Christianity

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Gratitude when appropriate helps productive interactions.

Gratitude is appropriate when good will is?

Gratitude is nothing more than ordinary courtesy. It helps to smooth the path of communication.

In that case I'm courteous to the flowers, to the sky, to music, to all manner of impersonal things.

[Immanuel Can]

Gratitude is appropriate when good will is?

Gratitude is nothing more than ordinary courtesy. It helps to smooth the path of communication.

In that case I'm courteous to the flowers, to the sky, to music, to all manner of impersonal things.

"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures." (Romans 1:21-23)

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Woss 'e say?

[iambiguous]

How ironic.  

"The God Delusion" is the title of a book written by a man who knows Atheism's inherently rationally indefensible, and prefers to be called an "agnostic."  MPC quotes him, oblivious to the whole problem with Atheism that Dawkins himself is too cunning to put his foot into...much of the time.  He says both, preferring to be an "Atheist" when nobody is interrogating him, but retreating  into "Firm Agnosticism," as he calls it, when he is challenged. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religi ... exist.html 

Actually, what I find ironic is that while Dawkins himself owns up to the obvious in acknowledging how, given the staggering vastness and profound mysteries embedded in the universe itself, no mere mortal has access to definitive proof one way or the other regarding the existence of God. Yet here we have IC insisting that not only does the Christian God exist, but that there is in fact ample scientific and historical proof to establish this. 

You'd think he would spend some time here bringing that to the attention of those who are not Christians. Given all that is at stake on both sides of the grave.

Hell, I can't even get him to explain why on Earth he doesn't pursue this. After all, what could possibly be more important than saving souls? 

Yet he has the gall to turn this argument around and confront atheists with their own lack of evidence!

He realizes the trap.  How does one prove that God is a delusion? What's the evidentiary burden implied, the duty to supply evidence, claimed by the Atheist? It's that MPC (or Dawkins, in his less guarded moments) has exhausted all possible places, times and evidences that God could possibily exist.  

Can a sensible person even expect a listener to believe he's done that?  Of course not.

And the bottom line here is always the same. Namely, that it is incumbent upon those who do claim that a God, the God, their God does exist to demonstrate this and not the obligation of atheists to prove he does not.

Besides, any number of other religious denominations will insist that IC's own soul is damned if he doesn't come around to their own One True Path to immortality and salvation. 

[Immanuel Can]

...given the staggering vastness and profound mysteries embedded in the universe itself, no mere mortal has access to definitive proof one way or the other regarding the existence of God. Yet here we have IC insisting that not only does the Christian God exist, but that there is in fact ample scientific and historical proof to establish this. 

You’re exaggerating again. The origination of the discussion was your claim that no scientific evidence for God exists. I said it did. You demanded to see it. I provided it to you. You refused it, and insisted I had to process it for you, to chew your food for you.

The record of all this is in our past exchanges, as you know: but you also know people won’t check, so you’re happy to distort the whole discussion, and spin it to your purposes. Which you can do, apparently, and I can’t stop you.

But I don’t waste my time with people who take your attitude, and I don’t chew anybody’s food for them. So you’re on your own. It’s on you, not me; and you’re no longer my concern.

And the goofy “dasein” and “click” stuff makes me think you probably have more than one screw loose, too, so that makes further discussion with you rather pointless anyway.

Carry on as you are. Nobody’s going to stop you.

[iambiguous]

duplicate post

[iambiguous]

...given the staggering vastness and profound mysteries embedded in the universe itself, no mere mortal has access to definitive proof one way or the other regarding the existence of God. Yet here we have IC insisting that not only does the Christian God exist, but that there is in fact ample scientific and historical proof to establish this. 

You’re exaggerating again.  The origination of the discussion was your claim that no scientific evidence for God exists.  I said it did.  You demanded to see it.  I provided it to you.  You refused it, and insisted I had to process it for you, to chew your food for you.

Once again, you make this all about me. As though others here who are not now Christians themselves wouldn't greatly appreciate you exploring all the evidence with them. As for scientific proof, I'm certainly not arguing that I am capable of demonstrating that there isn't any, only that if it does exist, I'm not privy to it "here and now". 

The record of all this is in our past exchanges, as you know: but you also know people won’t check, so you’re happy to distort the whole discussion, and spin it to your purposes.  Which you can do, apparently, and I can’t stop you.

Note to others:

Start here...

Just for the record...

Immanuel Can wrote:

You have, at the minimum, the very "evidence" you demanded -- that you know as certainly as you "know" the Pope is in Rome, that you know God exists.

You say that the way you "know" that the Pope is in Rome is by the testimony of others -- for you say you have not been there yourself.

