Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:10 am He is, obviously.

How would you correct the paragrsph he wrote? Can you rephrase it?

I would never bother. As Scripture enjoins, "Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you will also be like him." (Prov. 26:4)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:31 am I may go forward to the point where European syncretism is again discussed.

After your "culture" comment, I thought again. And I see an additional reason why you're afraid to have the salient discussion. The basic facts of the case blow your "Christian Europe" theory to pieces, once and for all. That's why you can never afford to look at the actual details of what Catholicism has come from, or its theological heterogeneity with actualy Christianity. After that, the whole thesis is going to be revealed as historically unsustainable.

You may feel that's unfortunate, and wish it were not so. But facts are facts. You're one day going to have to face it: that theory's a bust.

But maybe that's not today, for you. In which case, nothing's to be done about it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 10:10 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 10:05 pm
Note to IC:

All this and he is still going to Hell, right?

Don't wait for me to tell you. Read the Bible for yourself, and you can formulate a conviction of your own on that subject. But look to yourself, not Henry.

As for Henry, where he is in his relationship with God is known definitely only to him and his Maker. As it is written, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." If you suppose you're capable of judging Henry's heart from whatever you think you know about him, then you're bolder than I am.

ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE!!

But let's be clear about this...

Your friend henry has not accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. And despite the fact that he is sync with the Christian God in regard to abortion, the buying and selling of weapons of mass destruction and transgender folks being mentally ill, he must still abandon the Deist God and be born again. I recall you making that quite clear to me in a quote from the Bible.

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

"John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation. There is no other way to be saved. Our good works cannot save us neither can our positions in the church or among men can save us. This scripture is a non-negotiable requirement to be saved." christianwalls.com

Now, given this, how is it not ridiculous for you to let this happen? Especially when you can link henry to those YouTube videos. You can assure him that after watching them it's at least possible that he will see the light and come over to Christ.

Why are you not imploring him to do so? What argument could he give for refusing to? You are his friend. For that reason alone he should be willing to trust you here. What has he got lose compared to everything he has to gain?

None of it makes any sense except perhaps the possibility that both you and henry are just putting us on.

Oh, and I read the Bible. The New Testament twice.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 10:10 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 10:05 pm
Note to IC:

All this and he is still going to Hell, right?

Don't wait for me to tell you. Read the Bible for yourself, and you can formulate a conviction of your own on that subject. But look to yourself, not Henry.

As for Henry, where he is in his relationship with God is known definitely only to him and his Maker. As it is written, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." If you suppose you're capable of judging Henry's heart from whatever you think you know about him, then you're bolder than I am.

ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE!!

But let's be clear about this...

Your friend henry has not accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. And despite the fact that he is sync with the Christian God in regard to abortion, the buying and selling of weapons of mass destruction and transgender folks being mentally ill, he must still abandon the Deist God and be born again. I recall you making that quite clear to me in a quote from the Bible.

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

"John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation. There is no other way to be saved. Our good works cannot save us neither can our positions in the church or among men can save us. This scripture is a non-negotiable requirement to be saved." christianwalls.com

Now, given this, how is it not ridiculous for you to let this happen? Especially when you can link henry to those YouTube videos. You can assure him that after watching them it's at least possible that he will see the light and come over to Christ.

Why are you not imploring him to do so? What argument could he give for refusing to? You are his friend. For that reason alone he should be willing to trust you here. What has he got lose compared to everything he has to gain?

None of it makes any sense except perhaps the possibility that both you and henry are just putting us on.

Oh, and I read the Bible. The New Testament twice.

There's either a God or there's not. No one, not one of us can "prove" it one way or the other to you. A person either believes or hopes or dreads or whatever one does in the face of that prospect. One goes to whatever holy book one does for guidance. How about just following yourself and what you think is the right thing to do and hoping there is a God who will see that you have done the right thing to the best of your knowledge and ability? Is that a possible approach for you? Or if you cannot 'hope' there is a God then leave the question open for later and come back to it when there is time and inclination to come back to the question. However, until you come back to the question, maybe try to do unto others as if you didn't know for sure whether or not there is a God.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:40 am ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE!!

