Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:56 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:49 pm Again, his refusal to confront this...with anything in the way of a reasonable explanation as to why he won't save souls here.

A Protestant would no that no man "saves souls." A Protestant would know that what you do is between you and God. So whatever you have been, it was clearly not a "Protestant."

And a sensible person would already know he had the thing he was asking for, and was not even willing to look at it.

So it is what it is.

Again, you have what you believe to be demonstrable evidence for the existence of the Christian God residing in Heaven. Your religious convictions revolve around accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior. That is of fundamental importance come Judgment Day. But you refuse to disclose that evidence to others here.

Instead, you make it all about me not committing myself to watching 16 YouTube videos!!!

So, reasonably in my view, I ask you to link me to the most compelling video. The one you believe contains the most persuasive evidence. If that truly has an impact on me, I will watch the rest of them.

Then wiggle, wiggle, wiggle on your part with all sorts of ridiculous excuses.

Yes, God saves souls. But mere mortals who believe in the Christian God must bring those who do not over to God. Millions upons millions of Christians insist that unless you do accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior you cannot be saved. You will be "left behind" when Christ returns.

Thus...

"Examples of proselytizing faiths are Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam; non-proselytizing faiths include Hinduism, Judaism, and Shinto."

Proselytize: "to convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another."

Now, again, here you are claiming to have evidence that took you beyond a leap of faith to God to the knowledge that the Christian God resides in Heaven. But you refuse to link others here to that which you deem to be the most powerful proof of all!!

Instead, ever and always coming back to my own Christian faith some years ago. How, basically, I wasn't a true Christian, a true Protestant because only you get to tell us what that entails.

So, is this all just an act on your part? Embracing Christianity in such a way as to [ironically] mock those who do so?

Make sense of all this for us.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 5:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:56 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:49 pm Again, his refusal to confront this...with anything in the way of a reasonable explanation as to why he won't save souls here.

A Protestant would no that no man "saves souls." A Protestant would know that what you do is between you and God. So whatever you have been, it was clearly not a "Protestant."

And a sensible person would already know he had the thing he was asking for, and was not even willing to look at it.

So it is what it is.

Again, you have what you believe to be demonstrable evidence for the existence of the Christian God residing in Heaven.

I have evidence that God exists. You also have it. But you don't want to look at it.

...you refuse to disclose that evidence to others here.

They can also see the videos. And if they want to know what Christians believe, all they have to do is read my last message.

So, reasonably in my view, I ask you to link me to the most compelling video.

"Compelling" will be the one that impresses you, not me. The videos are basic and introductory...and also very easy and entertaining to watch.

But there's real merit in you doing some investigation of the evidence, for it's clear you know of none. You've said so yourself. So I don't feel inclined to cut your search down to size for you. You need to invest some thought into this, even if you're unwilling.

Yes, God saves souls.

If you believe that, then you should be concerned.

...coming back to my own Christian faith some years ago. How, basically, I wasn't a true Christian, a true Protestant...

You've exposed that yourself. You don't even know the gospels, as AJ pointed out. So it's clear you were not the "devout Protestant" you claimed to be...the evidence of that is simply not present.

Interesting that even now, you refuse to inform yourself. I don't know what to make of that, except that you have no concern for God or for your own soul. But that is up to you.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 3:04 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:42 pm An absolutely classic account of God and religion while flitting scholastically from cloud to cloud. Really, can you imagine any God's reaction to intellectual masturbation of this sort on Judgment Day?!!

I propose we can examine how Iambiguous's chief rhetorical tools are employed.

The core of Iambiguous's usage is he assertion that those he speaks with are "flitting from cloud to cloud". If not that then that they are "riding on intellectual skyhooks". As rhetorical devices they have a certain effect, but I see them as fallacious assertions.

Huh? Above he posted this:

"And then I like voyaging by intellectual skyhooks from one upper region to another."

To which I responded, "Indeed, you do".

And, sure, there are those here like IC and Harry and iwannaplato and others who will soar up there with him.

But, again, my own interest in Christianity revolves instead around these concerns:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious convictions
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious paths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious path

And going there means coming down out of the intellectual contraption clouds and exploring Christianity in terms of the value judgments we espouse, the behaviors we chose and how that is intertwined existentially with Judgment Day.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 3:04 pmSince there is no Judgment Day, and no God to oversee anything at all (in Iambiguous's universe of sheer nihilism), the entire usage is empty.

