Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ianrust wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Or their moral convictions influence religion. In other words you are saying nothing.

God axiomatically precedes all arguments. So no, this cannot be made circular.

Axiomatically you can state that anyone thing precedes another. Just start with any delusional maxim!!

Like I said, you are saying nothing.

In the beginning there was Caesar the Chimp.
QED Casear influenced "ianrust".
If there were no Caesar, then there could not have been any Ian Rust.
Ian Rust owes everything to the chimp called Caesar.

God is different than any of those axioms because God is, by nature, all transcending; a chimp is not. You are saying nothing.
The monotheistic God is not an idol and cannot be compared to anything so defined like a chimp or 'ianrust'.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Axiomatically you can state that anyone thing precedes another. Just start with any delusional maxim!!

You don't really know what "axiom" or "maxim" mean, do you?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:In the beginning there was Caesar the Chimp.
QED Casear influenced "ianrust".
If there were no Caesar, then there could not have been any Ian Rust.
Ian Rust owes everything to the chimp called Caesar.

And you misused QED.

Once again, your attempt to make a coherent rebuttal leaves much to be desired.

ianrust wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ianrust wrote: God axiomatically precedes all arguments. So no, this cannot be made circular.

Axiomatically you can state that anyone thing precedes another. Just start with any delusional maxim!!

Like I said, you are saying nothing.

In the beginning there was Caesar the Chimp.
QED Casear influenced "ianrust".
If there were no Caesar, then there could not have been any Ian Rust.
Ian Rust owes everything to the chimp called Caesar.

God is different than any of those axioms because God is, by nature, all transcending; a chimp is not. You are saying nothing.
The monotheistic God is not an idol and cannot be compared to anything so defined like a chimp or 'ianrust'.

You can say what you like about any fantasy.
Gandalf is all transcending, and so is Caesar the Chimp.

God is a word with a specific meaning. Chimp is a word with a different meaning. You are using words in places they do not belong, your are saying nothing. Something like a chimp, or Vishnu, or a spaghetti monster is what the bible refers to as an idol - a false God; being tangibly defined, they are lacking omniscience and transcendent traits by definition.

ianrust wrote:God is a word with a specific meaning. Chimp is a word with a different meaning. You are using words in places they do not belong, your are saying nothing. Something like a chimp, or Vishnu, or a spaghetti monster is what the bible refers to as an idol - a false God; being tangibly defined, they are lacking omniscience and transcendent traits by definition.

Just because you can define a thing, does not make that thing either real or meaningful.
Invented ideas like "god" can be reasonably compared to any other things invented on the spot.

God is many things to many people. This is evidence itself that such a thing is just invention. Not even the "Bible" has a single coherent set of attributes for "god", so you really have no warrant at all for pretending it does.

In any event, who says the "bible" is the authority of what is or is not "god"?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ianrust wrote:God is a word with a specific meaning. Chimp is a word with a different meaning. You are using words in places they do not belong, your are saying nothing. Something like a chimp, or Vishnu, or a spaghetti monster is what the bible refers to as an idol - a false God; being tangibly defined, they are lacking omniscience and transcendent traits by definition.

Just because you can define a thing, does not make that thing either real or meaningful.
Invented ideas like "god" can be reasonably compared to any other things invented on the spot.

God is many things to many people. This is evidence itself that such a thing is just invention. Not even the "Bible" has a single coherent set of attributes for "god", so you really have no warrant at all for pretending it does.

In any event, who says the "bible" is the authority of what is or is not "god"?

God is defined by moral absolutes. Rational attributes of God are an expression of Gods will.

The points I mentioned to you in the previous post about idolatry are sufficient for rejecting polytheism, and random comparisons.

Here we arrive at the abrahamic religions.
Of the 3 monotheistic religions - judaism, islam, and christianity, being monotheistic, there is only one which follows the true God.
Judaism is nothing but a rejection of Jesus. They have the old testament, and not the new testament. Islam is nothing but a rejection of Jesus as the messiah, and a rejection of judaism. They have the Qu'ran which, if you've ever read it, sounds almost equal to the philosophical babbling on this site. It doesn't compare with the new testament, I could have written the Qu'ran myself. ANyway, the short end of it is they believe we can save the destruction of the planet through absolute obedience to an authoritarian ruler.
Having read the Qu'ran I can tell you it is trash. But feel free to discover for yourself and read the Qu'ran, the New testament, and the old testament. If you do this, the true spirit of God will make itself obvious to you.

Considering monotheism, whether you recognize the true God from false God is entirely dependent on whether you accept or reject Jesus; whether you recognize the holy spirit in Jesus, which is the spirit of God.

