OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 06:11:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Should I continue to debate Jackal?
Definitely, it's educational - 3 (7.9%)
Sure, at least it is providing a little insight. - 7 (18.4%)
Probably not, it's a waste of time. - 12 (31.6%)
Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion. - 16 (42.1%)
Total Voters: 38

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should, I continue my debate with Jackal?  (Read 11297 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: February 16, 2011, 10:24:13 PM »

Here it goes folks. I guess I am feeling a little goofy this evening.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2011, 10:30:18 PM »

Since I hadn't been following your back-and-forth, I immediately thought of Thundercats (and Jackalman) when I saw the thread title.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2011, 10:54:15 PM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2011, 10:59:29 PM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.

Actually, I state my arguments quite well. And I am from a background of both fields. But good to see the assumptions float around Wink
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2011, 11:10:38 PM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.

Actually, I state my arguments quite well. And I am from a background of both fields. But good to see the assumptions float around Wink

Lol...I don't mean to offend you.  My assumptions are based on the fact that your arguments, though stated very well, don't make any sense sometimes from the theist point of view.

Your play of words that the "attributes" we give to God leads to God being "nothing" is an example.  We are just talking past each other if you're not seeing our language on our basis.  It's actually interesting you say we believe in essentially "nothing."  Pagans made the same argument against Christians in the past like this.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 11:14:22 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2011, 11:18:08 PM »

I would like to pause a little at this last point, because I am certain that (especially) the persons who wander in and out of Christian forums on the internet have been subjected to brainwashing to a large degree.  These people always resort to mostly the same arguments, which they sometimes copy-paste in forums that they visit.  These arguments are of an anti-Christian content; they accuse the Old Testament, they are forever looking for contradictions within the New Testament, they strive to prove that Christ never existed, they have amassed every crooked thing that various pseudo-Christians have perpetrated throughout History or any other assorted falsified information, and they use it as an accusation against the Christian faith.  In other words, these people are using those arguments to actually attack Christianity!  They don't resort to any philosophical reasons to support their atheism.  And the fact alone that most of them use the exact same arguments is clearly indicative of the fact that there is a COMMON SOURCE of arguments.  Someone is supplying them with all these arguments, and they are being used as blind instruments against the Christian faith.  These people lack even an elementary perception, which would have allowed them to see that others are USING them .

We don't have to search very long to discover where that source is, or who is propagating those arguments. One glance at a paper & magazine stand, at the kinds of magazines that are found there (or on the shelves of certain bookshops), is enough for us to realize who is responsible for this brainwashing.

We are referring to certain ANTI-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, which are waging war against the Christian faith and which of course have a personal benefit in propagating their false arguments against it to gullible people.

But how do they manage to convince people to fight against the Christian faith, when they themselves don't believe in those religions and theories?

They resort to psychology.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/atheismos/atheistic_absurdities.htm
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2011, 01:02:03 AM »

I voted "probably not, it's a waste of time" because I think it is a waste of time.  There's a huge chasm between the understanding of Jackal's point of view and ours, as well as the terms under which we will conduct an argument.  The end result is, no one walks away enlightened or convinced, but we've done much to broaden that chasm and destroy any hope of coming to an understanding.

Papist, you did well contextualizing your argument and not submitting to Jackal's terms.

Jackal, in my opinion, I think your arguments would do well in a like-minded arena, but are little more than rubber-and-glue here.

In Christ,

Marc
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2011, 01:07:44 AM »

I would like to pause a little at this last point, because I am certain that (especially) the persons who wander in and out of Christian forums on the internet have been subjected to brainwashing to a large degree.  These people always resort to mostly the same arguments, which they sometimes copy-paste in forums that they visit.  These arguments are of an anti-Christian content; they accuse the Old Testament, they are forever looking for contradictions within the New Testament, they strive to prove that Christ never existed, they have amassed every crooked thing that various pseudo-Christians have perpetrated throughout History or any other assorted falsified information, and they use it as an accusation against the Christian faith.  In other words, these people are using those arguments to actually attack Christianity!  They don't resort to any philosophical reasons to support their atheism.  And the fact alone that most of them use the exact same arguments is clearly indicative of the fact that there is a COMMON SOURCE of arguments.  Someone is supplying them with all these arguments, and they are being used as blind instruments against the Christian faith.  These people lack even an elementary perception, which would have allowed them to see that others are USING them .

