Is Jesus Christ a man or a god?

[Blaggard]

Wow. Has this strand ever died and gone to seed since last I looked in.

That will teach me to be nonlocal.

In fairness, jackles is at least trying to incorporate science into his beliefs, rather than insist that his beliefs are scientific. On top of that, he isn't blithely rude to other contributors.

The only problem I have with jackles is he keeps repeating false science, I don't care personally if he believes that Jesus is magic and can shoot moonbeams out of his ass that make Jackles special, people are free of course to believe in any religion and good luck to them. But he does tend to reiterate things about physics that simply are not remotely about physics. we all know science is wrong, it's it's one and only foundation, and those who are genuinely interested in science accept that. What makes it a mess is when what we know now, as close to true as it may be, is is misquoted, misused and continuously made out to be something it is not nor has ever been. That's just sophistry, religious people can believe in the unknowable, claim they believe, but to claim against evidence something else is not worth doing.

[SpheresOfBalance]

how many experiments have "you, yourself" actually done?

Actually, this serves my point, not the one you seem at pains to make.
You are mistaken, you only believe that it's so, as you attach to it only that which you know, and don't know, what else could you do?

The Agnostic has done no experiments at all, but has taken for granted whatever he heard, read or surfed up. Now, in what way is he ahead of me, one who believes what God says?
No, that's your agnostic of which you speak, the only one you could actually know, yet as all theists you believe that you can speak for everyone. Wasn't that your point of contention earlier? You can't have it both ways! This then is the problem with most people, they are often incapable of understanding how they contradict themselves, on an almost constant basis. I blame it on humans trying to split far too many concepts into smaller particulars. They can't keep track and easily get lost. The truth can only be built on a solid foundation, of no contradiction, obviously!

I believe I can "faithfully" say that I know, no man knows of the "certain" proof of a god.

Yes, in faith you can say that,
Just like in faith you believe in a god, which was the point that you missed! Why do you think I used quotes?

but in fact, you cannot.
If you can, I can!

You simply do not know.
Then the same goes for you. Why do your types always want to have it one way, theirs?

You do not know what others know.
But I know what they can know, as the current human population, is bound by the same current human capabilities/incapabilities.

You may disbelieve that I know, but I am not the only person in the world, am I?
That you call it knowing does not make it knowing; wasn't that your angle of argument above?

Somebody could know.
Sure anything is possible, but some things are not very probable.

And if there were a God, one desiring to reveal Himself, then someone would surely have to know.
Not at all, as the creator of everything, it would not play favorites. Like I said, unfair advantage, would not the creator of everything dispense.

But the state of your belief concerning me isn't determinative of your view. Either way, the simple truth is that you do not know.
The same goes for you. You see the difference between your and my stance on the matter, is that I never have said that, in the knowing of, if or if not a god, I know either way, while you have only ever said that you know. A likely stance for one that wants to be superior, in the face of impossibility. Your evidence, is shallow, selfish, unprovable, undefinable outside of your mind, your dreams, a very nice place indeed, to hide, or invent, the truth. At least as far as you tell yourself! I'm just not in the market for swampland. And so I stand high upon my fence, with ears and eyes open, waiting to witness definitive proof either way. I refuse to be deluded, a product of my own, and others, confused minds, in their dream state of selfish want and desire.


Here's an interesting thing, though. IF there were a God, and IF he wanted human beings to have free will and be able to actualize it, then there's a couple of things he would have to do.
Evidence that you also believe that you can speak for him, the puny human that you are. So your delusion is aimed at giving you this strength, above all others. This is very common indeed, quite possibly the brunt of the whole concept of a god, born of mans selfish desires to be above all others, primarily due to his fears or course. Some men go far too far in dealing with their fears of others encroaching in their lives, to actually do the encroaching on others. And so your god propels you to the heights of gods, so that you can be one, thus know what it is that gods want. Or so you claim here.

