Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

You are still not noticing what is being pointed to.

If you are a Solipsist, you aren't talking to me. I don't exist. Only you do.

Stop talking to yourself...it's mad.

[Nick_A]

OK, I'll take a crack at this question from iam

Again, I'm considerably less interested in what Christians or Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Shintos etc., believe and more interested in how they take those beliefs here...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

1. I believe in the necessity of an ineffable source. The universe for this source is the body of God. God doesn't exist; rather God IS beyond the limitations of time and space. The universe serves the process of EXISTENCE within the isness of God. A person like Einstein can feel its necessity:

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

The fact that we need proof of the obvious or God is proof of the limitations of the fallen human condition

2. When we no longer feel the obvious we make man made versions or idolatry of which there are many. Yet some feel the need to transcend idolatry in their need to feel "meaning."

3. Being for me is relative as explained in the great chain of being. Some simply define being as existence. Yet for me being is relative. The being of a reptile is less than the being of a dog but the being of a dog is also less than the being of a human being..

4. My essential question asks: what is the purpose of our universe and Man's purpose within it? My path makes it possible to explore "meaning" from both the horizontal scientific and vertical religious perspectives making understanding of our reason to be and its conscious potential possible as seen in the symbol of the cross.

[henry quirk]

Nick, bubba doesn't care. His interest is in tearin' down what you believe, not understandin' it. He's convinced, becuz he sits at the crossroads unable to pick a way, no one can, or should. He claims he wants a rational and virtuous font but he lies. He's a dirty dealer. There's no good faith in him. He is, as Alexis might say, a destroyer. He is desolate, so we all should be desolate. Engage him as you like, but be mindful: he has nuthin' but hate in him.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What I attempt to expose are the objectivists among us. Moral, political and/or spiritual. Those who argue it is their God, their ideology, their deontological assessment, their understanding of nature, that reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of the human condition. And then the inherent danger embedded in communities where they come into power and get to decide which behaviors are rewarded and which are punished. And are in turn able to enforce their moral, political and/or religious agenda.

Well, the way that my own interests dovetail with what I gather you are saying -- filled to the brim as you must be with declarations and assertions (or do you avoid such things in your *concern* about, say, the myriad daseins?) -- is through my concern for certain modern situations and events. The one I'll mention is present day France and the political, social, cultural, philosophical, and ideological issues that are strongly at play in that culture and in the on-going election.

I find that your stated concerns are not possible to consider and talk about unless they are brought down out of the abstract (bringing down/coming down is something you often recommend to IC). So I think that we could definitely, and quite concretely, consider Heideggerian concerns, since it seems this is a primary influence for you, within the context of a specific people and their specific struggle.

Take your terms moral/political/spiritual as a starting point. What is going on in modern France today? A return to a set definition of what *being French* means. This is a complex and laden proposition! Because to define oneself, and for a people to define themselves, requires a very strong sense of cultivated historicity, wouldn't you say? And as it is taking shape -- I refer here to a movement within French culture today that sure looks as though it is desirous of 'recovering identity' and anchoring identity within what one might call hyper-liberal fluidity that inhibits such identity from coalescing -- such a movement requires philosophical tools.

To all appearances there are s significant number within France today that are willing to stake out a position, quite rigorous and demanding, in order to 'preserve' or 'recover' that which they feel is slipping away and threatened (one aspect of this being their fear of being replaced, that is of a new people supplanting the people they say they are, or modifying or dilution their peopleness. (The 'great replacement' is a general topic of conversation and debate in France).

Now how could God be spoken of in such a context? Well it is an interesting issue. But I may share something in common with you insofar as I think that one is obligated to locate oneself within a given people and when located there ask questions about what God they worship (I mean define, imagine, conceive, etc.). This follows the Heideggerian mode of turning conventional understandings on their head. So normally the definition of God comes first. But as I see it one is better off starting with the people one is concerned with and their handling of the definition of God.

So in respect to France I could ask "What is their God, their ideology, their deontological assessment, their understanding of nature" which is expressed by them, valued & privileged by them, bolstered by them, and this frankly for their own defined purposes? Within their context they might then declare that their way of being reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding of the human condition but within their specific context. That is to say that *what they are* cannot be imposed on or transferred to some other.

And then the inherent danger embedded in communities where they come into power and get to decide which behaviors are rewarded and which are punished. And are in turn able to enforce their moral, political and/or religious agenda.

This is an odd statement when you examine it. What you note here as taking place, must take place, and always takes place. It is in Classical Liberalism that defines the possibility of disparate peoples with disparate goals & aspirations, who yet opt to live and get along together under one general political roof, is it not? Apparently, we are living within a historical period where that form of liberalism is in danger of collapsing.

