Putting ''Immanuel Can'' In The Religious Spotlight Part 2

[Dontaskme]

So what, if Jesus said I am God....

Then you have a choice: you believe Him, or you don't. And on that choice, all else depends.

That's the sum of it.

Humans preaching to other humans their made up religious BS stories about things like, judgement day, repentance for sin, worship no idol before me, and threats of eternal damnation and hell fire for those who refuse to save themselves etc..etc...is the only evil in this world.

Religion has corrupted and poisoned and caused unnatural irreparable damage to the humans natural psyche. It’s the scourge and cancer of the earth. The sooner this psychopathic evil is eradicated and every religious person is cured from their deluded sick psychosis disorder, then the sooner we as a species can get back to living a wholesome natural life we were meant to have, the happier we’ll all be.

.

[Immanuel Can]

So what, if Jesus said I am God....

Then you have a choice: you believe Him, or you don't. And on that choice, all else depends.

That's the sum of it.

Humans preaching to other humans their made up religious BS stories...

That has, no doubt, been sometimes true. The important question is whether or not it's true in this case. And your decision about that determines your destiny.

Once you have decided, I have no more to say.

[Ginkgo]

Let's hear them.


I can't wait to hear them, then.

Ok, which argument would you like me to refute, the cosmological argument, the scientific argument, the ontological argument? I can refute any argument you put forward for the existence of God

Great.

Hmmm...well, let's start with The Design Argument, because that's the one Dawkins starts with, and which he says lends prima facie evidence to the belief that God exists. Then maybe we can look at the Moral Argument; and then maybe the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and specifically, the infinite-regress-of-causes problem, if we haven't sorted things out by then.

So Dawkins says that nature appears to manifest design, which would mean there's a God; what evidence would you present to say, "What you think it design is not design at all?"

Sorry to correct: it wasn't an analogy. It was an example, specifically, an example of how "proving something" works. And it works the same way for everything...to prove something didn't happen, or didn't exist is far, far harder than to prove it did.

Your example is an analogy.

Sorry to correct: it wasn't an analogy, it was an example of the procedure. No analogy was being drawn there at all, in fact.

I might ask you the same question. What makes you certain that God exists? In other words, which arguments make you certain that God exists?

And I'd be very happy to reply, and probably, we'll get to that. But Dawkins says that the existence of God is the thesis supported by the evidence at first look, so we need to show that that first look is wrong. If that's right, then the hypothesis favoured by the evidence is the Design Hypothesis, not Atheism.

So Dawkins is not an atheist, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China

Well, Dawkins plays both sides of the street on that one. He's quite happy to be called an "Atheist" in situations in which he isn't going to have to provide any evidence; but he wants to retreat into what he calls "strong agnosticism" the minute evidence is asked of him.

That's pretty typical of Atheists, actually. If you ask them for proof of their hypothesis, the first thing they say is, "I don't need to provide any, because I just don't believe in any gods," or "...believe in no gods," or "I simply lack belief..." Of course, any of those three, or any of their other variations, mean the Agnostic is admitting he doesn't actually know anything at all, but just is stating a gratuitous preference. But at the same time, I've never met an Atheist who didn't also want to turn around right away and say, "You don't have any right to believe in a God or gods either." That's quite a different claim, however; instead of still meaning "I lack god-experience," it's saying "Nobody can have any experience of God" -- which is manifestly much more than the purported Atheist could ever know.

So if Atheism wants to say, "Faith in God is irrational for everyone," then he needs proof. If he only wants to say, "Faith in God is something I lack, because I have no experience of God," then the response is, "Yeah? I' believe you. But you could have."

The only proof you have for the existence of God are arguments and belief.

Heh. What is your basis for this dogmatic claim? What do you know about "what proof I have"?

To date you have not offered any proof for your claims.

Well, it's not my turn yet, says Mr. Dawkins. He points out that, at present, the evidence favours me. So the first thing we need to know is why we shouldn't believe the evidence of our eyes, and what Mr. Dawkins claims is the most natural hypothesis from that evidence, a hypothesis so powerful that even Mr. Dawkins claims to feel drawn by it himself, as does (he says) Einstein et al.

So why should we disbelieve the evidence of design in nature, as we see it every day? Let's start there.

OK, let's start with the design argument. It may surprise you to learn that I subscribe to the design argument,however, I don't believe God is responsible for design. I believe that in the future there will be quantum evidence to show that the quantum world is the source of design, unless you can convince me otherwise.

BTW I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the analogy one.

[Dontaskme]

Then you have a choice: you believe Him, or you don't. And on that choice, all else depends.

That's the sum of it.

Humans preaching to other humans their made up religious BS stories...

That has, no doubt, been sometimes true. The important question is whether or not it's true in this case. And your decision about that determines your destiny.

Once you have decided, I have no more to say.

I very much doubt that is your call to make. And I very much doubt you have no more to say. If you believe you are the fictional character within the dream then you will always have something to say as you battle to defend your illusory shadow in vain. You really need to get yourself properly educated about the nature of reality.


You do not have a destiny. You have never been born, and cannot die. You do not move or go anywhere. You does not happen.

Happenings are what you observe. Similar to watching a movie. The movie seems real, invoking all kinds of sensations, emotions and feelings, but these are simulations of the brain. The brain is another part of the movie playing many fictional illusory simulated character roles. But who you are is the empty observer of all this activity. In the dream / movie...characters do bad deeds and pay the consequences, some bad deed doers are totally reformed characters for having seen the errors of their ways. However, it's all but a simulated illusory movie created by the brain upon awareness.

Free will does not exist, but it is believed as being actual by your brain. Scientists have proved this. Humans are convinced that their brain makes conscious choice as they live their lives.

