Subject:

Comments:
: : oedipus - You can't prove that God doesn't exist; you can't prove that anything doesn't exist. Freud isn't *proving* the non-existence of God. You're presented with 2 alternatives: : : 1)God exists : : 2)he's an imaginary being : : rather than proving one or the other absolutely, you have to select the one which makes the most sense. Did God create humans and instill in them a desire for him? Or do humans simply possess a desire for transcendent experience, for and escape from death, and therefore create fictions to satisfy their cravings? : Philosopher: I never said that people do not possess a desire for transcendent experience or a desire to escape death. Don't pretend that Freund is so profound that he's the only one that notices it. However, where does this desire come from? Did it just materialize from the ether? Is that just the way humans are? Is it evolution or something? No matter what you say you cannot explain the metaphysical "why" of the genesis of these feelings. And don't give me that nonsense about not prooving or disprooving the existence of God: selecting the one that makes the most sense you is the same thing as prooving one to be correct; unless you think something that doesn't exist makes more sense than something that does. Obviously, you can't proove something doesn't exist in the physical sense--you can't prove a negative; I know this. But you can show that the existence of something would be absurd given premises that we know to be true. We don't know Freud's premises to be true, so we can't infer that God's existence is absurd. St. Thomas, on the other hand, starts with premises that are undeniably true--he never ever starts an argument from any other position that what the evidence of everyday experience shows. It is undeniably true that there is motion. Motion is always caused by something. You see where he's going. Freud, however, starts with strange theories that nobody else had heard of before, and not everyone knows about today. Think of how much more background work Freud would have to do to explain any of his theories as compared to St Thomas, who starts with what is easily observable. : : : oedipus - Look at that logic. You're equating reason and belief. I don't think they have anything in common. : Philosopher: You're comment cuts right to heart of why there is so much stupidity and error in the world today. It is you, Oedipus, you mother-f...(I just realized somthing, Oedipus really was a mother-fu@#$!,) any way, it is you who don't know the difference between reason and belief. Belief presupposes reason. It builds on reason. Without reason, belief gets you nowhere. Now St. Thomas held that reason and belief can never contradict each other, because they flow from the same source, namely God. However, contrary to what I know your atheistic inclinations are, Thomas did not say that when reason and belief conflict that we should disregard reason; rather, we must continue the search for the truth. You have umed that God is a matter of belief only, which is understandable given that religion really is about faith and God; still, prooving the existence, I repeat the existence, of God is a matter of reason. God's attributes are a matter of faith. : : oedipus - People can accept that their fathers aren't all-powerful; they can't accept the fact that there is no all-powerful being at all. So they conjure up an invisible father. : Philosopher: This is manifestly a non-sequiteur. Somehow people can deal with their father's diminished status but they can't deal with no all-powerful being. I thought the human-father-is-like-a-divine-father concept was an ogy. It seems to break down here. Incidentally, I'm not insensate to the subtle arrogance pervading your argument. You imply that most people can't deal with there being no omnipotent being, but since you can that makes you better than the rest of us ignorant slobs. : : oedipus - Not all evil comes from man. If God exists, he must bear sole responsibility for natural disasters. If there is no God, these are not evil, they are morally neutral. If there is a God, however, these disasters are caused by an intelligent agent and are therefore evil actions, the evil-doer being God. : Philosopher: Once again I'm treated to Oedipus' favorite argument: the perfect circle. God makes natural disaters, which are evil, therefore these evil natural disasters are caused by God--this is really your argument. Natural disasters are a morally neutral event--your're quite right--but not because there isn't a God. Natural disasters happen dispite God--they are not the spite of God. : God can ALLOW evil, which is completely different than CAUSING evil, if a greater good is achieved at the same time. What is the greater good achieved from hurricanes, volcanoes, earthquakes? Well, these are all effects of how the natural order has been created. Think about it: hurricanes are part of an incredibly complex global climate system--sunny days, a nice breeze, gloomy overcast, and yes