If there is a creator, so what?

[Edwardo Piet]

3) Great question. Closest things we have are: Being, Goodness, Truth, Act, etc.

So would it be fair to say that that is also the closest thing we have to God's essence?

4) Like I said before and Rhythm as pointed out, I only know of two ways: a) Through reason - knowledge of god as mediated through the things participating in god; b) Through "Revelation" - knowledge of god directly from god itself.

What line of reasoning would that be?

How would a revelation be recognizable as direct knowledge from God and what would trigger such a revelation?

We can't care about the truth until we know the truth, so until knowledge can be provided it remains the case that "If there is a God how could I possibly care even if I wanted to?".

[The Grand Nudger]

Oxygen has always been the truth, it just hasn't always been a known truth. The falsity of oxygen would be kinda bad, lol.

The non existence of oxygen would be bad.  The truth or falsehood of knowledge of oxygen is irrelevant to full and whole human life, imperfect happiness, or perfect happiness, as-to, is the truth or falsehood or even -existence- of the knowledge of god for all of the same reasons and dedmonstrated by the very same relationships. People led full and whole lives, achieved happiness however perfect, before this "god" was a twinkle in a conmans eye. Since, people have continued to achieve all of the same without this knowledge, and even in defiance -of- this knowledge.

..............Mr. "That's an equivocation" 

[The Grand Nudger]

1) I am afraid you've misunderstood my intention. Everyone cares about what is true. Being rational, humans can't help but care about what is true. HOWEVER, people value some truth things MORE than other true things. Hence, my formula: 

"Either the truth you acknowledge is meaningful to you, or it isn't"

About as meaningful as truth regarding oxygen, since you decided to describe it as such.  That was your call.  

Knowing the truth of oxygen and the historical lack of importance this knowledge has been to human well-being, you assign a very small amount of meaning to the truth... and you don't care "in any meaningful way" (-You, HERE) about it.

That doesn't change the fact that it is irrelevant to what -you- proposed.  People lead full and whoile human lives, and achieved happiness, perfect or imperfect -without that knowledge.  OTOH, knowledge of oxygen, as you just described it, appears to have had a -greater- and more meaningful effect on human fullness, wholeness, and happiness. In that since we aqcvuired this knowledge there has been some demonstrable benefit. Good luck finding that in the case of your god, even if it exists. I can only conclude that the already diminutive form of caring with regards to oxygen knowledge is -greater- than any form of caring with regards to god knowledge.

2) This is where YOU find YOURSELF and your own assessment of the proposed reality. Read what you just wrote. It is ripe with your own criteria: "a diminutive form of caring"; "A MEANINGLESS form of relationship"; "an EVIL god". 

These are simply the consequences of your description of god.  

But if you are waiting for my attempt to coerce your own judgments of the relation between god and humanity through argumentation/apologetics, you are waiting in vain.

I;m waiting for you to propose a more progressive and intellectual god concept, rather than this regressive medeival nonsense.  

On the one hand, if true, it would be relevant and effectual to you because "denying its offer [is the only way] that [you] can satisfy the good". Sounds pretty important.

So long as you're satisfied with why it would be important and how important my response is, sure.  It's so important, so very meaningful, that I'd simply say, "no thanks" - which is exactly what I say when someone offers me radishes.  Evil god as oxygen-come-radish.  

Whichever is the case, the point is that you're making a judgment of meaning about the hypothetical relationship. Either the high importance assigned to your specific response to that relationship as uniquely determining your satisfaction of the good (i.e. denying the offer it provides), or else that the relationship has no relevance for you, and therefore no relevance for your satisfaction of the good.

That particular relationship doesn;t inform my actions or decisions.  I have already come to that realization through much more earthly means and concerns.  I turn down bloodmoney irl as well.  That I would turn down god is an afterthought not based upon any such relationship.  

Given your understanding of the relationship, I'd say the former is a good judgment! If god is evil, and human reality can't but include a relation to this god, then trying to satisfy the good means a lifelong struggle AGAINST this god.<= Read that again. So what can I do? The only thing that remains is presenting a different understanding of the relationship and the god about which you MAY judge differently.

Something we can agree on.  It is good judgement, and it;s good judgement that I arrived without any reference to a god or any relationship.  Your god got preempted, in this regard.

4) That is not my position. My position is that everyone can't help BUT care about the truth. <= It's more of that Thomas babble. Even while caring about the truth, different people will assign different value to the things they hold true. <= Out of my, or anyone's control. 

This wasn;t out of your control at all.  No point in washing your hands like Pontius.  Itl;s your description of god that has me continuing to say "so what?"

Even so, your last sentence in your last response to Alasdair is very much appreciated. "far less of that [usual apologist asshattery] than usual and for that at least, I'll commend Igno." <= Thank you very much.

I think you're at least -trying- to make progress.  I don;t know why you can;t take those last steps though, since progress has already been made by great thinkers in the 800 years since Thomas -began- that work. For his time, working with what he had and what tools were available to him, he was a great thinker. The world, both secular and catholic, has since made a great many improvements upon the concepts and systems he attempted to reconcile. Both your god and our world are bigger than he could have envisioned, then. I don't see the point in this entrenchment. It was a non-controversial claim, then, that without god there could be no good, no happiness, perfect or imperfect, or that it;s sheer existence was a reason to care or be counted among the flock. Today, it's a non-starter with traditional, but not rational, support.

