Ascertaining God

[Drafterman]

Joe has thusly defined god as:

"God is infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute,
i.e. goodness, being, power, etc."

So, the follow-up question is (we've struck on some other interesting
avenues of discussion, but I would prefer to stick to this):

Given any entity, how can we determine that it meets the above
requirements of being infinite in every perfection?

I am suspcious that such a task is impossible. Knowing that the set of
all natural numbers is infinite I could not, given any specific set of
numbers, determine, by any means, that it was the set of all natural
numbers.

So how can we do this for god?

[Herbie]

> "God is infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute,
> i.e. goodness, being, power, etc."
>

> Given any entity, how can we determine that it meets the above
> requirements of being infinite in every perfection?

If the standard of 'goodness' is god as some Christians would claim
then their god is 'infinitely good' by definition and the descriptive
quality serves no purpose. If 'goodness' is determined by good acts,
that is acts that are judged to be subjectively good towards other
beings, then the very notion of 'infinite goodness' is silly.

Infinite power cannot exist if we stick to a standard physics
definition of power. Again it is tautological to insist that god's
'power' is without end or limit since we cannot be referring to any
type of power that has meaning to us.

Using 'goodness' and 'power' as descriptive qualities does not serve
to illuminate theists' descriptions of god. I generally find them to
be unhelpful - just more obfuscation.

Sticking infinite and perfection together as descriptors is equally
meaningless. Perfection does not come inquantities, a thing is either
perfect or not. By what standard except its own can a god be
'perfect'?

[Drafterman]

Herb, we are already debating the definition of god in another thread.
I started this one to determine if it is possible, at least in theory,
to determine if any given entity meets that definition. (Or, at least,
the definition I have decided to extract from the aforementioned
thread).

[Joe]

On Jul 26, 9:12 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe has thusly defined god as:
>
> "God is infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute,
> i.e. goodness, being, power, etc."
>
> So, the follow-up question is (we've struck on some other interesting
> avenues of discussion, but I would prefer to stick to this):
>
> Given any entity, how can we determine that it meets the above
> requirements of being infinite in every perfection?
>

We can find a perfection that the entity does not possess, and thus
determine that the entity is not God.

> I am suspcious that such a task is impossible. Knowing that the set of
> all natural numbers is infinite I could not, given any specific set of
> numbers, determine, by any means, that it was the set of all natural
> numbers.
>

But you could certainly, and easily, determine that a given set was
*not* the set of all natural numbers.

For example, the evens. Here is an infinite set of numbers that is
not the set of natural numbers. How do we know? Because we know that
the set of natural numbers includes the '3,' and we cannot find a '3'
anywhere in the set of evens.

> So how can we do this for god?

Same way, I would think.

[Joe]

On Jul 26, 1:13 pm, Herbie <chris-stann...@campdencharities.org.uk>
wrote:

> > "God is infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute,
> > i.e. goodness, being, power, etc."
>
> > Given any entity, how can we determine that it meets the above
> > requirements of being infinite in every perfection?
>
> If the standard of 'goodness' is god as some Christians would claim
> then their god is 'infinitely good' by definition and the descriptive
> quality serves no purpose. If 'goodness' is determined by good acts,
> that is acts that are judged to be subjectively good towards other
> beings, then the very notion of 'infinite goodness' is silly.
>

Infinite means without limit. Thus if there is a limit to a being's
goodness, then that being is not God. But there is no limit to God's
goodness.

Goodness has a dual definition (like most words.) There is ontological
goodness and there is moral goodness. Ontological goodness is the
excellence of a thing in itself, while moral goodness is an entity's
goodness towards others, i.e. in relation to others.

God, by Himself, is absolute ontological goodness. There need be no
relation to any other thing for this to hold. As absolute ontological
goodness, He is the standard by which we measure the ontological
goodness of other things. Things are good in themselves insofar as
they resemble God in some way. Thus things that exist are better than
things that do not exist, since things that exist more closely
resemble God in that God exists. God is in fact the only self-
subsistent existence. Everything else that exists, depends on God.

> Infinite power cannot exist if we stick to a standard physics
> definition of power.

That is not the only definition of power. But even if we were to
stick with that, there is still the reality of the ratio of something
to nothing, which is infinite. The only reason there is no infinite
source of power in anything created is that there is no "nothing" to
compare it to. "Empty" space is not "nothing," rather, it is a zero-
point energy field. But before there was space, there was nothing
except for God. So the reality of the entity God in relation to
nothing is infinite power. It is the potential that is infinite, and
given P = I * V, if V (potential) is infinite, then so is P. Or,
given, V = I/R, since nothing can resist God at all (except if He
allows it, as is the case with His creatures with free will), then R =
0 and again, V is infinite.

>Again it is tautological to insist that god's
> 'power' is without end or limit since we cannot be referring to any
> type of power that has meaning to us.
>

Certainly we can. Electrical or physical power is obviously not the
only meaning we can assign to the word. We experience possessing
creative power, though not creatio ex nihilo, whic is reserved to God
alone. But creative power is the power to bring into existence what
did not previously exist, and we can understand, comparing it to our
own creative power, that God's creative power is actually infinite,
seeing that He can bring anything at all into existence from nothing.

> Using 'goodness' and 'power' as descriptive qualities does not serve
> to illuminate theists' descriptions of god. I generally find them to
> be unhelpful - just more obfuscation.
>

I suspect there is a willful element in your plea of obfuscation. I
think it is easier to grasp then you are letting on.

> Sticking infinite and perfection together as descriptors is equally
> meaningless. Perfection does not come inquantities, a thing is either
> perfect or not. By what standard except its own can a god be
> 'perfect'?

God would not need any standard outside of Himself; He is in fact the
Standard by which we know anything at all to be good. Goodness,
according to Moore, is an atomic quality that cannot be further
defined in terms of anything else. Yet, we know what we mean by it.
The reality is that we compare what we call good to the standard of
infinite goodness that we know as God. Some of us are aware of the
implications of our ability to call anything at all 'good." Others,
plead ignorance.

[Drafterman]

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I am not asking how to determine
if something isn't a god. With regards to that, I agree with your
assessment.

I am asking the inverse, how to determine whether something *is* a
god. In this regard, you haven't answer the quesiton. If I failed to
find a perfection that the entity does not posess (also, given the
definition, it's not that it posesses that perfection, but posesses it
in infinitude), that doesn't mean it is a god since, in the next
moment, I could find such a perfection.

Likewise, failure to find an odd number is not enough to determine if
a set is the set of all even integers. At any given moment I can have
only evaluated a finite amount of them, which means there are still an
infinite number of them still to evaluate.

So, how do I determine if something is a god?

[Herbie]

And I think that I was saying that it is not possible. I'll refrain
from commenting on your threads in future.

[Joe]

Well, to extend the analogy to mathematics, the way that you would
determine that a set was the set of all even numbers would be to
define it as such. Natural theology proceeds, at least in part, in
the same way. God is defined as the Necessary Entity. God alone
possesses intrinsic necessity of existence; nothing else at all exists
necessarily, of itself, yet there is the intrinsic need of the rest of
the universe to rely on God in order to exist at all. The simple
observation of the impermanence of everything, including time and
space, points to the non-self-sufficiency of the total impermanent
whole, and this in turn leads us to conclude that there must be a self-
sufficient, permanent entity, or else nothing else could have ever
gotten started. Additionally, the self-sufficient entity must be the
source of the existence of anything outside of itself. And the word
we have for an entity thus described, is 'God.'

So there is nothing in the phenomenal world that, in and of itself,
can be called 'God.' But God, being omnipotent, can do anything at
all. So He causes bread and wine to become Himself, in order to feed
us. The previous paragraph can be deduced by a logical examination of
the world; the sentence prior to this one can only be apprehended
through Faith. But it does stand to reason that God, having created
the world from nothing, cannot in any way be supposed to rely on the
world.

It is not a "law" binding on God, that energy can neither be created
nor destroyed. God in fact created all the existent energy from
nothing, and can also destroy any of it at will. What we call that
basic Law of Conservation is nothing more or less than our observation
that *we* cannot do away with what God has created. That includes the
spiritual as well as the physical.

[Joe]

The way to ascertain God, i.e. to know Him, is to seek Him with all of
your heart. When you do that, you are guaranteed to find Him. But if
your motive is more to prove that others are wrong or deluded when
they say they have found what they were seeking, then I do not think
you will do as well.

On Jul 26, 9:12 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

Which does not meet the parameters of the request in which we are
provided with an already defined set, and are asking to determine if
it is the set of all even numbers.

> spiritual as well as the physical.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Jul 26, 6:20 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The way to ascertain God, i.e. to know Him, is to seek Him with all of
> your heart.  When you do that, you are guaranteed to find Him.  But if
> your motive is more to prove that others are wrong or deluded when
> they say they have found what they were seeking, then I do not think
> you will do as well.

What is the appropriate method of seeking him (beyond "with all of
your heart")?

>
> On Jul 26, 9:12 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Joe has thusly defined god as:
>
> > "God is infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute,
> > i.e. goodness, being, power, etc."
>
> > So, the follow-up question is (we've struck on some other interesting
> > avenues of discussion, but I would prefer to stick to this):
>
> > Given any entity, how can we determine that it meets the above
> > requirements of being infinite in every perfection?
>
> > I am suspcious that such a task is impossible. Knowing that the set of
> > all natural numbers is infinite I could not, given any specific set of
> > numbers, determine, by any means, that it was the set of all natural
> > numbers.
>

> > So how can we do this for god?- Hide quoted text -

[Joe]

Well, if you are talking about an existing spirit and want to
determine whether it is God or not, it is certainly true that we
couldn't reliably tell, seeing that God is infinite and we are
finite. That is one the reasons Christ descended to earth, to meet us
in the Flesh, so that we would not have to rely on discerning of
spirits. At the same time, there are definite ways to judge whether a
spirit is from God. Saint Ignatius says that if what the spirit
suggests is good in its beginning, and good all the way through, and
good in its end, then it is from God; otherwise, not.

To determine whether something is God: There are Three Persons in
God. God the Father, we cannot reach, since He is the Origin of All.
We can only deduce from an observation of the world and the use of
logic that He must exist. If God is to be manifest to us at all, it
must be in a way intelligible to us, and the Logos, the Original
Intelligence, is the Son who became Incarnate. He, in turn, promised
to be present to us in the Eucharist, so in the case of God the Son,
we can know that something is God the Son because it is the validly
consecrated Eucharist through the Sacrament of Holy Orders in God's
validly ordained priest. Finally, there is God the Holy Spirit, who
is manifest in the creatures He has brought to holiness, His angels
and His saints. Those Saints who are canonized, are given to us by
the Church as examples of holiness of life and humility in the
presence of Almighty God. So to find God, seek holiness, and you are
guaranteed to succeed!

[Drafterman]

I'm not asking how we can judge if something is from God, but is God
itself. This need not necessarily be an existing spirit, but an
existing *anything*. It seems here that you are leaning toward the
notion that we can't do this.

>
> To determine whether something is God: There are Three Persons in
> God.  God the Father, we cannot reach, since He is the Origin of All.
> We can only deduce from an observation of the world and the use of
> logic that He must exist.  If God is to be manifest to us at all, it
> must be in a way intelligible to us, and the Logos, the Original
> Intelligence, is the Son who became Incarnate.  He, in turn, promised
> to be present to us in the Eucharist, so in the case of God the Son,
> we can know that something is God the Son because it is the validly
> consecrated Eucharist through the Sacrament of Holy Orders in God's
> validly ordained priest.

What constitutes a valid concescration?

> Finally, there is God the Holy Spirit, who
> is manifest in the creatures He has brought to holiness, His angels
> and His saints.  Those Saints who are canonized, are given to us by
> the Church as examples of holiness of life and humility in the
> presence of Almighty God.  So to find God, seek holiness, and you are
> guaranteed to succeed!

What constitutes a valid canonization?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Sorry Joe, I'm getting ahead of myself. You are talking about a
specific incarnation of a god, specifically God.

How can we determine that God is a god in that he is: "infinite in

every perfection that is an absolute attribute,
i.e. goodness, being, power, etc."

[Alan Wostenberg]

On Jul 27, 6:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:20 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The way to ascertain God, i.e. to know Him, is to seek Him with all of
> > your heart.  When you do that, you are guaranteed to find Him.  But if
> > your motive is more to prove that others are wrong or deluded when
> > they say they have found what they were seeking, then I do not think
> > you will do as well.
>
> What is the appropriate method of seeking him (beyond "with all of
> your heart")?

With all your mind, too. A god who did not appeal to intellect would
be unworthy of adoration.

Begin by critically examining the core assumption of polytheists and,
it seems atheists: is God a god?
Any entity that is a member of a class is differentiated from others
of that class by what they have and it lacks. X and Y are gods because
X has something Y lacks, and Y has something X lacks. Otherwise they
would be the /same/ entity. If God were a god as the polytheists
believe, then God would be differentiated from the other gods by what
he lacks. But God is lacks for nothing. Consequently God is not a god.

If we are thinking about anything of which there could be a plurality,
we are not thinking about The God, but some lesser thing.

So "ascertaining God" as an atheist begins with thinking about the
same Entity in which believers believe, but as one devoid of religious
faith. Let us be atheists with respect to the gods of polytheism! Let
us think about You, Oh God, who are neither a god, an alien, nor an
angel.

[Trance Gemini]

Hi Alan,

Does your god have a magical Hammer?

If not, that would make him different Thor who does but is not Omnibenevolent.

Your god, has omnibenevolence but lacks a magical Hammer.

Thor has a magical Hammer but lacks omnibenevolence.

Both are members of the god class with different properties.

--
"Anti-theism at it's best means holding religion to the same standard as everything else." --Dev

[Herbie]

> Any entity that is a member of a class is differentiated from others
> of that class by what they have and it lacks. X and Y are gods because
> X has something Y lacks, and Y has something X lacks. Otherwise they
> would be the /same/ entity.  If God were a god as the polytheists
> believe, then God would be differentiated from the other gods by what
> he lacks. But God is lacks for nothing. Consequently God is not a god.

But your god has qualities such as 'goodness so that he lacks the
ability to do evil. I can imagine a god that has everything your god
has plus the ability to do evil. Therefore your god is a memeber of a
class.

[Alan Wostenberg]

Suppose God gave the gift of existence to Thor, and that magic hammer
Mjollnir. Yes Mjollnir is now in Thor's posession, just as that hammer
my wife gave me for Christmas once is in mine.

But remember hammers -- no less than angels, aliens, gods, or anything
else of which there could be a plurality -- are continually dependent
on The One who sustains them in being. If The God withdrew his gift of
existence these creatures would instantly collapse into nothingness
like a lung deprived of air. Help us, Oh God, to think about you as
atheists, not deists.

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Suppose God gave the gift of existence to Thor, and that magic hammer
Mjollnir. Yes Mjollnir is now in Thor's posession, just as that hammer
my wife gave me for Christmas once is in mine.

Thor appears to have existed before your God so I'm not sure how this would work?

However, for the sake of argument let's look at Durga.

Did he also create Durga, an incarnation of Parvati who is Shiva's wife, Shiva being an incarnation of the Brahma which is the god that created everything?

Seems to me there's a little competition here for the status of Creator of the Universe.

Durga is the Demon fighter goddess.

Then there's Cernobog, Slavic God of Evil.

Did your God *create* Cernobog?

(Thanks Herbie :-)

[Joe]

We can't judge whether Christ is God. But we can receive it from God
in Faith.

We can find support for our act of Faith in the character of Christ,
who was literally all-good. Since no one can convict Him of sin, and
since He claimed to be the One sent from the Father, it stands to
reason that either He is who He says He is, or something doesn't add
up. If He was good in every other way, then why would He lie about
who He is?

