> Let's say for a moment that I misunderstood you and try again.
> On Oct 13, 10:06 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 8:33 pm, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Joe:
> > > You forgot that you were talking about practicing in a event you lost
> > > your faith in God.
> > No, I didn't forget that. You accused me of preferring to "stay
> > delusional," which I neither think I am now nor would ever
> > intentionally do.
> > > It was your words.
> Yes, and it was even before I asked you what practices of Catholicism
> you would retain, even if you stop believing in God.
> > And then, in my words, I asked you a question, which you have not yet
> > answered.
> > > Try again, Grisha
> > O.K. I will try again:
> > Let us start with the Creed, as it is the beginning of the rosary and
> > sums up the Catholic Faith. Let us begin with the first line of the
> > Creed:
> > "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth."
> > What is your current concept of the meaning of the words, "believe,"
> > "God," and "Creator?"
> "believe" to accept beyond doubts without any appropriate
> investigation.
That isn't the definition of believe.
How about, "to hold as true?"
> "God," and "Creator" - I do not understand those concepts - both are
> very strange and illogical to me
What renders a concept illogical? Are you saying they are incoherent?
You are a human being, and human beings naturally have concepts of
God. So I do not think it is so strange as you pretend; I think you
are pretending it is strange, so as to excuse yourself from taking it
seriously.
You define yourself as an atheist. Thus you must have a negative
belief at least, or "lack of belief" as the lowest common denominator
among those calling themselves atheists. What is it, exactly, that as
an atheist you think does not exist? That would be a good starting
point for you to arrive at a working definition of the theists' God.
If you have no idea what that is at all, then how do you justify
thinking it does not exist? But obviously, you have some idea of what
it is you deny. So elucidate.
> > Suppose that it were possible for you to know what so many atheists
> > claim they can know. Suppose it were possible for you to know there
> > is no omnipotent Creator of the universe. What significance then, if
> > any, might you be able to attach to the words,
> > "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?"
> None. See above.
> > Might the enunciation of those words have any value apart from
> > reinforcing a delusion? Try to think creatively.
> You tell me - you said that you will continue to be a practicing
> Catholic, even if you lost your belief in your god.
Yes, and there are reasons for that, but we have to lay some
groundwork first, since apparently my meaning has escaped you the
first time around.
> > > On Oct 4, 9:26 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 3, 10:43 pm, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 3, 10:02 pm, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Joe:
> > > > > > > What answer do you need? You just said that even, if you was proved
> > > > > > > delusional in your faith, you would still prefer to stay delusional.
> > > > > > Only an atheist would read it that way, because what I am saying is
> > > > > > that atheism is not an excuse not to practice Catholicism. But I am
> > > > > > not talking about delusion. I am talking about work on oneself, and a
> > > > > > practical means of becoming a better person than you are. The point
> > > > > > of my essay was to show that atheism is irrelevant to the refusal ---
> > > > > > it is the non-desire of conversion from sin that is responsible for
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > I am afraid, Joe, you just did not convey it well enough. But I will
> > > > > give you a second chance. So, list principles you are practicing
> > > > > that you would follow even without faith. Maybe I will find I am
> > > > > faithless Catholic.
> > > > Not likely. Catholicism is very much a matter of practice, and I
> > > > doubt very much that you go to Church at all, much less Catholic
> > > > Church. If you haven't been to Mass in the past year, you are not a
> > > > practicing Catholic.
> > > > But let us start with the Creed, as it is the beginning of the rosary
> > > > and sums up the Catholic Faith. Let us begin with the first line of
> > > > the Creed:
> > > > "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth."
> > > > What is your current concept of the meaning of the words, "believe,"
> > > > "God," and "Creator?"
> > > > > > Catholicism, put into practice, would have value entirely apart from
> > > > > > *any* faith. If it is true, then that is a bonus. But benefit can be
> > > > > > derived merely from a knowledge of the human mind and the will to
> > > > > > improve. You are proving you do not have the will to improve, and
> > > > > > that is after all the only reason anyone rejects the practice of
> > > > > > Catholicism. No one likes to be told what to do. But the wise,
> > > > > > accept God's rule over themselves, despite the objections of stubborn
> > > > > > flesh.
