racism and being 'WOKE"

[iambiguous]

Seriously, though, given particular contexts pertaining to things like race and gender and sexuality, what is this "human nature" that has not changed?

Now, as I understand it, both of them will "somehow" connect the dots here between human nature and...God.

In other words, it's not just a question of what it is "naturally" the right way to think about them rationally and morally, but, instead, of how what we do think about them will be judged by God as Sins.

Only IC insists further that only true Christians really think about them rationally and morally.

I don't have that much interest in Christianity.

Why don't you discuss it with him instead, since you're interested?

Indeed. Time and again, going back to ILP, I have attempted to grasp how you do connect the dots between religion and God and objective morality.

But that is, what, too personal and none of my business?

Okay, so leaving the specifics out of it, what in tour view encompasses human nature such that, in regard to things like race and gender and sexuality, it hasn't changed significantly over the last 20 years?

And, okay, as vaguely as possible, how do you connect the dots between your own behaviors on this side of the grave and what you imagine the fate of "I" to be on the other side of it?

I have come to the conclusion that you have no interest in what anyone has to say about God, religion or objective morality.

Therefore, I will not waste my time writing about it.

Go ahead and do your Wiggle dance now. I don't care.

Okay, fair enough. And you're basically correct. My interest in God and religion revolves far, far more around that which others are able to demonstrate -- even to themselves -- about morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, rather than what they merely believe "in their head".

Again, there are beliefs galore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

So, sure, since convincing yourself there is a basis for objective morality "here and now" and a basis for immortality and salvation "there and then", is comforting, it certainly doesn't surprise me that so many manage to accomplish it.

Though I suspect that what most troubles the particularly fierce objectivists among us is less that I question their own beliefs and more that I steer them in the direction of dasein.

In other words, getting them to examine not what they believe but how [existentially] they come to acquire one set of assumptions rather than another. The part that contingency, chance and change plays in all of this. The part rooted in the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

For example, I recall once having a discussion with my daughter. I told her it was possible that she only existed at all because I was born on March 23rd.

You see, back in the days of the Vietnam war, there was a draft lottery. Those born in certain months and on certain days who were drawn first were drafted. So, if my mother had given birth to me on March 22nd or on March 24th, they might have been in 300s, and I might never have been drafted at all. But I was drafted. I got sent to Vietnam and met Danny and Mac and John and Steve. They were instrumental in convincing me to go to college after the Army. Also, in reconfiguring me from a conservative to a radical left-winger. While at Essex Community College, I was manning the George McGovern campaign table in the administration building. That's where I met the woman I would marry. And because I did my daughter was born.

Same with things like our religious beliefs. We can be indoctrinated as children to believe what we do and/or the experiences we have as adults can predispose us to one rather than another denomination. Or to No God at all.

But to accept that is to sow doubts regarding how and why we do come to embrace one set of values rather than others.

Then for some of us it can get around to this:

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values 'I' can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then 'I' begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically."

The part that the objectivists are most perturbed regarding. It happened to me, I remind them, so what if it happens to them as well?

[phyllo]

My interest in God and religion revolves far, far more around that which others are able to demonstrate -- even to themselves -- about morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, rather than what they merely believe "in their head".

You have unrealistic ideas about demonstrations.

For example, your idea about demonstrating the existence of God requires a miracle from God. In the absence of such a miracle, there is nothing anyone can show and nothing you can observe in the world which qualifies as a demonstration for you. You have essentially guaranteed that you won't get a demonstration of the existence of God.

I think that you're expectations with respect to religion and objective morality are equally unrealistic, although I don't recall that you explicitly stated what you expect as a demonstration.

So, sure, since convincing yourself there is a basis for objective morality "here and now" and a basis for immortality and salvation "there and then", is comforting, it certainly doesn't surprise me that so many manage to accomplish it.

"Convincing themselves" or "convinced by argument and observations"?

"Convincing yourself" sounds like it's entirely self-generated. I don't think that's ever the case.

Looking at IC's videos about the existence of God ... If someone watches the videos, he/she could come to the conclusion that there are lots of good reasons to think that God exists. That it's more likely that God exists rather than that God does not exist.