If you do, you are a Christian; and you are correct. If you reject Jesus, that sucks for you. You may then be one of the other monotheistic religions - which are defined by their rejection, and complacency more than anything. Or you may be polytheistic; or you may be an atheist. All those positions are flawed. But, the short answer to your question is that the only way to come to know God is through Jesus.

ianrust wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

ianrust wrote:God is a word with a specific meaning. Chimp is a word with a different meaning. You are using words in places they do not belong, your are saying nothing. Something like a chimp, or Vishnu, or a spaghetti monster is what the bible refers to as an idol - a false God; being tangibly defined, they are lacking omniscience and transcendent traits by definition.

Just because you can define a thing, does not make that thing either real or meaningful.
Invented ideas like "god" can be reasonably compared to any other things invented on the spot.

God is many things to many people. This is evidence itself that such a thing is just invention. Not even the "Bible" has a single coherent set of attributes for "god", so you really have no warrant at all for pretending it does.

In any event, who says the "bible" is the authority of what is or is not "god"?

God is defined by moral absolutes. Rational attributes of God are an expression of Gods will.

The points I mentioned to you in the previous post about idolatry are sufficient for rejecting polytheism, and random comparisons.

Here we arrive at the abrahamic religions.
Of the 3 monotheistic religions - judaism, islam, and christianity, being monotheistic, there is only one which follows the true God.
Judaism is nothing but a rejection of Jesus. They have the old testament, and not the new testament. Islam is nothing but a rejection of Jesus as the messiah, and a rejection of judaism. They have the Qu'ran which, if you've ever read it, sounds almost equal to the philosophical babbling on this site. It doesn't compare with the new testament, I could have written the Qu'ran myself. ANyway, the short end of it is they believe we can save the destruction of the planet through absolute obedience to an authoritarian ruler.
Having read the Qu'ran I can tell you it is trash. But feel free to discover for yourself and read the Qu'ran, the New testament, and the old testament. If you do this, the true spirit of God will make itself obvious to you.

Considering monotheism, whether you recognize the true God from false God is entirely dependent on whether you accept or reject Jesus; whether you recognize the holy spirit in Jesus, which is the spirit of God.

If you do, you are a Christian; and you are correct. If you reject Jesus, that sucks for you. You may then be one of the other monotheistic religions - which are defined by their rejection, and complacency more than anything. Or you may be polytheistic; or you may be an atheist. All those positions are flawed. But, the short answer to your question is that the only way to come to know God is through Jesus.

Fantasy.
Personally I prefer Game of Thrones; it has more truth in it.

You have a bad habit of quoting me, saying nothing, and considering that sufficient.

ianrust wrote: They have the Qu'ran which, if you've ever read it, sounds almost equal to the philosophical babbling on this site. It doesn't compare with the new testament, I could have written the Qu'ran myself.

Are you familiar with "The Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie? I listened to a broadcast of the author reading a part of the book, where a scribe was copying the dictation of a person who claimed to be reciting what was being told to him by God. The scribe was deliberately introducing errors that the prophet was then unable to detect after it was written down.

ianrust wrote: They have the Qu'ran which, if you've ever read it, sounds almost equal to the philosophical babbling on this site. It doesn't compare with the new testament,

I had a copy of the Koran but only read a few short verses from it, but I did have several conversations with a Muslim in which we compared our religious beliefs. I no longer have my copy of the Koran.

I read it.

I still have my copy.

What's this about the Qur'an?

ReliStuPhD wrote:What's this about the Qur'an?

The Koran is the story of Mohamed being taught the Bible story of God. As such it doesn't go in the same order as the Bible, but tells the story of an angel teaching Mohamed about God.

The Koran is the story of Mohamed being taught the Bible story of God.

Ummm...

Not quite. It's a loose collection of sayings and aphorisms attributed to Muhammed, which are compiled in order of size, compiled from the memories of people who claimed to have heard Muhammed talk. Muslims are quite proud to say that Muhammed himself was illiterate and wrote nothing. They claim this makes the origin of the Koran miraculous.

The Koran does contain some references to the Torah and NT, but almost invariably they're often wildly variant from the Biblical texts. Some things from the Bible they affirm, but others they flatly contradict. (Apparently Muhammed knew only of Nestorian Christians, and had some vague and incorrect understanding of Judaism. But he seems to have been working entirely from memory, and verbal memory at that.) The Koran does mention the Torah and NT, but even when it refers to it, it varies hugely from the Bible. The Muslims admit that these wide variances exist, but say they're not errors. Instead, they claim the erroneous versions are the earlier Torah and NT manuscripts, which they claim are corrupted. So the problem, they say, is with the Christian and Jewish texts, not the Koran.

The Koran does not read like the Bible. It reads more like a collection disjointed sayings, commandments, instructions and axioms. It was arranged without themes, from longest to shortest axiom. Thus it has no real narrative or singular focus. It even contradicts itself, a feature addressed by Muslims through abrogation of earlier verses.

Pretty much that.