Immanuel Can, iambiguous and the Christian God

[promethean75]

Age I've heard, seen, and discussed that phrase so many goddamn times you'd have to write me a book just to explain what you meant by 'objectively good', nevermind whether or not what you are describing and asserting is true or false. That'd take a whole nuther book.

I like to go easy and just say that there can be objectively good things, states, and affairs when these things serve to achieve the success of some hypothetical imperative. Gas makes a car go. Therefore, it is objectively good to have gas when wanting to make a car go. The gas is then absolutely, exactly, irrefutably, and CLEARLY good for the set 'those wanting to make a car go.' This is an objective fact for that set.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"What could possibly be more important in regard to saving souls?"

Why would one want their soul to be saved by something that didn't have to create them such that they needed to be saved in the first place?

I wouldn't let such a ridiculous thing anywhere near my soul.

I hear that.

On the other hand, the closer and closer some get to the abyss, to oblivion, to nothingness, the more inclined they are to blink when it comes to religion. After all, what else is there when it comes to immortality and salvation?

Me? Well, if Jesus Christ [or the equivalent of Him in other religions] ever did return, I wouldn't hesitate to do all I could do -- must do? -- in order not to be...left behind?

Yes, I know there are folks who take great pride in not believing in God. It's part of what they deem to be their very own intellectual honesty and integrity. And I used to be one of them. I'm just not anymore.

"Here and now" I want to be saved. And if I could figure out a way to be, I would be.

If I may, so you've backslidden? What do you want to be saved from? I take no pride in null. In 'ERROR, ERROR, ERROR'. In 'Does not compute'. In perfect syntax that isn't semantic. Meaningless. In brute fact. In death. I have no choice but to know it. It took no courage. I didn't ask for it, I don't want it, but there it is. Here it is. Why would I ask any believer for the meaningless? They know nothing. I wouldn't ask the blind for a shadow of doubt. If Love were the ground of being, it would be obvious to all.

[iambiguous]

What lead you to believe that "in a No Christian God universe objective morality is not within the reach of mere mortals"?

Actually, I agree I am not able to demonstrate this. It's more the fact that "here and now" I have not come upon an argument myself that substantiates the existence of an objective morality. One rooted in, say, political ideology or deontology or biological imperatives. Let along an argument that is able to be demonstrated empirically, experientially and experimentally.

I'm familiar with RF. From what I've looked into, it's all sophistry. That includes the moral argument for God. What swayed you about it?

I'm not swayed about it or by it. But since a part of me wants to be swayed, perhaps someone can convince me the evidence is there. IC, however, claims the problem here is me. The evidence is solid but I refuse to accept it. So, I suggested that he pursue the evidence with others here.    

Also, Jesus never claimed to be "God Himself". In fact, he repeatedly distanced Himself from that idea. "son of God" is a metaphor. In that metaphor the "sons of God" are the righteous; "sons of Satan" are the unrighteous. Jesus calls the unrighteous to make themselves "sons of God" as He was a "son of God". Those who are righteous are "born of God"' which makes them "sons of God".

On the other hand: https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_is_god

In fact, it's the Holy Ghost that perplexes most of us.

[ThinkOfOne]

What lead you to believe that "in a No Christian God universe objective morality is not within the reach of mere mortals"?

Actually, I agree I am not able to demonstrate this. It's more the fact that "here and now" I have not come upon an argument myself that substantiates the existence of an objective morality. One rooted in, say, political ideology or deontology or biological imperatives. Let along an argument that is able to be demonstrated empirically, experientially and experimentally.

I'm familiar with RF. From what I've looked into, it's all sophistry. That includes the moral argument for God. What swayed you about it?

I'm not swayed about it or by it. But since a part of me wants to be swayed, perhaps someone can convince me the evidence is there. IC, however, claims the problem here is me. The evidence is solid but I refuse to accept it. So, I suggested that he pursue the evidence with others here.    

Also, Jesus never claimed to be "God Himself". In fact, he repeatedly distanced Himself from that idea. "son of God" is a metaphor. In that metaphor the "sons of God" are the righteous; "sons of Satan" are the unrighteous. Jesus calls the unrighteous to make themselves "sons of God" as He was a "son of God". Those who are righteous are "born of God"' which makes them "sons of God".

On the other hand: https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_is_god

In fact, it's the Holy Ghost that perplexes most of us.

Actually, I agree I am not able to demonstrate this. It's more the fact that "here and now" I have not come upon an argument myself that substantiates the existence of an objective morality. One rooted in, say, political ideology or deontology or biological imperatives. Let along an argument that is able to be demonstrated empirically, experientially and experimentally. I'm not swayed about it or by it. But since a part of me wants to be swayed, perhaps someone can convince me the evidence is there. IC, however, claims the problem here is me. The evidence is solid but I refuse to accept it. So, I suggested that he pursue the evidence with others here. 


Before I address this, let me ask you this. Do you believe that WLC has presented a sound argument "that substantiates the existence of an objective morality" in a "Christian God universe"? If so, what swayed you? If not, why do you feel that you need to do so?

On the other hand: https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_is_god


Not sure if you've been understanding my points. Do you believe that the Bible on the whole is coherent?

In fact, it's the Holy Ghost that perplexes most of us.


Is it the "Holy Ghost" per se that perplexes you? Or the typical Christian conception of the "Holy Ghost"?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What lead you to believe that "in a No Christian God universe objective morality is not within the reach of mere mortals"?

Actually, I agree I am not able to demonstrate this. It's more the fact that "here and now" I have not come upon an argument myself that substantiates the existence of an objective morality. One rooted in, say, political ideology or deontology or biological imperatives. Let along an argument that is able to be demonstrated empirically, experientially and experimentally.

I'm familiar with RF. From what I've looked into, it's all sophistry. That includes the moral argument for God. What swayed you about it?

I'm not swayed about it or by it. But since a part of me wants to be swayed, perhaps someone can convince me the evidence is there. IC, however, claims the problem here is me. The evidence is solid but I refuse to accept it. So, I suggested that he pursue the evidence with others here.    

Also, Jesus never claimed to be "God Himself". In fact, he repeatedly distanced Himself from that idea. "son of God" is a metaphor. In that metaphor the "sons of God" are the righteous; "sons of Satan" are the unrighteous. Jesus calls the unrighteous to make themselves "sons of God" as He was a "son of God". Those who are righteous are "born of God"' which makes them "sons of God".

On the other hand: https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_is_god

In fact, it's the Holy Ghost that perplexes most of us.

It's not scientifically demonstrable, apart from for as many sigmas as you want. It's logically, common sensibly, obvious.

No one can convince you the evidence is there. They are deceived. I yearn too.

The Jesus character says everything but "I am God incarnate". But that's what he meant. Obviously.