Philosophy Now Forum

Note to IC:

Let's get back to this...

"Scientists may need to use nuclear weapons to defend earth from asteroid":
https://youtu.be/oyMmxzcDLoI?si=BdojREFNUnx0vqL0

Think about that. This asteroid was created by God. If He wants it to smash into earth, who are we mere mortals to deflect it? It's like those Christian denominations that refuse medical care from doctors or hospitals. Or those snake handlers among some Pentecostals. If God intends for the snake to bite them, it will, and if not, it won't.

I've had Christians tell me that the asteroid that led to the demise of the dinosaurs was sent by God in order to make way for the human species. On the other hand, I've had Christians tell me that the dino fossils that are found all around the globe were actually planted there by God in order to test the faithful. In other words, those Christians who insist, based on Genesis and genealogical records, that Earth itself has only been around for approximately 6,000 years.

What's your own take on the above? And what specifically are True Christians obligated to believe here? Given that the Christian God has Hell -- the mother of all "or elses"! -- planned for all of don't.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 11:23 pm Note to IC:

Let's get back to this...

Sorry...you're just not a bit interesting. Go and enjoy your "dasein."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 11:28 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 11:23 pm Note to IC:

Let's get back to this...

Sorry...you're just not a bit interesting. Go and enjoy your "dasein."

To tell you the truth, there's a part of me that winces whenever I manage to reduce you down to "absolutely shameless" posts like this. You're intelligent and articulate. You've clearly spent a lot of time grappling with one or another aspect of the "philosophy of religion".

But saving souls seems to be the least of your intentions here. Sure, go ahead, pursue things like corporate socialism. But if you genuinely do believe that Craig has accumulated the historical and scientific evidence needed to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

You yammer on and on about me asking you to do the digging in the videos. I did that. But not really. Why? Because if I was really intent on saving my own soul, I would grasp that evidence.

Something like "the Reasonable Faith videos must be true because they were created by William Lane Craig, and because they were created by William Lane Craig that's what makes them true."

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 11:53 pm But saving souls seems to be the least of your intentions here.

Well, we all have the right to choose the disposition of our own souls. You've made it clear that you'd rather obfuscate, dodge, mumble meaningless jargon about "dasein" and posture, rather than converse or face the truth. That's your choice, and you can have it.

I prefer not to join you in your bad choices.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 3:44 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 11:53 pm
But saving souls seems to be the least of your intentions here.

Well, we all have the right to choose the disposition of our own souls. You've made it clear that you'd rather obfuscate, dodge, mumble meaningless jargon about "dasein" and posture, rather than converse or face the truth. That's your choice, and you can have it.

I prefer not to join you in your bad choices.

Fine, you stick with that, I'll stick with this:

But if you genuinely do believe that Craig has accumulated the historical and scientific evidence needed to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

On second thought...

But if you genuinely do believe that Craig has accumulated the historical and scientific evidence needed to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 3:44 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 11:53 pm But saving souls seems to be the least of your intentions here.

Well, we all have the right to choose the disposition of our own souls.

LOL 'This one' individual human being, still, BELIEVES that it is so superior, it actually BELIEVES that 'it' HAS 'its' OWN SOUL.

The EGO of these adult human beings NEVER QUIT.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 3:44 am You've made it clear that you'd rather obfuscate, dodge, mumble meaningless jargon about "dasein" and posture, rather than converse or face the truth. That's your choice, and you can have it.

EXACTLY LIKE you rather obfuscate, dodge, mumble meaningless jargon about 'God', Itself, and posture, rather than converse, and discuss, or face the Truth, AS WELL "immanuel can".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 3:44 am I prefer not to join you in your bad choices.

Yet, here you ARE.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:15 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 3:44 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 11:53 pm
But saving souls seems to be the least of your intentions here.

Well, we all have the right to choose the disposition of our own souls. You've made it clear that you'd rather obfuscate, dodge, mumble meaningless jargon about "dasein" and posture, rather than converse or face the truth. That's your choice, and you can have it.

I prefer not to join you in your bad choices.

Fine, you stick with that, I'll stick with this:

But if you genuinely do believe that Craig has accumulated the historical and scientific evidence needed to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

On second thought...

But if you genuinely do believe that Craig has accumulated the historical and scientific evidence needed to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God, why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

For just the VERY SIMPLE REASON that like you "iambiguous", you and "immanuel can", are BOTH ABSOLUTELY TOO AFRAID and TOO SCARED TO JUST HAVE A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION ABOUT 'God', Itself, in case what you two BELIEVE is true IS PROVED False.

Watch this: https://youtu.be/BodG-IMuvyo?si=jm4os3EhbAEfGaRS

Then ask yourself "what was God thinking here?" Why do neutron stars exist at all and how are they integral to God's Divine plan?

And how on Earth are mere mortals to wrap their heads around objects this extraordinary?

Also, imagine how extraordinary it would be if, in the Bible, supernovas, neutron stars and black holes etc., were actually described long, long before astrophysicists discovered them.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:27 am
For just the VERY SIMPLE REASON that like you "iambiguous", you and "immanuel can", are BOTH ABSOLUTELY TOO AFRAID and TOO SCARED TO JUST HAVE A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION ABOUT 'God', Itself, in case what you two BELIEVE is true IS PROVED False.

I have a question for you Age, could you please answer it with either a yes or a no?

Do you, who is known by the name 'Age', exist?

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:27 am
For just the VERY SIMPLE REASON that like you "iambiguous", you and "immanuel can", are BOTH ABSOLUTELY TOO AFRAID and TOO SCARED TO JUST HAVE A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION ABOUT 'God', Itself, in case what you two BELIEVE is true IS PROVED False.

