Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:42 am

And while the Evolutionist story will have to insist that the trials of life and inevitable death are all that can ever be, the Biblical account tells quite a different ending.

I wonder if that's why some folks choose the Bible; they prefer the ending.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:42 am

And while the Evolutionist story will have to insist that the trials of life and inevitable death are all that can ever be, the Biblical account tells quite a different ending.

I wonder if that's why some folks choose the Bible; they prefer the ending.

Why not? What if the better ending is the real one?

But the same pondering strategy will work just as well for the other team, of course: what if the reason people choose Atheism is that they prefer not to think of themselves as morally accountable? Is that also possible?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:53 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:42 am

And while the Evolutionist story will have to insist that the trials of life and inevitable death are all that can ever be, the Biblical account tells quite a different ending.

I wonder if that's why some folks choose the Bible; they prefer the ending.

Why not? What if the better ending is the real one?

But the same pondering strategy will work just as well for the other team, of course: what if the reason people choose Atheism is that they prefer not to think of themselves as morally accountable? Is that also possible?

Perhaps they simply don't have a choice; atheism is the only option when you don't believe in God.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 1:19 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:53 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:47 am

I wonder if that's why some folks choose the Bible; they prefer the ending.

Why not? What if the better ending is the real one?

But the same pondering strategy will work just as well for the other team, of course: what if the reason people choose Atheism is that they prefer not to think of themselves as morally accountable? Is that also possible?

Perhaps they simply don't have a choice; atheism is the only option when you don't believe in God.

Well, there's always agnosticism. It may not be a very fruitful position, but it's more honest than Atheism, at least.

In any case, I'm just illustrating the problem with the ad hominem game: it's a door that swings both ways. If the motives of Theists can be impugned, it's certainly not the case that the motives of Atheists cannot, by precisely the same sort of rationale.

But when the smoke clears, only one thing actually matters: what's true. So the question is, are the Theists factually correct about God existing, or are the Atheists right when they say He doesn't?

Utimately, the rest is just beside the real point.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:02 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 1:19 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:53 am
Why not? What if the better ending is the real one?

But the same pondering strategy will work just as well for the other team, of course: what if the reason people choose Atheism is that they prefer not to think of themselves as morally accountable? Is that also possible?

Perhaps they simply don't have a choice; atheism is the only option when you don't believe in God.

Well, there's always agnosticism. It may not be a very fruitful position, but it's more honest than Atheism, at least.

And, BELIEVING that some 'male gendered thing' Created absolutely Everything is even MORE honest right, "immanuel can"?

'you', however, can NOT ANSWER this QUESTION because doing so would SHOW and REVEAL 'your' OWN 'self-contradictory' and 'self-refuting' BELIEF here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:02 am In any case, I'm just illustrating the problem with the ad hominem game: it's a door that swings both ways. If the motives of Theists can be impugned, it's certainly not the case that the motives of Atheists cannot, by precisely the same sort of rationale.

But when the smoke clears, only one thing actually matters: what's true.

AND what IS OBVIOUSLY and IRREFUTABLY NOT True is that God is a 'him'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:02 am So the question is, are the Theists factually correct about God existing, or are the Atheists right when they say He doesn't?

Well, OBVIOUSLY, BOTH; God EXISTS, and, God IS NOT A 'He'.

'your', human beings, BELIEFS and PRESUMPTIONS, however, are just STOPPING and PREVENTING 'you' FROM SEEING, UNDERSTANDING, and KNOWING what the ACTUAL Truth/s ARE here.

'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, had, OBVIOUSLY, just NOT YET BECOME AWARE of WHO and WHAT God IS, EXACTLY.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:02 am Utimately, the rest is just beside the real point.

And 'what', EXACTLY, do 'you', "immanuel can", ENVISION IS the so-called 'real point', EXACTLY?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:02 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 1:19 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:53 am
Why not? What if the better ending is the real one?

