Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

Mannie,

Bubba sez...

Note to Henry [among others]:

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

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

Me: I vote for the later.

I don't want to constrain your choice, Henry. And I know you can do as you please...which is how it should be, right?

Myself, I can see that we can't get anywhere if iam has already decided that no sort of proof or evidence of God will be allowed to count. So before we move on, I feel I have to get an understanding of any terms he might have under which he's willing to change his mind.

If there are no such terms, of course, then there isn't much to talk about, as you seem to suggest. Iam has to at least give me SOME rational chance of convincing him. So I'm willing to offer him the chance to specify his terms; and if he can, we can still get somewhere.

[Dubious]

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

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

No hard feelings!

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

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

I thought we were already clear on that! Your ideas are based on a lot of assumptions in which I'm not interested, not to mention you're too prone to accept the thought of others and less willing to think yourself. That makes for boring!

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

I don't want to constrain your choice, Henry. And I know you can do as you please...which is how it should be, right?

As i say: we'll just keep on doin' what we've been doin': each believin' what he believes and leavin' the other guy be to do the same.

Sorry, bubba: there'll be no Death Match today.

Iam has to at least give me SOME rational chance of convincing him.

Good luck with that....yer gonna need it.

[iambiguous]

Mannie,

Bubba sez...

Note to Henry [among others]:

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

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

Me: I vote for the later.

Nope, I'm basically with you here. As long as someone's moral and political and religious convictions comfort and console them -- are meaningful to the them -- without bringing about any harm to others, more power to them. After all, it's not like I am here to "correct" them by insisting that, no, only my own moral and political and No God spiritual prejudices reflect the one true path.

Instead, that's what the objectivists among us themselves often do, right?

On the other hand, out in the world that we interact in socially, politically and economically, there is no getting around the need for "rules of behavior". Rewarding these behaviors, punishing those behaviors. And my concern with the objectivists is that some take their "right makes might" approach in human relationships -- God or No God -- to the point where in their own communities they are intent on making sure everyone thinks like they do. About abortions, about bazookas, about wage slaves.

Again, the main difference between you and I is that I believe value judgments here are derived individually, existentially, subjectively given particular historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts that are ever evolving in a world awash in contingency, chance and change...while you have taken a "leap of faith" to a God, the God, your Deist God. A God who has provided mere mortals with the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature."

Then I ask you to assure us that in regard to such things as abortion and bazookas and wage slavery, these "dictates" must not revolve around your own conclusions.

You say no and then I asked others here...

Can you cite an experience you have had with Henry here [going back to 2008] in which you prompted him to change his mind about an issue important to him? Or a time when Henry himself noted an important change in his thinking about things like abortion and guns.

So far nothing, but we'll see.

Now, with IC's Christian God on the other hand, many will insist that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior you will be "left behind" when JC comes around again. And then sent to Hell?

So, clearly, given that IC's Christian God involves a belief in Judgment Day, and that means Heaven or Hell -- or Purgatory -- it seems very, very important to me that you and he are able to pin down "which one" of your Gods is the one true path.

So, why don't the two of you settle that. Then get back to us.

I can tell you flat out that if the victor here is then able to demonstrate to me that their God does in fact exist, I will come on board immediately.

Only with the Deist God, what exactly is the fate of "I" on the other side? At least with IC, there is one.

[henry quirk]

bubba,

there's so much wrong in that post: I have no idea where to start

mebbe, instead of kitchen-sinkin' it: just ask a question...about deism...about natural rights...about moral realism...about libertarianism...or, if you wanna get spicy, about Christianity

ask one question, leave off with the preachin', and mebbe we can talk

[iambiguous]

bubba,

there's so much wrong in that post: I have no idea where to start

mebbe, instead of kitchen-sinkin' it: just ask a question...about deism...about natural rights...about moral realism...about libertarianism...or, if you wanna get spicy, about Christianity

ask one question, leave off with the preachin', and mebbe we can talk

No, I'm much more inclined to simply allow others to make up their own minds regarding who here is evading and avoiding the other's points.

Me, I'd be truly embarrassed to respond with yet another substance-less post like yours above.

You, on the other hand, are not.

Dasein I'm figuring.

[henry quirk]

Nobody cares, bubba.

You're not the star of the show, and neither am I.

Anywho: anytime you wanna ask questions and leave off with the poorly-written script, I'm ready.

[iambiguous]

Nobody cares, bubba.

You're not the star of the show, and neither am I.

