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

[Ginkgo]

Let's hear them.


I can't wait to hear them, then.

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

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

Your example is an analogy.

And in the case of "disproving" God, it's impossible. Disproof for the existence of God would entail a person having demonstrations that no gods had ever existed in the past, in no corner of the universe, at any time, in any dimension. In other words, anyone possessed of such a disproof would have to have been everywhere, seen everything, at all times, and know for certain there was no possibility of any god existing anywhere, anytime.

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

You may judge for yourself whether it is even possible that such a person has done that. If he had, he's wrong again...there would be a god, and it would be him. For nobody else could do the set of tests required to disprove the existence of the Supreme Being.

This is another thing Dawkins has realized, that less aware Atheists might have not. That's why Dawkins declines, when pressed, to say "I'm an Atheist." He knows it's an inherently irrational position, no more than a skeptical wish. And he does not want to be responsible for showing disproofs. You can see him deny that he is even an "Atheist."

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

Now, it's true that there are Atheists around who imagine that maybe some "disproof" they haven't heard of exists somewhere. And though they can never give it to you, they maintain their faith that somebody must have it somewhere. They figure, "Why would all the other Atheists be so bold, so confident, if they had nothing by way of a disproof? So there must be one..."

Sadly for them, they're just ill-informed. There is no such "disproof." Nor could there ever be.

The only proof you have for the existence of God are arguments and belief. As I said in a previous post, your arguments smack of incredulity. In other words, my arguments don't conform to your expectations and beliefs.To date you have not offered any proof for your claims.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

But it gets worse for the Atheist. For the Atheist has now to prove the non-existence of Something, whereas the Theist has only to show evidence that counts for the existence of Something. But whereas the existence of a thing is relatively easy to demonstrate, the non-existence is often very difficult or even (as in the case of God) impossible to prove.

But the atheist does not have to prove that gigantic suffering and evil exists. God = good, so God is the opposite of suffering and evil. Atheists would very much like to have theists prove that good surmounts evil. However all the so-called proofs have been falsified.

[Dontaskme]

... asking who created God is like a denial of existence itself...

Well, it only moves the problem back one stage: if one supposes there was a "created" god, then it would only be "a god," not the ultimate God, and the creator of that god would be the Supreme Being...which is the Christian definition of God.

I don't quite see what that means - but it doesn't matter to me, as long as it's clear for you.

It would be like the human being asking itself who created the very first human being.

Oh, that's quite different, because human beings are definitely contingent, limited beings. They begin and end. So some "cause" for that must be found.

Yes, While I agree that all sentient creatures are contingent upon something else...that just points to the everything that is already, being wholly interconnected, and that not one thing is separated from the whole tapestry. As the saying goes: '' if there was just one blade of grass missing within the tapestry, the whole universe would collapse''

I believe all causes are causeless causes, insofar as effects come into play as inseparable reflexive responses to particular chemical processes that are in action, which develop spontaneously when certain circumastances come together to cause reactive forces. First cause of everything and nothing is an absurd notion. All I can think about is that ''all that is'' insofar as all the ingredients that make up the tapestry of life must have always existed. And out of that big mixing bowl popped things like people, cupcakes and guns...etc..

Scientifically, we can prove the Earth is not past-eternal; neither, for that matter, is the universe itself eternal. Time is linear, instead, and there was an inception point to what we know as the universe. And we know that things don't happen without a cause, so something must have caused the whole sequence to commence.

I agree, the universe is not eternal, the universe had a beginning and it will have an end like all bodies that are of a material substance.
What is eternal is the never ending cycles of these material processes, I say that because I vision that 'energy' is infinite and it's self igniting, and that the whole life process is a self-sustaining feedback loop upon itself - I mean the biggest clue is the amount of suns there are in the visible universe. And that we know the universe is out-there as evidenced - then what's to say there are not other universes beyond what we already observe. The possibilties and probabilities must be never ending, it's like what we know so far, is only a small drop in the ocean, almost like we are just one tiny strand of hair on God's body...so to speak.

.

[Dontaskme]

That doesn't really address the question. It just says, "We forget," but doesn't even make a start towards saying why we do...especially if we are this pure "knower" that then, theoretically, should know everything always.

If we're the centre of all things, why are we so darn bad at doing it?

We have to forget, but it's only a pretend forgetting, else what would be the point of memory, of remembering anything at all, if there is nothing to remember, because there is nothing we have forgotten?

The all knowing Self plays hide and seek, it pretends not to know. And in wanting to know, it plays the game of self inquiry, to come to the point of self-realisation.
I do not personally believe in reincarnation, because to me, there is only one God, there is only one I Am playing the role of every actor..
( a temporal character within the dream) and this is all happening simultaneously, one without a second, all at once, and that is known as the seamless interconnectedness of ''all that is'' reality.

But within the illusory dream of separation...appearing real within the dreamer...
Jesus said: “Behold I make all things new” (Revelation 21:5)
Meaning, every moment in life is like a blank slate invitation for the mind of man to become Self -realised, which means an opportunity is available to awaken to christ consciousness by shedding the skin of illusory ego - to realise wholeness, and that there never was a separate 'me' ...but that's just more nondual musings again, which I know you don't believe...so what else can I say.

