Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Does faith make one more receptive to Grace?

Well, what does Hebrews 11:6 , quoted above, say about that?

The verse doesn't offer any guarantees of Grace being a reward for action or thought, as far as I can tell. This means that unlike karma, Grace is not an effect, but may arrive through the door that faith opens, or it may not.

Oh, I see: you're channelling Calvinism, are you? "Irresistible grace"? "Unconditional election"? Those kinds of ideas? Or is it something else you're chewing on?

[Walker]

Well, what does Hebrews 11:6 , quoted above, say about that?

The verse doesn't offer any guarantees of Grace being a reward for action or thought, as far as I can tell. This means that unlike karma, Grace is not an effect, but may arrive through the door that faith opens, or it may not.

Oh, I see: you're channelling Calvinism, are you? "Irresistible grace"? "Unconditional election"? Those kinds of ideas? Or is it something else you're chewing on?

I'm not that educated.

I added this to the last posting, before I saw your response.

I think what's required is all-encompassing, which could be taken as a definition of faith.

Mark 12:30 ... And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

[iambiguous]

Which clip do you want me to watch? There are many.

Alas, according to IC, one is obligated to watch all of them.

On the other hand, even after I did so here -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- IC refused to explore them in depth with me. He responded obtusely "up in the spiritual clouds" once or twice. Then nothing at all.

I watched a few of them and to me, they were not great clips. You are such a patient person to put all these efforts into that thread!

It's not so much patience as the fact that, as I get closer and closer to oblivion, a part of me really does want to believe again in the Christian God.

In part because, without a doubt, I never felt more "comforted and consoled" than back when I was myself a devout Christian. And unless you once had that peace of mind -- that crucial psychological foundation to anchor I in -- and then lost it, you can't begin to understand just how disoriented you come to feel. Sure, for some years after, I was able to anchor the Real Me in one or another secular/ideological rendition of The Right Thing To Do. But than that crumbled as well and I found my "self" convinced that my own existence -- human existence itself -- was essentially meaningless and purposeless.

Now, with IC, our exchange changed when he began to argue that his own belief in God was not a "leap of faith" or predicated entirely on "because the Bible says so". Instead, he broached those William Lane Craig videos...insisting that if one watched them, they too would have access to the "scientific and historical" evidence that would bring them over to the knowledge that God did exist. The Christian God.

On the other hand, in my view, IC is almost always up in the spiritual clouds here. Not once have I felt he has any truly personal, emotional, intimate connection/commitment to the Christian God.

Then the part where, in my opinion, he avoided like the plague discussions that revolved around these other three factors:

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

Over and again, I have reminded him of this. Why on Earth does he not commence a thread that focuses entirely on those videos? Given the enormous stakes on both sides of the grave, how can "saving souls" not be his number one priority? He claims the evidence is there in the videos.

But, aside from exchanges with me months ago, he never really brings them up at all.

I can only conclude it's because he doesn't really believe them himself. Instead, he just likes coming here to exchange "arguments" with others in the "ethical theory" forum. Worlds of words.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To each his ever-mounting Skyhook! I have been known to say.

I long to be lifted by one, transferred to a second in ascending train, and then up up up where I am eventually translated to a Realm outside and beyond Time beyond Pain beyond Everything that dampens my spirits.

[Immanuel Can]

The verse doesn't offer any guarantees of Grace being a reward for action or thought, as far as I can tell. This means that unlike karma, Grace is not an effect, but may arrive through the door that faith opens, or it may not.

Oh, I see: you're channelling Calvinism, are you? "Irresistible grace"? "Unconditional election"? Those kinds of ideas? Or is it something else you're chewing on?

I'm not that educated.

I added this to the last posting, before I saw your response.

I think what's required is all-encompassing, which could be taken as a definition of faith.

Mark 12:30 ... And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Okay. I guess loving the Lord does have an element of faith in it, for sure. What had me thinking Calvinism was that you were asking about "grace," and they talk a lot about "the doctrines of grace," by which they mean Calvinism.

But yeah, it's probably a little "theological" for this board.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, with IC, our exchange changed when he began to argue that his own belief in God was not a "leap of faith" or predicated entirely on "because the Bible says so". Instead, he broached those William Lane Craig videos...insisting that if one watched them, they too would have access to the "scientific and historical" evidence that would bring them over to the knowledge that God did exist. The Christian God.

You've forgotten our conversation.

You had insisted that no independent evidence or proof existed for God. I had said that it did. And the videos were simply evidence that there were plenty of such arguments, so you could find one that interested you. I didn't feel I wanted to take the conversation further, because you kept getting off track and wanting me to make some sort of lengthy comment on all the videos, and I felt my life was too short to spend trying to convince somebody who didn't want to be convinced.

You have the evidence that non-Scripture-based arguments, such as rational and scientific ones, for God certainly exist. And that's basically all I wanted to give you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You have the evidence that non-Scripture-based arguments, such as rational and scientific ones, for God certainly exist. And that's basically all I wanted to give you.

You have *argued* that God, by miracle, parted the Red Sea. That is not *evidence* of the event. It is faith-based assertion.

All the *arguments* in your videos — all, and to the last one — are not evidentiary presentations, argued rationally, but pseudo-rational and pseudo-scientific ones argued unconvincingly in rationalistic tones.

To understand this is crucial.

They convince no one and their purpose is a) to bolster the faith-position of believers, and b) maybe provide an incentive to an incipient believer who is needing a bit of a push.

