Actually, there is. Google “conditional gift.” There is a plethora of websites proving me right. Also, read the post above yours.
Of course, you don’t even know what the “Eucharist” is, so your opinion is trivial in these matters.
The Problem of Evil renders possible necessity logically impossible
Dawkins does not have a burden to do that, but in point of fact, it is sufficient merely to point out that nothing observable in the universe makes God necessary. Anything beyond that is an appeal to absence. the default assumption is that necessity doesn’t exist until it’s demonstrated to exist.
He argues that nothing we’ve yet observed necessitates magic as an explanation. It’;s just that simple.
Wrong. It’s called the Null Hypotheis. Existence of sky gods is a hypothesis, non-existence is the null. Non-existence is the default presumption because it’s not a claim. the one making the claim has the burden.
No, it doesn’t work that way. merely being able to inmagine that something exist does not give it a 50/50 chance of existing. The presumption is that X does not exist until proven otherwise. We do not need to waste our time disproving an infinite number of fanciful entities which lack either evidence or necessity.
Lack of evidence is a rock solid argument for the null hypotheis.
If it God is defined as omnimax, then the first premise logically has to be true.
“Lack of evidence” has nothing to do with the POE.
Nor does it need to be. You have your burden backards here. If you want to allege necessity than demonstrate it. If it’s not demonstrated then the presumption is that it doesn’t exist. That’s the null hypothesis.
[quote]
6) The statement that “the laws of physics are inviolable” needs some justification.
[/quote
The justifications is the laws themselves, and you’re still making a sophist appeal to absence. If you want to allege that the laws of physics can be violated, then demonstrate it. The null hypothesis is that they cannot.
You are the one with the burden of proof.
If you want to claim they can be violated, then you have to prove it. The null hypothesis is that they can’t be.
This is like some kind of bizarro blizzard of anti-logic that I an’t even follow.
Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher, so I don’t know why it would be relevant what philosophers think of his work. If you’re asking what they think of The God Delusion (which is written from a scientific perspecvtive, not a philosophical one), then I don’t know. He doesn’t make any real phiolsophical arguemnets in the book, although he does describe some classic ones.
Nope. He’s just a biologist who wrote a popular book with some boiler plate criticisims of magical thinking. He said nothing particularly new in the book. I didn’t learn anything from it. Carl Sagan actually made a lot of the same points before Dawkins did.
I don’t have that view. Dawkins is not a philosopher and says nothing philosophically new. What he says about the metaphysical claims of religion is accurate, though.
And it’s a perfectly valid objection. A wafer is not a eucharist.
It seems to me that the real offense to civility is other people taking it upon themselves to decide what Myers should be permitted to do with his own property. Seriously, he’s a “jerk” for throwing his own bread and paper into a garbage can? That somehow is an intrusion into your life?
Cite that a “condition” can exist if one party doesn’t know about it and doesn’t agree to it.
No. The eucharist is the bread and wine together.
No. Either or both is sufficient to partake of the sacrament.
I assume you’re also outraged when the US military punished people for flushing their own paper down toilets and defacing their own books.
To partake, but the word still refers to both of them collectively. A single wafer is not “a eucharist” unless it was the only thing consecrated.
For pete’s sake, this side discussion is really stupid, Diogenes. You said:
…as if to imply that once the “ceremony” is over, the “cracker” is some kind of irrelevant byproduct. The entire point of the consecration is to turn the thing into the Body of Christ. Once that is done, a dumptruck full of them is not any more sacred than a tiny crumb that breaks off one. That’s why there are protocols in place in case one is dropped on the floor. If one is stolen and desecrated, then The Eucharist is stolen and desecrated. That’s the real usage, and more to the point, it’s the real dogma. I actually don’t think that you don’t know this, I think you’re just pretending not to, and I can’t imagine why.
This story turned out to be bogus.
Having said that, the circumstances would not have been the same because the expected code of behavior is different in the military, and because we’re talking about allegations of what soldiers did in the course of their job, not what they did on their own time.
Why is this so significant to you? Any amount of consecrated wafer or wine is THE Eucharist. Saying it isn’t A Eucharist isn’t helping your argument even a little bit, so why fixate on it?
This is like saying that there’s nothing obnoxious about Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist because their signs are all made with their very own posterboard.
It has nothing to do with me, and it has nothing to do with anyone’s property.
Gawdalmighty!
This is a separate discussion from my entirely semantic nitpick about the specific word “eucharist” being applicable to a single wafer. I’m not saying they aren’t all consecrated. I’m saying they aren’t all individual “eucharists,” just like every french fry on on combo meal isn’t an individual combo meal. I do not believe the entire eucharist is considered to have been desecrated if a single wafer gets taken home without being eaten.
Myers didn’t go out in public. Nobody has to read his blog. Anybody who sees his speech is seeing it purely by choice. Hes not subjecting anyone to it who doesn’t want to be subjected to it. it’s not the same as harranging people in public (though I don’t see why anybody cares about the Phelps clan either).
Then what does it have to do with?
As a Christian it makes me sad that someone feels the need to do something like the blogger mentioned in the OP did.
But he can’t hurt the sacrament, such a thing is beyond his ability. All he did was hurt himself with the hate he must feel. The best response from a Christian would not be to take legal action, but to pray that the anger or hate he feels will be taken from him, that he learns to live and let live.
I’d say the same thing about revered objects from any faith. Remember when terrorists stormed in at the Kaaba in Mecca? Or the Taliban blew up those ancient statues of Buddha? Sad and shocking.
First, it’s not a separate discussion. A whole pile of them is “The Eucharist,” and one of them is “The Eucharist” and a tiny crumb of one of them is “The Eucharist.” It’s all the same thing. I don’t actually know what you mean by “the entire eucharist.”
Second, desecration of the Eucharist is a mortal sin for a Catholic, and that can absolutely referr to desecration of a single wafer, so…I think you’re somehow very confused.
Maybe some context for what Myers did would be in order:
If you think Myers is filled with hate, what about the the people who threatened to murder a college student for taking a communion wafer back to his seat to show it to a friend?
Never mind. My whole semantic parsing of the eucharist argument is too nitpicky and stupid to be worth pursuing. I wil concede the point that “eucharist” can refer to the host.
You’re actually completely conceptually wrong about this.