>
>
> > To determine whether something is God: There are Three Persons in
> > God.  God the Father, we cannot reach, since He is the Origin of All.
> > We can only deduce from an observation of the world and the use of
> > logic that He must exist.  If God is to be manifest to us at all, it
> > must be in a way intelligible to us, and the Logos, the Original
> > Intelligence, is the Son who became Incarnate.  He, in turn, promised
> > to be present to us in the Eucharist, so in the case of God the Son,
> > we can know that something is God the Son because it is the validly
> > consecrated Eucharist through the Sacrament of Holy Orders in God's
> > validly ordained priest.
>
> What constitutes a valid concescration?
>

Google is your friend.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea4.asp

> > Finally, there is God the Holy Spirit, who
> > is manifest in the creatures He has brought to holiness, His angels
> > and His saints.  Those Saints who are canonized, are given to us by
> > the Church as examples of holiness of life and humility in the
> > presence of Almighty God.  So to find God, seek holiness, and you are
> > guaranteed to succeed!
>
> What constitutes a valid canonization?
>

http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Beatification_and_Canonization

[Drafterman]

On Jul 31, 1:13 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 26, 6:20 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The way to ascertain God, i.e. to know Him, is to seek Him with all of
> > > your heart.  When you do that, you are guaranteed to find Him.  But if
> > > your motive is more to prove that others are wrong or deluded when
> > > they say they have found what they were seeking, then I do not think
> > > you will do as well.
>
> > What is the appropriate method of seeking him (beyond "with all of
> > your heart")?
>
> With all your mind, too. A god who did not appeal to intellect would
> be unworthy of adoration.

Interesting. Unfortunately for me, my mind is inexorably fixated on
governing many involuntarily biological functions. Do you have advice
as to how I could redirect those portions of my mind to seek God
whilst remaining alive?

>
> Begin by critically examining the core assumption of polytheists and,
> it seems atheists: is God a god?

Yes, that is my question.

> Any entity that is a member of a class is differentiated from others
> of that class by what they have and it lacks. X and Y are gods because
> X has something Y lacks, and Y has something X lacks.

I've already criticized this description before. For two things to be
distinct it is only necessary for one to lack anything. It is not
necessary for both to lack something.

Example:
{1,2}, {1}

These are two distinct sets, but the first does not lack anything the
second has.

> Otherwise they
> would be the /same/ entity.

Again, incorrect. A possible scenario is that X has something Y lacks,
but Y does not have something that X lacks, for X lacks nothing.

> If God were a god as the polytheists
> believe, then God would be differentiated from the other gods by what
> he lacks. But God is lacks for nothing.

Even if we ignore my above objections, there *are* things God lacks
that other gods have.

> Consequently God is not a god.

I think you need to fix the errors in your reasoning before we can
accept this conclusion.

>
> If we are thinking about anything of which there could be a plurality,
> we are not thinking about The God, but some lesser thing.
>
> So "ascertaining God" as an atheist begins with thinking about the
> same Entity in which believers believe, but as one devoid of religious
> faith. Let us be atheists with respect to the gods of polytheism! Let
> us think about You, Oh God, who are neither a god, an alien, nor an
> angel.

My request could have easily been reworded as: "Does God actually have
the qualities his believers assign to him?" With no loss in meaning.

>
>
>
> > > On Jul 26, 9:12 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Joe has thusly defined god as:
>
> > > > "God is infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute,
> > > > i.e. goodness, being, power, etc."
>
> > > > So, the follow-up question is (we've struck on some other interesting
> > > > avenues of discussion, but I would prefer to stick to this):
>
> > > > Given any entity, how can we determine that it meets the above
> > > > requirements of being infinite in every perfection?
>
> > > > I am suspcious that such a task is impossible. Knowing that the set of
> > > > all natural numbers is infinite I could not, given any specific set of
> > > > numbers, determine, by any means, that it was the set of all natural
> > > > numbers.
>
> > > > So how can we do this for god?- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

Thanks.

[Joe]

On Aug 2, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 31, 1:13 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 6:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 26, 6:20 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The way to ascertain God, i.e. to know Him, is to seek Him with all of
> > > > your heart.  When you do that, you are guaranteed to find Him.  But if
> > > > your motive is more to prove that others are wrong or deluded when
> > > > they say they have found what they were seeking, then I do not think
> > > > you will do as well.
>
> > > What is the appropriate method of seeking him (beyond "with all of
> > > your heart")?
>
> > With all your mind, too. A god who did not appeal to intellect would
> > be unworthy of adoration.
>
> Interesting. Unfortunately for me, my mind is inexorably fixated on
> governing many involuntarily biological functions. Do you have advice
> as to how I could redirect those portions of my mind to seek God
> whilst remaining alive?
>

You are stretching the definition of 'mind' here. It is your body,
not your mind, that governs your involuntary biological functions.
The mind is not the same thing as the brain.

[Drafterman]

On Aug 2, 12:41 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 31, 1:13 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 6:18 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 26, 6:20 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The way to ascertain God, i.e. to know Him, is to seek Him with all of
> > > > > your heart.  When you do that, you are guaranteed to find Him.  But if
> > > > > your motive is more to prove that others are wrong or deluded when
> > > > > they say they have found what they were seeking, then I do not think
> > > > > you will do as well.
>
> > > > What is the appropriate method of seeking him (beyond "with all of
> > > > your heart")?
>
> > > With all your mind, too. A god who did not appeal to intellect would
> > > be unworthy of adoration.
>
> > Interesting. Unfortunately for me, my mind is inexorably fixated on
> > governing many involuntarily biological functions. Do you have advice
> > as to how I could redirect those portions of my mind to seek God
> > whilst remaining alive?
>
> You are stretching the definition of 'mind' here.  It is your body,
> not your mind, that governs your involuntary biological functions.
> The mind is not the same thing as the brain.

Ok, I'll grant a bit of stretching, though not necessarily for the
reasons you state.

Nevertheless, I still don't know how to focus ALL of my mind on a
single task, nor for how long, nor how to conceptualize the task I am
supposed to be focusing on. Nor does the response: "With all your mind
[and heart]" actually answer the question: "What is the appropriate
method of seeking [God]?"; At least no more so than "With all your
car" answers the question: "How do I get to your house from mine?"

[Joe]

I've presented an infallible method of seeking and finding God, here,
in the past, and I have no problem presenting it again.

Pray the rosary, and attend Mass. Those are the main practices that
will lead you to knowledge of the Truth. To supplement that, read the
Saints.

When praying the rosary and attending Mass, don't just go through the
motions. Do it with the intention of converting from your sins. As
God converts you from your sins, He will lead you more and more into
understanding the Truth. You have an agenda, which hopefully includes
discovering the truth about God. God also has an agenda, which
definitely includes your conversion from all of your sins. Co-
operating with Him in that, is seeking Him with your whole mind and
heart. And the graces necessary to convert you from your sins will be
granted you through your praying of the rosary and attending Mass.

[Drafterman]

Except I have found fault with that. I consider it possible, through
such repetition, to make one's self more amenable to believing such
things *regardless of their truth.* Through what means can I ensure
that this method necessarily results in a true belief, rather than one
I have conditioned myself to belief?

> Those are the main practices that
> will lead you to knowledge of the Truth.  To supplement that, read the
> Saints.
>
> When praying the rosary and attending Mass, don't just go through the
> motions.  Do it with the intention of converting from your sins.

Believing that I've sinned is predicated on the notion that there
exists some god for which it is possible to sin against. I can hardly
use this as a starting point in which to find and validate such a god.

[Joe]

The beauty of this method is that it is practical. You are looking
for a practical result. If a particular practice has a definite
effect, then that practice is efficacious in achieving that effect.
Thus the question of whether a particular philosophical position is
"true" or "not true," is both answered and rendered irrelevant by the
more important definite result of a practice.

I said, "both answered and rendered irrelevant." We can examine each
of these. In practical matters, the relevance of a question is
determined by its effect on the outcome of the practice. Now, whether
or not, for example, the mysteries of the rosary are actual historical
events, it is documented fact that meditating on those mysteries as
part of the devotion of the rosary has the effect of altering the
meditator's behavior over time. That is a practical effect, that
trumps the question of the historical accuracy of the events contained
in those meditations that are part of the practice. If the practice
has its desired effect, then the practice has its desired effect.
That fact is independent of other facts regarding the historical
accuracy or lack thereof of the content of the meditations that
produce that desired effect. And at the same time, the fact that the
practice of those meditations does produce the desired effect,
strongly supports the case for the historical accuracy of the content
of those meditations. It is unlikely that the desired effect would be
so consistently achieved, if the basis of the producing of that effect
were a fiction. So, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating
thereof." But even if the unlikely scenario were true, namely that
the content of these meditations were fictions, then the practical
upshot of that would be that it is a good thing to meditate on these
fictions, since meditating on these fictions has the desired effect of
converting one from one's sins.

> > Those are the main practices that
> > will lead you to knowledge of the Truth.  To supplement that, read the
> > Saints.
>
> > When praying the rosary and attending Mass, don't just go through the
> > motions.  Do it with the intention of converting from your sins.
>
> Believing that I've sinned is predicated on the notion that there
> exists some god for which it is possible to sin against. I can hardly
> use this as a starting point in which to find and validate such a god.

Fortunately for us, sin is easily defined without reference to God, as
morally wrong action.

If you never commit any morally wrong actions, then you are already a
perfect person and have no need of religion. But I very much doubt
that that is the case with you. I believe with much confidence that
you are a sinner like everyone else. The categories of sin are pride,
anger, lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth. Whenever you allow one of
those things to govern your behavior rather than love, you sin. To
allow love and only love to govern your behavior 100% of the time, is
not to sin at all. So until such time as that becomes true of you,
you can consider yourself a sinner.

Heaven is that condition in which one commits no sin at all, but only
loves, 100% of the time. If that is an attainable goal, then
certainly it is a worthy goal. But it becomes evident, when one
actually tries it, that it is not attainable under our own power. And
that is why we need God to help us, and need the Church, since the
Church consists in God's helps of us.

It is fine to live your life the best you can and try to be a decent
person. Lots of people do that, but the world is still filled with
suffering. To seek to be a decent person is good, but it is not
perfection, and since it is not perfection it is imperfection, and
since it is imperfection, it has the effect of allowing suffering in
the world, and it does not take that suffering away. Those who are in
heaven are perfect, having been perfected by God. God desires to lead
all of us to perfection, so that there will be no more suffering in
the world, but only love. So because there is God, and because He has
given us His Church, there is the attainable goal of the perfection of
living in love 100% of the time. Without God and His Church, that
goal is simply unattainable. So there is nothing to be gained by
disbelieving in God and in His Church. Disbelieving will not bring us
any closer to the goal. The most that disbelieving can do is to avoid
the possibility of believing something that isn't true, but at the
same time it also prevents one from believing something that is true.
You can't just blanketly disbelieve without risking disbelieving the
actual truth. So since the goal is eminently worthy, disbelieving
seem practically foolish. The risk of believing something untrue is
not all that much of a risk compared with the risk of disbelieving
something true and missing out, as a consequence, on something very
very good. Especially in light of the fact that the practice has
already been demonstrated to have its effect.

[Drafterman]

Hey, no argument there, save the last statement of "more important
definite result of practice." I fail to see how practicality is more
important than infallibility. It would seem that the latter would
subsume the former and it is to the latter I was addressing. In that
context the question is neither answered nor rendered irrelevant.
While I'm certainly not looking for infallibility I am, nevertheless
concerned with fallibility. Then again, you put it out there.

>
> I said, "both answered and rendered irrelevant."  We can examine each
> of these.  In practical matters, the relevance of a question is
> determined by its effect on the outcome of the practice.  Now, whether
> or not, for example, the mysteries of the rosary are actual historical
> events, it is documented fact that meditating on those mysteries as
> part of the devotion of the rosary has the effect of altering the
> meditator's behavior over time.  That is a practical effect, that
> trumps the question of the historical accuracy of the events contained
> in those meditations that are part of the practice.  If the practice
> has its desired effect, then the practice has its desired effect.
> That fact is independent of other facts regarding the historical
> accuracy or lack thereof of the content of the meditations that
> produce that desired effect.  And at the same time, the fact that the
> practice of those meditations does produce the desired effect,
> strongly supports the case for the historical accuracy of the content
> of those meditations.  It is unlikely that the desired effect would be
> so consistently achieved, if the basis of the producing of that effect
> were a fiction.  So, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating
> thereof."  But even if the unlikely scenario were true, namely that
> the content of these meditations were fictions, then the practical
> upshot of that would be that it is a good thing to meditate on these
> fictions, since meditating on these fictions has the desired effect of
> converting one from one's sins.

Ok. Got it. We can consider the matters of practicality a closed book.
Now let's address matters of infallibility, shall we?

>
> > > Those are the main practices that
> > > will lead you to knowledge of the Truth.  To supplement that, read the
> > > Saints.
>
> > > When praying the rosary and attending Mass, don't just go through the
> > > motions.  Do it with the intention of converting from your sins.
>
> > Believing that I've sinned is predicated on the notion that there
> > exists some god for which it is possible to sin against. I can hardly
> > use this as a starting point in which to find and validate such a god.
>
> Fortunately for us, sin is easily defined without reference to God, as
> morally wrong action.
>
> If you never commit any morally wrong actions, then you are already a
> perfect person and have no need of religion.  But I very much doubt
> that that is the case with you.  I believe with much confidence that
> you are a sinner like everyone else.  The categories of sin are pride,
> anger, lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth.

According to whom?

[Joe]

The solution is simple. Take up the practice! Then you will find, as
all those before you who have done the same have found, that the
practice does infallibly attain the goal.

Done. In the words of one of the prayers of the Church,

"Never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored
thy help or sought thine intercession, was left unaided."

>
>
> > > > Those are the main practices that
> > > > will lead you to knowledge of the Truth.  To supplement that, read the
> > > > Saints.
>
> > > > When praying the rosary and attending Mass, don't just go through the
> > > > motions.  Do it with the intention of converting from your sins.
>
> > > Believing that I've sinned is predicated on the notion that there
> > > exists some god for which it is possible to sin against. I can hardly
> > > use this as a starting point in which to find and validate such a god.
>
> > Fortunately for us, sin is easily defined without reference to God, as
> > morally wrong action.
>
> > If you never commit any morally wrong actions, then you are already a
> > perfect person and have no need of religion.  But I very much doubt
> > that that is the case with you.  I believe with much confidence that
> > you are a sinner like everyone else.  The categories of sin are pride,
> > anger, lust, greed, envy, gluttony, sloth.
>
> According to whom?

According to you if you think about it. All wrongdoing falls into one
or more of those categories. You may test this at your leisure, by
seeking a counterexample. If you can provide a solitary
counterexample, of a morally wrong action that does not fall into one
of those seven categories, I will renounce the Catholic Faith.

[Drafterman]

I don't doubt that it will attain the goal of me believing that God is
a god and all the trappings thereof. I'm looking for a method that
will result in that if and only if such a thing is actually true. This
method seems to miss the mark.

I have, and I disagree.

> All wrongdoing falls into one
> or more of those categories.

But I don't consider everything that falls into one of those
categories to be wrong doing.

> You may test this at your leisure, by
> seeking a counterexample.  If you can provide a solitary
> counterexample, of a morally wrong action that does not fall into one
> of those seven categories, I will renounce the Catholic Faith.

I'm pretty sure that vague enough language can be used to shoehorn any
act into one of those categories, but I'll take the challenge:

Human sacrifice.

[Joe]

No, actually, it would steer you away from that particular false
interpretation. God is not 'a god.'

> I'm looking for a method that
> will result in that if and only if such a thing is actually true. This
> method seems to miss the mark.
>

The goal is your conversion from your sin. If you aren't interested,
then it is fairly irrelevant, what else you *are* seeking. Either you
seek your conversion from your sin or you do not.

Name something that does fall into those categories that isn't a sin.

> > You may test this at your leisure, by
> > seeking a counterexample.  If you can provide a solitary
> > counterexample, of a morally wrong action that does not fall into one
> > of those seven categories, I will renounce the Catholic Faith.
>
> I'm pretty sure that vague enough language can be used to shoehorn any
> act into one of those categories, but I'll take the challenge:
>
> Human sacrifice.

That is a sin of pride in that it is a false religious practice. It
is a sin of anger in that it is violence against another human being.
And since nothing is done for no reason, the motive of the human
sacrifice makes it a sin of lust, or gluttony, or greed, depending on
why they are doing it. Also, to deprive someone of what legitimately
belongs to them is a sin of envy, and human sacrifice unjustly
deprives the victim of his life. And finally, since human sacrifice
is an act of ignorance, to willfully remain in such ignorance is a sin
of sloth.