But the same pondering strategy will work just as well for the other team, of course: what if the reason people choose Atheism is that they prefer not to think of themselves as morally accountable? Is that also possible?

Perhaps they simply don't have a choice; atheism is the only option when you don't believe in God.

Well, there's always agnosticism. It may not be a very fruitful position, but it's more honest than Atheism, at least.

"Honest" isn't the right word. Most people who don't believe any kind of God/god exists think that is atheism, so they just describe themselves as atheists. They aren't trying to deceive anybody by calling themselves that, because they genuinely think that is the correct term. But, in this instance, the question isn't whether one believes in God, but whether one believes the Bible is a true account of God, and a lot of people are certainly not agnostic about that.

But when the smoke clears, only one thing actually matters: what's true. So the question is, are the Theists factually correct about God existing, or are the Atheists right when they say He doesn't?

I disagree, I don't think it matters at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:42 am ...There is no such law. Matter and energy vary all the time...

...Man is born. Man dies. Man becomes dust. That's three states, but it's still death...

- I see that physics, with all its laws, is running around you like water around a stone.
But what about biology ?
Have you heard of telomeres? They limit the number of cell division cycles, effectively programming ageing and death.
In your mind, that's also the work of man, not god?

-You are too focused on man, even elevating him above a god. Because:
-- man, following your claim, is able to change the laws of god.
-- you are trying to tell god what he must be in order to meet your high standards.
-- you are not in principle prepared to accept something that does not conform to your beliefs, even if it were a god, because who better than you can know what he should be.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 8:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:02 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 1:19 am

Perhaps they simply don't have a choice; atheism is the only option when you don't believe in God.

Well, there's always agnosticism. It may not be a very fruitful position, but it's more honest than Atheism, at least.

"Honest" isn't the right word. Most people who don't believe any kind of God/god exists think that is atheism, so they just describe themselves as atheists. They aren't trying to deceive anybody by calling themselves that, because they genuinely think that is the correct term.

That might be how they do think about it. But there's a problem: Atheists generally say they're Atheists because they don't just want to say, "I don't think there's a God." They want to say, "I don't think there's a God, and you shouldn't think there is either," or even "I KNOW there's no God." Few indeed are those that are prepared to stop at the honesty point, which is to say only that they, personally, do not happen to know what evidence there might be for God, if any exists. But that's the actual limit to which they are rationally entitled to assert their view.

Now, you might think that you're not one of those, and so other Atheists/agnostics are as honest as you, and will stop at the point of merely confessing their own personal uncertainty or lack of evidence -- that they'd never be inclined to claim more than they have reason to claim. But that's not actually how many behave, if you'll note. When Dawkins and company publish books that claim that God is merely a "delusion," or that belief in God "poisons everything," as indeed they do, then you can be quite sure they're not lacking in overreach. The truth is that people who use the term "Atheist" tend to do so in a dismissive and aggressive way, often as a direct challenge to Theistic claims. So you'll find that you're in a mere subset of those who call themselves "Atheists." Most, you will find, are not so shy.

But, in this instance, the question isn't whether one believes in God, but whether one believes the Bible is a true account of God, and a lot of people are certainly not agnostic about that.

That is true. Once we decide that there is a God, the next and most natural question is, "What kind?" For there are various descriptions that men have attempted or invented for gods or God. And clearly, if there is a God, they cannot all be right. In fact, to the extent they contradict, not more than one can be right. Aristotle's Law tells us that.

But when the smoke clears, only one thing actually matters: what's true. So the question is, are the Theists factually correct about God existing, or are the Atheists right when they say He doesn't?

I disagree, I don't think it matters at all.

That seems unreasonable to suppose. If the Supreme Being does exist, there could hardly be a matter of greater importance or more generally informative than that. If the implications are properly considered, then it changes everything.

nemos wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:45 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 12:42 am ...There is no such law. Matter and energy vary all the time...

...Man is born. Man dies. Man becomes dust. That's three states, but it's still death...

