I have considerable respect, and a certain degree of (sentimental, I think) fondness for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The fondness is in the nature of nostalgia as it is for the Church that was, which is to say more accurately the Church as I first knew it; the Latin Church, literally and figuratively. Sancta Mater Ecclesiae. I knew it for a time even after that, when guitar masses were (I suppose I must say it) celebrated. I've attended a mass now and then since that time, for weddings and funerals. There's no beauty left. It's relentlessly prosaic — Ciceronianus the White

Just an aside - so pardon the interruption. But just FYI the Tridentine mass is making a fairly strong comeback. Like you I am not a big fan of how V2 was implemented - and specifically missed the mass of my youth. Now most major areas have at least one church saying the Latin mass. Although I still go to my normal parish mass most weeks, I try at least every few weeks to attend the Latin mass. It is still, at least for me, the better representation of what mass actually is. And while there are plenty of gray haired folks there, there are also a surprising number of 20 - 30 somethings as well.

Sorry the interruption

even though Catholic doctrine asserts that there is only one God and that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places, which implies that God is one with everything or is in fact everything. — Jake

Jake - just to be clear there is no Catholic doctrine that says God is Everything - that is your addition - Catholic doctrine says God is God, and God is everywhere.

I want to understand Jake, and I am sure it due to my ignorance, but to me at least you are just constantly describing a state of affairs, but never put forth a complete and coherent idea of how we are to proceed if we accept your state of affairs. Can you be clearer on what you would have us all actually do.

Current science can't tell us about an alleged start to time.
— S

We know that time slows in the presence of gravity. The intense gravity of the big bang would have caused time to run very slowly, maybe even stopping at the singularity. — Devans99

Not a very developed thought, but it just crossed my mind reading this.

If I made an argument that man's activities had no impact on climate change, I think I would get a rash of but science says ......

If I made an argument, consistent with science that the universe is finite, and had a beginning, I would get a rash of singularly, what is time, multi universe etc type comments

Probably from the same folks.

— Rank Amateur

Ah, but if we can meet that need by some method other than answers, the absurdity is removed. — Jake

Please continue then, such as ......

I don't think evaluating all ''possible'' options as anti-reason. To the contrary considering God as hyper-intelligent and, therefore, beyond the grasp of the human mind is a reasoned position. — TheMadFool

One can imagine all kinds of things, that does not however raise those ideas to level of supported propositions that are required to be accepted as truth to support a conclusion.

. So, WHY did God create a universe that has suffering in it? That's the question skeptical atheists have to answer. — TheMadFool

Skeptical theists have no need to answer such a question. Quite the contrary, their entire point is we have no supportable argument to say we could or would understand such a thing as the actions of a god.

Just a point of clarification on your abbreviated argument from evil point, it is not that evil exists, it is that morally impermissible evil exits. We all understand there are morally permissible evils. When your 3 year old is screaming they don't want their vacations, that pain is morally permissible. So the argument from evil is really is the evil that exists morally permissible? And the skeptical theists point is we have no position, defendable by reason as true, to say we have the ability to answer this question about such a thing as God.

not sure I understand your point. Skeptical theists, are theists, they believe in such a thing as God. But this belief has little to do with the philosophy, which is just based on pure application of reason.

It is, at its core, a philosophical challenge to every proposition in every argument that says anything about the nature of such a thing as God, that asks ; what is the reason based justification that you can make any proposition about the nature of God.

What it does in my opinion, and where it adds value, it establishes a border between philosophy and theology. It is telling all who wish to enter into such discussions or thoughts, you have just left the land of reason based positions, and entered into the land of faith based positions, proceed with caution.

What if they wish to remain squarely within the realm of reason? — Jake

I am not sure this is possible, certainly there is great empirical evidence it is not. We as creatures appear to have a need to understand why we exist, what is our purpose. To paraphrase Thomas Merton, reason is the path to faith, and picks up when reason can say no more.

