For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:57 pmIf there is a God, I hope s/he/it is that too. Some of the other portrayals of him/her/it don't seem so godly.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:53 pm is God the omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent God of the modern deists?
I see him as distant, interested, but uninvolved.
I must an an old school deist.
Does God have to "ask" anything, Gary? But surely, you know of the idea of a rhetorical question, right? And as for "jealous," what would you think of a man who was not "jealous" his wife was having an affair with the postman? Does he love his wife, or is what the has in respect to her something considerably less than love?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:05 pmIs God really the jealous god of Abraham who has to ask...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:22 pmLet me refer you to the authoritative source, rather than to personal opinion. There are, in fact, 66 famous books on the subject. They're called "The Bible."
Well, it's a bit of a false dichotomy, isn't it, Gary? Is it either that God is benevolent or He's just, or in order to be truly benevolent, does He not have to be just as well? What I'm suggesting is that any God who does not deal with the evil and injustice that you and I see in the world daily, but rather turns a blind eye to it all, can we speak of Him as being benevolent? Or would that just be a god who was a kind of senile grandfather -- capable of being very nice, but blithely unaware of evil?Or is God the omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent God of the modern deists?
The God of the Quran or the Vedas?
What about the God of the Bible?Or is God something/someone else altogether?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:37 pmGary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:57 pmIf there is a God, I hope s/he/it is that too. Some of the other portrayals of him/her/it don't seem so godly.henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:53 pm is God the omniscient, benevolent, omnipotent God of the modern deists?
I see him as distant, interested, but uninvolved.
I must an an old school deist.
So, can you point me to where you've answered the following questions... or answer them again now in your own words?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:55 pmHa.I haven't exactly been shy about that. You must not have read much of it, though.
You have stated that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design. That being so, should anyone lack the appropriate ears, presumably you accept it as an oversight of the designer.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:21 pmThey have. Many times. But not everybody has ears to hear it.tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:07 pmIf it is a common error, I would hope that Christians have found a way to correct it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:50 pmWell, now I can say for certain you don't know God. But your mistake is common enough, I suppose.
I asked you simply whether God watches us all the time, demands absolute obedience and threatens hideous punishment if we fail to please him. Perhaps my ears are dysfunctional, but I can read. What error have I made in my analysis of your understanding of God? You appear to support this understanding when you warn us that we will be punished for arguing with you.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:21 pmSome people are more interested in dismissing the whole idea of God than in knowing Him. Sad, but true.
Mr Can is an intellectual limp dick. The more you point out the obvious flaws in his arguments, the more he will decide that it is in YOUR interest that he stops talking to you. It's just narcissism. As Xenophanes pointed out:tillingborn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:44 amYou appear to support this understanding when you warn us that we will be punished for arguing with you.
Sure. There are actually three threads that DAM spun out, where she and I discuss the issue at length. They're all called "Putting IC in the Religious Spotlight," 1, 2 and 3.Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:42 amSo, can you point me to where you've answered the following questions...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:55 pmHa.
Not at all. For man was not designed that way. He chose to become that way.tillingborn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:44 amYou have stated that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design. That being so, should anyone lack the appropriate ears, presumably you accept it as an oversight of the designer.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:21 pmThey have. Many times. But not everybody has ears to hear it.tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:07 pm If it is a common error, I would hope that Christians have found a way to correct it.
Well, pick one of your own phrases, and let's see how it stacks up.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:21 pmWhat error have I made in my analysis of your understanding of God?
Heh.You appear to support this understanding when you warn us that we will be punished for arguing with you.
There is no punishment for arguing with me, of course. I'm just an ordinary person, as I'm sure you know. And even God Himself does not hesitate to answer questions, provided they're asked in sincerity: many persons in the Bible, or the whole books of Job or Habakkuk would prove that, for sure. God is not hesitant about questions, or even arguing, so long as it is done with good intent.uwot sums it up well...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:14 pmSure. There are actually three threads that DAM spun out, where she and I discuss the issue at length. They're all called "Putting IC in the Religious Spotlight," 1, 2 and 3.
Or, if that seems a lot of work to you, just hang out and see where this conversation goes.
Your inability to answer questions, I.C., in the way that you expect others to answer the questions you pose to them, is such a chicken-shit little dance that you do. You've represented theism as being unashamedly dishonest and deceptive, and openly fabricated and manipulated to serve oneself/yourself. I've given you the benefit of the doubt in thinking you must be aware to some degree of what you're doing, and that you might eventually allow more honesty to surface. How can you accept such dishonesty and nonsense from yourself (as you would not accept from another) and continually act as if no one else can see what you're doing, even when they point it out?uwot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:08 am Mr Can is an intellectual limp dick. .../... It's just narcissism.
Gods are created in the image of their creator. The reason Mr Can's god comes across as a snarky, petty, right wing pedant is because that is what Mr Can is. I wouldn't waste your time on him frankly.
Oh...Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:05 pmHmm...
Let's see...the person who does nothing but spit abuse wants me to dance to her tune...
I'll get back to you when I've decided to entertain that.
...is it abuse to point out that you do not answer questions in the way that you want others to answer your questions? Truth = abuse? Interesting.No. But it's Biblical not to answer a person who is not sincere in interest (Prov. 26:4). And up to this point, you've given me no indication you care to do anything but rant and rail, so it's no wonder I'm not responding, really.
I've been very nice in asking you to state your perspective that is in contrast to what you claimed someone else was "wrong" about. And repeatedly, you insist that I go looking for your answer -- which would not be an acceptable way for someone to answer your questions. So why the games? Why the evasiveness? And then you act insulted and abused when I say you're being deceptive or dishonest. Just answer the questions right here and now, as you would want someone to do for you. Be honest. Stop the games. Those are not elements of rational debate.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:40 pmNo. But it's Biblical not to answer a person who is not sincere in interest (Prov. 26:4). And up to this point, you've given me no indication you care to do anything but rant and rail, so it's no wonder I'm not responding, really.
Be nice. You might get more for that than for being difficult. You don't have to believe me, and you can question me; but there's no reason you have to be abusive or rude. They're not elements of rational debate.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I take it you are a man. Can you say when and why you chose to be wicked?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:30 pmNot at all. For man was not designed that way. He chose to become that way.tillingborn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:44 amYou have stated that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design. That being so, should anyone lack the appropriate ears, presumably you accept it as an oversight of the designer.