> > > > > > > Grisha
> > > > > > > On Oct 2, 2:58 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:> > > 4. God is the God of Abraham, and of David, and of Jesus Christ.
> > > > > > > > > > In this case, the only way to know for certain the reality of God is
> > > > > > > > > > by Faith in His Revelation.
> > > > > > > > > In other words, the only way to be certain of the reality of God is to
> > > > > > > > > be delusional... but I already knew that.
> > > > > > > > > - Bob T.> I hold that one can know God by Faith. I
> > > > > > > > > > believe that I do know God. So for me to "know" that there is no God
> > > > > > > > > > would mean for me to know that what I perceive as my personal
> > > > > > > > > > familiarity with the Supreme Good was actually only a perception of
> > > > > > > > > > the structure of my own thought around the concept of the Supreme
> > > > > > > > > > Good. It would mean for me to know that I had personified my own
> > > > > > > > > > highest conception of the Good around the myth of Jesus of Nazareth in
> > > > > > > > > > the Gospels, so successfully that I was actually able to perceive the
> > > > > > > > > > Presence of a Personal Being in the Eucharist. I would understand
> > > > > > > > > > that the psychological effect of that perception upon my person was
> > > > > > > > > > responsible for the manifest effects of Eucharistic Devotion, in me,
> > > > > > > > > > and more so, in the Saints who have written about these things. Were
> > > > > > > > > > I to so understand this entire effect to be psychological only, and
> > > > > > > > > > not, as experience and testimony suggest, both psychological and
> > > > > > > > > > spiritual, I think that I would still be compelled by the very
> > > > > > > > > > excellence of the practical effect itself, to continue to practice
> > > > > > > > > > Catholicism just exactly as if I believed the Gospel to be, well,
> > > > > > > > > > Gospel. Thus, were I to become an atheist, I would still practice the
> > > > > > > > > > Catholic Faith from my will. That is what Thelemic Catholicism
> > > > > > > > > > means. Even if it is all myth, metaphor and psychology, that in
> > > > > > > > > > itself has value enough to keep.
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe it is all that. How would I even know? But the unlikelihood of
> > > > > > > > > > a human being ever devising such a perfect system unaided by God, is
> > > > > > > > > > another Argument for the reality of God.
> On Oct 16, 4:00 pm, ThelemicCatholic <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Oct 16, 12:25 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 13, 2:06 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 13, 11:02 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > My apology to JFG and anyone else who has been waiting with bated
> > > > > breath for my 3-part response on Popes binding consciences to error.
> > > > > The real world is keeping me happily busy.
> > > > > So, short versions.
> > > > > For #3, let my first answer stand. Almost every ecumenical council and
> > > > > every "robber council" (ecumenical councils which were invalidated
> > > > > because the Pope did not like the result) has created a schism and a
> > > > > new brand of Christianity, many of which survive today, and only the
> > > > > Catholics think that the Catholic version is the correct one.
> > > > And only those who place no trust in their private judgment remain
> > > > Catholics.
> > > I couldn't have said it better myself, but you clearly don't see that
> > > as a problem.
> > > The decision not to judge the Catholic Church is itself a decision and
> > > a judgment. As you know, other people put equally unwavering faith in
> > > different credos. Logically you can't all be right, though you could
> > > all be wrong.
> > So discernment is required, to determine which, if any, is the truth.
> > My friend George says that discernment is found in Church authority
> As I recall, he's Roman Catholic. Probably a coincidence ;-)
> Or perhaps he investigated all the major religions, and then converted
> into Roman Catholicism after noting all the discernment shown by RCC
> history?
No. George is Roman Catholic because God wills George directly, and
God's Will is the Catholic Church.
> > and also in love. It is the discernment found in love that is in
> > principle available to anyone, and leads those who find it to the
> > corollary belief in Church authority.
> Perhaps you could discuss this with Brock. No one has succeeded in
> having a discussion with Brock yet, but infallible interpretations of
> divinely revealed books is his favorite subject.
Brock has a limited understanding of the truth, such as many
Protestants do. Unfortunately, their loyalty to Protestantism per se
overtakes their loyalty to the truth, whatever it may be. If Brock
remains loving God and reasonable, eventually, God will show him the
fullness of the truth, and he will be Catholic.