So it seems that your example potentially falls into all seven
categories of sin, but primarily it is a sin of envy, the deliberate
taking away of what properly belongs to someone else, in this case
their life.

[Drafterman]

Sure he is.

>
> > I'm looking for a method that
> > will result in that if and only if such a thing is actually true. This
> > method seems to miss the mark.
>
> The goal is your conversion from your sin.

No it isn't. The goal is determining whether or not God is a god
according to the definition stated at the beginning of this thread.

> If you aren't interested,
> then it is fairly irrelevant, what else you *are* seeking.  Either you
> seek your conversion from your sin or you do not.

I seek a way to determine whether or not the God you put forth as a
god (in accordance with the definition at the beginning of this
thread) is actually a god. If you dislike "God as a god" then I will
reword:

I seek a way to determine whether or not the God you put forth "is

infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute, i.e.
goodness, being, power, etc."

>
>
>

I can't do that since you are defining sin as that which falls into
those categories. Alternatively, I will name something that does fall
into those categories that I do not consider to be "wrongdoing." For
example, euthanasia.

>
> > > You may test this at your leisure, by
> > > seeking a counterexample.  If you can provide a solitary
> > > counterexample, of a morally wrong action that does not fall into one
> > > of those seven categories, I will renounce the Catholic Faith.
>
> > I'm pretty sure that vague enough language can be used to shoehorn any
> > act into one of those categories, but I'll take the challenge:
>
> > Human sacrifice.
>
> That is a sin of pride in that it is a false religious practice. It
> is a sin of anger in that it is violence against another human being.
> And since nothing is done for no reason, the motive of the human
> sacrifice makes it a sin of lust, or gluttony, or greed, depending on
> why they are doing it.
> Also, to deprive someone of what legitimately
> belongs to them is a sin of envy, and human sacrifice unjustly
> deprives the victim of his life.
> And finally, since human sacrifice
> is an act of ignorance, to willfully remain in such ignorance is a sin
> of sloth.
>
> So it seems that your example potentially falls into all seven
> categories of sin, but primarily it is a sin of envy, the deliberate
> taking away of what properly belongs to someone else, in this case
> their life.

Rather, you've proved my point that vague enough language can be used
to mean anything. Your simple statements that it falls into those
categories is hardly compelling, I was hoping you would provide some
underlying logic, if not a clear statement of what those terms mean.
But I can continue to play.

To rememdy pride:
Humility is the opposite of pride. Supplication is an act of humility.
They are performing this sacrifice as an act of supplication.
To rememdy anger (via violence):
Violence requires force. The sacrifice goes willingly, in accordance
with the customs of his people. He is not forced.
To rememdy lust, gluttony, or greed:
This is a sacrificial act done to please their god, it is not out of
love of flesh (lust), food (gluttony), or material things (greed).
To rememdy envy:
The sacrifice is going willingly, thus he deprives himself is life,
which you say is rightfully his.

[Joe]

If you are going to contradict what someone who knows more about it
than you tells you, you should at least support your contradiction
with some argument to the effect. Otherwise, you come off as simply
intransigent.

We are forbidden to worship gods by the First Commandment. Part of
the reason for that is that we are gods, according to Scripture, and
it is inappropriate to worship our equals.

God is not a god.

>
>

> > > I'm looking for a method that
> > > will result in that if and only if such a thing is actually true. This
> > > method seems to miss the mark.
>
> > The goal is your conversion from your sin.
>
> No it isn't. The goal is determining whether or not God is a god
> according to the definition stated at the beginning of this thread.
>

That definition was falsely attributed by you as a definition of
'god.' Actually, it was a definition of Almighty God, not a 'god.'

Please don't tell me that this whoe thread is a straw man on your
part.

> > If you aren't interested,
> > then it is fairly irrelevant, what else you *are* seeking.  Either you
> > seek your conversion from your sin or you do not.
>
> I seek a way to determine whether or not the God you put forth as a
> god (in accordance with the definition at the beginning of this
> thread) is actually a god. If you dislike "God as a god" then I will
> reword:
>
> I seek a way to determine whether or not the God you put forth "is
> infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute, i.e.
> goodness, being, power, etc."
>

O.K., that is fine. Get to know Him. That is how you can determine
that.

You won't ever "conclude," because, being infinite, God will never be
fully known by you. But if you seek to know Him, you will become more
and more certain that He is as He says He is, which is what you say
you want to determine.

You are using an example of something controversial. It is not in
fact the common consensus of the human race that euthanasia is morally
correct. If there is reparative value in human suffering, then ending
that suffering when God wishes it to continue is morally wrong. You
might just as well have brought up abortion. Before you could
legitimately insist on either of those example, you would have to
demonstrate that euthanasia (or abortion) is, in fact, morally
correct, and I don't think you can do that.

The best you can say is that they are doing it out of ignorance of
what is truly pleasing to God. Not knowing God, they are trying to
please some 'god' who they think wants human sacrifices. But why are
they trying to please him? Not for the authentic motive of religion,
which is to please God because He deserves to be pleased; but rather,
to gain something from the god. Any gain that they would be seeking,
at the expense of a human life, would fall into the category of lust,
gluttony, or greed. You are mixing what you know of Catholic Doctrine
with what you know of aboriginal religion. That is not legitimate.
They do not have theology sufficiently advanced to seek pleasing God
for His own sake. Invariably, they are courting favor from their
'gods.' Not the same thing.

[Drafterman]

I'm using your definition, simply with a different label, and then
associating it with your original label. I'm pretty sure that makes it
logically impossible for me to be contradicting you, unless you are
contradicting yourself. I've done this since I agree with Alan
regarding the definition of proper noun identities. You can't define,
for example, George Washington. You can describe him.

>
> We are forbidden to worship gods by the First Commandment.  Part of
> the reason for that is that we are gods, according to Scripture, and
> it is inappropriate to worship our equals.

But I am not talking "according to Scripture".

>
> God is not a god.
>
>
>
> > > > I'm looking for a method that
> > > > will result in that if and only if such a thing is actually true. This
> > > > method seems to miss the mark.
>
> > > The goal is your conversion from your sin.
>
> > No it isn't. The goal is determining whether or not God is a god
> > according to the definition stated at the beginning of this thread.
>
> That definition was falsely attributed by you as a definition of
> 'god.'  Actually, it was a definition of Almighty God, not a 'god.'
>
> Please don't tell me that this whoe thread is a straw man on your
> part.

Ok, I won't tell you that.

>
> > > If you aren't interested,
> > > then it is fairly irrelevant, what else you *are* seeking.  Either you
> > > seek your conversion from your sin or you do not.
>
> > I seek a way to determine whether or not the God you put forth as a
> > god (in accordance with the definition at the beginning of this
> > thread) is actually a god. If you dislike "God as a god" then I will
> > reword:
>
> > I seek a way to determine whether or not the God you put forth "is
> > infinite in every perfection that is an absolute attribute, i.e.
> > goodness, being, power, etc."
>
> O.K., that is fine.  Get to know Him.  That is how you can determine
> that.

Again, about as useful as me asking how to get to your house from mine
and you answering, "By driving there."

>
> You won't ever "conclude," because, being infinite, God will never be
> fully known by you.

You seem to be alternating between not being able to make this
determination and providing me with a method as to how I can make this
determination. Which is it?

> But if you seek to know Him, you will become more
> and more certain that He is as He says He is, which is what you say
> you want to determine.

Ok. And how can I do that?

I don't need to do that. All I need to do is demonstrate that there
are things which Christians thinks is morally wrong that I don't.

No, I will assign them the motive of trying to please God because he
deserves to be pleased.

> Any gain that they would be seeking,
> at the expense of a human life, would fall into the category of lust,
> gluttony, or greed.  You are mixing what you know of Catholic Doctrine
> with what you know of aboriginal religion.

Ok. So?

>  That is not legitimate.

It's my hypothetical scenario. It's legitimate by my statement to that
fact.

> They do not have theology sufficiently advanced to seek pleasing God
> for His own sake.  Invariably, they are courting favor from their
> 'gods.'  Not the same thing.

Ok, it's not the same thing. In my scenario they aren't doing the
latter.

[Joe]

God is a unique case. There may be many human beings called "George
Washington," and one of those human beings was the first U.S.
president. But what he is, is a human being.

The word, "God," apart from being a proper noun, also refers to the
Original Being, the unique Creator of heaven and earth. You could
also be talking about Grace Slick's son, but we aren't.

You wanted to know how to find God, and I told you. There isn't much
more to say about that, all that remains is for you to take up the
practice that leads to knowing God.

>
>
> > We are forbidden to worship gods by the First Commandment.  Part of
> > the reason for that is that we are gods, according to Scripture, and
> > it is inappropriate to worship our equals.
>
> But I am not talking "according to Scripture".
>

I am talking about why we do not call God "a god." The word, 'god,'
lower case, may still be useful, and one of the ways in which it may
be useful is to recognize that it applies, not to some nebulous beings
we are supposed to worship, but to ourselves. That is reality --- we
are gods. It also states the same in Holy Scripture. But I am
talking about reality.

I already explained to you exactly how to come to know God. All that
remains is for you to do it. Sadly, you aren't about to.

>
>
> > You won't ever "conclude," because, being infinite, God will never be
> > fully known by you.
>
> You seem to be alternating between not being able to make this
> determination and providing me with a method as to how I can make this
> determination. Which is it?
>

You are not supposed to be testing for God. God undeniably exists,
since we can see that the universe exists, and not from itself. You
are supposed to be seeking Him with all your heart and soul,
remember? But unfortunately for you, as I've observed, you aren't
about to begin doing that. You really didn't want an answer, you just
wanted something to refute.

> > But if you seek to know Him, you will become more
> > and more certain that He is as He says He is, which is what you say
> > you want to determine.
>
> Ok. And how can I do that?
>

Pray the rosary and attend Mass, with the goal of obtaining your
conversion from your sins.

You are not the arbiter of morality. Unless you can provide an
example that we both agree on, you haven't made your point, except
perhaps to yourself, but you already believe you so what is the use of
that?

Present as many fictions as you like, but don't expect that they will
carry weight.

> > Any gain that they would be seeking,
> > at the expense of a human life, would fall into the category of lust,
> > gluttony, or greed.  You are mixing what you know of Catholic Doctrine
> > with what you know of aboriginal religion.
>
> Ok. So?
>

So that isn't valid.

> >  That is not legitimate.
>
> It's my hypothetical scenario. It's legitimate by my statement to that
> fact.
>

Impossible scenarios can certainly be hypothesized, but they don't
apply to reality, so why should we bother discussing them?

> > They do not have theology sufficiently advanced to seek pleasing God
> > for His own sake.  Invariably, they are courting favor from their
> > 'gods.'  Not the same thing.
>
> Ok, it's not the same thing. In my scenario they aren't doing the
> latter.

Your scenario is fictitious.

[Drafterman]

Ok, but I don't care why you, or anyone else doesn't do that. I'm
doing that here and now.

> The word, 'god,'
> lower case, may still be useful, and one of the ways in which it may
> be useful is to recognize that it applies, not to some nebulous beings
> we are supposed to worship, but to ourselves.

Or I can use it as a placeholder as I've done here.

According to what standard?

> God undeniably exists,
> since we can see that the universe exists, and not from itself.

I deny that God exists. Nor do I see that the universe necessarily
exists "not from itself"

> You
> are supposed to be seeking Him with all your heart and soul,
> remember?

To be fair, the directions were with my mind and heart. Soul hasn't
been mentioned yet. I'm not even convinced that I have something
called a "soul". But I've already explained that these directions are
as useful as telling me that I can get from my house to yours be
driving with "all my car".

>  But unfortunately for you, as I've observed, you aren't
> about to begin doing that.

No, as I don't know how. I don't know how to do anything with all my
mind, heart, or soul.

> You really didn't want an answer, you just
> wanted something to refute.
>
> > > But if you seek to know Him, you will become more
> > > and more certain that He is as He says He is, which is what you say
> > > you want to determine.
>
> > Ok. And how can I do that?
>
> Pray the rosary and attend Mass, with the goal of obtaining your
> conversion from your sins.

Which, I have already admitted, can probably get me to belief. But you
claim that this is a path to knowledge, which additionally requires
justification. Since this method can lead to belief irrespective of
the truth of that belief, wherein lies the justification necessary to
call that belief knowledge?

Who is?

> Unless you can provide an
> example that we both agree on, you haven't made your point, except
> perhaps to yourself, but you already believe you so what is the use of
> that?

Actually no, you've seem to lost track of the conversation. At this
particular point I am simply naming "something that does fall into
those categories [of seven deadly sins] that I do not consider to be
"wrongdoing." All your agreement is required for is whether or not it
falls into one of those categories, not whether it is morally
acceptable. If you disagree that euthanasia falls in one of those
seven categories I will provide some more suggestions:

Abortion, suicide, being an atheist, taking God's name in vain.

Do you believe that any of the above fall into one or more of those
categories?

According to what standard?

>
> > >  That is not legitimate.
>
> > It's my hypothetical scenario. It's legitimate by my statement to that
> > fact.
>
> Impossible scenarios can certainly be hypothesized, but they don't
> apply to reality, so why should we bother discussing them?

What makes this scenario impossible?

>
> > > They do not have theology sufficiently advanced to seek pleasing God
> > > for His own sake.  Invariably, they are courting favor from their
> > > 'gods.'  Not the same thing.
>
> > Ok, it's not the same thing. In my scenario they aren't doing the
> > latter.
>
> Your scenario is fictitious.

Well, yes, it is. It seems you are of the mind that hypotheticals
aren't of any value. Maxwell's demon is fictitious but, nevertheless,
it provides useful and valuable insight into thermodynamics.

[Joe]

You are of course free to abuse the English language if you like. The
thought police and the speech police aren't going to come and get you
for that.

> > The word, 'god,'
> > lower case, may still be useful, and one of the ways in which it may
> > be useful is to recognize that it applies, not to some nebulous beings
> > we are supposed to worship, but to ourselves.
>
> Or I can use it as a placeholder as I've done here.
>

But words, aren't variables, to be used at random as placeholders.
Words carry meaning. You can't use the meaning of the word 'god' for
one who is not a god.

Practicality. Since testing for God patently does not work, and in
fact leads to one's own inner confusion, it is an unwise thing to do.

> > God undeniably exists,
> > since we can see that the universe exists, and not from itself.
>
> I deny that God exists.

Not reasonably.

>Nor do I see that the universe necessarily
> exists "not from itself"
>

Perhaps you haven't considered the question deeply enough.

> > You
> > are supposed to be seeking Him with all your heart and soul,
> > remember?
>
> To be fair, the directions were with my mind and heart.

Your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind, and all your
strength. But you do enjoy to nitpick, don't you?

>Soul hasn't
> been mentioned yet. I'm not even convinced that I have something
> called a "soul".

Which body part is susceptible to conviction or the lack thereof?
Matter cannot possibly form an opinion.

>But I've already explained that these directions are
> as useful as telling me that I can get from my house to yours be
> driving with "all my car".
>

And as useless, since you aren't about to do it. We are only spinning
our wheels here, due to your intransigence.

> >  But unfortunately for you, as I've observed, you aren't
> > about to begin doing that.
>
> No, as I don't know how. I don't know how to do anything with all my
> mind, heart, or soul.
>

I've told you, so if you don't know how still, it is not because it
hasn't been explained to you, but for some other reason.

> > You really didn't want an answer, you just
> > wanted something to refute.
>

^ ^ ^
I bet that is a big part of the reason.

> > > > But if you seek to know Him, you will become more
> > > > and more certain that He is as He says He is, which is what you say
> > > > you want to determine.
>
> > > Ok. And how can I do that?
>
> > Pray the rosary and attend Mass, with the goal of obtaining your
> > conversion from your sins.
>
> Which, I have already admitted, can probably get me to belief.

Then you're golden! What more could you possibly want?

>But you
> claim that this is a path to knowledge, which additionally requires
> justification.