He would have to put in this world enough evidence to warrant belief in God,
"He would have..."??? So you do believe yourself a god? Or how else could you know this? Psychologically, your position is transparent. You need strength in the face of possible conflict, so you bolster it, with a power bigger than life itself. If it can only be found in your mind, then become one with it, surely you then have no enemies insurmountable. Quite the common delusion indeed!

and enough uncertainty to make it possible for those who wanted to choose otherwise to sustain their unbelief. He wouldn't have to make it a 50-50 distribution, of course;
Of course he wouldn't have to do anything at all, unless of course you believe otherwise...


he could make it 80-20 for, or 90-10 for, or even 95-5 for. But he short of taking away that free will, he couldn't make it impossible to disbelieve if one so chose -- not if He wanted free will to have any meaning.
As I have already proven, in the likeness of your god, you give and take free will from him and thus us randomly, so as to feed your dream, so it makes sense to only you!


I think that is precisely the kind of world we are in. There is enough here -- more than enough, I would argue -- to warrant a rational belief in God, and enough uncertainty for at least obdurate refusal of that realization, if not for an entirely rational refusal. And people have free will, and they do make different choices; just as perhaps you and I do at the present moment.
The only difference between us is that you want to believe in something that can't be proven, while I await proof either way. Surely no man on earth has any!

[Immanuel Can]

Responding to all that would double the length, and make far too much for one post. People just wouldn't bother trying to track it all.

My suggestion is that you pick the most important thing you said above, and we start with that and see how far we get in a series.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Responding to all that would double the length, and make far too much for one post. People just wouldn't bother trying to track it all.

My suggestion is that you pick the most important thing you said above, and we start with that and see how far we get in a series.

And that's where we differ IC!

I see that it can be easy to try and "round up" one, proceeding as you propose, but in fact nothing is one dimensional. That considering all dimensions simultaneously, is the only way to bring contradiction to the forefront; to show the falsehoods for what they are. I realize that what you propose, is the way most proceed, but it's a rut, as far as I'm concerned, incapable of actual illumination. Sure in such cases one can beat one line of thinking to death, but it's far too easy to get lost in that one line of thinking forgetting all that oppose it, so focused so as to get tunnel vision.

In truth, everything is to do with everything! Contained in the juxtaposition of all the aspects, lies the truth of everything, or in so doing, surely the truth can finally be found.

So I surely understand your proposal for what it truly is.

[Immanuel Can]

That's absurd.

Just as it's standard scientific procedure to look down the barrel of a microscope to view more carefully and precisely the nature of a subject on a slide, it's standard philosophical method to focus attention tightly on a single problem at a time. If you don't want to do philosophy, okay: but don't sell confusion as if it were some kind of virtue.

Barraging, I would suggest, is merely the tool of the propagandist, not the honest thinker. Usually, the propagandist does it in hope that none of his particular follies can be detected if there is a sufficient quantity of irrelevant material surrounding them. For just as you can't find needles in haystacks, it's hard to detect bad reasoning in a massive pile of offhanded claims. So there's no reason for us to do that.

I'm happy to be transparent. So pick something you're proud of and defend it.

Here: I'm giving you the wide-open option. On the other hand, if that's not good enough, then is it perhaps that there's nothing there that can be defended at all?

[SpheresOfBalance]

That's absurd.

Just as it's standard scientific procedure to look down the barrel of a microscope to view more carefully and precisely the nature of a subject on a slide, it's standard philosophical method to focus attention tightly on a single problem at a time. If you don't want to do philosophy, okay: but don't sell confusion as if it were some kind of virtue.

Barraging, I would suggest, is merely the tool of the propagandist, not the honest thinker. Usually, the propagandist does it in hope that none of his particular follies can be detected if there is a sufficient quantity of irrelevant material surrounding them. For just as you can't find needles in haystacks, it's hard to detect bad reasoning in a massive pile of offhanded claims. So there's no reason for us to do that.

I'm happy to be transparent. So pick something you're proud of and defend it.

Here: I'm giving you the wide-open option. On the other hand, if that's not good enough, then is it perhaps that there's nothing there that can be defended at all?

Not absurd! Just very lengthy, I agree; almost insurmountable in terms of time required to make such a respectable response.

Oooh, a challenge... I feel the sting of your glove and raise you two gloves.

OK, I pick the one that you'll never be able to defend without looking schizophrenic to all the on lookers.

You said:

Here's an interesting thing, though. IF there were a God, and IF he wanted human beings to have free will and be able to actualize it, then there's a couple of things he would have to do.

