REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Rían]

Originally posted by Falagar
I just have an interesting question for you Christians (don't know if you've seen it before, or found an answer):
God has unlimited power, right? So he can create whatever he wants, and has unlimited strength. Question: Can he then create a stone that he himself cannot lift?

A silly question perhaps, but I had to ask.

Falagar - I wish I knew how you were asking this, but I'll go ahead and treat it as a serious question, since at one point in my life, the question troubled me.

I don't like to quote from books too often, because I think it's more valuable for people to be able to put things into their own words, but I think C. S. Lewis has such an excellent answer to this, and it makes such sense, that I'll quote him:

C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain
[God's] Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can." It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Sorry this response is so late - let me know if you see it - I'll PM you if I don't see a response from you

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Hi everyone.

Hi!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Rian: Yup.

A Catholic Dictionary:
Intercession is the praying by one person on behalf of another, following the word of St. Paul, "I desire, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksigivings be made for all men"...

Invocation of the Saints It is the teaching of the Church that God enables the saints to hear and see the needs of those on earth; that they present our petitions before the throne of God; and consequently, that we may pray to them. This is part of the cotrine of the communion of saints.
"We employ two forms of prayer, differing in the manner of address; for to God we say properly, 'Have mercy on us, hear us': to the saints, 'Pray for us'...the greatest care must taken by all not to attribute to any other that which belongs to God" () (Catechism of the Council of Trent), though this is a matter of the intention rather than of the words used. Invocation of our Lady and other saints does not supplant prayer to God, but is by way of reinforcement thereto, as wehn one asks a friend for help in confirmation of one's own efforts in any matter...

[Rían]

Tanks (Sherman? ...)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

(after spending 2.5 minutes trying to figure out what "tanks means... ) Sherman?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
(after spending 2.5 minutes trying to figure out what "tanks means... ) Sherman?

Rian's 'tanks' was indeed a "thanks"... the Sherman Tank was a notable US WW2 tank... named for a US WW1 general, I believe. So the "sherman" was a pun on the use of 'tanks' for 'thanks'

(EDIT: Rian - be very careful... our ages are showing!)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I figured out the "tanks", it was just the Sherman I was having trouble with. Thanks.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
(EDIT: Rian - be very careful... our ages are showing!)

*takes her Geritol*

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Rian, excellent use of CS Lewis in reply to Falagar’s question... there’s no point excusing yourself for quoting his words .

--Dave

[Rían]

Yes, I think it's an excellent answer - can't wait to meet the fellow!

[Ruinel]

Freakin' spammers

And now... back on topic.

Discussing morality and it's ties to religous and nonreligious origins.

[brownjenkins]

i have a question on morality:

obviously you can be either an athiest, agnostic or believer of some kind and live a moral life... any of these people can also be immoral (i could list a few popes for you )... so in the end, is this idea that one must believe in god to live a moral life valid?

[GrayMouser]

From Rian, from the Gay thread

What I AM saying is that IMO, a logically necessary deduction, given a premise of atheism, is moral relativism.

I must disagree. There are many atheists who, from their own premises, would totally reject that.

The followers of Ayn Rand certainly would. They call themselves Objectivists because they think that their beliefs are as logically valid as 1+1=2.

Amongst which is the idea that belief in God is necessarily Evil.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
From Rian, from the Gay thread



I must disagree. There are many atheists who, from their own premises, would totally reject that.

The followers of Ayn Rand certainly would. They call themselves Objectivists because they think that their beliefs are as logically valid as 1+1=2.

Amongst which is the idea that belief in God is necessarily Evil.

Yes, but there's theory and practice... examine the fruit of Ayn Rand's own life...

[GrayMouser]

Well, I'm far from being a follower of Ayn Rand- I was just using her and her movement as an (extreme) example of non- relativistic atheism. Marxism would be equally valid.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Well, I'm far from being a follower of Ayn Rand- I was just using her and her movement as an (extreme) example of non- relativistic atheism. Marxism would be equally valid.

Uh-oh... you wanna start discussing the kind of morality that sprang from Marxism???

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Valandil
Uh-oh... you wanna start discussing the kind of morality that sprang from Marxism???

Sure....

The question is not whether any particular morality is good or bad, but whether there is a logical belief behind it.

You may want to argue the joys of the Gulag vs. the Inquisition, but that's not really the point.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
You may want to argue the joys of the Gulag vs. the Inquisition, but that's not really the point.

Ooof! *doubles up from sharp pain in the gut*

Just when I thought I was on a roll...

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Sure....

The question is not whether any particular morality is good or bad, but whether there is a logical belief behind it.

You may want to argue the joys of the Gulag vs. the Inquisition, but that's not really the point.

I like that discussion, as long as it fits here in the debate about beliefs and morality.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

They call themselves Objectivists because they think that their beliefs are as logically valid as 1+1=2.

A logically valid argument does not make one an “objectivist.” Most relativists are able to support their positions with very logical arguments. What makes someone an adherent of objectivism or relativism is their presuppositions about reality and the mind’s relation to reality. It comes down to accepting or not accepting the objective validity of self-evident propositions--either they are necessary mental constructs (relativism), or they are irrefutable axioms governing the world of experience (objectivism).

Granted, that last statement is a generalization, and since Karl Marx has been mentioned already, he can serve to show how complicated this can be. Marx may not have been a relativist, per se, but he was in no wise an “objectivist” in the ilk of Aristotelianism or modern Thomistic realism. His use of Hegel’s dialect and his theory of human nature based on function and labor demonstrates a fairly strong subjectivist leaning, even though we would be hesitant to call him a full blown relativist. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Marx did more than anyone in the modern era to demonstrate the extent to which social and philosophical thought had been imprisoned by the constructs of Enlightenment philosophy. His thought, like the equally dangerous German Romanticism on the continent, was a reaction to the brutality of economic liberalism and the spiritual aridity of subjectivism, but his thought hardly goes beyond the Newtonian deism and Darwinian manifest destiny that marked his entire generation. Marx, perhaps much like Fichte, was a genius, but was limited by the struggles and the errors of the age in which he was born.

Thus we are confronted with something much more profound than whether or not the logic is good. I can make a very convincing and logical argument that the moon is made out of cheese, and if you accept the starting premises of the argument, you would have a hard time refuting the conclusion. Of course, those starting premises is where you have to start in order to refute the conclusion of my argument. Now if I was to say that the general rule “no part is greater than its whole” is an axiom that governs the real world we experience, and you say “no, such a rule is merely a mental construct that enables us to function in an otherwise random world,” it is my opinion that we are at irreconcilable loggerheads. It is here, at the very base of all modern philosophical debate, that faith, or at least fundamental belief, enters into both sides of the argument.

It is at this point that the realist, or objectivist, must turn the debate and attempt to demonstrate which of these two fundamental beliefs best reflects the way humans live and function in the world. Not an easy endeavor, because such a twist can lead the realist back down the path to relativism... a philosophy based solely on function.

--Dave