Faith leads to knowledge.

>Since this method can lead to belief irrespective of
> the truth of that belief, wherein lies the justification necessary to
> call that belief knowledge?
>

The fact that it works.

God. Duh.

> > Unless you can provide an
> > example that we both agree on, you haven't made your point, except
> > perhaps to yourself, but you already believe you so what is the use of
> > that?
>
> Actually no, you've seem to lost track of the conversation. At this
> particular point I am simply naming "something that does fall into
> those categories [of seven deadly sins] that I do not consider to be
> "wrongdoing." All your agreement is required for is whether or not it
> falls into one of those categories, not whether it is morally
> acceptable. If you disagree that euthanasia falls in one of those
> seven categories I will provide some more suggestions:
>
> Abortion, suicide, being an atheist, taking God's name in vain.
>

All sins.

> Do you believe that any of the above fall into one or more of those
> categories?
>

Of course. All sin falls into one or more of those categories. You
were supposed to be naming something that *isn't* a sin, that falls
into them.

So now we see that you cannot.

Accurate reasoning.

>
>
> > > >  That is not legitimate.
>
> > > It's my hypothetical scenario. It's legitimate by my statement to that
> > > fact.
>
> > Impossible scenarios can certainly be hypothesized, but they don't
> > apply to reality, so why should we bother discussing them?
>
> What makes this scenario impossible?
>

The fact that if there ever were one of those aboriginals who
correctly reasoned that God should be pleased for His sake alone, God
would know about it, and would infallibly lead that one away from the
false religion of human sacrifice. Just as He did with Noah, and with
Abraham. Those who seek God with all their hearts, do infallibly find
Him. God guarantees it. So it is impossible that anyone in a
religion based on such atrocities as human sacrifice, seeks God with
his whole heart, and then remains in that religion.

>
>
> > > > They do not have theology sufficiently advanced to seek pleasing God
> > > > for His own sake.  Invariably, they are courting favor from their
> > > > 'gods.'  Not the same thing.
>
> > > Ok, it's not the same thing. In my scenario they aren't doing the
> > > latter.
>
> > Your scenario is fictitious.
>
> Well, yes, it is. It seems you are of the mind that hypotheticals
> aren't of any value. Maxwell's demon is fictitious but, nevertheless,
> it provides useful and valuable insight into thermodynamics.

What insight are you trying to provide into theology here?

[Drafterman]

If I'm free to do what I'm doing, and what I'm doing hasn't altered
the meaning of anything said, and my rewording makes it clear what I
want, what are you bitching about?

>
> > > The word, 'god,'
> > > lower case, may still be useful, and one of the ways in which it may
> > > be useful is to recognize that it applies, not to some nebulous beings
> > > we are supposed to worship, but to ourselves.
>
> > Or I can use it as a placeholder as I've done here.
>
> But words, aren't variables, to be used at random as placeholders.

Except that's exactly what they are.

Ok Joe, let's make this clear. I want to determine whether or not God
has the attributes you claim he has regarding infinite perfection. Can
this be done such that I'm justified in believing it?

>
> > > God undeniably exists,
> > > since we can see that the universe exists, and not from itself.
>
> > I deny that God exists.
>
> Not reasonably.

Then you should have thought about adding that qualifier before making
baseless claims.

>
> >Nor do I see that the universe necessarily
> > exists "not from itself"
>
> Perhaps you haven't considered the question deeply enough.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

>
> > > You
> > > are supposed to be seeking Him with all your heart and soul,
> > > remember?
>
> > To be fair, the directions were with my mind and heart.
>
> Your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind, and all your
> strength.  But you do enjoy to nitpick, don't you?

This isn't a nitpick. You claimed that I am supposed to be doing
something I wasn't ever told to do. This isn't a nitpick as much as it
is an attempt to keep things on track, which is less than enjoyable.
It would be more enjoyable if you didn't make such claims.

>
> >Soul hasn't
> > been mentioned yet. I'm not even convinced that I have something
> > called a "soul".
>
> Which body part is susceptible to conviction or the lack thereof?

My brain.

> Matter cannot possibly form an opinion.

I don't see why I should accept that assertion.

>
> >But I've already explained that these directions are
> > as useful as telling me that I can get from my house to yours be
> > driving with "all my car".
>
> And as useless, since you aren't about to do it.

But I'm not about to do it because I don't know how to follow such
directions. So if it's useless then it is because of that underlying
reason.

> We are only spinning
> our wheels here, due to your intransigence.
>
> > >  But unfortunately for you, as I've observed, you aren't
> > > about to begin doing that.
>
> > No, as I don't know how. I don't know how to do anything with all my
> > mind, heart, or soul.
>
> I've told you, so if you don't know how still, it is not because it
> hasn't been explained to you, but for some other reason.

Your answers lack justification, a requirement for knowledge.

>
> > > You really didn't want an answer, you just
> > > wanted something to refute.
>
>        ^ ^ ^
> I bet that is a big part of the reason.

I thought gambling was a sin.

>
> > > > > But if you seek to know Him, you will become more
> > > > > and more certain that He is as He says He is, which is what you say
> > > > > you want to determine.
>
> > > > Ok. And how can I do that?
>
> > > Pray the rosary and attend Mass, with the goal of obtaining your
> > > conversion from your sins.
>
> > Which, I have already admitted, can probably get me to belief.
>
> Then you're golden!  What more could you possibly want?

Justification of that belief.

>
> >But you
> > claim that this is a path to knowledge, which additionally requires
> > justification.
>
> Faith leads to knowledge.

Thanks, but I'll stick to the commonly accept epistemological
definition of knowledge, which requires justification.

>
> >Since this method can lead to belief irrespective of
> > the truth of that belief, wherein lies the justification necessary to
> > call that belief knowledge?
>
> The fact that it works.

If it works regardless of the truth of that belief then that can't
count as justification of that belief.

Except you said I wouldn't have to accept that in order for me to
agree with you.

"Fortunately for us, sin is easily defined without reference to

God..."

So you can hardly go around invoking God when I disagree with you
about what sin is.

>
> > > Unless you can provide an
> > > example that we both agree on, you haven't made your point, except
> > > perhaps to yourself, but you already believe you so what is the use of
> > > that?
>
> > Actually no, you've seem to lost track of the conversation. At this
> > particular point I am simply naming "something that does fall into
> > those categories [of seven deadly sins] that I do not consider to be
> > "wrongdoing." All your agreement is required for is whether or not it
> > falls into one of those categories, not whether it is morally
> > acceptable. If you disagree that euthanasia falls in one of those
> > seven categories I will provide some more suggestions:
>
> > Abortion, suicide, being an atheist, taking God's name in vain.
>
> All sins.

Which, according to you, means they fall into one or more of those
seven categories.
But I don't consider those things morally wrong.
Which means your statement that I would agree with you is wrong.

You seem to have forgotten how we got here Joe. We got here because
you have included as a requirement the "intention of converting from
your sins."
I expressed concern that this requires that I must first believe in
God, which you claimed isn't a requirement, but it seems it is because
what I consider a sin and what you claim God considers a sin are
different. I assume that when I am supposed to be intending to convert
from sin that we are talking about what God means. Since my conception
of morality is different from God's I won't truly be converting from
sin. Thus in order for me to truly convert from sin I must first
believe in and accept God's morality, which is predicated on God being
the arbiter of morality, which is predicated on me accepting God's
existence.

It's still circular, it's just a larger circle.

So either my assumption that we are talking about God's morality and
not my own is false, or you need to present some way that I'm supposed
to come to a belief in God by first believing in something that
requires a belief in God.

>
> > Do you believe that any of the above fall into one or more of those
> > categories?
>
> Of course.  All sin falls into one or more of those categories.  You
> were supposed to be naming something that *isn't* a sin, that falls
> into them.
>
> So now we see that you cannot.

No I wasn't. I stated that, "I don't consider everything that falls
into one of those categories to be wrong doing." And you asked for
support. I provided it.

And how does it violate that standard?

>
>
>
> > > > >  That is not legitimate.
>
> > > > It's my hypothetical scenario. It's legitimate by my statement to that
> > > > fact.
>
> > > Impossible scenarios can certainly be hypothesized, but they don't
> > > apply to reality, so why should we bother discussing them?
>
> > What makes this scenario impossible?
>
> The fact that if there ever were one of those aboriginals who
> correctly reasoned that God should be pleased for His sake alone, God
> would know about it, and would infallibly lead that one away from the
> false religion of human sacrifice.

And how could he do that without infringing upon free will? Nothing is
invariable when free will is involved.

> Just as He did with Noah, and with
> Abraham.  Those who seek God with all their hearts, do infallibly find
> Him.  God guarantees it.  So it is impossible that anyone in a
> religion based on such atrocities as human sacrifice, seeks God with
> his whole heart, and then remains in that religion.

But we're not talking about them seeking God with their own heart,
we're talking about them believing that they are pleasing God because
it is right to please God.

>
>
>
> > > > > They do not have theology sufficiently advanced to seek pleasing God
> > > > > for His own sake.  Invariably, they are courting favor from their
> > > > > 'gods.'  Not the same thing.
>
> > > > Ok, it's not the same thing. In my scenario they aren't doing the
> > > > latter.
>
> > > Your scenario is fictitious.
>
> > Well, yes, it is. It seems you are of the mind that hypotheticals
> > aren't of any value. Maxwell's demon is fictitious but, nevertheless,
> > it provides useful and valuable insight into thermodynamics.
>
> What insight are you trying to provide into theology here?

None, I'm trying to demonstrate that my conception of morality differs
from yours, so it is not sufficient for me to intend to convert from
sin based on my conception of morality alone.

[Joe]

Can fleas magnet that that is purple?

I've used words as variable placeholders in my above question. Is it
easier to converse this way?

I asked you, "Can you demonstrate that that is legitimate?" If it is
legitimate, then you shouldn't have needed my translation.

You seem to be asking for the Ontological Argument, and yes. Consult
the Ontological Argument.

I think, rather than what you say you want to determine, that rather
you want to determine whether or not such an entity exists. Wouldn't
that be more accurate? God, by definition, has the attributes of
infinite perfection. If an entity did not have those attributes, then
that entity could not legitimately be called, 'God.' So the word
'God' unquestionably refers to an entity with the attributes defined
as belonging to God. The determination has already been made by the
definition.

Now you want to know whether He exists, and the best way to determine
that is to behave as if He does, and see where that leads you. This
method is practical, as I've said before.

>
>
> > > > God undeniably exists,
> > > > since we can see that the universe exists, and not from itself.
>
> > > I deny that God exists.
>
> > Not reasonably.
>
> Then you should have thought about adding that qualifier before making
> baseless claims.
>

Sorry, I did assume that your wish was for all your beliefs to be
reasonable. My bad. Do you want to hold some unreasonable beliefs?
If so, I think you are talking to the wrong guy. All my beliefs are
reasonable, and I wouldn't ask anyone to sacrifice reason in order to
believe.

>
>
> > >Nor do I see that the universe necessarily
> > > exists "not from itself"
>
> > Perhaps you haven't considered the question deeply enough.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps not.
>
>
>
> > > > You
> > > > are supposed to be seeking Him with all your heart and soul,
> > > > remember?
>
> > > To be fair, the directions were with my mind and heart.
>
> > Your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind, and all your
> > strength.  But you do enjoy to nitpick, don't you?
>
> This isn't a nitpick. You claimed that I am supposed to be doing
> something I wasn't ever told to do. This isn't a nitpick as much as it
> is an attempt to keep things on track, which is less than enjoyable.
> It would be more enjoyable if you didn't make such claims.
>

Seek God with the entirety of yourself. That is saying the same
thing, but in a way you are less likely to nitpick.

>
>
> > >Soul hasn't
> > > been mentioned yet. I'm not even convinced that I have something
> > > called a "soul".
>
> > Which body part is susceptible to conviction or the lack thereof?
>
> My brain.
>
> > Matter cannot possibly form an opinion.
>
> I don't see why I should accept that assertion.
>

What have you ever observed about matter that would make you think it
could hold an opinion?

Your brain is entirely composed of matter. In what way can some
configuration of matter give rise to conscious experience? If you
want to invoke emergence, you will have to show the process of that
emergence. I don't think that's ever been done, but you are welcome
to try.

>
>
> > >But I've already explained that these directions are
> > > as useful as telling me that I can get from my house to yours be
> > > driving with "all my car".
>
> > And as useless, since you aren't about to do it.
>
> But I'm not about to do it because I don't know how to follow such
> directions. So if it's useless then it is because of that underlying
> reason.
>

You sell yourself short. Are you incapable of reading simple English
words, and reciting them in a particular order? Are you incapable of
reflecting upon a particular scenario in your mind? Praying the
rosary consists in reciting the prayers and meditating on the
mysteries. It is easy to do. How can you say you don't know how?

Here: this is how:

http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm

> > We are only spinning
> > our wheels here, due to your intransigence.
>
> > > >  But unfortunately for you, as I've observed, you aren't
> > > > about to begin doing that.
>
> > > No, as I don't know how. I don't know how to do anything with all my
> > > mind, heart, or soul.
>
> > I've told you, so if you don't know how still, it is not because it
> > hasn't been explained to you, but for some other reason.
>
> Your answers lack justification, a requirement for knowledge.
>

The justification of the idea that the rosary works is found in the
examination of the lives of the Saints who prayed the rosary. Since
the desired effect is conversion from sin, and since the Saints
evidently converted from their sins, the belief that the rosary is
efficacious is justified.

>
>
> > > > You really didn't want an answer, you just
> > > > wanted something to refute.
>
> >        ^ ^ ^
> > I bet that is a big part of the reason.
>
> I thought gambling was a sin.
>

You do nitpick, as I've observed. "I bet" is a common colloquial
expression in English. Is English a second language for you?

>
>
> > > > > > But if you seek to know Him, you will become more
> > > > > > and more certain that He is as He says He is, which is what you say
> > > > > > you want to determine.
>
> > > > > Ok. And how can I do that?
>
> > > > Pray the rosary and attend Mass, with the goal of obtaining your
> > > > conversion from your sins.
>
> > > Which, I have already admitted, can probably get me to belief.
>
> > Then you're golden!  What more could you possibly want?
>
> Justification of that belief.
>

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof."

>
>
> > >But you
> > > claim that this is a path to knowledge, which additionally requires
> > > justification.
>
> > Faith leads to knowledge.
>
> Thanks, but I'll stick to the commonly accept epistemological
> definition of knowledge, which requires justification.
>

The success of the practice of praying the rosary justifies the belief
in it as efficacious. If you don't have success of your own yet, you
can examine the success stories of the Saints, which are in ample
supply.

>
>
> > >Since this method can lead to belief irrespective of
> > > the truth of that belief, wherein lies the justification necessary to
> > > call that belief knowledge?
>
> > The fact that it works.
>
> If it works regardless of the truth of that belief then that can't
> count as justification of that belief.
>

If it works, then it works, and therefore it is true that it works.
Since it is results alone that count, actually working is the sole
criterion needed for justification of the belief that a practice
works. This is practical. I guess, if you are seeking something
other than results, it won't appeal to you.

The fact that your moral compass is a little off does not erase the
fact that you have a moral compass, which you do not always follow.
Whenever you do not follow your own moral compass, you sin, according
to *your* morality.

I submit that if you claim that you always do follow your own moral
compass, perhaps your personal morality is too lax.

>
>
> > > > Unless you can provide an
> > > > example that we both agree on, you haven't made your point, except
> > > > perhaps to yourself, but you already believe you so what is the use of
> > > > that?
>
> > > Actually no, you've seem to lost track of the conversation. At this
> > > particular point I am simply naming "something that does fall into
> > > those categories [of seven deadly sins] that I do not consider to be
> > > "wrongdoing." All your agreement is required for is whether or not it
> > > falls into one of those categories, not whether it is morally
> > > acceptable. If you disagree that euthanasia falls in one of those
> > > seven categories I will provide some more suggestions:
>
> > > Abortion, suicide, being an atheist, taking God's name in vain.
>
> > All sins.
>
> Which, according to you, means they fall into one or more of those
> seven categories.

