Immanuel Can, iambiguous and the Christian God

[Age]

How many different ways can I say it? You asked me a question regarding what particular evidence would work for me in establishing the existence of a God, the God.

Now, those two things above would be so astounding that, in my view, the whole world would be talking about little else. Ah, but how to explain something that "out of the blue" completely reconfigured the world we live in? Of course any number of these folks --

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

-- will attribute it to their own religious path.

I don't believe it would work for you. I don't even believe it should work for you. I can think of many problems with that particular test, as I outlined them; and I'd be mighty surprised if you couldn't see them, too.

Note to others:

Okay, you wake up tomorrow morning and discover that no innocent children are suffering anywhere around the globe. And that those devastating "acts of God" are gone for good.

In other words, among other things, this -- https://science.howstuffworkhoss.com/sc ... rupted.htm -- will never happen.

Now, again, aside from a God, the God, what other entity could accomplish this? Donald Musk?

Firstly, IF those, LITERALLY, 'natural events', which SOME, ONLY, human beings 'LOOK AT' and 'SEE' AS so-called 'devastating', then that WOULD NOT BE BECAUSE OF God, Itself, and that WOULD BE BECAUSE OF some YET TO BE IMAGINED 'entity', well by 'me' anyway. As STOPPING or PREVENTING 'natural events' from HAPPENING and OCCURRING GOES ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY AGAINST God, Itself.

However, if there WERE NO MORE CHILDREN SUFFERING, (and by the way EACH and EVERY child IS INNOCENT), then that WOULD JUST MEAN that ALL adult human beings are JUST DOING 'what IS Right, in Life', which is JUST what God WANTS, and HAS BEEN GUIDING, ANYWAY, for thousands UPON thousands of years, HITHERTO when this is being written.

Inexorably? Go ahead, note something that I posted above or elsewhere indicating my own "rooted existentially in dasein assumptions" here lead to any "inexorable" conclusions.

As for "why?" here, hell, you can go straight down the list of religious denominations above and ask them why they believe what they do. And, by and large, they will tell you their own beliefs are embodied either in a leap of faith or in Scripture. And, as a consequence, they will tell us that Christianity is not the One True Path. After all, how could it be when it's their own path?

Yes. Inexorably. Unless your test was sufficiently rigorous to conduce to only one conclusion, and that being that the Christian God exists, I see no reason to think you'd have reason to regard it as telling.

It's considerably less a "test" for me than simply reacting to a world once bursting at the seams with terrible pain and suffering that now has none of it. In particular for newborns, babies, infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school age kids, etc.

Then this part:

Now, I want you to put your hand on your Bible and swear to God that you wouldn't be one of them. Again, those things happening would not necessarily prove the existence of a God, the God...but what other entity could it be?

Come on, IC, admit it, you see no legitimate reasons for anything that anyone here posts unless it completely coincides with what you propose here actually does encompass True Christianity.

[Just out of curiosity, if Pope Francis should die, what would you imagine his fate to be on Judgment Day]

And I'm not arguing the conclusions I have come to here regarding the above is anything other than a personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein. It's just that if these things did unfold here on planet Earth, what else would anyone be talking about except who or what brought this about.

Maybe you would, I suppose, if you were rather naive. Maybe you wouldn't, if you were not.

Right, like this doesn't revolve almost entirely around calling others here naive. Why? Because you yourself are never naive...yet they refuse to share your own "my way or suffer the agonies of the damned" In Hell.

Now, let's focus more on the part that truly perplexes me most about you and Christianity. The part where you yourself were persuaded by the Craig videos to believe the historical and scientific evidence is there to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, your God.

Note what you believe are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

you INVITED "immanuel can" to ADMIT the Truth, here, regarding some thing. However, 'this' will NOT HAPPEN, here, BECAUSE while "Immanuel can" REMAINS in its 'current state' it just has WAY TOO MUCH TO HIDE, and TO LOSE.

[Age]

Note to others:

Oh? So that's not for me.

Fine. I'll ignore it, then

OF COURSE you WILL. BECAUSE there is JUST TOO MUCH IN 'there' POINTING OUT your FAULTS, and FAILINGS, which you OBVIOUSLY could NOT COUNTER, NOR REFUTE.

[Age]

Note to all of those here with any interest at all in objective morality, immortality and salvation.

Really, suppose someone told you that beyond a leap of faith or a wager or Scripture, they had actual concrete scientific and historical evidence that their own God did in fact exist.

But, if ANY one SAID or CLAIMED some thing like, 'My own God does in fact exist', then they have just ALREADY PROVED that they are NOT YET FULLY AWARE OF who AND what God ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY.

God, Itself, is NOT some thing someone ELSE has NOR owns.

Would that not be what you would focus on as well in exchanges with them?

I would NOT focus on ANY thing, as, AGAIN, they have JUST PROVED that they do NOT ACTUALLY HAVE ANY concrete, scientific, NOR historical 'proof' AT ALL.

AGAIN, 'I' do NOT DO 'evidence'. and, AGAIN, because of its OBVIOUS FAILINGS.

