Humility: Good or Bad?

[LouisIX]

CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

God does not create justice (this is voluntarism; the Muslims are voluntarists but we are not).  Nor is justice something which arises out of human reason.  Human reason may apprehend justice, but it is not the source of it.

The source of justice is in the immutable nature of God.  The things which are just are just because they are in accord with how God is.  You see then that God is absolutely necessary and yet that justice is anything but arbitrary.

[Probius]

CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

God does not create justice (this is voluntarism; the Muslims are voluntarists but we are not).  Nor is justice something which arises out of human reason.  Human reason may apprehend justice, but it is not the source of it.

The source of justice is in the immutable nature of God.  The things which are just are just because they are in accord with how God is.  You see then that God is absolutely necessary and yet that justice is anything but arbitrary.

According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?

[james03]

Slow down, CF, you are making progress.  You can already see that justice comes from God.  As I said, we did not create it, we discovered it.

So it boils down to the question of whether you believe in justice.  If you believe in justice, that is, humans can be owed, and there is a duty incumbent on man to pay the one who is owed, then you have proven God.

This is why I say a true atheist must be a nihilist, because a true atheist can not accept these spiritual (discovered) truths and be consistent.

Note also that we are using reason based on a premise.

[LouisIX]

CF,
Please tackle the question on justice.  You claim that you can prove it with reason alone.  In the example, you made your opening remark and the atheist socialist has responded.  He doesn't believe he is born equal.  He pointed out he was born into socialism, has all the guns, and it quite happy with the system.  He refuses to sacrifice for you.  Your turn to respond, with "reason" only.

You seem to act as if the concept of God is an objective immutable rock from which the concept of justice may be built, and human reason is unreliable.  The concept of God just complicates the matter, however.  As mentioned before, if God created justice, then justice is a whim and meaningless.  If Justice is according to reason, and God is merely informing us of what justice is, then he in an unnecessary component of the equation.  The concept of God seems to be a cop out and a way to avoid asking what justice is.  We cannot avoid this, we are going to have to role up our sleeves and do the work in order to understand these concepts by using our reason.  It is tough work, but rewarding.  And it is unavoidable, as reason is all we have.  Reason allows a man to live as a man.

God does not create justice (this is voluntarism; the Muslims are voluntarists but we are not).  Nor is justice something which arises out of human reason.  Human reason may apprehend justice, but it is not the source of it.

The source of justice is in the immutable nature of God.  The things which are just are just because they are in accord with how God is.  You see then that God is absolutely necessary and yet that justice is anything but arbitrary.

According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?

It is not absolutely necessary for one to understand the source of a thing in order to apprehend that thing.  We may bathe in a river without knowing its source.  So the Church teaches that the human intellect can apprehend justice (via the natural law) without explicitly knowing that there is a God or that He exists in such and such a way.

However, the Church does teach that the existence of One God is intelligible to the unaided human reason.  This is proclaimed in the praeambula fidei and the canons of VI, though it had been affirmed throughout Church history. 

[Probius]

Slow down, CF, you are making progress.  You can already see that justice comes from God.  As I said, we did not create it, we discovered it.

So it boils down to the question of whether you believe in justice.  If you believe in justice, that is, humans can be owed, and there is a duty incumbent on man to pay the one who is owed, then you have proven God.

This is why I say a true atheist must be a nihilist, because a true atheist can not accept these spiritual (discovered) truths and be consistent.

Note also that we are using reason based on a premise.

According to your definition justice comes from God, not according to my definition.

[james03]

But you admitted that you are just robbing the concept.

I can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.

So which one is it?  Do you just grab this concept derived from theistic philosophies, or can you derive it with reason ALONE?

Ironically, you are an existentialist, something that a Greek Realist like Rand abhorred.

[Probius]

But you admitted that you are just robbing the concept.

I can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.

So which one is it?  Do you just grab this concept derived from theistic philosophies, or can you derive it with reason ALONE?

Ironically, you are an existentialist, something that a Greek Realist like Rand abhorred.

Philosophy is not some basket of goodies whereby one has to take the whole basket if one wants one thing inside the basket.  How was Aristotle's philosophy theistic?  He was a pagan after all.

ex·is·ten·tial·ism
?egzi?stenCH??liz?m/
noun
1.
a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

I don't think Rand would have any problem with this.

[LouisIX]

But you admitted that you are just robbing the concept.

I can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.

So which one is it?  Do you just grab this concept derived from theistic philosophies, or can you derive it with reason ALONE?

Ironically, you are an existentialist, something that a Greek Realist like Rand abhorred.

Philosophy is not some basket of goodies whereby one has to take the whole basket if one wants one thing inside the basket.  How was Aristotle's philosophy theistic?  He was a pagan after all.

ex·is·ten·tial·ism
?egzi?stenCH??liz?m/
noun
1.
a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

I don't think Rand would have any problem with this.

First of all, a dictionary definition of a school of philosophy does not give you the entire framework.  Rand might have agreed on some level with the existentialists, but might have vehemently rejected certain conclusions or even the mode by which they arrived at those conclusions.

Secondly, Aristotle believed in a transcendent Unmoved Mover, the source of all change and motion in the universe, something which was infinitely higher than those things below, and something which contemplated only itself.