> > > > > For #1, I will just point out that many countries have gone 1500 years
> > > > > without any of their kings creating a church schism. People like King
> > > > > Henry VIII of England, Pope Clement VII and Pope Leo IX -- all of whom
> > > > > created schisms in the Roman Catholic Church -- are the exception
> > > > > rather than the rule.
> > > > Schisms, there must be, and heresies, and apostasies, so that the true
> > > > Faith might be manifest.
> > > But which one, if any, is it.
> > You know that I believe it is the Catholic Church. Our Lord Himself
> > appears to confirm this when He says, "a city set on a hill cannot be
> > hidden." (Matthew 5:14) The Catholic Church alone is publicly visible
> > with historical continuity to the Apostles. Of course, the Orthodox
> > can say the same about historical continuity, but I also believe that
> > (a) the doctrinal differences between the Catholics and the Orthodox
> > are minimal enough to be inconsequential, and (b) there are other
> > reasons besides the historical to believe the Catholic claim to the
> > primacy of the Bishop of Rome. One of those reasons is the finality
> > of infallible papal pronouncements.
> The actions taken by Pope Leo IX (separator of the Roman Catholic
> Church from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church) and Antipope Clement
> VII (separator of the by-then-traditional Avignon Papacy from the
> newly-reestablished Roman Papacy) were the same. In both cases, the
> man did not like the politics of the existing body and decided to call
> it quits; in both cases, they took entire countries with them and left
> entire countries behind; in both cases, everyone declared the other
> side anathema, and the followers of one side believed that everyone on
> the other side was going to hell. Where should discernment take
> someone in cases like this? To believe any part of this is a divine
> plan is farcical.
The situation has since been resolved, so what is the impact of your
question? Discernment came about in God's perfect timing, in the
historical course of the world, in the unfolding of real events.
In the meantime, nothing prevented anyone from practicing the Catholic
Faith to the best of their ability, and that is what God's People did.
> > > > 1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all I hear that when you come
> > > > together in the church, there are schisms among you. And in part I
> > > > believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who
> > > > are approved may be made manifest among you.
> > > > > For #2, here's a good list:
> > > > > "Victor I (189-199) first approved of Montanism in 192, and then later
> > > > > condemned it. [The ancient text says "a bishop of Rome" which is a
> > > > > Pope. The identification as Victor is disputed.]
> > > > No Pope ever pronounced the doctrines of Montanism as Catholic
> > > > Doctrine.
> > > I agree that you are right by the modern definition of Catholic
> > > doctrine. But as I've said, I think that definition was crafted
> > > explicitly for the purpose of excusing past fallible pronouncements.
> > > On this point we must agree to disagree.
> > O.K., although I think the point can be argued. If you want to drop
> > it at this point, that's fine by me.
> I suspect we are doomed to disagree, but I will argue somewhat
> further. In the quote below, the two cases of *_emphasis_*
> (underlining between words) is mine:
> In the early Church, the first canons were decreed by bishops united
> in "Ecumenical" councils (the Emperor summoning all of the known
> world's bishops to attend with at least the acknowledgement of the
> Bishop of Rome) or "local" councils (bishops of a region or
> territory). Over time, these canons were supplemented with decretals
> of the Bishops of Rome, which were responses to doubts or problems
> according to the maxim, "Roma locuta est, causa finita
> est" ("*_Rome_has_spoken,_case_is_closed_*").
> Later, they were gathered together into collections, both unofficial
> and official. The first truly systematic collection was assembled by
> the Camaldolese monk Gratian in the 11th century, commonly known as
> the Decretum Gratiani ("Gratian's Decree"). Pope Gregory IX is
> credited with promulgating the first official collection of canons
> called the Decretalia Gregorii Noni or Liber Extra (1234). This was
> followed by the Liber Sextus (1298) of Boniface VIII, the Clementines
> (1317) of Clement V, the Extravagantes Joannis XXII and the
> Extravagantes Communes, all of which followed the same structure as
> the Liber Extra. All these collections, with the Decretum Gratiani,
> are together referred to as the Corpus Juris Canonici.
> After the completion of the Corpus Juris Canonici, subsequent papal
> legislation was published in periodic volumes called Bullaria.