I don't argue that. How on Earth could I possibly know that definitively? I merely note that "here and now" I don't believe in them. But that I once did. And that I would like to again. If I can be persuaded to take that leap of faith.

But here's IC claiming that a leap of faith itself can be transcended. That, like him, I can come to know that the Christian God resides in Heaven. Only he won't link me to the most powerful evidence he has accumulated.

Then with AJ, it's straight back up into the spiritual clouds...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 3:04 pmHowever, this does not change one iota the relevance for man, and for any man, to be concerned about the notion of a personal judgment to which any of us may well be subjected. In fact I can testify that even while alive, or especially when alive (!), I have gone through rather agonizing processes of self-introspection that seem to be directed not by myself alone, but me myself in relation to something else. That is for me where *moral sense* is made quite real. Who subjects me to this moral fire? Is it merely myself? I do not mean to answer the question in any definitive way, I simply want to point out that zillions of people undergo these processes, and zillions of people thus intuit that these processes may very well indeed continue at some future point.

So in truth I am in no sense "flitting from cloud to cloud" as if engaged in a senseless endeavor. Iamgiguous's assertion functions merely and exclusively to inhibit a mature examination of the issues and questions that operate, quite strongly, in the Christian process (of profound self-examination).

Again: Where's the beef? Where's the part in which he goes beyond his personal experiences and intuitions and processes and, instead, in regard to my 4 concerns above, show us why with so many other religious and spiritual paths out there to choose from his is the optimal -- the only? -- true path.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 3:37 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:49 pm Again and again, he makes this all about me. And again and again I remind him to forget about me...to aim his most potent evidence for the existence of the Christian God at others here who have yet to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

As another other, I wonder: Has he asserted he can demonstrate the existence of the Christian God via arguments
and evidence as text that shows up on a computer screen? Has he argued that this is that kind of belief/situation?

I don't know what he's promised to do or claimed to be doing in his posts, but it seems like your post is making it about him also....

With so much at stake on both sides of the grave...

He claimed to me that his own belief in the Christian God was more than just a leap of faith. He knows that He resides in Heaven the way others know that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

How did he know this? Well, because the Christian Bible said so. And the Christian Bible must be true because it is the word of God. And sure enough he quoted verse after verse about accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal savior. He also linked me to 16 YouTube videos. Which could involve literally hours of viewing. So, I asked him to link me to the video that he believed was the most compelling. If it had an impact on me, I'd watch all the rest of them. He refuses to do so. More to the point, he refuses to do so for all those other than me here whose souls are also on the line.

Again, his refusal to confront this...

Anyone who truly did believe they had demonstrable evidence that a God, the God, their God did in fact exist would do everything in their power to spread the news.

...with anything in the way of a reasonable explanation as to why he won't save souls here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 3:37 pmHere you are demanding he do something and complaining that he didn't do this thing. (with the strange phrase 'his refusal to confront').

Well, why won't he explain to me why, if he has this evidence, he won't share it with everyone here? Why doesn't he confront his refusal to link it...explaining why that makes sense to him.

No, really, if anyone else here had such evidence regarding the existence of a God they believed could be demonstrated to exist beyond a mere leap of faith, wouldn't they be extremely eager to bring it to the attention of others? A transcending font one could anchor one's moral convictions to here and now and be assured of immortality and salvation for their very soul there and then?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 6:13 pm
Well, why won't he explain to me why, if he has this evidence, he won't share it with everyone here? Why doesn't he confront his refusal to link it...explaining why that makes sense to him.

Didn't you say he already linked you to 16 videos?

Here's a quote from you:

"I've assured you that I will examine the most potent videos/evidence you've come across in their entirety."

Have you done that?

@IC: May I see the links to the sixteen videos being talked about? Or see the OP where you posted them.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 8:18 pm @IC: May I see the links to the sixteen videos being talked about? Or see the OP where you posted them.

Certainly.

Here you are, Gary: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animated-videos

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 5:42 pm Again: Where's the beef? Where's the part in which he goes beyond his personal experiences and intuitions and processes and, instead, in regard to my 4 concerns above, show us why with so many other religious and spiritual paths out there to choose from his is the optimal -- the only? -- true path.

But I am not concerned about your concerns you nut!

