Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

The point is that God cannot "do" anything, for the One is not material.

That's perhaps the Eastern conception. It's not the Biblical conception of God. I think we're actually talking about two very different referents of that term, not of the same one.

In the Biblical conception, God's the only reason anybody can "do" anything, being the Transcendent Creator of all things material. In other words, in the Biblical view, God is not less powerful than the material world, but is far greater than the material order.

And that has to be right, if we posit that God is the Creator. There's no other way it could be.

[jayjacobus]

Christianity is based on a questionable, unproven premise.

What "premises" would those be, J?

That God had a physical son.

[Immanuel Can]

Christianity is based on a questionable, unproven premise.

What "premises" would those be, J?

That God had a physical son.

Are you saying that an omnipotent God would be incapable of taking human form?

I would wonder at His entitlement to the term "omnipotent," if He could not even do something we so routinely do. For a God who reputedly created every human being that exists, it doesn't even look hard, let alone impossible.

[jayjacobus]

No. I am not saying that.

What I am saying is that there is no proof for what you advocate.

You have hypotheses. But not proven facts.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I am not saying that.

What I am saying is that there is no proof for what you advocate.

You have hypotheses. But not proven facts.

I would consider, for example, the existence of Jesus Christ a relevant point of data.

Would you not?

[Dubious]

No. I am not saying that.

What I am saying is that there is no proof for what you advocate.

You have hypotheses. But not proven facts.

I would consider, for example, the existence of Jesus Christ a relevant point of data.

Would you not?

In the sense that anyone who lived is relevant regardless of whether they're historical or not.

[attofishpi]

But if I knew I was wrong, and thus, if I were an Atheist, I would know that no moral constraints remain upon we at all, and would very likely take full advantage of that fact, I think. Like Nietzsche, I suppose I would despise those who held back, and continued to believe in morality. I might regard it as a badge of courage, and certainly as opportunistically necessary, to get myself ahead at all costs.

Really?

So deep down inside you truly are just a c$nt?

..and thus the actual you shall be judged.

[attofishpi]

William Paley 1803, in his book Natural Theology - wrote the Watchmaker Argument, claiming that if you were walking across the moors and found a pocket watch, if you knew nothing else at all, you would know that somewhere there is a watchmaker. He then compares the workings of the watch as a poor relation to design apparent in nature. This echoes arguments made throughout history - not least by Cicero, and I suspect, it goes back a lot further.

What a ridiculous argument!

If someone knew nothing else at all and found a pocket watch, such a person would NOT know that somewhere there is a watchmaker. Such a person at best would think that it is part of nature, such as the Sun rising and setting, or a rock with moving parts!

[attofishpi]

...<i like making things out of context on a forum so my argument appears more compelling>

I hate how you leave your argument in full, reduce mine to one line - often missing the salient point, and then bang on afterward, again at great length. Further, you stick a label on my argument then attack the label. If Moral Developmentalism were my argument; I'd say so. My argument is based in evolution; not moral development of the individual - but evolutionary pre-disposition.

And, therein lies the cunning of an Evangelist fox.

Not so honest are they...after all is said and done?

According to IC, God doesn't care about manipulation, it's not a commandment not to do so...one might then say it is even ETHICAL, so long as one is spreading the word of "GOD".

*atto is working his way thru the thread - only up to page 8...starting to get bored, but will pick this thread dry, stay tuned...coming to a PHN forum soon.

[jayjacobus]

No. I am not saying that.

What I am saying is that there is no proof for what you advocate.

You have hypotheses. But not proven facts.

I would consider, for example, the existence of Jesus Christ a relevant point of data.

Would you not?

No. There is no evidentiary value in hearsay.

[Immanuel Can]

But if I knew I was wrong, and thus, if I were an Atheist, I would know that no moral constraints remain upon we at all, and would very likely take full advantage of that fact, I think. Like Nietzsche, I suppose I would despise those who held back, and continued to believe in morality. I might regard it as a badge of courage, and certainly as opportunistically necessary, to get myself ahead at all costs.

Really?

I think we're all like that, Atto...at our best, even. And Biblically, that is confirmed: " If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (John 1:8)

So we must ask ourselves, who is the "more admirable" person: the one who follows through on his worldview and really lives it, or the one who is too afraid to live according to what he really thinks is the case, and so doesn't?

And if our answer is that the consistent man is more noble, then we would even have to say that the Atheist who lives as if there is no morality is more noble than the one who cringingly follows conventional mores and is too terrified to be as bad as his worldview warrants him being.

[Immanuel Can]

<i like making things out of context on a forum so my argument appears more compelling>

These are not my words. I have no idea where you fished them up from. I never wrote them.

And had I written it, I'd at least have gotten the grammar right, and written "taking" instead of "making."

[Immanuel Can]

No. I am not saying that.

What I am saying is that there is no proof for what you advocate.

You have hypotheses. But not proven facts.

I would consider, for example, the existence of Jesus Christ a relevant point of data.

Would you not?

No. There is no evidentiary value in hearsay.

It isn't "hearsay," actually. Hearsay is inadmissible in court, it's true. But testimony is, and so is historical documentation, and so is historical evidence; all of which are what we're talking about in this case.

So unless you want to make the case that historians are wrong even to think Jesus Christ existed, then I suggest He remains a data point on that.

[jayjacobus]

I would consider, for example, the existence of Jesus Christ a relevant point of data.

Would you not?

No. There is no evidentiary value in hearsay.

It isn't "hearsay," actually. Hearsay is inadmissible in court, it's true. But testimony is, and so is historical documentation, and so is historical evidence; all of which are what we're talking about in this case.

So unless you want to make the case that historians are wrong even to think Jesus Christ existed, then I suggest He remains a data point on that.

With only hearsay, historians have no evidence.

The history of the Bible stories has been questioned but not by you. You are not logical. You are biased by your beliefs.

[attofishpi]

<i like making things out of context on a forum so my argument appears more compelling>

RE: Immanuel Can

I hate how you leave your argument in full, reduce mine to one line - often missing the salient point, and then bang on afterward, again at great length. Further, you stick a label on my argument then attack the label. If Moral Developmentalism were my argument; I'd say so. My argument is based in evolution; not moral development of the individual - but evolutionary pre-disposition

And, therein lies the cunning of an Evangelist fox.

Not so honest are they...after all is said and done?

According to IC, God doesn't care about manipulation, it's not a commandment not to do so...one might then say it is even ETHICAL, so long as one is spreading the word of "GOD".

These are not my words. I have no idea where you fished them up from. I never wrote them.

And had I written it, I'd at least have gotten the grammar right, and written "taking" instead of "making."

"Making" is grammatically correct. I am talking about your point of view - NOT "taking" as is typically expected.

(err should I include a stupid rolling the eyes emoti too?)