Yet others also declare their knowledge of God, and tell you that He exists. I would be one of those, but so would all the writers of the Bible, and millions of other Christians and Jews.

So the standard you said you wanted has been fully met. What do you want now?

iambiguous wrote:

Note to others:

The only way most of us might argue that there is not sufficient evidence that the Pope, really, really, really does reside in the Vatican is to suggest something akin to solipsism or sim worlds or dream worlds or something out of the Matrix.

  I don't know if he even looked at it.  If he did, he seemed to learn nothing at all from looking.

Blinded by the light, as it were. Instead, the only way others will be applauded for looking at the evidence is if they agree that, in fact, it is enough evidence to convince them that the Christian God does reside in Heaven. That's the beauty of religion for a lot of us. One simply has to believe that a God, the God is their own God. That's what makes it true...believing it.

 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.

I was reluctant at first because it would involve a huge commitment to view and react to all 17 videos.  

As for IC "declining" to go here -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- all I can note is that even if his assessment of me was correct, what about all the other non-Christians here who might be entirely more receptive to the videos.

But he can't even bring himself to note the evidence that most convinced him that, scientifically and historically, virtually all of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- are going to Hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

While, of course, any number of them will insist that, on the contrary, it is IC who will be damned if he doesn't come around to their own One True Path.

 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.

I'll stick with this:

My guess: if we were to actually wake up to a world in which the truly innocent children no longer suffered and natural disasters were a thing of the past, IC would be among the very first to insist it was all the Christian God's doing.

Come on, can anyone here think of something  other than a God, the God who could actually accomplish this?  

Perhaps the Pantheists should weigh in here.

  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.

This is just confusing. Is he actually saying that I did not create the thread above --  viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore the evidence? Or is he talking about some other evidence.

Or go back to the beginning of all this:

ME:

Well, you tried to excuse your error, you mean.  But I'm not all that interested.  I proved what you requested, and you still carry on with it.

There's no drilling a hole in water.

Note to others:

Let's back up...

IC claims that his own belief in the Christian God is not predicated on a leap of faith. He claims to know that He exists. I asked him to provide proof that his God does in fact reside in Heaven as Catholic Christians can prove that the Pope does reside in the Vatican.

What's his proof? Those videos above. And if you watch those videos and still don't believe they prove the existence of the Christian God that's only because you didn't watch them sincerely. You weren't really "paying attention". Now, from my frame of mind, thinking, feeling, saying and doing things sincerely in IC's estimation means thinking, feeling, saying and doing exactly as he does. That is what he means by "proving" whatever anyone requests.

Now, come on, how seriously can you take someone who "thinks" like that? Yet some here do engage him seriously.

So, sure, it might be me. For those who do take him seriously, please attempt to explain why. What actual intellectually sound points is he making about the Christian God? How does everything he claim not eventually get around to the Word? He's right about something because it says so in the Bible. And even when [as I have] you ask him to note where in the Bible, he simply insists that if you read it yourself [sincerely] you'll understand.

For example:

As insulting as your wording is, I answered this.  If you don't like my answer, that's one thing; if you didn't read it, it's another.

Okay, instead of piss poor, let's say that the Christian God did an inadequate job of "conveying unequivocally, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that His is the One True Path."

I don't agree.  He made it very clear.

In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this. Passages such that Christians can go to those adherents of other religious denominations and say, "this proves beyond all doubt that there is ample empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that the Christian God and not your God exists."

In other words, not just stuff out of John and Romans...passages where something is claimed to be true of or about God merely because it is in the Bible.

Thus...

And your answer is "read the Bible".

No, it's read specifically the explanation of that found in Romans 1.

Okay, note the passage there that those who embrace other Gods can read and think, "that settles it then, the Christian God really is the one true God".

Well, I watched those videos a few times. I thought I watched them sincerely but obviously I didn't. Because, as you will no doubt insist, no one who does watch them sincerely could ever possibly doubt that in fact they do demonstrate that the Christian God does reside in Heaven.

Did you imagine that videos would be the equivalent of the Word of God, so that sincerity was guaranteed to produce understanding of videos?  You're too trusting.  All they are is a philosopher's approach to the topic, from whatever knowledge he/she has to offer, to help you think through these things in a secular way.  But they do contain really good arguments, if you're paying attention.

You were the one who posted those videos when our discussion revolved around demonstrating that the Christian God did in fact reside in Heaven.

And there you go again: proof that the Christian God does exist is in the Word of God. And the Word of God is proven to be true because it's in the Bible.

That's really all you have, isn't it? Going around and around in that particular circle.

