To argue heatedly about something no one really knows the answer to is ridicluous and that is
the ultimate nature of existence, it's all opinion or «faith» if you will.
Not exact matches
I was «a person who held that the
existence of the
ultimate cause, as God, and the essential
nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.»
«My point is that any summary conclusion jumping from our conviction
of the
existence of such an order
of nature to the easy assumption that there is an
ultimate reality which, in some unexplained way, is to be appealed to for the removal
of the perplexity, constitutes the great refusal
of rationality to assert its rights.»
a person who holds that the
existence of the
ultimate cause, as God, and the essential
nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
The fourth step goes a bit further, to see «the trajectory eventuating in the creation
of human historical
existence» not «as a metaphysical surd but rather as grounded in the
ultimate nature of things, in the
ultimate mystery.»
Looking at these passages it is clear that the authors were investigating fundamental questions about the
nature of reality, and seeking for
ultimate principles that would explain its
existence and
nature.
«Since it has been entrusted to the Church to reveal the mystery
of God, Who is the
ultimate goal
of man, she opens up to man at the same time the meaning
of his own
existence, that is, the innermost truth about himself... For by His incarnation the Father's Word assumed, and sanctified through His cross and resurrection, the whole
of man, body and soul, and through that totality the whole
of nature created by God for man's use» (41).
It requires also that one resign oneself to an
ultimate irrationalism: For the one reality that naturalism can never logically encompass is the very
existence of nature (
nature being, by definition, that which already exists); it is a philosophy, therefore, surrounded, permeated, and exceeded by a truth that is always already super naturam, and yet a philosophy that one can not seriously entertain except by scrupulously refusing to recognize this.
It rather appears to be the degree to which, in and through the experiences to which these statements point, there is effected an actual deepening and widening
of spiritual insight into the
nature of ultimate reality,
of human
existence and
of the destiny
of man.
Naturalists don't agree with each other about the
ultimate nature of reality (though all
of them would call their pet theory «natural»), they don't agree about the foundation and content
of morality (provided they don't deny its
existence altogether) and I could go on and on to list the countless varieties
of naturalism out there.