Christianity

[Dubious]

Me, I'd embrace the Christians God's immortality and salvation in a heartbeat if someone could convince me that it is the "real deal".

God was never a science, but a belief. There never was, nor can there be, a "real deal" regarding it. If that were the case, theism wouldn't need to exist and neither would atheism since belief is no-longer necessary as a determining factor.

[Sculptor]

Me, I'd embrace the Christians God's immortality and salvation in a heartbeat if someone could convince me that it is the "real deal".

God was never a science, but a belief. There never was, nor can there be, a "real deal" regarding it. If that were the case, theism wouldn't need to exist and neither would atheism since belief is no-longer necessary as a determining factor.

I do not think that is a valid conclusion. The facts of science are the real deal, they were the real deal before there were human to think about them, they will still be the real deal after we are gone, and all that stuff we do not know is also the real deal regardless of ou current knowledge. Despite all this there are many people who are not convinced and others who argue the toss about many aspects of it.

So if god was the real deal theism would still exist the only difference would be that it might be a bit more convincing. One thing is true there certainly would be no atheism without theism. But were theism the real deal there probably would be atheism to the degree that theism was not convincing.

The only other thing to say is that were theism the real deal it would not be so incoherent, contradictory, absurd and pathetic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Indeed! What are we to make of all this? It's not a Beiner question on Nietzsche; it's a question of Beiner's intentional willingness to misunderstand, emerging instead as a question of motive. How does one become a thinker who has influenced and shaped contemporary culture and intellectual life to a staggering degree based on such a simplistic summary? It makes no sense at all! He doesn't even notice the irony, and evidently neither do you. To conclude with that kind of question without a retroactive examination of N's considerable influence in the 20th century and beyond appears based not on any objective view but on a highly foreshortened prejudgemental subjective one.

Below you speak about 'critical thinking' about what one reads. I would say that the mistake that you make is assuming that because I reference Beiner and his book (and there are a dozen contemporary titles that I could mention that work similar angles) that I am advocating for his position in a specific sense or that I share his 'project' (you refer to an axe to grind and this for me means *project*). But what I advocate for is for understanding the position of those we are opposed to. Making the effort to understand why they see things in the way they do. And also following the logic of their arguments to the conclusions they present.

The video interviews with Michael Millerman where he mentioned that Beiner resigned from his PhD committee because he felt it morally wrong to contribute in any way to Millerman's research indicates where, ultimately, Beiner stands. The upshot from those videos is that a wide range of dangerous and even deviant ideas are encouraged in the university environment, and such exposure is seen as a good thing and encouraging of developing an open mind, while a whole range of other, opposing or contradicting ideas is discouraged and also prohibited. There are 'thought police' in our culture today and they have a great deal of power.

So the reason I presented Beiner is 1) that I feel it better to examine and think about the sort of ideas he works with as well as understanding what his fears and paranoias are, and also to see how his activism develops into a recommendation that other people should follow in order to be *moral*, and 2) to simultaneously be open to examining the 'dangerous' side of thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger. You are free to have whatever opinion you wish to have (though I do wish you would support your opinion with solid argument -- and this is lacking) but I see Nietzsche's thought in many areas as being deeply problematic and openly dangerous. CG Jung said that only a 'mature' person could approach him. So in this regard -- and it is a credible position -- Beiner writes coherently about Nietzsche's seductive power.

Since I definitely agree that Nietzsche is a seductive writer -- he entices people who are likely unprepared to deal with the intensity and force of his assertions and propositions -- I see no reason why he should not be critiqued for this trait.

And remember that this mention of Nietzsche, and contemporary issues, has a function and purpose in this present conversation. Quite plainly it is that those who become warriors against the Christian construct, and against Christianity generally, are Nietzsche readers and have been influenced by his arguments. That is certainly true in my own case. But I suggest that real and also mature critical thought needs to be devoted to examining those who do this with such intensity which, as I often say, seems blindly reactive.

