Immanuel Can, iambiguous and the Christian God

[Flannel Jesus]

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?

That forum is dead, as far as I can see. Why do you want to post there? What are you trying to achieve?

And what forum is on hold?

[iambiguous]

Excerp from the RF podcast:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... am-and-eve

Question: Does Science Reveal Adam and Eve?

DR. CRAIG: The Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created. Therefore, if there is a historical Adam and Eve, it seems to me that they must have been the ancestors of everyone who has ever lived.

Incestuously, as it were?

DR. CRAIG: This would be the most significant difference between Josh's view and my view. I am looking for a founding couple of the human race who are truly the universal common ancestors of everyone who has ever lived on this planet.

On the other hand, any number of Christians believe this only goes back about 6,000 years.

KEVIN HARRIS: Then he quotes you from the First Things article. Your quote,

"Adam and Eve may plausibly be identified as belonging to the last common ancestor of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, usually denominated Homo heidelbergensis."

"Adam plausibly lived sometime between around 1 million years ago to 750,000 years ago, a conclusion consistent with the evidence of population genetics.

So, it appears instead that science might link us to Adam and Eve. Even if that entails going back 750,000 years?

Then those like IC who might respond by arguing it is just something that a True Christian would never accept.

[iambiguous]

By the way, I tried to register for the forum there, but there was no email from them in my inbox. I'll check again later.

"Before you can login, you need to confirm your email address via the email we just sent to you."

[Age]

I accommodate you by creating the new thread,

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

Once again, just more 'wiggle', 'wiggle', 'wiggle', as some would say, and note.

[iambiguous]

That forum is dead, as far as I can see. Why do you want to post there? What are you trying to achieve?

Just for the record:

It's been years since I posted there. And I stopped only after Satyr booted me out of the agora and dumped me into dungeon. But then he deleted that as well.

Don't you know all this?

[Age]

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.

Once again, 'this one' claims to, 'not bother with another', whenever it is STUCK.

So, what does "immanuel can" do, what it normally does, and just 'wiggles', 'wiggles', and 'wiggles', as some say, or what I call out as just more attempts at detraction, or deflection, and DECEPTION.

Which, obviously, would be the very last thing ANY God would really want from A human being.

"immanuel can" has, continually, failed to back up and support its claims, and all the while while also 'trying to' belittle and condescend others, here.

[Age]

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.

'This', 'i am not bothering with you', is ALL "immanuel can" has, and can resort to, when it has absolutely nothing else to 'stand up on'.

The very reason WHY it 'does not bother' anymore is because if it attempted to bother any more, then it fall and crumble even further than what it had, and has, already.

The 'version' of God, which "Immanuel can" has and 'tries to' hold onto, is about the most laughable version of God a human being could have made up and created. And, deep down "immanuel can" KNOWS this irrefutable Fact. Which is the REAL REASON WHY "immanuel can" does not bother, past 'a certain point'.

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.

[Age]

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.

LOL 'This' coming from the most deflective, and thus most deceiving, one, here.

you wander OFF so often, "immanuel can", and even completely unintentionally some times, because you have absolutely nothing that could back up and support your Truly irrational and illogical views and beliefs, here.

[Age]

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.

The very reason WHY "immanuel can" will not 'go there', is because if it even 'tried to' "immanuel can", "itself", would, literally, crumble to pieces.

it would, literally, prefer to 'remain' in, and with, 'its BELIEF', then be defeated, and end up 'passing', or 'fading', away, completely.

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...

I am more than willing, ready, and wanting to. But, are you really wanting to "imabiguous"?

If yes, then just so you are FULLY AWARE, I neither believe nor disbelieve there is ample empirical evidence, for the One and ONLY True, and Right, path, or track, in Life. Instead, I KNOW, FULLY, and EXACTLY, what PROVES 'this path', empirically, to be the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge, for EVERY one.

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

I CAN, and WILL, address ALL of these, and ANY other thing, here, AS WELL.

But, again, are you REALLY WANTING TO GO DOWN 'this path', here, with 'me'?

[Age]

Excerp from the RF podcast:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/r ... am-and-eve

Question: Does Science Reveal Adam and Eve?

DR. CRAIG: The Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created. Therefore, if there is a historical Adam and Eve, it seems to me that they must have been the ancestors of everyone who has ever lived.

Incestuously, as it were?

Do you have some sort of issue, or problem, with 'this'?

If yes, then what, how, and why, exactly?

DR. CRAIG: This would be the most significant difference between Josh's view and my view. I am looking for a founding couple of the human race who are truly the universal common ancestors of everyone who has ever lived on this planet.