I’ve resolved a great many of the concerns I’ve had through complex but elegant double- and triple-backward ideological flips. But only to get warmed up! Then, I invoke massive ultra-spiritual skyhooks which hoist me into those chilly domains of sophisticated mental abstraction (i.e. direct communication with angelic intelligences) and when up there, yes! everything seems much clearer. And after all is said and done I am back in time for dinner cooked by my lovely wife.

I lead a charmed existence.

Remember m’boy: here, it’s all as though seen through a glass darkly.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:16 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 5:42 pm Again: Where's the beef? Where's the part in which he goes beyond his personal experiences and intuitions and processes and, instead, in regard to my 4 concerns above, show us why with so many other religious and spiritual paths out there to choose from his is the optimal -- the only? -- true path.

But I am not concerned about your concerns you nut!

Again, that's fine. If flitting about up in the intellectual clouds is your own way of exploring God and religion, you will always find those here eager to join you in defining and in defending one or another spiritual construct over all the others. If nothing else, you can sound like some expect philosophers to sound. You can even appear particularly erudite to those you wish to impress.

Wink, wink.

And then perhaps one day you'll want to make it all more...existential. Noting for us how your beliefs regarding God and religion actually do pertain to your value judgments and your behaviors in interacting with others. And how you connect the dots between them and what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave. Nothing too specific, of course, but then serious philosophy never really has much to do with that anyway.

For example...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:16 pmI’ve resolved a great many of the concerns I’ve had through complex but elegant double- and triple-backward ideological flips. But only to get warmed up! Then, I invoke massive ultra-spiritual skyhooks which hoist me into those chilly domains of sophisticated mental abstraction (i.e. direct communication with angelic intelligences) and when up there, yes! everything seems much clearer. And after all is said and done I am back in time for dinner cooked by my lovely wife.

I lead a charmed existence.

Yes, I know. This was meant to be ironic. But we both know better, don't we?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:16 pmRemember m’boy: here, it’s all as though seen through a glass darkly.

Indeed...

“We see everything in a glass, darkly. Sometimes we can peer through the glass and catch a glimpse of what is on the other side. If we were to polish the glass clean, we'd see much more. But then we would no longer see ourselves."

That's the whole point of keeping God and religion up in the clouds. Up there we see only in...only through...a world of words. We define God and religion into existence. We deduce things about them. Then things need be as clear only as the words appear to be themselves. None of that grimy, gritty [even grim] stuff that actually accompanies human interactions from, say, the cradle to the grave?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 6:13 pm
With so much at stake on both sides of the grave...

He claimed to me that his own belief in the Christian God was more than just a leap of faith.

A leap of faith could mean something like: although I have no evidence and feel nothing, experience nothing special in prayer, feel nothing numinous when I read the Bible, never feel the presence of grace of Jesus, I simply decide to have faith in God. Faith is often presented as not even believe and regardless of what is experienced and demonstrated. One has neither subjective nor objective evidence in a leap of faith.

There's a lot of distance between that and
I can prove the existence of God to someone online via words on a screen.

How did he know this? Well, because the Christian Bible said so. And the Christian Bible must be true because it is the word of God. And sure enough he quoted verse after verse about accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal savior. He also linked me to 16 YouTube videos. Which could involve literally hours of viewing. So, I asked him to link me to the video that he believed was the most compelling. If it had an impact on me, I'd watch all the rest of them. He refuses to do so. More to the point, he refuses to do so for all those other than me here whose souls are also on the line.

Well, that seems like a fair request on your part. For him to choose the most compelling to him. On the other hand, compared to years of participation in a religion you have no interest in...it's not a lot of work. Not that you should be interested, but if you are.

No, really, if anyone else here had such evidence regarding the existence of a God they believed could be demonstrated to exist beyond a mere leap of faith, wouldn't they be extremely eager to bring it to the attention of others? A transcending font one could anchor one's moral convictions to here and now and be assured of immortality and salvation for their very soul there and then?

Well, again, most religious leaders would suggest participation in the religion and it's practices. Not some data or argument or even a video. That it's not some thoughts in the head but a process of relationship or a process of change in yourself through which one comes to the belief (or not).

I am sure there are theists who think a few videos or some compelling argument will change someone from non-believer, but I think that's a very small percentage of theists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:13 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 8:18 pm @IC: May I see the links to the sixteen videos being talked about? Or see the OP where you posted them.

Certainly.

