TRUMP AHEAD?

[Atla]

Rationalism, and reason, are linguistic projects primarily, aren’t they?

I genuinely don't know what this is supposed to mean. What is reasonable can be expressed in language, and what is unreasonable can also be expressed in language.

[commonsense]

Are you?

Well, then, I can point you to a great quantity of literature where you can find all the demonstrations of it you may ever need. What level of thing would you like? Academic? Popular? Literary? Video? Apologetics is one huge field...if you're really looking, as you say, you will find lots.

Point me to the academic arguments.

Well, the tome I'd recommend most highly would be "The Blackwell Guide to Natural Theology." In fact, it contains all the major current arguments for the existence of God, all written by some of the world's most exceptional current scholars, all in academic papers. It's not easy reading for the unacademic, I admit, and challenging even for the scholarly; but you might appreciate it as something genuinely challenging. I would think you're capable of it.

Rebuttal to Natural Theology

1. A prime mover would be sufficient but not necessary for the existence of the universe.

2. A prime mover is an imaginary being.


3. An infinite regress is no more impossible than an infinitesimally small number.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Rationalism, and reason, are linguistic projects primarily, aren’t they?

I genuinely don't know what this is supposed to mean.

I’d just drop it were I you.

[Immanuel Can]

Did I say I was opposed to something?

To objective morality. Since, in your view, morality is purely subjective, why should you be at all bothered if somebody else believes in objective morality? They can subjectively believe anything they want, since it's all up to them.

I don't believe in objective moral truth, and I've been arguing about it, but that doesn't mean I'm bothered that some people do believe in it. I don't care, as a matter of fact.

For somebody who doesn't care, you sure spend a lot of energy on not-caring.

No, that's not really an accurate representation of my view.

You don't believe that objectivism, etc. is wrong?

I believe that anyone who thinks their morality is based on objective truth about right and wrong is mistaken, if that's what you're asking me.

So it's not subjective. They're objectively wrong, you think. And their belief that morality is objective is also wrong...objectively.

I guess it's a good thing you really "don't care." If you did, you'd realize you're caught in a massive self-contradiction.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And what it further suggests is that if it is indeed plausible that the logos contains (or is the source of) universal principles of morality that God wants us to abide by because God knows what's best for us,...

...then isn't it reasonable to assume that loosely similar to how the universal laws of nature (gravity, thermodynamics, the speed of light, etc.) are baked into the fabric of reality,...

...likewise, God's own personal (subjective) principles of morality have also been baked into the fabric of our being?

Doesn't that seem to be a plausible answer to your question of how other beings in other galaxies would, in essence, "intuit" the same moral principles that we've come to hold?

However, where Christianity (the early Catholic church) took a wrong turn in its attempt to interpret the status of this universal logos (i.e., the ontological status of God), is when it fabricated the false concept of a "Trinity," and then (as noted in the Wiki blurb) associated the logos with the "second person" (Jesus) of this nonexistent Trinity.

I don’t see what the issue is with the Trinity concept.

Far more problematic is the idea of the Second Person as such.

I do though appreciate your expanded, cosmic perspectives on the sense in Christian doctrine.

I found something interesting about traditional Catholicism: the notion of 3 possible baptisms.

One, obviously, by water. Administered by a priest. But in fact any person, in an emergency, can baptise any other.

Second, baptism by blood. Catechumens in the process of admission, when martyred, are baptized through that event.

Third is baptism by desire. So any person in the process of desiring baptism and its result (a clean soul delivered from original sin), should they die, receive baptism.

But here is the interesting part: in traditional Catholicism, even if that person is of another culture, and had never heard of Christianity say, by their uprightness, by some quality of sincerity and decency, will not be condemned.

A person’s religion cannot overpower Grace. And whatever is meant by the term “salvation” is, it seems, far more available than I’d previously thought. Even to the non-confessing (as for example in the instances I mentioned).

This would modify that (false?) picture of a terrifying, machine-like god that relegates souls into the shelves of a living hell with unreasoning decision.

Whew!

[Age]

To objective morality. Since, in your view, morality is purely subjective, why should you be at all bothered if somebody else believes in objective morality? They can subjectively believe anything they want, since it's all up to them.

I don't believe in objective moral truth, and I've been arguing about it, but that doesn't mean I'm bothered that some people do believe in it. I don't care, as a matter of fact.

For somebody who doesn't care, you sure spend a lot of energy on not-caring.

You don't believe that objectivism, etc. is wrong?

I believe that anyone who thinks their morality is based on objective truth about right and wrong is mistaken, if that's what you're asking me.

So it's not subjective. They're objectively wrong, you think. And their belief that morality is objective is also wrong...objectively.

I guess it's a good thing you really "don't care." If you did, you'd realize you're caught in a massive self-contradiction.

you are all caught up in your own self-contradictions here. As I have pointed out and shown on numerous occasions here.

[Immanuel Can]

Rebuttal to Natural Theology

1. A prime mover would be sufficient but not necessary for the existence of the universe.

So far, so good.