- I see that physics, with all its laws, is running around you like water around a stone.

Not at all. Physics, biology, chemistry, and so on, these respond to natural regularities, under normal conditions. But so what? Who made the physical laws the only powers in the universe? Who told you they automatically trump any reference to the transcendent? Nobody actually told you that, or gave you any reason to believe it. You're being naive: you think "natural laws" are like some kind of judicial "law" that the universe has handed down with the solemn declaration, "Thou shalt not contravene my laws!"

No such thing ever happened. What we call a "law," in physics, or chemistry, or biology, is merely an observation. We see something that regularly or usually seems to us to be the case, and we call it a "law of nature." But it's not some kind of ironclad rule. It's just what we think usually happens in a given circumstance, all else being equal. No more.

-You are too focused on man, even elevating him above a god.

This is something I have not done. Quite the contrary.

-- man, following your claim, is able to change the laws of god.

You will never find I ever said this. But you'll also see that I do not mistake what we call "natural laws" for some kind of divine fiat, as you appear to do.

-- you are trying to tell god what he must be in order to meet your high standards.

I have done no such thing. I'm merely pointing out that you're worshipping "natural laws," which are mere human observations of regularities, as if they were something inviolable and sacred. They're not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 5:27 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 8:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 6:02 am
Well, there's always agnosticism. It may not be a very fruitful position, but it's more honest than Atheism, at least.

"Honest" isn't the right word. Most people who don't believe any kind of God/god exists think that is atheism, so they just describe themselves as atheists. They aren't trying to deceive anybody by calling themselves that, because they genuinely think that is the correct term.

That might be how they do think about it. But there's a problem: Atheists generally say they're Atheists because they don't just want to say, "I don't think there's a God." They want to say, "I don't think there's a God, and you shouldn't think there is either," or even "I KNOW there's no God."

I think that is quite an exaggeration. I don't know who you are thinking of here, but in my experience, people who don't believe in God don't tend to be interested in talking about him at all, and most don't care what anyone else believes, as long as their beliefs aren't affecting them. People who go online specifically to argue about these things might be a different kettle of fish, but they are not typical of the man in the street.

Few indeed are those that are prepared to stop at the honesty point, which is to say only that they, personally, do not happen to know what evidence there might be for God, if any exists. But that's the actual limit to which they are rationally entitled to assert their view.

I haven't heard many people assert that God doesn't exist more vigorously than you assert he does, so I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for that complaint.

Now, you might think that you're not one of those, and so other Atheists/agnostics are as honest as you, and will stop at the point of merely confessing their own personal uncertainty or lack of evidence -- that they'd never be inclined to claim more than they have reason to claim. But that's not actually how many behave, if you'll note. When Dawkins and company publish books that claim that God is merely a "delusion," or that belief in God "poisons everything," as indeed they do, then you can be quite sure they're not lacking in overreach.

But Dawkins, "and company", aren't exactly typical atheists are they; they don't represent atheists in general. And for every Dawkins, there is a manic atheist hater writing a book, or putting videos on Youtube. I mean, you would be hard pressed to find a more obnoxious little man than Ben Shapiro.

The truth is that people who use the term "Atheist" tend to do so in a dismissive and aggressive way, often as a direct challenge to Theistic claims. So you'll find that you're in a mere subset of those who call themselves "Atheists." Most, you will find, are not so shy.

Well, at least on this forum and similar situations, my tendency to become aggressive is usually proportionate to what is being said back to me, and that also seems to be true of most people. I admit that things sometimes get out of hand, but I don't find the theists to be any less hostile than the atheists. You, yourself, might keep up a calm and restrained appearance, but you nevertheless are not above pushing people's buttons.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:But, in this instance, the question isn't whether one believes in God, but whether one believes the Bible is a true account of God, and a lot of people are certainly not agnostic about that.

