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

[Betterave]

Its not obviously Sartres idea, its a concept that goes back a thousand years before him.

Another false dichotomy (it can be both!) leading to a non sequitur (it IS obviously Sartre’s slogan) and straw man (I said slogan, not idea - slogans are used to refer to ideas/concepts, they are not the same as).

I told you I was getting the idea from Mulla Sadr and you still confused Sadr and Sartre. The empirical evidence refutes what you’re saying.

I get it: you know how to repeatedly beg the same question and to ignore all objections against your position.

If you did not know than why did you mock me for stating his name? Because you clearly didn’t know.

I corrected you, my brother! But go ahead and keep on calling him Mulla Sadr, even though you’re the only one. Here’s your stupid argument:
“Dude’s name is Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī, also called Mulla Sadrā; therefore he is also called Mulla Sadr.” That’s obviously a non sequitur, warp. Why not just accept that?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Its not obviously Sartres idea, its a concept that goes back a thousand years before him. I told you I was getting the idea from Mulla Sadr and you still confused Sadr and Sartre. The empirical evidence refutes what you’re saying.
If you did not know than why did you mock me for stating his name? Because you clearly didn’t know.

Hey warp, forget this guy; he drawing you away from what’s really important. The conversation has gone from a discussion about Gods nature in to something eles. I originally agreed with him about the fact that the OP is only hypothetical and is not talking about a real world ontological possibility; but that doesn’t justify his attitude; and he is clearly wrong about the nature of existence. He is probably still in high school by the looks of it, perhaps kindergarten. Don’t worry, In respect of the whole Mulla Sadr episode, I can see that he was being deceptive in an attempt to make a fool of you, but now it has back fired; and it has made him instead look like a complete ***-hole.

Leave him to his own distorted sense of self worth.

 

[Candide_West]

Since all religious belief systems frequently seem to contradict one other, they cannot be all true, as truth cannot deny the truth. … Therefore, if a set of religious beliefs are to be the true one, then the religious beliefs of Christianity is logically it.

And a Muslim could produce a different but equally convincing set of reasons why Islam is logically it, a Hindu could too, as could a Jew etc.*

 

[Betterave]

Ok, but this still carries the affect I mentioned above. The “it can’t be true, that would be a disaster” affect.

I think it’s important to point out that the effect you talk about is one which for some people applies to “it can’t be true that I was wrong, that would be a disaster” - and that’s the one that leads directly to closed-mindedness, not “it can’t be true that God does/doesn’t exist, that would lead to disaster.” I think the latter can only be accidentally related to closed-mindedness.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

And a Muslim could produce a different but equally convincing set of reasons why Islam is logically it, a Hindu could too, as could a Jew etc.*

Could they?

 

[Betterave]

Hey warp, forget this guy; he drawing you away from what’s really important. The conversation has gone from a discussion about Gods nature in to something eles. I originally agreed with him about the fact that the OP is only hypothetical and is not talking about a real world ontological possibility; but that doesn’t justify his attitude; and he is clearly wrong about the nature of existence. He is probably still in high school by the looks of it, perhaps kindergarten. Don’t worry, In respect of the whole Mulla Sadr episode, I can see that he was being deceptive in an attempt to make a fool of you, but now it has back fired; and it has made him instead look like a complete ***-hole.

Leave him to his own distorted sense of self worth.

Thanks, MOM. I’ll just let you take this one up with our Lord on judgment day (or hopefully sooner).

 

[Candide_West]

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.

Hey, not really sure what to make of this post as it doesn’t seem to actually refer to the previous discussion. I asked if you could expand on why you think a change of opinion by you would make me cease to exist.*

This entire post seems to be a statement of your religious beliefs which is interesting in it’s own right (and I’ll reply below) but doesn’t move me any closer to understanding your seemingly rather unusual opinion.

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.