But now we have what's called an "argument to the best explanation": namely, when we have various possibilities before us, we examine them and see which one we are most justified in believing. This, to be sure, is not absolute...but it can be very, very probabilistically winsome, if the right comparisons are made.

So let's make the comparisons. Other than an intelligent First Cause of all things, what's the more winsome hypothesis? What ELSE do we know that could account for the measure of complexity, order, intelligence and so forth that was infused into the original cosmos, and which we still find on every side today, as science progresses?

I suspect you'll have nothing to suggest. If so, you're pretty much in the same situation as everybody else. Concepts, for example, are thought to be eternal and unoriginated, things recognized rather than invented. But concepts don't create things. Or numbers...numbers are sometimes thought to be eternal realities, but numbers also don't create things. So what's your candidate, to set over and against the First Cause hypothesis?

If you've got nothing to propose as rival, then at least for the present, that makes the First Cause (i.e. an intelligent Creator) the "best explanation," rationally speaking.

2. A prime mover is an imaginary being.

Well, I don't know what you mean by "prime mover." I'm pretty sure you don't mean the Aristotelian "primum mobile," so I'm going to assume you mean First Cause. Correct me, if you think you mean something else, please.

You would need evidence for this objection to be serious. What have you got?

3. An infinite regress is no more impossible than an infinitesimally small number.

No, that's certainly wrong. We know that much.

Infinity is not "a small number." It isn't even comparable to some number. In fact, it isn't actually a "real number" at all, mathematically speaking. It's a placeholder concept for an unending or unbeginning entity, or one that recurs without cessation, like the sequence of digits ideally following "3.14..." in pi. Thus, the one thing it never does is terminate in any "number," whether big or small. That's what makes it infinity.

[Harbal]

To objective morality. Since, in your view, morality is purely subjective, why should you be at all bothered if somebody else believes in objective morality? They can subjectively believe anything they want, since it's all up to them.

I don't believe in objective moral truth, and I've been arguing about it, but that doesn't mean I'm bothered that some people do believe in it. I don't care, as a matter of fact.

For somebody who doesn't care, you sure spend a lot of energy on not-caring.

I'm just arguing, like everybody else here. That doesn't mean I care what kind of morality you believe in, I just care about arguing about it.

I believe that anyone who thinks their morality is based on objective truth about right and wrong is mistaken, if that's what you're asking me.

So it's not subjective. They're objectively wrong, you think. And their belief that morality is objective is also wrong...objectively.

That's a bit garbled, but whatever it is intended to mean, I doubt that it is a correct assessment of the situation.

I guess it's a good thing you really "don't care." If you did, you'd realize you're caught in a massive self-contradiction.

I think not.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't believe in objective moral truth, and I've been arguing about it, but that doesn't mean I'm bothered that some people do believe in it. I don't care, as a matter of fact.

For somebody who doesn't care, you sure spend a lot of energy on not-caring.

I'm just arguing, like everybody else here. That doesn't mean I care what kind of morality you believe in, I just care about arguing about it.

Oh. So you're not sincere. You're just practicing sophistry?

You have a funny hobby.

[Harbal]

For somebody who doesn't care, you sure spend a lot of energy on not-caring.

I'm just arguing, like everybody else here. That doesn't mean I care what kind of morality you believe in, I just care about arguing about it.

Oh. So you're not sincere. You're just practicing sophistry?

You have a funny hobby.

I'll leave the rest of the forum to judge which one of us is doing that.

[Age]

Rebuttal to Natural Theology

1. A prime mover would be sufficient but not necessary for the existence of the universe.

So far, so good.

But now we have what's called an "argument to the best explanation": namely, when we have various possibilities before us, we examine them and see which one we are most justified in believing. This, to be sure, is not absolute...but it can be very, very probabilistically winsome, if the right comparisons are made.

So let's make the comparisons. Other than an intelligent First Cause of all things, what's the more winsome hypothesis? What ELSE do we know that could account for the measure of complexity, order, intelligence and so forth that was infused into the original cosmos, and which we still find on every side today, as science progresses?

I suspect you'll have nothing to suggest. If so, you're pretty much in the same situation as everybody else. Concepts, for example, are thought to be eternal and unoriginated, things recognized rather than invented. But concepts don't create things. Or numbers...numbers are sometimes thought to be eternal realities, but numbers also don't create things. So what's your candidate, to set over and against the First Cause hypothesis?

If you've got nothing to propose as rival, then at least for the present, that makes the First Cause (i.e. an intelligent Creator) the "best explanation," rationally speaking.

Once again this one here provides us with another prime example of what 'confirmation bias' is, exactly.

Rationally speaking, your claim here could not be a better example of 'irrationality', itself.

2. A prime mover is an imaginary being.

Well, I don't know what you mean by "prime mover." I'm pretty sure you don't mean the Aristotelian "primum mobile," so I'm going to assume you mean First Cause. Correct me, if you think you mean something else, please.

