tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1501979028903733068..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Will Science Rule Out the Possibility of God? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger303125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46464918801836010372012-10-03T06:19:36.034-07:002012-10-03T06:19:36.034-07:00JB,
Thanks for responding! Good points, again. I ...JB,<br /><br />Thanks for responding! Good points, again. I think I misunderstood your scenario argument. I will get back to you sometime later this week. In the meantime, have a good one!Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23635518959007141632012-10-02T22:14:42.573-07:002012-10-02T22:14:42.573-07:00@Daniel – sorry for the delayed response!
If howe...@Daniel – sorry for the delayed response!<br /><br /><i>If however his scenario is completely accurate to the future state of things by seeing the actual choices before they happen (rather than just representations of the choices that could probabilistically occur), then I feel the entity will metaphysically exist. </i><br /><br />If you believe that God has foreknowledge of our choices, then on this view you believe that you “metaphysically” existed prior to yourself? <br /><br /><i>He is then choosing not to give being to something that he already "created" because of the choices the being will make. </i><br /><br />There is no “creation”. Perhaps the troublesome part here is my use of the term “simulation”. It seems to me that if you believe God had any other possible universes He could have created (where sentient beings arise), but did not, then He has violated free will. Yet, presumably, wouldn’t want to affirm this is the only possible universe with sentient beings – otherwise we really aren’t “free”, are we?<br /><br />So, unless you want to affirm that this is the only possible universe (and I don’t think you do – because then are we really “free”?), I would argue that you probably already believe something similar to what I’ve postulated, although perhaps expressed differently. <br /><br /><i>Unless an act of creating something with intrinsic value is something "good." If such was the case then it would be quite difficult to make a moral comparison between "exist" and "not to exist." </i><br />This might be a good objection, if you can somehow demonstrate that there is such a thing as “intrinsic” value. Seems to me that value is assigned from something else. Even granting that there is “intrinsic” value in creating something (anything?), I’m not sure how anyone could know whether such a value was offset by the pain and suffering caused/endured by so many. Seems to me that while we may be adding some “good”, we are nevertheless allowing “bad” again, despite the fact that it can be avoided. I guess it comes down to which is better (assuming both are possible): ONLY GOOD or MOST GOOD + EVIL/PAIN/SUFFERING. I don’t even know how we would answer that, but my point still remains that there at least seems to be a way for God to have created a free world without evil. <br /><br /><i>I think in principle, existing is greater than the things that could happen during that existence, the average person attests to it. </i><br /><br />That people value their own existence does not demonstrate “intrinsic” value. Nor does it demonstrate superiority of existence over non-existence. How many people in a concentration camp do you think wished they had never been born? That Hitler had never been born (despite his intrinsic value)?<br /><br /><br /><i>Also, we are pretty much back around to one of my original responses - that perhaps a greater good can come from permitting evil. Obviously the Christian story centers around several such events and one of which is of particular importance. </i><br /><br />I acknowledge that “greater good” <b>can conceivably</b> come from allowing evil. What I don’t think anyone can know is whether the allowance of evil is <b>offset</b> by this “greater good”. Therefore, a possible scenario where there is no evil/pain/suffering becomes problematic for the “greater good” theodicy. Why is “greater good” to be valued more highly than “less bad”? What’s “better” – a larger gemstone with more inclusions, or a smaller, perfect gemstone? … And, yes, I do realize it’s problematic to compare people with things ;)<br /><br /><br /><i>While the theoretical aspects are interesting and fun to discuss, it really doesn't mean much in relation to Christianity. </i><br /><br />It doesn’t mean much in relation to God’s existence; but I think God’s “goodness” is crucial to Christianity. Otherwise, how do we know we can trust God? Isn’t the “gospel” basically that God has a plan – and that it is “good news”? Why should anyone trust that, if God cannot be shown to be “good”?JB Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953958874388354830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65462309318092528412012-10-02T21:19:06.629-07:002012-10-02T21:19:06.629-07:00@cI