We don't have to search very long to discover where that source is, or who is propagating those arguments. One glance at a paper & magazine stand, at the kinds of magazines that are found there (or on the shelves of certain bookshops), is enough for us to realize who is responsible for this brainwashing.

We are referring to certain ANTI-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, which are waging war against the Christian faith and which of course have a personal benefit in propagating their false arguments against it to gullible people.

But how do they manage to convince people to fight against the Christian faith, when they themselves don't believe in those religions and theories?

They resort to psychology.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/atheismos/atheistic_absurdities.htm

Do contradictions not exist? You can begin with the differences of the creation stories. Hardly absurdities to outline contradictions in the bible, or versions of the bible.
Quote
I would like to pause a little at this last point, because I am certain that (especially) the persons who wander in and out of Christian forums on the internet have been subjected to brainwashing to a large degree.

Evidence to support this wild assertion? Ahh yes, evidence doesn't matter if you have faith.

Quote
In other words, these people are using those arguments to actually attack Christianity!

Nobody attacked your religion. You consider questioning your religion and the contradictions found in it as "attacking" it for the purpose of malicious intent. Seems you are stretching for the moral high ground here for Cred points.

Quote
They don't resort to any philosophical reasons to support their atheism.

EH? This would be irrelevant if we do or don't.. And this is actually a lie because many do!. Nice generalization you go there that isn't worth anything.

Quote
And the fact alone that most of them use the exact same arguments is clearly indicative of the fact that there is a COMMON SOURCE of arguments.

Ahh yes, science is a terrible source of conspiracy against your religion. Beats I suppose the common source of irrationality, circular arguments, and logical fallacies as arguments to support one's belief system.. Didn't you hear? The tooth fairy killed your GOD last week and took over.. Care to prove me wrong? AKA Carl Sagan Dragon arguments of trying to prove a negative. You might want to work on those debating skills.

Quote
Someone is supplying them with all these arguments, and they are being used as blind instruments against the Christian faith.  These people lack even an elementary perception, which would have allowed them to see that others are USING them .

Ahh yes, the invention of conspiracy. This is equal to Flat Earthers claiming science is a conspiracy and that the Earth is flat. And what exactly is a blind instrument against faith? Evidence? hmmm.. me thinks evidence is very important.. And isn't faith blind assumption without evidence? yep..Please try again.

Quote
We don't have to search very long to discover where that source is, or who is propagating those arguments. One glance at a paper & magazine stand, at the kinds of magazines that are found there (or on the shelves of certain bookshops), is enough for us to realize who is responsible for this brainwashing.

Ahh yes those biology and science books.. Damn them blaphemous propaganda materials..wait..I'm using a computer atm powered by the local nuclear power plant. o.O Damn I must be brainwashed!  

Quote
These people lack even an elementary perception, which would have allowed them to see that others are USING them .

Other people using the power of opinion? Perhaps your perception of reality only translates to your opinion of it. What have you done to validate your perceptions? Have you drawn a face using zero dimensional values, or with nothing? Can you even picture in your head a zero dimensional object? let us know what perception you speak of here that doesn't just translate to abstract perception of reality to which you then attach logical fallacies to. Is it the sixth sense where you see dead people?

Quote
We are referring to certain ANTI-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, which are waging war against the Christian faith and which of course have a personal benefit in propagating their false arguments against it to gullible people.

I don't recall going on the street and shooting and killing Christians. Nor do I recall trying to inject teachings of Atheism into a public school system..Wait, isn't that what Creationists are attempting to do? Hmmm.. Theocracywatch.org, or the Christian fundamentalist groups that are trying to re-write American history to sound like it's a "Christian Nation?"... You sure it's Atheists waging a war? How much tv do you watch? Take the tv series "V" for instance.. It's Christians waging War on Science.. Interesting eh Smiley How about the TV series BONES that depicts BONES slow indoctrination into religion, and as a cold heartless person of just logic and reason.. Stereotypes are fun?