Now I must address what I think is your primary objective and one shared by many (most) who have strong opinions about Christianity. You wish to see it dissolved. You really have a problem that *it* believes it is right in defending the moral code it defines and defends, and you really do not like that it exerts itself through its moral, political and religious agenda.

My position (speaking personally) is I guess odd. My essential reason, my prime motive, for investigating Catholicism and Christianity and being *concerned for Europe* as I say I am is because I want a specific people to recover specific power within their specific self-definitions and their specific self-empowerment. And I think it is obvious in what I write that I am uncertain what, precisely, to serve. Do I wish to serve a 'god' in an abstract sense, or do I wish to serve a people? If I say *I serve civilization* I express more or less the same conflict. But inside of myself -- say *metaphysically* -- what is it that I link to? And what is it that people should link to? (Not the abstract but the specific is part of my answer).

(I am curious to hear what IC thinks of this).

I have discovered that Catholicism and Christianity have a great deal going for them (to put it rather stupidly) and in no sense should it or can it be dismissed, and it should not be undermined but strengthened and empowered in new ways, with new energy and vitality. But I personally am not interested at all in Christian universalism. Whatever those people do (in China, Asia, Africa and even Latin America) is their own concern. But what Europe does (and by extension the former English colonies) is of primary concern. I do not really know what else to focus on frankly.

And as the same time I also feel that Indo-Europeanism -- and here I refer to what is 'pagan' so-called -- is just as worthy of preservation and valuation, and definitely must not be annihilated.

[henry quirk]

Now I must address what I think is your primary objective and one shared by many (most) who have strong opinions about Christianity. You wish to see it dissolved. You really have a problem that *it* believes it is right in defending the moral code it defines and defends, and you really do not like that it exerts itself through its moral, political and religious agenda.

Oh, even a casual perusal of bubba's posts thru out the forum show his goal is far broader than offin' Christianity.

He wants to rub out all moral realism and he wants to silence all moral realists.

I'm slow, it took me a bit to figure it out, but that's bubba's objective.

As I say: becuz he sits at the crossroads unable to pick a way, no one can, or should.

[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, but to the denomination, they'll insist that they are. Or, rather, that their own existential, rooted in dasein, leaps of faith to God are likely to get you the immortality and salvation that you crave.

You know, if this God even exists at all.

Thus:

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.

So, now the profoundly problematic and ofttimes conflicting beliefs in a God, the God, my God -- with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave -- is likened to 2 + 2 = ? Like some say 3 and some say 1 and some say 5 and some say 11 and some say 4. But there is only one correct answer. Just as there is only correct answer in regard to God...

That's right.

Either the God I am telling you about exists, or He does not. There is no other possibility: it's one or the other. Logic tells you that. And if, as I believe, He does exist, then following any other so-called "god" is futile, and leads to death -- just following no god (or oneself) will.

Logic?!!

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?

With all that is at stake if you choose the wrong path?

That's a different question, and a serious one.

What remains irrelevant is how many wrong answers are "out there." It just doesn't matter. Ever.

Right, as long as it is you who gets to decree that only the path you are on is the right one. And even though those on all the other paths are decreeing the same for their own God/No God spiritual path their own Scriptures are all irrelevant because in not being sync with your path they are all necessarily wrong.

So, go ahead and ask them about the Christian God path. See if they "get" that the only true path is the one that you are on.

Don't be naive: everybody does that. The most inclusive person still believes that being inclusive is better than being exclusive. And the inclusive views of religion all reject the exclusive ones as being too narrow or wrong, just because they're exclusive.

Yes, that is precisely my point! All of the denominations proclaim that they and only they are The Way. 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!!

It's like the song says...

"Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?
If you'd come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication"

Let me guess: the second coming?

So that means everybody is exclusive about God. And you won't find anybody more dogmatic about it, or more exclusive, on less evidence, than the Atheists.

Exactly!! Everybody's God gets to exist merely by proclaiming that their God really is the one exclusive God. And even though the atheists aren't claiming that God exists it's still their obligation to demonstrate that He does not.

And even though those on all the other paths are decreeing the same for their own God/No God spiritual path their own Scriptures are all irrelevant because in not being sync with your path they are all necessarily wrong.

They aren't wrong because they are not in sync with me; they're wrong because God says they're wrong. It's Him they're out of sync with.

My guess: they are saying exactly the same thing about their own God. And just like IC, their "proof" revolves around a more or less blind leap of faith to their scripted narrative. They're all in exactly the same boat but don't have either intellectual honesty or integrity to accept each other as such.

