Christianity

[Belinda]

That’s not the point. This isn’t about religious or secular prestige. It’s about honesty and clarity.

The point is, I said exactly what I mean by the word “Atheist,” it’s the same as what the word actually means, and I’m being transparent and honest about what I mean. If somebody’s not bright enough to understand that, be he “Pope” (which isn’t a real thing, anyway) or however appealing to the public, that’s of absolutely no concern to me. And you know what I mean, and it’s you I’m talking to.


Is that the truth?

You see, you can’t even state that without simultaneously affirming the existence of objective truth. If you’re right, you’re wrong. So that’s called “self-contradiction,” and is the best indicator that your claim needs a rethink.

Nothing gets to be stated without the filter of language.In IC's opinion IC says it best. In my opinion Plato says it better.

“The filter of language”? Why “filter”? Why not, “Nothing can be said without language”?

But you have to admit it’s not a brilliant axiom, B. “Nothing can be stated without being stated (i.e. put into language).” That’s essentially all you’ve said. It’s a tautology. It’s also a “So what?"

And what is it that you think Plato said? It certainly wasn’t a tautology, was it?

A Tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself.

[Belinda]

Nothing gets to be stated without the filter of language.In IC's opinion IC says it best. In my opinion Plato says it better.

“The filter of language”? Why “filter”? Why not, “Nothing can be said without language”?

But you have to admit it’s not a brilliant axiom, B. “Nothing can be stated without being stated (i.e. put into language).” That’s essentially all you’ve said. It’s a tautology. It’s also a “So what?"

And what is it that you think Plato said? It certainly wasn’t a tautology, was it?

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

“The filter of language”? Why “filter”? Why not, “Nothing can be said without language”?

But you have to admit it’s not a brilliant axiom, B. “Nothing can be stated without being stated (i.e. put into language).” That’s essentially all you’ve said. It’s a tautology. It’s also a “So what?"

And what is it that you think Plato said? It certainly wasn’t a tautology, was it?

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself.

I’ve read a lot of Plato; not quite everything, but far more than most. I don’t remember him ever saying something like, “Nothing can be stated without being stated.” But maybe you can point me to it.

I won’t hold my breath. Plato’s not actually on your team.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

“The filter of language”? Why “filter”? Why not, “Nothing can be said without language”?

But you have to admit it’s not a brilliant axiom, B. “Nothing can be stated without being stated (i.e. put into language).” That’s essentially all you’ve said. It’s a tautology. It’s also a “So what?"

And what is it that you think Plato said? It certainly wasn’t a tautology, was it?

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself.

Match point to IC.

[Immanuel Can]

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself.

Match point to IC.

I don’t feel like this is verbal tennis. I’m not looking for a “win,” or to get off a “zinger,” far less “match point.” I labour under the delusion that philosophy ought to be about pursuing truth…and that a good critique should be as useful, or even more useful and even more an act of kindness, than facile agreement. And I try to believe others are operating on the same sort of assumption, at least until they disconfirm it.

I’m still talking to B. and to you. That should tell you something.

[Belinda]

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself.

Match point to IC.

But it was I who said

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Match point to IC.

But it was I who said

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself

The umpire's decision is final. Nobody else but you, at most, knows what you mean: what did Plato say?

[Age]

Not necessary.

I told you what it means. You know what it means. From now on, we’re perfectly clear.

I can see why you want to run away from that. But you can’t. I’ve been very, very precise and straightforward in defining the term as I intend to use it.


“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

As for “doctrinal,” that’s way too vague. Every belief system has a “doctrine,” and none exists without one. So we would have to stipulate exactly which “doctrine” was being implied.

As for “advancing my agenda,” the only right agenda would be truth. And it doesn’t need to be “advanced,” but rather, recognized.

You have been precise and straightforward in defining the word 'atheist'. But until you are as authoritative as the Pope or as Charismatic as Trump few will pay any attention to you.

That’s not the point. This isn’t about religious or secular prestige. It’s about honesty and clarity.

The point is, I said exactly what I mean by the word “Atheist,” it’s the same as what the word actually means, and I’m being transparent and honest about what I mean. If somebody’s not bright enough to understand that, be he “Pope” (which isn’t a real thing, anyway) or however appealing to the public, that’s of absolutely no concern to me. And you know what I mean, and it’s you I’m talking to.

Truth is not "agenda" it's a Platonic Form.

Is that the truth?

You see, you can’t even state that without simultaneously affirming the existence of objective truth. If you’re right, you’re wrong. So that’s called “self-contradiction,” and is the best indicator that your claim needs a rethink.

I wonder if the claim, 'God has a penis and gonads', also needs a 'rethink'.