That doesn't seem like "convincing yourself", it seems like "being convinced" by evidence and argument.

Though I suspect that what most troubles the particularly fierce objectivists among us is less that I question their own beliefs and more that I steer them in the direction of dasein.

In other words, getting them to examine not what they believe but how [existentially] they come to acquire one set of assumptions rather than another. The part that contingency, chance and change plays in all of this. The part rooted in the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

For example, I recall once having a discussion with my daughter. I told her it was possible that she only existed at all because I was born on March 23rd.

Many people have told you that dasein is obvious. And even trivial.

Yeah, you're the product of what has happened to you. What else could you be? The alternative is some sort of personal existence independent of what has happened and what is happening around you.

You're the only one who seems to find dasein problematic.

The part that the objectivists are most perturbed regarding. It happened to me, I remind them, so what if it happens to them as well?

Are you sure that they are perturbed or do you believe that they are perturbed?

Cause I don't think they are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Okay, fair enough. And you're basically correct. My interest in God and religion revolves far, far more around that which others are able to demonstrate -- even to themselves -- about morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, rather than what they merely believe "in their head".

If that is so then you will only need to examine the lives, the thought, the daily actions of those committed to living a religious life. For myself that is the area that began my investigation of Catholicism.

What people “demonstrate” to themselves is that their spiritual efforts yield fruit. You will find that the case if you speak to any committed practitioner.

Those who live in accord with a Christian moral system will tell you that that, in itself, is the reward. To live in a community where people have moral codes and can trust one another — the reward is there.

Iambiguous, I do not believe that you really are aware of why you find yourself, year after year and possibly decade after decade, turning your wheels in a mud puddle that has you trapped. You are like a wounded robot or a mechanism (a broken record) that is stuck in the same neurotic movement. Every post is a cut’n’paste of previous ones, every “question” the same question asked a decade back.

When people find themselves in these loops the question becomes very different. Why do they remain there? My theory? We need our conflicts because we use them to stay alive and to remain in a struggle — any struggle.

If the issue of what occurs when you pass out of this existence were really asked — you are dead-set on avoiding the implication of what that question implies — your approach would be different. You’d ask yourself those questions, not a group of sufferers of mental issues (among various traits and characteristics) on a random forum in cyberspace.

But let’s be honest: anyone who interacts with you provides fuel for your neurotic machinery! You then have something to oppose, something to fight against, something to keep you in the inescapable loop.

The problem I describe (the malady) is I think a shared one. How could it not be? So then, the real conversation is about why people are stuck and the implications of stuckness.

[iambiguous]

My interest in God and religion revolves far, far more around that which others are able to demonstrate -- even to themselves -- about morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, rather than what they merely believe "in their head".

You have unrealistic ideas about demonstrations.

For example, your idea about demonstrating the existence of God requires a miracle from God. In the absence of such a miracle, there is nothing anyone can show and nothing you can observe in the world which qualifies as a demonstration for you. You have essentially guaranteed that you won't get a demonstration of the existence of God.

I think that you're expectations with respect to religion and objective morality are equally unrealistic, although I don't recall that you explicitly stated what you expect as a demonstration.

What can I say...

For many, God and religion revolve around objective moral Commandments on this side of the grave, Judgement Day, and then immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave.

The stakes could not possibly be higher.

Therefore, how can someone not expect more realistic and substantive and substantial evidence from those who claim that it is their own God that encompasses the One True Path?!!!

Given all of the many, many, many religious and spiritual paths there are to choose from.

Woke in regard to religion is the mother of them all, in my view. So, if IC insists that we "wake up" and grasp that Jesus Christ is the sole path to immortality and salvation, those like me are being "unrealistic" in asking him to provide the evidence that he claims to have that will prove the existence of the Christian God?

But at least he has embraced this particular God.

But what about you? You have this belief in objective morality. It either is or is not derived from a God, the God. You either do or do not have substantive evidence yourself that what you believe about the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then reflects the One true Path. Otherwise, what, you're content to merely believe what you do about all of this "in your head"?