hurricanes are all part of one whole. A whole, incidentally, that no one completely understands yet. But don't worry, I don't expect you to understand a fine point like this. : : oedipus - Then you don't pray? : Philosopher: I don't get everything I want. : : oedipus - The catholic church is just as occult, but it has prestige. I think the longing for angels and the longing for aliens is identical and I defy you to prove that they are dissimilar. : Philosopher: Ah, at last. I've been waiting for the bigotry. Why did it take you so long? That the Catholic Church is "just a cult" is extremely offensive, but I don't expect more from you. Anyway, I probably can't proove that angels exist--and by the way aliens might exist, but that wasn't my point anyway--not because it can't be done, but because you would never, ever, accept it. So why try? Here's how the argument would go incidentally: 1.) there is a God, a purely spiritual being who is perfect 2.) there are humans who are both spiritual and bodily beings as well as imperfect 3.)It is possible for there to be an imperfect purely spiritual being, and this being we call angels. You can see why I don't try, because you're not open to anything you don't already belief--kind of ironic isn't it? For a free thinking Freudian dogamatist, I mean. : : oedipus - People talk about God, even though they admit he 'surpes human understanding.' : Philosopher: Totally understanding God does surp human understanding, but we can still talk about things we don't totally understand. Otherwise, in order to inquire into some unknown matter we would first have to comepletely understand it, which is absurd. : : oedipus - So why do so many people prefer Buddha or Muhammad or Krishna. : Philosopher: Because people think those deities are what fulfills them. I never denied that people think they have found what fulfills them in something besides Jesus. It's just that they're not always correct, or at least aren't necessarily right, but this gets into a whole argument about religion that is best left for elsewhere. : : oedipus - Obviously not, or devout christians would immediately give up their possessions and abandon their families. (Who was it that suggested that?) : Philosopher: I'm begining to wonder why I even try. You totally lack any sophitication whatsoever. Saying that God is the chief good is not the same as saying the God is the only good. We quite obviously need possessions and families. Those things aren't bad. It is only loving those things too much or in the wrong way that is bad. Consider an alcoholic: he loves alcohol too much and in the wrong way because he thinks it is his "friend" or gives him a reason for living, which no drink can possibly do. : : oedipus - Not true. I know plenty of girls who sit around longing for a boyfriend or husband, event though they don't yet know anyone suitable. They form their ideal first, then try to fit guy into it. Boys do the same thing. And haven't you ever heard of 'venting your frustration'? People feel grouchy, and go about looking for someone to hurl their anger against. I say feelings come first, and attach themselves to objects. : Philosopher: When people dream of an ideal mate and then try to force someone into that mold the object is still prior to the emotion. The object is the form "ideal mate"--even though no particular person is in mind, or even exists--and the emotion of pleasure naturally flows towards that object. In this case the object is an idea, which admittedly is more complex than a physical object, but the phychological processing is the same. Isn't it absurd to think that people sit around randomly emoting and then create an object for there emotions. In your example, girls would be feeling emotions--for no reason--and would somehow attach these emotions to the thought "Gee, I wish were married." Come on, now. If you're so sure your're right just go ahead and tell a girl that wanting a husband is irrational and see if you escape unslapped. : And I do know about venting frustrations--in fact I think that I'm the object of that right now--but isn't it true that the person venting is still mad about something, but just not at the person to whom he shows his anger? I mean, my favorite team could lose and then I yell at my girlfriend because she comes home a little late; isn't my team's loss the cause of my anger? And isn't that still an object?

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[Nantuckets.com][BusinessPhilosophy.com][Classicals.com] [Nantucket Poetry Postcards]
[Nantucket Navy Live Chat][The Jolly Roger][Kill Devil Hill][Western Canon University][Federalistnavy.com Spirit of America]
[Starbuck.com Classical Poetry Port] [Kill Devil Hill] [Shakespearean Greetings]
[Conservative Cafe][nantucketnavy.com][hatteraslight.com]
StThomashall Freud: Nantucket Campfire

StThomashall Nantucket Campfire
StThomashall & Other Nantucket Live Chats
If ye would like to moderate the StThomashall Nantucket Campfire, please drop nantucket@nantuckets.com a line.