You would need evidence for this objection to be serious. What have you got?

you would need proof, but you have got absolutely none

3. An infinite regress is no more impossible than an infinitesimally small number.

No, that's certainly wrong. We know that much.

Infinity is not "a small number." It isn't even comparable to some number. In fact, it isn't actually a "real number" at all, mathematically speaking. It's a placeholder concept for an unending or unbeginning entity, or one that recurs without cessation, like the sequence of digits ideally following "3.14..." in pi. Thus, the one thing it never does is terminate in any "number," whether big or small. That's what makes it infinity.

Exactly like how the Universe is. As has already been shown and proved True.

But, obviously which some here have not yet been savvy to.

[Age]

I'm just arguing, like everybody else here. That doesn't mean I care what kind of morality you believe in, I just care about arguing about it.

Oh. So you're not sincere. You're just practicing sophistry?

You have a funny hobby.

I'll leave the rest of the forum to judge which one of us is doing that.

To me, "immanuel can" is not being insincere, "immanuel can" instead is just trying to deceive others here, but the only real one "Immanuel can" is deceiving here is "itself". Which is really quite ironic considering what it believes in and how this relates to 'sinning', itself.

[Alexiev]

The most current ones don't. In fact, Gary Habermas has just written a book describing how we can trace the originals to very early days after Christ's resurrection, long before the Nicean Counsel or Constantine, or whatever. You're channelling old, debunked arguments there, I'm afraid.

But I'm not surprised. The skeptical literature never manages to keep up with scholarship, because its project aims at dismissing, not confirming; so they get real happy when they think they've got something, and then are reluctant to let it go when they lose it.

Another interesting fact: most of the early witness and apostles died horribly for their faith. If they had been perpetrating a fraud, they would have had every reason to recant rather than to suffer torture and death. But they didn't back down. Even in a court of law today, such a dying declaration would carry incredible force.

I admit I'm no expert. But if "skeptical literature" is flawed, so, presumably is credulous literature. Some of the web sites I just looked at were from the Catholic Church.

There are a few obscure passages that remain, but none that are related to a single major doctrine. Biblical scholars, you will find, are pretty much reconciled on what the text says; the remaining conflicts tend to be over whether or not what it says are true. And that's the difference between the skeptics and the believers -- not serious differences about what it says, but of how to apply what we can see it says.

Of course Christian Theologians and apologists gave worked diligently to explain paradoxes, overcome seeming contradictions, etc. Acquinas (and others) were very smart. Nonetheless, differing -- even heretical - interpretations are possible, and have often gained popularity (until followers were massacred by the orthodox).

[Immanuel Can]

But if "skeptical literature" is flawed, so, presumably is credulous literature.

Stay away from credulous literature too, then. Pick the good stuff.

Of course Christian Theologians and apologists gave worked diligently to explain paradoxes, overcome seeming contradictions, etc.

They've done stellar work on that, but it's not inauthentic. They have been working with an extremely profound document -- the most sophisticated piece of literature we have on Earth, by any fair account. Even Mohammed bowed to the authority of it, though he got most of what he thought about it from the Nestorians, and was frequently wrong, even on basic details. Still, he recognized it as authoritative revelation...an authorization the Bible does not return to Mohammed and the Koran, actually.

Nonetheless, differing -- even heretical - interpretations are possible, and have often gained popularity...

If you point to the law, the secular law, you'd find exactly the same: that there are charlatans who rise up and try to abuse the documents. What else is a court case, but a debate over how the law should apply to a particular case? What do the prosecutor and defense attorney do, but try to interpret the law so as to favour their desired outcome? And yet somebody's still guilty or innocent, and it's the job of the court to be smarter than all that, and figure out the truth. And that's with even a flawed, human law, and no divine revelation involved whatsoever.

That's nothing unusual at all, but it doesn't tell us the documents are unclear. All it tells us is that some people are dishonest, or try to twist things to their own advantage...which the Bible promises is exactly what men would try to do:

"...there are some things [in Paul's teaching] that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

Don't be surprised at the presence of some such "unstable" and "distorting" types. They were predicted.

[Alexiev]

"Doubtless" most Muslims don't read the Koran in Arabic? Or "doubtless" nobody has to submit to Islam, unless they're Arabic scholars? I would say that both are true. It cannot be otherwise, if, as the imams insist, the credentials of Mohammed are hung on the Koran, and the Koran is unperceivable as an attesting miracle by everybody but educated Arabs.

Arabic has retreated to a corner of Asia. However, for 700 years it (not Latin) was the "lingua franca" of the Mediterranean region. Libraries in Cordoba, Granada and Toledo stored more books (in Arabic) than all of Christian Europe put together. The great Christian leaders and kings often spoke and read Arabic. Frederick II, for example, was the most enlightened and educated Holy Roman Emperor. He ruled Sicily and parts of Italy inh the 13th century, and was fluent in Arabic. So for much of the history of Islam, Arabic was the "mother tongue" of most believers, at a time when the Bible could be read only in Latin, Greek or Hebrew, all of which were dead languages (unlike Arabic).