I believe I have likened your outlined idea absurdism before, and I think it fits. If you have not done it yet, I would highly recommend you read the myth of Sisyphus by Camus. Basically it says we as humans have some need to understand why we exist, this question has no answer, this is absurd. And the best we can do is acknowledge it is absurd, and find meaning inside ourselves and in our own lives. The person who can do this, Camus would call his absurd hero. Others, like myself, who find meaning in other ways, most notably a belief in God, are committing a type of philosophical suicide.
I feel this idea is very close to what you are saying.

That's where I see your line of thought leading. We had a huge God debate hoping to find The Answer, but instead discovered a vast realm of ignorance. We don't like what we found, so we keep pretending we found what we were looking for, so the God debate lives on. — Jake

Jake - I have seen you make this point, and I have tried to see where you are going with this. Sadly you lose me each time you make the point we should proceed to some other place based on the acknowledgment of what we don't know. Sure this is all my fault

Where I am going with this is just an acknowledgment that most if not all philosophical arguments either for or against God are inherently flawed. So they should stop, and both theists and atheists should acknowledge that each has a position based on faith of some type, and each respect the others right to such beliefs.

skeptical theism is not theology, it is a philosophy. It only deals with reason. It is not directly an argument for or against such a thing as God. Although its application can affect such arguments.

All it is saying is, there is no argument based on reason that concludes with; therefore we can say this about the nature of such a thing as God, or what such a thing would do or not do. If one finds this argument compelling, that would say most arguments for or against God that rely on any assumption about the nature of God is unreasonable and should be dismissed from a philosophical point of view.

nyway, I find picking tobacco leaves better than mugging someone in an alley. — TheMadFool

I think a better moral question would be is picking tobacco leaves for $20 an hr, less moral than say being a nurses aide for $18 an hour if you had a choice

Or one I like better

Choosing, with almost unlimited options, to become an investment banker, to be wealthy

Or use you talents to say

Built a company to build affordable housing

The jobs don't matter here, it is the moral choice to spend your time, effort and talent to maximize wealth or for other "social goods" however you wish to define them.

I understand your point. Maybe my idea can be clearer if I take out God, and use some other faith based claim.

Let's say I make a claim that by faith alone I believe the world is flat. And I go to extraordinary effort to develop some reasoned argument in support of that claim to convince round earthers of their error and convert them to my faith based truth

It is the place of philosophy, and science to point out the error of this faith belief. To show this belief is in fact in conflict with fact and reason.

So what then? Where do we go from here? It seems the philosopher should make a clear minded decision as to what their priority really is. Is it doing philosophy? Or is it in exploring and perhaps meeting the fundamental human need which is fueling interest in God topics? — Jake

Jake - thanks the thoughts. I think the natural tension between philosophy and theology is a good thing. This tension allows us to continually test where the boundary is. This is good as long as the objective is truth. I just rarely think that is the objective, the objective in most discussions I have been apart of has been winning. The problem isn't good philosophy or good theology, shocker - the problem is people.

Like any good craftsman we need to make sure we are using the right tool for the job.

↪Rank Amateur Redundant nonsense? Of course there is an independent reality. We just can’t say anything meaningful about it without assuming the existence of a mind. Perhaps that is why there is a need for God. — Noah Te Stroete

I think I at least understand your point better. Let me paraphrase and see if I have it.

There is an objective reality- things are
But until this objective reality is observed by something with a "mind" (probably should define this), its existence has no value
Something must exist in thought to have value, whether or not it exists in objective reality

Is that close?

So yes, logical arguments trying to say something about the nature of God are nonsense, they take discourse suited to one language game and expect it to apply in another, but in order to keep to this distinction, the same must be true the other way round. No one should be consulting an ancient Buddhist monk for wisdom, the monk cannot in any way 'possess' some object (in the Tractain sense) which he can pass to the student, to treat him this way is to reverse the problem and treat his religious language game as if it were a epistemological one.

There is literally nothing to say about religion in the language game of a forum like this. — Isaac

I agree. My only addition would be this.

I believe one can believe something to be true and act accordingly based on fact, reason, or faith. With the only caveat that what one believes by reason can not be in conflict with fact, and what one believes by faith can not be in conflict with reason or fact. The valid God arguments one can have in philosophy are those that test the boundaries of truth claims based on faith to see if they are un-reasonable, not outside reason, but against reason. All other faith based truth claims - both theist and atheist are outside of philosophy and are theology.

one does not follow the other

again I just stated what ST is, no clue how you got that out of it

have no clue what point you are making here

you do not actually have to defend your belief in god, — DingoJones

I feel no reason to defend my belief in god. The only concern I have is the claim my belief in god is unreasonable.