It's not the same!! Not if arguing over the shape of the Earth doesn't result in "Inquisitions and crusades and jihads and theocracies and rigid orthodox communities where practically everything that everyone does will land them either in Heaven or Hell.

Inquisitions = Catholic. Crusades = big, long ones Muslim, short ones Catholic. Jihads = Muslim. Theocracies = never been one. Rigid Orthodox Communities = maybe you're picking on Jews? Or maybe Mennonites, now?

What difference does it make which brutal repression and violence you assign to which denomination. It all comes down to insisting that only your own denomination, your own God is the God. And providing no accumulation of evidence other than the leaps of faith themselves.

I am none of these. Let them answer as they choose: I do not speak for them. And in the end, for whatever they have done, they, like us all, will answer to their Judge.

And they are not what you are because they lived very different lives in very different communities. And it's you answering to their Judge that counts.

3] that your belief in the Christian God is rooted in part in the particular life that you lived...from your indoctrination as a child [if that is the case] to the accumulation of personal experiences you had as an adult

That is not the case...

Of course it is the case! Around the globe in community after community children are being brainwashed to believe in one or another God. And each of them as individuals has a unique trajectory of personal experiences that brings them closer to one point of view rather than another. That's just common sense.

I've lost count: is that your third or fourth claim for which you have zero evidence?

Unbelievable. The evidence of course is the lives that each of us lived! Who here has not been indoctrinated as a child? Who here has not rooted their value judgments in the existential trajectory of "personal experiences that brought them closer to one point of view rather than another?"

Anyone? What's the philosophical argument denoting that this is not common sense?

Indeed, when I press him to go there...

Okay, given your own life and your own belief in the Christian God note in some detail how my points above didn't matter in shaping and molding your own spiritual/religious path.

Here's what he comes up with:

Why? You seem to think you know me already, and can analyze my "spiritual path" on no evidence at all. Are you now saying you were bluffing, and you won't actually know, unless I tell you?

He doesn't dare go there. It means confronting the fact that my points are basically just common sense. All of us live lives where there the experiences we have and the experiences we don't have, the people we meet and the people we don't meet, the information and knowledge and ideas we come upon and the information, knowledge and ideas that we don't. Of course that will have a profound impact on who we come to think we are!!!

What Dawkins can't explain is the phenomenon known as "conversion." People can change their minds, and routinely do. Somebody born in an Islamic land can end up being a Hindu, or a Catholic can become a Buddhist. It happens all the time. But Dawkins' theory can't explain how that's possible. It requires Determinism-by-environment.

No, given the existence of free will, it just requires that you have a new experience, sustain a new friendship, come upon new information and knowledge etc., that prompts you existentially to think about something like religion in a different way. It's only "Determinism-by-environment" if the environment itself [including the human brain] is ever and always wholly -- only -- in sync with nature's laws of matter. Then memes would be entirely interchangeable with genes. No, given the existence of free will, it just requires that you have a new experience, sustain a new friendship, come upon new information and knowledge etc.,

If that's true, then you are now denying that culture Predetermines one's belief system. The "memes" as Dawkins calls them, do not actually explain how people choose their beliefs, ultimately.

Ultimately of course presuming some measure of free will, it will always come down to a fundamentally complex relationship between nature and nurture out in a particular world historically and culturally understood in particular ways by each of us as individuals. Then in regard to things like God and religion the gaps between what we believe and what we are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

I merely insist that in exploring and examining this we shift the discussion to particular set of circumstances.

Well, you either believe that all of the factors in your life prior to this experience inevitably led up to this fated or destined choice, or you recognize that had your life been different for any number of hundreds and hundreds of reasons you may have never ended up in the university at all.

False dichotomy. Those are not the only possible interpretations, and neither is the right one, actually. I was not "fated" to go; I chose to. And we never know what would have been in counterfactual situations. We know only what did happen.

Is he actually arguing that his choice to go was not embedded in all of the thousands upon thousands of variables in his life that might have been otherwise and prompted him not to go? He's completely different from all the rest of us?

How the hell would I know?

You would know, because you have a will. Don't you think you do?

That means that, at minimum, there would be two actual wills in the universe; yours and God's. And you also believe in my will, because you're arguing with me, trying to make an impression on my thinking. That means you must believe I have a will, too. So you DO know -- if you admit to yourself what you ought to know, rationally.

You presuming that we have free will

No, I'm not assuming. You are. Your behaviour proves it.