I wonder that you bother to persist, then.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:35 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:27 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:10 am He is, obviously.

How would you correct the paragrsph he wrote? Can you rephrase it?

I would never bother. As Scripture enjoins, "Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you will also be like him." (Prov. 26:4)

Why is the encapsulation foolish? Why is he foolish to make it plain what fundamentalist Christians believed and which many still believe? If that paragraph is foolish, what is the “wise” paragraph?

Is the description he wrote misinformed? Can you make this plain here among your peers?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:39 am The basic facts of the case blow your "Christian Europe" theory to pieces, once and for all.

What facts are those?

(Note that my term was and still is Christian-esque.)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 3:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:35 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:27 am How would you correct the paragrsph he wrote? Can you rephrase it?

I would never bother. As Scripture enjoins, "Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you will also be like him." (Prov. 26:4)

Why is the encapsulation foolish?

If you have to ask, then you aren't reading very well. If you are reading properly, you already know the answer.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 3:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:39 am The basic facts of the case blow your "Christian Europe" theory to pieces, once and for all.

What facts are those?
(Note that my term was and still is Christian-esque.)

"Christian-esque"? I have never met a "Christian-esque" person.

But tell me, do you regard Catholicism as "Christianity," as "Christianesque" or as something else entirely?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 3:45 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 3:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:39 am The basic facts of the case blow your "Christian Europe" theory to pieces, once and for all.

What facts are those?
(Note that my term was and still is Christian-esque.)

"Christian-esque"? I have never met a "Christian-esque" person.

But tell me, do you regard Catholicism as "Christianity," as "Christianesque" or as something else entirely?

Catholicism is certainly Christian-esque — because it is a syncretistic adaptation. Have you assimilated nothing of what I’ve written recently?

And you have certainly ‘met’ Christian-esque persons. A few have written extensively in this thread. Henry is one example. What he admires in Christianity has been gleaned into the Jefferson Bible. That demonstrates the -esque I refer to. And I too am rather -esque.

If you have to ask, then you aren't reading very well. If you are reading properly, you already know the answer.

Pure evasion. But I do understand why answering would put you in untenable territory! You are clever in a devious way! I love it though.

Wait, reading what properly?

And Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee that this day, even in this night, before the cock crows twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice.”
Mark 14:30

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 10:52 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 10:12 pmWhat then is the real substance of the *debate* when we examine the paragraph just quoted.

It's what's called a "reductio" argument. It involves using language to try to reduce somebody else's view, in order to make it an object of ridicule.

It's not an argument of any sort. Alexis Jacobi (wotcha Gus) called it an encapsulation. Other names might be summary, précis, synopsis, digest and others that don't spring to mind. But definitely not argument; it's simply an abridged version of stories that appear in the Bible you claim to believe. If you cannot defend your beliefs, what are you doing holding them?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:10 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jun 23, 2023 11:43 pmAre you saying that when I refer to your belief — the fundaments of it (as expressed in Will’s paragraph) — that I am engaging in reduction?

He is, obviously.

Your beliefs are subject to the same scrutiny as anyone else's. That they are the object of ridicule should tell you something about their quality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:35 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 1:27 amHow would you correct the paragrsph he wrote? Can you rephrase it?

I would never bother. As Scripture enjoins, "Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, or you will also be like him." (Prov. 26:4)

A fool, Mr Can; me? I'm not the one who is so embarrassed by their beliefs that they refuse to defend them.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 4:34 am You are clever in a devious way! I love it though.

I don't think IC is "devious". I think he's simply disagreeing with your interpretation of Christianity and from my perspective, watching the two of you, I can see fair grounds for it.

There is no singular interpretation of Christianity. It says what it says for reasons that it does. I will hope that God belongs to no individual or group any more than God belongs to any other.

You can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, however, it seems to me that you are trying to bring some people together but not all people together. I would rather see all people together by virtue of being people. I perceive that you are trying to bring together and I am together whether I try or not. Maybe if you tried less, you would accomplish more of your hope or desire?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

iambiguous wrote: ABSOLUTELY PREDICTABLE!!