So, all I can wonder is the extent to which you know that you are doing this. If, for example, you have a "condition", your thinking might be such that you are simply unable to grasp it at all. Or you are so intent on wanting to believe what you do because it comforts and consoles you, you are hard wired to think only what accomplishes that.

The mystery of mind itself. The ubiquitous presence of defense mechanisms to anchor us psychologically to the One True Path. And the path itself might be anything, right?

HIM:

In that case, please note the passages in the Bible that demonstrate this.

Romans 1.

Uh, absolutely shameless?

Note to others:

Again, entertainment aside, some of you here continue to exchange posts with IC as though he does deserve to be taken seriously. As though he does note things about the Christian God that warrant serious discussion and debate.

And I'd appreciate any attempts to explain to me what I myself keep missing in his posts.

Also, IC recommended above that we read "Does God Exist?" from issue 99 of PN by William Lane Craig. An article that apparently doesn't fall back on the Word to establish God's existence. I'll give it a shot and get back to you.

As for this, I explored that article by way of examining Raymond Tallis's reaction to it:
Start on page 1129

Taking Issue with The God Issue
Raymond Tallis argues against theist arguments in PN 99

Craig’s Arguments

William Lane Craig offers no less than eight reasons for belief that God exists. Six of them take this form: ‘God is the best explanation of…’. According to Craig, He (God, that is) explains: 1) Why there is something rather than nothing; 2) The origin of the universe; 3) The applicability of mathematics to the physical world; 4) The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life; 5) Intentional states of consciousness; and 6) Objective moral values and duties. Impressive or what?

Yes, but as with my reaction to Craig in the 17 videos above, all he really provides are arguments. Words defending other words. Whereas I'm asking those like Craig and IC and other Christians here to go beyond "God is the best explanation" for this or that. After all, won't most of these folks...

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

...tell you the same thing about their God or spiritual path?

If the Christian God did create the Heavens and the Earth and did raise Himself from the dead, where is the hard evidence to substantiate it?

Empirical, experiential, experimental evidence that, once atheists and agonistics and those who worship other Gods are exposed to it, it will simply blow their minds. "I can't deny this! No one can!! The Christian God does exist!!!"

Some of these reasons are more clearly vulnerable than others. For example, the very idea of ‘objective moral values and duties’ is contested by some. Others would argue that, objective or not, there are biological, and/or psychological, and/or sociological bases for moral codes, rather than God.

Whether contested or not, the bottom line [mine] remains the same: arguing for this or that moral code is one thing, demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace your own another thing altogether.

Given a particular context. And, Christian or atheist, I always challenge all moral objectivists to attempt that. It's just that if Christians can accomplish it, it includes immortality and salvation in turn for the faithful.

Yet others would point out that God, far from supplying the basis for morality, has, according to his fanzine the Bible, not only behaved amorally Himself, but has also inspired dreadful behaviour (torture, murder, oppression etc.) in His subjects.

Ah, His mysterious ways. And the Subjects ignorance of them.

Additional posts follow the above.

[Immanuel Can]

...given the staggering vastness and profound mysteries embedded in the universe itself, no mere mortal has access to definitive proof one way or the other regarding the existence of God. Yet here we have IC insisting that not only does the Christian God exist, but that there is in fact ample scientific and historical proof to establish this. 

You’re exaggerating again.  The origination of the discussion was your claim that no scientific evidence for God exists.  I said it did.  You demanded to see it.  I provided it to you.  You refused it, and insisted I had to process it for you, to chew your food for you.

Once again, you make this all about me.

I'm not "making" it anything. It was exactly as I said it was.

[iambiguous]

You’re exaggerating again.  The origination of the discussion was your claim that no scientific evidence for God exists.  I said it did.  You demanded to see it.  I provided it to you.  You refused it, and insisted I had to process it for you, to chew your food for you.

Once again, you make this all about me.

I'm not "making" it anything. It was exactly as I said it was.

Pick three:
1] absolutely shameless
2] we live in a wholly determined universe and you post only that which your brain compels you to post
3] a "condition"

Though, sure, we can allow others here to decide for themselves which of us is encompassing our exchange most convincingly.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

How ironic.  

"The God Delusion" is the title of a book written by a man who knows Atheism's inherently rationally indefensible, and prefers to be called an "agnostic."  MPC quotes him, oblivious to the whole problem with Atheism that Dawkins himself is too cunning to put his foot into...much of the time.  He says both, preferring to be an "Atheist" when nobody is interrogating him, but retreating  into "Firm Agnosticism," as he calls it, when he is challenged. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religi ... exist.html 

Actually, what I find ironic is that while Dawkins himself owns up to the obvious in acknowledging how, given the staggering vastness and profound mysteries embedded in the universe itself, no mere mortal has access to definitive proof one way or the other regarding the existence of God. Yet here we have IC insisting that not only does the Christian God exist, but that there is in fact ample scientific and historical proof to establish this. 