So, sure, since convincing yourself there is a basis for objective morality "here and now" and a basis for immortality and salvation "there and then" is comforting, it certainly doesn't surprise me that so many manage to accomplish it.

"Convincing themselves" or "convinced by argument and observations"?

Arguments that are basically "worlds of words" that define and deduce God into existence?

And what observations? Observations that can be confirmed such that they create a stir around globe? Observations that seem clearly to indicate the existence of a God, the God?

I'll settle for that. Then later we can figure out which God it actually is. One of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...or a God that isn't even included here.

Maybe it's a God that is worshipped and adored on this planet:

New planet discovered with an ocean not far from Earth

"The scientific community has discovered a new planet. It is located 245 light-years away from Earth and has been named TOI-733b."

earth.com

Not far from Earth? A light years is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles. So, it's a planet only 1,470,000,000,000,000 miles away from us!

That's the equivalent of going 59,033,773,744 times around the Earth at the equator.

True story.

God or the Cosmos? Which is really more mysterious?

"Convincing yourself" sounds like it's entirely self-generated. I don't think that's ever the case.

Looking at IC's videos about the existence of God ... If someone watches the videos, he/she could come to the conclusion that there are lots of good reasons to think that God exists. That it's more likely that God exists rather than that God does not exist.

IC claims the videos convinced him that beyond a leap of faith or a wager the Christian God does exist. Okay, let him note the most powerful segments. Or take up my offer to view and discuss them one at a time.

Same with anyone else here who believes in God. Where's the beef?

And, again, I'm not like some atheists who are basically no less objectivists themselves. Claiming God does not exist as though they could actually know this!!! Or those atheists who express little more than contempt for those who believe in God. I did once believe in God. I want to believe in God again. And my reaction to those like IC revolves in part around the fact that they claim to have proof that their God does exist. But over and again they wiggle, wiggle, wiggle out of providing it.

That doesn't seem like "convincing yourself", it seems like "being convinced" by evidence and argument.

Look, call it anything anyone wishes to. It either is proof that a God, the God does in fact exist or it is just a leap of faith or a wager.

An argument for His existence?!

Though I suspect that what most troubles the particularly fierce objectivists among us is less that I question their own beliefs and more that I steer them in the direction of dasein.

In other words, getting them to examine not what they believe but how [existentially] they come to acquire one set of assumptions rather than another. The part that contingency, chance and change plays in all of this. The part rooted in the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

For example, I recall once having a discussion with my daughter. I told her it was possible that she only existed at all because I was born on March 23rd.

Many people have told you that dasein is obvious. And even trivial.

Right. Those like gib and Maia. Dasein is obvious to them right up to the point where they introduce us to their own rendition of MagsJ's Intrinsic Self.

This entirely personal "deep down inside me" intuitive and spiritual and emotional Self that "transcends" dasein. Again, the perfect moral philosophy: you believe what you do because you just "somehow" "know it" is true. And since no one else is you how can it possible even be communicated to others?

Then their own "personal" reaction to these things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Yeah, you're the product of what has happened to you. What else could you be? The alternative is some sort of personal existence independent of what has happened and what is happening around you.

Tell that to the moral and political and spiritual objectivists among us. Okay, they agree that up to a point the arguments I make in the OPs here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...are applicable to them. But they have found a font -- God or No God -- that allows them to grasp a Real Me able [theologically, philosophically, deontologically, politically, ideologically, etc.] to differentiate Good from Evil. To make that crucial distinction between "one of us" and "one of them".

You're the only one who seems to find dasein problematic.

In the is/ought world of conflicting goods, how could dasein not be problematic?!! It explains why over the years historically and across the globe culturally and in regard to our own vast and varied personal experiences, moral and political conflicts have persisited since the dawn of philosophy itself.

The part that the objectivists are most perturbed regarding. It happened to me, I remind them, so what if it happens to them as well?

Are you sure that they are perturbed or do you believe that they are perturbed?

Cause I don't think they are.

True enough. It's not like I have demonstrable proof of it. Instead, all I can do is to extrapolate from my many, many, many past experiences with those "I" construed/construe to be objectivists.

I think that many of them are. And, in part, because I recall so vividly how perturbed I was myself when I was no longer able to attach/anchor my own Self to one of another God or Not God objectivist font.