But let's be clear about this...

Your friend henry has not accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. And despite the fact that he is sync with the Christian God in regard to abortion, the buying and selling of weapons of mass destruction and transgender folks being mentally ill, he must still abandon the Deist God and be born again. I recall you making that quite clear to me in a quote from the Bible.

John 14:6 "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

"John 14:6 means Jesus is our only access to God and salvation. There is no other way to be saved. Our good works cannot save us neither can our positions in the church or among men can save us. This scripture is a non-negotiable requirement to be saved." christianwalls.com

Now, given this, how is it not ridiculous for you to let this happen? Especially when you can link henry to those YouTube videos. You can assure him that after watching them it's at least possible that he will see the light and come over to Christ.

Why are you not imploring him to do so? What argument could he give for refusing to? You are his friend. For that reason alone he should be willing to trust you here. What has he got lose compared to everything he has to gain?

None of it makes any sense except perhaps the possibility that both you and henry are just putting us on.

Oh, and I read the Bible. The New Testament twice.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 2:37 amI wonder that you bother to persist, then.

Well, again, as perverse as even I myself acknowledge it to be, it's entertaining.

Still, doesn't it puzzle you at all as to why you and henry have not shared insights together regarding those videos? How can you truly believe John 14:6, truly believe that those videos will bring henry to Jesus Christ beyond a leap of faith, and truly call him your friend and not convince him to watch them?

Have you asked him to watch them?

The Ontological Argument Revisited
Peter Mullen explores the argument that by definition, God exists.

G.E. Moore made a similar point [as Kant's, “A hundred real thalers do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers. My financial position is, however, affected very differently by a hundred real thalers than it is by the mere concept of them.”,] saying ingeniously, “While it makes perfect sense to claim ‘Some tame tigers do not growl’ it makes no sense at all to claim, ‘Some tame tigers do not exist’.”

Admittedly, I might be misconstruing the point here. If Kant were around now, he could either have a hundred euros in his pocket today or possibly have a hundred euros in his pocket tomorrow. A hundred euros is a hundred euros. But if he absolutely, positively must have them right now, possibly getting them tomorrow doesn't help him.

As for the tame tigers, of course: in order for them to either growl or not growl, they first have to exist. Where does the "ingenious" part fit in?

And how does any of this pertain to the Christian God? If you were to die today, there's a huge difference between an existing Christian God saving your soul and the mere possibility of an existing Christian God saving it.

How is Kant's own Christian God not basically defined and deduced into existence? Or, as with IC, did he claim to have actual substantive proof that in fact He existed.

What exactly is it that these non-existent tame tigers do not do?

Aside from not actually existing itself?

But Gödel commented, “This version of Anselm’s argument breaches no laws of logic, commits no confusions and is entirely immune to Kant’s criticisms.”

Again, this goes over my head. How does it bring us any closer to actually demonstrating the existence of the Christian God beyond "arguing" Him into existence?

And other modern philosophers apart from Gödel have accepted the Ontological Argument. Alvin Plantinga has an interesting perspective, borrowed from modern modal logic: “Either God’s existence is necessary or it is impossible. That is, God could not just happen to exist. Clearly God’s existence is not impossible. So it must be necessary. Therefore God exists.”

Yes, no doubt about it, some are able to "think up" things like this. I myself agree that the existence of the Christian God is possible. But how on Earth beyond a "world of words" does that make it necessary?

Modern modal logic -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic -- and the Christian Bible?

You connect the dots for me.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jun 24, 2023 4:34 am Catholicism is certainly Christian-esque — because it is a syncretistic adaptation. Have you assimilated nothing of what I’ve written recently?

Christianity isn't a flavouring. You can't sprinkle some of it over paganism, and call that paganism "Christianesque." It's something one is, or simply is not, depending on whether one fits the Scriptural definition.

I

f you have to ask, then you aren't reading very well. If you are reading properly, you already know the answer.

Wait, reading what properly?

The Bible and the reductio version. Compare the two. If you think they're the same description, then good luck to you.