But instead, the brain just convinces itself that it makes a free choice from the available options only after the decision is made by the intelligence in life and not by the brain.

Why on earth would the real need an experience? The real has no needs. It is the illusory which needs an experience so that it can blow its trumpet. You are as you are. Observe life, listen to life. Watch the mind interpret life and manifest a drama of free will.


I have undergone anesthesia, the clue to your being is found during this process. During which I would have assumed the I am awareness would have gone on while the body was unconscious. But no. Nothing.

Switching from being to not being is interesting.What if the perceived gap in time is not a loss of awareness but part of it?

For illustration purposes, let's say reading a book were a continued awareness from cover-to-cover and a bunch of pages were left blank to symbolize a loss of awareness, would that also be a loss of awareness for the reader of the book?
1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1.......... Sleep, wake, sleep, wake.... gives the illusion of a change in perception and yet there is a strange continuity.


Truth is, you have never been born, nor have you died. I believe this to be God's mental realm of experience. There is only God turning the light off and on. If the light can be turned on, it can be turned off too.
Switching from being to not being is interesting. I have come to realise I do this "all the time''.
To be always and have a universe land on the shore of awareness on and on and on eternally what a nightmare that would actually be. Like never being able to switch the light off.

When we say we are light beings that is only partially true. Light because that is the state where we perceive things. And then there is also the state of Not being different in potential.

Mysteriously I am all that.

.

[Immanuel Can]

OK, let's start with the design argument. It may surprise you to learn that I subscribe to the design argument,

Well, you're going to need to explain that.

The realization that nature contains design is a powerful argument for an intelligent, purposing Designer. Absent that, you would have to provide some demonstration that some kind of accident necessarily produces design...and I say "necessarily," because whatever it is that we suppose produced the design would have to do it not just once, but billions of times, in a coordinated pattern, over the alleged billions of years required, and against astronomical odds against it even happening.

Personally, I know of no such argument. But if you know of one, I'm open to hearing it.

The usual route for Atheists is simply to deny design, as Dawkins tries to do, even though he admits that what he observes in the world sure looks like design.

[Immanuel Can]

Humans preaching to other humans their made up religious BS stories...

That has, no doubt, been sometimes true. The important question is whether or not it's true in this case. And your decision about that determines your destiny.

Once you have decided, I have no more to say.

I very much doubt that is your call to make.

Well, you're only right insofar as it's not up to me is to tell you what I know...I have a strict, moral obligation to do that. I can wish you would make one decision, but being a free agent, you may make another. To try control you would be a violation of your volition, of your personhood. So there comes a point at which the case has been presented clearly, and a decision is made.

That's where I have to stop. Compulsion is not allowed under genuine Theism. Locke saw that, and stated it clearly:

“But if God … would have men forced to heaven, it must not be by the outward violence of the magistrate on men’s bodies, but the inward constraints of his own spirit on their minds, which are not to be wrought on by any human compulsion. The way to salvation not being any forced exterior performance, but the voluntary and secret choice of the mind, and it cannot be supposed that God would make use of any means which could not reach but would rather cross the attainment of the end. Nor can it be thought that men should give the magistrate a power to choose for them their way to salvation, which is too great to give away, if not impossible to part with.” (Essay Concerning Toleration, 177)

[Dontaskme]

Well, you're only right insofar as it's not up to me is to tell you what I know...I have a strict, moral obligation to do that.

No, you don't. It's not for you to call it.

You cannot tell another what you know, because you cannot tell yourself what you know. You are the 'knowing' that cannot be known.

You can only show what you want the word of God to mean to yourself,and that goes for every other seeker.

No need for double speak here. People are on their own unique individual path, to direct them away from their own path is to alter their own knowing.

One of the most popular verses in the Bible is Psalm 46:10: “Be still and know that I am God.”

[Immanuel Can]

Well, you're only right insofar as it's not up to me is to tell you what I know...I have a strict, moral obligation to do that.

No, you don't. It's not for you to call it.

It's up to God. He "calls" it.

[Dontaskme]

Well, you're only right insofar as it's not up to me is to tell you what I know...I have a strict, moral obligation to do that.

No, you don't. It's not for you to call it.

It's up to God. He "calls" it.

Yes, and he calls it evil.

And God said it was evil.

[Immanuel Can]

No, you don't. It's not for you to call it.

It's up to God. He "calls" it.

Yes, and he calls it evil.

I can't even make sense of that response.

[Dontaskme]

It's up to God. He "calls" it.

Yes, and he calls it evil.

I can't even make sense of that response.

Am I supposed to make sense of this repsonse

Well, you're only right insofar as it's not up to me is to tell you what I know...I have a strict, moral obligation to do that.

No, you don't. It's not for you to call it.

It's up to God. He "calls" it.

Is Immanuel Can God's mouthpiece, is Immanuel Can God's knowing?

[Immanuel Can]

Is Immanuel Can God's mouthpiece...

Of course not. But you know that: you will search my old messages in vain for any such claim.

I think you're agitated about something else, but I can't tell what it is, so I can't speak to it. Sorry.

[Dontaskme]

Is Immanuel Can God's mouthpiece...

Of course not. But you know that: you will search my old messages in vain for any such claim.

I think you're agitated about something else, but I can't tell what it is, so I can't speak to it. Sorry.

I'm not agitated, just confused as to what you are saying. I do not even think you know what you are saying, because you never want to speak about it.

[Immanuel Can]

...you never want to speak about it.

I have no idea what to say to that.

[Dontaskme]

...you never want to speak about it.

I have no idea what to say to that.

Does Immanuel Can know God ?

Did Immanuel Can make this claim It's up to God. He "calls" it.