He would have to put in this world enough evidence to warrant belief in God, and enough uncertainty to make it possible for those who wanted to choose otherwise to sustain their unbelief. He wouldn't have to make it a 50-50 distribution, of course; he could make it 80-20 for, or 90-10 for, or even 95-5 for. But he short of taking away that free will, he couldn't make it impossible to disbelieve if one so chose -- not if He wanted free will to have any meaning.

So how could you possibly "know" what he'd, have to do/not do? And no I didn't ignore the fact that you started it off as a hypothetical, which doesn't matter, in no case would you necessarily be privy to what he "had to do" to achieve any particular goal on his level. And I maintain that for you to say as much means you believe yourself to be on his level. Why, simply because you believe in him?

[Immanuel Can]

So how could you possibly "know" what he'd, have to do/not do?

A fair question.

Necessity is of different kinds. Some things are necessary by way of limitation of the referent --as in "If you don't want to starve, you have to eat." That's clearly not the case with a Supreme Being, so obviously that's not what I'm implying.

Some things are made necessary by force or authority -- as in, "If you want a driver's license, you have to take the test." That's also clearly not applicable to the Supreme Being as a referent.

You wrongly accuse me of applying this sort of necessity to God, as thus...

I maintain that for you to say as much means you believe yourself to be on his level.

And you are completely wrong, as you can now see. I'm am not attributing to myself any authority to dictate to the Supreme Being. It's pretty surprising, in fact, you even imagine it.

Other things are simply made necessary by logical necessity -- as in, "If you want to have a circle you must not draw square sides." In that case, the necessity is not caused by force or by limitation of the referent, but rather by the logic of the case.

Kant called this sort of a necessity an "analytic" one, because it is definitionally obliged, not obliged by any other consideration. For example, if we are talking about a "Supreme Being," then by definition He must be the greatest being that exists -- for failing that, if He existed he would not be "supreme." Likewise, if He wants humans to make any "free choice," then by definition they must have an option to make a different choice. Failing that, the choice is definitionally not "free."

I would propose that we can apply this sort of "necessity" -- logical necessities -- to God, but not the other kinds.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So how could you possibly "know" what he'd, have to do/not do?

A fair question.

Necessity is of different kinds. Some things are necessary by way of limitation of the referent --as in "If you don't want to starve, you have to eat." That's clearly not the case with a Supreme Being, so obviously that's not what I'm implying.

Some things are made necessary by force or authority -- as in, "If you want a driver's license, you have to take the test." That's also clearly not applicable to the Supreme Being as a referent.

You seem to evade, so I'll spell it out:
Once again, you Said:

Here's an interesting thing, though. IF there were a God, and IF he wanted human beings to have free will and be able to actualize it, then there's a couple of things he would have to do.
First stop right there. All he has to do to enable their free will, their total free will, is do absolutely nothing. Remember that "Starfleet's prime directive" states, there shall be no direct interference with any intelligent species, of lesser knowledge, so as to derail their natural course.

Any contact no matter how slight removes the ability for them to have any sort of real free will; free will which contains no elements of what should be done, any course change, via suggestion, advisement, persuasion or threat, even inference. Anything whatsoever from such a supreme being that created you would automatically be seen as a directive! There is no free will contained in a directive. It matters not if its observed, even still though the bible goes on to say that one shall be punished for non compliance. With such a threat, free will is tainted.

He would have to put in this world enough evidence to warrant belief in God,
Free will is not something that does not exist unless one believes in a god, which is exactly what's being said up to this point. "Free Will," is simply the ability to choose as one wills when faced with dichotomy, "which road does one take?" Some choices may be aligned with what a god might prefer for his creations and others not, obviously he would see them transpire through observation alone. Anytime he posed a dichotomy from which they should choose, he negates true free will automatically, in so doing.


and enough uncertainty to make it possible for those who wanted to choose otherwise to sustain their unbelief.
So what you're really saying is that there is no free will other than doing what you're told, being bound by only one of two choices contained in his dichotomy of either to believe in him or not. And why is this supposed god of yours so vain; that he has to be the center of attention? Is that the string attached to this life? "I shall make you and only allow you peace if you choose me?" In such a case he sounds like a human and not quite even close to being a god to me. Such a selfish and bullying entity this god of yours is.

