If there is a creator, so what?

[Ignorant]

It's not an issue of speed You aren't moving at all, Igno.  Strange, because you had no such trouble in mounting arguments for gods existence.

It's clear that you thought this would just become apparent if you could successfully argue for a god. [1] Well.  It hasn't.  You're going to need to articulate it at some point, stalling is uninformative. [2] Can I offer you some advice?  The philosophy which you're trying to use....it was never meant as an argument for god -or- why anyone should care.  You can't get there, from here. [3]

If you want to employ a thomistic framework....well, there -is- an appeal in that framework as to why we should care.  Why don't you just use that?  Perhaps something from Contra Gentiles?  Or Q1 article 8 of Theologica II?  Hell, you were espousing it in the morality thread...you know about it.....why is it absent?  What;s this full and whole human life bullshit, lol? [4]

1) Is that clear? I took the existence of god for granted in the thread, and then tried to describe how it is related to everything else, especially us. I said before, either that is meaningful for you or not. Kinda like oxygen. There is no "should" be meaningful. There is only, "This means that. Do you care?" IF you say "no", all I can do is try to describe it in a different way, in the hopes it will be meaningful. If you don't find it worth caring about, then oh well. What do you want me to say? If you tell me from the onset that "if it exists in the way Catholics say it exists, then I certainly do not care about it." Why exactly do you want me to describe the Catholic god? You've already made it plainly clear that you don't care about it. What do you want from me?

2) What am I stalling? You've already given me your final answer. You. Don't. Care.

3) I know it wasn't meant as an argument for god. I know it wasn't meant for an argument for why anyone "should" care.

4) The term 'happiness' wasn't exactly well received in that thread, so I chose to use different terminology to express the same idea. You think there is any relationship between Thomas's account of god as subsistent-being, god as subsistent-goodness, and man's last end? Remember? I'm trying to take your advice:

People who don't believe what you believe might hear the things you say differently than you do.

[Ignorant]

Okay, thanks. As usual it's very confusing for me.

1) You pray by listening? What do you hear? What use is it? [1]

2) I have no idea what you're even saying here I'm afraid. I'm marvelling at how there must necessarily be an abstract concept which describes some things I know are happening... and this will help me understand how I act? [2] This seems a lot less efficient than simply studying myself in the usual ways; particularly studying human behaviour in general. [3]

A life that overflows with god's own fullness? I have no idea what that means, or why I'd want it. [4] I'm already as full to the brim as I can be with tautologies about being myself, and acting the way I act and so on. I can't be anything else. [5]

1) Yes. God's "voice". I don't know, what "use" is listening to your wife speak to you?

2) Yes.

3) Less efficient? Maybe. More complete? Definitely. I'm more interested in how humans knowingly act and the reasons for which they act than how the passively behave.

4) No one really knows what it actually means. All people claim to know is that god has promised to give it to us for eternity, and Jesus's resurrection is its first instance.

5) True. Right now you can't be anything else. But tomorrow you can either be better or worse, a fuller or emptier human life. Either you judge that this sort of knowledge helps to become the former or you don't.

[The Grand Nudger]

The term 'happiness' wasn't exactly well received in that thread, so I chose to use different terminology to express the same idea.

Is that why you were stalling, lol?  Let it all hang out, man.  That;s the question that was askd.  I doubt it's going to be any better received in this thread, and certainly not on account of your having attempted to camouflage it........

So that's it, then? We can't be truly happy unless we get some jesus? Yeah, I wouldn't have wanted to be seen saying that either.

You think there is any relationship between Thomas's account of god as subsistent-being, god as subsistent-goodness, and man's last end? 

I'm not sure what you're asking me....ofc theres a relationship between thomas acount of god (in both senses) and mans last end (again in thomas acount of it).  If there weren't he'd just be spouting off incoherent gibberish.  Are you asking me whether or not I would agree with the notions, granting that the christian god existed?  Obviously not.  Quite the reverse, actually.  Goodness can't come from the god of vicarious redemption.  Only favors and exceptions to the good flow from that god.  It is only in denying it's offer that I can satisfy the good, and live that sort of imperfect happiness in this imperfect life that St. T was always babbling about. As to the perfect happiness in the next life, that one might gain if one only accepts jesus christ as lord and saviour...well, I'm incapable of doing so for ethical reasons...so I'll never get any of that..even if it does exist.