> By the 19th Century, this body of legislation included some 10,000
> norms. *_Many_of_these_were_difficult_to_reconcile_with_one_another_*
> due to changes in circumstances and practice. This situation impelled
> Pope St. Pius X to order the creation of the first Code of Canon Law,
> a single volume of clearly stated laws. Under the aegis of the
> Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, the Commission for the Codification of Canon
> Law was completed under Benedict XV, who promulgated the Code,
> effective in 1918.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law
> Tim sez: "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" implies that at least
> some were taking all the Pope's pronouncements as definitive. "Many of
> these were difficult to reconcile with one another" simply means that,
> before 1918, Catholic canon law contained many contradictions. And
> furthermore:
> "After the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican (Vatican II)
> closed in 1965, it became apparent that the Code would need to be
> revised in light of the documents and theology of Vatican II."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law
Canon Law and Catholic Doctrine are two different things.
> > > Incidentally, Wiki identifies this Pope as Eleutherus: "... there was
> > > real doubt at Rome, and Pope Eleutherus even wrote letters in support
> > > of Montanism, although he later recalled them (Tertullian, "Adversus
> > > Praxean" c.1, Trevett 58-59)."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism > > > Fwiw, Montanism sounds considerably nastier than Catholic theology.
> > One of the ways we can discern heresy from truth is that heresy is
> > invariably nastier, and makes God out to be less good than He is. One
> > of the guides to the fullness of truth is the fact of God's infinite
> > goodness. That is a guiding light for theologians, so that those who
> > disagree and advance theories that make God out to be anything less
> > than all-good are manifest as heretics. Catholic Doctrine can be
> > largely constructed by adhering to this sole assumption.
> Not true at all. For example, Origen was a universalist (believed that
> every soul would end up in heaven). His idea, which is the absolute
> minimum that a rational being should expect from an all-good God, was
> rejected as anathema by various ecumenical councils.
> On Oct 13, 2:18 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 1:06 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 3, 7:22 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 3, 3:32 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 2, 5:33 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 2, 2:33 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 2, 12:09 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Oct 2, 11:09 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip some for brevity>
> > > > > > > > > I am selling the proposition that the "lawyers" in the RCC have only
> > > > > > > > > preserved infallibility by redefining it whenever statements which
> > > > > > > > > were once claimed to be infallible are demonstrated to be false. They
> > > > > > > > > have now retreated to a point where it's almost impossible for them to
> > > > > > > > > make a falsifiable claim, so they can only trip themselves up if they
> > > > > > > > > renege on one of their own opinions.
> > > > > > > > But, since they certainly do get first props on defining and
> > > > > > > > clarifying what their own terms mean, it's hardly all that bad for
> > > > > > > > them to, in fact, do such clarification.
> > > > > > > In my view, when they repudiate past infallibility and wipe the slate
> > > > > > > clean, they are sacrificing continuity with the past. The Catholic
> > > > > > > Church of 1890 is not the Catholic Church of 1850 -- they have de
> > > > > > > facto repudiated the historical claims and beliefs of the Catholic
> > > > > > > Church.
> > > > > > I believe there is a clear logic in Catholicism that is consistent. I
> > > > > > will take on the claim that a contradiction can be demonstrated. Go
> > > > > > ahead and give it a try.
> > > > > > The Church of today is the same kind of entity as the First Century
> > > > > > Church. There is an unbroken continuity of morals and doctrine, which
> > > > > > are the only areas where infallibility applies.
> > > > > I doubt you will find a contradiction, because many clerics review the
> > > > > doctrine and have found the contradictions before you, and reacted to
> > > > > them. The main discontinuity is that the Church used to assume
> > > > > infallibility in a much wider area. They are good lawyers, but not
> > > > > true to the original doctrine.
> > > > > This is speaking of (1) logical contradictions and (2) contradictions
> > > > > between claims about the physical world and observed facts about the
> > > > > physical world.
> > > > > There is however an ongoing meta-contradiction between the way a body
> > > > > founded by God should unfold, and the way the Catholic Church actually
> > > > > unfolds.
> > > > In whose opinion is that? No doubt you have a better suggestion.
> > > > Making it would make your assertion of a contradiction more than just
> > > > a bare assertion sans support.
> > > It's only my opinion; and my better suggestion is that the Catholic
> > > Church is a fallible man-made organization. I'll post a bit more
> > > support here from time to time.