That is true. Once we decide that there is a God, the next and most natural question is, "What kind?" For there are various descriptions that men have attempted or invented for gods or God. And clearly, if there is a God, they cannot all be right. In fact, to the extent they contradict, not more than one can be right. Aristotle's Law tells us that.

There is nothing to prevent all of them from being wrong, though, and I firmly believe it to be the case that they all are. That doesn't mean there is no God, of course, it just means that no religion has so far come up with a remotely believable account of him, in my opinion.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:I disagree, I don't think it matters at all.

That seems unreasonable to suppose. If the Supreme Being does exist, there could hardly be a matter of greater importance or more generally informative than that. If the implications are properly considered, then it changes everything.

It might change everything if it were the biblical God, but I am not capable of taking the likelihood of that any more seriously than that of the Hindu gods, or the Greek gods, for that matter. If there is some sort of god, I know absolutely nothing about him/her/it, so the sensible approach, it seems to me, would be to do nothing about it, which is exactly what I am doing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 5:35 pm Natural laws. . . which are mere human observations of regularities, as if they were something inviolable and sacred. They're not.

If you say so.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 5:27 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 8:02 am

"Honest" isn't the right word. Most people who don't believe any kind of God/god exists think that is atheism, so they just describe themselves as atheists. They aren't trying to deceive anybody by calling themselves that, because they genuinely think that is the correct term.

That might be how they do think about it. But there's a problem: Atheists generally say they're Atheists because they don't just want to say, "I don't think there's a God." They want to say, "I don't think there's a God, and you shouldn't think there is either," or even "I KNOW there's no God."

I think that is quite an exaggeration.

I knew you'd say so. But it's obviously not. Go and look at all the "proud" Atheists that are around. Dawkins didn't get an international bestseller because his patter found no sympathetic audience. Lots of people want to pretend they know God doesn't exist, and to exhort others to think the same.

Some are even here.

Now, you might think that you're not one of those, and so other Atheists/agnostics are as honest as you, and will stop at the point of merely confessing their own personal uncertainty or lack of evidence -- that they'd never be inclined to claim more than they have reason to claim. But that's not actually how many behave, if you'll note. When Dawkins and company publish books that claim that God is merely a "delusion," or that belief in God "poisons everything," as indeed they do, then you can be quite sure they're not lacking in overreach.

But Dawkins, "and company", aren't exactly typical atheists are they. [/quote]
They sure are. They're the Atheist "posterboys." The Atheist set loves those guys, just like they used to love Anthony Flew and laud him as the leading Atheist apologist -- until he threw over his own Atheism and became a Deist. After that, they hated him and made all kinds of excuses for why they had changed their minds. Or consider the reception Nagel's gotten: he's still an Atheist, but the Atheists hate him because they accuse him of undermining the chief argument they hope to hold up against Theism...Evolutionism. It seems the Atheist set will happily eat their own.

I admit that things sometimes get out of hand,

Sorry...I was not accusing you. I find you quite entertaining, actually, and a decent conversation partner, too. I was speaking generally.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:But, in this instance, the question isn't whether one believes in God, but whether one believes the Bible is a true account of God, and a lot of people are certainly not agnostic about that.

That is true. Once we decide that there is a God, the next and most natural question is, "What kind?" For there are various descriptions that men have attempted or invented for gods or God. And clearly, if there is a God, they cannot all be right. In fact, to the extent they contradict, not more than one can be right. Aristotle's Law tells us that.

There is nothing to prevent all of them from being wrong, though,

That is also true...until we roll in Atheism to the group. And then, all positions are covered. And under those conditions, we can be equally certain that somebody is right. For there are no remaining positions for anybody to hold.

...the sensible approach, it seems to me, would be to do nothing about it, which is exactly what I am doing.

Well, unless God both exists, and you have good reason to know He exists, and for some reason you're resisting that. Then, it wouldn't be so good to hover in an unbelief to which your actual knowledge didn't entitle you.