Yes. Abortion and suicide are at the very least sins of envy, the
deliberate taking away of the baby's life and of one's own life,
respectively. Being an atheist is a sin of pride, and taking God's
name in vain is a sin of anger.

> But I don't consider those things morally wrong.

As I said, your moral compass is a little off. But that fact is
irrelevant to the additional fact that you do not even follow your own
morality perfectly.

> Which means your statement that I would agree with you is wrong.
>
> You seem to have forgotten how we got here Joe. We got here because
> you have included as a requirement the "intention of converting from
> your sins."
> I expressed concern that this requires that I must first believe in
> God, which you claimed isn't a requirement, but it seems it is because
> what I consider a sin and what you claim God considers a sin are
> different.

Not in all cases, and in every case in which you disagree, an argument
can be made against you. But I am not about to go into all of those.
Suffice it to say that your morality is certainly not 100% alien to
God's, and also, you will not be judged on information you do not
possess, but on your behavior given the lights that you do have.

>I assume that when I am supposed to be intending to convert
> from sin that we are talking about what God means.

No. Ultimately, yes, but currently, no. We are talking about your
failure to live up to *your own* moral standard. And once you begin
to correct that, your morality also will improve, and become closer to
God's. So ultimately, we will be talking about your own morality
which will be identical to God's. But insofar as they are presently
different, we are talking about yours, when I say that you too commit
sins, i.e. breaches of your own morality.

>Since my conception
> of morality is different from God's I won't truly be converting from
> sin. Thus in order for me to truly convert from sin I must first
> believe in and accept God's morality, which is predicated on God being
> the arbiter of morality, which is predicated on me accepting God's
> existence.
>

No, for the reasons elucidated above.

> It's still circular, it's just a larger circle.
>
> So either my assumption that we are talking about God's morality and
> not my own is false,

Yes, that is the case.

>or you need to present some way that I'm supposed
> to come to a belief in God by first believing in something that
> requires a belief in God.
>
>
>
> > > Do you believe that any of the above fall into one or more of those
> > > categories?
>
> > Of course.  All sin falls into one or more of those categories.  You
> > were supposed to be naming something that *isn't* a sin, that falls
> > into them.
>
> > So now we see that you cannot.
>
> No I wasn't. I stated that, "I don't consider everything that falls
> into one of those categories to be wrong doing." And you asked for
> support. I provided it.
>

O.K.

Disparate things, mixed together, does not produce an accurate picture
of existing reality. You may indeed cite aboriginal religions in
which human sacrifice is the norm, and you may also cite Catholic
Doctrine which says that God should be pleased for His own sake
alone. But you cannot cite a solitary instance in which both those
conditions hold together. Thus to reason from such an instance is to
reason from unreality, which would make your reasoning inaccurate with
regard to reality.

>
>
> > > > > >  That is not legitimate.
>
> > > > > It's my hypothetical scenario. It's legitimate by my statement to that
> > > > > fact.
>
> > > > Impossible scenarios can certainly be hypothesized, but they don't
> > > > apply to reality, so why should we bother discussing them?
>
> > > What makes this scenario impossible?
>
> > The fact that if there ever were one of those aboriginals who
> > correctly reasoned that God should be pleased for His sake alone, God
> > would know about it, and would infallibly lead that one away from the
> > false religion of human sacrifice.
>
> And how could he do that without infringing upon free will? Nothing is
> invariable when free will is involved.
>

That aborigine already made his free will decision when he recognized
that God ought to pleased for His sake alone. That is his decision to
co-operate with grace. Of course he couldn't have made such a
decision without already being influenced by God, since everything
originates in God. But when he received the initial grace to think
that way, it was his decision to accept it, and do that thinking.
Then God will infallibly lead him the rest of the way.

> > Just as He did with Noah, and with
> > Abraham.  Those who seek God with all their hearts, do infallibly find
> > Him.  God guarantees it.  So it is impossible that anyone in a
> > religion based on such atrocities as human sacrifice, seeks God with
> > his whole heart, and then remains in that religion.
>
> But we're not talking about them seeking God with their own heart,
> we're talking about them believing that they are pleasing God because
> it is right to please God.
>

Where did you get this? I don't recall us talking about that.

What does believing that you are pleasing God have to do with
anything? That smacks of pride. I would rather believe that I am not
pleasing to God, so that I will have the impulse to change.

More nitpicking, I suppose, but now mixed with some misunderstanding
of something I said, or some unfounded assumption on your part.
Figure out where you went wrong and get back to me.

>
>
> > > > > > They do not have theology sufficiently advanced to seek pleasing God
> > > > > > for His own sake.  Invariably, they are courting favor from their
> > > > > > 'gods.'  Not the same thing.
>
> > > > > Ok, it's not the same thing. In my scenario they aren't doing the
> > > > > latter.
>
> > > > Your scenario is fictitious.
>
> > > Well, yes, it is. It seems you are of the mind that hypotheticals
> > > aren't of any value. Maxwell's demon is fictitious but, nevertheless,
> > > it provides useful and valuable insight into thermodynamics.
>
> > What insight are you trying to provide into theology here?
>
> None,

Then your hypothetical is useless.

>I'm trying to demonstrate that my conception of morality differs
> from yours, so it is not sufficient for me to intend to convert from
> sin based on my conception of morality alone.

Yes, it is, as a beginning point. Once you make the level attempt,
God will give you more grace.

[Drafterman]

No, because you haven't made explicit what they stand for, as I have
in this thread.

Which one? They are several.

>
> I think, rather than what you say you want to determine, that rather
> you want to determine whether or not such an entity exists.  Wouldn't
> that be more accurate?

No.

> God, by definition, has the attributes of
> infinite perfection.  If an entity did not have those attributes, then
> that entity could not legitimately be called, 'God.'  So the word
> 'God' unquestionably refers to an entity with the attributes defined
> as belonging to God.  The determination has already been made by the
> definition.

Then I want to validate that definition.

>
> Now you want to know whether He exists, and the best way to determine
> that is to behave as if He does, and see where that leads you.  This
> method is practical, as I've said before.

I thought we both agreed that the issue of practicality was closed.
Are you reneging?

>
>
>
> > > > > God undeniably exists,
> > > > > since we can see that the universe exists, and not from itself.
>
> > > > I deny that God exists.
>
> > > Not reasonably.
>
> > Then you should have thought about adding that qualifier before making
> > baseless claims.
>
> Sorry, I did assume that your wish was for all your beliefs to be
> reasonable.  My bad.  Do you want to hold some unreasonable beliefs?
> If so, I think you are talking to the wrong guy.  All my beliefs are
> reasonable, and I wouldn't ask anyone to sacrifice reason in order to
> believe.

Your imprecision in language is not my problem; deal with it on your
own time.

>
>
>
> > > >Nor do I see that the universe necessarily
> > > > exists "not from itself"
>
> > > Perhaps you haven't considered the question deeply enough.
>
> > Perhaps. Perhaps not.
>
> > > > > You
> > > > > are supposed to be seeking Him with all your heart and soul,
> > > > > remember?
>
> > > > To be fair, the directions were with my mind and heart.
>
> > > Your whole heart, your whole soul, your whole mind, and all your
> > > strength.  But you do enjoy to nitpick, don't you?
>
> > This isn't a nitpick. You claimed that I am supposed to be doing
> > something I wasn't ever told to do. This isn't a nitpick as much as it
> > is an attempt to keep things on track, which is less than enjoyable.
> > It would be more enjoyable if you didn't make such claims.
>
> Seek God with the entirety of yourself.  That is saying the same
> thing, but in a way you are less likely to nitpick.

But I don't know how to do that.

>
>
>
> > > >Soul hasn't
> > > > been mentioned yet. I'm not even convinced that I have something
> > > > called a "soul".
>
> > > Which body part is susceptible to conviction or the lack thereof?
>
> > My brain.
>
> > > Matter cannot possibly form an opinion.
>
> > I don't see why I should accept that assertion.
>
> What have you ever observed about matter that would make you think it
> could hold an opinion?

The fact that human beings, made of matter, form opinions.

>
> Your brain is entirely composed of matter.  In what way can some
> configuration of matter give rise to conscious experience?

In the way the brain does.

> If you
> want to invoke emergence, you will have to show the process of that
> emergence.  I don't think that's ever been done, but you are welcome
> to try.
>
>
>
> > > >But I've already explained that these directions are
> > > > as useful as telling me that I can get from my house to yours be
> > > > driving with "all my car".
>
> > > And as useless, since you aren't about to do it.
>
> > But I'm not about to do it because I don't know how to follow such
> > directions. So if it's useless then it is because of that underlying
> > reason.
>
> You sell yourself short.  Are you incapable of reading simple English
> words, and reciting them in a particular order?  Are you incapable of
> reflecting upon a particular scenario in your mind?  Praying the
> rosary consists in reciting the prayers and meditating on the
> mysteries.  It is easy to do.  How can you say you don't know how?
>
> Here: this is how:
>
> http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm

I didn't see any specific instructions as to how to do that with "all
my [insert metaphysical entity here]"
This means either:

A) It's not possible to perform this instructions without implicitly
doing it with all my [insert metaphysical entity here] making the
inclusion of such directions redundant, both there and here; in this
case bringing them up over and over is both pointless and
diversionary.
B) It is possible to perform those instructions without doing it with
all my [insert metaphysical entity here] making those instructions
incomplete for my purposes and leaving my question unanswered.
C) Doing it with all my [insert metaphysical entity here] is not
necessary, which is why said instructions are not included; in this
case bringing them up over and over here is pointless and
diversionary.

Which is it, or is there something I'm missing? If so, what?

>
> > > We are only spinning
> > > our wheels here, due to your intransigence.
>
> > > > >  But unfortunately for you, as I've observed, you aren't
> > > > > about to begin doing that.
>
> > > > No, as I don't know how. I don't know how to do anything with all my
> > > > mind, heart, or soul.
>
> > > I've told you, so if you don't know how still, it is not because it
> > > hasn't been explained to you, but for some other reason.
>
> > Your answers lack justification, a requirement for knowledge.
>
> The justification of the idea that the rosary works is found in the
> examination of the lives of the Saints who prayed the rosary.  Since
> the desired effect is conversion from sin, and since the Saints
> evidently converted from their sins, the belief that the rosary is
> efficacious is justified.

No, my desired effect is not conversion from sin, it's being justified
in believing that God has the attributes you describe.

>
>
>
> > > > > You really didn't want an answer, you just
> > > > > wanted something to refute.
>
> > >        ^ ^ ^
> > > I bet that is a big part of the reason.
>
> > I thought gambling was a sin.
>
> You do nitpick, as I've observed.  "I bet" is a common colloquial
> expression in English.  Is English a second language for you?

No. Perhaps I'll stop nitpicking when you stop incorrectly trying to
divine my reasons.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > But if you seek to know Him, you will become more
> > > > > > > and more certain that He is as He says He is, which is what you say
> > > > > > > you want to determine.
>
> > > > > > Ok. And how can I do that?
>
> > > > > Pray the rosary and attend Mass, with the goal of obtaining your
> > > > > conversion from your sins.
>
> > > > Which, I have already admitted, can probably get me to belief.
>
> > > Then you're golden!  What more could you possibly want?
>
> > Justification of that belief.
>
> "The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof."

I've explained why it isn't in this case.

>
>
>
> > > >But you
> > > > claim that this is a path to knowledge, which additionally requires
> > > > justification.
>
> > > Faith leads to knowledge.
>
> > Thanks, but I'll stick to the commonly accept epistemological
> > definition of knowledge, which requires justification.
>
> The success of the practice of praying the rosary justifies the belief
> in it as efficacious.  If you don't have success of your own yet, you
> can examine the success stories of the Saints, which are in ample
> supply.

I'm not talking about the belief in it as efficacious. I'm talking
about the belief praying the rosary leads me to accept: that God is
who and what you say he is. I don't doubt the rosary's effectiveness
in that regard. What I doubt is that I will have justification in the
belief the rosary leads me to accept. The fact that the rosary can
successfully lead me to believe something does not, in itself, mean
I'm justified in accepting that belief since it can successfully lead
me to believe that irrespective of the truth of that belief.

>
>
>
> > > >Since this method can lead to belief irrespective of
> > > > the truth of that belief, wherein lies the justification necessary to
> > > > call that belief knowledge?
>
> > > The fact that it works.
>
> > If it works regardless of the truth of that belief then that can't
> > count as justification of that belief.
>
> If it works, then it works, and therefore it is true that it works.
> Since it is results alone that count, actually working is the sole
> criterion needed for justification of the belief that a practice
> works.  This is practical.  I guess, if you are seeking something
> other than results, it won't appeal to you.

I'm not disputing that it works. I'm disputing that it works in the
way I'm looking for.

So whose concept of sin do I need to consider when intending to
convert?

>
>
>
> > > > > Unless you can provide an
> > > > > example that we both agree on, you haven't made your point, except
> > > > > perhaps to yourself, but you already believe you so what is the use of
> > > > > that?
>
> > > > Actually no, you've seem to lost track of the conversation. At this
> > > > particular point I am simply naming "something that does fall into
> > > > those categories [of seven deadly sins] that I do not consider to be
> > > > "wrongdoing." All your agreement is required for is whether or not it
> > > > falls into one of those categories, not whether it is morally
> > > > acceptable. If you disagree that euthanasia falls in one of those
> > > > seven categories I will provide some more suggestions:
>
> > > > Abortion, suicide, being an atheist, taking God's name in vain.
>
> > > All sins.
>
> > Which, according to you, means they fall into one or more of those
> > seven categories.
>
> Yes.  Abortion and suicide are at the very least sins of envy, the
> deliberate taking away of the baby's life and of one's own life,
> respectively.  Being an atheist is a sin of pride, and taking God's
> name in vain is a sin of anger.
>
> > But I don't consider those things morally wrong.
>
> As I said, your moral compass is a little off.  But that fact is
> irrelevant to the additional fact that you do not even follow your own
> morality perfectly.

Actually it is supremely relevant to the point at hand since we are
discussing whether or not I agree with your concept of morality.

>
> > Which means your statement that I would agree with you is wrong.
>
> > You seem to have forgotten how we got here Joe. We got here because
> > you have included as a requirement the "intention of converting from
> > your sins."
> > I expressed concern that this requires that I must first believe in
> > God, which you claimed isn't a requirement, but it seems it is because
> > what I consider a sin and what you claim God considers a sin are
> > different.
>
> Not in all cases, and in every case in which you disagree, an argument
> can be made against you.  But I am not about to go into all of those.
> Suffice it to say that your morality is certainly not 100% alien to
> God's, and also, you will not be judged on information you do not
> possess, but on your behavior given the lights that you do have.
>
> >I assume that when I am supposed to be intending to convert
> > from sin that we are talking about what God means.
>
> No.  Ultimately, yes, but currently, no.  We are talking about your
> failure to live up to *your own* moral standard.  And once you begin
> to correct that, your morality also will improve, and become closer to
> God's.

Uh, no. I'll be closer to mine. Since my differs from God's I'll
actually be moving away from God's.

But that's not what I'm doing. So your standard is misplaced.

> You may indeed cite aboriginal religions in
> which human sacrifice is the norm, and you may also cite Catholic
> Doctrine which says that God should be pleased for His own sake
> alone.  But you cannot cite a solitary instance in which both those
> conditions hold together.  Thus to reason from such an instance is to
> reason from unreality, which would make your reasoning inaccurate with
> regard to reality.

If this was true then hypothetical scenarios involving "unrealities"
would never be useful. They can be useful, ergo what you say isn't
true.

>
>
>
> > > > > > >  That is not legitimate.
>
> > > > > > It's my hypothetical scenario. It's legitimate by my statement to that
> > > > > > fact.
>
> > > > > Impossible scenarios can certainly be hypothesized, but they don't
> > > > > apply to reality, so why should we bother discussing them?
>
> > > > What makes this scenario impossible?
>
> > > The fact that if there ever were one of those aboriginals who
> > > correctly reasoned that God should be pleased for His sake alone, God
> > > would know about it, and would infallibly lead that one away from the
> > > false religion of human sacrifice.
>
> > And how could he do that without infringing upon free will? Nothing is
> > invariable when free will is involved.
>
> That aborigine already made his free will decision when he recognized
> that God ought to pleased for His sake alone.  That is his decision to
> co-operate with grace.  Of course he couldn't have made such a
> decision without already being influenced by God, since everything
> originates in God.  But when he received the initial grace to think
> that way, it was his decision to accept it, and do that thinking.
> Then God will infallibly lead him the rest of the way.