You believe you are a will, and you are treating me as a will. And you do the same to Alexis...you talk to him as if he has a will. So you know people have wills, and that they can choose to change them. So don't say, "How the hell would I know?" Of course you know.

No, I already discussed aspects of exchanges like this on the compatibilist thread:

First, of course, there is no getting around how surreal these discussions are.

Here I am arguing that I believe that I am compelled by the laws of matter to type these words in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

But then, as with all the rest of us, I go on to defend myself as though, on the contrary, I am opting freely to choose the words I use just as you opted freely to read them.

But: the bottom line [mine] never changes...

First, the astrophysicists tell us, was the Big Bang. Out of nothing at all came everything there is. Trust them here. Stars eventually formed, resulting in, over billions of years, countless supernovas that created the heavier elements that eventually led us.

In other words, over these billions of years the heavier elements "somehow" evolved into living matter that evolved into conscious matter that evolved into self-conscious matter able to identify itself as matter "somehow" intertwined in the laws of nature.

But, to the best of my current knowledge, no scientist or philosopher is able to encompass definitively how all of this "works" so as to result either in human autonomy or in nature's own automatons.

And then [of course] the theologians have their own narrative: God.

Or the No God equivalent?

As for the compatibilist account of all this, it still seems ridiculous to me. Especially the part [given my own obsession with "I" in the is/ought world] where determinism is reconciled with moral responsibility.

If there is no God with His "mysterious ways" able to finally explain to us in Heaven why He brought into existence all those things, I have to conclude that they "just happen" in an essentially meaningless universe. No God, no teleology. Just the "brute facticity" embedded in all of the terrible consequences of them "just happening".

Yes, that is what you would have to assume if there's no God.

But you don't know there isn't. So you don't have to assume it. And I believe there is, so I don't have to assume it.

I'm not sure what your argument is, there. Can you make it?

No, I don't know whether a God, the God exist or not. But for those claiming that He does, convince me. Not only that God does exist but it is your God. And my argument revolves around the fact that many people choose God because the thought that human existence in a No God world is essentially meaningless, purposeless and culminates in oblivion is just more than they can bear. So a leap of faith or a wager it is then. Like IC's own.

No. I mean, go ahead and describe it to yourself in detail.

Try to conceive how a universe would run, in which free will is real, but the environment is strictly governed so that no bad things ever happen. Picture it, if you can. Just see if it's a coherent idea.

You're asking me, an infinitesimally tiny and insignificant speck of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is" -- https://www.sciencechannel.com/show/how ... ks-science -- to "conceive" of something like that?!!

Why on Earth do you suppose it is necessary for those of your ilk to invent a God, the God, my God so as to have the answer? Those of my ilk no longer have that comforting and consoling security blanket to nestle in.

Not that I wouldn't give almost anything to find it again.

No. Something much simpler. I'm just asking you to imagine how your own life would go, if you lived in a world where no bad things ever are allowed to happen. Picture it. See yourself getting out of bed in the morning, and walk yourself through a day like that.

Again, he gets to be the one, after consulting his Bible, who gets to say what the good and the bad things are. And any life that I imagine doesn't make this...

"...an infinitesimally tiny and insignificant speck of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is..."

Go away. And not for him either. Or does he actually think that his beliefs about the Christian God are not necessarily subsumed in "the gap" and in "Rummy's Rule"?

We can walk through it, if you want. But I'm pretty sure you're not interested anyway.

Did or did not this loving, just and merciful Christian God of yours create this virus? And what of those who got the disease through blood transfusions or, as a baby, was born with it?

There's debate over who created AIDS. One documentary I saw said it was a product of unethical vaccination programs in Central Africa -- if I remember correctly, scientists used chimps or bonobos as incubators, and ended up transferring the virus to humans thereby. But in any case, we can eliminate AIDS in one generation, if we could get people not to behave badly. And it would never reappear in humans again.

As with covid, just Google, "was the AIDS virus man-made?"

https://www.google.com/search?q=was+the ... nt=gws-wiz

Note for us the most potent evidence that it was.

And those who contracted it through blood transfusions? Or were born with it? What was the Christian God thinking then?

You don't have to worry: you're working too hard.

I will stipulate for purposes of our discussion that earthquakes happen, and that they aren't man-caused. Or, if you prefer volcanoes, that's fine too.

Yeah, but the point was you connecting the dots between these "acts of God", you, the Christian God and the terrible pain and suffering that result when they occur.

Yes, that is exactly what I intend to do. But I'm still waiting for your answer.

I forget, what was the question?

So let's not waste our time that way. Instead, I'll ask you up front: if I were to give you evidence you would accept for the existence of God, what would that look like to you?