Anywho: anytime you wanna ask questions and leave off with the poorly-written script, I'm ready.

Note to the Deist God:

Surely, this isn't what you had in mind in regard to mere mortals "following the dictates of Reason and Nature". More along the lines of my own posts, I suspect.

Give us a sign.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I thought we were already clear on that! Your ideas are based on a lot of assumptions in which I'm not interested, not to mention you're too prone to accept the thought of others and less willing to think yourself. That makes for boring!

First you say that you intend not to engage with me, and then you engage with me. Is this not some type of unnecessary forum game?

How I look at things goes like this: I believe we are duty-bound, ethically and also morally, to at least try to find some common ground with those who are very much opposed to us and to whom we might be opposed. So the entire charade of stating that you will disconnect, and then send up the list of complaints, is silly. The purpose of a forum like this, that is in an ideal sense, is to engage. The real problem is how best to carry that out.

If you think my thinking is limited or operates too conventionally -- correct me. Show me how you have overcome this limitation. Yet I am inclined to think that perhaps you are not fully honest with yourself.

The part about *thinking for yourself* is nonetheless interesting. It is a good point for conversation. And though I certainly agree that one should think for oneself I am more compelled to ask myself and to be preoccupied with what it is ethical and moral to think and to do. In my own case I have, as an exercise, exposed myself to a great many viewpoints and perspectives and I am uncertain which to choose. So my thinking has been to remain undecided and uncommitted until I have certainty.

[henry quirk]

Note to the Deist God:

Sorry, bubba: Elvis done left the buildin'.

[Dontaskme]

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

I have thought about this all my life. My answer is to deduce an answer by removing the question.. which by logic, a question can only arise to the sense there is such an ''entity'' known as a ''questioner'' Remove that thought, the thought there is a ''questioner'' ...and what remains is the unanswered answer.


Back to the idea of 'non-conscious'... it's such an absurd idea, because the very idea points to a state that is both is and is/not.

Notice the idea of the ( is/not ) how it points to a state that is both is and isn't, and yet neither is or isn't...in the same instance....and that it is only ''language'' informing what is not known... to appear as known.

And what is language made of ? ...it's made of sound...so is sound the creator of the knower? ...is sound the creator of the universe?

After all, one does not ask, "What does that accident mean?" An "accident," a chance event, is defined by not having a relationship of meaning to anything else. It would still have some causal explanation, but not one involving meaning or purpose. If it has meaning and purpose, then it wasn't an "accident" at all, but an "on-purpose," and not by "chance" at all, but by "design" and "intention."

Maybe the meaning of the word 'accident' is a pretext to a deeper understanding of why the concept ''accident'' is known.

Anyway, that's not the point, the point I am talking about is the ''knower'' or the ''self'' ... I'm not talking about what the knower knows as in knowledge....I'm trying to get to the ''knower'' of knowledge. Forget the known concepts...what about the 'KNOWER'' ? can that idea actually be seen and known in a physical sense? ...I personally say it cannot.
All we are dealing with here are concepts, including the concept of self...made aware as and through sound.

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

What does ''non-living'' - ''non-sentience''.. even mean? when you ponder that question back to the NON concept....NON must be a necessary counterpart of it's total opposite, and yet NON cannot be known, but is inseparable from what is known...so what is being known here, is a not-knowing universe.

What if the universe is just a story superimposed upon the blank screen of consciousness - together combined as an inseparable DOUBLE sided 1-0 binary reality...aka MANY of the ONE

You've probably heard of this video...but thought I'd use it to illustrate the meaning of a binary written universe...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvsqv2oO2ac

[Belinda]

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

I have thought about this all my life. My answer is to deduce an answer by removing the question.. which by logic, a question can only arise to the sense there is such an ''entity'' known as a ''questioner'' Remove that thought, the thought there is a ''questioner'' ...and what remains is the unanswered answer.


Back to the idea of 'non-conscious'... it's such an absurd idea, because the very idea points to a state that is both is and is/not.

Notice the idea of the ( is/not ) how it points to a state that is both is and isn't, and yet neither is or isn't...in the same instance....and that it is only ''language'' informing what is not known... to appear as known.

And what is language made of ? ...it's made of sound...so is sound the creator of the knower? ...is sound the creator of the universe?

After all, one does not ask, "What does that accident mean?" An "accident," a chance event, is defined by not having a relationship of meaning to anything else. It would still have some causal explanation, but not one involving meaning or purpose. If it has meaning and purpose, then it wasn't an "accident" at all, but an "on-purpose," and not by "chance" at all, but by "design" and "intention."