[commonsense]

The part that the objectivists are most perturbed regarding. It happened to me, I remind them, so what if it happens to them as well?

Are you sure that they are perturbed or do you believe that they are perturbed?

Cause I don't think they are.

True enough. It's not like I have demonstrable proof of it. Instead, all I can do is to extrapolate from my many, many, many past experiences with those "I" construed/construe to be objectivists.

I think that many of them are. And, in part, because I recall so vividly how perturbed I was myself when I was no longer able to attach/anchor my own Self to one of another God or Not God objectivist font.

That’s right—you don’t know for certain whether objectivists, or anyone, are perturbed, or are in any other condition, except from the extrapolation of your experiences with objectivists, or anyone else.

Clearly you are an agnostic rather than an atheist. I am also. And like you, I once believed and would like to believe again that God exists. But for us, the problem of evidence makes theism untenable.

So I would like to pose a possible theistic theory and await your response as to how to respond to such a thing.

Just as your knowledge of a perturbed condition of objectivists is based on extensive experience, couldn’t a theist state that his/her knowledge of the existence of God, the God, is founded on the extrapolation of many, many, many personal experiences?

Couldn’t the theist say that the experiences are the evidence? How should I deny those experiences, and wouldn’t I be obliged to say that for at least the theists who make that claim, God exists? Could the theist propose that if God exists for one then he/she exists for all? And could the theist assert that the many Gods are merely the many interpretations of the God?

How would you respond to these sentiments? I humbly await your advice.

[Dubious]

God or the Cosmos? Which is really more mysterious?

Cosmos! since we know that exists. God is only mysterious in having been a mental aberration for so long and what was once a Medieval psychosis has for many ameliorated into a modern neurosis. The "stakes" are only high for those still infected.

Even if there were a god why would that subsume any kind of "relationship" between us and IT?

[iambiguous]

Okay, fair enough. And you're basically correct. My interest in God and religion revolves far, far more around that which others are able to demonstrate -- even to themselves -- about morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, rather than what they merely believe "in their head".

If that is so then you will only need to examine the lives, the thought, the daily actions of those committed to living a religious life. For myself that is the area that began my investigation of Catholicism.

What people “demonstrate” to themselves is that their spiritual efforts yield fruit. You will find that the case if you speak to any committed practitioner.

Those who live in accord with a Christian moral system will tell you that that, in itself, is the reward. To live in a community where people have moral codes and can trust one another — the reward is there.

Okay, fine, but anyone who follows one of these religious/spiritual paths -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- can make that claim.

And it has exactly what to do with demonstrating that what they do believe "in their head" about connecting the dots between morality and immortality, is in fact true?

Of course: a belief can precipitate considerable comfort and consolation. The psychological rewards can be embraced enthusiastically. But how does that make a particular God any more substantive and substantial than the belief itself?

At least with secular beliefs, there are actual flesh and blood human beings around to embody them. If only more or less successfully.

But religion?

Iambiguous, I do not believe that you really are aware of why you find yourself, year after year and possibly decade after decade, turning your wheels in a mud puddle that has you trapped. You are like a wounded robot or a mechanism (a broken record) that is stuck in the same neurotic movement. Every post is a cut’n’paste of previous ones, every “question” the same question asked a decade back.

Again, this is your rendition of me. And my rendition of you is of one who manages to extricate himself from the "mud" that is the complex reality of actual flesh and blood human relationships only by concocting these fanciful theoretical assumptions about the world around us. Whether in regard to race or gender or sexuality or Jews, you have all these "scholars" you fall back on in order to sustain your own objectivist, ivory tower rendition of the "human condition".

And above all I've got you pegged as a shameless pedant. You post only in order to imagine others reading your pompous and ponderous prose and being impressed by how "deep" it is. How "intellectual". When for myself and others here it reads more like something that Alan Sokal might post in order to expose just how irrelevant philosophy can be in regard to the at times equivocal and problematic...even enigmatic and obscure... nature of human interactions.

A mockery of philosophy. One of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

Then preposterous cant like this...