> > That wouldn't be a suggestion for how a God-given organization ought
> > to unfold.
> 1/ It should provide its message to all people, instead of saying
> nothing to most of the earth's population for its first 1400 years.
God works through practical means. The spread of the Gospel to the
whole world takes as long as it takes. Our Lord said it would happen,
and it has been.
> 2/ It should not immerse itself in politics, be swayed by the whims of
> emperors, or spawn several dozen "antipopes" spread throughout its
> history.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
> 4/ Its fortunes should not rise and fall with the nations that hold to
> its faith. In fact, its history should not in every way resemble the
> histories of all the "false" religions that compete against it.
2, 3, and 4, are all attributable to human perversity. God founded
His Church on human beings, and it is constructed of human beings.
Human beings do other things outside of God's expressed will. This
should not be surprising. God does not force people to obey His
commandments. Rather, He allows them free will, and uses whatever
actions they carry out to accomplish His own will, whether those
actions be good or bad. Such is His omnipotence, that He can use both
good and evil to accomplish good.
On Oct 20, 10:40 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 11:25 am, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 10:06 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "believe" to accept beyond doubts without any appropriate
> > investigation.
> That isn't the definition of believe.
I like this definition.
> How about, "to hold as true?"
This requires to define true and may easy become circular.
> > "God," and "Creator" - I do not understand those concepts - both are
> > very strange and illogical to me
> What renders a concept illogical? Are you saying they are incoherent?
> You are a human being, and human beings naturally have concepts of
> God. So I do not think it is so strange as you pretend; I think you
> are pretending it is strange, so as to excuse yourself from taking it
> seriously.
You are wrong on all four counts. The fact that you think so does not
necessarily makes it so.
> You define yourself as an atheist. Thus you must have a negative
> belief at least, or "lack of belief" as the lowest common denominator
> among those calling themselves atheists. What is it, exactly, that as
> an atheist you think does not exist? That would be a good starting
> point for you to arrive at a working definition of the theists' God.
> If you have no idea what that is at all, then how do you justify
> thinking it does not exist? But obviously, you have some idea of what
> it is you deny. So elucidate.
As I already mentioned I grew up in the God free environment. It may
be difficult for you to understand, but I have never had my own
concept of God and, if believers did not keep bringing topic again and
again, I would never be concern about that. Whenever I hear about God/
god/gods from believers, the concept is strange and illogical to me; I
honestly do not understand it.
So, if you have a coherent concept of God, lay it out for me. I do
not need to justify thinking it does not exists – so far nobody gave
me any valid arguments that it does exists or even coherently explain
what it is.
> > > Suppose that it were possible for you to know what so many atheists
> > > claim they can know. Suppose it were possible for you to know there
> > > is no omnipotent Creator of the universe. What significance then, if
> > > any, might you be able to attach to the words,
> > > "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?"
> > None. See above.
> > You tell me - you said that you will continue to be a practicing
> > Catholic, even if you lost your belief in your god.
> Yes, and there are reasons for that, but we have to lay some
> groundwork first, since apparently my meaning has escaped you the
> first time around.
> On Oct 20, 10:40 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 11:25 am, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 13, 10:06 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "believe" to accept beyond doubts without any appropriate
> > > investigation.
> > That isn't the definition of believe.
> I like this definition.
> > How about, "to hold as true?"
> This requires to define true and may easy become circular.
> > > "God," and "Creator" - I do not understand those concepts - both are
> > > very strange and illogical to me
> > What renders a concept illogical? Are you saying they are incoherent?
> > You are a human being, and human beings naturally have concepts of
> > God. So I do not think it is so strange as you pretend; I think you
> > are pretending it is strange, so as to excuse yourself from taking it
> > seriously.
> You are wrong on all four counts. The fact that you think so does not
> necessarily makes it so.
> > You define yourself as an atheist. Thus you must have a negative
> > belief at least, or "lack of belief" as the lowest common denominator
> > among those calling themselves atheists. What is it, exactly, that as
> > an atheist you think does not exist? That would be a good starting
> > point for you to arrive at a working definition of the theists' God.
> > If you have no idea what that is at all, then how do you justify
> > thinking it does not exist? But obviously, you have some idea of what
> > it is you deny. So elucidate.