 
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2011, 01:12:07 AM »

I voted "probably not, it's a waste of time" because I think it is a waste of time.  There's a huge chasm between the understanding of Jackal's point of view and ours, as well as the terms under which we will conduct an argument.  The end result is, no one walks away enlightened or convinced, but we've done much to broaden that chasm and destroy any hope of coming to an understanding.

Papist, you did well contextualizing your argument and not submitting to Jackal's terms.

Jackal, in my opinion, I think your arguments would do well in a like-minded arena, but are little more than rubber-and-glue here.

In Christ,

Marc

I'm curious as to if you know how I found this place and got here Wink.. I only engaged this place for 1 reason.. (not to troll, or spam it).. Hint.. it starts with I.

But yes, the chasm of nothing as something is never going to be agreed on. There is no way you will ever convince me or any atheist of that premise, or any other logical fallacy. :/..
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2011, 01:25:50 AM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.

Actually, I state my arguments quite well. And I am from a background of both fields. But good to see the assumptions float around Wink

Lol...I don't mean to offend you.  My assumptions are based on the fact that your arguments, though stated very well, don't make any sense sometimes from the theist point of view.

Your play of words that the "attributes" we give to God leads to God being "nothing" is an example.  We are just talking past each other if you're not seeing our language on our basis.  It's actually interesting you say we believe in essentially "nothing."  Pagans made the same argument against Christians in the past like this.

I didn't say your belief was made of nothing. The idea of something certainly exists, but the object of the idea is entirely a different thing.  When you say the object of you idea or concept of GOD isn't made of anything, that translates to literal context of nothing even if you still retain the belief of the idea as something to believe in. That means it's existence is dependent on being an idea, belief of the idea, and duplication of the idea. Thus the problem of where we are passing each other is the establishment of the existence of the object of your idea. Hence, the image of an apple is not THE APPLE. So when people tell me that something can be made of nothing, it creates a logical fallacy regardless of their perceptual view.. This isn't going to change the reality that nothing can not literally ever be something in literal context. Thus, your GOD's existence remains a Carl Sagan Dragon, or at best an Ideological concept.

We may as well be arguing the kewl factor of a red truck that exists on paper but not out in the real world while one side tries to argue that it's made of nothing so you can't see, touch, taste, or physically feel it. or that it's magically outside the system and a-spatial in a place of negative capacity. :/ It's the absolute proving a negative argument from a position of nothing.  :/

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:28:28 AM by TheJackel » Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2011, 01:31:13 AM »

Have you ever smoked crank?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2011, 01:33:10 AM »

Again, you are missing what we are saying entirely, and not sure you want to understand what we are saying. When some one says that God is made of nothing, I don't think that such a person is saying that God is nothing in the sense of not existing. What that person is saying is that God is not made at all. He is uncomposed, simple, and self-existence. Further, he is only no-thing in the sense of not being any being or thing in field of our natural knowledge, but transcends it; he is not an object but the absolute subject. Not one of the beings we can analyze, but the true "I".
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2011, 01:35:04 AM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.

Actually, I state my arguments quite well. And I am from a background of both fields. But good to see the assumptions float around Wink

Lol...I don't mean to offend you.  My assumptions are based on the fact that your arguments, though stated very well, don't make any sense sometimes from the theist point of view.

Your play of words that the "attributes" we give to God leads to God being "nothing" is an example.  We are just talking past each other if you're not seeing our language on our basis.  It's actually interesting you say we believe in essentially "nothing."  Pagans made the same argument against Christians in the past like this.