When people find themselves in these loops the question becomes very different. Why do they remain there? My theory? We need our conflicts because we use them to stay alive and to remain in a struggle — any struggle.

If the issue of what occurs when you pass out of this existence were really asked — you are dead-set on avoiding the implication of what that question implies — your approach would be different. You’d ask yourself those questions, not a group of sufferers of mental issues (among various traits and characteristics) on a random forum in cyberspace.

I challenge anyone here to reconfigure his point such that it is made relevant to your own actual interactions with others pertaining to conflicting goods...to issues that provoke Woke mentalities from both ends of the moral and political spectrum.

In my view, you are everything that makes philosophy utterly extrinsic and extraneous to the actual lives that we live socially, politically and economically.

[Alexis Jacobi]

“Now there’s a genuine neurotic spinning his wheels eternally!”

[iambiguous]

Just as your knowledge of a perturbed condition of objectivists is based on extensive experience, couldn’t a theist state that his/her knowledge of the existence of God, the God, is founded on the extrapolation of many, many, many personal experiences?

Sure, someone could say that. But one way or another they can either translate their own personal encounters with God into the sort of proof that others can experience themselves or they can't.

I was once a devout Christian. But I never had any actual personal experiences I could connect directly to God. It was just a "leap of faith" instilled in me by the church. I was going through a lot of turbulence in my life then, in and out of gangs, and the church gave me an entirely new direction in which to take my life. The focus shifted from "me, myself and I" to helping others. And the church did a lot of good in the community.

Couldn’t the theist say that the experiences are the evidence? How should I deny those experiences, and wouldn’t I be obliged to say that for at least the theists who make that claim, God exists? Could the theist propose that if God exists for one then he/she exists for all? And could the theist assert that the many Gods are merely the many interpretations of the God?

Well, again, can he or she convey to me what those experiences were? Are they experiences that I might be able to embody myself? Is there any way the experiences can transcend a subjective/subjunctive frame of mind grasped by a particular individual so as to suggest something of far more profound importance that others can experience in turn?

[iambiguous]

Yep, you know what's coming!

ME

Okay, fair enough. And you're basically correct. My interest in God and religion revolves far, far more around that which others are able to demonstrate -- even to themselves -- about morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side, rather than what they merely believe "in their head".

If that is so then you will only need to examine the lives, the thought, the daily actions of those committed to living a religious life. For myself that is the area that began my investigation of Catholicism.

What people “demonstrate” to themselves is that their spiritual efforts yield fruit. You will find that the case if you speak to any committed practitioner.

Those who live in accord with a Christian moral system will tell you that that, in itself, is the reward. To live in a community where people have moral codes and can trust one another — the reward is there.

Okay, fine, but anyone who follows one of these religious/spiritual paths -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- can make that claim.

And it has exactly what to do with demonstrating that what they do believe "in their head" about connecting the dots between morality and immortality, is in fact true?

Of course: a belief can precipitate considerable comfort and consolation. The psychological rewards can be embraced enthusiastically. But how does that make a particular God any more substantive and substantial than the belief itself?

At least with secular beliefs, there are actual flesh and blood human beings around to embody them. If only more or less successfully.

But religion?

Iambiguous, I do not believe that you really are aware of why you find yourself, year after year and possibly decade after decade, turning your wheels in a mud puddle that has you trapped. You are like a wounded robot or a mechanism (a broken record) that is stuck in the same neurotic movement. Every post is a cut’n’paste of previous ones, every “question” the same question asked a decade back.

Again, this is your rendition of me. And my rendition of you is of one who manages to extricate himself from the "mud" that is the complex reality of actual flesh and blood human relationships only by concocting these fanciful theoretical assumptions about the world around us. Whether in regard to race or gender or sexuality or Jews, you have all these "scholars" you fall back on in order to sustain your own objectivist, ivory tower rendition of the "human condition".

And above all I've got you pegged as a shameless pedant. You post only in order to imagine others reading your pompous and ponderous prose and being impressed by how "deep" it is. How "intellectual". When for myself and others here it reads more like something that Alan Sokal might post in order to expose just how irrelevant philosophy can be in regard to the at times equivocal and problematic...even enigmatic and obscure... nature of human interactions.