Not at all, atheists simply don’t assume a creator. Generally they see no evidence of a creator and thus no reason to believe there is one. That is quite different from excluding the 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.[/I]

The statement above sounds a bit misleading, although I can see what you were going for. It sounds as if you mean that scientific theories deliberately exclude God when if fact they do not include him for the same reason that they do not include fairies - there is no scientific evidence for either. Thus scientific theories simply do not include God, obviously there is no choice until there is scientific evidence for God.

True that science has not been able to “prove” the theory of origin of the universe, or humanity, any more than it has been able to “prove” the theory of gravity. I don’t suppose any of these things will ever be proven. However, they are theories which are supported by the best evidence that are available to date.*

In addition the concept of God is inherently impossible to disprove. so it seems hardly surprising nobody has done so.

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.*

This seems like a rather odd paragraph. Especially since it seems to make much more sense reversed. Firstly while the Catholic church has been trying consistently throughout the last 2000 years to prove the existence of God (and has failed) there have been until the last few hundred years been virtually no atheists, and few have tried to disprove God.*

Secondly it is the church which has made the claims of “truths” surely the burden of proof is on the church, rather than those who do not believe their claims?

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.

I know those are your beliefs. Fair enough. Obviously I do not share them.*

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.

I have never said that you are deluded, brain dead etc… Not sure what your point is here or what you are replying to.*

Precisely.

Ok. Plenty of other theists have expressed the same view. No big deal.
[/quote]

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

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

It can’t be proven that God does not exist. Logically impossible.

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

You can’t prove to an atheist that God exists if he doesn’t want it to be proven to him. If it is proven to him that God exists, it’s because he he has opened his heart to God, not because he has opened his head.

That is, he has experienced God, rather than merely thought about Him. There’s proof in that pudding.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Another false dichotomy (it can be both!) leading to a non sequitur (it IS obviously Sartre’s slogan) and straw man (I said slogan, not idea - slogans are used to refer to ideas/concepts, they are not the same as).

So when you asked me where I got it, you really meant…“who has most often uttered the phrase?” The more excuses you make the deeper you dig that hole.

I get it: you know how to repeatedly beg the same question and to ignore all objections against your position.

I know that what you did is different than what you said.

I corrected you, my brother! But go ahead and keep on calling him Mulla Sadr, even though you’re the only one. Here’s your stupid argument:
“Dude’s name is Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī, also called Mulla Sadrā; therefore he is also called Mulla Sadr.” That’s obviously a non sequitur, warp. Why not just accept that?

How could you correct me I was saying his name correctly? That doesn’t make any sense. See what I mean about your constant reference to general logical faults ? What you did is different than what you say now.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Thanks, MOM. I’ll just let you take this one up with our Lord on judgment day (or hopefully sooner).

If your truly concerned, then Pray for me. That’s the best thing to do.

 

[Candide_West]

Then you have no basis for your opinion.

No, I do have a basis for my opinion. In fact I stated it in the very same post (where is said “this is based on…”)

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.

I am aware that it is your your opinion that Jesus was a real individual. That is to be expected as you are Catholic. To be clear, I do not hold the opinion that Jesus was more than one person. As I said, my opinion is that there was probably one or more people about whom the events in the NT were written. Obviously this is quite different.

 

[PRmerger]

And a Muslim could produce a different but equally convincing set of reasons why Islam is logically it, a Hindu could too, as could a Jew etc.*

Again, Candide: because there is disagreement on a subject does not indicate that truth does not exist or that it cannot be discerned.

See my reference to the flat earth.

See references to people who proclaim that the white race is superior. They will provide arguments as to why they are promoting a truth.

Yet, clearly, they are wrong.

 

[Betterave]

Why must I have experiential grounding on something in order to understand a concept?

Presumably because we don’t develop concepts except on the basis of experience. Do you have some other theory about how we come to ‘possess’ and understand concepts?