But you'll have to be the judge of that.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 5:35 pm Natural laws. . . which are mere human observations of regularities, as if they were something inviolable and sacred. They're not.

If you say so.

Not because I say so. That IS what they are.

There is no other reasonable understanding of them, I would say; and a good scientist knows that's exactly what they are...not metaphysical verities, but mere physical regularities, interpreted as likely to recur, all things being equal.

If you think otherwise, then please explain what a "natural law" is...what backs it, and how you conclude it's the sovereign and inviolable authority, rather than an all-else-being equal observation of physical regularities.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:25 pm I knew you'd say so. But it's obviously not. Go and look at all the "proud" Atheists that are around. Dawkins didn't get an international bestseller because his patter found no sympathetic audience. Lots of people want to pretend they know God doesn't exist, and to exhort others to think the same.

Obviously people who are taking on the role as atheists and are arguing for atheism are different from the people who just go about their lives not engaging in debates. Even people who come to philosophy forums are not representative. Of course there are atheists who are as you described, but most of the ones I've known would rather go to the dentist than tell someone they shouldn't believe in God.

They sure are. They're the Atheist "posterboys." The Atheist set loves those guys,

How do you know what most atheists think about the people who are posterboys?

just like they used to love Anthony Flew and laud him as the leading Atheist apologist -- until he threw over his own Atheism and became a Deist. After that, they hated him and made all kinds of excuses for why they had changed their minds. Or consider the reception Nagel's gotten: he's still an Atheist, but the Atheists hate him because they accuse him of undermining the chief argument they hope to hold up against Theism...Evolutionism. It seems the Atheist set will happily eat their own.

and Christians disown other people and say they are not real Christians. There are some people like that here. And then, well, there's the history theists have with each other and people who leave their groups either for another kind of theism or for atheism. And then there's the history of Christians in relation to various kinds of non-Abrahamic peoples.

You're generalizing from some atheists.

Those guys didn't get voted into the positions they are in. To me whats obvious is that the atheists who will get publicity are going to be people who are controversial in some ways and confrontational. The media is not going to rush to the houses of people who say, Yeah, I believe there is no God. What do you want to say to Christians? I dunno, depends on the context. I always say Good morning to our postman who is Catholic. That's just not going to get media attention.

So far I haven't been stopped in the street by atheists. No pairs of atheists have knocked on my door to try to get me to join their group. No atheists have threatened me for having the beliefs I have or implied or said I was evil for having them. I have never turned on the TV and found an atheist obviously enjoying the idea of my comeuppance, celebrating in advance, sometimes with a mask of sympathy or concern, but not remotely always.

Most of them would think I was wrong about stuff, but as long as I treat them with respect, nah, I don't find them telling me I shouldn't believe certain things.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:25 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 7:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 5:27 pm
That might be how they do think about it. But there's a problem: Atheists generally say they're Atheists because they don't just want to say, "I don't think there's a God." They want to say, "I don't think there's a God, and you shouldn't think there is either," or even "I KNOW there's no God."

I think that is quite an exaggeration.

I knew you'd say so.

And I knew you would say:

But it's obviously not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2023 9:25 pmGo and look at all the "proud" Atheists that are around.

I don't know where to go and look for them.

IC wrote:

But Dawkins, "and company", aren't exactly typical atheists are they.

They sure are.

Okay, so you are talking about the typical atheists who write books and give lectures about atheism? There must be more of them than I realised.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:There is nothing to prevent all of them from being wrong, though,

That is also true...until we roll in Atheism to the group.

I'm surprised you would want to be part of a group that contained atheists.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:...the sensible approach, it seems to me, would be to do nothing about it, which is exactly what I am doing.

Well, unless God both exists, and you have good reason to know He exists, and for some reason you're resisting that. Then, it wouldn't be so good to hover in an unbelief to which your actual knowledge didn't entitle you.

As I don't have any religious beliefs of my own, and I couldn't possibly comply with all the requirements of all the existing religions, I'm going to carry on doing nothing.