A mockery of philosophy. One of Will Durant's "epistemologists".

Then preposterous cant like this...

When people find themselves in these loops the question becomes very different. Why do they remain there? My theory? We need our conflicts because we use them to stay alive and to remain in a struggle — any struggle.

If the issue of what occurs when you pass out of this existence were really asked — you are dead-set on avoiding the implication of what that question implies — your approach would be different. You’d ask yourself those questions, not a group of sufferers of mental issues (among various traits and characteristics) on a random forum in cyberspace.

I challenge anyone here to reconfigure his point such that it is made relevant to your own actual interactions with others pertaining to conflicting goods...to issues that provoke Woke mentalities from both ends of the moral and political spectrum.

In my view, you are everything that makes philosophy utterly extrinsic and extraneous to the actual lives that we live socially, politically and economically.

HIM:

“Now there’s a genuine neurotic spinning his wheels eternally!”

Sigh...

I've already got IC and henry in "entertainment mode".

And now, alas, yet another one it might be rather foolish to take seriously.

[phyllo]

What can I say...

For many,

I was specifically writing about your inability to accept arguments and demonstrations.

I was not writing about some vague "many" who are doing something else.

So, if IC insists that we "wake up" and grasp that Jesus Christ is the sole path to immortality and salvation, those like me are being "unrealistic" in asking him to provide the evidence that he claims to have that will prove the existence of the Christian God?

What's unrealistic is your requirement that God proves his existence to you by doing a miracle.

Arguments that are basically "worlds of words" that define and deduce God into existence?

And what observations? Observations that can be confirmed such that they create a stir around globe? Observations that seem clearly to indicate the existence of a God, the God?

I'll settle for that.

They have to "create a stir around the globe" before you will pay any attention?

What's the criteria for "observations that seem clearly to indicate the existence of God"? You don't have any, do you?

I think that you will find some reason why every observation is inadequate.

Or those atheists who express little more than contempt for those who believe in God.

I would say that your posting does show a contempt for those who believe in God.

You always describe them as fabricating stuff in their heads in order to have comfort and consolation. That's not contempt?

Right. Those like gib and Maia. Dasein is obvious to them right up to the point where they introduce us to their own rendition of MagsJ's Intrinsic Self.

This entirely personal "deep down inside me" intuitive and spiritual and emotional Self that "transcends" dasein. Again, the perfect moral philosophy: you believe what you do because you just "somehow" "know it" is true. And since no one else is you how can it possible even be communicated to others?

They wrote that their self "transcends" dasein?

I don't think they did, but maybe I missed the posts. Can you provide quotes where they wrote it?

Tell that to the moral and political and spiritual objectivists among us.

I'm talking to you. Why would I say it to someone who is not here participating in this conversation?

In the is/ought world of conflicting goods, how could dasein not be problematic?!! It explains why over the years historically and across the globe culturally and in regard to our own vast and varied personal experiences, moral and political conflicts have persisited since the dawn of philosophy itself.

If all it does is explain the reason for conflicts, then what's the problem?

Can you state the problem in one sentence?

[Alexis Jacobi]

HIM:

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑
“Now there’s a genuine neurotic spinning his wheels eternally!”

Iambiguous laments woefully: Sigh...

I've already got IC and henry in "entertainment mode".

I was riffing off your “Now there’s a real philosopher” comment …

I really have nothing more to contribute in relation to your issues. I’ve already worked these things out for myself.

Peace be unto you, child.

[iambiguous]

What can I say...

For many, God and religion revolve around objective moral Commandments on this side of the grave, Judgement Day, and then immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave.

The stakes could not possibly be higher.

Therefore, how can someone not expect more realistic and substantive and substantial evidence from those who claim that it is their own God that encompasses the One True Path?!!!

Given all of the many, many, many religious and spiritual paths there are to choose from.

Woke in regard to religion is the mother of them all, in my view.

I was specifically writing about your inability to accept arguments and demonstrations.

I was not writing about some vague "many" who are doing something else.

