(July 19, 2009 at 6:01 pm)LEDO Wrote:

---

(July 19, 2009 at 5:21 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(July 19, 2009 at 12:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: All 'subjective' evidence isn't equal. Some is therefore 'objective' in that sense.

On what grounds do you say that "all subjective evidence isn't equal"? Subjective grounds. In other words, you are subjectively judging that all subjective evidence isn't subjectively equal.

EvF Wrote:So? Evidence is based by subjectivity and then the consensus is said to be objective because it's so strong. it doesn't have to be absolute to be said to be objective.

(July 19, 2009 at 1:00 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: It is not objective at all if it doesnt transcend subjective minds.

Eh? That, in itself - is nonsense! It only makes sense if what you are describing is the absolute not merely the objective. You are describing absolute objectivity. And there is no evidence of anything absolute (as far as I know) including absolute objectivity. Objectivity is built upon a consensus, not something that is shown to everyone and can transcend all subjective minds regardless of whether they accept it or not with their own subjective brain! Unless you are talking about absolute objectivity - which there is no evidence of.

Jon Wrote:Yes, I have. You simply didn't read my post on page 2 then. The last post on page 2 - read it. Here I quote:

Quote:You ask me what evidence there is. I will give you an answer, but it's a long one. So don't ask such questions if you don't want long answers

[..]

Sorry, I missed that.

Yes I want to know what the evidence is. That's why I asked the question in the first place...

but, you can post a massive chunk if you wish...however: All I need is any evidence, however little for God's existence because I am yet to see any. Not even one tiny tiny tiny tiny particles worth of evidence. As far as I'm concerned there's zero evidence for God...

So you can post a load of evidence if you wish. I don't need that though....I'm asking for any evidence, however small and however weak - any valid evidence.

So we could start in little bits perhaps? Perhaps you could start by giving me just any evidence - according to you - and we will move on from there?

EvF

---

If god doesn't exist who is tying my vacuum cleaner cord in knots?

Did anyone ever tell you, you have a massive quote?

(July 19, 2009 at 3:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What concerns me is this is a type of presentation that propagates the very fault with Catholicism at the reformation. (ie Catholicism sought to hide the meaning of what was in fact very simple in the interest of amassing power at all levels, exactly what Jesus himself demonstrated the greatest anger towards in the temple. The holy of holies which Jesus smashed.)

Well, there is a place both for folkishness and for intellectual debates. That is what makes Catholicism great: that it is indeed universal, and capacitates not only peasants and not only aristocrats, and not only professors, but all of them on the same time.

(July 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: In short, your answer is that you define your god as not contingent upon anything else because you see that defining him otherwise leads to logical contradiction. However eloquent it is a thoroughly unsatisfying answer because it does not adress the question HOW you KNOW this fact. You seem to conceive your own facts. This will not do as an argument because it is circular reasoning.

When you say "the vacuum cleaner in my house", it would lead to a self-contradiction of the very definiton of what that vacuum cleaner is to say it was in reality, a moon of Jupiter. That in no way proves that your vacuum cleaner exists, or that the moon of Jupiter does. That's not the issue at hand.

Like it would be a contradiction with the very definition of God to say that he is contingent upon something else. That in no way proves my concept of God to be true, and if you are now asking that question again as to what the evidence is for the truth of my conception of God, you are asking a question wholly irrelevant to that particular fact.

What made Catholicism "great" was money, power and a great deal of effort spent destroying the views and scriptures of anyone who disagreed.

Oh, and BTW, Pope Benny is a Nazi, ACHTUNG!!!!

Kyu

(July 23, 2009 at 6:11 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: What made Catholicism "great" was money, power and a great deal of effort spent destroying the views and scriptures of anyone who disagreed.

If it's so, then not enough power, money or effort has been spent, apparently, since you disagree.

(July 23, 2009 at 6:11 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Oh, and BTW, Pope Benny is a Nazi, ACHTUNG!!!!