Maybe the meaning of the word 'accident' is a pretext to a deeper understanding of why the concept ''accident'' is known.

Anyway, that's not the point, the point I am talking about is the ''knower'' or the ''self'' ... I'm not talking about what the knower knows as in knowledge....I'm trying to get to the ''knower'' of knowledge. Forget the known concepts...what about the 'KNOWER'' ? can that idea actually be seen and known in a physical sense? ...I personally say it cannot.
All we are dealing with here are concepts, including the concept of self...made aware as and through sound.

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

What does ''non-living'' - ''non-sentience''.. even mean? when you ponder that question back to the NON concept....NON must be a necessary counterpart of it's total opposite, and yet NON cannot be known, but is inseparable from what is known...so what is being known here, is a not-knowing universe.

What if the universe is just a story superimposed upon the blank screen of consciousness - together combined as an inseparable DOUBLE sided 1-0 binary reality...aka MANY of the ONE

You've probably heard of this video...but thought I'd use it to illustrate the meaning of a binary written universe...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvsqv2oO2ac

DAM said "all my life". But there was a period in all of our lives when we were not self conscious, when we were innocent of knowledge of our separateness from each other and from being itself. I mean when we were new born babies to the age of two years or thereabouts. Animals too , and plants, are innocent of self consciousness.

As to the problem of the one and the many, very young children, plants, and animals are aligned with 'the one' . Young humans lose that innocence as they become older but not wiser in that respect. Mystics and poets try to find their ways back to 'the one' and some succeed.

[Immanuel Can]

Back to the idea of 'non-conscious'... it's such an absurd idea, because the very idea points to a state that is both is and is/not.

I'm not sure that's a problem. The problem is how we get from things that we know for sure are non-conscious, like, say, hydrogen floating in space, to a state where conscious entities exist, in a universe that Materialism has to insist did not have conscious entities in it at all.

The problem is really with the theory, I think. In any case, if the theory itself is going to prove not to be wrong-headed, that's a step -- or rather, two steps -- it's going to have to find some way to explain. At present, it's not even offering anything on that.

...the point I am talking about is the ''knower'' or the ''self''

Who? You? Me? The others here?

If there's only you, then there's no real me. And there's nobody else, either.

But that's why things like Buddhism and Hinduism have to insist -- contrary to all modern cosmology and science, of course -- that the universe is eternal. They need to be able to think the "self," the "one conscious entity" was always there. Otherwise, they are in the same pickle: they can't explain how it all began either.

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

What does ''non-living'' - ''non-sentience''.. even mean?

Oh, that's easy. I have to assume you don't think that rocks think. And I have to assume you don't think things like hydrogen molecules think. So these are non-sentient things.

What if the universe is just a story superimposed upon the blank screen of consciousness

That's mystical Idealism. It doesn't even take the universe or the people in it to be real, of course.

But it's a poor explanation, I think. Why is this "dreamer," this "knower" dreaming? Where is this "dreamer"? Who's making it "dream"? Why doesn't it know where it is and what it is? And what possibility does it ever have of waking up, if that's the case? It all gets implausible pretty quickly.

[iambiguous]

You're absolutely right. They cannot be.

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

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

Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction covers this.

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

Oh no. Not at all.

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

On the other hand, he has no capacity I have seen here to demonstrate that the Christian God trumps Aristotle's when the question posed is "which one"? Or is he always right?

Note to others:

The question I posed of Henry, I'll pose of IC:

Can you cite an experience you have had with IC here [going back to 2013] in which you prompted him to change his mind about an issue important to him? Or a time when IC himself noted an important change in his thinking about things like religion and God and Christianity.

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

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

No, what fascinates me is that, with objective morality at stake on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation at stake on the other side, an omniscient and omnipotent Christian God hasn't been able to bring all of us mere mortals over to the One True Path. Even among Christians and Muslims and Jews there are bitter disputes over what the God of Abraham expects of them. Indeed, that's why Henry's God makes more sense here. He sets it all in motion and then pulls back altogether. But your God? He dumps Judgment Day on us but doesn't make it crystal clear what the One True Path is.

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

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

I don't have any problem with that. I merely suggest that "decisions" here are rooted existentially in dasein. And that we are talking about a "leap of faith" in regard to a God, the God, my God in a world where there are many, many, many denominations all claiming that their path is the One True Path. A world where this alleged omnipotent God seems woefully deficient in making it crystal clear which path it is.