I can understand the concept of God but do not believe he exists, equally I can understand the concept of the flying spaghetti monster but do not believe it exists either.*

Certainly, but your understanding is only possible insofar as you have had the relevant experience. And the ‘quality’/depth/rigor of your understanding is also presumably commensurate with the quality/depth/rigor of the experience grounding that understanding.

I can imagine the existence of any number of things which do not in fact exist. True that once I have imagined them I guess you could say I have “experienced” them. But that doesn’t say anything about whether those things actually exist outside my mind.*

That’s true in a sense, but not true in another sense. The flying spaghetti monster, for instance: the basic conceptual elements - flying, spaghetti, monster - are things you have experienced. Your judgment regarding the applicability of these three items to some real entity is a different matter. There is obviously nothing about these three conceptual items, in relation to each other, which would indicate that such an entity might reasonably be conjectured to exist.

Really? Then it looks like I’ve totally missed Rahner’s point. I’m happy enough to say that considering if such a being exists is a part of mental development into adulthood. Of course it’s not the only question that ought to be asked as part of growing up in our society. But nonetheless I’d say it’s an important one to consider.

Again, I’m not sure if you read what I said carefully: If the atheist admits that she doesn’t want to concept to be ‘dead,’ then she admits one of two things: 1) it is dead for her, but she is happy for there to be others for whom the concept is not dead, and this despite the fact that she regards them rather superciliously, as people who cling to a childish fantasy; 2) she will have to admit that ‘God’ indeed is an entirely legitimate concept that mature intelligent adults have to take seriously in order to be mature intelligent adults - which would be to concede Rahner’s point.
Above you seem to be slightly shifting what I said to make 2) fade into 1). It can’t just be “part of growing up” - that would be compatible with 1), and 2) is explicitly stated so as not to be compatible with 1). You have to choose.

My understanding of how things work is that generally the person making a claim (in this case you) needs to support it as opposed to me needing to prove you wrong.

As I understand it, “support my position” is what I did with my challenge to you.
If you have no suggestion to make as an alternative to mine, then it would appear to be reasonable to hold my position, rather than yours (since yours isn’t really a position, beyond the purely negative rejection of my position). I guess it comes down to whether you are looking to understand as best you can, or seeking to doubt as much as you can. You’ll get into a lot of trouble with the latter position though, if you’re consistent. Radical doubt just isn’t a stable/tenable position, even if it can be a legitimate part of ‘growing up’ (I’m assuming you won’t disagree with this claim).

In any case perhaps a good starting point would be to define what you mean by the term “radically” in this context.*

How about: getting to the root of the human situation, so far as possible.

 

[Betterave]

So when you asked me where I got it, you really meant…“who has most often uttered the phrase?” The more excuses you make the deeper you dig that hole.

No, I didn’t mean that, and I gave you no reason for thinking I meant that.

I know that what you did is different than what you said.

Okaaay…

How could you correct me I was saying his name correctly? That doesn’t make any sense. See what I mean about your constant reference to general logical faults ? What you did is different than what you say now.

You weren’t saying his name correctly! - so what the……are you talking about? Mulla Sadra is correct; Mulla Sadr is not.

I believe this is a matter of Arabic phonetics. In the name Sadr ad-Din etc., Sadr is followed by a vowel which elides with/into the alif of the ad-Din which follows. In the name/title Mulla Sadra, where no vowel follows, there is no elision of the final alif on Sadra. That’s why it is Mulla Sadra, and Mulla Sadr is incorrect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, I didn’t mean that, and I gave you no reason for thinking I meant that.

You implied that you were referring to the slogan and not the concept. So I obviously had a reason to think so. I told you where the idea came from.You obviously confused Sartre and Sadr, even after I told you the concept came from Mullah Sadr. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

You weren’t saying his name correctly! - so what the……are you talking about? Mulla Sadra is correct; Mulla Sadr is not.

Yes, I was.