The more one reads - since you mention you read a lot - the more necessary it becomes to think and critique...which you don't seem to be very good at. Nietzsche himself made that affirmation regarding his own works, namely to examine, not merely accept or take bits and pieces out of context. Only intellectual cowards to do that.

You are going to have to demonstrate, that is if you desire to, just how really intellectual bold you are by developing your arguments. If you mean to say that Beiner has a tendentious view of an aspect of Heidegger and Nietzsche you are quite right. By calling them 'dangerous thinkers' he states his case. But it is not outrageous or unfair of him to link the powerful and radical ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger to the Dissident Right that has emerged over the last, say, 8-10 years. It is true that Beiner takes an *alarmist* stance but he does so, at least, honestly. He states right at the beginning what his purpose is.

Now you and I can talk about that, and we can also contextualize Beiner and all of those authors who have recently published books that work in a similar field, and doing so would be the fair way to discuss contemporary ideas. But open and far too general dismissal is not (IMO) the right way to go.

In my view one has to seriously encounter the ideas of another person, and even absorb their ideas and view to the point of being able to explain them well and fairly, before one could make ultimate decisions about what one supports and what one doesn't.

I think that you are wrong about Beiner. I do not think he is an *intellectual coward* in the way that you mean. He is a liberal-minded activist who has strong fears and apprehensions about an emergent Radical Right and he wishes to put a damper on the dissemination of these ideas and their influence. This fits into the 'cancel culture' that we are all aware of. It also must be stated that Beiner is Jewish and there is a great deal of alarm about the rise of anti-Semitic and counter-Jewish ideas and assertions and these are ever-present and constant on the Radical Right. In my view what they say should not be suppressed and it should also be understood. So I recommend reading, for example, Kevin MacDonald (Culture of Critique) and those who are writing on these themes. There is also Greg Johnson and Jonathan Bowden.

I tried to find some interest in your posts but find very little interesting or relevant. Of course, you have the right to consider mine in the same light.

Let me put it this way: If you were to actually develop your ideas and present them I might be able to develop some fixed opinion. As it is you simply do not say much at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Rather, it points out that there are HUGE gaps in the theory of evolution that need to be filled, such as the one iam pointed to...namely, how do we get living matter to appear from non-living? It does not say that the questions cannot be answered, but that they need to be.

Thanks for discussing stuff with me IC...in a normal human to human respectful way, without what can sometimes feel like a fight to be right from an egoic hostile dominant position... I do appreciate your patience and capacity to engage with my ideas, so thanks.

No problem.

So in your opinion..''how do we get living matter to appear from non-living?...'' is the one main question, we so far have no answer for...and yet there seems to be a human NEED for an answer to this question...right?

Yes: but only one of at least four.

In response, I would say ok, supposing the answer to that question does eventually somewhere down the line become known to us all..Surely, won't that mean humans will be able to then recreate a whole new separate universe apart from the one that we already are?

I think what it would mean is that we would have one step in the evolutionary theory properly worked out, and we would possibily (though not certainly) get some idea of how life itself could be created out of non-living matter.

How much we'd be able to do that ourselves, well, that's speculative.

I suppose I'm saying, what will that mean for humanity...fully knowing HOW or and maybe why, living matter appears from non-living matter? .... (... or in other words...how or why did the universe become conscious of itself? ...) Was/is there a purpose or reason for this event?

Oh, those are three very different questions. But it seems to me that if life came from non-living matter, it wouldn't help us with the problem of consciousness. That's an additional step: how does the non-conscious become conscious?

And the whole question of purpose or reason would actually be wiped out; for if things came from non-living matter by way of chance, as the theory of evolution says, then it would have no intrinsic purpose or meaning. After all, one does not ask, "What does that accident mean?" An "accident," a chance event, is defined by not having a relationship of meaning to anything else. It would still have some causal explanation, but not one involving meaning or purpose. If it has meaning and purpose, then it wasn't an "accident" at all, but an "on-purpose," and not by "chance" at all, but by "design" and "intention."

