Philotic Web

It means one of two things: either you've lost it or your cat really did say something. Now, it could be that you've lost it, but if you've heard your cat speak, as has your family (who is otherwise lacking in signs of mental illness), as well as your neighbour (who does his level best to always be honest)... It may be that you have all lost it (afterall, some people look quite normal even when there're a few screws loose) or it may be that they are lying to make you feel better (even honest people may attempt to soften a blow), but, logically, it would appear that perhaps your cat really did speak. Just because you have never experienced something before and it does not match up with your current view of the world does not mean that it cannot be true or real.

No it means that just because you think you've gotten an answer doesn't mean you have.

Both statements are true. The difficulty lies in proving which reflects the reality.

I'm suggesting that no answer does not mean "no" but rather that no one is listening.

So what if the answer is "yes"? You can not argue the hearing of a yes, although you may argue its source. Either way, I have heard "yes" before, so that rules out your suggestion that no-one is listening.

You're both right, but you're both also wrong.

No answer can mean nobody's listening, but it could just as easily mean that whoever is listening doesn't have an answer and decides to say nothing.

It would be nice to assume that because you got an answer one time, that someone's always listening, but there's no guarantee. It could also be that the listener was there that time, but all the times when you didn't get an answer he was absent.

If someone asks you a direct question, whether or not you can answer, do you just sit there and stare off into space?

If someone asks you a direct question, whether or not you can answer, do you just sit there and stare off into space?

I've not been following the entire argument, but I can say that yes, I have done this.

I've not been following the entire argument, but I can say that yes, I have done this.

How about if someone is dying and pleading for their life? And you could do something.

You are right, Chico, although either way, the occasion of a single response allows that there must be somebody who is able to listen.

And FT, I've had teachers who have just looked at me when I asked a question regarding an answer I've given them, waiting for me to think it through a little further and so that I may see the answer to my own question. It is a common enough teaching method to not answer or to answer with questions.

Refer to my second question. Perhaps my first example wasn't a good one. Because the questions people ask God are far more serious than what you might ask a teacher.

You must have posted it after I went to reply because I missed it.

I tend to suspect that there are reasons why God does not interfere every time someone is afraid to die. A Good Man is Hard to Find, by Flannery O'Connor actually addresses this, somewhat. Albeit, in a mildly twisted manner. I think that if an artist refuses to use black because he is afraid of allowing anything sad to come into the mind of those who see his work, he will not be able to create anything so beautiful as if he allowed himself to use all of the colours available. Death is tragic, but death of even a good person has led to many greater things. It is selfish to assume that I and that which makes me comfortable are the greatest priorities of a God who can see the entire tapestry and knows what colours need to be where to have the most beautiful final creation.

Still leads to God deciding who lives and who dies. By answering prayers that deal with life and death.

Yep, you're right. I fail to see how that's bad, though. I have no issues with leaving the time of my death in the hands of someone who loves both me and everyone in this world. I trust that He will use my death for the greatest good, just like I trust he uses the deaths of others for the greatest good.

Supposing, of course, that God DOES love everyone, an unverifiable and, in my opinion, not certain claim. If God is not omnibenevolent that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Very true, but you know that I am working from the perspective of both God existing and Deus caritas est. Love is the definition of God in the Christian perspective. Either way, if there is a God, and He isn't defined as Chaos, I expect that there is a plan and it makes more sense to believe that that plan is for the good of the world, including our fears and pains and deaths. If I also believe that this God is omnipotent, etc., it would be a miserable existance to believe that He's also out to get us. Perhaps that is why (correct me if I'm wrong) the vast majority of religions out there believe in a God or gods who have a plan and who care for humans, especially the religions that have been around for a very long time and are still alive today.

What does Deus caritas est mean?

Roughly, "God is love."

Still leads to God deciding who lives and who dies. By answering prayers that deal with life and death.

We all die. Every last one of us. It's part of being human. No decision necessary.

My apologies, h_k. It felt awkward when I was writing it to say it in English and I forgot that the Latin may not be understood. Blame it on burying my head in homework and only surfacing to post.

You are right, Chico

Ooooh, that doesn't happen very often. I better bookmark that post and take a screen shot for my archives.

Damn straight.

Funny how charity started meaning love, and ended up being an almost derogative word...

Still leads to God deciding who lives and who dies. By answering prayers that deal with life and death.

We all die. Every last one of us. It's part of being human. No decision necessary.

God could have given us immortality. Isn't that choosing that we all die? He could have made heaven our only existence. Therefore never having the need for us to die. Seems pretty cruel to give us death. You can argue it was for our good all you want, but personally there is nothing good about death. Even if you are going to heaven.