Just because Aristotle was a pagan doesn't mean that he wasn't a monotheist, or something closely akin to it.

[Probius]

But you admitted that you are just robbing the concept.

I can pick and choose the parts I like and don't like.  This is how knowledge advances over the centuries.  We take the good and dump the bad.

So which one is it?  Do you just grab this concept derived from theistic philosophies, or can you derive it with reason ALONE?

Ironically, you are an existentialist, something that a Greek Realist like Rand abhorred.

Philosophy is not some basket of goodies whereby one has to take the whole basket if one wants one thing inside the basket.  How was Aristotle's philosophy theistic?  He was a pagan after all.

ex·is·ten·tial·ism
?egzi?stenCH??liz?m/
noun
1.
a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

I don't think Rand would have any problem with this.

First of all, a dictionary definition of a school of philosophy does not give you the entire framework.  Rand might have agreed on some level with the existentialists, but might have vehemently rejected certain conclusions or even the mode by which they arrived at those conclusions.

Secondly, Aristotle believed in a transcendent Unmoved Mover, the source of all change and motion in the universe, something which was infinitely higher than those things below, and something which contemplated only itself.

Just because Aristotle was a pagan doesn't mean that he wasn't a monotheist, or something closely akin to it.

I'll grant that a dictionary definition isn't adequate.  I don't quite understand what existentialism is.  Could you help me out a bit?

[james03]

That's a rather complex question.  Since I brought it up, I'll explain what I mean by it.  You are swinging all over the place with regards to justice claiming you could establish it with reason ALONE, and finally ended up stating that you can accept justice because it is true to you, without establishing the fact.  That is something an existentialist would say.

Rand was a Greek realist and would reject that statement, though her definition on rights fails.  She basically turns the Law of Identity into a tautology.  Man has rights.  Therefore men have rights because they are men.  True, but completely useless.

And that is it for my time.  I'll probably be back in a week or so.  The others are doing a good job with your questions.  Please remain sincere.

[Probius]

That's a rather complex question.  Since I brought it up, I'll explain what I mean by it.  You are swinging all over the place with regards to justice claiming you could establish it with reason ALONE, and finally ended up stating that you can accept justice because it is true to you, without establishing the fact.  That is something an existentialist would say.

Rand was a Greek realist and would reject that statement, though her definition on rights fails.  She basically turns the Law of Identity into a tautology.  Man has rights.  Therefore men have rights because they are men.  True, but completely useless.

And that is it for my time.  I'll probably be back in a week or so.  The others are doing a good job with your questions.  Please remain sincere.

How would you describe the law of identity differently than Miss Rand?

[Landless Laborer]

According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?

Actually, it IS now possible to prove God's existence, with advancements in physics...well let's just say, they are so close now, you would have to be a charlatan (Stephan Hawkins) to deny it.  Entropy, space-time geometry proofs, and string theory, all point with virtual certainty to a "beginning".  That is what the fight is about.  Once a beginning is proven, atheists lose.   See Fr Robert Spitzer's website Magis Center for Faith and Reason for a summery of where things are in this long-standing battle, and why science is a believer's best friend, and an atheist's worst nightmare.  Click on the Encyclopedias tab and go to No. 1. 

[Probius]

According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?

Actually, it IS now possible to prove God's existence, with advancements in physics...well let's just say, they are so close now, you would have to be a charlatan (Stephan Hawkins) to deny it.  Entropy, space-time geometry proofs, and string theory, all point with virtual certainty to a "beginning".  That is what the fight is about.  Once a beginning is proven, atheists lose.   See Fr Robert Spitzer's website Magis Center for Faith and Reason for a summery of where things are in this long-standing battle, and why science is a believer's best friend, and an atheist's worst nightmare.  Click on the Encyclopedias tab and go to No. 1.

How does string theory prove the existence of God?  What do you think of the theory published by Lawrence Krauss?

[Landless Laborer]

According to your definition, then yes I would agree that God is necessary.  However, that still doesn't solve the problem.  First, one has to know that there is a God.  Then one has to know God.  Then one has to know the nature of God.  Then finally one can say what justice is after all of those steps.  But, how can a man actually prove that God exists?

Actually, it IS now possible to prove God's existence, with advancements in physics...well let's just say, they are so close now, you would have to be a charlatan (Stephan Hawkins) to deny it.  Entropy, space-time geometry proofs, and string theory, all point with virtual certainty to a "beginning".  That is what the fight is about.  Once a beginning is proven, atheists lose.   See Fr Robert Spitzer's website Magis Center for Faith and Reason for a summery of where things are in this long-standing battle, and why science is a believer's best friend, and an atheist's worst nightmare.  Click on the Encyclopedias tab and go to No. 1.

How does string theory prove the existence of God?  What do you think of the theory published by Lawrence Krauss?

Is Krauss is one of those guys who says "nothing" is "something"?  ( i simply googled the name and saw the title of one of his papers)
I think most people with "uncommon sense" agree that the atheist's argument is defeated if one can prove that before there was "something", there was "nothing".  And something cannot come from nothing without the supernatural, i.e. God. 
But like in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:   "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead."

[Probius]

Krauss says that "nothing" is actually a bubbling brew of virtual particles.