What IF there's no such matter as a living or non-living matter...what if matter is neither alive or dead, what if matter is totally unknowable?

You mean, what if science didn't work, and didn't yield any knowledge?

what if there is NO awareness higher or more ''intellectually intelligent'' than that of human sentient awareness ?

Here's the problem: human beings are contingent, meaning "dependent on being caused or created by other things, and thus theoretically capable of not having existed at all, even though we now do."

We don't make ourselves, and we only live for around 75-80 years. So we aren't the explanation for our own existence. Something has to make us...proximally, our parents. But our parents are only contingent beings, too. So we get back to the origins of the human race. But the human race is also contingent. So just as we can't be the explanation for our own existence, the human race can't be the explanation for its own existence.

So from what original point did sentience arise? How did non-living, non-sentient gas-in-space manage to turn into living, sentient beings?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again, my interest in all this revolves less around what any particular citizen believes "being French" means, and more in how, given the life they lived, a specific trajectory of experiences, relationships and information/knowledge inclined them to believe one set of historical/cultural/political prejudices rather than another. Just as with Christianity, it's not what people believe about it but why they came to believe what they did while others believe something different.

I think I can appreciate and understand what your interest is. My question would be Why do you have this interest? Or put another way What will you do once you have formed conclusions?

I used the example of Right-tending France because in my view it is one that fairly illustrates the nature of a struggle, a modern struggle, a contemporary struggle, where a great deal of what we discuss here can be viewed, perhaps, with some dispassion. I have to state that I am very strongly in favor or and supportive of French identity as it is now being defined by the activist Right. However, I am not interested in outrageous and violent fights over these issues and questions where people sink their teeth into each other over their moral and ethical judgments, and much more in simply getting clear about what the issues are.

So what concerns me is exactly what a French person today thinks and believes being French is. And I am interested in those definitions that are capable of turning into decisions as well as hard decisions (that have consequences).

One thing that we certainly can say about modern France, especially post-Sixties France, is the thorough influence of Left/Radical ideas in reshaping the culture. And we can also see that French citizens of today who take a more Right-tending position are often acting *in reaction* to the hyper-Liberal trends. And we can also see that different Dissident Right factions have been forming everywhere. So the conversation about the rejection of Liberalism in its various manifestations (or aspects of it) is something worthy of thought and conversation.

In respect to Christianity (and note that some of the modern French Right-tending activists are often Christianity-conserving), there is the abstract metaphysical issue about salvation and all of that. But more immediately there is the historical-social issues of the beliefs of a given people in their context and on the ground. The former issue is internal and personal; the latter is social and political. And of course this is one reason why religion and religious belief are problematical in the social context.

And then given that individuals do have different [conflicting] assessments of "being French" or "being Christian", how, as philosophers, might we be able to pin down what in fact the most rational -- the "wisest" -- assessment is.

There is the question of 'how we pin it down' and then there is the question of enactment: How we go about enacting what has been pinned. Thereofre the issue revolves around the philosophical definitions. And the philosophical definitions depend on what sort of being and identity one chooses to focus on and consider important and essential. Very hard to carry that out in the atmosphere of radical Liberal ideation since these tend to *dissolve identity* and work against solid, conventional definitions. For this reason the Dissident Right (or Far Right or Radical Right) tends to focus on historicity and also essence. And foundational religious beliefs -- or in any case an assertion about the *form* of belief -- always seems a part of conservative movements.

But 'wise' and 'wisdom' are problematic words in your paragraph. Wisdom is usually associated with long-standing historical ideas and beliefs. Less in novelty and even less in radical novelty.

Can that be done? Is there a philosophical equivalent of the "scientific method" in exploring such things as culture and ethnicity and race and class? The immigration issue is of particular importance re Brexit and the French election. Tell me that doesn't revolve around certain racist convictions.