That wasn't the point. He can decide to answer prayers of people who have life threatening wounds. Deciding whether or not to let them live longer.

A woman giving birth to twins, who is having complications prays to God that both her and her children survive. Only one child lives.

Isn't God deciding not to answer that prayer for the woman and one of her children? Therefore deciding whether they live or die?

Speaking of a cruel god, in my case there's a perfectly rational explanation for why I survived. The fuzzy part is why it happened in the first place.

God has, in that case, answered her prayer and said, "I'm sorry, but I will take one of your children to be with me." Now it's up to the woman to accept this and, while she most certainly is allowed to be deeply hurt to lose a child, rejoice in the life of the other child. I'm not saying that is an easy thing to do, but the most painful experiences can also be the ones in which we grow the most. A song I like captures it fairly well:

Blessed be Your name
When the sun's shining down on me
When the world's "all as it should be"
Blessed be You name

And blessed be Your name
On the road marked with suffering
Though there's pain in the offering
Blessed be Your name

He gives and takes away
He gives and takes away
My heart will choose to say
Lord, blessed be Your name

It seems to me that the universe "with God" is no different from the universe with no god. Except, of course, that one has a god in it, and one does not.

There is no difference in how the universe responds to us, whether or not there is a God involved. If you pray--the results are no better than purely random chance (no prayer). The world is just as nasty with or without; good people die random deaths with and without. All that the "God belief" gives you is some alternate explanation (an apology) for "why."

All it does is provide comfort for some. To be honest, it also provides misery for many.

God could have given us immortality. Isn't that choosing that we all die? He could have made heaven our only existence. Therefore never having the need for us to die. Seems pretty cruel to give us death. You can argue it was for our good all you want, but personally there is nothing good about death. Even if you are going to heaven.

But of course, a small child realizes that his parents could let him have ice-cream and cake for dinner every day, and stay up as late as he wants. After all, there's nothing good about yucky vegetables and having to be in bed by 8:30. Parents are just random and cruel.

So you're saying death is good for us?

So you're saying death isn't good for us?

Death is not good for us. Death is the epitomee of "not good for us."

So you're saying you know what happens after people die?

Since we have no evidence that there is anything after death, as far as we know death is the obliteration of self. In my opinion, obliteration of self is a bad thing, since it is the end of thoughts and experiences. And the end of BLT sandwiches.

Also, may I ask where you inferred that I knew what happens after people die from my post?

Also, may I ask where you inferred that I knew what happens after people die from my post?

No, you may not. If you can quip one-liner questions to anything anyone says on this board, you can receive the same.

Since we have no evidence that there is anything after death, as far as we know death is the obliteration of self

So you're saying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? I think you summed it up nicely when you said "In my opinion".

obliteration of self is a bad thing, since it is the end of thoughts and experiences

In this, you assume that death is the obliteration of self, despite having just admitted that it's only your opinion. Then you go on to assume that it's the end of experiences, which again, is only the absence of evidence.

Oh, very petty and immature of you, anthony. What are you, 12? You come off as quite emotionally stunted. Grow up and act like an adult.

So you're saying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? I think you summed it up nicely when you said "In my opinion".

What I mean is that since we have no evidence of the existance of an afterlife, to assume one is logically a fallacy. Logically, one should not presume there is something untill its been proven or has acumulated a fair amount of empirical evidence.

In this, you assume that death is the obliteration of self, despite having just admitted that it's only your opinion. Then you go on to assume that it's the end of experiences, which again, is only the absence of evidence.

I can't very well vouch for anyone else's opinion. Only my own.

So you're saying death is good for us?

I'm saying that you're closed minded if you can't even entertain the hypothetical possibility that next to God we are like children, and can't yet comprehend how the things that seem like arbitrary punishments to us may serve a greater purpose.

The young child may not understand or believe how vegetables are ultimately good for him when all he knows is that ice-cream and cake tastes so much better.

Oh, very petty and immature of you, anthony. What are you, 12? You come off as quite emotionally stunted. Grow up and act like an adult.

That was seriously the best you could do?

What I mean is that since we have no evidence of the existance of an afterlife, to assume one is logically a fallacy.

To "assume" that there is an afterlife IS a logical fallacy, yes - you are correct about that. However, I never assumed there WAS an afterlife - I merely pointed out that YOU assumed there WASN'T. Now, this is the important part - for the same reason as you can't assume there IS an afterlife (because there's no evidence of such) - you can't assume there ISN'T (because again, there's no evidence of such - as I said, the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence).

Logically, one should not presume there is something untill its been proven or has acumulated a fair amount of empirical evidence.

I totally agree - which is why I DIDN'T presume there WAS an afterlife.