It sounded like you weren’t interested in con...@cI<br /><br />It sounded like you weren’t interested in continuing this conversation, and that is fair enough. Nevertheless, there were a few things you mentioned that merited a response. So…<br /><br /><i>It's not my fault that Cole or any other atheist can't think of an answer to the question, but, the fact that they can't should not be taken as any evidence or "objection" against God. </i><br /><br />Well, I agree that it’s not evidence against God’s existence. That much is obvious. What is at issue is the omni-attributes of God. Furthermore, I stated it was a “serious objection”. By that I simply meant that I think that these are not frivolous, dismissive, hand-waves against theistic concepts of God. IMHO, they deserve a response. (And Cole certainly has gotten his fair share!) <br /><br /><i>My current opinion is that God does not have morally significant free will. </i><br /><br />But God has <b>non-moral</b> “free will”? I’m not sure what this distinction accomplishes. Are God’s choices determined, or are they of His own volition? <br /><br /><br />I don't define "free" as the ability to do absolutely anything. <br /><br />That’s fair. I guess my follow-up here would be how one demonstrates or defines “morally significant” free-will, and/or how one would disprove it. No offense, but it seems a nebulous concept. It seems to concede that one’s will may not be “significantly” free in other areas. And that was my point: our choices are clearly constrained and influenced. Yet, we would still affirm that we are “free”. <br /><br /><i>Well, yeah, but IMHO God CANNOT instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things. </i><br /><br />OK, I would assume this is because you’ve defined “free will” as being able to choose between good and evil (e.g. “morally significant”)? If you define “free” as the ability to choose evil, then sure. But this isn’t “free” as it is commonly understood. In such a scenario as I described (freely choosing only <b>good</b>), we may not be “morally free”, but then neither (according to you) is God, and – presumably – neither are those in Heaven. <br /><br />Maybe you wouldn’t affirm that we are “free” in Heaven, I don’t know. But most do. Yet, most also agree that evil is not possible in Heaven. So, there is a largely agreed-upon reality where people freely choose only Good. Someone commented that Heaven is contingent upon this world, and while that may be true, it does not follow that this is necessary. This does present a serious problem to be grappled with. <br />JB Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953958874388354830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38968234055285120312012-09-26T13:17:53.931-07:002012-09-26T13:17:53.931-07:00Crude,
I did ctrl+F, it still took a while, as th...<b>Crude</b>,<br /><br />I did ctrl+F, it still took a while, as there were over 35+ instances of "Papalinton" on just the front page alone.<br /><br />Dates serve as permalinks on many blogging platforms (I used to wish Vic would enable that here, as it makes things so much easier). If you want to link to a particular comment on Feser's blog, click the date link and copy the URL.<br /><br />Take careAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1018637527715708712012-09-26T12:18:34.324-07:002012-09-26T12:18:34.324-07:00cl,
Thanks, but... next time please spare me from...cl,<br /><br /><i>Thanks, but... next time please spare me from having to wade through 300+ comments with a direct link, if it's not too inconvenient for you. :)</i><br /><br />Sorry man. I didn't know of any way to direct link a comment. I figured you'd just ctrl-f and look for the name in question.<br /><br /><i>Now, there is a fine line, and I'm not suggesting we refrain from reaching out to those who genuinely seek answers to questions, but, look at Paps, Cole, BI, etc. Do they strike anybody else as here to learn?</i><br /><br />Nope, and I agree with you. Honestly, I generally know when I'm engaging in a potentially productive conversation, and just mocking someone. I flat out ignore Linton 95% of the time, same for the rest.<br /><br />There's better ways to spend time. I think most people here are in 'shoot the shit' mode, not 'serious discussion' or 'get something accomplished' mode.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68047842195677513682012-09-26T11:43:19.610-07:002012-09-26T11:43:19.610-07:00Crude,
