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

[Candide_West]

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

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.

Ahhhh, fair shout. My bad, grammar never was my strong suit. Will try to watch this.

To be clear, the antecendent “Catholics who do this” was intended to be “Catholics who disagree with official catholic views about various issues” (ie contraception). and my point was that they do not suffer any visible ill affects from this.

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?

Are you certain that your priest isn’t on anti-depressants? Have you sat in with him and his psychologist? Do you know he’s not addicted to anything? I suspect you answers to these questions would be similar to me and my friends.

The more important point is why would you presume that someone who is living a normal, happy life etc is actually miserable underneath? Because they aren’t following “the way”? What could ever convince you otherwise if that’s what you want to believe?

Do you believe that all hindu’s, muslims, atheists, etc etc are actually miserable in their lives because they are not following “the way” either? If so I can assure you from first hand experience this is not the case.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well I’m an atheist in that I do not believe that anything I would call a god exists.

What would you call G-d? Our G-d is one that does not depend on anything else for its existence, so your god would necessarily be dependent on our G-d and by that token, it could not really be G-d. Our definition of G-d is the only possible one. The word god can be applied to a number of things that cannot logically be G-d.

By your definition of G-d (as essentially existence) then yes I suppose I’m not an atheist at all. But to me that definition makes the concept trivial. It simply says “whatever is required for existance to exist is G-d.”

Not quite. Nothing is required for the existence of G-d. The negation is “nothing exists” a logical contradiction and therefore an impossibility. That is why G-d is a necessary being.

If that something is a “thing” as opposed to a self aware, conscious being then, so what it’s still G-d because that’s what you’ve defined as G-d.

We define What G-d has to be in logical terms because that is our mode of understanding, we naturally structure the world according to the law of identity. G-d defines who he is. He makes His nature clear as day in what He does. We have collected 73 documents that describe G-d and mans relationship over the course of thousands of years. They can be mathematically verified by the fulfillment Messianic Prophecy. The G-d we know is willing to suffer with us and for us. The idea that our concept of G-d is is somehow not self aware or concious isn’t born out by what we know.

As I said, by your definition of G-d then I agree, G-d (existence) exists. But that seems irrelevant. Since it says nothing about the human condition or how we should behave or what we should do etc.

G-d has a whole lot to say about what is right and wrong.

The OP question then becomes I suppose "what would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that G-d is in fact non aware (ie a dimensional reference frame or some other nonliving “thing”).

I would argue that since G-d has interacted with us multiple times, G-d is aware. G-d is not a “dimensional frame” That’s not a metaphysically meaningful term.

 

[shoe]

The problem comes when two people have things which they believe are “absolute” truths which contradict each other. This is the conflict to which I have referred. For example Hindus believe it is an “absolute” truth that cows are holy. Most christians happily eat them. You can tell a hindu all you like that he’s wrong but I doubt you’ll have any more success than him trying to convince you that contraception is ok. As far as I can tell neither of you have any basis for these beliefs other than that you think God said X.

Since all religious belief systems frequently seem to contradict one other, they cannot be all true, as truth cannot deny the truth. And finding the truth with all the contradictions among the religious belief systems is no simple matter. But of all the religious belief systems in the world, Christianity is the only one I know that is based on evidence such as the fulfillment of prophecies, the eyewitness accounts (Gospels) of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus; and also the eyewitness accounts of His miracles. No other religious belief system in the world has that kind of evidence about its founder. Therefore, if a set of religious beliefs are to be the true one, then the religious beliefs of Christianity is logically it.

 

[trinitybeliever]

I’m afraid I don’t believe you are correct here. Why should my existence be dependent on your beliefs? I can imagine no route by which you changing your mind would affect my existence either way. Perhaps you can elaborate on why you believe this?

God is the Prime Mover, the Alpha, the Creator, The Uncaused Cause of all existence. He keeps creation in existence by His Love. Not because I believe it and you don’t, but because it is the objective Truth.

The only difference between my belief and atheism is that in considering the origin of creation, I do not exclude the possibility of a creator and atheists reject that possibility. They prefer to look to science, empirical data and theories that exclude the divine. Though they cannot disprove God, yet they are unable to prove the origins of creation or even humanity.

After 2000+ years of the greatest thinking on these issues still science cannot disprove the truths of Christianity as revealed through the Catholic Church. Believe me, they have been trying. From the beginning of man’s history to present day God has been revealing His Truth to us. Please understand, as a purposeful Catholic, I have considered my Faith and weighed it against the many world possibilities and beliefs. For me and countless others through time, we have recognized that Catholicism is the fullness of the Truth of God for the world to see. I am humbled to be counted among the believers however unworthy I am.

We are not deluded, brain dead, or hypnotized. We know love when we see it and ( when at our best) are trying to live our Faith, eyes wide open.

OK, not sure what you’re saying here. Are you trying to indicate that it could not be proven to your satisfaction that God doesn’t exist?

Precisely.

