If there is a creator, so what?

[robvalue]

If me being me is represented in some weird relationship with some other thing, I don't really care to be honest. What difference does that make? I can learn about me just fine without having to worry about how it materialises with respect to some.... I don't even know what to call it. If I could find some alternate way of learning about me, via this.... weird thing, then sure. That would be useful, I guess. Have you done this? Have you learned about yourself in some real way by nonstandard methods? If so, how did you attribute it to this in any meaningful sense?

I have no idea where you're getting any of this from, or what is has to do with Catholicism. Did me being me turn into a man and go around molesting lepers? It seems you've buried God in the actual meaning of words, or reality just being reality. If it's more than that, I can't grasp it I'm afraid.

I appreciate you trying but I'm going to have to give up in a minute.

[robvalue]

If I learn about myself by virtue of me being me... what does that even mean? Of course I am me, I can't be anything else. How on Earth can I consider this a factor? God is the law of identity?

Ironically, the only thing God usually has to bow to is logic.

[Ignorant]

That thing is being a rock. That thing is being a tree. God is being "to be". Therefore, anything that "is", shares, somehow, in "to be" (i.e. god).

Are Catholics closet pantheists?

That's a reasonable misunderstanding. Catholics hold that all things "participate"/"share" in god's being. Pantheists hold that all things ARE god's being.

[Ignorant]

If me being me is represented in some weird relationship with some other thing, I don't really care to be honest. What difference does that make? [1] I can learn about me just fine without having to worry about how it materialises with respect to some.... I don't even know what to call it. [2] If I could find some alternate way of learning about me, via this.... weird thing, then sure. That would be useful, I guess. Have you done this? Have you learned about yourself in some real way by nonstandard methods? If so, how did you attribute it to this in any meaningful sense? [3]

I have no idea where you're getting any of this from, or what is has to do with Catholicism. [4] Did me being me turn into a man and go around molesting lepers? [5] It seems you've buried God in the actual meaning of words, or reality just being reality. If it's more than that, I can't grasp it I'm afraid.

I appreciate you trying but I'm going to have to give up in a minute.

1) Well if you don't care you don't care. Certain kinds of relationships will matter to you, and some won't. I am saying, the more you know about your relationship with "being", the more it will matter to you.

2) Good! That means you're breaking free of the poor conceptions you've been (rightly) finding rationally unsatisfactory.

As far as learning about yourself, you're right. But if this relationship truly lies at the most fundamental part of "yourself", then your understanding of yourself is missing its most fundamental aspect... perhaps that's something to care about? I'm not you, so maybe not.

3) Sure. If the most fundamental part of being-me is a relation with god in the same way that the most fundamental part of being-you is the same relation with god, then WE are related at the most fundamental part of being-me and being-you. WE share a REAL relationship, not merely a socially convenient/coerced one. 

On a plane more important to you, being-an-animal is a different relation with god than being-Rob or being-me is a relation with god. Even so, the fact that there is a relation with god at the most fundamental part of being-an-animal means that WE share a REAL relationship with animals which demands respect. The differences between that relationship and the relationship between being-Rob and being-me guide possible actions between animals and us which demand care.

4) I'm getting this from my own philosophical method. Bringing in Catholicism seems a bit premature, don't you think?

5) Ah! Now this is perhaps a way to paint a clearer picture, but it will draw on Christian ideas. please understand them only as a hopefully helpful analogy

You-being-you is not god-being-god. (You ≠ god)

You-being-you is a participation in god-being-god. 

You-being-you did not "turn into a man" named Jesus.

God-being-god united to itself man-being-man (which is a participation in god-being-god) in the person named Jesus.

Jesus-being-Jesus is a union between man-being-man and god-being-god.

[Ignorant]

If I learn about myself by virtue of me being me... what does that even mean? [1] Of course I am me, I can't be anything else. How on Earth can I consider this a factor? [2] God is the law of identity? [3]

Ironically, the only thing God usually has to bow to is logic.

1) If part of being-you IS a relation with god, then, just in virtue of being-you, you can learn about that relation.

2) Yes, of course you-are-you. But if being-you includes a relation with god-being-god, then that relation is a fundamental aspect of you-being-you.

3) Something like that:

You-are-you through a participation in god-being-god.

God-is-god. Period. It just "is" in a self-contained, self-sustaining, subsistent way. No thing "is" like god "is".