Thanks, but... next time please spare me f...<b>Crude</b>,<br /><br />Thanks, but... next time please spare me from having to wade through 300+ comments with a direct link, if it's not too inconvenient for you. :)<br /><br />On another note, I wish I would have resisted the temptation to ask, because now I just wasted another 45 minutes of my life on something related to somebody who doesn't give a rat's ass about truth or cogency. Sure, it gratified the flesh a little to laugh at the beatdown Paps received at the hands of a fellow atheist whom I respect, but, what did it really profit me?<br /><br />I don't know about anyone else here, but for quite a a while now, I've been getting some real convictions about time spent indulging such commentary lately. It is so, so easy to be duped into thinking we're doing "good" by battling stubborn atheists, but, where is the biblical precedent for this? Jesus told the disciples to "shake the dust" and move to the next town when the stubborn rejected the message. Paul warned us against "vain philosophy" and "quarrels over meaningless words," because they have "no profit" to those who listen and tend to create more dissension.<br /><br />Now, there is a fine line, and I'm not suggesting we refrain from reaching out to those who <b><i>genuinely</i></b> seek answers to questions, but, look at Paps, Cole, BI, etc. Do they strike anybody else as here to learn?<br /><br />I suggest we all take it to the Lord with specific questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60960759640169592082012-09-26T09:55:09.286-07:002012-09-26T09:55:09.286-07:00For all internet Gnus and even some Atheists of go...For all internet Gnus and even some Atheists of good will, YEC is Christianity and they can't conceive of another.<br /><br />Like I said the lot of them merely have the mundane skills to refute the superstitions of peasants. <br /><br />This is of course Richard Dawkins fault. He once made some asinine remark that non-Fundamentalist Christians don't take the Bible "seriously" like he & the religious fundamentalists do.<br /><br />Amazing a whole generation of Atheists condemned to stupid.<br /><br />The cruel irony is if there really is no God then they are still condemned to stupid.<br /><br />Life is a comedy and like all comedy it has a tragedy beneath it.<br /><br />Cheers.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48553175340617934512012-09-26T08:49:51.114-07:002012-09-26T08:49:51.114-07:00"None of that "disproves" the God o..."None of that "disproves" the God of the Bible and you are confused over what constitutes a "proof" in science. At best, what you mentioned "disproves" that a literalist, YEC interpretation of Scripture is partially at odds with the current scientific consensus. Scientific consensus changes often, so, you haven't shown that science "disproved" the God of the Bible. Do you have an real evidence for your claim?"<br /><br />I had really hoped that he had a better argument than that - say, Quentin Smith's argument against creatio ex nihilo, or a cyclical universe model that shoots the beginning back into infinity. Granted, those still fail, but they're at least competent and well thought out. The whole YEC trope, on the other hand, is just old and worn out.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12314020185493125072012-09-26T04:39:50.944-07:002012-09-26T04:39:50.944-07:00cl,
Right here.cl,<br /><br /><a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-divine-intellect.html" rel="nofollow">Right here</a>.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2491752120837602692012-09-25T23:43:33.374-07:002012-09-25T23:43:33.374-07:00Crude,
Can you point me to the dguller / Paps thi...<b>Crude</b>,<br /><br />Can you point me to the dguller / Paps thing? I just looked briefly to no avail.<br /><br />Thanks bud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56777969967726227112012-09-25T23:38:25.391-07:002012-09-25T23:38:25.391-07:00Well crap. Cole actually made an attempt September...Well crap. Cole actually made an attempt September 23, 2012 7:21 PM, so now I <i>have</i> to come back... may as well get back to JB, too.<br /><br /><b>Cole</b>,<br /><br />None of that "disproves" the God of the Bible and you are confused over what constitutes a "proof" in science. At best, what you mentioned "disproves" that a literalist, YEC interpretation of Scripture is partially at odds with the current scientific consensus. Scientific consensus changes often, so, you haven't shown that science "disproved" the God of the Bible. Do you have an real evidence for your claim? <br /><br /><b>JB</b>,<br /><br />Since this whole discussion is thread drift anyways, I just want to let you know I probably won't be back to reply to you after this. I'm only replying now because you took the time to reply to me, and I want to return in kind. I'd love to chat more about it, if you feel the same way then let's continue it at my blog, or your blog, or email, or whatever.