The word 'racist' here is problematic. It is terribly laden. French identity and a focus on it, and a redefinition of it, will certainly require a certain degree of focus on *blood and soil*. There is no way around this in my view. That is why I posted the video of Renaud Camus' exposition on his resistance to 'the great replacement'. So culture and ethnicity and race and class are all part of this conversation. And validly so.

I do not believe there is an objective science-method for this exploration of identity. But there is a method through which conservative ideas are formulated. And there is a method through which progressive and radical ideas are formulated. But on what do the decisions of individuals depend ultimately? Harder to define.

What it depicts [from my vantage point] are those who construe the best of all possible world as one in which governments are formed that revolve around democracy and the rule of law...around "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

A classically Liberal posture. But not one that can be proposed or sustained in-and-of-itself. That is, such a standpoint requires a whole host of initial predicates and assertions and one has to be trained up in them. My own view is that many of them, but certainly not all of them, when interrogated strongly tend to show themselves as ill-grounded. And the re-definition of conservative and conserving values ensues as a result of 'liberal excesses'.

What is in danger of collapsing is this. Replaced by the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings and the Donald Trumps and the French equivalent of them.

You have bunched together people who should not, indeed cannot, be bunched together. Xi Jinping stands very very much on his own. And Putin is not commensurate to Xi Jinping. So the direct comparison cannot in my view work.

To draw a comparison between Donald Trump's manifestation in the American context and, say, Marine Le Pen, could work to some degree if it were carefully done. But Marine Le Pen is definitely an accomplished intellect if not an intellectual. And Donald Trump is in no sense an intellect and extremely far away from being in intellectual. I would label Trump as a psycho-social phenomenon. Is there a coherently articulatable position that he could ever express? I would say only to a slight degree. But someone farther to the Dissident Right, and influenced by ideological formulations, could explain Donald Trump. I am not a great admirer of Michael Moore but he did get right to an important point. here.

But with this is a far more developed set of activist ideas. Que pensez-vous?

Marine Le Pen is capable of holding and explaining complex and coherent ideas about social and cultural value. Her ideas and her being is intensely resisted by the French intellectual class because of their many ideological commitments. But somewhat irrationally in my view. And in fact, quite literally in France today, many who come to the National Rally position are not 'rightists' nor even that conservative in a traditional sense, but resisters of Hyper-Liberal processes.

[jayjacobus]

So from what original point did sentience arise? How did non-living, non-sentient gas-in-space manage to turn into living, sentient beings?

It has been suggested that sentient comes from embodied spirits. If so, sentient comes from spirits while bodies come from nature.

[Belinda]

So from what original point did sentience arise? How did non-living, non-sentient gas-in-space manage to turn into living, sentient beings?

It has been suggested that sentient comes from embodied spirits. If so, sentient comes from spirits while bodies come from nature.

Immanuel, sentience ultimately is either an idea in the infinite experience of God or an idea in the infinite experience of the Absolute.

If it's an idea in the infinite experience of God then God is volitional i.e. God wanted sentience to be part of His order of nature.

[iambiguous]

If "immortality and salvation" are at stake, then the question of what you believe about God is not irrelevant. But the wrong beliefs of other people, no matter how numerous or elaborate they may become, do not make the truth stop being the truth.

See, he notes things like this without it really sinking in that this is exactly what all the other "a God, the God, my God" folks out there are insisting about their own Gods!!! They can't all be right,

You're absolutely right. They cannot be.

In fact, logically, the most that can be right is one answer. It's certainly not more than that, since the various answers to "Who is God?" are so different and contradictory.

So the only question left is, "Which one?"

Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction covers this.

In other words, if it comes down to Aristotle's God -- https://heptapolis.com/aristotles-concept-god -- and his Christian God, we can ask "which one?" Aristotle's or his? But as with Aristotle's God, his God [so far] is almost entirely encompassed in "concepts" of Him. Where's Aristotle's proof [or his] that either God does in fact exist materially, phenomenologically?

And that's before we get all of the many, many additional Gods that have come down the pike historically. Not to mention all of the No God religious paths.