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

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

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

What facts? What evidence that this Christian God of yours [and not all the other ones] really does exist? How beyond a leap of of faith or "private, personal" experiences, are you able to go in demonstrating the existence of your God as opposed to, among many, many others, Henry's God?

Where's "the truth" from you beyond what you believe "in your head". Beyond your "intellectual contraptions" up in the spiritual clouds?

Here are the three possible views on God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, once again, you are out of luck.

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

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

Right, positions. An assessment "summed up" in a world of words that bring us absolutely no closer to this alleged extant God of his.

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

It's not options that count here, it's the extent to which the Polytheists and the Monotheists are able to demonstrate to us that these Gods and this God do in fact exist. And, if so, why their own and not all the others?

Instead, any number of them will try to turn it all around and insist, "let the atheists demonstrate that they don't exist. As though that is the more logical approach here.

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

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

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

Right?

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

My assumption is that with so much at stake here -- immortality, salvation, Judgment Day, Heaven and Hell -- God's Word would be such that no one with half a brain could ever possibly not believe in Him. People wouldn't have to take Kierkegaardian "leaps of faith" or place wagers on "I" for all the rest of eternity. God would make it beyond all doubt the easiest choice around. Of course the Christian God path is the one to salvation. Only a complete fool could not apprehend that.

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

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

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

God knows, of course, if enough have.

Many Christians keep promising us that "one day" the "time will come" and JC will return and usher in precisely that indisputable evidence. But in the interim there are the many that will be "left behind" because they found one of the other Gods more believable. Maybe they are children and were indoctrinated to be Shintos or Hindus. Maybe they never heard of Jesus Christ. Maybe they were raised by atheists.

How would free will be denied just because the choice was made clearer? And, of course, the other denominations are arguing the same thing about their Gods. "He's got to make it tougher for us Muslims and Jews so that we use our free will and come over to Christ because we come 'of our own volition' to realize that Christianity truly is The Way."

Again, with the stakes revolving literally here around immortality and salvation, around Heaven and Hell!!

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

Okay, He's given me that time. But the game is rigged. Of my own free will [reconciled with an omniscient God in IC's head] I have thought it through deeply, introspectively over many years; and it makes more sense to think as I do about God and religion. So, I get to "choose" but God help me if it's not the right choice. And, again, all those who are entirely sincere in choosing another God or who are never even aware of Christianity. Or does that qualify them for a "get out of Hell free" card?

The answer's obvious, isn't it?

No, what's obvious to him is that my answer must be his answer because his answer is entirely in sync with everything that existentially he has himself come to believe about the Christian God. It's all derived from the particular trajectory of personal experiences that he came to embody... from the life he lived...and the only way he can make the arguments I raise here go away is to insist none of that matters.

...all of us are indoctrinated as children,

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

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

He comes into the world at this juncture historically, in a particular culture and community and family that for years inculcated him to understand the world around him just as they did. Whether that childhood was good or bad or in between doesn't change that. Some children are more preconscious than others, sure, but to speak of having "a lot of freedom" as a kid to view the world as we might as adults is ludicrous.

And, as adults, how many of us accumulate experiences and, with each one of them, pull back and remind ourselves, "well, I'm having this experience but had something [beyond my full understanding or control] happened I might not have had it at all. I might have had another involving factors that changed my life. So let me think it through and decide if philosophically, morally, politically, spiritually etc., what the optimal or the only rational manner in which to understand it is.

Of course not. For many they are well into their teen years before they bump into someone or something that makes them pull back and question their reality more critically, more comprehensively. For me it was Reverend Deerdorff at the Protestant Community Church. But then I met the Vietnam War and Danny and Mac. And everything changed dramatically again.

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

Right, but all of this "learning process" can unfold in very different contexts for each of. And we bring into the present very different pasts. And of course those in your family and community don't construe what they do as indoctrination. They are just passing on to you what was passed on to them. Their main motivation might have been love.

What, this works different in Muslim and Jewish and Shinto and Hindu and Buddhist and atheist families and communities? Not to mention the families and communities of these folks:

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/wor ... -starters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

I guess the Christian God with His own Scripture didn't challenge these folks enough to, of their own free will, choose the right path to immortality and salvation. Is it Hell for them? Some Christians think so. Otherwise, they wouldn't be going door to door proselytizing for Christ. To save souls.

Is this not what IC learned though?

