Philosophy Now Forum

NB: My own assessment of IC’s general theology has as I say brought me to the understanding of how heretical and •errored• it is, and I find the Catholic counter-reasonings to be substantial and more highly dimensioned. Yet the breadth of these differences will not, cannot, ever be brought out in depth because no one writing on the forum is interested in them. For good reasons given the requirements in the present dispensation.

Additionally I am still A Modern and like most who write on this forum I find it very hard to reenter a metaphysical system that has been overtaken by another (the scientistic view, the materialistic view). And I admit that to do so is a strange endeavor. But it has its rewards.

Nevertheless where IC does good work and can be said to be •on the money• in the strength of his arguments I always try to distinguish from other areas where fanaticism bubbles up. And there are many areas (albeit against pretty easy targets) where his arguments are sound (far stronger than those brought out against him).

To •study• IC is a worthwhile and useful endeavor if we wish to gain a better understanding of the Evangelical “disease” and certainly if an understanding of Christian Zionism is desired.

In my own case, when I realized the degree and intensity of that ideological trap it resulted in deep suspicion of the general (Evangelical) platform.

But the inner dimensions of all these issues cannot, certainly here, be broached and resolved. Simply because no one here has any real interest at all in these issues.

Perhaps you can, or the Evangelical bloke you are obsessed with can enlighten us as to where in the Christian Bible we were instructed to go around insisting people believe in Christ..

Certainly in my Catholic upbringing we had no form of said instruction. (I suppose that is why you don't get annoying Catholics knocking on your from door, as you do with all the Protestant spin offs)

OK, I just asked google and apparently it was in Matthew that we should share the wonderful news with our neighbours.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 12:46 pm NB: My own assessment of IC’s general theology has as I say brought me to the understanding of how heretical and •errored• it is, and I find the Catholic counter-reasonings to be substantial and more highly dimensioned. Yet the breadth of these differences will not, cannot, ever be brought out in depth because no one writing on the forum is interested in them. For good reasons given the requirements in the present dispensation.

What does it matter; how does what he wants to believe make any difference to what you want to believe? It's all just what somebody made up, anyway. Just tailor your "theology" to suite your own preferences.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 1:54 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 12:46 pm NB: My own assessment of IC’s general theology has as I say brought me to the understanding of how heretical and •errored• it is, and I find the Catholic counter-reasonings to be substantial and more highly dimensioned. Yet the breadth of these differences will not, cannot, ever be brought out in depth because no one writing on the forum is interested in them. For good reasons given the requirements in the present dispensation.

What does it matter; how does what he wants to believe make any difference to what you want to believe? It's all just what somebody made up, anyway. Just tailor your "theology" to suite your own preferences.

Listen here Yorkshireman..I suppose you think Cricket is better than Christianity. That somebody that made up Christianity was God. Whoever made up Cricket was even more boring than that.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:00 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 1:54 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 12:46 pm NB: My own assessment of IC’s general theology has as I say brought me to the understanding of how heretical and •errored• it is, and I find the Catholic counter-reasonings to be substantial and more highly dimensioned. Yet the breadth of these differences will not, cannot, ever be brought out in depth because no one writing on the forum is interested in them. For good reasons given the requirements in the present dispensation.

What does it matter; how does what he wants to believe make any difference to what you want to believe? It's all just what somebody made up, anyway. Just tailor your "theology" to suite your own preferences.

Listen here Yorkshireman..I suppose you think Cricket is better than Christianity. That somebody that made up Christianity was God. Whoever made up Cricket was even more boring than that.

I'm not saying anything about God, so relax.

I'm just saying that when it comes to the various religions, and their various branches and practices, somebody must have just made up what exactly must be believed, and what rituals were called for. If God does exist, he must be shaking his head in amazement at all the different performances are acted out for his benefit.

I'm not interested in cricket, btw.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 9:54 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 7:25 pm Rebuttal to Natural Theology

1. A prime mover would be sufficient but not necessary for the existence of the universe.

So far, so good.