<br /><br /><i>"Many/most, I think, would have to answer with “I have no idea.”"</i><br /><br />Not I. I feel like I have a very good idea. Although it's hard to articulate in a one-line blog comment, if I had only one line to try, I'd say it's because one cannot reject that which they've neither understood nor experienced. It's not my fault that Cole or any other atheist can't think of an answer to the question, but, the fact that they can't should not be taken as any evidence or "objection" against God.<br /><br /><i>"If you (or others) simply weren’t interested in answering (some of) his questions/objections, that’s your prerogative."</i><br /><br />No, I'm interested, it's just that I was trying to keep him focused on the initial claims he made. If you give people a long enough rope they'll take off running. You have to pin them down.<br /><br /><i>"God is said to be only capable of acting according to His own nature (“Goodness” itself), and so cannot choose evil, yet we would still consider God to be “free”, yes?"</i><br /><br />My current opinion is that God does not have morally significant free will. So, my answer would be "no," provided that you really mean "morally significant free will" when you say "free will."<br /><br /><i>"There are always rules in this world, so we really can never be “free”. I cannot choose to reverse the laws of thermodynamics; that option is not available to me."</i><br /><br />That you cannot reverse the laws of thermodynamics does not entail that you don't have morally significant free will. It entails that you are not omnipotent. I don't define "free" as the ability to do absolutely anything. So for me, the discussion changes accordingly.<br /><br /><i>"In any case, as I said before, *IF* someone holds that God can instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things, then this makes theodicy more difficult, IMHO."</i><br /><br />Well, yeah, but IMHO God CANNOT instantiate a reality where people can freely choose *only* good things. That's precisely the paradox under criticism. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18367756478870104992012-09-25T18:55:01.706-07:002012-09-25T18:55:01.706-07:00Ben,
So I saw. It was hilarious. He didn't ch...Ben,<br /><br />So I saw. It was hilarious. He didn't change his ways - he was simply exposed, knew it, and hoofed it. Nothing too encouraging there.<br /><br />Still with New Vegas? Ah well, onto Borderlands 2 for myself. I love a game heavy on the loot.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33731670452547419632012-09-25T18:23:02.851-07:002012-09-25T18:23:02.851-07:00Crude,
Did you read over at Feser's blog when...Crude,<br /><br />Did you read over at Feser's blog when dguller gave him a good smack?<br /><br />Paps later got all sheepish and apologized for his behavior later on. It went under the radar but I noticed it.<br /><br />I guess a small part of me wants to hope that even the likes of Paps could change his self defeating ways.<br /><br />But yeh it's better to be a cynic at this point. Paps is a fundamentalist threw and threw.<br /><br />He loves his invalid arguments & methods more then the "valid truth" he ultimately believes.<br /><br />I think I hear FALLOUT NEW VEGAS call me.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29563525225684992372012-09-25T17:55:34.391-07:002012-09-25T17:55:34.391-07:00Ben,
You're wasting your time on a sad, lonel...Ben,<br /><br />You're wasting your time on a sad, lonely old man. Your time's better spent elsewhere.<br /><br />I mean, seriously, especially now. Aren't you a gamer? Borderlands 2, Torchlight 2, Guild Wars 2... rather a lot to dive into rather than arguing with the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usK3eA9tezA" rel="nofollow">"teacher"</a>.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24610287760533087682012-09-25T17:30:11.805-07:002012-09-25T17:30:11.805-07:00Ben
"
I believe in the Transcendent Intellige...Ben<br /><i>"<br />I believe in the Transcendent Intelligence/Will who is Purely Actual.</i><br /><br />But it doesn't explain anything let alone mean anything. Are these Feser's words? <br /><br />"Transcendence (religion), the concept of being entirely beyond the universe (Not a living being)" [the definition from The All References Library], seems to be at odds with something that is 'actual' [actual |ˈak ch oōəl| adjective; existing in fact; typically as contrasted with what was intended, expected, or believed] All References Library. How is something that is not a living being be actual? <br />There is no sense to the concept.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75258293770992978902012-09-25T15:49:28.102-07:002012-09-25T15:49:28.102-07:00@Paps here is a quarter buy a clue.
