Philosophy Now Forum

IC:

I am not asking what it is that you know or what it is that you believe.

I’m asking how do you know what you know about God and the universe and why do you believe what you believe about God and the universe?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:30 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:50 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:44 pm

It's time to unsubcribe from this thread, I don't have the stomach to witness whats coming.

Yeah. Probably best to leave Christianity to drug addicts, alcoholics, and prison inmates. They seem to get the vibe more than most. That should tell us all something.

Most of us are in the same boat as drug addicts, alcoholics, and prison inmates. The powerful are not also the good and most wealth is got by aggression and greed. Those who believe the old lie that the wealthy must be God's favourites are either rationalising their own greed or handing over their souls to their political masters.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:37 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:30 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:50 pm

It's time to unsubcribe from this thread, I don't have the stomach to witness whats coming.

Yeah. Probably best to leave Christianity to drug addicts, alcoholics, and prison inmates. They seem to get the vibe more than most. That should tell us all something.

Those who believe the old lie that the wealthy must be God's favourites are either rationalising their own greed or handing over their souls to their political masters.

What "lie"? They seem to have things pretty good. If God doesn't favor them, then, by all means, punish all of us equally!

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 11:39 amWell, I've told Skeppy before, I'm a bit of a fan of his!

No doubt he is thrilled.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 11:39 amAs far as USAdians (I think he is) that post mega amounts, ya, I tend to see rationale to him (most of the time) rather than stupid waffling garbage.

Given his parochial innocence, I had him down as South African.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 11:39 amBut. hey, I'm not taking sides.

Nothing wrong with having favourites.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 10:49 am Have you seen his output? Over 10 thousand posts since June 2019. Anyone that absorbed by this place doesn't have a wife.

I think your "absorbtion" meter is miscalibrated.

In between posting 10 times a day I also run a business, maintain a paying job and keep a wife&child happy.

Maybe you are just incompetent at philosophy; maybe you are just incompetent at multitasking; or maybe you are just incompetent.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 2:49 pm Given his parochial innocence, I had him down as South African.

You are as confused about the determining factors for identity as you are about everything else.

Do I have a South African citizenship? Yes.
Do I have a non-South African citizenship? Also yes.
Do I reside in South Africa? Yes.
Do I reside outside of South Africa? Also yes.

The boxes you are trying to put me in keep leaking...

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:34 pm IC:

I am not asking what it is that you know or what it is that you believe.

I’m asking how do you know what you know about God

The short answer is, His self-revelation. Apart from that, I have no special access.

And why do I believe it? Because if God has spoken, it would be insane not to believe Him.

All you have to decide, then, is whether or not God has spoken.

and the universe

That's a different question. The universe is made up of physical things. I learn about it in the same sorts of ways as anybody does, science being the primary one, but personal experience, logic...I'm actually not sure the question is anything else but obvious.

Maybe I'm missing your point here. Can you find another way to get at it? I'm trying to see what it is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 7:32 pm And why do I believe it? Because if God has spoken, it would be insane not to believe Him.

All you have to decide, then, is whether or not God has spoken.

The statement assumes that there is a God who has spoken and that the only reasonable response is to believe in this God. This is based on the belief that God's word is absolute and cannot be questioned. This is a core belief in many religions.

But not everyone agrees with this assumption, and there are many different religions and worldviews that don't believe in a God who has spoken. Also, even people who believe in a God who has spoken have different ideas about what that message means. So, it's not as easy as just deciding whether or not God has spoken. Instead, a deeper look at one's own beliefs, as well as the evidence and arguments for and against them, is needed.

Also, the statement assumes that believing in God's message is the only sensible thing to do. This ignores how important critical thinking and reasoning are for figuring out whether or not a claim is true. Without questioning or looking at the evidence, blind faith can make people make bad decisions and have wrong beliefs.

In conclusion, the statement may be true for people who have certain religious beliefs, but it is not true for everyone. It also doesn't take into account how complex and different beliefs and worldviews are. It's important to approach faith and belief questions with an open mind and critical thinking, instead of just accepting or rejecting a message based on what you already think or believe.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 8:11 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 7:32 pm And why do I believe it? Because if God has spoken, it would be insane not to believe Him.

All you have to decide, then, is whether or not God has spoken.

The statement assumes that there is a God who has spoken and that the only reasonable response is to believe in this God.

Yep, all of that.

But it doesn't assume you can't ask questions. It assumes you can.

But not everyone agrees with this assumption, and there are many different religions and worldviews that don't believe in a God who has spoken.

Then they will never speak to God. But it's no surprise: they won't even try.

Also, even people who believe in a God who has spoken have different ideas about what that message means.

Then you'd best figure out which of them you believe.

So, it's not as easy as just deciding whether or not God has spoken. Instead, a deeper look at one's own beliefs, as well as the evidence and arguments for and against them, is needed.

Debate is good...but it only takes one so far.

If done right, it might convince something that "in theory" God exists; it won't give him any relation to, or conversation with God. The latter are much more than a matter of mere theoretical assent.

Also, the statement assumes that believing in God's message is the only sensible thing to do.

That would depend. If it's really God speaking, then it makes no sense to do otherwise. But you'd have to decide this, first.

Without questioning or looking at the evidence, blind faith can make people make bad decisions and have wrong beliefs.

Very true.

So I agree with you: don't do blind faith.

In conclusion, the statement may be true for people who have certain religious beliefs, but it is not true for everyone.