Well, it would look a lot like the evidence someone would provide to demonstrate to those who live in a No Pope world, that, in fact Jorge Mario Bergoglio -- Pope Francis -- does in fact exist.

Well, if you'll forgive me for saying so, you're making my job way too easy for me. I don't believe in Popes.

He doesn't believe that Popes have in fact existed at the Vatican down through the centuries?! Or he doesn't believe that Catholicism reflects the one true Christian God?

The proof I'm looking for pertains to the former not the latter.

Look, Iam...I'm actually trying to help you here. I'm trying to make the question tough enough to be a challenge. Human-caused or even things half caused by humans are too easy to explain as simply the bad behavior of free will creatures. AIDS, COVID, even Black Plague...all have at least human components to them. And we can definitely blame humans for at least a significant part of their evils.

No, as per usual, he is doing everything he can to prolong this exchange such that, while claiming that "shortly" he will provide me with proof that God resides in Heaven...the equivalent of evidence that Popes have resided and still reside in the Vatican

Make it hard. So far, this isn't even a challenge. Go with your "volcanoes" example, maybe.

Okay, this then: https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/ye ... o-eruption
https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-is ... ty-2018-10

The Christian God and Yellowstone.

[Nick_A]

Nick, bubba doesn't care. His interest is in tearin' down what you believe, not understandin' it. He's convinced, becuz he sits at the crossroads unable to pick a way, no one can, or should. He claims he wants a rational and virtuous font but he lies. He's a dirty dealer. There's no good faith in him. He is, as Alexis might say, a destroyer. He is desolate, so we all should be desolate. Engage him as you like, but be mindful: he has nuthin' but hate in him.

Consider this profound quote from Simone Weil

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

A lot of worldly atheists and deniers are highly intelligent. But they cannot understand where the sincere believer is coming from since their supernatural part hasn't awakened. Naturally the chronic denier thinks I am absurd and living in fantasy. Iam is not really a hater. He wants us to experience that we are nuts only because his supernatural part has not yet awakened.

If you have experienced a connection with consciousness greater then your own be grateful. Remember, "there but for the grace of God go I." Not everyone has had this awakening experience

[Immanuel Can]

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.

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?!!!

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.

For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein],

I have no time left for your "dasein" dodge. You don't even know what you mean by the term, apparently...so don't expect anyone else to care if you trot it out again.

That's right.

Either the God I am telling you about exists, or He does not. There is no other possibility: it's one or the other. Logic tells you that. And if, as I believe, He does exist, then following any other so-called "god" is futile, and leads to death -- just following no god (or oneself) will.

Logic?!!

Yep.

Existence is an all-or-nothing property. An entity either has it, or has none of it: there's no "kind-of-exists" or "partly-exists-and-partly-doesn't."

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.

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

With all that is at stake if you choose the wrong path?

That's a different question, and a serious one.

What remains irrelevant is how many wrong answers are "out there." It just doesn't matter. Ever.

Right, as long as it is you who gets to decree that only the path you are on is the right one.

No, as long as God does. My opinion adds nothing, either way. I am not God.

And even though those on all the other paths are decreeing the same for their own God/No God spiritual path their own Scriptures are all irrelevant because in not being sync with your path they are all necessarily wrong.

They say exactly the same: if somebody doesn't follow their path, they say that path is also wrong.

And Atheists...well, is there anybody more dogmatic about the beliefs of other people than they are?

Don't be naive: everybody does that. The most inclusive person still believes that being inclusive is better than being exclusive. And the inclusive views of religion all reject the exclusive ones as being too narrow or wrong, just because they're exclusive.

Yes, that is precisely my point!

But you're coming to an illogical conclusion out of that. Let me simplify the point for you.

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.

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?

And even though those on all the other paths are decreeing the same for their own God/No God spiritual path their own Scriptures are all irrelevant because in not being sync with your path they are all necessarily wrong.

They aren't wrong because they are not in sync with me; they're wrong because God says they're wrong. It's Him they're out of sync with.

My guess: they are saying exactly the same thing about their own God.

Sure. See above. They can't all be right. Most of them, we can be rationally certain, have to be wrong.

But not all.

What difference does it make which brutal repression and violence you assign to which denomination.

A huge difference. It means some people did what you claim, and some people had nothing to do with those things.

You don't blame the innocent for the guilty, do you? Do you blame all men for Jimmy Saville? Do you blame all women for Cardi B?

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.

He doesn't dare go there.

Au contraire. I flatly deny your claim: in fact, this is the fourth time now, I think.

Was I not clear on that?