And how can someone be infallibly lead anywhere and still have their
free will intact?

>
> > > Just as He did with Noah, and with
> > > Abraham.  Those who seek God with all their hearts, do infallibly find
> > > Him.  God guarantees it.  So it is impossible that anyone in a
> > > religion based on such atrocities as human sacrifice, seeks God with
> > > his whole heart, and then remains in that religion.
>
> > But we're not talking about them seeking God with their own heart,
> > we're talking about them believing that they are pleasing God because
> > it is right to please God.
>
> Where did you get this?

From my scenario, which I invented and adheres to the conditions I
decide it does.

>  I don't recall us talking about that.
>
> What does believing that you are pleasing God have to do with
> anything?

It has to do with whether or not the act falls in one of the
categories of sin.

> That smacks of pride.  I would rather believe that I am not
> pleasing to God, so that I will have the impulse to change.
>
> More nitpicking, I suppose, but now mixed with some misunderstanding
> of something I said, or some unfounded assumption on your part.
> Figure out where you went wrong and get back to me.

This is what you said:

"Not for the authentic motive of religion, which is to please God
because He deserves to be pleased"

So which is it, does pleasing God smack of pride, or is it the
authentic motive of religion?

>
>
>
> > > > > > > They do not have theology sufficiently advanced to seek pleasing God
> > > > > > > for His own sake.  Invariably, they are courting favor from their
> > > > > > > 'gods.'  Not the same thing.
>
> > > > > > Ok, it's not the same thing. In my scenario they aren't doing the
> > > > > > latter.
>
> > > > > Your scenario is fictitious.
>
> > > > Well, yes, it is. It seems you are of the mind that hypotheticals
> > > > aren't of any value. Maxwell's demon is fictitious but, nevertheless,
> > > > it provides useful and valuable insight into thermodynamics.
>
> > > What insight are you trying to provide into theology here?
>
> > None,
>
> Then your hypothetical is useless.

I think it's pretty valuable. Perhaps there are other areas of reality
for which insight can be provided.

>
> >I'm trying to demonstrate that my conception of morality differs
> > from yours, so it is not sufficient for me to intend to convert from
> > sin based on my conception of morality alone.
>
> Yes, it is, as a beginning point.  Once you make the level attempt,
> God will give you more grace.

Why wait?

[Joe]

But I did, just below.

>
>
> > I asked you, "Can you demonstrate that that is legitimate?"  If it is
> > legitimate, then you shouldn't have needed my translation.
>

See? "Fleas" stands for "you," and "magnet" stands for "demonstrate,"
and "purple" stands for "legitimate." Just using words as variable
placeholders. As long as I've explained it, which I have, according
to your philosophy that should be just as legitimate as you using the
word 'god' as a placeholder for the Holy Name of God.

I think, rather, we should use words to mean what they mean. Call me
crazy if you like.

> > > > Words carry meaning.  You can't use the meaning of the word 'god' for
> > > > one who is not a god.
>
> > > > > > That is reality --- we
> > > > > > are gods.  It also states the same in Holy Scripture.  But I am
> > > > > > talking about reality.
>
> > > > > > > > God is not a god.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm looking for a method that
> > > > > > > > > > > will result in that if and only if such a thing is actually true. This
> > > > > > > > > > > method seems to miss the mark.
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

When you said "I asked you, 'Can you demonstrate that that is
legitimate?' ", I didn't understand that you were referring to the
previous statement.

>
>
>
> > > I asked you, "Can you demonstrate that that is legitimate?"  If it is
> > > legitimate, then you shouldn't have needed my translation.
>
> See?  "Fleas" stands for "you," and "magnet" stands for "demonstrate,"
> and "purple" stands for "legitimate."

Got it.

>  Just using words as variable
> placeholders.  As long as I've explained it, which I have, according
> to your philosophy that should be just as legitimate as you using the
> word 'god' as a placeholder for the Holy Name of God.

Exactly. I'm glad you understand.

[Joe]

Sure, I understand, I just think it will be less confusing if we use
words to mean what they normally mean insofar as that is possible for
us.

Perhaps I should have asked you this a while ago: how are you defining
your term, 'god?' Perhaps it does apply to God. Normally, it
wouldn't, but I am willing to hear a new definition. Go for it!

[Drafterman]

I don't see that I'm using it in a way that is out of line with
established definitions.

>
> Perhaps I should have asked you this a while ago: how are you defining
> your term, 'god?'  Perhaps it does apply to God.  Normally, it
> wouldn't, but I am willing to hear a new definition.  Go for it!

I think it would be more accurate to say that you should have read my
original post where I explicitly stated how I'm using the term. At
this point, though, it seems necessary to correct my attribution since
you were providing a description of "God" rather than a definition of
"god". I assumed the latter because the thread in which this
definition was provided, the standing question was about defining
"god".

So, to be precise, *you* haven't defined "god" as stated, but rather
described God as such. For the purposes of this thread, I have
assigned the label "god" to that description and am seeking a method
by which I can determine that God meets that definition.

I will also clarify that I would prefer a method that would lead me to
this belief only of it is true.

[Joe]

It seems then that you are requesting apodictic certainty. I myself
do not possess that, and I don't know of a method that will give you
that, apart from dying and meeting God face to face. Perhaps your
request is less than reasonable. Is there any particular reason you
would be justified in demanding to bypass faith entirely?

[Drafterman]

Yes, because I lack a reason for which I should apply faith in
accepting your conclusions about theism than anyone elses.

[Joe]

Why is it either/or? I certainly don't experience it that way. I
experience, rather, that what I perceive as my God is the same as what
many, many others experience, even if they do not call it by the same
Name.

[Drafterman]

Because they're mutually exclusive.

> I certainly don't experience it that way.  I
> experience, rather, that what I perceive as my God is the same as what
> many, many others experience, even if they do not call it by the same
> Name.

I do not accept your conclusions regarding other people's experiences,
which are inaccessible to you.

[Joe]

How so?

> > I certainly don't experience it that way.  I
> > experience, rather, that what I perceive as my God is the same as what
> > many, many others experience, even if they do not call it by the same
> > Name.
>
> I do not accept your conclusions regarding other people's experiences,
> which are inaccessible to you.

The testimony of many of those others indicates that they are indeed
experiencing something quite similar if not identical. If someone
relates an interior experience, then it is accessible to me. That is
why we have words.

[Drafterman]

Because neither the entity described by the Jewish faith nor the
Muslim faith is purported to have had a child. The entity described by
the Christian faith is described as such. A single given entity cannot
both have had and not had a child. Law of non-contradiction. Likewise
the Muslim faith is excluded from the other two due to the inclusion
of the revelation of Muhammad. Thus, the three Abrahamic religions are
mutually exclusive, each describing entities that cannot all be the
same.

By similar logic monotheistic religions and polytheistic religions
make mutually exclusive claims regarding the number of such entities.

Perhaps some claim can be made regarding overlap between differing
polytheistic religions, since the entities of such religions are often
anthropomorphic personifications. That would seem to be beyond the
scope of this thread, at least until some polytheist decides to weigh
in.

>
> > > I certainly don't experience it that way.  I
> > > experience, rather, that what I perceive as my God is the same as what
> > > many, many others experience, even if they do not call it by the same
> > > Name.
>
> > I do not accept your conclusions regarding other people's experiences,
> > which are inaccessible to you.
>
> The testimony of many of those others indicates that they are indeed
> experiencing something quite similar if not identical.  If someone
> relates an interior experience, then it is accessible to me.  That is
> why we have words.

Which, at best, can lead to the conclusion that you have had the same
experience, not necessarily that the cause of those experiences were
the same.

[Joe]

Semantics. Both the Jewish and the Muslim traditions acknowledge that
Yahweh/Allah and Yahweh/Allah's Word are coextensive and identical in
Being. There is God and God's Word (who came to all the Prophets) and
God's Spirit (the spirit of holiness). All three Abrahamic Faiths
acknowledge all three Persons of the Trinity, they just do not call it
that.

What sets Christianity apart is the doctrine that the Word became
Incarnate. But this is a little different from "God having a child."
Christians believe that God, in the Word, became Incarnate in Jesus.
This is an assertion about what God has done. It is the same God that
the Jews and the Muslims worship; they just do not acknowledge one of
the things He has done. The Christian Faith asserts that that
particular thing He has done is of key importance, but not that
disbelieving that God has done that means that one doesn't believe in
God.

The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian traditions all hold that there is
only one God, and they worship the only God who Is. It is impossible,
therefore, that the Jewish God and the Muslim God and the Christian
God are different entities. They are the same entity, only thought of
in different ways.

>The entity described by
> the Christian faith is described as such. A single given entity cannot
> both have had and not had a child. Law of non-contradiction.

True. Therefore it is either true or not true that the selfsame
entity worshiped by these different traditions became Incarnate as the
Word made Flesh, in Jesus Christ. The Incarnation is an additional
fact or fiction about the entity. It doesn't mean that they are not
worshiping the same entity.

>Likewise
> the Muslim faith is excluded from the other two due to the inclusion
> of the revelation of Muhammad. Thus, the three Abrahamic religions are
> mutually exclusive, each describing entities that cannot all be the
> same.
>

No, they simply give disparate descriptions of the selfsame reality.
According to Islam, Adam, and Noah, and Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus,
all practiced Islam. So Islam predates Muhammad, and Islam is simply
the Arabic word for "The Religion," just as Allah is the Arabic word
for "The God." According to Islam, there is only one God and one
religion, and the one religion is practiced by various individuals
with varying degrees of purity. So from a Catholic perspective,
Catholicism is simply the True Islam. And that simple statement:
"Catholicism is the True Islam," is the entirety of the understanding
needed to convert the Muslims to the true Faith. According to
Judaism, there is a Messiah that God will send in the fullness of time
to save us. They simply do no recognize that that Messiah is Jesus.
That does not mean that they worship a different entity. They worship
God, who sent His Word to His Prophets. They believe in God and in
the Word. We are simply aware that that Word become Incarnate in
Jesus Christ, and when they also recognize that truth, they also will
convert to Catholicism. Then the end will come.

> By similar logic monotheistic religions and polytheistic religions
> make mutually exclusive claims regarding the number of such entities.
>

Not really. There are exactly zero polytheistic traditions that
assert multiple Supreme Entities, for the simple and obvious reason
that that is a contradiction in terms. Polytheism is either theism or
atheism. It is theism if it asserts a Supreme God, regardless of how
many subordinate 'gods' there may be. Catholicism also asserts that
there are subordinate gods, namely, ourselves. If it asserts that
there are only multiple godlike entities and none is supreme, then it
is atheism, which is nothing more or less than disbelief in a Supreme
Entity.

So no one can possibly assert more than one God, since, if God is by
definition Supreme then He is by that same token Unique. Multiple
'gods' is not all that much different from belief in angels, and in
fact, the gods of polytheism are most likely fallen angels.

> Perhaps some claim can be made regarding overlap between differing
> polytheistic religions, since the entities of such religions are often
> anthropomorphic personifications.

That is a magickal and possibly useful perspective. It may make sense
of everything.

>That would seem to be beyond the
> scope of this thread, at least until some polytheist decides to weigh
> in.
>

Ultimately, the principal conflict in religion is not between theists
and atheists but between personalists and impersonalists. Hindu
polytheism either asserts that Krishna is the source of all the gods,
or that the impersonal Brahman is the source of everything, and
Krishna is just one of many gods. In the former scenario, those
Hindus simply have different ideas about the Supreme Being than we do,
more different in fact than the variations found among the Abrahamic
Faiths, but still belief in a personal Supreme Entity, and since there
can be by definition only one, it is plainly the same One. In the
latter scenario, they are again on the level of atheists.

>
>
> > > > I certainly don't experience it that way.  I
> > > > experience, rather, that what I perceive as my God is the same as what
> > > > many, many others experience, even if they do not call it by the same
> > > > Name.
>
> > > I do not accept your conclusions regarding other people's experiences,
> > > which are inaccessible to you.
>
> > The testimony of many of those others indicates that they are indeed
> > experiencing something quite similar if not identical.  If someone
> > relates an interior experience, then it is accessible to me.  That is
> > why we have words.
>
> Which, at best, can lead to the conclusion that you have had the same
> experience,

No, not the same experience. Similar experiences. But similar
experiences, of the selfsame thing.

>not necessarily that the cause of those experiences were
> the same.

The more similar the experience, the more likely that the cause is the

[Drafterman]

Logic trumps semantics. A being that had a child and a being that did
not have a child cannot be identical.

Even if each agree that the three religions (Judaism, Christianity,
Islam) are talking about the same being (with one being correct and
the others being wrong in some fashion) they still all disagree as to
the true and ultimate nature of that being. At the end of the day, any
singular thing can only have one nature. Each of these three religions
posit mutually exclusive possibilities for what that one true nature
is. I'm still left with a choice, and no reason to select one over the
other (or any, for that matter).

> There is God and God's Word (who came to all the Prophets) and
> God's Spirit (the spirit of holiness).  All three Abrahamic Faiths
> acknowledge all three Persons of the Trinity, they just do not call it
> that.
>
> What sets Christianity apart is the doctrine that the Word became
> Incarnate.  But this is a little different from "God having a child."
> Christians believe that God, in the Word, became Incarnate in Jesus.
> This is an assertion about what God has done.  It is the same God that
> the Jews and the Muslims worship; they just do not acknowledge one of
> the things He has done.  The Christian Faith asserts that that
> particular thing He has done is of key importance, but not that
> disbelieving that God has done that means that one doesn't believe in
> God.
>
> The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian traditions all hold that there is
> only one God, and they worship the only God who Is.  It is impossible,
> therefore, that the Jewish God and the Muslim God and the Christian
> God are different entities.  They are the same entity, only thought of
> in different ways.

Which doesn't eliminate the existence of different choices for which I
lack a reason by which I can choose (and a reason by which I should
choose).

>
> >The entity described by
> > the Christian faith is described as such. A single given entity cannot
> > both have had and not had a child. Law of non-contradiction.
>
> True.  Therefore it is either true or not true that the selfsame
> entity worshiped by these different traditions became Incarnate as the
> Word made Flesh, in Jesus Christ.  The Incarnation is an additional
> fact or fiction about the entity.  It doesn't mean that they are not
> worshiping the same entity.

What determines the object of their worship?

>
> >Likewise
> > the Muslim faith is excluded from the other two due to the inclusion
> > of the revelation of Muhammad. Thus, the three Abrahamic religions are
> > mutually exclusive, each describing entities that cannot all be the
> > same.
>
> No, they simply give disparate descriptions of the selfsame reality.

Mutually exclusive descriptions cannot be of the same thing.

I disagree with the usage of your terms here.
I am using god akin to this:
"deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of
the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a
force"

In this case polytheism is theism distinct from monotheism. Under this
definition humans are not gods.

>
> So no one can possibly assert more than one God, since, if God is by
> definition Supreme then He is by that same token Unique.  Multiple
> 'gods' is not all that much different from belief in angels, and in
> fact, the gods of polytheism are most likely fallen angels.

Not according to them.

Not at all. That you and I may feel warmth that, in and of itself
offers absolutely, positively zero evidence that the source of that
warmth is the same.

>
>
>
> > > I think, rather, we should use words to mean what they mean.  Call me
> > > > > > > > > > > crazy if you like.> > > > Words carry meaning.  You can't use the meaning of the word 'god' for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one who is not a god.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is reality --- we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are gods.  It also states the same in Holy Scripture.  But I am
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > talking about reality.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > God is not a god.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm looking for a method that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will result in that if and only if such a thing is actually true. This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > method seems to miss the mark.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > ...
>

> > > > > > > > > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Joe]

No, but a being that someone thinks had a child and the same being
that another thinks did not, could certainly be identical.

