIS OWN act of existing. He is not identical to “the” act of existing (i.e., to any act of existing whatsoever).

No, we believe that G-d is his own act of existing and every other act as well. There is no existence apart from G-d. the being whose substance is existence. The Eastern Churches are out right panentheistic to a further degree than the Western Churches. But they have a greater influence from Islamic metaphysics during the scholastic area and the “existence precedes essence” line is expressed more vigorously by them than by Aquinas.

You may not realize it, but that is what is implied by your ineptly qualified formulation of the Catholic position.

You’re confusing panentheism for pantheism. they are similar words, happens all the time. We still divide being the old fashioned way, necessity and contingency.

 

[samiam1611]

Definition of HYPOTHESIS

1
a : an assumption or concession made for the** sake of argument**b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Argument can mean 2 things too - “sake of argument” is not the same thing as an “argument for…” i.e." reason for…" I think Betterave was right in that a hypothetical is not an argument - it’s said for the sake of argument, in other words, the sake of discussion.

It just so happens that since the OP offered TWO literally opposite hypotheticals, indicating that (s?)he was not making an argument at all - not defending a position - just bringing up 2 hypothetical situations for us to have a friendly discussion about.

 

[samiam1611]

It seems clear to me that they are referring to a different kind of god. One that can fail to exist. That is not our concept of G-d.

Is it really so impossible of a question to answer? Your God has many other attributes besides necessary existence. Just put that one aside for a moment. What if it were proven to your satisfaction that Catholicism was wrong, that Jesus is completely made up, that there is no heaven and hell, that there was no afterlife, you know, whatever. You don’t normally focus on human existence when you think of God do you? Don’t you think of love, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc? Surely you can come up with something other than, impossible question to answer bc the question is flawed.

Jeesh, just roll with it man! Or at least comment on other people’s answers instead of just pointing out the flaw that you see in the original question. That’s no fun!