If that's true, then you are now denying that culture Predetermines one's belief system. The "memes" as Dawkins calls them, do not actually explain how people choose their beliefs, ultimately.

Ultimately of course presuming some measure of free will, it will always come down to a fundamentally complex relationship between nature and nurture out in a particular world historically and culturally understood in particular ways by each of us as individuals.

That's not Determinism. So if that's what you think, then that kills Dawkins' "meme" nonsense. Dawkins cannot presume ANY "understanding" causes anything or that ANY free will exists.

Here I am arguing that I believe that I am compelled by the laws of matter to type these words in the only possible reality in the only possible world.

Why are you "arguing"? In a Deterministic world, you can't change anybody's mind, or even your own. The state of your mind at any given time is simply fated to be whatever it is.

See? Your actions prove you don't believe in Determinism.

But then, as with all the rest of us, I go on to defend myself as though, on the contrary, I am opting freely to choose the words I use just as you opted freely to read them.

And doesn't that strike you as odd? You're somehow drawn to pretend that Determinism isn't true, and that there 's "you," a genuine, self, who is "choosing" and "writing," and a "me" who is reading and responding.

So you're acting again as if Determinism is rubbish. Which it actually is, of course.

In other words, over these billions of years the heavier elements "somehow" evolved into living matter that evolved into conscious matter that evolved into self-conscious matter able to identify itself as matter "somehow" intertwined in the laws of nature.

You need to watch this little animated video, if you want to understand just how problematic what you just wrote really is.

It's only about five minutes, but it really covers it nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIorXcloIac

As for the compatibilist account of all this, it still seems ridiculous to me.

Finally we agree.

No, I don't know whether a God, the God exist or not. But for those claiming that He does, convince me. [/quote]
Alright.

What will you accept as evidence?

I'm just asking you to imagine how your own life would go, if you lived in a world where no bad things ever are allowed to happen. Picture it. See yourself getting out of bed in the morning, and walk yourself through a day like that.

Again, he gets to be the one...

No, no...try it. Trust me. I'm not asking you to take anything on faith here. I'm going to build a point out of your answer, whatever it is. So feel free to do it, and let's see what happens next.

You don't have to worry: you're working too hard.

I will stipulate for purposes of our discussion that earthquakes happen, and that they aren't man-caused. Or, if you prefer volcanoes, that's fine too.

Yeah, but the point was you connecting the dots between these "acts of God", you, the Christian God and the terrible pain and suffering that result when they occur.

Right. I will do that.

But make sure you choose a case that doesn't give me an "easy out." Are we going with earthquakes, then? Or do you want something else?

So let's not waste our time that way. Instead, I'll ask you up front: if I were to give you evidence you would accept for the existence of God, what would that look like to you?

Well, it would look a lot like the evidence someone would provide to demonstrate to those who live in a No Pope world, that, in fact Jorge Mario Bergoglio -- Pope Francis -- does in fact exist.

Well, if you'll forgive me for saying so, you're making my job way too easy for me. I don't believe in Popes.

He doesn't believe that Popes have in fact existed at the Vatican down through the centuries?! Or he doesn't believe that Catholicism reflects the one true Christian God?

The proof I'm looking for pertains to the former not the latter.

That doesn't make sense to me. You want proof that somebody named "Bergoglio," or some other jokers like him, wears a red frock and lives in Rome?

Sure. But how does that help you know there's a God?

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?

[Dubious]

Nietzsche was radically Right-leaning and thoroughly anti-Liberal (and anti-democratic) and his ideas, when enacted, result in radicalism. I would submit for your perusal Ronald Beiner's recent book Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right. The reason I reference Beiner is not because I support his positions (his base concern I gather is that the Right (radical Right and *Alt-Right*) that is now manifesting so strongly has a dangerous Jewish-critical (he would call it anti-Semitic) element. There is general alarm in the Jewish world of the rise of these movements and ideas. And Beiner explores this, credibly in my view, in his book.

My, my, you do make a lot of assumptions of the "I assume" variety and proceed from there to make your arguments. Admittedly, it's normal to make some assumptions in an argument but yours are mostly assumption-driven. This make a conversation boring and unenlightening.

Strange isn't it that its the Left when in power which allows the Right to exist according to its free speech mandate which the right negates and never allow if it were in power. If Nietzsche had favored types like Bannon, Trump, Spencer, Dugin and all suchlike idiots under the rubric of far right then his reputation would hardly be above their level. Nietzsche was well-aware of being used in the future in a way completely contrary to what he tried to convey in his philosophy.