He wouldn't have to make it a 50-50 distribution, of course; he could make it 80-20 for, or 90-10 for, or even 95-5 for. But he short of taking away that free will, he couldn't make it impossible to disbelieve if one so chose -- not if He wanted free will to have any meaning.
Again you mean his creations only have the Free Will to either choose him or nothing. So their Free Will has been tainted, corralled, limited, directed, snuffed, rerouted, shut down.

"Choose only one of these two and if you choose wrong, you're screwed," 666, burn in hell, never to live forever.

Crap just to either live forever or not, stacks the deck, so that "believe in me" is seen as a directive, for some people. Those really, really, scared to die people.

You wrongly accuse me of applying this sort of necessity to God, as thus...

I maintain that for you to say as much means you believe yourself to be on his level.

And you are completely wrong, as you can now see.
Not at all, now I see it even more so, "You spoke in his stead," saying that you know gods means to achieve an ends. And only he himself or his peer would know of such things. You fail to realize that any particular goal can be achieved many, many different ways, yet out of the plethora of methods you only asserted one possible set, a single dichotomy.

I'm am not attributing to myself any authority to dictate to the Supreme Being.
I never said you did. Now you're speaking to yourself.

It's pretty surprising, in fact, you even imagine it.
I just report the meaning of your words, so you can all you want, is that so you can see your ass passing you by? "<-Hey you started with the attitude."


Other things are simply made necessary by logical necessity -- as in, "If you want to have a circle you must not draw square sides." In that case, the necessity is not caused by force or by limitation of the referent, but rather by the logic of the case.
No they are not, at least not completely! That you say, "If you want to have a circle, you must...," is incorrect! There are many ways for one "to have" a circle. Once could throw a rock into a pool of water to have a circle, design a machine to cut out a circle, spin around with a camera directly overhead, or grab a coin to have a circle. As you can see there are many ways to have a circle. It is not a logical imperative that one has to draw a circle to have one. So who are you to tell me that you know in exactly which way your god shall ensure free will exists. Especially when in fact free will definitely exists, without any directives at all. I would go so far as to say that any directives whatsoever detracts from free will, ensuring that you relatively have none.

If there are 50 flavors of ice-cream and I tell you that you can either choose a lime Popsicle or a Eskimo pie, and that you should ensure you pick the proper one or I'll never allow you to eat ice-cream again, how can it be said that in such a case your will is absolutely free? In fact, anyone that would say that it is, would be a liar, or ignorant of what free will actually is.

Kant called this sort of a necessity an "analytic" one, because it is definitionally obliged, not obliged by any other consideration. For example, if we are talking about a "Supreme Being," then by definition He must be the greatest being that exists -- for failing that, if He existed he would not be "supreme." Likewise, if He wants humans to make any "free choice," then by definition they must have an option to make a different choice. Failing that, the choice is definitionally not "free."
Here you assert your strawman argument as it's a falsehood. Humans have always had a free choice, to do/believe whatever they wanted to do/believe in. Directing/limiting their choices is certainly not conducive to free anything. Free means no strings attached whatsoever.

I would propose that we can apply this sort of "necessity" -- logical necessities -- to God, but not the other kinds.
I would say that you have attempted to side step my point.

Which is to say that as to any particular method of a plethora of possible methods, that a god might put into place to ensure anything, you (IC) cannot necessarily know which he would choose. Unless of course you are either professing that you are the god, a god (his peer) or are mightier than the god. To speak for him is to infer that you are as he is, or that he speaks directly to you.

And on a side note, your assertion that because you have dreamed of a god means that there necessarily is a god, is like my dream of floating in the atmosphere on planet earth against it's gravity; that witch's exist because in a dream they chased me, or that there are leprechauns complete with rainbows and pots of gold. FYI, dreams are not necessarily based upon reality, instead containing the manifestations of ones wants/fears or other such fictional/fanciful content of the mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Spheres:

So how could you possibly "know" what he'd, have to do/not do?

I see my attempt to help you understand the differences in types of necessity was not helpful. Well, that can't be helped, I suppose.