> As I already mentioned I grew up in the God free environment. It may
> be difficult for you to understand, but I have never had my own
> concept of God and, if believers did not keep bringing topic again and
> again, I would never be concern about that. Whenever I hear about God/
> god/gods from believers, the concept is strange and illogical to me; I
> honestly do not understand it.
> So, if you have a coherent concept of God, lay it out for me. I do
> not need to justify thinking it does not exists – so far nobody gave
> me any valid arguments that it does exists or even coherently explain
> what it is.
> > > > Suppose that it were possible for you to know what so many atheists
> > > > claim they can know. Suppose it were possible for you to know there
> > > > is no omnipotent Creator of the universe. What significance then, if
> > > > any, might you be able to attach to the words,
> > > > "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?"
> > > None. See above.
> > > You tell me - you said that you will continue to be a practicing
> > > Catholic, even if you lost your belief in your god.
> > Yes, and there are reasons for that, but we have to lay some
> > groundwork first, since apparently my meaning has escaped you the
> > first time around.
Christianity is not and could never be the product of human
reasoning. However, it is rationally consistent, an inconvenient fact
that atheists consistently deny, despite lacking any rational support
for that denial.
> On Sep 29, 6:31 am, Sebastian <mezna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I recently had a discussion with a christian, asking them what it
> > would take to convince them to stop believing in god. The answer was
> > there was nothing that I or anyone else could say that would convince
> > them. So several questions to christians (and atheists' opinion on
> > christian "convincibility"):
> > - Is there anything anyone could say that would convince you?
> > - Is there any event that could happen to convince you?
> > - Would you still believe even if someone managed to convince you that
> > your god is logically contradictory (i.e. would you say that god is
> > outside the universe and thus does not need to respect logic)?
> LL: People first believe because they are children and they continue
> to believe because they have a weak sense of reason, which itself is
> often the result of fear and indoctrination. If it's very weak they
> start making specious arguments about why it true despite
> contradictions in the argument and lack of evidence. If it's extremely
> weak they start quoting the bible and other religious books because
> they think they make a point. The only point they make is that the
> person doing the quoting can't think rationally or even create a
> reasonable argument in his/her own words.
On Oct 21, 12:37 am, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 20, 10:40 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 11:25 am, grisha <gralmgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 13, 10:06 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "believe" to accept beyond doubts without any appropriate
> > > investigation.
> > That isn't the definition of believe.
> I like this definition.
It is self-serving, so of course you would. But it isn't a legitimate
definition.
> > How about, "to hold as true?"
> This requires to define true and may easy become circular.
Yet it is an actual, legitimate definition of the word, as opposed to
your self-serving one.
> > > "God," and "Creator" - I do not understand those concepts - both are
> > > very strange and illogical to me
> > What renders a concept illogical? Are you saying they are incoherent?
> > You are a human being, and human beings naturally have concepts of
> > God. So I do not think it is so strange as you pretend; I think you
> > are pretending it is strange, so as to excuse yourself from taking it
> > seriously.
> You are wrong on all four counts.
I doubt it.
> The fact that you think so does not
> necessarily makes it so.
I wouldn't claim that it did. You have the causal relation
backwards. The fact that it is so is responsible for my thinking it.
> > You define yourself as an atheist. Thus you must have a negative
> > belief at least, or "lack of belief" as the lowest common denominator
> > among those calling themselves atheists. What is it, exactly, that as
> > an atheist you think does not exist? That would be a good starting
> > point for you to arrive at a working definition of the theists' God.
> > If you have no idea what that is at all, then how do you justify
> > thinking it does not exist? But obviously, you have some idea of what
> > it is you deny. So elucidate.
> As I already mentioned I grew up in the God free environment. It may
> be difficult for you to understand, but I have never had my own
> concept of God and, if believers did not keep bringing topic again and
> again, I would never be concern about that. Whenever I hear about God/
> god/gods from believers, the concept is strange and illogical to me; I
> honestly do not understand it.
I doubt that very much.
> So, if you have a coherent concept of God, lay it out for me. I do
> not need to justify thinking it does not exists – so far nobody gave
> me any valid arguments that it does exists or even coherently explain
> what it is.
God is the Original Being, the one who created the heavens and the
earth.
