Albert Cipriani

Dear Barry,
Sorry for my delay in responding to you. I was too busy getting myself kicked off of this board via the “Evidence of Creation” thread. You phrase the question well:
God’s celebration of Himself in the form of the Trinity, the consummation of His Being whereby the three become one and the one are three, is not our party. We are merely invited to it. It’s not our wedding, rather, we are just part of His wedding party.

I can hear you objecting to this as double-talk. The problem here is that your conceptions of being and existence are identical. If you could just imagine that being is what makes existence possible, that existence is all we are capable of, and that only God is being, the conundrum can be resolved.

Here’s another way to get at my metaphysics. Imagine there really was a God, the only thing that was. How could that God create something else that was, too? If He did, if He really could create anything, even a grain of sand that really was as He really was, it would constitute another God. It would have the essential attribute of Yahweh (translation: I Am Who Am) God, i.e., being. It would actually be independent of Him, an impossibility that contradicts the original premise that if God was, there was nothing else but Him.

Ergo, if there is anything other than God, it must be comparable to His shadow, that is, it must reflect His nature of Being, not replicate His nature of Being. I call that expression of God’s being “existence.” All that God has created merely exists. Neither the angels above nor the grains of sand below, nor us in between have any being. We merely have perspective. That’s all existence is.

Existence is a peephole into God’s being. The angels’ perspective is much wider than our knothole in His fence, and a grain of sand’s perspective (assuming inanimate matter is conscious, which I am tending believe) is miniscule. The fence, the knothole, and our eyeballs are God’s. But what we do with the information derived thereby, that is our perspective, that is who we are, that is our raison d’etre.

How we play that hand, what we do with the information we are dealt, that is all that is our own, that is our existence. The card-table, deck of cards, and dealer is not us, but merely the world of existent things, which are the only conceivable means whereby God can share His glorious Being with any entity other than His Triune Self. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Jobar

Ahhh, I have seen Albert in this place before.

It is all very well to say that God is another aspect of existence, and vice versa. I might find it semantically over-complex -


(I think that is such a cool gif!)


- but I could accept it as a philosophy which does not bite its own tail, and thus be impossible. For such a notion of God, I would be perhaps agnostic.

I have asked it of you before, Albert- what of the human soul? Have you come to any better understanding of why it is that, in the deepest sense, *we* are not also God, since we are an aspect of existence too?