One of N's prime directives was that a person be allowed to think and not consider anything so sacred it can't be examined...an idea the far-right would consider anathema against its own beliefs of exclusion. The upshot...don't trust anything granting itself the quintessential role in any legitimization of truth when even the value of that or the consequences of knowing are to be examined.

Beiner is only one of many who lives up to Nietzsche's fear of being used for all the wrong reasons.

Your view of Nietzsche comes across as conventional, same old, same old, in line with types like IC. Sorry, was I being redundant again?

Here's a few links, among many available, to balance out the Nietzsche question by those who are loath to use labels as identity badges....
https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategori ... -far-right
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... dynamiting

...and no, I'm not an apologist for Nietzsche. With his ability to express himself, such would be superflous! I've long noticed your superior sub rosa method of inserting insult camouflaged as if it were some unavoidable philosophical conclusion.

Though others may not object to your style, it frankly turns me off. But don't take it personally since no doubt, there are many with the same opinion regarding mine.

I suggest we stop communicating; neither of us is doing the other a favor.

[Dontaskme]

If you are a Solipsist, you aren't talking to me. I don't exist. Only you do.

Stop talking to yourself...it's mad.

Now you are noticing...

... good for you

[Dontaskme]

You need to watch this little animated video, if you want to understand just how problematic what you just wrote really is.

It's only about five minutes, but it really covers it nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIorXcloIac

I watched that video, and it seems it's just more theorising about what we cannot know.

I read the comments below....here's one which stood out the most....[ ''My understanding is that science tries to answer the question, "How?" and that religion tries to answer the question, "Why?" ]

In response my understanding is that if we are still trying to figure out the answers to the HOW and WHY questions..then that means one thing only...it means we simply do not know...except what we make-up, or imagine.

Back to square one. How and Why does ONE EXIST? .... IS the 1 question to all our answers....I do not know.

Because if we did know...then we'd all stop theorising.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” —Thomas Aquinas

[henry quirk]

Iam is not really a hater.

I can't agree, Nick. He is, and his only savin' grace is he's so very bad at bein' bad. You know how irritatin' the far more benign age is, yeah? Bubba is very much the same.

[Nick_A]

Iam is not really a hater.

I can't agree, Nick. He is, and his only savin' grace is he's so very bad at bein' bad. You know how irritatin' the far more benign age is, yeah? Bubba is very much the same.

I've been banned by several forums not for breaking rules but since my beliefs are disruptive. What could be more disruptive than Plato's Cave? When a person cannot understand what an awakened person experiences, they react with negative emotion. These reactions are irritating. I'm not sure that it is hate but rather think it is an unfounded egoistic feeling of superiority.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Though others may not object to your style, it frankly turns me off. But don't take it personally since no doubt, there are many with the same opinion regarding mine.

I approach these conversations differently. As I state openly: I am out for my own purposes. But I also believe it is best (more honest) to reveal one's own purposes so that others can *locate* one. It is an aspect of my fate that I have now and have had for many years a great deal of free time and that time I devote to reading. The best choice I ever made was to have begun reading authors whose ideas I never would have countenanced previously. One of those authors was certainly Nietzsche (Genealogy of Morals) and thereafter numerous others such as Robert Bork and Richard Weaver. And when I noticed that I got so much from these readings I thought "Why stop there?" and have continued reading way over in 'forbidden zones'.

You will notice that what I write here does not have much relationship to your quoted paragraph. Who gives a damn about *style*? If I were you I would focus on articulating your views and ideas without regard for style issues. We are all better off trying to clarify why those we oppose (or react to) think as they do. I start from the assumption that even those who seem most *wrong* to us are honest with themselves. So their positions have in their own eyes validity and integrity.

I suggest we stop communicating; neither of us is doing the other a favor.

I suggest just the opposite but whether you choose to engage, or not, is thoroughly irrelevant to me. Still I think you should ramp up your efforts. Make it interesting! Have fun at the same time.

Strange isn't it that its the Left when in power which allows the Right to exist according to its free speech mandate which the right negates and never allow if it were in power. If Nietzsche had favored types like Bannon, Trump, Spencer, Dugin and all suchlike idiots under the rubric of far right then his reputation would hardly be above their level. Nietzsche was well-aware of being used in the future in a way completely contrary to what he tried to convey in his philosophy.

The way I look at this -- that is if I understand what you are saying -- is that the Progressive Left, the Liberal Left, has shown itself as terrified and paranoiacally activist in blocking and censoring the ideas of an emergent Radical Right. I say *Radical Right* not because I agree with the Left's use of that term but because, in fact, the ideas of a radical Right fringe have been thoroughly ostracized from 'civil discourse' for a great long while. My understanding though is that Radical Left ideas are largely allowed and indeed focused on and encouraged.