> > > > Suppose that it were possible for you to know what so many atheists
> > > > claim they can know. Suppose it were possible for you to know there
> > > > is no omnipotent Creator of the universe. What significance then, if
> > > > any, might you be able to attach to the words,
> > > > "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?"
> > > None. See above.
> > > You tell me - you said that you will continue to be a practicing
> > > Catholic, even if you lost your belief in your god.
> > Yes, and there are reasons for that, but we have to lay some
> > groundwork first, since apparently my meaning has escaped you the
> > first time around.
> I will wait.
> Thanks, Grisha
What significance or meaning do you attach to the noun, "God?"
If none, then how do you justify your statement that no such being
exists?
> Christianity is not and could never be the product of human
> reasoning.
And you know this how?
Being limited, as you are, to human reasoning.
Your human reasoning cannot tell you that something is not the product of human reasoning because your human reasoning ability would not be able to recognize it. It would be completely incomprehensible. The fact that you believe that you can recognize it and are able to convince yourself that it is sensible is proof of it being the product of human reasoning.
Your human reasoning is not the root of your belief in Christianity. It is your faith. It is your desire for it to be true that allows you to bastardize your ability to reason in favour of feeling good, fulfilling your desires.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
> > This requires to define true and may easy become circular.
> Yet it is an actual, legitimate definition of the word, as opposed to
> your self-serving one.
Since it is circular, it can not be legitimate.
> > > > "God," and "Creator" - I do not understand those concepts - both are
> > > > very strange and illogical to me
> > > What renders a concept illogical? Are you saying they are incoherent?
> > > You are a human being, and human beings naturally have concepts of
> > > God. So I do not think it is so strange as you pretend; I think you
> > > are pretending it is strange, so as to excuse yourself from taking it
> > > seriously.
> > You are wrong on all four counts.
> I doubt it.
You may doubt it as much as you want, but it does not change a thing,
besides I do not have any incentive to pretend. If I had concept of
God, I would not deny it to my own detriment.
> > The fact that you think so does not
> > necessarily makes it so.
> I wouldn't claim that it did. You have the causal relation
> backwards. The fact that it is so is responsible for my thinking it.
> > > You define yourself as an atheist. Thus you must have a negative
> > > belief at least, or "lack of belief" as the lowest common denominator
> > > among those calling themselves atheists. What is it, exactly, that as
> > > an atheist you think does not exist? That would be a good starting
> > > point for you to arrive at a working definition of the theists' God.
> > > If you have no idea what that is at all, then how do you justify
> > > thinking it does not exist? But obviously, you have some idea of what
> > > it is you deny. So elucidate.
> > As I already mentioned I grew up in the God free environment. It may
> > be difficult for you to understand, but I have never had my own
> > concept of God and, if believers did not keep bringing topic again and
> > again, I would never be concern about that. Whenever I hear about God/
> > god/gods from believers, the concept is strange and illogical to me; I
> > honestly do not understand it.
> I doubt that very much.
It is becoming funny, Joe.
> > So, if you have a coherent concept of God, lay it out for me. I do
> > not need to justify thinking it does not exists – so far nobody gave
> > me any valid arguments that it does exists or even coherently explain
> > what it is.
> God is the Original Being, the one who created the heavens and the
> earth.
The concept is very unclear to me, and far from obvious. As I said a
few lines above, nobody so far could produce valid arguments that it
does exists or even coherently explain what it is.
> > > > > Suppose that it were possible for you to know what so many atheists
> > > > > claim they can know. Suppose it were possible for you to know there
> > > > > is no omnipotent Creator of the universe. What significance then, if
> > > > > any, might you be able to attach to the words,
> > > > > "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?"
> > > > None. See above.
> > > > You tell me - you said that you will continue to be a practicing
> > > > Catholic, even if you lost your belief in your god.
> > > Yes, and there are reasons for that, but we have to lay some
> > > groundwork first, since apparently my meaning has escaped you the
> > > first time around.
> > I will wait.
> > Thanks, Grisha
> What significance or meaning do you attach to the noun, "God?"
> If none, then how do you justify your statement that no such being
> exists?
I do not make any statement about God non-existence. I said I do not
understand concept of God and nobody could produce any coherent
explanation leave alone valid arguments that it does exists.
|