Or maybe the closer you get to oblivion in a No God world, the more that sort of discussion might interest you. For all practical purposes, in other words.

MAYBE. But WHY NOT JUST Truly LISTEN, and HEAR, what people SAY, and CLAIM, ALL OF THE TIME?

Just for the record [here and now] I don't believe in God, in objective morality, in immortality, in salvation.

And, AGAIN, [here and now], 'we' have MORE PROOF OF HOW and WHY 'these people' WOULD NOT LISTEN, and HEAR, others. And, even when 'the others' would SAY and CLAIM that they HAD the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

On the other hand, little can actually be ruled out given just how vast and mysterious the existence of our universe is.

So, 'this one' does NOT BELIEVE (in) God, in objective morality, in immortality, in salvation, but then CLARIFIES 'this' by THEN CLAIMING, 'little' CAN ACTUALLY BE RULED OUT.

So, IF 'little' CAN ACTUALLY BE LEFT OUT "imabiguous", then WHAT IS 'that little', EXACTLY?

And, OBVIOUSLY, if 'it' IS REALLY 'little', then it would NOT take you much 'time' NOR 'effort' AT ALL TO JUST CLARIFY, here, FOR 'us'.

So, sure, if you are convinced your own belief in God can be backed up with substantive and substantial empirical evidence, link me to it.

Another could just AS EASILY, and AS SIMPLY, SAY TO you, 'So, sure, if you are convinced that your own DISBELIEF in God can be backed up with substantive and substantial empirical evidence, like 'us' to it', AS WELL.

But, 'this' WILL NEVER NECESSARILY MEAN that ANY thing WILL BE PROVIDED, and SUPPLIED, here, right?

Polemics aside, I don't mock those who choose God.

WHY do you CHOOSE TO 'mock' ANY human being?

Are you SO SURE of "yourself" that what you BELIEVE and DISBELIEVE, in Life, is SO ABSOLUTELY RIGHT and TRUE, that you, SERIOUSLY, ALSO BELIEVE that you have SOME SORT OF "RIGHT" to be ABLE TO 'mock' others?

After all, I have known a number of folks [especially given the years I spent as a political activist] whose intelligence was truly exceptional...and they managed to make that Kierkegaardian leap themselves.

So, HOW was 'that intelligence', SUPPOSEDLY, so-called 'truly exceptional', EXACTLY?

[Age]

Oh? So that's not for me.

Fine. I'll ignore it, then

Gosh, who would have ever figured that the exchange would end this way?!

I pretty much knew it would.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, BOTH "imabiguous" AND "immanuel can" 'pretty much', SUPPOSEDLY, KNEW that 'the exchange' between the BOTH of them WOULD END 'the way' that it DID, BEFORE 'the exchange' even REALLY GOT SOMEWHERE.

Which makes some WONDER WHY they BOTH even BEGAN.

It seems you're incapable of sticking to a line of thought, and you imagine there are some "others" who are out there, hanging on your every word. So sooner or later, you'll stop conversing and start trying to perform for people you imagine are keen on what you have to say. And I just can't be bothered with that nonsense.

What are you even on about, here, "Immanuel can", 'I', for one, ENJOY, HANG ON TO, or are KEEN ON, BOTH of 'your words', here.

There is SO MUCH ENLIGHTENMENT that can and does COME-THROUGH WHEN WATCHING and OBSERVING two people ARGUING AGAINST 'each other' WHEN BOTH ARE CLOSED and NARROWED BECAUSE OF their 'current' BELIEFS.

All I can say to that is "click" and "dasein."

WHY did you FIND 'this' FUNNY?

[Age]

Let him note what he believes are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

You poor soul. It's never going to happen, laddie. You claimed there was "no evidence," and now you know there is, and you can't understand it, apparently.

There is, SUPPOSEDLY, 'evidence' for 'what', here, EXACTLY?

Also, as can BE CLEARLY SEEN throughout 'this forum', these people, back when this was being written, SOUGHT OUT and 'RELIED ON' 'evidence', INSTEAD OF ACTUAL 'proof'.

Which is A HUGE REASON WHY they WERE LEFT SO FAR BEHIND, and just COULD NOT CATCH UP.

AGAIN, and as has been SHOWED, and PROVED, beliefs, theories, evidence, and debating did NOT LEAD 'these ones' INTO PROGRESSION and MOVING FORWARD, and INSTEAD where the VERY REASONS WHY they KEPT FALLING BEHIND, and STAYING SO FAR, FAR BEHIND.

[Immanuel Can]

Let him note what he believes are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

You poor soul. It's never going to happen, laddie. You claimed there was "no evidence," and now you know there is, and you can't understand it, apparently.

We've been over this before.

Yes, we have. And miraculously, you never seem to get it.

Forget about me.

Your best idea yet. Glad to oblige.

[iambiguous]

You poor soul. It's never going to happen, laddie. You claimed there was "no evidence," and now you know there is, and you can't understand it, apparently.

On the contrary, you were the one who posted this:

I think this is a good subject, but for a different thread. If you want to pursue it, may I suggest you start one? I'll let you set the heading, and I'll join if you do. But here, the subject should remain "Corporation Socialism," so let's leave this thread to that.