And all I can do is to note my reaction to the arguments and demonstrations that others provide. Again, with so much at stake when Woke does revolve around religion. Which basically comes down to my own subjective rendition of "where's the beef?"

So, if IC insists that we "wake up" and grasp that Jesus Christ is the sole path to immortality and salvation, those like me are being "unrealistic" in asking him to provide the evidence that he claims to have that will prove the existence of the Christian God?

What's unrealistic is your requirement that God proves his existence to you by doing a miracle.

The miracle here will be IC actually addressing the points I raise in regard to his claim to have proof of the Christian God's existence.

Bottom line [mine]: With immortality and salvation on the line, a God, the God will either make it abundantly clear that He does in fact exist or He will sit back and do nothing while many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...go on insisting that you must -- must -- worship and adore their own God in order to gain access to the grand prize.

Arguments that are basically "worlds of words" that define and deduce God into existence?

And what observations? Observations that can be confirmed such that they create a stir around globe? Observations that seem clearly to indicate the existence of a God, the God?

I'll settle for that.

They have to "create a stir around the globe" before you will pay any attention?

Trust me: if one of these denominations ever does provide hard evidence that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist, well, see if it doesn't cause an enormous commotion around the globe!!

What's the criteria for "observations that seem clearly to indicate the existence of God"? You don't have any, do you?

How about the Second Coming of Christ? That'll do it for me. And I'll never ask IC about those YouTube videos again.

Now, how about this:

But what about you? You have this belief in objective morality. It either is or is not derived from a God, the God. You either do or do not have substantive evidence yourself that what you believe about the existential relationship between morality here and now and immortality there and then reflects the One true Path. Otherwise, what, you're content to merely believe what you do about all of this "in your head"?

I think that you will find some reason why every observation is inadequate.

Well, if you ever do come across anything truly extraordinary in the way of a demostrable argument for the existence of a God, the God, by all means, bring it to my attention.

Note to others:

That goes for you too. Make it a kind of "refute this iambiguous!!" challenge.

Like, say, James Randi.

Or those atheists who express little more than contempt for those who believe in God.

I would say that your posting does show a contempt for those who believe in God.

You always describe them as fabricating stuff in their heads in order to have comfort and consolation. That's not contempt?

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. From my frame of mind, the "that's entertainment" approach I take with IC revolves precisely around the fact that he claims the evidence is there to take one beyond a "leap of faith" to the Christian God.

Over the years I have encountered many Christians I had enormous respect for. But, yes, a belief in God does comfort and console you. I was myself comforted and consoled for a couple of years. To bring that up is just common sense to me.

Right. Those like gib and Maia. Dasein is obvious to them right up to the point where they introduce us to their own rendition of MagsJ's Intrinsic Self.

This entirely personal "deep down inside me" intuitive and spiritual and emotional Self that "transcends" dasein. Again, the perfect moral philosophy: you believe what you do because you just "somehow" "know it" is true. And since no one else is you how can it possible even be communicated to others?

They wrote that their self "transcends" dasein?

Yes, both gib and Maia accepted the arguments I made about how, had things been different in their life, they might be embracing just the opposite of what they believed about the trucker protest in Canada [gib] and Paganism [Maia].

I don't think they did, but maybe I missed the posts. Can you provide quotes where they wrote it?

Go ahead and contact them. Ask them for their take on dasein and their "emotional" and "spiritual" Self. Maybe you can square it with dasein as they understand it.

Yeah, you're the product of what has happened to you. What else could you be? The alternative is some sort of personal existence independent of what has happened and what is happening around you.

Tell that to the moral and political and spiritual objectivists among us. Okay, they agree that up to a point the arguments I make in the OPs here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...are applicable to them. But they have found a font -- God or No God -- that allows them to grasp a Real Me able [theologically, philosophically, deontologically, politically, ideologically, etc.] to differentiate Good from Evil. To make that crucial distinction between "one of us" and "one of them".

I'm talking to you. Why would I say it to someone who is not here participating in this conversation?

Because my arguments here are always aimed at the moral and political and spiritual objectivists. I challenge them [like you] to note how my understanding of dasein in my signature threads is not applicable to them given a particular context. They'll either go there or they won't.