[Edwardo Piet]

Oxygen has always been the truth, it just hasn't always been a known truth. The falsity of oxygen would be kinda bad, lol.

The non existence of oxygen would be bad.  The truth or falsehood of knowledge of oxygen is irrelevant to full and whole human life, imperfect happiness, or perfect happiness, as-to, is the truth or falsehood or even -existence- of the knowledge of god for all of the same reasons and dedmonstrated by the very same relationships.  People led full and whole lives, achieved happiness however perfect, before this "god" was a twinkle in a conmans eye.  Since, people have continued to achieve all of the same without this knowledge, and even in defiance -of- this knowledge.  

..............Mr. "That's an equivocation" 

Oxygen has always been the truth. Just because a truth is unknown doesn't mean it isn't the truth. It's not an equivocation. It's simply correct to say there are unknown truths. Truth =/= knowledge.

If God exists then it's true that God exists. Regardless of how unknowable.

I'm not equivocating, I'm differentiating correctly between truth and knowledge. I just like to be accurate. Whether it's by giving you a correct definition or pointing out that you've equivocating between different ones and thereby not addressing mine.

[Edwardo Piet]

In fact the whole point of Rob's "If there is a creator, so what?" is that even if it's true that there's a creator if that truth is forever unknowable then it has no application in the real world because it's only part of the noumenal realm.

So, you see, the distinction between knowledge and truth is very relevant here. It is true that oxygen existed even before humans were around to know of its existence. Its truth predates its knowledge.

[Edwardo Piet]

I wonder how long it will be before I get an "oops, you're right.".

There are known truths and unknown truths. Knowledge presupposes truth but truth doesn't presuppose knowledge.

Truth =/= knowledge. Knowledge is about truth and truth is about reality. There are truths about reality before we come to know of those truths.

[The Grand Nudger]

As ever, Ham, if you say so.  

[Edwardo Piet]

Truth and knowledge is different so yes I do say so. If you'd rather deny unknown truths than admit you're wrong then... fine.

[The Grand Nudger]

You are agreeing with me while you request that I deny what you have agreed to. There are unknown truths, the existence of oxygen was just such a truth, for all but a few hundred years of human existence.  Put two and two together from there, that knowledge of the existence of oxygen (and existence is not knowledge, nor is it truth, do stick to your dogged insistence of identity and the existence of unknown truths, please) was irrelevant to the things proposed.  

People were fully and wholly human.  Leading happy lives, long before it's discovery.  People continue, since it's discovery, to be fully and wholly human, to lead happy lives, without ever thinking of oxygen.  The truth or falsehood of propositions regarding oxygen and it's existence have no bearing on the other thing, and the non-existence of oxygen is not the same thing as the non-existence of knowledge of oxygen.  Just because one would be bad, doesn;t mean the other is bad, because they aren't the same godamned thing....and really, think this through, if there were no oxygen there would -be- no people and no -bad for people- in the first place because they just don't exist, another "so what" appeal to irrelevant consequence.

All of this holds as demonstrably and inarguably in the case of gods existence, and the seperate issue....knowledge of gods existence, with regards to the same. Human fullness, wholeness, and happiness.

Get, your shit, together.

This particular bit of inanity can be attacked from nearly every angle of rational thought, and can also be -demonstrated-, emprically to be complete and utter garbage. It's DOA. It's undeserving of either consideration or of divinity.

[Edwardo Piet]

Um. I'd say the truth of oxygen is pretty important. It's falsehood would kind of be bad. I guess I wouldn't care without oxygen but only because I'd be too dead to care.

The truth of oxygen simply wasn't important at all until it's discovery a few hundred years ago.  People managed to live full and whole human lives.  People managed to be imperfectly happy.  Since it;s discovery (and there are still plenty of people who don't know about it, lol), I doubt that many people have given it two seconds thought and we -continue- to live full and whole human lives and be imperfectly happy.

It doesn't matter -at all- to the focus of what Igno has described as the locus of caring., the reason to care, and so..neither does it's equally pedestrian analog in god as described in this thread, by Igno.

The attempt to distinguish god from oxygen, also in this thread, was to claim that it wasn't just fundamental, but the -most- fundamental.  Equally pointless and for the very same reasons.  The higgs boson (before it;s discovery, after it;s discovery, if it exists, if it doesn't) lies far below oxygen, in that scheme of things, it;s being more fundamental doesn't make it any more operative in my full and whole human life or my imperfect happiness than oxygen was.

The entire line of reasoning is an attempt to prove something by fiat (and a weak attempt at that, slipping quietly back and forth between senses)...but that doesn't work, because even within the belief set and even from the authorities in that beliefset it is acknowledged that there are other ways o live a full and whole human life, to achieve imperfect happiness, and even, possibly, to achieve perfect happiness in the next life.  The rebuttal offered to this was nothing more a less a restatement of the god-as-oxygen "relationship". So lets start there again, I guess.....up at the top.  

It's a closed loop of failure peppered with the usual apologist asshattery, though, granted....far less of that than usual and for that at least, I'll commend Igno.

My bold. You're talking about the knowledge of oxygen, not the truth of oxygen. You're not agreeing with me by saying the truth of oxygen wasn't important until we knew about it, lol. Before the truth was known it was kind of still important. Being able to breathe is kind of important.

You do this thing where you say you've been agreeing with me all along after I point out something you've said that's inaccurate lol.