I believe this is a matter of Arabic phonetics…

I am not speaking Arabic. I am a English speaker His name is Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī in English. I am no more required to follow the Arabic spelling with his name than I am to use the Gaelic spelling of mine. Now, I won’t Google and then pretend that I also know something about Arabic, but you should know that he also goes by Molla Sadra, Mollasadra or Sadr-ol-Mote’allehi,Molla Sadra, as well as some others I have seen. Your haste to insult me led to another error in thinking. If it were nott for the continual insults and condescension, then you wouldn’t be trying to backtrack on everything you said. You should take a lesson from this.

 

[Betterave]

You implied that you were referring to the slogan and not the concept. So I obviously had a reason to think so. I told you where the idea came from.You obviously confused Sartre and Sadr, even after I told you the concept came from Mullah Sadr. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
Yes, I was.
I am not speaking Arabic. I am a English speaker His name is Ṣadr ad-Dīn Muḥammad Shīrāzī in English. I am no more required to follow the Arabic spelling with his name than I am to use the Gaelic spelling of mine. Now, I won’t Google and then pretend that I also know something about Arabic, but you should know that he also goes by Molla Sadra, Mollasadra or Sadr-ol-Mote’allehi,Molla Sadra, as well as some others I have seen. Your haste to insult me led to another error in thinking. If it were nott for the continual insults and condescension, then you wouldn’t be trying to backtrack on everything you said. You should take a lesson from this.

In the English language, “Mulla Sadr” is NOT an accepted transliteration of the Arabic name. I’ve just gotta laugh and walk away at this point. Whether you’re hopelessly stupid or hopelessly dishonest or some combination thereof, there’s obviously no point in trying to explain anything to you. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you now and forever.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’ve just gotta walk away at this point. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you now and forever.

Amen. Thanks be to God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In the English language, “Mulla Sadr” is NOT an accepted transliteration of the Arabic name. I’ve just gotta laugh and walk away at this point. Whether you’re hopelessly stupid or hopelessly dishonest or some combination thereof, there’s obviously no point in trying to explain anything to you. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you now and forever.

pwned

 

[trinitybeliever]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trinitybeliever
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.

Hey, not really sure what to make of this post as it doesn’t seem to actually refer to the previous discussion. I asked if you could expand on why you think a change of opinion by you would make me cease to exist.*

Not sure what is unclear about my statement. It is a statement of belief. In order for you to prove to my satisfaction ( as you posed the question) you would need to prove that what I believe about God is false. He is the creator of all and keeps all (including you) in existence by his love. I know that sounds fanciful to you, but that is what would need to be disproved in order for you to satisfy me.

Just for clarification, you refer to it as a change in opinion, which is different than a change in belief.

This entire post seems to be a statement of your religious beliefs which is interesting in it’s own right (and I’ll reply below) but doesn’t move me any closer to understanding your seemingly rather unusual opinion.

Beliefs yes,not unusual to Catholics. And again, not to be dismissed as an opinion.

Not at all, atheists simply don’t assume a creator. Generally they see no evidence of a creator and thus no reason to believe there is one. That is quite different from excluding the possibility.

Your response here is a misrepresentation of atheism, which denies the possibility of the divine. Yet you admit the possibility of a Creator. (The evidence of a Creator is creation) however, at present, science doesn’t get you there. What happened first is a matter of faith. Mono theists believe that first thing is pure love, a Divine Creator God. Atheists seem to have another kind of faith. Their faith is that the first thing is anything but God.

It comes down to the choice to have faith in love or faith in nothing.

The statement above sounds a bit misleading, although I can see what you were going for. It sounds as if you mean that scientific theories deliberately exclude God when if fact they do not include him for the same reason that they do not include fairies - there is no scientific evidence for either. Thus scientific theories simply do not include God, obviously there is no choice until there is scientific evidence for God.

As far as I know, fairies do not claim to be divine. Nor do they claim to have created nature. Furthermore do you only believe what is proven scientifically?