And if they do go there we'll either be more or less successful in communicating our differences.

In the is/ought world of conflicting goods, how could dasein not be problematic?!! It explains why over the years historically and across the globe culturally and in regard to our own vast and varied personal experiences, moral and political conflicts have persisted since the dawn of philosophy itself.

If all it does is explain the reason for conflicts, then what's the problem?

Can you state the problem in one sentence?

Again, it's the manner in which the moral objectivists among us [God and No God] argue that dasein as I construe it is not applicable to them that enables them to insist that [God or No God] an objective morality is within our reach. Theologically, deontologically or ideological. And then those like Satyr who anchor it all to biological imperatives.

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 9:01 am
What's the criteria for "observations that seem clearly to indicate the existence of God"? You don't have any, do you?

How about the Second Coming of Christ? That'll do it for me.

Of course. Your criteria is another miraculous occurrence.

Well, if you ever do come across anything truly extraordinary in the way of a demostrable argument for the existence of a God, the God, by all means, bring it to my attention.

Sure. Look for the extraordinary and miss the ordinary.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:01 am
They wrote that their self "transcends" dasein?

Yes, both gib and Maia accepted the arguments I made about how, had things been different in their life, they might be embracing just the opposite of what they believed about the trucker protest in Canada [gib] and Paganism [Maia].

That's not a "self transcending dasein". It's literally the exact opposite ... it's a "self conforming to dasein".

Transcend means :
- to go beyond or rise above a limit, or be greater than something ordinary - Cambridge
- to go beyond the limits of; overstep; exceed - Collins

A self which transcends dasein is not limited by dasein. In that case, had their lives been different they would still feel the same about truckers and Paganism. Their feelings would be unaltered by changing circumstances.

Because my arguments here are always aimed at the moral and political and spiritual objectivists.

Yeah. You're not actually talking to me.

Again, it's the manner in which the moral objectivists among us [God and No God] argue that dasein as I construe it is not applicable to them that enables them to insist that [God or No God] an objective morality is within our reach. Theologically, deontologically or ideological. And then those like Satyr who anchor it all to biological imperatives.

In the clouds.

I can't extract any meaning out of this at all.

[commonsense]

Just as your knowledge of a perturbed condition of objectivists is based on extensive experience, couldn’t a theist state that his/her knowledge of the existence of God, the God, is founded on the extrapolation of many, many, many personal experiences?

Sure, someone could say that. But one way or another they can either translate their own personal encounters with God into the sort of proof that others can experience themselves or they can't.

OK, but let’s say that the theist is not only saying he’s had such experiences, but he/she firmly believes he/she has actually had these experiences in reality but just cannot find words that will describe these experiences.

His/her perception of reality may differ from that of others, but that perception informs reality for this atheist. Of course for this perception to really be reality it would have to involve a shared perception of multiple observers.

Nonetheless, our theist is adamant that his/her perception is both reality and evidence, even if we disagree. The theist “knows” that God, the God, exists. Our theist insists that this is also true for anyone who thinks the same.

It seems to me that the theists claims can be defeated, but that there is no way to convince the theist that the claims are untenable.

I was once a devout Christian. But I never had any actual personal experiences I could connect directly to God. It was just a "leap of faith" instilled in me by the church. I was going through a lot of turbulence in my life then, in and out of gangs, and the church gave me an entirely new direction in which to take my life. The focus shifted from "me, myself and I" to helping others. And the church did a lot of good in the community.

And I was once a “pre-rabbinic” Reform Jew.

Couldn’t the theist say that the experiences are the evidence? How should I deny those experiences, and wouldn’t I be obliged to say that for at least the theists who make that claim, God exists? Could the theist propose that if God exists for one then he/she exists for all? And could the theist assert that the many Gods are merely the many interpretations of the God?

Well, again, can he or she convey to me what those experiences were? Are they experiences that I might be able to embody myself? Is there any way the experiences can transcend a subjective/subjunctive frame of mind grasped by a particular individual so as to suggest something of far more profound importance that others can experience in turn?

The experiences do not transcend the subjective, but how can we deny them? Could it be, as the theist might claim, that agnostics and atheists are just blind to a real experience?