 

[samiam1611]

Since all religious belief systems frequently seem to contradict one other, they cannot be all true, as truth cannot deny the truth. And finding the truth with all the contradictions among the religious belief systems is no simple matter. But of all the religious belief systems in the world, **Christianity is the only one I know that is based on evidence **such as the fulfillment of prophecies, the eyewitness accounts (Gospels) of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus; and also the eyewitness accounts of His miracles. No other religious belief system in the world has that kind of evidence about its founder. Therefore, if a set of religious beliefs are to be the true one, then the religious beliefs of Christianity is logically it.

Hahah! Using the word “evidence” pretty loosely there, aren’t ya?

 

[Betterave]

If you don’t want to know what it means, than what do you want?

I asked you a perfectly clear question which was obviously not about the general meaning of any particular word. Again:

“Existence precedes Essence” means “God is immanent and transcendent”?

In that case maybe I’d better ask: what do you think ‘means’ means?

 

[Betterave]

The truth is, I’m still waiting to see any.

I think this comment just reinforces my point: the truth is you’re not really interested in an intelligent discussion.

 

[Betterave]

Given the following two quotes i would say yes.

Doh! I understand the words, I understand what Sartre’s existentialist slogan usually means (and I know that it is not compatible with Catholic belief or with any remotely credible form of Thomism), I just don’t know what the heck you two think it means.

 

[Betterave]

Hahah! Using the word “evidence” pretty loosely there, aren’t ya?

Why would you say that?

 

[tonyrey]

You’re obviously not aware that t is a quotation from King Lear in response to your reply: "The answers to your questions are simply unknowns

". It simply means that you have no basis for your argument…
But I am not making an argument at all. You asked about my opinion so I gave it…

Then you have no basis for your opinion.

I think it’s probable that there was one or more people about whom the events in the new testament were written. That opinion is based on the various christian and secular references about events in the area at the time.

I have not seen sufficient evidence to determine with good reliability if it was a single individual or a few and I certainly haven’t seen enough to make judgements about motivations etc.

There were certainly one or more people about whom the events in the New Testament were written but you have no basis for your opinion that Jesus was more than one person.

 

[PRmerger]

Have I missed something or has you opinion changed?

My opinion has* not* changed.

“Being limited to one opinion can lead to closed mindedness if voluntary or totalitarianism if externally enforced.”

We are agreed on the above, as I’ve have consistently maintained.

You have, it seems, acknowledged that the CC does not “externally enforce” their Truths, so we are agreed on this as well.

So what entity has “externally enforced” its truths? To what are you referring?

Incidentally, I again proclaim: “Being limited to a single opinion–when it is the correct opinion–is not a limitation.”

 

[Betterave]

Then there really is no need to speak of two distinct things (accept as a tool to distinguish how God and creature differ), since God is his existence. God is the act of reality.

God is HIS act of being. He is the efficient cause of the creature’s act of being. Nonetheless, the creature’s act of being is its own, it belongs to the creature, it is created, and it is not the same as God’s act of being.

Then they are not the same thing. Again, they are not their own act of reality; they receive reality from Gods nature, and since God cannot be quantified in to parts, then it would be necessary to say that we receive the existence of God; since out of nothing comes nothing.

You are not making sense here. I am not simply the same as my parts; why? - because my parts are only parts, whereas I am a whole. (Similarly, man is not the same as animal, even though man is an animal.) It does not follow that my parts are not really my parts but are in fact somehow God.

If existence was a passive attribute then i would understand your point. However; Essence has no existence of its own, thus it follows necessarily that any potential essence which comes into existence is contingent upon the necessity of existence in-order to be real even if by its union an essence exists forever, since they are two distinct things; like you just admitted. Because they are distinct in nature, if an essence ceases to be this would not be necessarily a contradiction, unless we thought that the essence ceases to exist in virtue of its own power or nature. That certainly would be impossible.

If by “distinct in nature” you mean “distinct secundum rationem,” that’s fine. But essence and existence are not properly speaking things; they are at most constituents of things. Anyway, what do you mean when you say, “if an essence ceased to be…”?? How would that happen? Again, nota bene: an essence is not a thing.

1.

When an essence passes out of existence, it is only the essence that ceases to be and not “esse”, because its essence had no intrinsic reality in the first place.

Noting my point above, I’ll just point out that this sounds like shear nonsense.

2.

It makes sense that a thing passes out of existence when you consider the act of reality as being identical in nature to the will of God; thus the will of God is what makes a thing pass in and out of existence. It is by the will of reality that some potential thing exists or not.
Regardless of whether what you’re trying to say here makes sense, it makes better sense to say that a thing can pass out of existence because its existence is not necessary, it is created and contingent.

Conclusion:

Existence cannot begin to exist. its a logical contradiction, since to have the intrinsic nature of reality, is to be that nature; it is to be real by nature.
Existence cannot begin to exist? That depends what you mean by ‘existence.’ A thing can certainly begin to exist, and in this case its existence could be said to begin to exist (stilted though that sounds).