I didn't say your belief was made of nothing. The idea of something certainly exists, but the object of the idea is entirely a different thing.  When you say the object of you idea or concept of GOD isn't made of anything, that translates to literal context of nothing even if you still retain the belief of the idea as something to believe in. That means it's existence is dependent on being an idea, belief of the idea, and duplication of the idea. Thus the problem of where we are passing each other is the establishment of the existence of the object of your idea. Hence, the image of an apple is not THE APPLE. So when people tell me that something can be made of nothing, it creates a logical fallacy regardless of their perceptual view.. This isn't going to change the reality that nothing can not literally ever be something in literal context. Thus, your GOD's existence remains a Carl Sagan Dragon, or at best an Ideological concept.

We may as well be arguing the kewl factor of a red truck that exists on paper but not out in the real world while one side tries to argue that it's made of nothing so you can't see, touch, taste, or physically feel it. or that it's magically outside the system and a-spatial in a place of negative capacity. :/ It's the absolute proving a negative argument from a position of nothing.  :/



Something defined as the beyond the sum of all things that exist is not merely an idea.  An idea is a neuronal firing of data.  Just because you can't scientifically fathom God doesn't mean you can compare him to the Sagan Dragon.  Again, you're comparing apples and oranges.  Dragons have been an idea that is conceptualized and defined as a green (usually green) creature with some matter and throws fire, and thus, its existence has the possibility of actually testing it, and therefore the rejection of it is valid on the fact that no proof of its existence has been shown yet.

Christ become the incarnation of God, an example of God making Himself known to us, in my opinion in the best way possible.  We can't know God by ourselves.  God is described in wholly mysterious language, as the indescribable, the beyond infinity, the truly omnipotent, and yet omni-beneficient.  Dragons and unicorns and noodly appendaged God are all described in actual idolistic (if that's even a word) picturesque terms describing an actual limitation of their characters.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:38:02 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2011, 02:31:31 AM »

I'm an atheist, and even I voted for "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion."
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2011, 02:33:25 AM »

I'm an atheist, and even I voted for "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion."
LOL, may I ask you to explain further on why you voted as such?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2011, 02:37:19 AM »

I'm an atheist, and even I voted for "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion."
LOL, may I ask you to explain further on why you voted as such?
All I have seen is the same tired old arguments.  Neither side will bring up points that could ever convince anyway to sway from their "side".
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 02:38:01 AM by Entscheidungsproblem » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2011, 02:46:46 AM »

I'm an atheist, and even I voted for "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion."
LOL, may I ask you to explain further on why you voted as such?
All I have seen is the same tired old arguments.  Neither side will bring up points that could ever convince anyway to sway from their "side".

Not really intended for that purpose.. I use it for debate to explore other peoples beliefs and to challenge them on them. I really don't care if they believe that a magical ice queen of freezyland created it all. It's a belief I will surely enjoy challenging because it's educational.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2011, 05:28:29 AM »

New minted sophomorism vs. worn out Thomism?

Keep going, it keeps you two occupied.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2011, 11:20:42 AM »

It's not much of a debate. He just keeps repeating himself. One could have more enlightening discussions with a rock.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2011, 11:55:36 AM »

I voted for the last option. I've come to the point in my life where if I know I could make a better case for atheism than my opponent, yet he fails to recognize that (not for my own narcissistic pleasure, but merely so he recognizes that there might be some things he's ignorant of), I'm probably in a useless debate because he'll never say, "Wow, I never thought of that" or "I might be wrong on that point."

If he approaches the debate with the same arguments that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al use and shows himself to be a Google/YouTube atheist, then it's definitely a useless debate. Especially if he's rude about it.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2011, 05:28:10 AM »

It's not much of a debate. He just keeps repeating himself. One could have more enlightening discussions with a rock.

LOL, you would require the brain of a Rock to believe nothing is a GOD. At least I don't partake in intentional stupidity as an argument.


Quote
Just because you can't scientifically fathom God doesn't mean you can compare him to the Sagan Dragon.

I just did.. And you apparently can't fathom him either since you people think he's "incomprehensible" lol.. Do you people ever bother to define the words you use before you use them in a sentence?
Quote
If he approaches the debate with the same arguments that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al use and shows himself to be a Google/YouTube atheist, then it's definitely a useless debate. Especially if he's rude about it.

Yeah, the hypocrisy of the Forum that began with "Your Face is a Logical Fallacy".. Nice try at the moral high ground..

Quote
Again, you are missing what we are saying entirely, and not sure you want to understand what we are saying. When some one says that God is made of nothing, I don't think that such a person is saying that God is nothing in the sense of not existing

Incorrect, learn how to use the English language properly when dealing with definitions of words, and the words you choose to use in your sentences. It's exactly what you are saying. You are basically saying yes it's nothing while trying to claim that it's something at the same time lol. It's basic English! All you have is your idea of GOD, you don't have an object of that idea if you claim it's made of nothing lol.. For Pete's sake people, get educated in the words you use! Hooked on Phonics might be a good starting point for you.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 05:54:16 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2011, 09:27:02 AM »

It's just too bad all you can ever do is posture with incredulity, make fallacious appeals to popular opinion, and bear tales while avoiding any effort at actually proving wrongdoing.

Honestly are you just trolling now by insulting the members of this board?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2011, 09:53:45 AM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2011, 11:35:49 AM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2011, 12:16:29 PM »

Dialogue is always a good thing, even if in this case it is a series of two monologues since Jackel's 'arguments' refuse to engage the points made.

Now, I await Jackel's rejoinders, which will likely be based on semantics or a borderline ad hominem.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2011, 01:16:38 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2011, 02:54:41 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Actually, real Christian thought would suggest there is no atheism. Everyone worships gods, whether they worship the True God is the question.

And no Christian should seriously argue for theism. Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God. They try to get from the unmoved mover to the Gospel. Impossible and utterly un-Biblical.

Threads like these are good cause it keeps both camps busy and lets discussions of real Christian issues occur without the noise.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 03:00:56 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2011, 02:58:11 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2011, 02:59:52 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.



Btw, the first two reviews on amazon of the text are pretty decent.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2011, 03:12:37 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.



Right, but the problem I've had with the approach of ontotheology is that it inevitably leads to "weakness theology," which is nothing more than the deconstruction of God.

Rather, I think it's better to follow in the steps of the Fathers who said that while our language is inadequate in talking about God, we must use it in order to say something. Ontotheology, or the "weakness of God" movement goes too far in my opinion.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2011, 03:24:05 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.



Right, but the problem I've had with the approach of ontotheology is that it inevitably leads to "weakness theology," which is nothing more than the deconstruction of God.

Rather, I think it's better to follow in the steps of the Fathers who said that while our language is inadequate in talking about God, we must use it in order to say something. Ontotheology, or the "weakness of God" movement goes too far in my opinion.

Ummm that is exactly the diagnosis Heidegger gave to the problem of both Theology and Philosophy. His constant struggle against onto-theologizing is exactly the current which has matured especially among Catholic thinkers.

But, I agree with you about the Church Fathers. I am just saying if you want serious thought about ontology and theology the problems and the newer paths being taken other than "deconstructionism" as most people use the word (against I would love to sit with every person who uses this word and read just 10 pages with them of single water-shed text in that line of thought and see if they can even utter a coherent summation) and Thomism which dead on arrival and uninteresting.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2011, 03:29:53 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.



Right, but the problem I've had with the approach of ontotheology is that it inevitably leads to "weakness theology," which is nothing more than the deconstruction of God.

Rather, I think it's better to follow in the steps of the Fathers who said that while our language is inadequate in talking about God, we must use it in order to say something. Ontotheology, or the "weakness of God" movement goes too far in my opinion.

Ummm that is exactly the diagnosis Heidegger gave to the problem of both Theology and Philosophy. His constant struggle against onto-theologizing is exactly the current which has matured especially among Catholic thinkers.

But, I agree with you about the Church Fathers. I am just saying if you want serious thought about ontology and theology the problems and the newer paths being taken other than "deconstructionism" as most people use the word (against I would love to sit with every person who uses this word and read just 10 pages with them of single water-shed text in that line of thought and see if they can even utter a coherent summation) and Thomism which dead on arrival and uninteresting.



I'm wondering if it has to be either/or. Can't it be a little of both/and?