Which one? The one "in his head" of course.

all that matters is that they believe what they do?!!

Jesus Christ says otherwise. He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;" and then, in case anybody misses the point: "no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

So if there are many roads, they are not going to the same place "the way" is taking people. Take your pick, and live (and die) with the consequences.

What, this is what he means by demonstrating that the Christian God does in fact exist?!!! Quoting Scripture?

His own rendition of...

1] the Bible must be true because it is the word of God
2] it must be the word of God because it says so in the Bible

Come on, tell me that someone who "thinks" himself into believing something like this isn't predicating his faith in the Christian God on the "psychology of objectivism":

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] Christianity.

2] Over time, you become convinced that Christianity expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about Christianity; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share their Christianity with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about Christianity with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes Christianity as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

I wasn't "demonstrating that God..exists." I was refuting your claim that "all that matters is that they believe..." That's obviously not true.

Right, his demonstration that the Christian God does in fact exist will come "shortly". In the interim, until one of the many, many denominations "out there" does demonstrate that their God does in fact exist, what else is there but what they believe about Him "in their heads"?

So, is it also logical to suppose that even though there have been hundreds and hundreds of God and No God religious denominations down through the ages insisting it is not his God but theirs that offers mere mortals the one true path to immortality and salvation, his God and only his God really does provide it?

Yep.

Note to Henry [among others]:

Explain to him it is the God that you believe in "in your head" and not the God he believes in "in his head" that is the one true God. You know, if someone here should ask "which one?"

Like "existing," my claim is either true or its false...and in that, it resembles every other claim a person can make about God.

Oh, it resembles it alright. In fact it's exactly the same: faith based.

And then instead of going beyond more or less blind faith, he heads straight back up into the "general description spiritual clouds" where everything gets discussed and debated in a "world of words":

Here are the three possible views on God.

1. Atheism -- there are no gods.
2. Polytheism -- there are plural or many gods.
3. Monotheism -- there is only one God.

Now, we could discuss what kind of gods or God there might be..what their/His nature might be, what their/His moral intentions might be, and so on. But those are secondary questions, because if there are no gods, then those questions cannot even be asked; so for now, we'll leave them aside.

We have, above, the three possible views of the question of whether god(s) exists. There are no possible answers that do not fall into one of these three categories, as you can see.

Logic tells us that one of them has to be true. Why? Because there are no possibilities not covered by the three claims, right? Take you time, plug in any religion or ideology you know, and it will fit into one of the three. So there are no other answers possible.

What else can you deduce? Well, logically, not only is one of them guaranteed to be true, but two of the three are guaranteed to be false. Why? Because they directly contradict one another. If there is one or many gods, Atheism is false. If there are no gods, then the last two are false. If there is one God, then both Atheism and Polytheism are false; and if there are many gods, then both Atheism and Monotheism are false.

So what you end up with is that every person believes that most of the world is wrong. There are no exceptions to that, except a person who cannot do logic and so can't even understand or unravel the trilemma above.

So, if you share his definitions and deductions here, his distinctions are "logically" true. And if you don't and prefer actual hard evidence that it is his Christian God that is the one true path?

Well, once again, you are out of luck.

Similarly, if you do not share his moral convictions regarding such things as abortion then "logically" you are wrong because "logically", in defining and deducing the Christian God into existence the answer to the question "which one?" is simple: his. His God, his objective morality.

Instead, he goes here:

But, again, with so much at stake none of these all-powerful Gods seem able to actually demonstrate to mere mortals that He is the one!!

What's your evidence He hasn't? And what evidence would you accept to prove He had?

The evidence is overwhelming. If a God, the God does in fact exist, and He is in fact the God of one of the many, many denominations here on Earth, and He was able to demonstrate His existence, that's all anyone would be talking about. It would wipe Ukraine right off the front page. God does exist! And it's the Christian God!!

Right?

Unbelievable. The evidence of course is the lives that each of us lived!