>You have ...@Paps here is a quarter buy a clue.<br /><br />>You have not explained how a catholic reconciles an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer.<br /><br />Translation: I am going to ignore what BenYachov just said to meQUOTE"<b>Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?</b>END QUOTE and repeat the same lame shit without interacting with it.<br /><br />Useless thy name is Paps.<br /><br />>Tell me, do you go into church and pray for a personal relationship with god, or do you personally pray to an impersonal, immaterial, omni-max entity.<br /><br />Paps in the past I've told you I hold a third alternative. I don't believe in either the anthropomorphic unequivocal human mind vs The Force.<br /><br />I believe in the Transcendent Intelligence/Will who is Purely Actual.<br /><br />Why is this fucking hard? Oh that's right <b>because you are too lazy to do your homework "teacher".</b><br /><br />Give me a break. <br /><br />Paps you suck at defending Atheism.<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6667316287569838442012-09-25T15:21:37.913-07:002012-09-25T15:21:37.913-07:00Ben
">How does one reconcile an immaterial...Ben<br /><i>">How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer?<br /><br />I've explained this & you still don't pay attention."</i><br /><br />But you haven't. You have not explained how a catholic reconciles an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer. Your case has been very poorly prosecuted and has mounted to little more than personal slur and invective. <br />Tell me, do you go into church and pray for a personal relationship with god, or do you personally pray to an impersonal, immaterial, omni-max entity. And if it is an impersonal, omni-max entity, that is not a moral agent, one that knows everything because of its omniscience, then why bother praying at all? It already knows everything. Just does not make sense. The act of praying to such a god who knows everything even before, and as it happens, and even after it happens, one that knows what you are thinking, feeling and doing, seems to be a somewhat useless and senseless thing to do. Why? Because the exercise seems completely redundant. <br />Ben, there is no ordinary logic at play here, it is theo-logic. <br />The act of praying to God only makes sense if you are seeking to establish a personal relationship with Him; but a 'relationship' by its very definition requires reciprocity, it's a two-way thing. If its not two-way it is not a relationship.<br /><br />How do you convince Walter that he is wrong, knowing full well he too, as I understand him to be, believes in god just as fervently as you do but utterly rejects the concept of a catholic god.<br /><br />I cannot envisage your perception of the world as anything but a small narrow-focussed perspective that embraces only 1/7th of the global population with the remaining 6/7th of peoples sitting outside the catholic tribe, and that those 6 billion other people are only considered of worth as 'potential' catholics ripe for proselytizing. This is not a view that is consistent with the [apparent] universality of catholicism that catholics love to claim for themselves. Your arguments are unconvincing not only to me, to Walter, but to increasingly more people around the world.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/irish-catholics-rejecting-church-doctrine-7643883.html" rel="nofollow">See here</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.universityobserver.ie/2012/06/22/religious-apathy-eucharistic-congress/" rel="nofollow">And here</a><br /><br />Ben you cannot keep your head in the sand. The world is speaking and the world is changing.<br /><br />Finally, "Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?" What does this even mean in plain language? I have been told to understand that god is not 'infinity beyond' but an essence.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25412321728626221032012-09-25T14:59:47.632-07:002012-09-25T14:59:47.632-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23921314944519249802012-09-25T09:00:01.326-07:002012-09-25T09:00:01.326-07:00>I have no interest in any debate about the pro...>I have no interest in any debate about the pros and cons of what classical theism, as it is generally an irrelevant and inconsequential one from the perspective of atheism.<br /><br />Then by definition you have no means to give any rational arguments as to why Classic Theism is false and Atheism is true.<br /><br />You are at best doomed to only be able to polemic the low brow popular superstitions of peasants <br /><br />I have never met a so called "teacher" so allergic to mere learning.<br /><br />dguller knows Classic Theism from Theistic Personalism. Why can't you be more like him?<br /><br />You save me the ajadah you cause me with your stupidity.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70593276511229176282012-09-25T08:51:58.792-07:002012-09-25T08:51:58.792-07:00>Yes I understand that, Ben. In fact,
That is ...>Yes I understand that, Ben. In fact,<br /><br />That is not likelty. If you understood you wouldn't have set the concept of Classic Theism against Islam (which historically is a Classic Theistic religion).<br /><br />>And perhaps I could have rephrased my comment about classical theism and Islam a little better.<br /><br />But the problem is you are not trying and thus have nothing interesting to say.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88760575483158092372012-09-25T08:47:23.476-07:002012-09-25T08:47:23.476-07:00>How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max...>How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer?<br /><br />I've explained this & you still don't pay attention.<br /><br />Paps my late Cat of happy memory related to me and likely "perceived" me(if I may use that term in a lose fashion) as just another animal. Of course as a human I am an order of magnitude above a mere animal. <br /><br />Why is it remarkable to you when God relates to us we in our limited capacity would perceive Him as a person like us even thought He is Infinity beyond that?<br /><br />It's not hard.<br /><br />I'll answer your other brain dead disingenuous shit later.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19310584308870784812012-09-25T04:34:15.452-07:002012-09-25T04:34:15.452-07:00Ben
