“Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed.” I refuse to be silenced by “good taste.”
Civility, courtesy, and common decency are a matter of taste, although I can understand why you might think so since you have no regard for them and think it is nothing more than personal preference, as if how we choose to treat others is no different than choosing vanilla or chocolate.
The last thing I want to do is silence you. It is too much fun responding.
I, too, affirm the above.
So you both affirm and deny the existence of God, affirm and deny that God is a being, affirm and deny that God can be adequately conceived. That certainly is useful as a way of attacking everyone no matter what they say. For you both are right but for others who do not agree with you both are wrong.
Just say what you mean: free thinking not allowed.
It has nothing to do with free thinking and everything to do with evasive thinking and evasive arguments.
Really? Once again (as usual) you shoot your mouth off without knowing what you’re talking about.
This is a succinct statement, in his own words, of Tillich's criticism of classical theism:
The God of the theological theism is a being besides others and as such a part of the whole reality. He is certainly considered its most important part, but as a part and therefore as subjected to the structure of the whole. He is supposed to be beyond the ontological elements and categories which constitute reality. But every statement subjects him to them. He is seen as a self which has a world, as an ego which relates to a thought, as a cause which is separated from its effect, as having a definite space and endless time. He is a being, not being-itself. (Courage to Be, p.184)
Here we have the source of the inherent contradiction at the heart of your claims. You want to have it both ways, to keep classical theism and Tillich’s rejection of classical theism. Thus you cannot take a step without tripping over your feet.
God is Existence-Itself … it’s expressed in the Summa Theologica
Why quote some unidentified person instead of Tillich himself? Why not quote the Summa Theologica itself?
From the Summa Theologica: Question 2, article 3:
Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (third way)
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. (fourth way)
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. (firth way)
God is the first being, as shown above Question , Article ) (Question 3, Article 7).
Not all theologians agree with Tillich or with the classical theists or whoever else you drag into the argument. There are many ways to frame the questions. Attacking others because they do not share your conceptual framework is a sign of philosophical immaturity.
Just another dodge.
You do not dodge what is a fundamental issue that you are not adequately prepared to deal with by claiming it is a dodge.