Beginning of story. End of story.

The only arguments I have heard which could be bent toward *evidence* of God are those of Intelligent Design. But these only express wonder and confusion at, for example, the unexplained complexity in a cell structure. These wonderment expressions are not *evidence* of a Christian nor any god that we are familiar with. So, they do not support theism nor Christianity.

You cannot do else, Immanuel, but to falsify *argument* and *reason*. It is so much simpler to say:

I have no evidence. There is no evidence — and yet I believe! I have discovered the truth I know to be true internally.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thump him with that ↑ Iambiguous.

[iambiguous]

Now, with IC, our exchange changed when he began to argue that his own belief in God was not a "leap of faith" or predicated entirely on "because the Bible says so". Instead, he broached those William Lane Craig videos...insisting that if one watched them, they too would have access to the "scientific and historical" evidence that would bring them over to the knowledge that God did exist. The Christian God.

You've forgotten our conversation.

You had insisted that no independent evidence or proof existed for God. I had said that it did.

Note where I insisted on this. After all, over and again, I have acknowledged that, given the profound mystery embedded in the existence of existence itself, a God, the God is one possible explanation. And, concurrently, I have always been able to respect those able to take something akin to a Kierkegaardian leap of faith to the Christian God. The comparison I made was between those able to demonstrate that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican and those able to demonstrate that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

Also, over and again, I asked you to note the video segments that convinced you that the Christian God does in fact exist. Note them please.

And why have you refused to explore the points I raised regarding each video here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Here's your "explanation":

And the videos were simply evidence that there were plenty of such arguments, so you could find one that interested you. I didn't feel I wanted to take the conversation further, because you kept getting off track and wanting me to make some sort of lengthy comment on all the videos, and I felt my life was too short to spend trying to convince somebody who didn't want to be convinced.

Again, from my frame of mind, simply unbelievable.

As I noted before, forget about me. Think of your buddy henry and all those here who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. What could possibly be more important given the stakes involved on both sides of the grave than bringing that evidence to their attention? What could be more vital to any truly passionate Christian than at least making the attempt to save their souls? Your life "is too short" for that?!!!

Instead, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" point of view, you are to religion what AJ is to race and gender and homosexuals and Jews: Mr. Yak, Yak, Yak.

Even if the yakking is...philosophical?





Just to let you know, I visited the Reasonable Faith website and submitted the following...

"At the Philosophy Now forum, the Reasonable Faith videos on YouTube have been a source of much discussion. In particular between Immanuel Can, who introduced me to the videos and myself [iambiguous].


I created a thread there in which I reacted to the points raised in each video: viewtopic.php?t=40750

I am interested in exploring this with Mr. Craig or with someone at Reasonable Faith."

[Immanuel Can]

I am interested in exploring this with Mr. Craig or with someone at Reasonable Faith.

Good luck with that. All the best.

[iambiguous]

I am interested in exploring this with Mr. Craig or with someone at Reasonable Faith.

Good luck with that. All the best.

Thanks.

But there's still this part...

Now, with IC, our exchange changed when he began to argue that his own belief in God was not a "leap of faith" or predicated entirely on "because the Bible says so". Instead, he broached those William Lane Craig videos...insisting that if one watched them, they too would have access to the "scientific and historical" evidence that would bring them over to the knowledge that God did exist. The Christian God.

You've forgotten our conversation.

You had insisted that no independent evidence or proof existed for God. I had said that it did.

Note where I insisted on this. After all, over and again, I have acknowledged that, given the profound mystery embedded in the existence of existence itself, a God, the God is one possible explanation. And, concurrently, I have always been able to respect those able to take something akin to a Kierkegaardian leap of faith to the Christian God. The comparison I made was between those able to demonstrate that the Pope does in fact reside in the Vatican and those able to demonstrate that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

Also, over and again, I asked you to note the video segments that convinced you that the Christian God does in fact exist. Note them please.

And why have you refused to explore the points I raised regarding each video here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Here's your "explanation":

And the videos were simply evidence that there were plenty of such arguments, so you could find one that interested you. I didn't feel I wanted to take the conversation further, because you kept getting off track and wanting me to make some sort of lengthy comment on all the videos, and I felt my life was too short to spend trying to convince somebody who didn't want to be convinced.

Again, from my frame of mind, simply unbelievable.

As I noted before, forget about me. Think of your buddy henry and all those here who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. What could possibly be more important given the stakes involved on both sides of the grave than bringing that evidence to their attention? What could be more vital to any truly passionate Christian than at least making the attempt to save their souls? Your life "is too short" for that?!!!

Instead, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" point of view, you are to religion what AJ is to race and gender and homosexuals and Jews: Mr. Yak, Yak, Yak.

Even if the yakking is...philosophical?

[Immanuel Can]

I am interested in exploring this with Mr. Craig or with someone at Reasonable Faith.

Good luck with that. All the best.

Thanks.

But there's still this part...

No, actually, there's not. I have no interest.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Instead, from my own "rooted existentially in dasein" point of view, you are to religion what AJ is to race and gender and homosexuals and Jews: Mr. Yak, Yak, Yak.

Now hold on a cotton pickin’ second there, buster!

Let’s establish “a context”.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, actually, there's not. I have no interest.

This is why I keep telling you people: he must be burned at the stake.

Martyrdom is the only justifiable end of this entire bruhaha …

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am interested in exploring this with Mr. Craig or with someone at Reasonable Faith."

Hmmmmm …

And Satyr?!?