"Muslims are Classic Theists. You didn&#...Ben <br /><i>"Muslims are Classic Theists. You didn't know that(of course because you refuse to read Feser or Davies) <br /><br />They use many of the same Platonic and Aristotlian philosophical arguments to argue for the existence of God & to draw conclusions about his nature in the area of natural theology as Christians and Jews do. They may come to a few variant conclusions but they believe in the Divine Simplicity like Jews and Christians. They believe God has no obligations etc...."</i><br /><br />" Yes I understand that, Ben. In fact, <i>"classical theism is, historically, the mainstream view between philosophers and is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas." </i> From Wiki. <br /><br />But, <i>"in opposition to this tradition, there are, today, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (who rejects divine simplicity), Richard Swinburne (who rejects divine timelessness) and William Lane Craig (who reject both divine simplicity and timelessness), who can be viewed as theistic personalists."</i><br /><br /> I have no interest in any debate about the pros and cons of what classical theism, as it is generally an irrelevant and inconsequential one from the perspective of atheism. And yes I do understand that Islam would have appropriated the same thoughts of a pagan philosopher as has catholicism. After all the three Abrahamic faiths are simply variations of an older religious theme, which by the way, through Judaism, had undergone the transition from polytheism to monotheism, and onto which christianity modelled itself; then followed by another version of the old Jewish stories held in common by Muslims in the 7thC. <br /><br />That is not the issue. And perhaps I could have rephrased my comment about classical theism and Islam a little better. But Ben, you yourself alluded to what I was getting to. How can the few variants of classical theism that you allude to result in such fundamentally and radically different and conflictual perceptions and conceptions of god's relationship to his followers? Mindful of the christian/muslim terror happening in Africa, and the detestation of all things christian in the West by Muslims, and the contesting rhetoric of catholic clergy and laity, ably endorsed and assisted by their evangelical and fundamentalist christian compadres in the US about Islam, does not present a good or welcoming face in the public square. <br /><br />Incidentally, what does Feser say about what should be done to embrace Islam seeing catholicism and Islam are brothers-in-arms singing from the same Aristotelian hymn sheet? It seems you are advocating Islam as being little different, if not almost the same as catholicism, apart from a few minor variations, because both are founded on Classical Theism. I like your ecumenism. But I'm not sure Muslims are hearing you. <br /><br />I don't have a dog in this fight but the <a href="http://www.reachingcatholics.org/cath_islam.html" rel="nofollow">following</a> is an interesting christian-on-christian review of the catholic/muslim relationship. These christian are <a href="http://www.reachingcatholics.org/mainpage.html" rel="nofollow">Here</a>. Just interesting, that's all.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43811635739549445592012-09-25T04:01:34.403-07:002012-09-25T04:01:34.403-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49186695765056491262012-09-25T02:42:01.788-07:002012-09-25T02:42:01.788-07:00"So in violation of the teaching of Aquinas a...<i>"So in violation of the teaching of Aquinas and the Church Fathers you are making an unequivocal comparison between God and His creatures instead of an analogous one?"</i><br /><br />Ben, are you familiar with:<br /><br />Our father which art in heaven<br />Hallowed be thy name ...etc.?<br /><br />How does one reconcile an immaterial, omni-max, non-moral agent of Classical Theism with the very deep and personal sentiments expressed in the Lord's Prayer? There is no analogy here. Calling god in such a personal manner more than suggests that it is not an unequivocal comparison but that of a direct relationship. And if calling Il Papa [father], brothers, fathers, sisters and mothers of the church are not an expression of that relationship with god, then what other reason could there be?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45761854637924027722012-09-24T19:23:29.977-07:002012-09-24T19:23:29.977-07:00>I don't see how the death of Christ heals....<br />>I don't see how the death of Christ heals.<br /><br />The Cross heals the spiritual damage done to your soul from sin after you repent.<br /><br />>But there have been times when I have felt the love, serenity, and joy really strong. The presence at times is overwhelming. My mind clears the the love and joy just flows through me to others. It's like being in a state of wonder.<br /><br />I would say that comes from the Cross, From the Crucified and Risen Christ.<br /><br />Of course as a Catholic I am bias. I admit that.:-)<br /><br />Cheers.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com