> Even if each agree that the three religions (Judaism, Christianity,
> Islam) are talking about the same being (with one being correct and
> the others being wrong in some fashion) they still all disagree as to
> the true and ultimate nature of that being.

Not necessarily. The doctrine of Christianity is that God is triune.
If Islam and Judaism do not acknowledge this, then there is a
disagreement as to the true nature of God, though it is still the same
God they are talking about.

>At the end of the day, any
> singular thing can only have one nature.

But every person that is conversant with that entity might not be
equally aware of its true nature.

>Each of these three religions
> posit mutually exclusive possibilities for what that one true nature
> is. I'm still left with a choice, and no reason to select one over the
> other (or any, for that matter).
>

There may well be reasons for you to believe one over the other(s).
We haven't got quite so far yet.

> > There is God and God's Word (who came to all the Prophets) and
> > God's Spirit (the spirit of holiness).  All three Abrahamic Faiths
> > acknowledge all three Persons of the Trinity, they just do not call it
> > that.
>
> > What sets Christianity apart is the doctrine that the Word became
> > Incarnate.  But this is a little different from "God having a child."
> > Christians believe that God, in the Word, became Incarnate in Jesus.
> > This is an assertion about what God has done.  It is the same God that
> > the Jews and the Muslims worship; they just do not acknowledge one of
> > the things He has done.  The Christian Faith asserts that that
> > particular thing He has done is of key importance, but not that
> > disbelieving that God has done that means that one doesn't believe in
> > God.
>
> > The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian traditions all hold that there is
> > only one God, and they worship the only God who Is.  It is impossible,
> > therefore, that the Jewish God and the Muslim God and the Christian
> > God are different entities.  They are the same entity, only thought of
> > in different ways.
>
> Which doesn't eliminate the existence of different choices for which I
> lack a reason by which I can choose (and a reason by which I should
> choose).
>

Let us first establish that there are not three disparate entities
that these three major faiths are talking about. After that, we can
discuss the nature of that entity.

>
>
> > >The entity described by
> > > the Christian faith is described as such. A single given entity cannot
> > > both have had and not had a child. Law of non-contradiction.
>
> > True.  Therefore it is either true or not true that the selfsame
> > entity worshiped by these different traditions became Incarnate as the
> > Word made Flesh, in Jesus Christ.  The Incarnation is an additional
> > fact or fiction about the entity.  It doesn't mean that they are not
> > worshiping the same entity.
>
> What determines the object of their worship?
>

That it is Almighty God.

>
>
> > >Likewise
> > > the Muslim faith is excluded from the other two due to the inclusion
> > > of the revelation of Muhammad. Thus, the three Abrahamic religions are
> > > mutually exclusive, each describing entities that cannot all be the
> > > same.
>
> > No, they simply give disparate descriptions of the selfsame reality.
>
> Mutually exclusive descriptions cannot be of the same thing.
>

The descriptions are merely dissimilar in some respects, not mutually
exclusive. All three faiths acknowledge that God is Supreme, that He
created heaven and earth and all in them, and that He will reward the
just and punish the wicked.

Not utterly clear. Humans do control parts of the world, or aspects
of life, and are personifications of the human force. The actuality
of human control over the world is why we call them gods.

But, the question for the polytheist remains, whether there is or is
not a Supreme God. Some say yes, others say no. Henotheism is a lot
closer to Monotheism than Impersonalism is.

>
>
> > So no one can possibly assert more than one God, since, if God is by
> > definition Supreme then He is by that same token Unique.  Multiple
> > 'gods' is not all that much different from belief in angels, and in
> > fact, the gods of polytheism are most likely fallen angels.
>
> Not according to them.
>

It is kind of irrelevant, what people think. What we want to know is,
what is reality?

If we feel the identical sensation of warmth, among the many possible
variations thereof, then the source is probably identical.

[Drafterman]

Agreed. But neither camp considers that their interpretation is
mistaken. Thus, even if they are mistaken, they believe they are not.
And their beliefs are mutually exclusive. It can't be the case that
they are all right.

>
> > Even if each agree that the three religions (Judaism, Christianity,
> > Islam) are talking about the same being (with one being correct and
> > the others being wrong in some fashion) they still all disagree as to
> > the true and ultimate nature of that being.
>
> Not necessarily.  The doctrine of Christianity is that God is triune.
> If Islam and Judaism do not acknowledge this, then there is a
> disagreement as to the true nature of God, though it is still the same
> God they are talking about.

The doctrine of Christianit is that God incarnated himself as Jesus.
Judaism and Islam do not acknowledge this. The doctrine of Islam is
that God revealed himself to Muhammed. Judaism and Christianity do not
acknowledge this. They all disagree as to the nature of their god.

You are more than welcome to try and establish it, though that is
impossible. The being described by Judaism, if accurate, is different
and mutually exclusive than the being described by Christianity, if
accurate, and the same for Islam.

We can't entertain the notion that they are all talking about the same
entity (rendering two of those possibilities not accurate) until AFTER
a choose is made regarding which one is correct. You are operating
under the presumptions that come having made such a choice, I am not.
Since the purpose here is to decide which to choose, it is
inappropriate to approach the subject operating under such
presumptions.

At the end of the day, a choice needs to be made.

>
>
>
> > > >The entity described by
> > > > the Christian faith is described as such. A single given entity cannot
> > > > both have had and not had a child. Law of non-contradiction.
>
> > > True.  Therefore it is either true or not true that the selfsame
> > > entity worshiped by these different traditions became Incarnate as the
> > > Word made Flesh, in Jesus Christ.  The Incarnation is an additional
> > > fact or fiction about the entity.  It doesn't mean that they are not
> > > worshiping the same entity.
>
> > What determines the object of their worship?
>
> That it is Almighty God.

I don't understand.

>
>
>
> > > >Likewise
> > > > the Muslim faith is excluded from the other two due to the inclusion
> > > > of the revelation of Muhammad. Thus, the three Abrahamic religions are
> > > > mutually exclusive, each describing entities that cannot all be the
> > > > same.
>
> > > No, they simply give disparate descriptions of the selfsame reality.
>
> > Mutually exclusive descriptions cannot be of the same thing.
>
> The descriptions are merely dissimilar in some respects, not mutually
> exclusive.

No, they're mutually exclusive for the reasons I've stated. A being
cannot both have done and not have done a given action.

> All three faiths acknowledge that God is Supreme, that He
> created heaven and earth and all in them, and that He will reward the
> just and punish the wicked.

Acknowleding similarities does not negate the differences.

No, it is relevant what they think.

Oh, and how do we determine that our sensations of warmth are
identical?

[Joe]

So what?

>Thus, even if they are mistaken, they believe they are not.
> And their beliefs are mutually exclusive. It can't be the case that
> they are all right.
>

Christianity is the true belief. That fact does not render the Jews
or the Muslims incorrect in their belief in God. They correctly
believe in God, and in His perfect timing, God will convert them to
the true Faith, such as are willing to be converted.

>
>
> > > Even if each agree that the three religions (Judaism, Christianity,
> > > Islam) are talking about the same being (with one being correct and
> > > the others being wrong in some fashion) they still all disagree as to
> > > the true and ultimate nature of that being.
>
> > Not necessarily.  The doctrine of Christianity is that God is triune.
> > If Islam and Judaism do not acknowledge this, then there is a
> > disagreement as to the true nature of God, though it is still the same
> > God they are talking about.
>
> The doctrine of Christianit is that God incarnated himself as Jesus.
> Judaism and Islam do not acknowledge this. The doctrine of Islam is
> that God revealed himself to Muhammed. Judaism and Christianity do not
> acknowledge this. They all disagree as to the nature of their god.
>

No, they don't. All you have mentioned are things He has done, or has
not done. Not His nature, which in reality, all three religions agree
on.

As I already pointed out, the nature of God is triune. Christianity
explicitly states this. The others, implicitly hold it, since they
believe that God, and God's Word, and God's Spirit, is One God. The
fact that the Christian tradition holds the explicitly and the others
only implicitly is one more bit of evidence for the truth of
Christianity.

Actually, so far from being impossible, it is a fait accompli. There
can only be one God, therefore anyone who believes they are worshiping
the only God there is, is.

>The being described by Judaism, if accurate, is different
> and mutually exclusive than the being described by Christianity, if
> accurate, and the same for Islam.
>

Nope. Just described or thought of differently. If one person thinks
I'm a cool guy and another person thinks I'm an inveterate liar, that
does not make me two entities. I am still what I am, regardless of
their thoughts.

Obviously, not all three major faiths can be simultaneously accurate
about the record of what God has done, but what God has done is not
the same thing as what God is. All three major faiths agree that God
is, that He is the Creator, that He is both just and merciful, and
that He will justly punish the wicked and mercifully reward the just.

> We can't entertain the notion that they are all talking about the same
> entity (rendering two of those possibilities not accurate) until AFTER
> a choose is made regarding which one is correct.

Absurd. Of course we can do that. We can conclude that they are
indeed talking about the same entity, and at least two of the accounts
of what that entity has done are either inaccurate or incomplete. We
need not pretend that it is possible that they are actually talking
about three disparate entities, since we already know that it is
impossible that there could be three disparate Gods.

>You are operating
> under the presumptions that come having made such a choice, I am not.

That doesn't negate what is logically certain about God; in
particular, that He cannot be other than One.

> Since the purpose here is to decide which to choose, it is
> inappropriate to approach the subject operating under such
> presumptions.
>
> At the end of the day, a choice needs to be made.
>

But we are not yet at the end of the day.

Also, the choice of which religion is true isn't yours to make. Which
one you might be inclined to choose does not render that one true and
the others false. It is logically possible that none are true, or
that one is true. Your duty is to find out which one is true. You
should already have made the decision to practice whichever one you
discover to be true. That choice should already have been made at the
beginning of the day, so to speak, so that your day is spent finding
out which one is actually true, as opposed to "deciding" such a thing
for yourself.

>
>
> > > > >The entity described by
> > > > > the Christian faith is described as such. A single given entity cannot
> > > > > both have had and not had a child. Law of non-contradiction.
>
> > > > True.  Therefore it is either true or not true that the selfsame
> > > > entity worshiped by these different traditions became Incarnate as the
> > > > Word made Flesh, in Jesus Christ.  The Incarnation is an additional
> > > > fact or fiction about the entity.  It doesn't mean that they are not
> > > > worshiping the same entity.
>
> > > What determines the object of their worship?
>
> > That it is Almighty God.
>
> I don't understand.
>

It was an answer to, "what determines the object of their worship?"
Maybe your question wasn't clear.

>
>
> > > > >Likewise
> > > > > the Muslim faith is excluded from the other two due to the inclusion
> > > > > of the revelation of Muhammad. Thus, the three Abrahamic religions are
> > > > > mutually exclusive, each describing entities that cannot all be the
> > > > > same.
>
> > > > No, they simply give disparate descriptions of the selfsame reality.
>
> > > Mutually exclusive descriptions cannot be of the same thing.
>
> > The descriptions are merely dissimilar in some respects, not mutually
> > exclusive.
>
> No, they're mutually exclusive for the reasons I've stated. A being
> cannot both have done and not have done a given action.
>

But the same being can easily be thought to have done a given action
by one, and thought not to have done it by another.

> > All three faiths acknowledge that God is Supreme, that He
> > created heaven and earth and all in them, and that He will reward the
> > just and punish the wicked.
>
> Acknowleding similarities does not negate the differences.
>

The point is that the similarities and difference both are in
descriptions of the selfsame entity. It is impossible that there are
multiple Gods that the various religions experience, since there can
only be one God.

How, and to what exactly?

Compare notes?

[Drafterman]

So I'm still left with a choice as to whose depiction I am to have
faith in.

>
> >Thus, even if they are mistaken, they believe they are not.
> > And their beliefs are mutually exclusive. It can't be the case that
> > they are all right.
>
> Christianity is the true belief.  That fact does not render the Jews
> or the Muslims incorrect in their belief in God.  They correctly
> believe in God, and in His perfect timing, God will convert them to
> the true Faith, such as are willing to be converted.

I'm not reasoning from the assumption that Christianity is the true
belief.

>
>
>

> > > > Even if each agree that the three religions (Judaism, Christianity,
> > > > Islam) are talking about the same being (with one being correct and
> > > > the others being wrong in some fashion) they still all disagree as to
> > > > the true and ultimate nature of that being.
>
> > > Not necessarily.  The doctrine of Christianity is that God is triune.
> > > If Islam and Judaism do not acknowledge this, then there is a
> > > disagreement as to the true nature of God, though it is still the same
> > > God they are talking about.
>
> > The doctrine of Christianit is that God incarnated himself as Jesus.
> > Judaism and Islam do not acknowledge this. The doctrine of Islam is
> > that God revealed himself to Muhammed. Judaism and Christianity do not
> > acknowledge this. They all disagree as to the nature of their god.
>
> No, they don't.  All you have mentioned are things He has done, or has
> not done.

I consider that part of a being's nature vis-a-vis identifying it as
distinct.

Not just differently, but mutually exclusive to each other.

> If one person thinks
> I'm a cool guy and another person thinks I'm an inveterate liar, that
> does not make me two entities.  I am still what I am, regardless of
> their thoughts.

And, in deciding which to believe, I must make a choice.

>
> Obviously, not all three major faiths can be simultaneously accurate
> about the record of what God has done, but what God has done is not
> the same thing as what God is.  All three major faiths agree that God
> is, that He is the Creator, that He is both just and merciful, and
> that He will justly punish the wicked and mercifully reward the just.
>
> > We can't entertain the notion that they are all talking about the same
> > entity (rendering two of those possibilities not accurate) until AFTER
> > a choose is made regarding which one is correct.
>
> Absurd.  Of course we can do that.

Ok, I can't do that.

> We can conclude that they are
> indeed talking about the same entity, and at least two of the accounts
> of what that entity has done are either inaccurate or incomplete.

No, I can't conclude that at all.

> We
> need not pretend that it is possible that they are actually talking
> about three disparate entities, since we already know that it is
> impossible that there could be three disparate Gods.

To talk about an entity does not require that it exists. Thus it is
possible to talk about three entities without requiring that they all
exist.

>
> >You are operating
> > under the presumptions that come having made such a choice, I am not.
>
> That doesn't negate what is logically certain about God; in
> particular, that He cannot be other than One.
>
> > Since the purpose here is to decide which to choose, it is
> > inappropriate to approach the subject operating under such
> > presumptions.
>
> > At the end of the day, a choice needs to be made.
>
> But we are not yet at the end of the day.
>
> Also, the choice of which religion is true isn't yours to make.

No, but then again we aren't talking about which religion is true,
we're talking about which religion I am to have faith in.

> Which
> one you might be inclined to choose does not render that one true and
> the others false.  It is logically possible that none are true, or
> that one is true.  Your duty is to find out which one is true.  You
> should already have made the decision to practice whichever one you
> discover to be true.  That choice should already have been made at the
> beginning of the day, so to speak, so that your day is spent finding
> out which one is actually true, as opposed to "deciding" such a thing
> for yourself.
>
>
>
> > > > > >The entity described by
> > > > > > the Christian faith is described as such. A single given entity cannot
> > > > > > both have had and not had a child. Law of non-contradiction.
>
> > > > > True.  Therefore it is either true or not true that the selfsame
> > > > > entity worshiped by these different traditions became Incarnate as the
> > > > > Word made Flesh, in Jesus Christ.  The Incarnation is an additional
> > > > > fact or fiction about the entity.  It doesn't mean that they are not
> > > > > worshiping the same entity.
>
> > > > What determines the object of their worship?
>
> > > That it is Almighty God.
>
> > I don't understand.
>
> It was an answer to, "what determines the object of their worship?"
> Maybe your question wasn't clear.

It's clear to me, your answer isn't.

If I decided to worship something, what determines what it is that I'm
worshipping?

>
>
>
> > > > > >Likewise
> > > > > > the Muslim faith is excluded from the other two due to the inclusion
> > > > > > of the revelation of Muhammad. Thus, the three Abrahamic religions are
> > > > > > mutually exclusive, each describing entities that cannot all be the
> > > > > > same.
>
> > > > > No, they simply give disparate descriptions of the selfsame reality.
>
> > > > Mutually exclusive descriptions cannot be of the same thing.
>
> > > The descriptions are merely dissimilar in some respects, not mutually
> > > exclusive.
>
> > No, they're mutually exclusive for the reasons I've stated. A being
> > cannot both have done and not have done a given action.
>
> But the same being can easily be thought to have done a given action
> by one, and thought not to have done it by another.