Except you don't have the foggiest idea what life I have lived. You don't know my age, my gender, my hair colour, my height or weight, my family, my languages, my culture, or anything else about me...just that I'm a Christian.

So you have no evidence at all.

My point isn't about you or me or someone else here specifically. It's about how all of us are indoctrinated as children, how all of us live profoundly unique lives, how all of us embody a trajectory of existential experience that predispose/incline us to this or that God. Or to No God.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the existential parameters of human identity here isn't just common sense.

And that's my point: given this, where is the hard evidence to close the gap between what we believe about God "in our head" and what we are able to demonstrate to others that [as rational human beings] they are obligated to believe in turn.

As for all the free will/determinism arguments going back and forth here, I'd suggest folks go to my Compatibilism thread. Here, instead, the far more interesting question would seem to be how an omniscient Christian God is compatible with human autonomy.

Well, until, "shortly", IC provides us with the hard evidence able to convince us that his Christian God does in fact exist...in the same manner in which others are able to demonstrate to us that Popes inhabit the Vatican.

The Christian God and Yellowstone.

Volcanoes? Shall we go with volcanoes?

Okay, but pick one that did some damage. Yellowstone is pretty benign. What about Pompeii or Mt. St. Helen's?

Pick one from this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_v ... death_toll

[iambiguous]

Me, I'd embrace the Christians God's immortality and salvation in a heartbeat if someone could convince me that it is the "real deal".

God was never a science, but a belief. There never was, nor can there be, a "real deal" regarding it. If that were the case, theism wouldn't need to exist and neither would atheism since belief is no-longer necessary as a determining factor.

On the contrary, any number of Christians insist that, with the "second coming", Jesus Christ/God will make that "real deal" absolutely beyond dispute.

Just ask them.

And, again, when it comes to God and religion, my own interest revolves around someone's capacity to close the gap between what in a leap of faith they believe "in their head" about them and what they can in fact demonstrate empirically is true about them.

All the way down to zero?

That and connecting the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side.

The part I explore on this thread from ILP: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... b63f74ef1a

[Dubious]

Let me put it this way: If you were to actually develop your ideas and present them I might be able to develop some fixed opinion. As it is you simply do not say much at all.

Fair enough. Since we both have the same corresponding opinion of the other, it's only reasonable to cease communication.

No hard feelings!

[Dubious]

On the contrary, any number of Christians insist that, with the "second coming", Jesus Christ/God will make that "real deal" absolutely beyond dispute.

Definitely that's what Christians believe. It's one of the defining tenets of Christianity. But there is a world of difference between a "real deal" which actually is real and contemporary with current reality and one supposedly happening at whatever time in the future based on ancient texts and layers of dogma heaped on top. The lowest probability imaginable does not grant a "second coming" scenario the status of a "real deal".

And, again, when it comes to God and religion, my own interest revolves around someone's capacity to close the gap between what in a leap of faith they believe "in their head" about them and what they can in fact demonstrate empirically is true about them.
All the way down to zero?

To believe one can close the gap between a leap of faith - I guess that's why they call it a leap - and what can be empirically demonstrated would in itself require such a leap. The mind it takes to believe the unbelievable is exactly the same kind of mind it takes to defend it. No-longer does it operate based on empirical, historical data or any determination of logic. It can only defend based on nearly every logical fallacy it finds expedient to employ at the moment...not to mention willful distortion.

But it's also true that it's not logically possible for anything to be absolutely confirmed or denied. We operate within an index of probabilities to determine our reality.

That and connecting the dots existentially between morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side.

I read a lot about religions during my long sojourn here and could never find a single reason beyond wishful thinking what could actually make the idea of immortality viable. There's not even a purpose defined, without employing the imagination, which could make the idea credible.

[Immanuel Can]

So from what original point did sentience arise? How did non-living, non-sentient gas-in-space manage to turn into living, sentient beings?

It has been suggested that sentient comes from embodied spirits. If so, sentient comes from spirits while bodies come from nature.