.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's hear them.


I can't wait to hear them, then.

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

Great.

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

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

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

Your example is an analogy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dontaskme]

[Immanuel Can]

I agree that all sentient creatures are contingent upon something else...

Whoa. Back the truck up, DAM.

You said there's only "the knower." Where did these "all sentient creatures" suddenly appear from?

[Immanuel Can]

Wow. Well, I would say the following:

I have no idea at all what #1 means: "community"?

#2 doesn't account for extinctions, of which we have millions of examples. So if it's true, then our "interdependence" is already doomed, because we've already lost many of the species upon which it claims we are "dependent."

#3 is ridiculous, really. Do paramecia and insects "pursue their own good" in the same sense humans do? It's not even plausible they have a conception of "good"; they haven't got sufficient "brains" to have it. So that's just wacky.

#4 is something that even people who write this kind of stuff manifestly don't believe: for they never compose these things for the benefit of anybody but humans.

So if this is "Biocentrism," then it's silly twaddle. I can't believe anybody takes it seriously at all. Do they even read it?

[Immanuel Can]

We have to forget,

Why?

[Dontaskme]

I agree that all sentient creatures are contingent upon something else...

Whoa. Back the truck up, DAM.

You said there's only "the knower." Where did these "all sentient creatures" suddenly appear from?

The creatures are known...They come from the knower.

[Immanuel Can]

But the atheist does not have to prove that gigantic suffering and evil exists. God = good, so God is the opposite of suffering and evil.

No, indeed...and that's what makes the Atheist's "argument from evil" the best it's got. But it still has two very serious problems.

One is that Atheism itself has absolutely no solution to the "problem of evil," except to say that "evil" is only a thing humans imagine, and is not an objective feature of the world...it's just "hard cheese" that we suffer, says Atheism, it's just how it goes -- too bad. And that's no kind of consolation. That means that Atheism has it's own "problem of evil," but is no better at solving it claims Theism is. Is it better simply to deny that evil even exists? And how can an Atheist indict Theism for "allowing" something Atheism doesn't even provide any basis for us to believe in?

But the second problem is decisive. And it's this: can the Atheist show that God cannot possibly have any warrant for allowing any evil in the world? If he/she cannot, then the "problem of evil" is only ostensible; he/she has to accept that maybe God could have sufficient reason to allow some evil, and that maybe the allowance of some is actually better than a universe in which none had every happened.

That second one take some careful sorting. But I think you'll find, B., that Atheists have no case to show God could not have sufficient reason to allow the option of evil in the world; and I would argue, further, that allowing such an option is, in some basic ways, necessary for what we call "free will."

Atheists would very much like to have theists prove that good surmounts evil.

That's not actually what the Theist needs to do. He needs only to show that some evil is warranted, not that all evil is better than all good.

However all the so-called proofs have been falsified.

Actually, the opposite is true, but I know that Atheists like to make blanket statements like, "There is no evidence..." or "All your explanations are no good..." without having to explain further, or to justify their blanket claims.

That won't happen here, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

The creatures are known...They come from the knower.

Oh. So now you're back to two things existing: the knower and what he knows. The thinker and reality. Dualism.

Or if your "creatures" are real, and if they are "knowers" in their own right, plausibly you're back to a very simple "common sense realism" type of view.

[Dontaskme]

Wow. Well, I would say the following:

I have no idea at all what #1 means: "community"?

#2 doesn't account for extinctions, of which we have millions of examples. So if it's true, then our "interdependence" is already doomed, because we've already lost many of the species upon which it claims we are "dependent."

#3 is ridiculous, really. Do paramecia and insects "pursue their own good" in the same sense humans do? It's not even plausible they have a conception of "good"; they haven't got sufficient "brains" to have it. So that's just wacky.

#4 is something that even people who write this kind of stuff manifestly don't believe: for they never compose these things for the benefit of anybody but humans.

So if this is "Biocentrism," then it's silly twaddle. I can't believe anybody takes it seriously at all. Do they even read it?

Well we are talking about knowledge here mannie. You know, the story that keeps popping up here.

Who's story is it? ...many authors appear, but there is only one reader.

No need for this one to show up to it's own show mannie. I know it's hard to resist, but who is the other one who is showing up to it's own show? imagine how it does that - how does it pull of the impersonator of being present in it's own absence. What a scam artist, eh!..

.

[Dontaskme]

The creatures are known...They come from the knower.

Oh. So now you're back to two things existing: the knower and what he knows. The thinker and reality. Dualism.

Or if your "creatures" are real, and if they are "knowers" in their own right, plausibly you're back to a very simple "common sense realism" type of view.

Now we are back to the Dualism argument. The knower and what is known.

Can the knowing be separate from what is known?

[Dontaskme]

We have to forget,

Why?

Because the known self only exists as a memory, as an illsuory self born of imaginary mental constructs...In the immediate present instantantaneous moment, of pure being, there is no self because there is no other than self which is unknowable.

To know is knowledge on demand, retreived from memory, which is phantom pseudo self imaginings.

It's all the shenanigan's of God, so don't panic, God has the highest sense of humour.