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

That's not the point. The point is what can I really know about IC's experiences and what can he really know about mine? My conclusions here and now [like his] either make sense to me becasue the cumulative experiences I had led me existentially to embrace them, or I [like him] am able to sit down and, spiritually/philosophically, think through to the most rational understanding of my place in the human condition.

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

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

I know, I know: "shortly".

As for the basics, that's the part where God and religion and the Christian God are pinned down in his own rendition of a "general description spiritual contraption" up in the clouds.

The Christian God and Yellowstone.

Volcanoes? Shall we go with volcanoes?

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

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

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

The one at the top of the list works for me.

Or will "shortly" be delayed yet again if I can't prove that one of my ancestors was one of the fatalities?

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

Indeed, Harold Kushner asked the same question regarding many, many "acts of God". And lots of other things as well. In fact his book starts by laying out all of the excruciating pain and suffering mere mortals have endured...prompting him to conclude that the God of Abraham was indeed in over His head in setting into motion a world He was not all-powerful enough to contain or control.

Although my own reading of the OT led me to a different conclusion. How is that God not to be construed as anything other than a sadistic monster? Just imagine our reaction if one of us today were to do what He did back then.

Anyway, what's her explanation? Is his explanation the same?

[Immanuel Can]

On the other hand, he has no capacity I have seen here to demonstrate that the Christian God trumps Aristotle's when the question posed is "which one"?

You seem to be labouring under the delusion you have an audience other than me. If anybody's paying attention to us, I suspect it's few, and often none.

There's pretty much just me here, I would think. So I can't imagine who you think you're calling to your side...

In any case, Aristotle was wrong about God. He was right about the rules of logic, though. And the rules of logic -- which are as indifferent to agendas as the laws of mathematics are -- say that not more than one view of God can be correct.

Anybody who says otherwise does not simply have a problem with my attitude...he has a problem understanding the rules of logic itself. The Law of Non-Contradiction is non-partisan.

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

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

No...

You can't explain it?

what fascinates me is that, with objective morality at stake on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation at stake on the other side, an omniscient and omnipotent Christian God hasn't been able to bring all of us mere mortals over to the One True Path.

Oh, I see.

Your assumption is that God would want to make everybody believe in Him, if He exists. Well, that would certainly finish off your free will, and any choice you might make with regard to God.

Is that a price you'd be willing to pay?

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

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

I don't have any problem with that. I merely suggest that "decisions" here are rooted existentially in dasein.

No. They're "rooted" in who God is. One's mere "dasein" or existential imaginings about God can be wrong. And you know that's true, precisely because there are so many contradictory views on tap.

...this alleged omnipotent God seems woefully deficient in making it crystal clear which path it is.

Quite the contrary. I think it's very clear.

And if Christians are at all right, God has, in fact, sent His Son to tell the world exactly how things are. One cannot imagine anything stronger He could have done, without so overwhelming any possibility of doubt that free will itself would become impossible.

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

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

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

What facts?

The facts of who God is.

If God is a Person, as Christianity says He is, then He has a character, an identity, intentions, purposes, and so on, just as you do. And to worship God, one must know who He is...really is...in fact.

What evidence that this Christian God of yours [and not all the other ones] really does exist?

I keep trying to get to that. But so far, you won't tell me what evidence you would even accept on that score.

The problem is, if you will accept nothing, nothing can be done for you. But if you will set the bar in some sensible place, I can attempt to provide what you will believe.

So what would you accept as evidence of God?

Here are the three possible views on God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. They'll be true, whether or not a person decides to believe in them -- you, me, or anybody else. They'll be true because of logic.

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

Then I'll give that to you, too. But you'll need to say what you'll accept.

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

Right, positions.

Give me the fourth alternative, if you think there's one. Prove me wrong, decisively.

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

It's not options that count here,

Yes, it is.

If I've covered all the possible options, then one has no option but to believe one of the three.

Instead, any number of them will try to turn it all around and insist, "let the atheists demonstrate that they don't exist. As though that is the more logical approach here.

Atheists are responsible only for what they claim. They claim there's no God. If they claim that, they owe us to show us why they believe that, and why they insist we should.

If they claim nothing at all, they owe us nothing; but then they have no reason for being Atheists.

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

My assumption is that with so much at stake here -- immortality, salvation, Judgment Day, Heaven and Hell -- God's Word would be such that no one with half a brain could ever possibly not believe in Him.

So God would compel people to believe in Him? He would have no reason for wanting us to have a choice, you think?

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

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

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

God knows, of course, if enough have.

