Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

OK. I watched them. Thank you for the brief summary. I'm not a "Christian" but some of what was said is certainly understandable to me.

Great. That's all I was suggesting that Biggie should do. Nothing more.

But he wanted you to tell him in your own words why you believe what you believe (or perhaps why you think he should believe).

No, he/she just declared unilaterally that there as no such thing as independent, rational evidence for God. I provided it to him, a he/she changed the terms a half dozen times, claiming I had to show God was "in Heaven," or "like the Pope in Rome." I ignored all that nonsense, and waited for him/her to examine the evidence provided.

He/she still has not. If he/she has another question, we can deal with it when he/she has shown good faith with the first answer. Or not.

[Gary Childress]

No, he/she just declared unilaterally that there as no such thing as independent, rational evidence for God.

Not all religions appear to believe in the same thing in terms of creation, and a creator. Does that not serve as evidence that there is also "independent, rational" evidence for other religious interpretations of the world? Really, all the first cause argument argues is that there is (logically) a first cause. It tells us almost nothing else about that first cause. For all we know a "first cause" could be the first father of a "human" telling a son what to do and what not to do. Do all fathers tell their sons the same thing? today, human beings are designing AI which can do many things much faster and more accurately than we can do. We have possibly "created" an intelligence that is in many ways "better" than our own. It can make fewer mistakes it can do some things much more quickly. It can even hold a conversation with us in ways that don't always tell us that it is only "artificial" intelligence. Is it not possible that the universe did something similar when it produced us--started out small and then built its way up to something "better" or more complex?

As far as we can tell, we are here now and we know little of greater context than that. Outside of that, there are perhaps fragments of evidence suggesting that maybe life began with the simplest creatures and later in the fossil record we find us. In human development from childhood to adulthood, we find an increase in ability up to a certain point, then a kind of plateau and then there is the "downhill" cycle that more or less follows us to the end. Aside from that, we don't know much else about the world other than what we can measure and experience ourselves.

[iambiguous]

Let's try this again, Mr. Wiggle...

Over and again: I'm not much interested in what philosophers or theologians deduced about God. Given all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, I am far, far more interested in what they can provide me in the way of substantive and substantial evidence that God does exist. Then I can jettison my grim belief that in a No God world objective morality is out of reach, that my existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless and that my death = oblivion.

That is my main interest in you here. You have managed to go beyond a leap of faith to the Christian God.You claim instead that there is evidence in those 16 or 17 YouTube videos that convinced you that He does in fact reside in Heaven.

You recommended one of them to Gary above.

I watched it myself:

Basically, what is being argued here is that, as the Christian woman says, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. That as philosophers like Camus noted, No God and human existence is essentially meaningless and absurd.

In other words [and I agree with this] if there is no God than there is no basis for objective morality. It is all merely the result of the evolution of life on Earth and "human conventions".

So, the atheist suggests that "human flourishing" ought to be the criteria. And the Christian woman then points out [rightly in my view] that if there is no God than who is to say what flourishing means? She points out how Hitler thought that his Nazi policies were what would accomplish this. And, she notes, certain philosophers have argued that using the tools of philosophy will not lead us to objective morality. And I agree with this in turn.

Then she gets to the bottom line for most Christians: "What happens after you die"?

No God, no afterlife.

She sums it all up: "If Christianity is true then each one of us is here for a reason. And life does not end at the grave. And God is the absolute standard of goodness. He knows you. He loves you. He intentionally created you. So, your life ultimately does have meaning and value and purpose."

But then the Atheist makes the point, "Well, that doesn't prove that Christianity is true".

And she agrees. She merely points out again how comforted and consoled you can be if you do believe in Christianity.

Even the Church Lady admits that what she tells the atheist isn't proof of the Christian God's existence.

So, is there another video I can watch instead that does establish this. Again, simply note the segment in the video that was most persuasive to you.

You know what you should have done. You know what you need to do.

You can do it, or not.

Now, that's entertainment!!!

Seriously, though, what you need to do is to comment on the points I raised regarding the video above. Or to explain to us why you refuse to. And, again, now that I am actually watching the videos, which one would you recommend that I watch next. Hopefully the one with the segment that was most persuasive in convincing you to jettison a leap of faith to God and to believe that He does in fact reside in Heaven.

The segment that, if henry quirk really is your friend, you will be encouraging him to watch too. Or explain to us why on Earth you would choose not to.

And now some more wiggling...

It does not matter where God "resides," if He exists. That's one of the things about being omnipresent that is analytically obvious. Your little addendum about the Pope and Rome is a bizarre one. But I see the reason you tacked it on: it lets you keep claiming I haven't come up to your "challenge," even when I have done what literally answers the original challenge you threw out.

