Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Res Ipsa]

I don't see how the catholic position is a fallacious argument, if that's what is meant by sophistry. If anything, the argument is sound but is based on the assumed starting conditions which of course, they also set. I would say the complaint about their conclusions would be a reliance upon a religious version of an incompleteness theorem, even though followed by a nonfallacious argument.

I don’t think it’s a formal fallacy. I do think drawing a distinction without a difference in a result oriented fashion is deceptive. Your mileage may vary.

[sock puppet]

If you were a God believer, what kind of God would you feel comfortable believing in while at the same time recognizing the world for what it is?

Need to disentangle believing there exists a God from believing in God. I believe Donald Trump exists, but I don't believe in Donald Trump.

In either case, it has nothing to do with whether I'm "comfortable" or not. There are many realities I accept that don't make me comfortable.

It's impossible to say in advance what my criteria is for believing in God's existence. The biggest issue is that breaking me psychologically won't make me thirst for God. I'm well beyond appealing to my self-interest. The problem then is that, a sufficiently advanced alien could visit me and tell me it is an angel, and come up with a great story about who God is, and I'm simply not bright enough to see through all the holes.

I think it's really impossible to believe God exists rationally with confidence. I don't want to say in advance what God should be like to be believable. I would suggest though, if I had to offer one constraint, that God is not an idiot. God should realize just how easy it is for someone to come up with a good story to convince others with. And so, I would think that the last thing God would be worried about is whether any of us believe he exists. But I don't formally constrain God to be reasonable in this way, as I understand reason. I'm open to God being a total butcher who demands allegiance on a whim. It's just, how is the case for that God going to be made? I can't say in advance I won't be convinced, but until I see the case I can speculate it will not be an easy one to make.

Perhaps God is as gullible as Mormons.

[huckelberry]

Not that I'm a catholic scholar or anything, but the little bit I've learned seems to indicate that no, catholics do not believe God can be compelled.

From the catechism, see final (bolded by me) phrase:

LOL! Thanks, Marcus. I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at how much clever lawyering a church can do when it has a couple thousand years to do it. Maybe this is why we have so many Catholics on the Supreme Court.

I had to read this a few times before I understood how this works. So, God requires baptism for salvation, but God needs people to perform the ordinance. But the ordinance would be worthless if God retained the right to declare the ordinance invalid for any reason (or no reason). So, how does the Catholic church avoid the argument Sock Puppet is making -- that an omnipotent being cannot be restrained by the Priest that performs the baptism?
God binds the ordinance to the Priest, but he doesn't bind himself.

I think it's sophistry, but it's clever sophistry.

We could apply the same reasoning to Mormonism. God binds the ordinance of eternal marriage to temple workers. God binds the ordinance of baptism to certain priesthood holders, etc. Voila! We have a God that, substantively, gives part of his power to humans while retaining his omnipotence.

Man, those Catholic theologians are Goooooood!

Res Ipsa, I get the impression that you worked very hard to fit that Catholic statement back into Mormon thought. Perhaps a small misunderstanding caused or contributed to the problem. In Catholic context, baptism does not require a priest. It can be done by anybody. It is not a power other than God. God can save unbaptized people if God wants to. The statement suggests that is a possibility for people who did not reject baptism.

[MG 2.0]

Need to disentangle believing there exists a God from believing in God. I believe Donald Trump exists, but I don't believe in Donald Trump.

In either case, it has nothing to do with whether I'm "comfortable" or not. There are many realities I accept that don't make me comfortable.

It's impossible to say in advance what my criteria is for believing in God's existence. The biggest issue is that breaking me psychologically won't make me thirst for God. I'm well beyond appealing to my self-interest. The problem then is that, a sufficiently advanced alien could visit me and tell me it is an angel, and come up with a great story about who God is, and I'm simply not bright enough to see through all the holes.

I think it's really impossible to believe God exists rationally with confidence. I don't want to say in advance what God should be like to be believable. I would suggest though, if I had to offer one constraint, that God is not an idiot. God should realize just how easy it is for someone to come up with a good story to convince others with. And so, I would think that the last thing God would be worried about is whether any of us believe he exists. But I don't formally constrain God to be reasonable in this way, as I understand reason. I'm open to God being a total butcher who demands allegiance on a whim. It's just, how is the case for that God going to be made? I can't say in advance I won't be convinced, but until I see the case I can speculate it will not be an easy one to make.

Perhaps God is as gullible as Mormons.

Would it be so hard for a non religious person to not beat around the bush?

In this thread and others I see reference to ‘Mormon God’. Mormon God essentially being dissed because He isn’t fully ‘Omni’ in the way(s) that non believers demand.

Well, OK.

So again (I’ve asked previously), let’s play ‘build a God’ (as I’ve been trying to get someone to do without using rhetorical/sophisticated barricades in order not to do so) and have a non religious person that has an imagination construct what YOUR God would be. Personality, characteristics, attributes, powers, etc.

Describe that God. Just assume for the moment and for giggles that He exists.

The only constraint is that you cannot change anything about the world that we live in or the creatures that inhabit it, including humans. Because, as I said, it is what it is.

No aliens allowed. A creator God.

It could be fun!

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Perhaps God is as gullible as Mormons.

Would it be so hard for a non religious person to not beat around the bush?

In this thread and others I see reference to ‘Mormon God’. Mormon God essentially being dissed because He isn’t fully ‘Omni’ in the way(s) that non believers demand.