I mean...unless you want to spin my ethical objection to christianity as something that will score me points with the big man, being held to a different standard than you and all that. At which point, I neither needed god for imperfect happiness in this life, or perfect happiness in the next. It was living my life as though there were no god, and denying the offer if there were.....that got me both cookies.

[Whateverist]

I think that you'll find that the average god-botherer is uncomfortable with human autonomy on a great many levels.

I'm not much of a god-botherer but I'm uncomfortable with the pervasive assumption of autonomy when the situation seems much more complicated than that to me.  But the very idea that we may not be the supreme captain of our ship seems to make lots of people uncomfortable, regardless of their stance on gods.  Of course, many fundy Christians show an unseemly eagerness to salute and grovel toward anything that moves on deck.  The mere fact that identity is complex doesn't rule out personal initiative or make one a worthless sinner.

[Whateverist]

Okay so if god exists how do we get to step 1?

---

Well that's a different question right?

The thread's title is conditional, and so I understood it as a given. "Supposing there is a creator..." I answered the thread's question, therefore, from my understanding of what "there is a creator" means. 

Supposing there is a creator and being-a-creator means what I think it means, the relationship between it and you is something to care about.

Some people thought this relationship is no more meaningful than the human relationship with oxygen. I said this was a workable analogy, and I think so in the following sense:

There is a direct and ever-present relation between you-being-you and oxygen-being-oxygen. It is so basic that our bodies do most of the "caring" about that relation, and we seldom consider that relation to have much meaning for us. A person can live just fine without ever caring about oxygen, its relation with us or what it means to be-oxygen. Even living as-if-oxygen-is-not-real won't change a great deal about your day-to-day action. However, failure to account for oxygen-being-oxygen and its relation with being-you and being-other-things means a failure to account for a full picture of reality, AND can get you burned in certain situations involving the presence of oxygen.

Unlike oxygen, EVERYTHING'S most fundamental and ever-present relation consists of the relation between it-being-it and god-being-god. It is so basic that simply being-anything-at-all means that the relation is maintained, so we seldom consider that relation to have much meaning for us. A person can live just fine without ever caring about god, its relation with us or what it means to be-god. Even living-as-if-god-is-not-real won't change a great deal about your day-to-day action, but (if god is indeed real) living in this way will never lead to a full and whole human life. However, accounting for god-being-god and its relation with being-any-thing means accounting for a full picture of reality, AND can show us what it means to live a full and whole human life.

---

IF the Christian god as I understand it is real, then its relation to you means that you-being-fully-human will become you-being-divinely-human (i.e. the divine relation with you changes from participation to union, whatever that means).

Seems to me that you might be underestimating what counts as fully human. There is definitely a cultural component to that. Someone entirely ruled by a pigs-at-the-trough mindset (like Trump) is lacking in his humanity. I don't see why we should characterize a more cultured mindset as divine rather than simple more humane. This is purely semantics of course but I see no justification for that split.

Are you now asking me how would we otherwise arrive at the knowledge that there is indeed a creator?

I'm sure that is what many of us would like to know. Not that we can get there too, mind you, but because we expect your justification will be lacking. Good luck.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have actually tried to be careful about using the word "should" or "ought". I try to avoid them. I think I used "should" one or two posts in reference to the OP, trying to meet it on its own terms. I don't think you will find me saying that anyone should care. I typically try to avoid telling people what they should do. I have been trying, instead, to begin with something much more basic: if there is a real relation which exists between you and god, the nature of that relation itself will either cause you to care/value/derive meaning from it, or not. 

Even though the OP is phrased in the "should" form, I understood the underlying question really to be: "If there is a creator, is there a meaningful relationship between god and me?"

Ah right, so I take it you find prescriptive language less helpful than descriptive language.