As I recall, that's what we went back and forth regarding. You claiming that beyond a leap of faith, you knew that God did in fact exist.

How did you know?

1] It says so in the Christian Bible
2] those YouTube videos

I merely noted the distinction between demonstrating that the Christian God does exist and demonstrating that the Pope does exist. And what you have "done" ever since is to avoid noting the evidence in the videos that convinced you that the Christian God does in fact exist...everywhere.

The original point was simply this: is there non-religious, independent, rational evidence for the existence of God? Now that you have the videos, you could know that the answer is "Yes," beyond any reasonable doubt.

Whether or not you're prepared to acknowledge it is now moot. You could, you should, and nobody can make you. So it's 100% on you to inform yourself of as much as you want to know. You have the evidence.

But the claptrap about the Pope, "resides in Heaven," etc? Nobody promised you that, Christianity doesn't claim that, and you made it up. So enjoy as many of the videos as you want...or don't. It's clear to me you don't even want to try to inform yourself...and I can't make you.

So, that really is what you are going to cling to, Mr. Wiggle?!!! Rather than save my soul and henry's soul and the soul of all the others here who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior...saving souls by noting the video segments powerful enough to convince you that the Christian God does exist...we have to watch all of the videos.

Yet you won't even comment on the points I noted regarding "meaning" video above. You won't even suggest the next most persuasive video we should watch.

How about that? I'll agree to watch all the videos, one by one, in the order you indicate. But after watching them one by one and commenting on them one by one, you respond to the points I raise. Starting with the "meaning" video above.

[iambiguous]

iam challenged: "if henry quirk really is your friend, you will be encouraging him to watch too."

Hmmm...why would Mannie throw a life preserver to the guy who screams over and over 'I'm drowning over here!' but not throw a life preserver to the guy who swims perfectly fine, who, in fact, is a friggin' expert?

More simply: which is a wiser use of time & energy? Tryin' to save the guy who sez he's in trouble, or, tryin' to save the guy who clearly doesn't need savin'?

Still be befuzzled? Try this one: we don't spoon-feed adults; we spoon-feed infants.

Does or does not your friend Mannie believe that in order to save one's soul one must accept Jesus Christ as one's personal savior?

And whether his friend believes he doesn't need to be saved, that part stays the same.

Right?

Sure, he can say, "Henry, I respect your own views on God and religion. I do. But I know that the Christian God does in fact exist. And if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you will be 'left behind' if you are around for the second coming. Or burn in Hell for all of eternity after you die come Judgment Day. So, let's get together and watch those YouTube videos, my good friend. You will be convinced then to come over to Christ."

[Harbal]

Who has the time or inclination...

To watch a few animated videos?

Everybody.

OK. I watched them. Thank you for the brief summary. I'm not a "Christian" but some of what was said is certainly understandable to me.

You should watch some of this guy's videos, I suspect they are more interesting than IC's, and a damned sight more trutheful. He's an ex-Christian who saw the light and saved himself.

[Gary Childress]

To watch a few animated videos?

Everybody.

OK. I watched them. Thank you for the brief summary. I'm not a "Christian" but some of what was said is certainly understandable to me.

You should watch some of this guy's videos, I suspect they are more interesting than IC's, and a damned sight more trutheful. He's an ex-Christian who saw the light and saved himself.

What videos are you referring to, Harbal? Did you mean to provide a link?

[Harbal]

OK. I watched them. Thank you for the brief summary. I'm not a "Christian" but some of what was said is certainly understandable to me.

You should watch some of this guy's videos, I suspect they are more interesting than IC's, and a damned sight more trutheful. He's an ex-Christian who saw the light and saved himself.

What videos are you referring to, Harbal? Did you mean to provide a link?

Yes, I did mean to give you a link, Gary.

Sorry about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G5V-kWSsc8

[Gary Childress]

Let's try this again, Mr. Wiggle...

Over and again: I'm not much interested in what philosophers or theologians deduced about God. Given all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, I am far, far more interested in what they can provide me in the way of substantive and substantial evidence that God does exist. Then I can jettison my grim belief that in a No God world objective morality is out of reach, that my existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless and that my death = oblivion.

That is my main interest in you here. You have managed to go beyond a leap of faith to the Christian God.You claim instead that there is evidence in those 16 or 17 YouTube videos that convinced you that He does in fact reside in Heaven.

You recommended one of them to Gary above.

I watched it myself:

Basically, what is being argued here is that, as the Christian woman says, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. That as philosophers like Camus noted, No God and human existence is essentially meaningless and absurd.

In other words [and I agree with this] if there is no God than there is no basis for objective morality. It is all merely the result of the evolution of life on Earth and "human conventions".