For instance, the arguments I use aren't inherently Thomistic, but generally derive from one of the Church Fathers. If St. John of Damascus wrote today we'd call him a Thomist, but obviously he wasn't a Thomist or even an Aristotelean. So using arguments such as "first cause" or even teleological arguments are not intrinsically Thomist arguments, because they have their origins in the Church Fathers.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2011, 03:34:28 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 03:34:50 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2011, 03:53:07 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2011, 04:04:03 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.
You posting history doesn't suggest hyperbole. And I am not suggesting you need to love Aquinas in order to be a christian. Re-read my post.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2011, 05:10:56 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.
You posting history doesn't suggest hyperbole. And I am not suggesting you need to love Aquinas in order to be a christian. Re-read my post.

Maybe I have my interwebz confused.

Again you assume too much. I was just saying ain't condemning his though or those who continue in that tradition as some act of human endeavor, just don't see how fruitful it is to preaching Christ crucified.

Preaching the Unmoved Mover just ain't what I understand as Christianity. Then again, it could just be my love for that ol' tyme religion.

And Papist, really do you think you are getting anywhere with Jackal? Not that the history of the internets would suggest that is ever the point or upshot of any thread ever posted.

WTH? I've spend countless hours probably in more futile internets.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2011, 05:56:02 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.
You posting history doesn't suggest hyperbole. And I am not suggesting you need to love Aquinas in order to be a christian. Re-read my post.

Maybe I have my interwebz confused.

Again you assume too much. I was just saying ain't condemning his though or those who continue in that tradition as some act of human endeavor, just don't see how fruitful it is to preaching Christ crucified.

Preaching the Unmoved Mover just ain't what I understand as Christianity. Then again, it could just be my love for that ol' tyme religion.
Of course, I agree with you. If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize.
And Papist, really do you think you are getting anywhere with Jackal? Not that the history of the internets would suggest that is ever the point or upshot of any thread ever posted.

WTH? I've spend countless hours probably in more futile internets.
No, I don't think that I am getting anywhere with Jackal, and I didn't expect that I would. However, I do know that others do read these forums, and if some one unaquianted with philosophy or critical thinking in general were to come accross these threads, I would want them to know that many atheistic arguments are shallow, still born ideas. Of course, I don't pretend to think that I am a great philosopher, but I can clearly see the weekness of the atheistic position.  I think that my purpose has been accomplished, at least weekly so; therefore,  I accept your wisdom that to continue this conversation with Jackal would be a waste of time.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2011, 10:34:22 PM »

Quote
I just did.. And you apparently can't fathom him either since you people think he's "incomprehensible" lol.. Do you people ever bother to define the words you use before you use them in a sentence?

Okay.  Let me show you how theologians use "incomprehensible."  I'm going to use an analogy.  Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.  Suppose God is three dimensional.  (does this analogy sound familiar  Wink )  There is no way we can comprehend three-dimensional understanding completely.  But God made Himself known to us through slices of two-dimensional understanding (what we call "grace.")  At some point, God even became two-dimensional so that we may partake of His three-dimensional glory.

Now, imagine our present scenario as three dimensional creatures.  God cannot be fathomed by any dimensional means of course, but God makes Himself known to us.  The means by which we can understand things higher than three dimensions is by mathematics.  When it comes to how one can comprehend God, we do so by prayer, fasting, charity, meditation, etc.  It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

So by analogy, when theists say God is "incomprehensible" it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist (if that is even a proper word to use for God).  It simply means that we are unable to understand God fully, but God allows Himself to be understood through certain means, and in fact, He made Himself fully known through the incarnation, through Christ our Lord, so that we may transcend and grow in understanding God.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2011, 11:22:55 PM »

I’m inquiring into Orthodoxy presupposing that God exists so this kind of exchange is of no help to me.  Accordingly, I voted “definitely not.”
Logged
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2011, 12:39:46 AM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.