A kind of mystical dualism, then?

And the spirits...they're plural....?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Let me put it this way: If you were to actually develop your ideas and present them I might be able to develop some fixed opinion. As it is you simply do not say much at all.

Fair enough. Since we both have the same corresponding opinion of the other, it's only reasonable to cease communication.

No hard feelings!

Actually our opinions do not correspond, and mine are based in thought and less in feeling.

However, there is a plan that I recommend for you — and it will cost you nothing. I call it The Grown Up’s Plan: If you do not want to respond to what I write, don’t.

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

Bubba sez...

Note to Henry [among others]:

Explain to him it is the God that you believe in "in your head" and not the God he believes in "in his head" that is the one true God. You know, if someone here should ask "which one?"

So, should we square off with tire knockers and defend our Gods, or should we just keep on doin' what we've been doin': each believin' what he believes and leavin' the other guy be to do the same?

Me: I vote for the later.

[Immanuel Can]

See, he notes things like this without it really sinking in that this is exactly what all the other "a God, the God, my God" folks out there are insisting about their own Gods!!! They can't all be right,

You're absolutely right. They cannot be.

In fact, logically, the most that can be right is one answer. It's certainly not more than that, since the various answers to "Who is God?" are so different and contradictory.

So the only question left is, "Which one?"

Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction covers this.

In other words, if it comes down to Aristotle's God

Oh no. Not at all.

To say that Aristotle's Law of Contradiction is true is not to say that Aristotle's always right, anymore than to say Einstein's Relativity is true means Einstein is infallible.

And that's before we get all of the many, many additional Gods that have come down the pike historically. Not to mention all of the No God religious paths.

You seem very impressed by the fact that people have different gods. I can't really see why. Maybe you can explain what makes you think that these many contradictory accounts imply something.

all that matters is that they believe what they do?!!

Jesus Christ says otherwise. He says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;" and then, in case anybody misses the point: "no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

So if there are many roads, they are not going to the same place "the way" is taking people. Take your pick, and live (and die) with the consequences.

Note: here I skipped your six allegations, because they weren't logical to what I was saying, and didn't add up to me. Quite frankly, I wasn't sure what kind of a response you wanted.

Note to Henry [among others]:

Explain to him it is the God that you believe in "in your head" and not the God he believes in "in his head" that is the one true God. You know, if someone here should ask "which one?"

You can ask me yourself. I'll answer.

That is precisely what one has to decide freely, for oneself. One must decide if the God described in the Bible is true or not. And the same, of course, could be said for any other "gods" people offer one. Or one could simply refuse, and declare Atheism, and never know.

Either way, that task is our task here, on Earth: to decide if God has spoken, and if so, how, and what you and I are going to do about it.

Like "existing," my claim is either true or its false...and in that, it resembles every other claim a person can make about God.

Oh, it resembles it alright. In fact it's exactly the same: faith based.

No, actually...it would be a factual matter. It would be a matter of whether or not your particular view of God was true or false, not of how much belief you invested in it.

Here are the three possible views on God.

1. Atheism -- there are no gods.
2. Polytheism -- there are plural or many gods.
3. Monotheism -- there is only one God.

Now, we could discuss what kind of gods or God there might be..what their/His nature might be, what their/His moral intentions might be, and so on. But those are secondary questions, because if there are no gods, then those questions cannot even be asked; so for now, we'll leave them aside.

We have, above, the three possible views of the question of whether god(s) exists. There are no possible answers that do not fall into one of these three categories, as you can see.

Logic tells us that one of them has to be true. Why? Because there are no possibilities not covered by the three claims, right? Take you time, plug in any religion or ideology you know, and it will fit into one of the three. So there are no other answers possible.

What else can you deduce? Well, logically, not only is one of them guaranteed to be true, but two of the three are guaranteed to be false. Why? Because they directly contradict one another. If there is one or many gods, Atheism is false. If there are no gods, then the last two are false. If there is one God, then both Atheism and Polytheism are false; and if there are many gods, then both Atheism and Monotheism are false.