So, the atheist suggests that "human flourishing" ought to be the criteria. And the Christian woman then points out [rightly in my view] that if there is no God than who is to say what flourishing means? She points out how Hitler thought that his Nazi policies were what would accomplish this. And, she notes, certain philosophers have argued that using the tools of philosophy will not lead us to objective morality. And I agree with this in turn.

Then she gets to the bottom line for most Christians: "What happens after you die"?

No God, no afterlife.

She sums it all up: "If Christianity is true then each one of us is here for a reason. And life does not end at the grave. And God is the absolute standard of goodness. He knows you. He loves you. He intentionally created you. So, your life ultimately does have meaning and value and purpose."

But then the Atheist makes the point, "Well, that doesn't prove that Christianity is true".

And she agrees. She merely points out again how comforted and consoled you can be if you do believe in Christianity.

Even the Church Lady admits that what she tells the atheist isn't proof of the Christian God's existence.

So, is there another video I can watch instead that does establish this. Again, simply note the segment in the video that was most persuasive to you.

You know what you should have done. You know what you need to do.

You can do it, or not.

Now, that's entertainment!!!

Seriously, though, what you need to do is to comment on the points I raised regarding the video above. Or to explain to us why you refuse to. And, again, now that I am actually watching the videos, which one would you recommend that I watch next. Hopefully the one with the segment that was most persuasive in convincing you to jettison a leap of faith to God and to believe that He does in fact reside in Heaven.

The segment that, if henry quirk really is your friend, you will be encouraging him to watch too. Or explain to us why on Earth you would choose not to.

And now some more wiggling...

It does not matter where God "resides," if He exists. That's one of the things about being omnipresent that is analytically obvious. Your little addendum about the Pope and Rome is a bizarre one. But I see the reason you tacked it on: it lets you keep claiming I haven't come up to your "challenge," even when I have done what literally answers the original challenge you threw out.

As I recall, that's what we went back and forth regarding. You claiming that beyond a leap of faith, you knew that God did in fact exist.

How did you know?

1] It says so in the Christian Bible
2] those YouTube videos

I merely noted the distinction between demonstrating that the Christian God does exist and demonstrating that the Pope does exist. And what you have "done" ever since is to avoid noting the evidence in the videos that convinced you that the Christian God does in fact exist...everywhere.

The original point was simply this: is there non-religious, independent, rational evidence for the existence of God? Now that you have the videos, you could know that the answer is "Yes," beyond any reasonable doubt.

Whether or not you're prepared to acknowledge it is now moot. You could, you should, and nobody can make you. So it's 100% on you to inform yourself of as much as you want to know. You have the evidence.

But the claptrap about the Pope, "resides in Heaven," etc? Nobody promised you that, Christianity doesn't claim that, and you made it up. So enjoy as many of the videos as you want...or don't. It's clear to me you don't even want to try to inform yourself...and I can't make you.

So, that really is what you are going to cling to, Mr. Wiggle?!!! Rather than save my soul and henry's soul and the soul of all the others here who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior...saving souls by noting the video segments powerful enough to convince you that the Christian God does exist...we have to watch all of the videos.

Yet you won't even comment on the points I noted regarding "meaning" video above. You won't even suggest the next most persuasive video we should watch.

How about that? I'll agree to watch all the videos, one by one, in the order you indicate. But after watching them one by one and commenting on them one by one, you respond to the points I raise. Starting with the "meaning" video above.

Mannie clearly isn't going to spoon-feed you his views on religion. He is more honest than that. And that is admirable as far as that goes.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Dubious]

Your posts are often rhetorically corrupt and this one is no different. I will explain point by point.

The history of Christianity from the moment it became official under Constantine resembled one long mafia epic of corruption where morality or most of it consisted of nothing more than undeviating obedience to the church and infringements invariably punished. What it started off as and what it became are two entirely different stories. One wouldn't recognize the other. But since you think I'm semi-articulate and rhetorically corrupt go and fuck yourself and NEVER again respond to anything I say.

Your supercilious sense of superiority is somewhat sickening as is your cholesterol bloated prose; so to repeat, kindly fuck off!

Oh, btw, I always had a real soft spot for Daffy! At least there's some humor in it!

[Immanuel Can]

No, he/she just declared unilaterally that there as no such thing as independent, rational evidence for God.

Not all religions appear to believe in the same thing in terms of creation, and a creator. Does that not serve as evidence that there is also "independent, rational" evidence for other religious interpretations of the world?

Of course not.

But you're mixing up two questions. One is, "Is there any evidence for God," and the other is, "What is the nature of God?" The first comes before the second, and the videos are primarily relevant to the first, and are not intended to provide an answer to the second.

We were starting to talk about that second question when you left the discussion with commonsense. Nobody's picked it up, since.