On the other hand, any number of Christians believe this only goes back about 6,000 years.

KEVIN HARRIS: Then he quotes you from the First Things article. Your quote,

"Adam and Eve may plausibly be identified as belonging to the last common ancestor of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, usually denominated Homo heidelbergensis."

"Adam plausibly lived sometime between around 1 million years ago to 750,000 years ago, a conclusion consistent with the evidence of population genetics.

So, it appears instead that science might link us to Adam and Eve. Even if that entails going back 750,000 years?

Then those like IC who might respond by arguing it is just something that a True Christian would never accept.

[Flannel Jesus]

That forum is dead, as far as I can see. Why do you want to post there? What are you trying to achieve?

Just for the record:

It's been years since I posted there. And I stopped only after Satyr booted me out of the agora and dumped me into dungeon. But then he deleted that as well.

Don't you know all this?

No, how would I know that? I didn't know this was satyr's forum at all: https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/

Why would satyr run the reasonable faith forum?

[iambiguous]

That forum is dead, as far as I can see. Why do you want to post there? What are you trying to achieve?

Just for the record:

It's been years since I posted there. And I stopped only after Satyr booted me out of the agora and dumped me into dungeon. But then he deleted that as well.

Don't you know all this?

No, how would I know that? I didn't know this was satyr's forum at all: https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/

Why would satyr run the reasonable faith forum?

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the KT forum.

As for the RF forum -- https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/ -- it doesn't seem dead to me. Lots of discussions. 410 altogether.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just for the record:

It's been years since I posted there. And I stopped only after Satyr booted me out of the agora and dumped me into dungeon. But then he deleted that as well.

Don't you know all this?

No, how would I know that? I didn't know this was satyr's forum at all: https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/

Why would satyr run the reasonable faith forum?

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the KT forum.

As for the RF forum -- https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/ -- it doesn't seem dead to me. Lots of discussions. 410 altogether.

Ah you're right, it's not dead. I think I looked at a pinned thread and didn't realize that's what I was looking at, saw last reply 2022 and thought the forum died.

I'm still curious what you think you have to gain there. Are you trying to find someone to convince you to be a christian? Are you trying to find someone that you can convince to not be a christian? Are you just trying to have a debate? What's the point?

[Perspective]

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the KT forum.

As for the RF forum -- https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/ -- it doesn't seem dead to me. Lots of discussions. 410 altogether.

Ah you're right, it's not dead. I think I looked at a pinned thread and didn't realize that's what I was looking at, saw last reply 2022 and thought the forum died.

I'm still curious what you think you have to gain there. Are you trying to find someone to convince you to be a christian? Are you trying to find someone that you can convince to not be a christian? Are you just trying to have a debate? What's the point?

“Reasonable Faith” sounds great in theory - how is it in practice?

Is it a lot of dogma, faith crisis or questioning?

[Immanuel Can]

My mistake. I thought you were referring to the KT forum.

As for the RF forum -- https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/re ... rum/forum/ -- it doesn't seem dead to me. Lots of discussions. 410 altogether.

Ah you're right, it's not dead. I think I looked at a pinned thread and didn't realize that's what I was looking at, saw last reply 2022 and thought the forum died.

I'm still curious what you think you have to gain there. Are you trying to find someone to convince you to be a christian? Are you trying to find someone that you can convince to not be a christian? Are you just trying to have a debate? What's the point?

“Reasonable Faith” sounds great in theory - how is it in practice?

Is it a lot of dogma, faith crisis or questioning?

You could have a look, and find out...and why wouldn't one do that?

The site came up in connection with an old discussion I had with Biggie. He boldly claimed there was "no evidence for God," and I said there was. He said "Where?" and I said, "There."

I don't know if he even looked at it. If he did, he seemed to learn nothing at all from looking. After that, he became determined to try to get me to do for him what he could do for himself...namely, chew down the data from the site for him, and regurgitate it to him. I declined, and have declined since.

Now, if you look, you'll see that this thread started with a different topic: namely, what Biggie's test for the existence/non-existence of God might be. He said that stopping all suffering of children would do it, and I was curious as to why he thinks that ought to work for him. But no sooner was he asked, when he reverted to a sort of "regurgitate Reasonable Faith to me" position, and I again brushed that off. All that, you can see from looking at page 1, if you're in doubt.

So if you want to know, I can only recommend that you do what Biggie apparently wasn't able to do (or wasn't able to understand, if he did bother even to look); just take a peek for yourself. The site's got short videos, and they're very entertaining to watch, and short. But they give a person a good idea of how the arguments for God go.

That is, if you really want to know. As with Biggie, it would be up to you whether or not you do.