So what you end up with is that every person believes that most of the world is wrong. There are no exceptions to that, except a person who cannot do logic and so can't even understand or unravel the trilemma above.

So, if you share his definitions and deductions here, his distinctions are "logically" true.

Yes. In those three positions, you have all possible positions summed up.

If you think otherwise, it's easy to prove me wrong. Just say what the fourth option would be.

And if you don't and prefer actual hard evidence that it is his Christian God that is the one true path?

We haven't got to that, yet. You haven't waited to see it. All we've been doing so far is debating the groundwork for that.

But, again, with so much at stake none of these all-powerful Gods seem able to actually demonstrate to mere mortals that He is the one!!

What's your evidence He hasn't? And what evidence would you accept to prove He had?

The evidence is overwhelming. If a God, the God does in fact exist, and He is in fact the God of one of the many, many denominations here on Earth, and He was able to demonstrate His existence, that's all anyone would be talking about.

Oh. So your assumption is that if God were real, he wouldn't let anybody disbelieve in Him?

If he showed Himself physically, that might well be true. For the Supreme Being to manifest Himself within the universe would overwhelm all people, all debate, all thought, all possibility of objection, for sure. The Bible certainly describes it that way.

But what would then happen to the free choice to enter into a relationship with Him or to refuse? It would then be gone. How can one even possiblly choose not to believe in the ovewhelming presence of the Supreme Being?

And if, perhaps, the time has come for that to happen, then it would indeed do all that. But are you sure enough people have had the opportunity to make their own free choice, uncoerced by the overwhelming presence and certainty of God?

God knows, of course, if enough have.

Bottom line: think about it. If God values human freedom to choose, how can He make that possible if His own immediate presence is utterly overwhelming of all doubt and resistance? What would he have to do, in order to allow a time for free choice?

The answer's obvious, isn't it?

...all of us are indoctrinated as children,

Did you have a bad childhood, then? I didn't.

I wasn't indoctrinated. There were things I learned from my upbringing, things I did not learn, things I chose to believe and things I refused to believe. It was far from the case that my childhood says brought an end to my learning and choosing, too. I had a lot of freedom.

That's just how learning works: people present you with ideas, and you get to choose whether or not you agree. Nobody needs to be indoctrinated. Indoctrination requires a deliberate effort on the part of one's "programmers" to manage one's knowledge and experience so as to make it conform to particular ideas, and not to be sensitive to others.

I did not have such an experience. I'm sorry if yours was not like that.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the existential parameters of human identity here isn't just common sense.

"Existential parameters"? I'm sorry...I don't understand your question. Can you reword?

And that's my point: given this, where is the hard evidence to close the gap between what we believe about God "in our head" and what we are able to demonstrate to others that [as rational human beings] they are obligated to believe in turn.

As I say, we haven't gotten to it yet, because you continue to doubt the groundwork we need to establish so I can present you with such evidence. So I keep having to go back and deal with the basics.

As for all the free will/determinism arguments going back and forth here, I'd suggest folks go to my Compatibilism thread. Here, instead, the far more interesting question would seem to be how an omniscient Christian God is compatible with human autonomy.

They're actually the same question. It's just that one is couched in Theistic terms, and the other in secular terms. But either way, the question is simply, "Do humans have free will, or not?"

The Christian God and Yellowstone.

Volcanoes? Shall we go with volcanoes?

Okay, but pick one that did some damage. Yellowstone is pretty benign. What about Pompeii or Mt. St. Helen's?

Pick one from this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_v ... death_toll

I'll let you pick. To make the case tough for me, pick one with a really nasty death toll, not one that erupted without hurting anyone. It would be all the better if it's one you also know something about, so you can press me on the particulars, maybe.

Do you know Susan Neiman's book, Evil In Modern Thought? She begins with the earthquake in Portugal. She's asking the same questions, namely, if God exists, why would he allow a disaster to happen?