Really, all the first cause argument argues is that there is (logically) a first cause. It tells us almost nothing else about that first cause.

And that is all it was ever intended to do.

Is it not possible that the universe did something similar when it produced us--started out small and then built its way up to something "better" or more complex?

Well, AI is, at this moment, simply a delusion. As Searle's Chinese Room experiment suggests, we have no basis for deciding that a so-called "AI" is actually intelligent. All the programs we currently have are merely responding to programming, albeit in immensely complex ways.

But that's a different conversation, really. And I can see you're only trying to refer to AI as an analogy. And the aptness of that analogy, given present technology, is not great.

[Immanuel Can]

It does not matter where God "resides," if He exists. That's one of the things about being omnipresent that is analytically obvious. Your little addendum about the Pope and Rome is a bizarre one. But I see the reason you tacked it on: it lets you keep claiming I haven't come up to your "challenge," even when I have done what literally answers the original challenge you threw out.

As I recall, that's what we went back and forth regarding. You claiming that beyond a leap of faith, you knew that God did in fact exist.

And the videos cover that. If you looked at them, you'd already know how wrong you are.

But you will not.

You're on your own.

[Gary Childress]

No, he/she just declared unilaterally that there as no such thing as independent, rational evidence for God.

Not all religions appear to believe in the same thing in terms of creation, and a creator. Does that not serve as evidence that there is also "independent, rational" evidence for other religious interpretations of the world?

Of course not.

But you're mixing up two questions. One is, "Is there any evidence for God," and the other is, "What is the nature of God?" The first comes before the second, and the videos are primarily relevant to the first, and are not intended to provide an answer to the second.

We were starting to talk about that second question when you left the discussion with commonsense. Nobody's picked it up, since.

Really, all the first cause argument argues is that there is (logically) a first cause. It tells us almost nothing else about that first cause.

And that is all it was ever intended to do.

Is it not possible that the universe did something similar when it produced us--started out small and then built its way up to something "better" or more complex?

Well, AI is, at this moment, simply a delusion. As Searle's Chinese Room experiment suggests, we have no basis for deciding that a so-called "AI" is actually intelligent. All the programs we currently have are merely responding to programming, albeit in immensely complex ways.

But that's a different conversation, really. And I can see you're only trying to refer to AI as an analogy. And the aptness of that analogy, given present technology, is not great.

Work has apparently been done on creating AI that is capable of learning. I've chatted with chatbots that have produced coherent and intelligent responses to what I've typed in the blink of an eye. It seems almost as if the AI had the answer before I even typed it. The feedback is almost instantaneous. You should try it. It might change your mind about how "imperfect" AI is compared to the human mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Your posts are often rhetorically corrupt and this one is no different. I will explain point by point.

The history of Christianity from the moment it became official under Constantine...

That's Roman Catholicsm.

Do you know what "Roman Catholic" implies? It means the religion sanctioned by the emperor of Rome (officially, Constantine), and "Catholic" means "universal," or "of the [inhabited] world." In other words, it's the ideology of the Roman world, by definition of its name.

Christianity itself long predates Constantine. That's not even in doubt, not by any historian, and not even in the RC orbit.

[Immanuel Can]

Work has apparently been done on creating AI that is capable of learning.

The problem is that "learning" has to be properly defined. We have the same problem with the word "intelligence," in this discussion.

What computers are doing is adapting algorithms. That's not "learning," at least nothing like human beings so naturally do all the time. Likewise, computers today are not "intelligent," unless you reduce the definition of "intelligence" to "processing digital data."

So that claim's actually incorrect.

I've chatted with chatbots that have produced coherent and intelligent responses

You need to read about Weitzenbaum's "ELIZA" experiment, which he did back in the '60s. It's a cautionary example of how easy even experts are to fool on that score. ELIZA was a dead-simple, completely unintelligent language-altering program that still managed to convince a huge number of people that it was actually responding to them. We are far too easy to fool on that score. So don't trust your impressions: until you know the actual processes being used to fool you, you can be all too easily deceived on that score.

You can still find ELIZA online today. And you can try "her" out. You'll find it amazing "she" fooled anybody. But that's what naivete about AI seems to do to people: we all too readily project intelligence onto things that are not intelligent, if they seem to give us even the least evidence of "responsiveness."

The chatbots today are more complex, handle far more complex linguistic information, and are far more deceptive. But they aren't more intelligent...not if by "intelligent," we mean the kind of things human beings have.

[henry quirk]

Iam, clearly still befuzzled and obsessed, asked: "Does or does not your friend Mannie believe that in order to save one's soul one must accept Jesus Christ as one's personal savior? And whether his friend believes he doesn't need to be saved, that part stays the same. Right?"

As I say: we spoon feed infants, not adults. Can't be any plainer than than, infant.