If something is real by nature, then that nature cannot cease to be what it is by nature, since that would contradict the fact that its intrinsic nature is reality. If we consider that necessity isn’t just a logical fact but an ontological fact

AGAIN, that’s wrong. To say that God is a necessary reality is synonymous to saying that God’s ontological nature is identical to HIS OWN act of reality. He is the* necessary condition for* everything else, but he is not identical to anything else.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem comes when two people have things which they believe are “absolute” truths which contradict each other. This is the conflict to which I have referred. For example Hindus believe it is an “absolute” truth that cows are holy. Most christians happily eat them. You can tell a hindu all you like that he’s wrong but I doubt you’ll have any more success than him trying to convince you that contraception is ok. As far as I can tell neither of you have any basis for these beliefs other than that you think God said X.

Again, the fact that people disagree on a Truth is irrelevant as to whether Truth exists, and whether it can be known.

(See my reference to the flat earth.)

And you’ve hit on the problem right there. Each person has a map which clearly shows that they are indeed in Manhattan and the others are wrong.

Each person may have “a” map, but some of them do not have The Map.

Now, to the degree that this map may have something right (Canada is north of the US, say), then it reflects the Truth.

However, unless they have The Map, given by The Mapmaker, they’re going to have a much more difficult time arriving in Manhattan and enjoying the view.

Each believes that their map is “The One True Map” which is absolutely right. Each is able to identify flaws and inconsistencies in the maps of the others which show **their **maps are wrong.

And to the degree that their maps are consonant with the True Map is the degree that their map is correct.

Unfortunately not. To carry on with my analogy. Catholocism keeps showing everyone it’s map and saying it’s right (as do each of the other religions).

And the degree that these other maps coincide with the Map of Catholicism is the degree that they get it right.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I disagree. The concept doesn’t become a person. The concept remains a concept. In this case the “concept” you are referring to is probably more like a descriptor or a noun rather than a concept. But in any case, what happens is that a baby is born and the “concept” can then be used to indicate / identify what that baby is (a baby).

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

What I was aiming at was something more like “Two people cannot reason their way to the truth by each repeating contradictory points of view.” That’s what I was referring to by “until this behaviour ceases”.

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?

 

[PRmerger]

Ahhhh, fair shout. My bad, grammar never was my strong suit. Will try to watch this.

To be clear, the antecendent “Catholics who do this” was intended to be “Catholics who disagree with official catholic views about various issues” (ie contraception). and my point was that they do not suffer any visible ill affects from this.

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.

But I will point to some “visible” statistics: divorcestatistics.org/
which, sadly, have caused much visible damage to our families and society.

Are you certain that your priest isn’t on anti-depressants? Have you sat in with him and his psychologist? Do you know he’s not addicted to anything? I suspect you answers to these questions would be similar to me and my friends.

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

The more important point is why would you presume that someone who is living a normal, happy life etc is actually miserable underneath?

I have not maintained this at all.

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.

What could ever convince you otherwise if that’s what you want to believe?

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

Do you believe that all hindu’s, muslims, atheists, etc etc are actually miserable in their lives because they are not following “the way” either? If so I can assure you from first hand experience this is not the case.

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 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?

And, if the answer is yes–and clearly this is in opposition to that which Christ has proclaimed–would you say that this created joy in your lives or misery?

 

[PRmerger]

Do you believe that all hindu’s, muslims, atheists, etc etc are actually miserable in their lives because they are not following “the way” either? If so I can assure you from first hand experience this is not the case.

To be clear: I am not saying that those closest to God do not feel the “dark night of the soul” ala St. John of the Cross, and of late, Mother Teresa.

There is, however, a difference between that which the above saints experienced and the misery that results from living a life of sin.

 

[trinitybeliever]

I think this comment just reinforces my point: the truth is you’re not really interested in an intelligent discussion.

You’re offensive and arrogant.:sad_yes:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I asked you a perfectly clear question which was obviously not about the general meaning of any particular word. Again:

“Existence precedes Essence” means “God is immanent and transcendent”?

In that case maybe I’d better ask: what do you think ‘means’ means?

I know what the words mean, I know the metaphysics. I am just not going to explain things word by word for you. If you cannot be bothered to look up what words mean then I cannot be bothered to do it for you.

 

[samiam1611]

I know what the words mean, I know the metaphysics. I am just not going to explain things word by word for you. If you cannot be bothered to look up what words mean then I cannot be bothered to do it for you.

I don’t think it’s the words themselves that are confusing. The first statement begs further explanation. The second one not as much. Could you elaborate on the first one?

 

[trinitybeliever]

Again, the fact that people disagree on a Truth is irrelevant as to whether Truth exists, and whether it can be known.

(See my reference to the flat earth.)

Each person may have “a” map, but some of them do not have The Map.

Now, to the degree that this map may have something right (Canada is north of the US, say), then it reflects the Truth.

However, unless they have The Map, given by The Mapmaker, they’re going to have a much more difficult time arriving in Manhattan and enjoying the view.

And to the degree that their maps are consonant with the True Map is the degree that their map is correct.

And the degree that these other maps coincide with the Map of Catholicism is the degree that they get it right.

Well said. :clapping: