# Questions about Christianity from a confused agnostic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 27, 2006, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300 "2006-02-27T12:50:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/341 "2006-03-24T20:31:03Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Those criticisms and clarifications seem valid to me, Voyager. I appreciate your taking the time to share them. Regarding the difference in number (3), the copula identifies Socrates the dialogian as opposed to say, Socrates our neighbor’s cat. The existential claim makes an assertion about the nature of Socrates’ existence. Ah, got it. It seems that a discussion of "what is is " is not that simple after all. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/342 "2006-03-25T12:38:12Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Let’s look at these statements. First of all, I absolutely agree that the concept of something can precede its existence - except in some unusual cases. However, I think the way the cases above are written might be confusing to some, due to the limitations of English and Lib’s desire to not be as wordy as I like to be. 🙂 > **John is our town drunk** / **John is an alcoholic** > Clearly, John is not identical with “our town drunk” forever. Thus it should be rewritten “John is currently our town drunk.” But “town drunk” is a tag for a certtain set of characteristics. So, I think this should really be rewritten as “the tag of our town drunk currently applies to John.” It is possible that there are two town drunks, so “John and Frank are our town drunks” seems perfectly valid - which shows that John does not have to be uniquely equivalent to “our town drunk.” > “John is an alcoholic” means both that John is an element of the set of alcoholics, and that the characteristic “alcoholic” applies to John. Saying John exists as an alcoholic just doesn’t seem right to me, since it seems to imply an exclusivity that isn’t there. John exists as other things also, such as a husband. Now, how would you categorize the sentence “Jake Barnes is an alcoholic?” > > **God is love** /\*\* God is omniscient\*\*. I think this is a better example, since if I get Lib’s view correctly (which I hope I do after all this time) his definition of god involves god being identified with love, so the statement makes sense. For the second, some people think omniscience is a required characteristic of god, so it makes no sense to say [non-God] is omniscient, or God is not omniscient. The statement is true by definition, and God is the only element in the set of omniscient beings. > > In the third example, the first statement is verifiable, the second is not. Besides that, I’m not sure of the difference. A character may or may not be an existent person, but even a character supposedly a person is not the same as that person, as any reader of historical fiction knows. A character is expressed as words on a page, or images on the screen, while a figment is expressed as some set of states in the brain. Are these really all that different? > > So, a great set of examples. I was just about to declare this thread over, but I got drawn back in. Curse you! 🙂 I think I get you but I see God is Truth/ God is what is. There are no boundries to God in the way I see God. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/343 "2006-03-25T16:19:32Z")
What is truth? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/344 "2006-03-26T04:51:23Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What is truth? T’Ruth would be a tiger descended underperson in a Cordwainer Smith story. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/345 "2006-03-26T12:41:11Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What is truth? Truth is what is. It is the reality of everything.T The entire truth will never be known by any human,but is always there,if we do not except it, or know it, it still remains.We may deny it,or try to change it but it is still there. We went through this debate before in an earlier post. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/346 "2006-03-27T17:18:15Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The entire truth will never be known by any human,but is always there,if we do not except it, or know it, it still remains.We may deny it,or try to change it but it is still there. Exactly. It is that glimpse of Truth that we have which points us to its essence. Or rather, the essence of the One from whom Truth is derived. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/347 "2006-03-28T12:29:27Z")
> [@Greenback](#): > > Exactly. It is that glimpse of Truth that we have which points us to its essence. Or rather, the essence of the One from whom Truth is derived. Since existence must be before any one or thing can exist, The "One whom Truth is derived would first have to come into existence, or it would not exist. What does not exist, is not… Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/348 "2006-03-28T19:12:37Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Since existence must be before any one or thing can exist, The "One whom Truth is derived would first have to come into existence, or it would not exist. What does not exist, is not… > > Monavis The one from Whom Truth is derived exists because of the essence of Goodness. **Lib** discussed this earlier. We are at an impass. You insist on existence and deny the possibility of essence. To repeat what was said earlier, we now know the difference between existentialism and essentialism. Thanks for the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/349 "2006-03-29T12:19:18Z")
> [@Greenback](#): > > The one from Whom Truth is derived exists because of the essence of Goodness. **Lib** discussed this earlier. > We are at an impass. You insist on existence and deny the possibility of essence. To repeat what was said earlier, we now know the difference between existentialism and essentialism. > > Thanks for the discussion. I do not dismiss the possibility of essence, just that if essence exists it is in existence, pre-existence suggest there was nothng until something existed. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/350 "2006-03-29T15:34:35Z")
Does it help to think of it as: if existence is to occur, essence is the framework that defines what existence must (cannot not) be? I can’t think of any other way to phrase it. I know, you’ll say that for a existence to be based on something, it (the framework) must exist first. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2006, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/351 "2006-03-30T11:30:04Z")
> [@Greenback](#): > > Does it help to think of it as: if existence is to occur, essence is the framework that defines what existence must (cannot not) be? I can’t think of any other way to phrase it. > > I know, you’ll say that for a existence to be based on something, it (the framework) must exist first. I think that existence always was,if there was a point of non-existence, then what exists came from nothing.The things humans think of as essence ( to me) suggests that there was a thought or idea before existence could occur.If one looks as goodness as essence there would have to be an idea of what goodness is. Which would mean an entity would be in existence to rationalize what goodness is. Existence is not stagnent, (like the human body) it is in a state of constant change. Even after death the body goes back into the atoms,etc. it was before it took human form. As I see it there is no beginning or end to existence. There are no boundries. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![murphy54](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@murphy54](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/murphy54)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/352 "2006-03-30T18:38:14Z")
GOD will always be in discution if you can reason.All we know is from here to there.All we do not know is from there to the infinit.(and this just to be short).He is out there and he is out there the only way he can be.So if you search him you should search where he exists(logically 🙂 ).He is allpowerfull so why should he come when all those who do not want call…but call him with all your heart and he will answer back(check ortodoxism for more details-it is your life this is all I will do) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/353 "2006-03-30T21:27:21Z")
> [@murphy54](#): > > GOD will always be in discution if you can reason.All we know is from here to there.All we do not know is from there to the infinit.(and this just to be short).He is out there and he is out there the only way he can be.So if you search him you should search where he exists(logically 🙂 ).He is allpowerfull so why should he come when all those who do not want call…but call him with all your heart and he will answer back(check ortodoxism for more details-it is your life this is all I will do) When he answers back to you, please ask him if P = NP, and give a proof or counter example. You might ask him to send you a spellchecker also. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/354 "2006-03-31T01:21:23Z")
> [@murphy54](#): > > GOD will always be in discution if you can reason.All we know is from here to there.All we do not know is from there to the infinit.(and this just to be short).He is out there and he is out there the only way he can be.So if you search him you should search where he exists(logically 🙂 ).He is allpowerfull so why should he come when all those who do not want call…but call him with all your heart and he will answer back(check ortodoxism for more details-it is your life this is all I will do) Where does he exist and who created the place for him to be? Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300/355 "2006-03-31T19:49:10Z")
> [@murphy54](#): > > GOD will always be in discution if you can reason.All we know is from here to there.All we do not know is from there to the infinit.(and this just to be short).He is out there and he is out there the only way he can be.So if you search him you should search where he exists(logically 🙂 ).He is allpowerfull so why should he come when all those who do not want call…but call him with all your heart and he will answer back(check ortodoxism for more details-it is your life this is all I will do) Do you mean “Orthodoxism”??? * * * TBJ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-christianity-from-a-confused-agnostic/346300.md?page=17)