Of course he is, because all Germans in military or official service by said regime were Nazis, just like every American is a militaristic imperialist who wants to start wars in as many countries as possible to boost the economy.

Or maybe regardless of all cases, people are just easy to fool into bad things, as long as they are told it's for common good.

(July 23, 2009 at 5:57 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: In short, your answer is that you define your god as not contingent upon anything else because you see that defining him otherwise leads to logical contradiction. However eloquent it is a thoroughly unsatisfying answer because it does not adress the question HOW you KNOW this fact. You seem to conceive your own facts. This will not do as an argument because it is circular reasoning.

When you say "the vacuum cleaner in my house", it would lead to a self-contradiction of the very definiton of what that vacuum cleaner is to say it was in reality, a moon of Jupiter. That in no way proves that your vacuum cleaner exists, or that the moon of Jupiter does. That's not the issue at hand.

Like it would be a contradiction with the very definition of God to say that he is contingent upon something else. That in no way proves my concept of God to be true, and if you are now asking that question again as to what the evidence is for the truth of my conception of God, you are asking a question wholly irrelevant to that particular fact.

Although the vacuum cleaner argument is LEDO's and although it is paramount in debate to address the right argument at the right opponent, I will reply your answer. In short your answer on my question ("How do you know that your god with his specific RC-characteristics that indicate choice of specifics identifies with the non-contingent absolute?") is that my question is irrelevant to "that particular fact" (assuming you are referring to the alleged 'fact' that "it would be a contradiction with the very definition of God to say that he is contingent upon something else").

But my question IS relevant to your assertion because of the fact that you contended that only Gods noncontingent actuality can embody absolute morality. You write god with capital 'G', known to be the name of the christian god. For this you give no reason. Why cannot Hindu be the noncontingent actuality that embodies absolute morality? If you do not show that your RC-god can only embody this, your statement that only Gods noncontingent actuality can embody absolute morality becomes meaningless, for no specific god-conception is needed. The Absolute itself (all that exists) would fit in that placeholder and there would be no reason to justify that your god chooses some moral statements over others.

Quote:A lot of double speak nonsense. Sounds like you let a philosphy class fuck up your head

I OBJECT! (not to the sophistry,that's par for apologists) A recovering Catholic,the Church managed to fuck up my head all by itself. That's that's why I call myself a 'recovering catholic'.

Being a recovering Catholic is a lot like being a recovering alcoholic. However, it takes longer to regain your sanity,and lose the desire to burn down Catholic churches with a goodly number of diverse clergy inside.(twitch)

(July 23, 2009 at 7:13 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You write god with capital 'G', known to be the name of the christian god. For this you give no reason.

In that particular post, no, because then I will be repeating the same things in every post where I even mention God. I prefer the way I did it, which was to start with giving some of my foundations for my worldview, and then presuppose that as part of the debate. I already explained why I believe in the God of Christianity, that is, a transcendental and one God who created the universe and everything in it. I defined God as "pure actuality", which is the only concept necessary to know to understand God logically.

(July 23, 2009 at 7:13 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Why cannot Hindu be the noncontingent actuality that embodies absolute morality?

What do you mean "Hindu"? That simply makes no sense. If what you are asking is "Can the Hindu god or gods be the noncontingent actuality that embodies absolute morality?", then you should not ask me, but a Hindu, since the question depends entirely on whether that Hindu god even is held to be noncontingent and pure actuality. Since that is (as far as I know) not the case, Hinduism is simply irrelevant.

The question you are asking is though, how we know what absolute morality the noncontingent God I am speaking of does embody, and why we can't just choose an arbitrary belief as to what that is.

There are several answers to this. One is, of course, the only relevant one to what I was originally speaking about. Which was that without an absolute/objective morality as properly basic to your epistemic structure, there is no way to make moral judgements on others behalf, or in other words, there is no transcendental morality to begin with. That is simply an analysis of a Christian versus a non-Christian worldview, or more specifically, atheist or non-monotheist. However, what you are getting into is something completely different, as always in these kinds of debates.