You are mis-using the argument to make all “rational” discussion about god faith based, — DingoJones

I am starting the position of skeptical theism that you can not make a reason based statement about the nature of god

If you think that is incorrect make an argument that ends with the conclusion therefore I can say something authoritative about the nature of god

It is actually a counter argument to the problem of evil and other, similar atheist arguments. — DingoJones

Think I said this

As far as i know there are only 3 types of rational arguments against the existence of God.

Arguments from evil
No seeum arguments
And god paradox’s

If you value the rationality of skeptical theism, none of those arguments are valid. — Rank Amateur

You are a bit confused about Skeptical Theism. It does not make the false equivalence you are making about faith based discussion on both sides. — DingoJones

What is false equivalence please.

I think legal and moral are more like second cousins. Less than a generation ago it was legal in Germany to exterminate a whole race, and less than 3 generations ago slavery was legal in the us. We are separating children from their parents at the us border today.

no just that the belief is faith based. Because there nothing any of us can say about the nature of god that we could support with reason, all such discussions by theist or atheist are faith based.

Sorry there is no rational . . .

no Harry, skeptical theism just says that there is rational basis for any one to say anything about the nature of such a thing as god. All such discussions, by both theists and atheists are faith based, and are matters of theology not philosophy.

Gish gallop.

as I stated the board has had quite a few a posteriori God arguments. The concept of skeptical theism say all such claims are outside reason. Seemed an interesting point, at least to me.

agree all discussions about the nature of god, made by theist, agnostic, or atheist are outside of reason

you have lost me, which is not that difficult a task. I am 100 pct sure it is due to my ignorance. When I have some time I will reread and try to do a better job of understanding your point

ur What it was in reality independent of minds is something that cannot be conceived — Noah Te Stroete

That is redundant nonsense. What in independent reality can be seen if you eye can’t see it etc etc

I have no interest of a discussion on if there is or is not an independent reality. As fun as such dorm room, beer fueled conversations were. Because such discussions have no useful purpose. They are just wormholes to no where.

on the value of the concept

As far as i know there are only 3 types of rational arguments against the existence of God.

Arguments from evil
No seeum arguments
And god paradox’s

If you value the rationality of skeptical theism, none of those arguments are valid.

so, did the Big Bang, the event, not exist until someone thought of it ?

do you believe there is any such things as facts? Is the cat really on the chair? Can we trust our senses to tell us anything of meaning? Are we all minds in a vat? Or plugged into the matrix? Or or or .....

I can be too pragmatic, but all those types of arguments are roads to nothing of use in my opinion.

agree

To help some - If one can by faith alone, and not in conflict with fact or reason believe in the God of the Christian bible, one can logically believe such a God can if it so chooses to be such a thing as the Trinity.

So to show it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity, you would have to show it is unreasonable to believe in God.

Although some very smart people would love such an argument to exist, they have yet been able to make it - and not from lack of trying.

I think your issue is, to you, being outside reason - means it is in conflict with reason. They are not the same thing. I would be happy to agree, as I have before that the God of the Christian Bible is outside reason. But as above that does not mean it is in conflict with reason - until such an argument can be made.

my bad - didn't reply mea culpa

that in no way address the point.

Stop and give it some thought, and then make me a formal argument that ends in the conclusion " therefor it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity" As others have tried to tell you, the trinity is outside human reason, but that does not put it in conflict with human reason - unless you can make that case.

thought i did with this

Sure - The God of the christian bible is outside reason, there is no reasonable argument to support this definition of God, however it is not in conflict with reason to believe in such a being - all reasonable arguments against God, have valid counter arguments. — Rank Amateur

I would not agree - until you can make me a argument with propositions that are true, that ends in the conclusion that follows " therefor it is unreasonable to believe in the trinity" I am free to believe in such a thing as the trinity by faith alone.