[Immanuel Can]

Match point to IC.

What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself

Ah, poor “Age.”

I must confess that I find him/her an abyss of brainless cynicism. He/she is so devoid of positive thought that one cannot discern any sort of actual philosophy in anything he/she says. I have not seen one positive proposition or helpful insight from this entity…only unthinking negativity about all persons, all beliefs and all posters. I can only suppose that he/she is some sort of damaged adolescent or older person who has simply gone off his/her meds. Nothing less explains the complete vapidity and negativity of everything he/she posts. You’ll have to forgive me if I cannot bring myself even to respond to this gnat-in-the-room, whenever it buzzes by. I’ve long ago had to give up trying.

This is quite a contrast to how I feel about you, let me say. Now, I don’t think it’s evident that either of you is close to agreement with me, though B. is manifestly closer, I think. Nevertheless, I offer you this compliment, if I may: that you both think, and think carefully, and respond decently, and seem to me to be trying to aim at positive intellectual goals. And if we continue to disagree, I think that’s just how philosophy works; that people who disagree speak plainly and honestly to each other, not currying favour or holding back, and not lapsing into insults or brainless negativity, but willing to continue exchanging insights reasonably, until either some agreement is achieved or a principled disagreement is properly explained to each other. And in such latter cases, I believe we can part benefitted by each other — at least better able to articulate a defence of our own beliefs, if not reconciled to a new and common belief. And we can still like one another as persons; agreement is not a prerequisite of that.

So again, I’m still talking with you both, because I think you both have something to say, and I don’t regard the prospect of a happy conclusion (whether of agreement or principled disagreement) as remote, since you both seem to me to be sincere people who mean what you say.

Consequently, let’s not merely play verbal tennis, as if the point is to silence or humiliate one’s interlocutors. That might be Age’s aim, but it would seem too petty to me. I just cannot be bothered with such engagements. However strongly I may word my opposition, I trust it will be in the direction of refining out mutual knowledge, and will not be personal. Consequently, I invite you to feel free to say to me what you think, however antithetical to what I may assert. And I’ll do likewise. On my side, I can promise to you that no personal regard is at the stake. I intend to disagree agreeably, if agreement is a bridge too far.

[Belinda]

Match point to IC.

But it was I who said

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself

The umpire's decision is final. Nobody else but you, at most, knows what you mean: what did Plato say?

It's best if I post a link to Plato's theory of Forms. Here is the Wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

On July 16 I had pointed out to Immanuel that truth is not an "agenda", as he had described it, but that truth is a Platonic Form.

The ancient God of Judaism is , unlike the eternal Platonic Forms, passionate and personal so He appeals more to those who may find the Platonic Form of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful too intellectual and distant from the human.

[Immanuel Can]

...truth is a Platonic Form.

Again, B. that’s impossible.

Consider this question: is your statement “truth is a Platonic form” true or not? Is it merely a Platonic idealization, an abstract collocation of particulars, or do you mean you really think we should believe “truth is a Platonic form” because “truth is a Platonic form” is an objectively true claim?

If it’s not objectively true, we have no reason to believe it. If it is objectively true, then you’re also saying your own statement is not “a Platonic form,” but is objectively true: and then your claim has disproved itself: you’ve reasserted the primacy of objective truth.

See it yet?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Very recently, by way of Divine transport, I was brought up into the Platonic Attic and came face to face with The Forms.

I kid you not.

If you’ll permit it, I’d like to share this pretty glorious experience.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

But it was I who said

A tautology would be 'Language is linguistic' .
But 'language conceals and also reveals' is synthetic.


What Plato said is in the public domain.Look it up for yourself

The umpire's decision is final. Nobody else but you, at most, knows what you mean: what did Plato say?

It's best if I post a link to Plato's theory of Forms. Here is the Wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

On July 16 I had pointed out to Immanuel that truth is not an "agenda", as he had described it, but that truth is a Platonic Form.

The ancient God of Judaism is , unlike the eternal Platonic Forms, passionate and personal so He appeals more to those who may find the Platonic Form of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful too intellectual and distant from the human.

Ta.

[iambiguous]

So, you believe he is burning in Hell?

I believe what the Bible says about that: that those who know God have salvation, and that those who do not do not.  Now, where Buddha ended up on that scale, you’ll have to ask him, if you ever see him.

Right, I'll just ask him. I hadn't thought of that.

Note to any Buddhists here:

You heard him. If you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are both damned and doomed. 

On the other hand, IC is able to provide you with all the scientific and historical evidence you will need in order to accomplish that. You just have to figure out a way to convince him to go there. 