I really don't think you can have it both ways, Albert. Either God is all that is, and *I* am that I am, or else our souls are always, utterly and completely different from God- which means that God is *not* all that is.

~~~~~~~

Albert, it would upset me if you got banned. This thread here (except for your sniping with Rainbow Walking, who sniped right back, and I hereby tell you both that such bitching is inappropriate to this forum!) is abundant evidence that you are a worthy opponent for the atheists here, a thing far too rare. I urge you to show more patience. There are people here who may not understand your arguments, it's true- but remember that there are people here whose arguments *you* may not understand, and show the proper humility. I hear that's one of the chief virtues of your religion, and if we unbelievers are better at it than you are- well, I'm sure you get the point.

bgponder

Jobar!

While I realize that you may be in essence supporting me, re the immediacy of your comment on Albert's reply to mine, I must nevertheless protest.

Albert delineated his differences between being and existence re his Metaphysics/Catholic dogma quite well, and I must say, the last of your graphs smacks of condescension not only to Albert, but to those of us who "may not understand his arguments"!!!

Is condescesion appropriate to this forum?

I appreciate your efforts, but object to your tactics.

Respectfully, BarryG

diana

I realize I'm late on this one, but I had a couple of comments on this:

By your definition of "moral," what would be the moral thing to do if you're applying for a job? Should you take all the advantages that are at your disposal to get it--which would be immoral by your lights--or should you trim out all the education, special skills and accolades that might make you look better than the competition--which would fit your idea of morality?

Or does your definition need a bit of refining?

Your illustration, IMO, leaves a lot to be desired. The moral thing would be to not have a knife to someone's throat to begin with.

d

(Condescension is inappropriate, no matter who does it. I'd say I didn't see anything condescending about Jobar's response, but y'all would likely just accuse me of sticking up for my fellow mod.

I personally find the pronouncing of others' ideas, responses and thoughts as WRONG! or RIGHT! very condescending, for the record. It sets you up as The Authority--The One With The Answers. I know many people do it around here, but whether I agree with the person's conclusions or not, it's just rude. Better to say, "You misunderstand me," or "That isn't what I meant. Let me rephrase...."

Humility. Know it. Use it. Think about it.)

Jobar

bgponder, my last paragraph was addressed to Albert's statement

I was too busy getting myself kicked off of this board via the “Evidence of Creation” thread.

It had nothing to do with the ongoing topic here, other than that. And since there is a thread in the Bugs Problems & Complaints forum concerning this, I should have put my comment there. So, though I disagree that my words were in the least condescending, I will own up to the fact that they were put in the wrong place. We have recently changed the procedures for handling complaints about moderators, and it takes some getting used to.

In any case, if you have complaints about my moderation here, please go the Bugs forum and post them there; and if I have any commentary on said complaints, I will answer there. Any more discussion of this matter in this forum will be moved there. J.

Albert Cipriani

Jobar asks:
It’s an unfortunate semantic invention. Like ether, it had its place, served its purpose for a while; but now its time in the sun is over. Believing in an immortal soul is like believing in Newtonian gravity, the planets being connected by invisible rubber-bands. (Speaking of bands, “Rubber Soul” is my favorite Beatles’ album.) Thus, I place the human soul in the ash heap of history.

Jobar argues:
Put a gun to my head and force me to make a “Sophie’s Choice” of it and I’d choose #2 as the least worst alternative. But scratch “soul” and #2 gets closer to the truth of the matter, which is actually what’s the matter. We’re locked in this stupid dualistic way of seeing everything as matter or spirit, either God or not-God, either body or soul.

What if “something” could exist that was not God and not not-God? Yous can all it karma, or yous can call it soul, just don’t call it God’s or yours. It’s the closest the universe comes to being God or being itself, but it is neither. Quantum mechanics is like that.

Some things defy logical categorization. Some things can more easily be conceived of as existing in a state of potential (e.g., the electrical potential in high voltage lines) than as actually existing. That is how I think creation actually exists. Each femtosecond is just another instance of the universe’s suspended animation and an extension of our suspension of disbelief. And what people mean by a soul is what I mean by all the fulcrums upon which creation’s potential pivots.

Our image of ourselves is the lake’s reflection of Alan Watt’s flock of geese (thank you for that link). Our image is not the still waters nor the fleeting geese, but something that really is nothing, that is in between both, that is the nexus of both. I hate sounding cryptic like this. I hate sounding as if I’m trying to be heavy. It makes you think I’m hiding behind the apron strings of poetry instead of coming out swinging logically like a man.

I’m actually knee-deep in the mud of a 70-odd-step syllogism and still far away from the bank that can support this idea logically instead of poetically. Until then, all I think that can be done is what we continue to do, bumble along. – Sincerely, Humbly, and Sadly No Longer Your Virtual Friend, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Diana,
You ask:
Neither. To quote myself:
The operative word is “taking.” It is not synonymous with GIVING UP one’s own personal advantages. So on a job interview, whatever advantages I had would not be hidden. Rather, if I knew how to hypnotize the interviewer into giving me the job, I would not take that advantage. To do so would be immoral.

You assert:
Au contraire. Without knowledge of the situation that gave rise to my knife at his throat, you’ve no ethical basis to assert that my knife at his throat is immoral. If he were Adolph Hitler in his bunker, I’d be morally justified in bringing a knife to his throat and morally justified in taking my advantage by then slitting his throat. Whereas, if he were a person I knew nothing about, who had challenged me to a knife fight, I’d be morally justified only in bringing the knife to his throat. To then take my advantage by taking that man’s life would be immoral.

We ought to give up our advantage whenever ignorance allows us to. This is an expression of the often quoted and never understood notion of “turning the other cheek.”

Diana:
Albert:
Which just goes to illustrate my point: I personally find the pronouncing of others’ ideas, responses and thoughts as “WRONG” to be funny. Especially the way in which I did it to Barry in this thread. For the “wrong” was but a jocular preamble to an extension of my argumentation. If the alpha and omega of my response to Barry were merely “WRONG,” then of course, you would be right. I’d be demonstrating what an insufferable, pompous, boorish, prig I was.

To that end, what do you think of Jack-the-Bodiless’s response to my eight points in the “Evidence from Creation” thread? Here’s what he said:
He just told me that I got six out of eight “WRONG.” I wonder why no moderator thought to inform him that that was -- what were the words you used in reference to me? Ah, yes, “condescending and rude.” I’m those things cuz I used the dastardly “W” word once in a jocular fashion with my good friend Barry. But Jack gets to use it six times in deadly-seriousness against me and not a word of rebuke from a moderator. – Perplexed, Albert the Traditional Catholic
My Religious Philosophy List