I accommodate you by creating the new thread, but it's just more of the same wiggle, wiggle, wiggle bullshit. Indeed, it's a good subject precisely because you do refuse to respond to the points I raise. You're now in so far over your head with me you have little choice but to continue to wiggle out of a substantive exchange.

We've been over this before.

Yes, we have. And miraculously, you never seem to get it.

Come on, IC, there is a part of you that must surely know you wiggle out of anything that might threaten your own comforting and consoling One True Path here.

Forget about me.

Your best idea yet. Glad to oblige.

Great, this is you trying to be...clever? When all the while you know my point was just another reminder that in the past you've basically accused me of being unwilling to explore Craig's evidence seriously. Which is crap because I want to believe the evidence is there.

Or are you actually suggesting that no one here would be willing to sincerely explore this evidence with you even though accepting it could save their soul.

[Immanuel Can]

I accommodate you by creating the new thread,

Yeah, but then you lapse into your usual nonsense. And it's just too boring.

[iambiguous]

I accommodate you by creating the new thread,

Yeah, but then you lapse into your usual nonsense. And it's just too boring.

Okay, get your Bible. Put your hand on top of it and swear to almighty God that this is actually what you believe.

What, do you think He is fooled by you? Instead, even if He does exist how could He not be embarrassed by someone claiming to have access to His existence yet refuses to actually explore the evidence in order to demonstrate it. Hell, I can't even get William Lane Craig or those from Reasonable Faith folks to come here and examine the evidence.

Anyone else, perhaps? You watched the videos, and you were impressed by the arguments provided.

Okay, what impressed you most?

[Immanuel Can]

I accommodate you by creating the new thread,

Yeah, but then you lapse into your usual nonsense. And it's just too boring.

Okay, what impressed you most?

Nothing you are saying interests me. I'm not bothering with you.

[iambiguous]

Yeah, but then you lapse into your usual nonsense. And it's just too boring.

Okay, what impressed you most?

Nothing you are saying interests me. I'm not bothering with you.

Again, you thought it was a good subject. You would let me set the heading: "Immanuel Can, iambiguous and the Christian God", and then you would join in the exchange.

To wit:

"I think this is a good subject, but for a different thread. If you want to pursue it, may I suggest you start one? I'll let you set the heading, and I'll join if you do. But here, the subject should remain 'Corporation Socialism,' so let's leave this thread to that."

Instead, as soon as I take the exchange to where you yourself keep insisting it has to go...to the historical and the scientific evidence...you immediately reconfigure into Stooge mode and make me the issue. I'm suddenly not interesting, boring and nonsensical...and for the zillionth time you announce that you will bother no more with me.

On the other hand, when someone tells me that the Christian God does in fact exist beyond a leap of faith, a wager or Scripture, of course I'm going to urge them you to "show me".

Again and again and again: given the enormity of the stakes involved on both sides of the grave, you'd think that a God, the God would be especially intent on making sure the faithful are apprised of what to expect if they don't choose Christianity.

Well, click, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, what impressed you most?

Nothing you are saying interests me. I'm not bothering with you.

Again, you thought it was a good subject.

So long as you stayed with it. But you can't help yourself. You wander. You foray off into irrelevancies and nonsense. So I'm not following you there.

[iambiguous]

Nothing you are saying interests me. I'm not bothering with you.

Again, you thought it was a good subject. You would let me set the heading: "Immanuel Can, iambiguous and the Christian God", and then you would join in the exchange.

Instead, as soon as I take the exchange to where you yourself keep insisting it has to go...to the historical and the scientific evidence...you immediately reconfigure into Stooge mode and make me the issue. I'm suddenly not interesting, boring and nonsensical...and for the zillionth time you announce that you will bother no more with me.

So long as you stayed with it. But you can't help yourself. You wander. You foray off into irrelevancies and nonsense. So I'm not following you there.

Anyway, if IC ever creates a new thread or contributes to an old thread in which he does in fact attempt to explain his reaction to Craig's historical and scientific evidence pertaining to the Christian God residing in Heaven, please, by all means link me to it.

Also, if he ever explains why on Earth he chooses not to go there, I'd appreciate a link to that as well.

Finally, for those here who do believe there is ample empirical evidence that their own God or religious/spiritual path is in fact the one and the only One True Path to immortality and salvation, let's go there...

In particular, pertaining to these 4 factors:

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

[iambiguous]

Again, on three separate occasions, I contacted Craig and the folks at RF. I politely asked them to join us in posting here: viewtopic.php?t=40750

Nothing.

Well, not quite nothing. Every week now they send me this: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... -%20Wk%204

So, if Craig won't come here perhaps I shall respond to the points he raises here instead?

[iambiguous]

While perusing the RF podcast I noticed at the top there is a heading for "forum":

"Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology, and philosophy, especially for content that is not covered in the other course Groups that already exist."

https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/

What with the science/philosophy forum "on hold" for now, perhaps I might join the discussions there.

If they'll have me?