I have a question for you Age, could you please answer it with either a yes or a no?

Do you, who is known by the name 'Age', exist?

Yes.

(But, like with all things, here, the answer I provided, here, all depends on the actual definitions that 'you', and 'I', are USING, for the words being said and written, here.)

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:52 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 9:32 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 7:27 am
For just the VERY SIMPLE REASON that like you "iambiguous", you and "immanuel can", are BOTH ABSOLUTELY TOO AFRAID and TOO SCARED TO JUST HAVE A Truly OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION ABOUT 'God', Itself, in case what you two BELIEVE is true IS PROVED False.

I have a question for you Age, could you please answer it with either a yes or a no?

Do you, who is known by the name 'Age', exist?

Yes.

(But, like with all things, here, the answer I provided, here, all depends on the actual definitions that 'you', and 'I', are USING, for the words being said and written, here.)

Thanks for your answer.

I personally define 'existing' as being consciously aware, there is an irrefutable sense of a something that is consciously aware of it's existence.

Call it consciousness, or awareness, it's a palpable and real sense, is it not?

I absolutely understand your complaint against Immanuel's refusal to specify what a Christian is supposed to believe about fossil evidence.

The problem, that underlies such disagreements is that of expecting Christian doctrine to explain scientific probabilities. The two are incompatible categories because Christian doctrine deals in final cause but science doesn't.

I find I can still enjoy Immanuel's apt quotations from scripture. This is because I regard The Bible as literature not a book of instructions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 9:17 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 9:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Mar 09, 2025 8:58 pm
You mean, because you see "dead and decaying" things, that proves that human beings have no eternal soul or spirit? But souls and spirits are immaterial, and Biblically, we are told that resurrected bodies are more than mere materials. So nothing in that would refute even the least thing that the Biblical account asserts is true.

What you would really have to do, is to die yourself, and see what's on the other side. Only a resurrected person could tell you for sure what was to come next...but there are very few of those, and I'm pretty sure you're not one of them.

So what you really mean is, "I'm hoping and wishing that there will turn out to be nothing like immortality." You're surely not claiming you "know."

The theory of existence I prefer...

Preference is uninteresting to reality. Reality always insists on being whatever it is, not what we want it to be.

...is not the theory that mind/soul and body are separate entities.

Well, there's a case to be made for them being interrelated, but no case for them being the same as body. You've seen dead people: they have the material body...but something's missing...and whatever it is, it certainly isn't material.

The moral code as propounded by Jesus does not depend upon any particular ontological stance, but fits every ontological stance.

That's only true for people who behave in irrational ways.

Every "ontological stance" implies certain things about morality. Nietzsche saw so very clearly that Atheism, for example, implies the death of all morality (which he called being "beyond good and evil," and even named one of his books according to it. I've read it.) That's not to say that an Atheist cannot choose -- arbitrarily -- to behave nicely; it does mean that if he decides not to behave nicely, there's not one thing in Atheism, or any implication it has, that implies he cannot be as wicked as he decides to be.

So no, the "moral code" you attribute to Jesus (though he really didn't propound any particular 'code' of moral rules at all, but rather a total way of life), does not "fit every ontological stance." It not only doesn't fit Atheists, but not Hindus, or Islamists, or pagans...or practically anybody else, actually.

Oh Ye of little faith! He is Light of the World!

Concerning reality, nobody can know the whole reality,

If there be omniscient God then He knows the whole of reality. Jesus Christ His life and work demonstrated what we need to know of how to live a good life. However JC never pretended to make anyone omniscient.

Immanuel Can has been right about God all along.

The human being is self conscious, aware it is aware. But the human being didn't make it self self-aware, awareness is God, and other awarenesses are the offspring, or offshoots of God's awareness.

I remember IC discussing with me about how he had personally explored and studied the idea that is human Self-awareness, as and through every conceivable route possible, including the many many facets of nondual literature. Until he finally arrived and settled for the doctrine that is Christianity.

IC said to me that he never really resonated with nondual literature. And in fact, although I did, just recently I started to become very dissatisfied with nonduality. I even started to resent it's non human approach to the nature of reality. It started to disgust me, and no longer did it make any sense to me either, where it had done previously. But there was always something about it that never really sat right with me, so I had to seek proper alignment with truth.


IC told me nonduality made absolutely no sense, but I ignored him for a long time. All I did was argue with him on many spiritual issues, only to discover he was right all along about God.
That nonduality didn't make sense to IC, he rejected it quite rightly, the way I have done now. He also opted out of many of his spiritual searches for truth, until finally deciding to walk the path that was more suited to his intuitive personal understanding of God, so he chose the path of persuasion that was the luminary Jesus Christ and his exemplary discipline of what it means to live a life of moral, wholesome goodness, the way God would have wanted it to be. The way God created it to be.

Jesus, being the incarnation of God itself, as the first and last avatar in Jesus name.

So I'm now only beginning to realise what IC had been trying to say all these years. IC is right about God. But until you can see this for yourself, then there is no hope for you ever seeing or knowing God. You've got to want to know and understand God, there's simply no half hearted efforts will help you, you've got to really want to know God, or forget God. It's simply your choice.

The only reason that all conscious sentient living organisms on this planet earth exhibit a moral sense, or programme, is because God put it there. It was put there as the desire to survive is inherent within sentient and even non sentient living organisms. If there is was no God, then there would be no programme running through every living creature the way it does, which is to love and survive..

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 5:15 am ...why do you almost never bring that evidence up?

Because you're capable of evaluating it...or maybe you're not. Either way, my job is done. I'm not going to prechew your food for you.