You are correct that Scholasticism is not the Gospel, but you assume too much. I've seen too many people eventually come to Christ because intellectual barriers they had to the Gospel were broken down through philosophical argumentation to think that such a method is useless. Would Scholasticism come in handy with a coal miner who already believes in God? Not really. Would it come in handy with an atheist questioning his position and wondering if there's reason to believe there's more out there? Absolutely.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,491



« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2011, 01:16:35 AM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.

You are correct that Scholasticism is not the Gospel, but you assume too much. I've seen too many people eventually come to Christ because intellectual barriers they had to the Gospel were broken down through philosophical argumentation to think that such a method is useless. Would Scholasticism come in handy with a coal miner who already believes in God? Not really. Would it come in handy with an atheist questioning his position and wondering if there's reason to believe there's more out there? Absolutely.


Too many? How many? And how does Scholasticism "break down barriers" to the Gospel? And how do you know they are Christians? (The are really rhetorical, you don't have to respond.)

And Scholasticism is pointless in convincing any educated, heart-hardened atheist.

Who knows how grace works, maybe having a non-convincing intellectual framework helps folks get over the vanities hardening their hearts to the truth and charity of Christ working within the PERSON working with them.

God knows I have had hide my nakedness of pride and vanity in leaves of intellectualism to make little steps toward what I knew in my heart was true, but was too embarrassed to accept. The Gospel is folly to the wisdom of this world.

In that case, thank God.

In my experience, changes of the heart are worked out in blood in meeting others who live in a manner that is striking and when struck willing enough to ask how they live out the way they do and trying it out for one's self.

But I get Papist's point. And let's admit most of this stuff here is cause we know stuff that others for the most part don't care about or need to and it is fun to slice and dice one another over minutia.

And if it feeds a troll or two, to feed the hungry is the Christian thing to do.

 

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2011, 02:04:14 AM »

Quote
Okay.  Let me show you how theologians use "incomprehensible."  I'm going to use an analogy.  Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.  Suppose God is three dimensional.  (does this analogy sound familiar  Wink )  There is no way we can comprehend three-dimensional understanding completely.  But God made Himself known to us through slices of two-dimensional understanding (what we call "grace.")  At some point, God even became two-dimensional so that we may partake of His three-dimensional glory.
Quote
incomprehensible [ˌɪnkɒmprɪˈhɛnsəbəl ɪnˌkɒm-]
adj
incapable of being understood; unintelligible

Improper use of the term "incomprehensible". And your entire analogy is irrelevant because you claim said deity to have zero dimensional value to which is made of nothing. You even made the illogical claim of "no parts".. So I guess it doesn't have a mind, any information what-so-ever, no memory, no-place to exist in, no abilities, no functions ect.

A proper analogy would be:

God is incomprehensible because he's, according to you,  made of nothing, with no parts, no dimensional value, outside of existence, out side of non-existence, out side of capacity while claiming nothing to be an entity, object, thing, or GOD is literally the dumbest and most pleading argument of desperation in order to maintain one's faith in GOD. This is of course incomprehensible... It's incomprehensible because that exactly the same thing as saying it doesn't exist, and that no understanding could ever exist while trying to argue that it exists. Your entire argument is incomprehensible, and incoherent. Your base of comprehension is only linked to your belief, or conceptual idea to which you have emotionally attached yourself to, and has no relevance to the object of that belief itself because the belief is not the object (god). It's like you are not comprehending how to properly use that term within the context of the rest of your argument. And that is probably because you keep telling yourself it does exist as if that will make it all better in order to try and circumvent logic and reason, or the actual meaning of what you claim to be GOD.. AKA the "NOTHING GOD!"

Quote
Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.

Irrelevant, and that would be untrue. We as 3D+1 beings can fathom more than 3D+1 thinking. And all dimensional beings under that context could share the same thinking that existence can't exist outside capacity. You might want to work on your analogies because they are terrible. Nothing comprehensibly doesn't exist, and can not be a person, place, object, substance, or thing. Learn Basic English please.