I will try once more, making it even simpler. The short answer is this: because as C.S. Lewis put it, "nonsense is nonsense, even when one uses it to refer to God." God necessarily cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor, or the axiomatic "rock so big even He can't lift it." Such is not a declaration of the limits of His abilities but of the meaning of words and the concepts to which they refer.

As such, they are not limitations imposed by me at all, but are analytic conditions of reason. "Analytic" does not mean "because I say so," but rather "by definition."

And no I didn't ignore the fact that you started it off as a hypothetical, which doesn't matter,

IF you think a hypothetical does not change an expression, then you simply do not understand. That is all there is to be said on that. That is, IF it's true. Get it?

in no case would you necessarily be privy to what he "had to do" to achieve any particular goal on his level.

*Sigh.* See above. You're misunderstanding again.

And I maintain that for you to say as much means you believe yourself to be on his level. Why, simply because you believe in him?

See above.

Your much longer message I'm still not interested in pursuing. It's too scattered and long for this forum; and if there's a human being other than you who is interested in chasing so many loose strings, it's certainly not me.

If you pick a horse and ride it, I will respond. If you barrage, count on me ignoring the whole thing, as indeed most people will too.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres:

So how could you possibly "know" what he'd, have to do/not do?

I see my attempt to help you understand the differences in types of necessity was not helpful. Well, that can't be helped, I suppose.

I will try once more, making it even simpler. The short answer is this: because as C.S. Lewis put it, "nonsense is nonsense, even when one uses it to refer to God." God necessarily cannot make a square circle or a married bachelor, or the axiomatic "rock so big even He can't lift it." Such is not a declaration of the limits of His abilities but of the meaning of words and the concepts to which they refer.

As such, they are not limitations imposed by me at all, but are analytic conditions of reason. "Analytic" does not mean "because I say so," but rather "by definition."

And no I didn't ignore the fact that you started it off as a hypothetical, which doesn't matter,

IF you think a hypothetical does not change an expression, then you simply do not understand. That is all there is to be said on that. That is, IF it's true. Get it?

in no case would you necessarily be privy to what he "had to do" to achieve any particular goal on his level.

*Sigh.* See above. You're misunderstanding again.

And I maintain that for you to say as much means you believe yourself to be on his level. Why, simply because you believe in him?

See above.

Your much longer message I'm still not interested in pursuing. It's too scattered and long for this forum; and if there's a human being other than you who is interested in chasing so many loose strings, it's certainly not me.

If you pick a horse and ride it, I will respond. If you barrage, count on me ignoring the whole thing, as indeed most people will too.

So you want short and concise: It's not a barrage, you fear answering because you know I'm right. Everything said above is beside the point, your way of sidestepping issues. It's you that don't get it!

How's that for short and concise?

And that's the problem with short and concise!

Everything I said deals DIRECTLY with what you said. You just FEAR dealing with it because you know you CAN'T!

Go ahead, deal with it, take your time, no need to post right away. Make dealing with my last, a month long endeavor. I'm patient, I'll wait!

You simply can't deal with my logic! You don't have the faculty! Which is usually the case when people adopt unprovable beliefs.

[Immanuel Can]

Your assumption then, is that taunting will achieve what reasons will not?

If you have a horse, pick it and ride it. If you don't, then don't.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Your assumption then, is that taunting will achieve what reasons will not?
No, rather I know that when I formulate a great argument, like I've already done, you'll try and reduce it so as to side step it, because you fear taking it on point by point.

If you have a horse, pick it and ride it. If you don't, then don't.

I did, but you "fear" dealing with it, that's your problem.

Your sidestepping knows no bounds, this message of yours a case in point. Deep inside you know that you're fighting a losing battle. And you're too proud to admit it! No worries as that's apparently par for this particular course.

Let me know when you're serious about standing your ground. I'll be here!

[Immanuel Can]

I'm still waiting for a cogent statement.

Not seeing one here.

Oh well...you had your chance.

Have a nice day.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm still waiting for a cogent statement.

Not seeing one here.

Oh well...you had your chance.

Have a nice day.

I've proven that your thoughts on the subject are irrational and illogical.

You can use the above ploy to run and hide, but onlookers will see it for what it is.

Let be know if you ever want to brave my scrutiny.

Have a good one!