Many Christians keep promising us that "one day" the "time will come" and JC will return and usher in precisely that indisputable evidence. But in the interim there are the many that will be "left behind" because they found one of the other Gods more believable. Maybe they are children and were indoctrinated to be Shintos or Hindus. Maybe they never heard of Jesus Christ. Maybe they were raised by atheists.

How would free will be denied just because the choice was made clearer?

Okay, let's check that: what do you think God should have done, that He has not done, and would still allow people to have a free will to accept or reject his offer of relationship with Him?

Again, with the stakes revolving literally here around immortality and salvation, around Heaven and Hell!!

You are exactly right.

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

Okay, He's given me that time. But the game is rigged. Of my own free will [reconciled with an omniscient God in IC's head] I have thought it through deeply, introspectively over many years; and it makes more sense to think as I do about God and religion. So, I get to "choose" but God help me if it's not the right choice.

You're right: God's given you time. And he's given His Word for you to read and consider, and He's personally come in His Son and died for you, in order to convince you. He's been raised from the dead to prove that God's offer is sincere, and also that the time is not infinite: the Judge is coming. Moreoever, at this moment, He's sent somebody who knows Him into your "dasein," your existential sphere, to speak to you about your need of salvation.

He now owes you no more. And you have a decision to make.

And, again, all those who are entirely sincere in choosing another God or who are never even aware of Christianity. Or does that qualify them for a "get out of Hell free" card?

You can leave that with God. He can make Himself known many ways, as Romans 1 will tell you.

What's clear, for sure, is they are not you. Unlike the people you are imagining, you have been told, and told multiple ways, and now have a choice to make for yourself.

All I can advise you is that you make it wisely: for when you see Him, as you surely will, there will be no possibility of you saying to Him, "You did not do enough for me." You've been told. What you do with it...well, that's now up to you.

...all of us are indoctrinated as children,

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

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

He comes into the world at this juncture historically, in a particular culture and community and family that for years inculcated him to understand the world around him just as they did. Whether that childhood was good or bad or in between doesn't change that. Some children are more preconscious than others, sure, but to speak of having "a lot of freedom" as a kid to view the world as we might as adults is ludicrous.

Well, if Cultural / Environmental Determinism, which is what you're invoking here, were true, then it would be utterly impossible for anybody to believe anything not programmed into them. But since people quite routinely depart the traditions and cultures in which they were raised, that's clearly not the case.

For many they are well into their teen years before they bump into someone or something that makes them pull back and question their reality more critically, more comprehensively. For me it was Reverend Deerdorff at the Protestant Community Church. But then I met the Vietnam War and Danny and Mac. And everything changed dramatically again.

So you admit to having had "conversion" experiences, such as from Protestantism to Atheism, and that you've abandoned whatever you were taught in your youth and had more mature views since, yet you insist others cannot? That seems more than a little unlikely.

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

That's not the point.

It should be.

The point is what can I really know about IC's experiences and what can he really know about mine?

Well, right: you don't know me at all. It's amazing to me that you feel qualified to decide I'm "indoctrinated," based on no evidence at all.

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

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

I know, I know: "shortly".

Yes. Tell me what you'll accept, and I'll see what I can give you.

The Christian God and Yellowstone.

Volcanoes? Shall we go with volcanoes?

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

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

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

The one at the top of the list works for me.

Mount Tambora, Indonesia? You know that one?

Okay, let's go. What's your question about the Tambora tragedy? What do you want to ask, with regard to it, or what challenge would you like to put to me because of it?

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

Indeed, Harold Kushner asked the same question regarding many, many "acts of God". And lots of other things as well. In fact his book starts by laying out all of the excruciating pain and suffering mere mortals have endured...prompting him to conclude that the God of Abraham was indeed in over His head in setting into motion a world He was not all-powerful enough to contain or control.

Although my own reading of the OT led me to a different conclusion. How is that God not to be construed as anything other than a sadistic monster? Just imagine our reaction if one of us today were to do what He did back then.

Anyway, what's her explanation? Is his explanation the same?

Neiman's Jewish by birth, as is Kushner. And she thrashes around quite a bit. In the end, she opts simply to argue that we have to keep asking the question, and not to ask the question is not an option; but she also kind of despairs of an answer. She partly accepts that human-caused tragedies like the Holocaust are human-caused, but she never manages to solve things like Tambora.

If the answer's in Judaism, then like Kushner, Neiman's not sure where.

For our purposes, what's most useful in her analysis is the intelligent division between human-caused and what she calls "natural evils," which includes things like Tambora.