Quote
Now, imagine our present scenario as three dimensional creatures.  God cannot be fathomed by any dimensional means of course, but God makes Himself known to us.  The means by which we can understand things higher than three dimensions is by mathematics.  When it comes to how one can comprehend God, we do so by prayer, fasting, charity, meditation, etc.  It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

Your analogy is a total fail. Funny that you have to resort to dimensional values and then collapse the entire analogy by asserting something with zero dimensional value. lol Seriously, are you even understanding the words, or analogies you are attempting to use? Basic English isn't hard, learn how to use it. And prayer, fasting, meditation ect is irrelevant to the subject.

Quote
It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

Aparrently so is creating logical fallacies, circular nonsensical arguments, self-inventing context, self-inventing definitions of words already well defined, using social dogma, pleading for ignorance, and the act of being intentionally ignorant. :/


Quote
So by analogy, when theists say God is "incomprehensible" it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist (if that is even a proper word to use for God).  It simply means that we are unable to understand God fully, but God allows Himself to be understood through certain means, and in fact, He made Himself fully known through the incarnation, through Christ our Lord, so that we may transcend and grow in understanding God.

You can feel free to show evidence that proves any incarnation happened since you are trying to state it in fact form. What a load of crap.. empirical testable evidence or concede that you are making an assertion. Worst of all, you fail completely at understanding information theory and why this very argument of yours fails. Understanding requires information lol. All minds are slave to require information to even know they themselves exist!.. All things that exist must have informational value, structure, and complexity. And I really get a giggle out of this when you claim your GOD to be made of nothing!






« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 02:28:07 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2011, 02:39:05 AM »

Who do you believe Jesus is?

A Man like many others. Maybe even a great man. Perhaps a man with a name that is easy to remember as the brand name Nike.

Quote
Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

No..

Because he told me that I could pray to have a mountain cast into the ocean, and it would be done. Jesus lied because Wild Cat mountain still remains where it is. But you could of course say that I don't have Faith, and thus it could not be done.. However, I can test this none-the-less:

Quote
(Matthew 21:21-22 NAS) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.  "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

Do you believe the words he spoke? It seems like you have the faith to cast Wild Cat mountain into the ocean. You can feel free to demonstrate for us the validity of his words, or the truth you claim to be Jesus Christ as a GOD. Seems to me that all of you faithfuls should be entirely capable of demonstrating this. I will myself instantly convert if you could be so kind, as to pray, and have Wild Cat Mountain tossed into the Sea by 6:00 AM Eastern Time tomorrow before I get there for my snowboarding trip.
Quote
Theist punch line:

I don't have to do anything to prove to you of the truth of Jesus Christ. TADA!

Well of course you don't, how else are you going to maintain a Carl Sagan Dragon, and a blind faith?


.. Oh but not so fast:
Quote
(John 14:13-14 NAB) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.

In the Lord name of Jesus Christ I ask of you to make me Omniscient for as long as I wish to be. And done so within in the next 3 seconds please and thank you kind Lord.  




« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 03:05:15 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2011, 02:45:30 AM »

This is about as bad as you claiming to have a moral code that says killing is wrong without any justification.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2011, 02:56:51 AM »

Correction:

Quote
God is incomprehensible because he's, according to you,  made of nothing, with no parts, no dimensional value, outside of existence, out side of non-existence, out side of capacity while claiming nothing to be an entity, object, thing, or GOD. This is literally the dumbest and(toning it down to be nicer) most pleading argument of desperation in order to maintain one's faith in GOD. :/



This is about as bad as you claiming to have a moral code that says killing is wrong without any justification.

Wrong!

1)  morality is relative. Thus I can have my own moral code. Do try harder.

2) Your comment is entirely irrelevant to the argument. You might want to work on your deflecting debating skills.  I am demonstrating why I don't follow his word... Does he speak truthfully or not?

Well since I am not omniscient now, I have refuted his own words to be equivalent to lying . Thus is perfectly justified for me not to follow his word. Nothing like the scientific method eh? An empirical testing of faith, truth, and of GOD. Just imagine, you could save the world in a single instant, and by such a simple demonstration. You might even achieve world peace! World "LOVE" even!...  
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 03:19:53 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.226 seconds with 74 queries.