It's fine if you disagree with that being the case. BUT. If it is the case, it seems like a pretty good start for a reason to care about it.

[Whateverist]

And you won't be able to.  There is no possible basis for establishing xtianity as the brand of creator god in question, at least not short of producing god itself (provided he is willing to back your play). [1]

I don't think you appreciate just how little most of us really care about all this talk of the 'supernatural'. [2] While we all have an interest in knowing what is true, none of us has any obligation to invest our precious but limited time seeking to vouchsafe every strange claim some lunatic swears to. [3] And no I don't care a wit that hundreds of people claim to have witnessed miracles. [4]

1) If you say so. What do you think of the "brandless" god in discussion so far?

2) You are the first to mention that word. I think I have appreciated that fact a lot in my contributions on the topic in other places. I hate the term 'supernatural'. What part of my description are you labeling 'supernatural'.

3) So... your time spent responding to me is... charity?

4) What? Where did that come from?

Apologies if I was hasty. Haven't really kept up with the thread or the forums that well very recently. If you truly share a distaste for the very idea of things 'supernatural', hell, I probably owe you a drink. Generally, I fawn all over thoughtful theists so I will probably do better - or be twice as spiteful if I end up feeling you're being disingenuous now. But I at least owe you a chance to fail me.

[Ignorant]

Apologies if I was hasty.  Haven't really kept up with the thread or the forums that well very recently.  If you truly share a distaste for the very idea of things 'supernatural', hell, I probably owe you a drink.  Generally,  I fawn all over thoughtful theists so I will probably do better - or be twice as spiteful if I end up feeling you're being disingenuous now.  But I at least owe you a chance to fail me.

No worries, Whateverist! I know it comes from a frustrating history of theists. I was once a very frustrating theist, and it was through discussing things with people like you that I have become less-frustrating (so just imagine how bad I used to be!).

I do in fact hate the term 'supernatural'. It is often misleading, unclear and unhelpful. I did grow up with the word, so if it does ever slip out, please call me out on it. I'm trying to rid it from my vocabulary.

As for that drink, I would gladly accept. I doubt you would end up fawning, but I bet we'd have a couple laughs!

[Whateverist]

Actually I just found your recent thread on the uses of objective and subjective. Just a great opening post on your part and an equally insightful one by Jorgy at the end.

Oh and I confess I had lost track of you and didn't connect you to your earlier posts or I would never have given you short shrift, even in one of my out-of-sorts states.

[robvalue]

Okay well, I'll have to give up now Ignorant. Thanks for trying. I appreciate the respectful debate

I cannot grasp what you are talking about; or rather, why you are labelling things the way you are. You sound like a pantheist to me, that's the nearest I can get. You've ensured this "god" of yours exists by definition, while sacrificing it actually being or doing anything at all that wasn't already happening. Instead it's a non-entity being given credit for things.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ignore him guys. Waste of time, he'll just cherry pick you and condescend you when you actually do as he asks. He's not here for rational debate he's here to confirm his biases. Ignorant indeed.

I mean, This is how this twat responded to my intellectual honesty and trying to make an effort in communicating with him--he responds with cherry-picking, dodging and condescension:

I'm more than happy to play, Ignorant.

So, I'd care in the sense of "I'm glad I know the truth and know that the universe indeed does contain a deity".

So my question now is... why should I care beyond that? Because I think that's the question that is begged.

I'll remind you how my contribution began in this thread:

"Well, let's start with a real basic and simple reason" - Me, HERE, emphasis mine.

And then this:

"something tells me a "baby-steps" approach would be our best shot of shedding light on any of this" - Me, HERE

Then carefully read these:

"I won't pretend to be the one who will provide this possibility [i.e. a description of the relation between you and god which is a convincing reason to care if it exists or not] for you, but it is my hope"

"I don't mean to imply I have a different god than any other Christian, but I try to form a fuller picture of the Christian god every day. Being able to communicate that picture... not so easy." - Me, HERE

Ignorant... I answered your question... I don't understand your reaction where you just bolded my follow up question and talked about how things had gone in the thread instead of addressing it.

1. I said I would play along and I did.

2. Are you satisfied with my answer?

3. Are you going to answer my follow up question?

I've been answering it with other people. I'd rather not have to repeat myself in responding to 4 different people. You can catch up. I believe in you.