Okay then how about this... how could I care about a god that exists? By having knowledge of it, yes, but that begs the question of how could I have knowledge of it? I couldn't care about god without knowledge.

So we could change the question from "If there is a creator, so what?" to "If there is a creator, how could I know it existed in order to even care?"

Because in other words... if it exists but its truth is unknowable and therefore impossible to know about... then, indeed, so what if it does? Who cares, unknowable truth is experienced as little as, and is as impossible to care about as, non-truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

The pursuit of happiness, Ham.  Don't you want to be as imperfectly happy as you can be in this imperfect life, and then perfectly happy in the next perfect life.

No jesus, no happy.

(I hear that codeine produces a similar effect if taken in excess )

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOD48_b6h-g

---

[robvalue]

Okay, we're getting somewhere. You hear God's voice? You hear an actual voice? Is it words?

It's pretty bizarre comparing the relationship I have with my wife to the relationship I have with tautologically being myself. I listen to her because she's an actual distinct person with an intelligence and feelings. I care about her, and I can't read her mind. I haven't a clue how I would listen to tautologies, or why I would want to even if I could. It makes no sense.

[Ignorant]

Is that why you were stalling, lol?  Let it all hang out, man.  That;s the question that was askd.  I doubt it's going to be any better received in this thread, and certainly not on account of your having attempted to camouflage it........ [1]

I'm not sure what you're asking me....ofc theres a relationship between thomas acount of god (in both senses) and mans last end (again in thomas acount of it).  If there weren't he'd just be spouting off incoherent gibberish.  Are you asking me whether or not I would agree with the notions, granting that the christian god existed? [2] Obviously not.  Quite the reverse, actually.  Goodness can't come from the god of vicarious redemption.  Only favors and exceptions to the good flow from that god.  It is only in denying it's offer that I can satisfy the good, and live that sort of imperfect happiness in this imperfect life that St. T was always babbling about. [3]

1) HA! Ok great. Here is why god and its relation to you is significant: God is what everyone wants, and god is the reason for which everyone acts. Obtaining goodness-itself known as goodness-itself, desired as goodness-itself for the reason that it is goodness-itself through the means of your existential relation to goodness-itself is what everyone is trying to do when they do anything. So knowing in what goodness consists, and desiring it as the known goodness-itself, and obtaining that goodness-itself through human action is the ultimate reason humans do anything at all. God is what you want to know and obtain.

Ya, I'm guessing everyone shares that anthropology, right? That should be clear as day to everyone in western culture...

2) No. I asked because you seemed to imply no relationship at all between god-as-being, participated being, human action, and the reason for which human acts are made. If that is a poor perception, then I am glad to have cleared it up.

3) Right. So the nature of the relation between the hypothetical god-of-vicarious-redemption and yourself was meaningful for you, especially how it would determine your living a happy life. You cared about it because how you would act according to that hypothetical relation (i.e. denying its offer of redemption) would directly translate to how happy your life would be. Not exactly a meaningless thing to consider. The more you know about it, the more you care about it (especially in determining your response to it). Of course, if it doesn't exist at all, then there is nothing to care about.

[The Grand Nudger]

HA! Ok great. Here is why god and its relation to you is significant: God is what everyone wants,

Not me...so, clearly, not everyone.

and god is the reason for which everyone acts.

Not me.....so, clearly, not everyone.

I guess I can stop you right there, since the rest requires these twin statements, both equally false on their faces, and without them, it crumbles.

Ya, I'm guessing everyone shares that anthropology, right? That should be clear as day to everyone in western culture...

Should it, is that what you heard in my ethical objection to the god of vicarious redemption?

The business at the end was some serious scrote twisting. You can;t really grant it in my cvase without contradicting your every statement and claim about god that preceeded it...you realize?

"Yes, see, my evil god was relevant to your happiness". Really? Sure, if that's the sense you want to refer to, and you don't mind your god being evil, lol? How successful do you feel this has been, in that case? Have you gotten your message across, or are you looking for a way to be right, no matter the consequence or implications?