Well, OK.

So again (I’ve asked previously), let’s play ‘build a God’ (as I’ve been trying to get someone to do without using rhetorical/sophisticated barricades in order not to do so) and have a non religious person that has an imagination construct what YOUR God would be. Personality, characteristics, attributes, powers, etc.

Describe that God. Just assume for the moment and for giggles that He exists.

The only constraint is that you cannot change anything about the world that we live in or the creatures that inhabit it, including humans. Because, as I said, it is what it is.

No aliens allowed. A creator God.

It could be fun!

Regards,
MG

My use of Mormon God has nothing to do with dissing anything. It is recognition that the COJCOLDS's conception of God is materially different than the orthodox (small o) Christian conception of God.

Why not knock it off with the strawmen? I don't believe that the orthodox Christian God is in some way superior to Mormon God. I don't believe that either exist.

You've tried the same argument you are setting before: you can't criticize my God unless you can come up with a better one. It's nonsense.

The real answer to my perfect God is one that does not exist.

[Morley]

In this thread and others I see reference to ‘Mormon God’. Mormon God essentially being dissed because He isn’t fully ‘Omni’ in the way(s) that non believers demand.

Bolding mine.


Or more likely, in the way that virtually every other believer, in every faith in Abrahamic tradition, demands--whether Muslim, Jew, Baha'i, or Christian. No one is dissing 'Mormon God.' What they're dissing are your arguments about the so-called Mormon God.

[MG 2.0]

Would it be so hard for a non religious person to not beat around the bush?

In this thread and others I see reference to ‘Mormon God’. Mormon God essentially being dissed because He isn’t fully ‘Omni’ in the way(s) that non believers demand.

Well, OK.

So again (I’ve asked previously), let’s play ‘build a God’ (as I’ve been trying to get someone to do without using rhetorical/sophisticated barricades in order not to do so) and have a non religious person that has an imagination construct what YOUR God would be. Personality, characteristics, attributes, powers, etc.

Describe that God. Just assume for the moment and for giggles that He exists.

The only constraint is that you cannot change anything about the world that we live in or the creatures that inhabit it, including humans. Because, as I said, it is what it is.

No aliens allowed. A creator God.

It could be fun!

Regards,
MG

My use of Mormon God has nothing to do with dissing anything.

OK. My apologies.

It is recognition that the COJCOLDS's conception of God is materially different than the orthodox (small o) Christian conception of God.

Yes, that is true.

You've tried the same argument you are setting before: you can't criticize my God unless you can come up with a better one. It's nonsense.

I don’t think it is. Folks can and will criticize the Mormon view of God. That won’t stop.

My concern is that when non religionists stop believing in God for reasons such as evil in the world or the horrific things that occur because of disease and other natural occurrences they stop there and call it quits. They don’t look for alternative explanations so as to keep faith and hope in a loving God.

Some folks may first be angry with the God they did believe in and then end up simply disbelieving.

I see that as unfortunate.

That’s why I’m proposing this ‘ask’. It’s not an easy one, I know. But I’m asking in all seriousness. What would God be if a nonbeliever constructed a creator God they could believe in while at the same time leaving everything ‘as is’ in the world that we live in without changing anything.

Because it is what it is.

The real answer to my perfect God is one that does not exist.

But that’s not a perfect God. That’s dispensing with God altogether.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In this thread and others I see reference to ‘Mormon God’. Mormon God essentially being dissed because He isn’t fully ‘Omni’ in the way(s) that non believers demand.

Bolding mine.


Or more likely, in the way that virtually every other believer, in every faith in Abrahamic tradition, demands--whether Muslim, Jew, Baha'i, or Christian. No one is dissing 'Mormon God.' What they're dissing are your arguments about the so-called Mormon God.

And that’s easy to do. Diss someone’s arguments for God.

Would you play along with the ‘constructed/constructive’ God I’ve asked for?

The one you could live with and worship as God?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...My concern is that when non religionists stop believing in God for reasons such as evil in the world or the horrific things that occur because of disease and other natural occurrences they stop there and call it quits. They don’t look for alternative explanations so as to keep faith and hope in a loving God.

Some folks may first be angry with the God they did believe in and then end up simply disbelieving.

I see that as unfortunate.

I'm pretty sure that was covered already. Multiple times.

There it is again. Only MG 2.0 has a reasoned basis for his beliefs on free will. Those who disagree do not.

by the way, you won't leave it at that. You'll do the same thing again and again and again and again.

How many more examples do I need to point out, MG 2.0 before you understand how empty your words about respecting the beliefs of others are?

This is an interesting thread! Just leave that stuff out, please.

[MG 2.0]

...My concern is that when non religionists stop believing in God for reasons such as evil in the world or the horrific things that occur because of disease and other natural occurrences they stop there and call it quits. They don’t look for alternative explanations so as to keep faith and hope in a loving God.

Some folks may first be angry with the God they did believe in and then end up simply disbelieving.

I see that as unfortunate.

I'm pretty sure that was covered already. Multiple times.

You mean alternative explanations so as to keep faith and hope in a loving God?

Point me to where I might see that?

This is an interesting thread!

I think so. That’s why I’ve stuck with it thus far.

Would you be interested in playing along with my ‘God creation’ exercise?

With your imagination I think you could come up with something great!

Regards,
MG