If we want to get into how we can know which morality is embodied by Gods transcendent being, the short and logical answer is really that of Godlikeness. Since God is the creator of everything, including nature as we know it, and maintains us in existence as free charity, our goal is really just to accept that, by acting in accord to his will. It's only a short preamble to the many conclusions that follow. It's a matter of seeing the absolute end, both by direct and more apophatic means, that is, as it reflects in nature. Which is where the precepts of natural law come in, and the reflection of the morality embodied in God by recognising his will as it manifests in nature. By this, what we can do is really to follow Gods end which also means following Gods being.

But of course, that entirely entails that God exists to begin with on the grounds I have given. If not, there is no objective reason to follow any will except your own.

In this sense, man in his natural state did not need revelation to do something good; nor is revelation necessary to know basic moral directives, or rather, the ends manifest in nature.

What revelation is necessary for, or let's rather say, why revelation is even relevant, is due to the nature of man. Man is, even if we don't want to admit it, the highest natural being, one of the very ends of anything. Man is the very natural being who can say: I am here. And we are. The point is really that man is like God more than anything else God has created: man has mind and intellect, man has knowledge, man has great power, man can kill himself or make himself something nearer to immortal than a mere beast can make itself, man has moral understanding as a result of his natural intellect, and therefore has the abillity to receive on a higher plane than anything in existence, understanding and relationship to God - by being more like God. Man can thus have conscious, intellectual and knowing sympathy and communication with God, in a sense that no beast has the faculties to do so.

How we can know when God has revealed himself and when he has not? We can know it by the already existing ends and facts of human nature and nature of reality in general - and the consonance between the proposed revelation and the truth we can naturally and indirectly know of what God has to be like. And since we can establish what God has to be like by the means he himself has provided, aside from any revelation, this means we can evaluate revelations with a firm starting ground. This means that for instance, Hinduism is excluded as a possibility. But the more important fact is that we are basically open to God by recognising his existence, and thus we are also open to personal revelation - which is possible if God exists - since with God, all things are possible, but there would be no reason for the God we can know aside from his revelations to reveal himself personally to some being that he maintains in existence who has no and desires no and blocks every connection to God.

With enough logically necessary criteria and enough natural reason applied, we as Christians can thus be justified in our evaluations as to Gods revelation - as to what is, and what is not, as to what can be, and what cannot, based on the moral content and its consonance or nonconsonance to Gods being as it is attested aside from revelation, and through the openness which opens the door to personal guidances. But the discussion, down into details, is much longer and I can only very simplistically lay out some basics here as I've done.

Oh dear, you have left yourself wide open to some doozy questions!

Why do Christians, the Catholic faith in particular, put so emphasis on prayer when it so obviously doesn't work? Or do I lack an understanding of how it is supposed to work?

I prayed for a Lamborghini when I was a Christian. It never arrived!

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of prayers ever having been answered.

While Hitler and his SS were killing so many people Christians the World over prayed for it to stop. It did stop eventually, after 12 to 14 million people had been killed because they were either Jewish, or homosexuals or had disabilities or were the wrong color. It stopped with Hitler's suicide. It didn't stop because of prayer.

A succession of Popes have prayed for World peace. It has never happened. The Pope is arguably the most pious Christian on the planet and held up as a direct connection to God. If the Pope's prayers don't get answered then what hope does anyone on the planet have of getting theirs answered?

@PR:

"God" is written with a capital letter, ,as is say "Christian "or"Catholic", simply because they are proper nouns.It's a grammatical convention with no religious overtones.

"God" with a capital "g" would surely only be correct if it was the first word in a sentence or if the writer of the word believed only in one god.

I can write the word god without capitalization becaue I don't believe in the existence of gods.

Out of respect when writing for a Christian, as I have in my question to you, I capitalize the "g", but only because I know you are a Catholic.

I would normally write Christian and Catholic, because they are proper nouns. I would normally write "god" because to me, the word isn't a proper noun.