Of course.

>
> > > All three faiths acknowledge that God is Supreme, that He
> > > created heaven and earth and all in them, and that He will reward the
> > > just and punish the wicked.
>
> > Acknowleding similarities does not negate the differences.
>
> The point is that the similarities and difference both are in
> descriptions of the selfsame entity.  It is impossible that there are
> multiple Gods that the various religions experience, since there can
> only be one God.

I'm not suggesting that there are, actually, multiple Gods. Do you
have any concept of hypotheticals whatsoever?

Because what they think establishes that which I can potentially have
faith in. If God wants to step down and settle the matter himself, he
can. Until that happens I can only go on the beliefs of those who
profess to worship him. As such, if you are going to ask me to have
faith, we must first establish: In what, and why?

There are multiple options, mutally exclusive options, determined by
the thoughts of the people that hold them.

Ok. I'm feeling warm.

Your turn.

[Joe]

O.K. So?

It seems, then, that you are considering something that doesn't really
apply. A being's nature is not determined by the things the being
does.

Now, the converse, seems legitimate. The things a being does would
appear to be determined by its nature. So, if there is a loving God,
would He not have done something to save us from our sins?

Judaism and Islam are reticent to believe all that God has done for
us.

No. If Christiainty is true, then the God of the Jews and the Muslims
is real. So not mutually exclusive in any sense.

> > If one person thinks
> > I'm a cool guy and another person thinks I'm an inveterate liar, that
> > does not make me two entities.  I am still what I am, regardless of
> > their thoughts.
>
> And, in deciding which to believe, I must make a choice.
>

You don't have to believe either. You can suspend judgment on the
question.

>
>
> > Obviously, not all three major faiths can be simultaneously accurate
> > about the record of what God has done, but what God has done is not
> > the same thing as what God is.  All three major faiths agree that God
> > is, that He is the Creator, that He is both just and merciful, and
> > that He will justly punish the wicked and mercifully reward the just.
>
> > > We can't entertain the notion that they are all talking about the same
> > > entity (rendering two of those possibilities not accurate) until AFTER
> > > a choose is made regarding which one is correct.
>
> > Absurd.  Of course we can do that.
>
> Ok, I can't do that.
>
> > We can conclude that they are
> > indeed talking about the same entity, and at least two of the accounts
> > of what that entity has done are either inaccurate or incomplete.
>
> No, I can't conclude that at all.
>
> > We
> > need not pretend that it is possible that they are actually talking
> > about three disparate entities, since we already know that it is
> > impossible that there could be three disparate Gods.
>
> To talk about an entity does not require that it exists. Thus it is
> possible to talk about three entities without requiring that they all
> exist.
>

And it is also possible to believe that an entity exists, without
knowing everything about it. I don't see why you would insist that
such is impossible for you.

>
>
> > >You are operating
> > > under the presumptions that come having made such a choice, I am not.
>
> > That doesn't negate what is logically certain about God; in
> > particular, that He cannot be other than One.
>
> > > Since the purpose here is to decide which to choose, it is
> > > inappropriate to approach the subject operating under such
> > > presumptions.
>
> > > At the end of the day, a choice needs to be made.
>
> > But we are not yet at the end of the day.
>
> > Also, the choice of which religion is true isn't yours to make.
>
> No, but then again we aren't talking about which religion is true,
> we're talking about which religion I am to have faith in.
>

Point of key importance here: why wouldn't those be the same thing?
Would you not seek to place your faith in what is true?

You. You said it yourself: ". . .I decided. . ."

>
>
> > > > > > >Likewise
> > > > > > > the Muslim faith is excluded from the other two due to the inclusion
> > > > > > > of the revelation of Muhammad. Thus, the three Abrahamic religions are
> > > > > > > mutually exclusive, each describing entities that cannot all be the
> > > > > > > same.
>
> > > > > > No, they simply give disparate descriptions of the selfsame reality.
>
> > > > > Mutually exclusive descriptions cannot be of the same thing.
>
> > > > The descriptions are merely dissimilar in some respects, not mutually
> > > > exclusive.
>
> > > No, they're mutually exclusive for the reasons I've stated. A being
> > > cannot both have done and not have done a given action.
>
> > But the same being can easily be thought to have done a given action
> > by one, and thought not to have done it by another.
>
> Of course.
>
>
>
> > > > All three faiths acknowledge that God is Supreme, that He
> > > > created heaven and earth and all in them, and that He will reward the
> > > > just and punish the wicked.
>
> > > Acknowleding similarities does not negate the differences.
>
> > The point is that the similarities and difference both are in
> > descriptions of the selfsame entity.  It is impossible that there are
> > multiple Gods that the various religions experience, since there can
> > only be one God.
>
> I'm not suggesting that there are, actually, multiple Gods. Do you
> have any concept of hypotheticals whatsoever?
>

How are you applying them here?

Why do you need to believe only what someone else thinks?

>If God wants to step down and settle the matter himself, he
> can.

Purportedly, He did.

>Until that happens I can only go on the beliefs of those who
> profess to worship him. As such, if you are going to ask me to have
> faith, we must first establish: In what, and why?
>
> There are multiple options, mutally exclusive options, determined by
> the thoughts of the people that hold them.
>

To believe that God exists is merely a dictate of reason, not
requiring any faith at all. The Good News (Gospel) is that God is all-
good and loves us enough to die to redeem us. Now, there is zero
logical compulsion to believe this, because logical compulsion would
remove your free will. So if you are looking for logical compulsion,
sorry, that is not available to you. But if you want to believe the
Good News, you can. There is plenty of supporting evidence, already
given. There is nothing stopping you from believing it, except for
your own will.

Probably, it is warm out. It is August, after all.

[Drafterman]

So until that choice is made, I don't know whose description I'm
supposed to have faith in, as per your question.

To you, perhaps.

Yes.

> If Christiainty is true, then the God of the Jews and the Muslims
> is real.  So not mutually exclusive in any sense.
>
> > > If one person thinks
> > > I'm a cool guy and another person thinks I'm an inveterate liar, that
> > > does not make me two entities.  I am still what I am, regardless of
> > > their thoughts.
>
> > And, in deciding which to believe, I must make a choice.
>
> You don't have to believe either.  You can suspend judgment on the
> question.

And I have. But you are asking why I don't have faith, I'm explaining
why. It requires a choice. A choice for which I don't have enough data
to make.

>
>
>
> > > Obviously, not all three major faiths can be simultaneously accurate
> > > about the record of what God has done, but what God has done is not
> > > the same thing as what God is.  All three major faiths agree that God
> > > is, that He is the Creator, that He is both just and merciful, and
> > > that He will justly punish the wicked and mercifully reward the just.
>
> > > > We can't entertain the notion that they are all talking about the same
> > > > entity (rendering two of those possibilities not accurate) until AFTER
> > > > a choose is made regarding which one is correct.
>
> > > Absurd.  Of course we can do that.
>
> > Ok, I can't do that.
>
> > > We can conclude that they are
> > > indeed talking about the same entity, and at least two of the accounts
> > > of what that entity has done are either inaccurate or incomplete.
>
> > No, I can't conclude that at all.
>
> > > We
> > > need not pretend that it is possible that they are actually talking
> > > about three disparate entities, since we already know that it is
> > > impossible that there could be three disparate Gods.
>
> > To talk about an entity does not require that it exists. Thus it is
> > possible to talk about three entities without requiring that they all
> > exist.
>
> And it is also possible to believe that an entity exists, without
> knowing everything about it.  I don't see why you would insist that
> such is impossible for you.

I'm not.

>
>
>
> > > >You are operating
> > > > under the presumptions that come having made such a choice, I am not.
>
> > > That doesn't negate what is logically certain about God; in
> > > particular, that He cannot be other than One.
>
> > > > Since the purpose here is to decide which to choose, it is
> > > > inappropriate to approach the subject operating under such
> > > > presumptions.
>
> > > > At the end of the day, a choice needs to be made.
>
> > > But we are not yet at the end of the day.
>
> > > Also, the choice of which religion is true isn't yours to make.
>
> > No, but then again we aren't talking about which religion is true,
> > we're talking about which religion I am to have faith in.
>
> Point of key importance here: why wouldn't those be the same thing?
> Would you not seek to place your faith in what is true?

I would, but if you recall, we've gotten here because determination of
truth is off the table, and you've chosen to pander to faith.

So I get to decide what I worship? So it's impossible for me to
worship something other than what I decide to worship?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

I don't, but you're asking me to have faith in that, so it matters.

>
> >If God wants to step down and settle the matter himself, he
> > can.
>
> Purportedly, He did.

Not to me, presently and in person, which is what I meant.

>
> >Until that happens I can only go on the beliefs of those who
> > profess to worship him. As such, if you are going to ask me to have
> > faith, we must first establish: In what, and why?
>
> > There are multiple options, mutally exclusive options, determined by
> > the thoughts of the people that hold them.
>
> To believe that God exists is merely a dictate of reason, not
> requiring any faith at all.

Then why have you given up the dictate of reason in lieu of faith?

> The Good News (Gospel) is that God is all-
> good and loves us enough to die to redeem us.  Now, there is zero
> logical compulsion to believe this, because logical compulsion would
> remove your free will.  So if you are looking for logical compulsion,
> sorry, that is not available to you.  But if you want to believe the
> Good News, you can.  There is plenty of supporting evidence, already
> given.  There is nothing stopping you from believing it, except for
> your own will.

So if there is no logic behind it, where's the reason?

So being warm outside is qualitatively different then being warm
inside?

[Joe]

Why would you need or want to have faith in any human being's
description of something? I thought you wanted to ascertain God, not
human beings' opinions about God.

Are you just looking for someone's interpretation of reality, or are
you seeking reality?

I do not think my apprehension of your error is subjective. The
things a being does do not determine the nature of the being. It is,
rather, quite the other way around, causally. And the particular
assertions of what God has done, namely to send a Messiah or to speak
to a Prophet, would not be determining factors in the nature of God.
This is easily proved by considering that even if God did both of
those things, there was still a long period of time before He did
them, when He had not in fact done them, and yet He was still God.

So it seems you were considering things that don't really apply in the
manner in which you were considering them.

> >  A being's nature is not determined by the things the being
> > does.
>
> > Now, the converse, seems legitimate.  The things a being does would
> > appear to be determined by its nature.  So, if there is a loving God,
> > would He not have done something to save us from our sins?
>

^ ^ ^
There is also this.

No, for the reason given below. Refute the reason if you disagree.

> > If Christiainty is true, then the God of the Jews and the Muslims
> > is real.  So not mutually exclusive in any sense.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^

> > > > If one person thinks
> > > > I'm a cool guy and another person thinks I'm an inveterate liar, that
> > > > does not make me two entities.  I am still what I am, regardless of
> > > > their thoughts.
>
> > > And, in deciding which to believe, I must make a choice.
>
> > You don't have to believe either.  You can suspend judgment on the
> > question.
>
> And I have. But you are asking why I don't have faith,

No, I wasn't, I was refuting the idea that two different ideas about
the selfsame entity makes it two different entities.

>I'm explaining
> why. It requires a choice.

Glad to hear you admit that, since below you contradict it. I'll
address that below.

>A choice for which I don't have enough data
> to make.
>

Then you had better get crackin'! Start gathering more data! Read
the Saints!

Just above, you wrote,

> > > > > We can't entertain the notion that they are all talking about the same
> > > > > entity (rendering two of those possibilities not accurate) until AFTER
> > > > > a choose is made regarding which one is correct.
>
> > > > Absurd. Of course we can do that.
>
> > > Ok, I can't do that.

So it seems you were asserting that you can't entertain the notion
that they are all talking about the entity until AFTER a choose (sic)

is made regarding which one is correct.

I think, rather, that you can easily entertain such a notion, and I
don't see any reason why not.

>
>
> > > > >You are operating
> > > > > under the presumptions that come having made such a choice, I am not.
>
> > > > That doesn't negate what is logically certain about God; in
> > > > particular, that He cannot be other than One.
>
> > > > > Since the purpose here is to decide which to choose, it is
> > > > > inappropriate to approach the subject operating under such
> > > > > presumptions.
>
> > > > > At the end of the day, a choice needs to be made.
>
> > > > But we are not yet at the end of the day.
>
> > > > Also, the choice of which religion is true isn't yours to make.
>
> > > No, but then again we aren't talking about which religion is true,
> > > we're talking about which religion I am to have faith in.
>
> > Point of key importance here: why wouldn't those be the same thing?
> > Would you not seek to place your faith in what is true?
>
> I would,

Oh, O.K. Good.

>but if you recall, we've gotten here because determination of
> truth is off the table, and you've chosen to pander to faith.
>

Oh no, not at all. We are still discussing the topic, "Ascertaining
God." Faith is the most direct and most common way to do that. Faith
leads to knowledge of the truth of God, which implies ascertainment.

You are setting up a false dichotomy between truth and faith.

I would hope so.

>So it's impossible for me to
> worship something other than what I decide to worship?

How would such a thing be possible? It seems an absurd question. Are
we using the same definition of 'worship?'

How would it be possible for anyone to worship something without first
deciding to do so? Worship is not a reflex or an autonomic process,
but a deliberate act. Is not a choice to carry out a deliberate act
always a prerequisite for carrying it out?

Yes, I do. How are you applying them here?

No, I'm asking you to seek reality.

>
>
> > >If God wants to step down and settle the matter himself, he
> > > can.
>
> > Purportedly, He did.
>
> Not to me, presently and in person, which is what I meant.
>

Ah. Don't hold your breath, okay? From all appearances, God has
given enough evidence already to be believed, and we are working on
ways to find out why you do not. Surely, God could settle it for you
without so much as breaking a sweat, but it is up to Him if He ever
wants to do that. We have only to work with what we've got, at
present.

>
>
> > >Until that happens I can only go on the beliefs of those who
> > > profess to worship him. As such, if you are going to ask me to have
> > > faith, we must first establish: In what, and why?
>
> > > There are multiple options, mutally exclusive options, determined by
> > > the thoughts of the people that hold them.
>
> > To believe that God exists is merely a dictate of reason, not
> > requiring any faith at all.
>
> Then why have you given up the dictate of reason in lieu of faith?
>

Are you asking why I choose to exercise faith, as if to say, shouldn't
the dictate of reason be enough?

Reason only leads a rational person to the conclusion that God
necessarily exists. Reason does not tell us how to please Him. Faith
makes it possible for us to please God, and tells us how.

> > The Good News (Gospel) is that God is all-
> > good and loves us enough to die to redeem us.  Now, there is zero
> > logical compulsion to believe this, because logical compulsion would
> > remove your free will.  So if you are looking for logical compulsion,
> > sorry, that is not available to you.  But if you want to believe the
> > Good News, you can.  There is plenty of supporting evidence, already
> > given.  There is nothing stopping you from believing it, except for
> > your own will.
>
> So if there is no logic behind it, where's the reason?
>

I didn't say there is no logic behind it, I said there is no logical
compulsion. Faith is perfectly logical, and part of that perfect
logic is the fact that the content of Faith is *not* logically
compelling; since, if it were, it would no more be faith.

The reason to exercise Faith is to please God, and the reason to
please God is that that is what we were created for. It is a nice
side-effect, that doing what we were created for ultimately leads to
our true happiness. We are unique among the material creatures in
that we are spirit and have free will, so we can decide whether or not
to do that which we were created to do. Part of doing what we were
created to do is choosing to do it, which paradoxically leads to the
possibility that some will not. But none necessarily fail; only those
fail who choose less than their best destiny.

No, the environment is warm in both cases, and that is the cause of
our common sensation of heat. That's my guess.

[Drafterman]

Since this post is filled with lies I'm not going to address it.

[Joe]

Copout. I have not lied. But you evidently can't address my points,
so, you won't.

[Drafterman]

I perceive deceit. From my point of view, that's what matters.

[Joe]

You are making it up.