Of course, it's only the fate of your very soul that's on the line here. 

Then this part:

"In Catholicism, Limbo is a theological concept describing a state or place for those who die without baptism or prior to Christ's coming, but are not condemned to hell. While not an official dogma, it was a common theological opinion for centuries, particularly concerning unbaptized infants and virtuous individuals who lived before Christ. However, the Catholic Church has largely moved away from Limbo as a formal teaching." 

I’m not a Catholic. Catholic theology does not regard the Bible as definitive revelation of God’s will.  It puts the decisions of the prelates and councils ahead of the Bible, and claims that they can alter what it says.  Check it out: it’s true.  And that’s how you get a completely lunatic, gratuitous idea like “Limbo.”  You won’t find it anywhere in the Bible.

So, what are you suggesting here...that Catholics are not True Christians? 

And, come on, IC, over and over and over again, and from any number of people, the Bible has been shown to contain many contradictions. Just Google "Biblical contradictions": https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=r ... VtghmHksJB

Or, one by one, has WLC already provided us with "reasonable faith" videos debunking each "so-called" contradiction?

We’re all responsible for what we know.  Those who know less, have to answer for less. Those who know more, for more.

And of those who know nothing at all of Christianity? ]For example, take God's very own abortions...stillbirths and miscarriages? They all go to Heaven? After all, what do they have to answer for? And how to even imagine the souls of embryos and fetuses in Heaven.

 Ask God.  Why ask me?

Right, I'll just ask Him. I hadn't thought of that.

What a man actually believes are known only to
him and to God.

Well, one of them. If He does exist. And for those who know little or nothing at all about your God, well, chances are they have their very own One True Path to salvation. In fact, for any number of them, the worry is about your soul. 

But their situation is not yours; you know much more, and are thus responsible for much more.  Perhaps you should worry less about what their destiny is, and spend a little more thought on your own.  I suggest it might be prudent.

Sigh...

What on Earth do you think I am attempting to do in asking you to peruse those WLC/RF videos.

Oh, that’s easy…not accepting the evidence of what you asked for and I supplied — namely, scientific and rational evidence for God.

No shame! Absolutely no shame whatsoever in posting this!! And now along with the historical and scientific evidence, we have rational evidence as well.

Uh, philosophical, as it were? 

And, again, supplying evidence you claim substantiates His existence given the videos from the WLC/RF clique/claque...? What, we're just supposed to take your word for it? You won't examine this evidence because, well, it's so clearly true?!

I can't even get WLC to discuss and debate it.

Then you’ll have to use your own little brain.  Review the evidence,  consider it, and decide what you believe.  I’m sure you can do it.

I did that. But where were you?

In fact, here's my reaction to their science assessment...

The fourth video: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 1: Scientific

https://youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0

My reaction:

What we have here is basically God being "deduced" into existence. Only, we are assured, there's science behind it.

Though, again, the argument in no way comes around to demonstrating that even if a God, the God is "thought up" into existence "scientifically", it is the Christian God. Why not one of these...

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

...instead?

Okay, we are told, the universe exists. And it simply makes more sense that something caused it to exist. Then the narrator points to the second law of thermodynamics which [we're told] tells us that the universe is "slowly running out of usable energy". And if the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of energy by now. On the other hand...

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe."  nasa

So, who is to say how that is factored in here.

Then the claim that this second law "proves" that the universe had to have had a beginning. And scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding so it must be expanding from whenever that beginning was. And yet others argue that the Big Bang itself is just one of an infinite number of prior Big Bangs. And depending on whether dark matter or dark energy wins out it will continue to expand forever or will begin to contract again.

So, how on Earth does any of this demonstrate that a God, the God is behind it all?  And [of course] it is just assumed that God Himself is an uncaused cause.

Oh, and all of this, we are assured, is applicable in turn to the multiverse "if there is one".

Finally, "since the universe cannot cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe."

Then this particular "leap of faith":

"It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and unimaginably powerful. Much like...God. The cosmological argument shows that in fact it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist."

Again, this is simply asserted to be true as though in asserting it that makes it true.

Though, again, which God?

[Immanuel Can]

So, you believe he is burning in Hell?

I believe what the Bible says about that: that those who know God have salvation, and that those who do not do not.  Now, where Buddha ended up on that scale, you’ll have to ask him, if you ever see him.

Right, I'll just ask him. I hadn't thought of that.

The important thing is not whether you or I know where he is. The important thing is that God does. And my suggestion is that rather than looking to mythical others, about whom you could not speak even if you ever knew them, you should perhaps attend more closely to your own case. For whatever knowledge they have or have not had opportunity to attain, your case is not like theirs.