theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) Beleiving in the God of the Catholic Church is akin to believing that the 'external' world exists? You're right that you cannot prove to a Cartesian certainity that the chair exists but your wrong to try to use that to grandfather in God I have not done that though. I am only pointing out the futility of using reason in a vacuum. I can imagine very valid arguments against the existence of God (I naturally disagree) but they cannot be exclusively rational. It is impossible and dishonest to claim otherwise. Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 Beleiving in the God of the Catholic Church is akin to believing that the 'external' world exists? You're right that you cannot prove to a Cartesian certainity that the chair exists but your wrong to try to use that to grandfather in God I am tempted to ask you why in regards to your second point. I think that I could make you struggle for an answer. But I do not want to betray the fact I do not need proof in the mathematical sense, and I do not need to prove the existence of God to anyone. Spiritual geometry problems do nothing for me. The truth is many things, but formulaic it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I am tempted to ask you why in regards to your second point. I think that I could make you struggle for an answer. But I do not want to betray the fact I do not need proof in the mathematical sense, and I do not need to prove the existence of God to anyone. Spiritual geometry problems do nothing for me. The truth is many things, but formulaic it is not. I'm sitting on a chair. I've read an into philosophy text too. You can come up with all sorts of 'brain in a vat' scenarios and intellectual riddles but that doesn't change the fact that I'm sitting on a chair and right now there's probably a woman crying and begging God to stop the man who is currently raping her and receiving only silence for a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 My favorite proof for the existence of God is found in the Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius. For the uninitiated, it is basically an extrapolation of human behavior and the conclusion that because of what we know about the way people are, God must exist. It is very easily discredited, no doubt. And believe every word of that book. But it does not really lose the credibility that it deserves, due to the wisdom contained within and the foundational effect that it has had on Western thought. My approach to the existence of God is similar. I can make an argument, and you can discredit it with equal force and credibility, and we can go in circles, regurgitating the history of Western thought until we are both nauseous. It does not really mean anything. It is just argument and persuasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 I'm sitting on a chair. I've read an into philosophy text too. You can come up with all sorts of 'brain in a vat' scenarios and intellectual riddles but that doesn't change the fact that I'm sitting on a chair and right now there's probably a woman crying and begging God to stop the man who is currently raping her and receiving only silence for a response. One of Bertrand Russel's favorite arguments against the existence of God was the problem of human suffering. How could God exist and allow children to starve to death everyday? The Church's reply was to go feed the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 One of Bertrand Russel's favorite arguments against the existence of God was the problem of human suffering. How could God exist and allow children to starve to death everyday? The Church's reply was to go feed the children. Some people in the Church have made admirable efforts to cover up their God's abject failure. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 Some people in the Church have made admirable efforts to cover up their God's abject failure. I agree. We are the face of Christ on earth. He works through our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 We are the face of Christ on earth. He works through our hands. He hasn't done a very good job. You'd think omnipotence would be more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) He hasn't done a very good job. You'd think omnipotence would be more effective. LOL. Fair enough. This brings to my second reason for why I am no longer an atheist: The Cross. The problem of human suffering. I will type this one out later though as the doctors tell me that I must sleep sometimes or I will begin to think that I am the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte (not Dynamite as my wife would have me believe). Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I am tempted to ask you why in regards to your second point. I think that I could make you struggle for an answer. But I do not want to betray the fact I do not need proof in the mathematical sense, and I do not need to prove the existence of God to anyone. Spiritual geometry problems do nothing for me. The truth is many things, but formulaic it is not. So are you saying people choose among various reasonable assumptions about unknowables, and are only arguing about the reasonableness of how we build on these fundamental assumptions, or how correctly we build other conclusions based on these fundamental assumptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 So are you saying people choose among various reasonable assumptions about unknowables, and are only arguing about the reasonableness of how we build on these fundamental assumptions, or how correctly we build other conclusions based on these fundamental assumptions? I am saying that the truth is not reductive. Mostly, this is a statement of personal preference. I have just had an overdose of philosophy is the past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) I believe the following: Truth is beauty. Truth is objective. Truth is subjective. Truth is relative. I just don't believe that there is an algebra equation at the bottom of all this apart from my faith in God. And I am comfortable saying, I just believe. Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I believe the following: Truth is beauty. Truth is objective. Truth is subjective. Truth is relative. I just don't believe that there is an algebra equation at the bottom of all this apart from my faith in God. And I am comfortable saying, I just believe. Roughly, I would agree with the first bit. It's the concept of God and the constructed beliefs and behaviors that go along with it that I could not make myself comfortable with. When it comes to fundamental principles of how you will order your life, no matter how beautiful the lie, if you see it as a lie, you will never comfortable with it. That is not the same as thinking and believing something is true with reasonable parameters of how committed you are to that truth and how it fundamentally directs your principles and behaviors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 He hasn't done a very good job. You'd think omnipotence would be more effective. It is not that God does not exist. It is that your version of God does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 It is that your version of God does not exist. Exactly why people reject theism and religions and find varying degrees of agnosticism, or atheism are more likely, resonable, or truthfull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now