True that science has not been able to “prove” the theory of origin of the universe, or humanity, any more than it has been able to “prove” the theory of gravity. I don’t suppose any of these things will ever be proven. However, they are theories which are supported by the best evidence that are available to date.*

Yes I believe there is gravity and I believe there is an origin to the universe. God created an orderly universe. Although as far as scientific theories are concerned your argument correct, man has only limited ability to explain the universe at which point faith must be engaged which is why most people won’t jump out of a fourth story window even though it is a direct path to the sidewalk.

In addition the concept of God is inherently impossible to disprove. so it seems hardly surprising nobody has done so.

True.

This seems like a rather odd paragraph. Especially since it seems to make much more sense reversed. Firstly while the Catholic church has been trying consistently throughout the last 2000 years to prove the existence of God (and has failed) there have been until the last few hundred years been virtually no atheists, and few have tried to disprove God.*

Both statements here are misleading.
1.) Your lack of knowledge and understanding of the Catholic Church is evident. The Catholic Church stands in testimony to the existence of God. It mission is to carry on the Gospel. (Good News) that there is forgiveness for sin and death has been defeated. It is not the Church’s mission to prove the existence of God. The Holy spirit will work in a persons heart to help them know Truth. If continuing its mission and withstanding attacks from both within and from the outside over roughly the last 2000 years is a failure I’d like to know what you define as a success???

2.) Shocking as it may be, atheists have been around since nearly the beginning of human history. It is certainly nothing new.

Secondly it is the church which has made the claims of “truths” surely the burden of proof is on the church, rather than those who do not believe their claims?

The Church does not aggressively attack atheism. It is rather evident that many atheists are nearly militant and certainly have palpable hatred towards the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church believes in free will which allows the individual to determine freely whether or not to accept its claims.

I know those are your beliefs. Fair enough. Obviously I do not share them.*

Fair enough, I pray you consider them.

Ok. Plenty of other theists have expressed the same view. No big deal.

True. No big deal for me either.

 

[Candide_West]

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.

To be clear, the previous time you agreed with this statement you included the preceding sentences which were*

“I would say that it is, yes [a negative limitation to be restricted to a single opinion even if it is correct]. I think I (and everyone else) should always be free to change opinions”.*

You quoted all of the above and said “We are agreed, then!” are you saying that you only actually meant to agree with the last sentence?*

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

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

“Acknowledged” hardly seems an appropriate term since what has actually happened is that you have repeatedly argued with something I have never said. Perhaps we could sensibly say that you have acknowledged that I have never said that the catholic church does enforce anything.

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

Plenty throughout history, but that is irrelevant to this discussion since we are not talking about externally enforced but voluntary limitations as I am sure you are well aware.*

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

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?

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?*

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”. 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?

Finally, the problem exists that the same data can be interpreted is various different ways. As indeed different religions do. Being limited to a single opinion in the context we are discussing fixes an individual with one interpretation. 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.

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

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.*

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

But each of them ** believe ** they have “The Map”, including Catholics.*

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

Ah, this is where this analogy fails, because people can and have tested the idea that by heading north from the US you arrive in Canada. This is consistent for everyone who has tried so is considered to be true by everyone. If someone disagrees, they can try it and find they were wrong.*

On the other hand with the religious “maps” we are talking about no such tests have been carried out, or as far as i can tell are even possible. Perhaps it would be easier to use the city Atlantis rather than Manhattan since Manhattan is a place people can empirically verify the location of, unlike Atlantis and the “Truths” declared by religions.

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.

However, each person*** believes ** they have The Map (including Catholics). And can point out that those who have followedtheir version of “The Map” are indeed enjoying the view. I agree that Catholics do this just as much as any other religion.

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

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”).

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

No, as above the degree to which ** their ** True Map coincides with ** your ** True Map is the degree to which you agree with their map. Nothing more. None of the “True Maps” are the territory and there is no empirical data to support one “True Map” over another.*