Albert Cipriani

Dear Ender,
You can count on me to take a crack at those "snappy posts" of yours. Thus far, beating up atheists isn't a hate crime. So before they make it one, I aim to get in as many good licks as I can. Love Ya, Albert

99Percent

Albert I am really glad to see you back here with us

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jaliet,
You said:


Yes, my "Traditional" Catholic label is a concession to the "Apostate" Catholic majority. I'd be more accurate to simply call myself a Catholic (as you suggest) and call the Pope his bishops and 99% of other people who call themselves Catholics "Heretical Catholics." Traditionally, that is the way it was done along with stake burnings. Hey, but in these democratic times, us radical monarchists must make concessions.

You ask,


My version of Catholicism IS the official version. Catholicism is the sum total of all the de fide magisterial teachings best summarized in the 500 page now out of print "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Dr. Ludwig Ott. A Catholic is a baptized person who implicitly believes every one of these dogmas and submits to the Church's laws. Traditional Catholics believe and submit. Apostate Catholics, including the Pope and most of his bishops, do not believe or submit.

TOWARD A PROOF OF GOD’S EXISTENCE:
You chide me for not simply answering the most complex question I know of: why do I believe in God? You say:


OK. You asked for it. Because something exists, God exists. It is that simple.

Maybe we can arrive at this simple explanation by sticking to the longer route I've begun to map out with you regarding information. If you could stop thinking of yourself as something separate from your information we could proceed. Everything is information.

You assert:


There is no such thing as gibberish. Gibberish is not the anti-thesis of information, but rather, an illusion predicated upon a lack of information. So French is Greek to the Grecian and Greek is Greek to the Frenchman.

As the antithesis of something is nothing (which does not exist), the antithesis of information is chaos (which also does not exist). So something and information exist. They merge as follows:

1) We know that something exists due to our information about it.
2) Conversely, we know that information exists due to something from which that information derives.
3) Ergo, something and information are interchangeable or synonymous terms.
4) What's true of something is true of everything.
5) Thus, everything is information.

You say,


By information, I mean that which is rationally related. From subatomic particles to supernovas, everything is rationally related to everything else. The relationships we do not yet grasp, we keep batting at out of our belief that they do exist because so far, without exception, the universe has yielded its rational relationships to our rational queries.

If everything was not rationally related (i.e., everything was not information) circuses would replace their clowns with scientists, for in such a universe to be a scientist would be more silly than to be a clown. Can you now agree with my assertion that everything is information? If so, we can move on. If not, tell me why not.

You ask,


In my metaphysics, objects and concepts are the same thing. The concept of a chair is only relatively less material than a material chair. If you doubt this, any number of drugs or physical implements will prove my point by smashing your conceptual chair as completely as an elephant stepping onto your material chair.

You said,


1) I hoped to train you in the fear God, the first step of wisdom.
2) You live in Kenya.
3) Ergo, I believe something other than gnats, lions, and elephants can be trained in Kenya.
4) Ergo, your disappointment in my stereotype of Kenya is unfounded.
5) Ergo, as long as you resist my training, you yourself are responsible for my stereotype of Kenya.

Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Hi Albert,
I am glad you are back. Unfortunately, your comeback coincides with my leave. I am going for a two weeks leave, after which I will avail myself for your atheist-beating.
You sound like you still need some time for recovery.
I will give you two weeks then I will be back and if you insist you are Ok, I will take off my gloves.
Hope next time you won't run away again.

Panta Pei

Yay!! Albert's back

Just like a wave in the eternal flux of the universe

I for one missed you, sir.

Glad to see your still standing.

~ Steve, the simple human.

Draygomb

Greetings Albert

If you have proof that God exists I'd love to see it.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Jaliet,
Only two weeks for me to recover??? You hard hearted trainer you!

Actually, I think recovery is a life-long endeavor. We're born egotistical monsters flopping around on a platform of Original Sin. Recovering our human potential to be all that we can be is a life-long enterprise. The trouble with the world is that most people stop trying to recover long before they stop living.

I'll keep plowing through this thread, answering all objections as I stumble toward a coherent proof for God's existence. When you come back, you can read through them all and throw down your gloves and we'll pick up from there. Enjoy being AWOL. – Sincerely, Albert

Draygomb

Albert An Orange is an Orange.
An Apple is not an Orange.
What's true of the Orange is not true of the Apple.

What is true of one thing isn't necessarily true of everything.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Draygomb,
Of course, you are correct. Thank you for that syllogism. I was being sloppy in using the word "something." Allow me to restate my case:

1) We know that a thing exists due to our information about that thing.
2) Conversely, we know that information exists due to the thing from which that information derives.
3) Ergo, a "thing" and the "information" derived from a thing are synonymous words.
4) What's true for A thing is true for ANYthing.
5) Thus, everything is information.

Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

daemon

Actually, Albert, Draygomb's logic applies to this statement as well--it is demonstrable that this statement is logically false.