Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

I cannot explain, no one can explain to you, IC!

Well, thanks for at least trying to explain your position.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I cannot explain, no one can explain to you, IC!

Well, thanks for at least trying to explain your position.

I was thinking about your position today. I have to say that though I cannot share your conviction, and my notions of the metaphysical, and therefore of religious and spiritual life, are effectively postmodern (i.e. meta-narratives are ‘problematic’ for me because they merely allude to truths that are best presented by way of logos), still I can attempt to be appreciative that you hold to your concepts and convictions. But it is now and it will I think always be impossible for me to accept any ‘religious’ picture, if you understand what I mean by that.

Your position of total Christian and Biblical literalism. I never had it, and I will never arrive at it.

However, in one area I think we are on the same page: the profundity of the Christian revelation exceeds I think any other that I have become aware of. Expressed in ethics, moral values, seriousness toward life and I think most importantly the sacredness of the individual person.

[Immanuel Can]

I cannot explain, no one can explain to you, IC!

Well, thanks for at least trying to explain your position.

I was thinking about your position today. I have to say that though I cannot share your conviction, and my notions of the metaphysical, and therefore of religious and spiritual life, are effectively postmodern (i.e. meta-narratives are ‘problematic’ for me because they merely allude to truths that are best presented by way of logos), still I can attempt to be appreciative that you hold to your concepts and convictions. But it is now and it will I think always be impossible for me to accept any ‘religious’ picture, if you understand what I mean by that.

Here's the thing about Postmodernism, though: it is, itself, a metanarrative. It's a "grand story" of how nothing can be trusted, nothing can absolutely be known, everything is 'constructed,' nothing is essential, or permanent, or obligatory...and that only the cynical are safe.

So you have to ask yourself: have I really been, as Lyotard put it, "...incredulous" toward ALL metanarratives? Or have I just preferred one metanarrative, and been telling myself I have none?

Your position of total Christian and Biblical literalism. I never had it, and I will never arrive at it.

I can accept your term "literalism," if it were nuanced a bit. But people associate "literalism" with only what must be called "crass literalism," meaning "the inability to recognize anything as figurative, allusory, symbolic, poetic, etc." However, I have not met many, if any, of that sort of "literalist," and wouldn't fit that description myself. I'm fully aware of the poetic, symbolic, archetypal and metaphorical elements that exist within Torah and the rest of the Scriptures. The interesting question is not whether these things exist in the text, but which statements are of that sort, and which ones must be accepted literally. And my suggestion is that where the text itself requires us to take something as parabolic, or as poetic, or as symbolic, we do; and where it clearly signals literal intention, we take it seriously there, too.

However, in one area I think we are on the same page: the profundity of the Christian revelation exceeds I think any other that I have become aware of. Expressed in ethics, moral values, seriousness toward life and I think most importantly the sacredness of the individual person.

Yes, I think we agree about that. But as my chosen symbol on this site suggests, I'm also grateful to the Hebrew tradition for its revelation of the context of that Christian revelation, and see my Christianity as framed within that Messianic and Jewish heritage. Both, I would say, are profound, being revelations of the one true God. And they need to be understood in a linear, contributive way, not as antithetical or opposed. I think that to poise Christian theology against Jewish theology, or the Hebrew tradition against the Christian, as some misguided souls have sometimes sought to do, is profoundly misleading. They speak to each other.

And I'm a philosopher, of minor note. I see philosophy as reflective of the human yearning to recover a sense of transcendence and meaning. Some tends to wisdom, and some to folly; but all of it tends to express the suppressed longing of human beings for contact with the Creator.

[Will Bouwman]

...I don't believe you can provide an answer to whether snail parasites are part of your God's design, or a product of the fall of man that isn't preposterous.

You're going to find out your wrong about that. But you're going to find out when this topic is done.

This topic is done; I'm right, you're wrong. The idea that parasites are part of a maximally good god's design cannot be made anything less than ridiculous, and the idea that they exist because of the fall of man is off the wtf scale. It is nonsense on stilts.

[Will Bouwman]

...I'm a philosopher, of minor note.

How minor Mr Can? Where can we read your published work?

[MikeNovack]

....... I see philosophy as reflective of the human yearning to recover a sense of transcendence and meaning. Some tends to wisdom, and some to folly; but all of it tends to express the suppressed longing of human beings for contact with the Creator.

REALLY? Are you suggesting that only monotheists can do philosophy?

[Immanuel Can]

...I don't believe you can provide an answer to whether snail parasites are part of your God's design, or a product of the fall of man that isn't preposterous.

You're going to find out your wrong about that. But you're going to find out when this topic is done.

This topic is done; I'm right, you're wrong.

Well, that's rather unilateral of you.

Okay, it's done.

[Immanuel Can]

...I'm a philosopher, of minor note.

How minor Mr Can? Where can we read your published work?

Do you know what a pseudonym is? And do you know why people use them on forums like this one?

Don't be surprised if you do read something from me, one day.

[Immanuel Can]

....... I see philosophy as reflective of the human yearning to recover a sense of transcendence and meaning. Some tends to wisdom, and some to folly; but all of it tends to express the suppressed longing of human beings for contact with the Creator.

REALLY? Are you suggesting that only monotheists can do philosophy?

It depends on what you suppose "philosophy" means. Does it mean mere speculation? Anybody can do that. But does it mean the pursuit of wisdom? That's harder to do, and fewer do it. Does it mean the pursuit of truth? Well, then few there are, indeed, who do it.

[MikeNovack]

But does it mean the pursuit of wisdom? That's harder to do, and fewer do it. Does it mean the pursuit of truth? Well, then few there are, indeed, who do it.

OK then, we'll use your "pursuit of truth" definition.

Do you SERIOUSLY expect us to believe that before 2000 years ago there were no people seeking truth? Before 4000 years ago? It is one thing for you to claim that it wasn't possible to find/discover truth. That prior to knowledge of (your) God any search for truth would be unsuccessful. But do you REALLY want to add that qualification? That seeking without successful finding is not seeking?

What arrogance.

[Immanuel Can]

But does it mean the pursuit of wisdom? That's harder to do, and fewer do it. Does it mean the pursuit of truth? Well, then few there are, indeed, who do it.

OK then, we'll use your "pursuit of truth" definition.

Do you SERIOUSLY expect us to believe that before 2000 years ago there were no people seeking truth?

I think there have always been people seeking truth. But have some ever found it? And if so, where are they?

[Will Bouwman]

Do you know what a pseudonym is? And do you know why people use them on forums like this one?

In some cases, so they can pretend to be something they're not.

Don't be surprised if you do read something from me, one day.

I will be. Given the quality and originality of your thinking, the chances of you having something published are slim. The likelihood that it could appear in a journal I might read are between nil and not much.

[Immanuel Can]

...the chances of you having something published are slim. The likelihood that it could appear in a journal I might read are between nil and not much.

[MikeNovack]

...the chances of you having something published are slim. The likelihood that it could appear in a journal I might read are between nil and not much.

Will, you are confusing the first with the second.

I agree, unlikely you would read a journal (regularly read) in which IC might be published. But have you never seen such magazines/journals as might have a religious focus along the lines of what IC's religious views appear to be? They do exist.

[Will Bouwman]

...the chances of you having something published are slim. The likelihood that it could appear in a journal I might read are between nil and not much.

Well, congratulations if you have had something published; even more so if it is in something I might read, but after 13 years of interaction, I know enough about your style to say without fear of contradiction that I haven't read anything you have written other than in this forum.