I submit here an interesting interview with Michael Millerman where he speaks about this. It is worth watching. The man who is interviewing him is definitely a Canadian nationalist with ethnonationalist tendencies who explains his position here. (I think he and Lauren Southern are married and also have a child together).

If your implication is that the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger have not and do not show up in the political and ideological formulations of the people you mention (so broadly!) like "Bannon, Trump, Spencer, Dugin" then I believe it fair to conclude that you are demonstrating real naïveté. My view is that you must be living in some sort of bubble. But I sense that you do not understand that I am not opposed, necessarily, to some aspects of what these people advocate for. But for the sake of 'fair conversation' and exposition of ideas I do not come out openly in favor of either camp. So for example I have read Noam Chomsky extensively and as a result of a very close reading would never, and could never, simply dismiss him or wipe him off the board. My position really does differ when it comes to examining ideas.

So what interests me is not so much to simply note that the Left is deeply involved in suppressing ideas and indeed thought, but rather to examine in depth why this seems to them as a necessary activity, indeed a moral activity.

In regard to this:

Nietzsche was well-aware of being used in the future in a way completely contrary to what he tried to convey in his philosophy.

Perhaps you can then clarify what it was that he really intended to convey?

My response is that you can find in Nietzsche's writing tremendous radicalism which is also contradicted by other aphoristic phrases that seem to imply something different. The way that I have dealt with this fact is to believe that the man Nietzsche was, quite literally, torn between extremes (of fact and of truth) that he could not reconcile. The *meaning* of Nietzsche in this sense points back to us insofar as we are in the throes of this indecision.

But I will say, because it is true, that Beiner certainly accentuated aspects of what Nietzsche has said to bolster his argument that he is dangerously radical. For example he says that in Will to Power Nietzsche said: "The great majority of men have no right to life, and serve only to disconcert the elect among our race; I do not yet grant the unfit that right. There are even unfit peoples.” However I cannot find that in Will to Power. It seems to be one of those rewritten phrases that get launched.

He did say however many many similar things. For example:

872. The rights which a man arrogates to himself are relative to the duties which he sets himself, and to the tasks which he feels capable of per forming. The great majority of men have no right to life, and are only a misfortune to their higher fellows.

Dubious: One of N's prime directives was that a person be allowed to think and not consider anything so sacred it can't be examined...an idea the far-right would consider anathema against its own beliefs of exclusion.

What I would say in response to this is: neither you nor I nor any of us should become affixed in any misleading classification such as 'right' and 'left'. And I certainly agree that all thought should be as free as possible. And it is also extremely true that Nietzsche the man took his thinking to the farthest reaches of contradictory thought -- indeed to the enunciation of ideas that are always taken as cutting through the lies and the BS. And that is why Nietzsche said of himself *I am dynamite*.

My impression -- and I have been reading and listening to the Right, the Far Right and the Extreme Right for years now (as part of a long on-going study project) is that they say that *our ideas hold up better in open discussion because our ideas are based in truth and true things*. And I think that when people of this ilk read Nietzsche and encounter one of those sharp ideas that contradicts the 'sacred assumptions' that most people hold, they tend to believe that the real truth of things is not allowed to be stated and discussed. So, instead of allowing the contrary ideas to be heard and discussed they are more often than not *shut down* and those who have them *shut out*.

But here is the interesting thing: More and more and day by day the ideas that the Dissident Right (to use the broad term) are entering mainstream thought.

The real question for us to ask is: What do we really think about this? And what do we really & truly think about the radical notions of people like Nietzsche & Heidegger? And what will happen when these ideas gain more power in the people who hold them and have more cultural effect?

Beiner is only one of many who lives up to Nietzsche's fear of being used for all the wrong reasons.

OK, but would you kindly outline for me what are Nietzsche's 'right reasons'? What are you saying? Is it that if Nietzsche offered a summation of what he thought & wrote that it would be something different from what he thought & wrote?

Do you have a special interpretation of 'what Nietzsche really meant'? If so what is it? Can you talk about it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...and no, I'm not an apologist for Nietzsche. With his ability to express himself, such would be superflous! I've long noticed your superior sub rosa method of inserting insult camouflaged as if it were some unavoidable philosophical conclusion.

I hope you won't take this in a bad way. I recall to mind some good advice:

Purifying oneself from misconceptions can be a life-long endeavor especially when more flow in than flow out!

When I read it I resolved to live by this powerful & wise admonition!

I turned on the filters in my mental aquarium! and oh how the murk has lifted!