Is that statement true or false?

Ironically, if that statement is TRUE, then it has to be false. And if it's FALSE it has to be false. So it's false either way.

It also doesn't take into account how complex and different beliefs and worldviews are.

It does, actually. It just very realistically recognizes them for two types: true worldviews, and false ones...and, of course, the various admixtures between, which are usually only true enough to convince one of things that are false.

It's important to approach faith and belief questions with an open mind and critical thinking,

With critical thinking, yes; with "an open mind" depends.

If by "open mind" we mean, "open to being convinced," or "open to faith," then yes. If we mean "so open it's empty-headed," then, no.

How-do, long-suffering denizens of the Philosophy Now Forum's Christianity thread. Long time no post. I've been following along though, intending to put in a word at some point - which has become "now". It's been so long though that all the bits and pieces I'd wanted to respond to are by now lost in the deeper recesses of my mind, and I by now have only two main responses to share - which is great news for you folks, who now don't have to suffer through too much rabbiting on from me.

First up: the now somewhat historical kerfuffle over demographics. Cutting to the chase: friend AJ vehemently avers that wanting one's own race and culture to continue its demographic dominance in the country in which one lives (or at least from which one hails) is moral. AJ, do you mean moral in the sense of obligatory, or moral in the sense of defensible? If the former, then I strongly disagree. If the latter, then I agree, but with some serious caveats.

It is morally defensible in and of itself, but, depending on its motivations, which themselves might be morally indefensible, it, too, might, by association, become tainted with moral indefensibility.

Here are a few of the potential motivations that I can remember being floated (approvingly or condemnatorily) by various participants earlier in the thread, paraphrased here by me (in some cases, perhaps a little over-elaborately), plus a few that I have encountered "out there" or in general (again, paraphrased by me):

1. Racial and cultural diversity is very important (as a good in and of itself), and, in order to maintain this diversity, all races and cultures should continue to predominate in the countries in which they currently predominate, so as to avoid via intermixing the descent of some/many/all races and cultures into indistinguishable homogeneities, especially as multinational corporate forces spread their bland sameness throughout the globe.
2. Some (many?) people strongly identify with their race and culture, feeling strong allegiance to, and camaraderie with, fellow members of that race and culture, and they are most comfortable and satisfied when they can live in at least one country/nation in which their race and culture predominates.
3. People from other races and cultures do not integrate well into a country/nation with a hitherto singular or at least highly predominant race and culture, causing internal conflict and tension that wasn't present in their absence.
4. People from some other race and culture are covertly seeking to destroy our race and culture, and we need to be aware of this intent and prevent it from succeeding, by reinforcing our predominance in this country.
5. Due to incorrigible flaws in their inherent nature, people from other races and cultures are net drains on our economy and/or massively over-represented in our criminal justice system, and, because they thus simply burden the rest of us, should be excluded from our country/nation.
6. People from other races and cultures are inherently inferior and should not be tolerated in our country/nation.
7. People from other races and cultures are inherently inferior, parasitical, contemptible, and degenerate, and should be forcibly exterminated for the good of humanity. Sieg heil!

I'll leave it to the reader to determine which of those motivations are morally defensible and which are not...

It is no small matter that a World War was started in large part by people whose motivations were at the very deep, dark pit-bottom of that list. The possibility of evil resulting from the worse motivations then is no mere slippery-slope fallacy: we have slipped down that slope before, in a way the worse than which it is hard to imagine. It is quite right and proper then - and not at all frightfully outrageous and objectionable as AJ made it out to be - to press a person arguing for demographic dominance to clarify exactly what their motivations are, and how those motivations will play out in practice.

Secondly:

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 2:28 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oltsfcVWe3A

Yes, Gary, yes. A dozen times (and more; many, many more): yes. This is the video on the Euthyphro Dilemma that IC needs to watch.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:23 pm This is the video on the Euthyphro Dilemma that IC needs to watch.

The Euthyphro Dilemma? Seriously?

Asked and answered. And there's been nothing new on it in thousands of years.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:43 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:23 pm This is the video on the Euthyphro Dilemma that IC needs to watch.

The Euthyphro Dilemma? Seriously?

Asked and answered.

Yeah, I know. I've well and truly schooled you on it. But you won't take it from me. Maybe you'll take it from this guy, who lays it out with utterly exquisite clarity.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:43 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 9:23 pm This is the video on the Euthyphro Dilemma that IC needs to watch.

The Euthyphro Dilemma? Seriously?

Asked and answered.

Yeah, I know. I've well and truly schooled you on it.

Not really.

It's a false dichotomy. It's just that simple, really. It's like asking, "Is this man a husband or a father?" The answer is, "Plausibly both."

That's really all there is to it, and all there ever was.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:36 pm It's a false dichotomy.

It's really not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:36 pm It's just that simple, really.

It's peculiar to watch someone post something so wrong so confidently and assertively.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:36 pm It's like asking, "Is this man a husband or a father?" The answer is, "Plausibly both."

It's not at all like that, and that answer isn't plausible for the Dilemma. Why that is comes down to explanatory priority, which can only run in one direction, not both. Neither direction is tenable though in terms of justifying the claim that "morality is what is [insert your preferred relationship here: commanded, decreed, willed, embodied, etc etc] by God" is an ultimate answer to "What grounds morality?"

You'll have to watch the video to see what I'm referencing. It's a very, very well done presentation.