But now we have what's called an "argument to the best explanation": namely, when we have various possibilities before us, we examine them and see which one we are most justified in believing. This, to be sure, is not absolute...but it can be very, very probabilistically winsome, if the right comparisons are made.

So let's make the comparisons. Other than an intelligent First Cause of all things, what's the more winsome hypothesis? What ELSE do we know that could account for the measure of complexity, order, intelligence and so forth that was infused into the original cosmos, and which we still find on every side today, as science progresses?

I suspect you'll have nothing to suggest. If so, you're pretty much in the same situation as everybody else. Concepts, for example, are thought to be eternal and unoriginated, things recognized rather than invented. But concepts don't create things. Or numbers...numbers are sometimes thought to be eternal realities, but numbers also don't create things. So what's your candidate, to set over and against the First Cause hypothesis?

If you've got nothing to propose as rival, then at least for the present, that makes the First Cause (i.e. an intelligent Creator) the "best explanation," rationally speaking.

The statement references a set of characteristics of a prime mover, should there be one, and is not relevant to specifying the metaphysics of such a thing. I could just as well have said, “If such a thing as a prime mover exists, it would be sufficient but not necessary to perform its functions.” What would be something that would be both necessary and sufficient to perform the functions of a prime mover—whatever those functions may be—is a different matter than the one I raised. I find your tangential remarks to be unconvincing to me.

2. A prime mover is an imaginary being.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 9:54 pm Well, I don't know what you mean by "prime mover." I'm pretty sure you don't mean the Aristotelian "primum mobile," so I'm going to assume you mean First Cause. Correct me, if you think you mean something else, please.

You would need evidence for this objection to be serious. What have you got?

For “prime mover” you may substitute “intelligent creator”.

3. An infinite regress is no more impossible than an infinitesimally small number.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 9:54 pm No, that's certainly wrong. We know that much.

Infinity is not "a small number." It isn't even comparable to some number. In fact, it isn't actually a "real number" at all, mathematically speaking. It's a placeholder concept for an unending or unbeginning entity, or one that recurs without cessation, like the sequence of digits ideally following "3.14..." in pi. Thus, the one thing it never does is terminate in any "number," whether big or small. That's what makes it infinity.

I stand by my remark.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 10:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 10:25 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 10:18 pm
I'm just arguing, like everybody else here. That doesn't mean I care what kind of morality you believe in, I just care about arguing about it.

Oh. So you're not sincere. You're just practicing sophistry?

You have a funny hobby.

I'll leave the rest of the forum to judge which one of us is doing that.

IC actually has a blind obsession more so than a hobby.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:13 pmI'm not interested in cricket, btw.

OMG. Infidel!! - You've done well to keep that a secret from the deadly locals - you could be Yorkshire Puddinged to death.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:31 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:13 pmI'm not interested in cricket, btw.

OMG. Infidel!! - You've done well to keep that a secret from the deadly locals - you could be Yorkshire Puddinged to death.

My son is mad about cricket, and most sport, really. I don't know where he gets it from, but it ain't from me.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:27 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 10:29 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2024 10:25 pm
Oh. So you're not sincere. You're just practicing sophistry?

You have a funny hobby.

I'll leave the rest of the forum to judge which one of us is doing that.

IC actually has a blind obsession more so than a hobby.

That's fair enough, but I don't think he ought to be trying to blind everyone else with it.

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:42 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:31 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 2:13 pmI'm not interested in cricket, btw.

OMG. Infidel!! - You've done well to keep that a secret from the deadly locals - you could be Yorkshire Puddinged to death.

My son is mad about cricket, and most sport, really. I don't know where he gets it from, but it ain't from me.

That's good. Sometimes I think sport is the only way we can truly all unite as a people of various cultures, I think it's great for the world - especially the World Cup.