Here you are, Gary: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/animated-videos

OK. I agree, perhaps it is "reasonable" to believe an "extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent,non-physical, immaterial, eternal being, created the universe and everything in it." Nothing wrong with that. We can have our hunches or beliefs about things we cannot know anything more about. We can call whatever fits the above-quoted qualifications,"God". Heck, let's call it "Yahweh" or "Jimmy" or "Abraham" or "X". What does that tell us about "God"? Does that tell us God created human beings with any special "plan" or "purpose"? If so, perhaps the purpose was the same purpose a human being creates a computer. Or perhaps it's the same purpose a human being tames a cat or dog to be a companion or catches goldfish for an aquarium just to pass time watching. Where is the evidence that "X" created us to even "love" one another? A person can "hate" as much as they can "love". Our ancestors perhaps worked out that "loving" other humans is beneficial to every human's survival. Of course it's not a perfect 'pact' or 'approach'. Some can take advantage of the love of others. Perhaps some can even get away with harming others. Do we know that Hitler died in any way more horribly than the Hebrews he sent to concentration camps? Do we know that Hitler didn't go to heaven or else went to hell? Do we know that there is "life" after death? What's to convince us that "X" cares in some special way more for humans than "X" cares for rabbits or beetles?

And here's something else to consider. When we use the term "God" to explain an "extremely powerful, uncaused, necessarily existing, non-contingent,non-physical, immaterial, eternal being" are we trying to use human concepts such as "entity", "being", "substance" or whatever to attempt to explain that which maybe perhaps, by the very definition provided above, is maybe outside human comprehension? Can we even utter a word concerning that which is incomprehensible to us and outside the universe? We've just created more questions than we've answered.

If you want to believe that you'll burn in hell or whatever if you don't "accept" Christ, then by all means, I will not stop you. I, however, believe Christ was probably a human being, who was either, having intense psychological experiences that led him to a false conclusion that he was the creator of the universe, or was some kind of an amalgamation of a hindu and monotheist who maybe conflated the notions of brahmin, atman, or whatever with the idea of God being separate from humans or whatever.

That's all I get out of the videos, other than the fact that none of them prove the fundamental tenet of Christianity, that Christ was God and that God was Yahweh who "chose" the Jews.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 4:59 pm It seems to me that the spread of Christian belief in the 1st century took place for other reasons and in a different way.

That spread would be generally from one theism to another. I was talking about Iamb, non-theist, or someone like him becoming a theist.

If we were to take only a couple of the Gospels and some of St Paul's letters, and then a community of believers, as the chief influence that caused people to align themselves with the new Christian movement, one would have to understand that the Christian doctrine of a God genuinely concerned for the individual, and a community of believers who shared a common goal and supported new believers in their process of remodeling their lives (and this is what it did entail), that the *proof* that someone would respond to would have been through an association with those early Christians.

Well, this sounds like what i was talking about anyway, here focusing on the participation the communal aspects of the religion.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:55 pm If flitting about up in the intellectual clouds is your own way of exploring God and religion, you will always find those here eager to join you in defining and in defending one or another spiritual construct over all the others.

“Flitting about in intellectual clouds” is your rhetorical construct, and a bad-faith imposition of your own negative characterization. Once one sees that — and if you were to see it — you might progress somewhat. To understand other people one must drop one’s prejudices.

Your designations, which are purely yours, inhibit you from understanding where others locate themselves vis-à-vis the large problem and consideration that is our Christian heritage.

In short, you’re an asshole!

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:42 pm Well, this sounds like what i was talking about anyway, here focusing on the participation the communal aspects of the religion.

Yes, and it sounds about right.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 11:47 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:55 pm If flitting about up in the intellectual clouds is your own way of exploring God and religion, you will always find those here eager to join you in defining and in defending one or another spiritual construct over all the others.

“Flitting about in intellectual clouds” is your rhetorical construct, and a bad-faith imposition of your own negative characterization. Once one sees that — and if you were to see it — you might progress somewhat. To understand other people one must drop one’s prejudices.

Your designations, which are purely yours, inhibit you from understanding where others locate themselves vis-à-vis the large problem and consideration that is our Christian heritage.

In short, you’re an asshole!

Yes. I'm sure it's objectively supported by the existence of God that he's an "asshole" and you're not. Otherwise, it would be a mere subjective personal opinion on your part.