You'd think he would spend some time here bringing that to the attention of those who are not Christians. Given all that is at stake on both sides of the grave.

Hell, I can't even get him to explain why on Earth he doesn't pursue this. After all, what could possibly be more important than saving souls? 

Yet he has the gall to turn this argument around and confront atheists with their own lack of evidence!

He realizes the trap.  How does one prove that God is a delusion? What's the evidentiary burden implied, the duty to supply evidence, claimed by the Atheist? It's that MPC (or Dawkins, in his less guarded moments) has exhausted all possible places, times and evidences that God could possibily exist.  

Can a sensible person even expect a listener to believe he's done that?  Of course not.

And the bottom line here is always the same. Namely, that it is incumbent upon those who do claim that a God, the God, their God does exist to demonstrate this and not the obligation of atheists to prove he does not.

Besides, any number of other religious denominations will insist that IC's own soul is damned if he doesn't come around to their own One True Path to immortality and salvation. 

Atheists, or rather materialists, don't need any more evidence. They have had more than sufficient for three thousand years to use common sense. Young Dickie is an honest scientist to his boots, and has to allow for statistical fuzziness. It takes common sense nothing to wave that unquantifiably meaningless possibility space away. The Devil is in that insignificant detail. And not.

Atheism is an historical movement from theism to reset to materialism, without either.

So by how many sigmas could God exist? By how many sigmas doesn't He? Any God. Or what about a truly credible, competent, Loving ground of being? Not the killer, the incompetent grandiose psycho damner of the Bible. Who creates and denies it, who goes to extraordinary sigmas to do so, and then blames us. I mean, He really is scientifically impossible. An evil fantasy.

[Belinda]

Gratitude is appropriate when good will is?

Gratitude is nothing more than ordinary courtesy. It helps to smooth the path of communication.

In that case I'm courteous to the flowers, to the sky, to music, to all manner of impersonal things.

That tells about your own appreciation for beauty, truth and good. Much of prayer, possibly the better part, is expressing feeling of awe.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Gratitude is nothing more than ordinary courtesy. It helps to smooth the path of communication.

In that case I'm courteous to the flowers, to the sky, to music, to all manner of impersonal things.

That tells about your own appreciation for beauty, truth and good. Much of prayer, possibly the better part, is expressing feeling of awe.

Amen.

[Belinda]

In that case I'm courteous to the flowers, to the sky, to music, to all manner of impersonal things.

That tells about your own appreciation for beauty, truth and good. Much of prayer, possibly the better part, is expressing feeling of awe.

Amen.

The hymn in Hymns Ancient and Modern the first line of which is "The spacious firmament on high" by Addison, is one of my favourites. Because it expresses awe despite that its science is well outdated.

The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heavens, a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim.
The unwearied sun from day to day
Does his Creator's power display,
And publishes to every land
The work of an almighty hand.
Soon as the evening shades prevail
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the listening earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn,
And all the planets in their turn,
Confirm the tidings, as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.
What though in solemn silence all
Move round the dark terrestrial ball;
What though nor real voice nor sound
Amid their radiant orbs be found;
In reason's ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice,
For ever singing as they shine,
'The hand that made us is divine.'
Source: Musixmatch

[Immanuel Can]

Once again, you make this all about me.

I'm not "making" it anything. It was exactly as I said it was.

Pick three:
1] absolutely shameless

Number 1 will suffice. There is no reason for shame here. The truth is its own justification.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That tells about your own appreciation for beauty, truth and good. Much of prayer, possibly the better part, is expressing feeling of awe.

Amen.

The hymn in Hymns Ancient and Modern the first line of which is "The spacious firmament on high" by Addison, is one of my favourites. Because it expresses awe despite that its science is well outdated.

The spacious firmament on high,
With all the blue ethereal sky,
And spangled heavens, a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim.
The unwearied sun from day to day
Does his Creator's power display,
And publishes to every land
The work of an almighty hand.
Soon as the evening shades prevail
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the listening earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn,
And all the planets in their turn,
Confirm the tidings, as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.
What though in solemn silence all
Move round the dark terrestrial ball;
What though nor real voice nor sound
Amid their radiant orbs be found;
In reason's ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice,
For ever singing as they shine,
'The hand that made us is divine.'
Source: Musixmatch

Timelessly beautiful. Not outdated at all.