Look at how much Moh Salah - a Muslim that plays for Liverpool is loved. It amazes me the amount of these top professional football players that are Christian - they do the little Father\Son\HolySpirit sign as they enter the footback pitch. It would be an interesting stat to see how many are actually THEIST - I wonder if their faith made God willing to assist then with their dream. (its plausible - when ya know )

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 1:54 pmWhat does it matter; how does what he wants to believe make any difference to what you want to believe? It's all just what somebody made up, anyway. Just tailor your "theology" to suite your own preferences.

Well, it matters (has relevancy) for numerous reasons.

And I do acknowledge that, in your small-minded conception, it is all made up. That stance is the high attainment of Postmodernism, and you, and everyone writing here, has absorbed the Postmodernist view. I actually think IC has too but he is do strong-minded and so aware of apologetic dimensions that he presents here an Absolutist Wall that, by its nature and design, could not ever be scaled nor opposed.

Similarly to many, I also am •on the outside looking in•. But as a *philosophical weasel* (Hello there Harvey Beard) I continually focus-in on the meanings within the symbolism, my Operational Metaphor being Plato’s Cave.

I’ll look at the images with you; I’ll participate in these Great Battles over subjective possessions, but the truth I wish to honor, and serve, is metaphysical and supernatural to all that.

I’m fucked in one sense. But in another my squirming allows numerous advantages.

You, FishPie, were not raised in Catholicism but in the post-Conciliar post-Vatican ll destructive dismantling of solid theological doctrine. In order to know what traditional theology is — what it demands let’s say — you’d have to spend at least a month reading and thinking things through.

Your theology is ultra- super-subjectivist and when you drink just as the alcohol has the weirdest effects on your personality, so does it have on your theology. But I also refer to •alcohol• in a metaphorical sense. You are (IMO) positioned near the groundlings in Plato’s Cave and your vision is distorted by imperfections.

I mean you no offense. We are obligated here to say what we think.

No, Harbal, in theology, especially Greco-Christian theology, there are so many fruits of deep thought on sound principles pertinent to this Realm that it cannot — must not — be related to as you do.

You: the absolute vulgar postmodern man: our own civilization’s termite!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 3:09 pm You, FishPie, were not raised in Catholicism but in the post-Conciliar post-Vatican ll destructive dismantling of solid theological doctrine. In order to know what traditional theology is — what it demands let’s say — you’d have to spend at least a month reading and thinking things through.

Your theology is ultra- super-subjectivist and when you drink just as the alcohol has the weirdest effects on your personality, so does it have on your theology. But I also refer to •alcohol• in a metaphorical sense. You are (IMO) positioned near the groundlings in Plato’s Cave and your vision is distorted by imperfections.

I mean you no offense. We are obligated here to say what we think.

RE My being raised via a Catholic School system - most of any religious teaching was in primary school - and it was very tame - just the basics but in hindsight having since read the Gospels - we were taught the important stuff -Christ's message, humility, love thy neighbour - basically try and be good to everyone - of course that stuff is more appropriate to children of that age than whatever 'post-Conciliar post-Vatican ll destructive dismantling of solid theological doctrine' would entail (and to be honest - I have no interest in what the Clergy expect me to think - and certainly not a months worth). In secondary school - we had 1 lesson per week - the last lesson on a Friday - in an all boys school - well, you can imagine how that kicked off!!

RE My drinking. Since 1997 when God made itself aware to me - I didn't drink so much back then - but over the years - when put under the ACTUAL TESTS - indeed 3 month stints in HELL - I'd hit the booze very heavily. Since I have been a good boy in recent years, no longer partake in eating of the Tree of Know_Ledge - I no longer cop the wrath of God. In fact - things are rather good so there truly is no excuse for my drinking booze. It's become a habit unfortunately and my liver is saying NO! DE_LIVER us from evil eh?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 3:09 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 1:54 pmWhat does it matter; how does what he wants to believe make any difference to what you want to believe? It's all just what somebody made up, anyway. Just tailor your "theology" to suite your own preferences.

Well, it matters (has relevancy) for numerous reasons.

And I do acknowledge that, in your small-minded conception, it is all made up.

Acknowledgement is all I ask.