Philosophy Now Forum

Age

On the other hand, what I KNOW, is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct. But I have NOT YET LEARNED HOW TO communicate 'this' YET properly with 'you', human beings.

Maybe this will help. When Prof Skridloff and Gurdjieff met Father Giovanni, the father had special effect on Prof Skridloff. Does Father Giovanni's explanation resonate with you at all?

I must tell you that in our brotherhood there are two very old brethren; one is called Brother Ahl and the other Brother Sez. These brethern have voluntarily undertaken the obligation of periodically visiting all the monasteries of our order and explaining various aspects of the essence of divinity. Our order has four monasteries, one of them ours, the second in the valley of the Pamir, the third in Tibet and the fourth in India. And so these brethren, Ahl and Sez, constantly travel from one monastery to another and preach there.

They come to us twice a year. Their arrival at our monastery is considered among us a very great event. On the days when either of them is here, the soul of every one of us experiences pure heavenly pleasure and tenderness. The sermons of these two brethren, who are to an almost equal degree holy men and who speak the same truths, have nevertheless a different effect on all our brethren and on me in particular.

When Brother Sez speaks it is indeed like the song of the birds in Paradise; from what he says one is quite, so to say, turned inside out; one becomes as though entranced. His speech purls like a stream and one no longer wishes anything else in life but to listen to the voice of Brother Sez. But Brother Ahl's speech has almost the opposite effect. He speaks badly and indistinctly, evidently because of his age. No one knows how old he is. Brother Sez is also very old, but he is still a hale old man, whereas in Brother Ahl the weakness of old age is clearly evident.

The stronger the impression made at the moment by the words of Brother Sez, the more this impression evaporates until there ultimately remains in the hearer nothing at all. But in the case of Brother Ahl, although at first what he says makes almost no impression, later, the gist of it takes on definite form, more and more each day, and is instilled as a whole into the heart and remains there forever.

When we became aware of this and began trying to discover why it was so, we came to the unanimous conclusion that the sermons of Brother Sez proceeded only from his mind and therefore acted on our minds, whereas those of Brother Ahl proceeded from his being and acted on our being.

Yes, professor, knowledge and understanding are quite different. Only understanding can lead us to being whereas knowledge is but a passing presence in it.

--G.I. Gurdjieff, in 'Meetings with Remarkable Men'

If understanding is defined by what we do, A person can experience the futility of what we intellectually know. you may know a lot but what prevents your understanding of it? You communicate through defense leaving your being out of it. It is common on philosophy sites with the goal of killng ideas for the sake of vanity. But you don't have to. First seriously consider the difference between knowing and understanding and what you would need to acquire understanding.

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN WHAT TAKES PLACE IN ME when I see or hear anything majestic which allows no doubt that it proceeds from the actualization of Our Maker Creator. Each time, my tears flow of themselves. I weep, that is to say, it weeps in me, not from grief, no, but as if from tenderness. I became so, gradually, after meeting Father Giovanni.…
After that meeting my whole inner and outer world became for me quite different. In the definite views which had become rooted in me in the course of my whole life, there took place, as it were by itself, a revaluation of all values.
Before that meeting, I was a man wholly engrossed in my own personal interests and pleasures, and also in the interests and pleasures of my children. I was always occupied with thoughts of how best to satisfy my needs and the needs of my children.
Formerly, it may be said, my whole being was possessed by egoism. All my manifestations and experiencings flowed from my vanity. The meeting with Father Giovanni killed all this, and from then on there gradually arose in me that “something” which has brought the whole of me to the unshakable conviction that, apart from the vanities of life, there exists a “something else” which must be the aim and ideal of every more or less thinking man, and that it is only this something else which may make a man really happy and give him real values, instead of the illusory “goods” with which in ordinary life he is always and in everything full

promethean75 wrote:Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:22 pm "I'll go back to ignoring you like pretty much everybody else does."

why this is so, Age, is because you exhibit a peculiar idiosyncracy in your posting w hich, due to the nature of its excessiveness, might suggest to the reader that you have a 'condition' of some sort... and philosophers with 'conditions' should be regarded with caution and care.

WHY should what a human being says or thinks be JUDGED upon the pre-ASSUMED 'condition' or 'character' of the human being, itself", and especially in a philosophy forum.

What should ONLY be LOOKED AT and DISCUSSED are the WORDS, themselves, ALONE, and ONLY in regards to what the WORDS are ACTUALLY MEANING and/or REFERENCING TO EXACTLY?

It does NOT matter ONE IOTA what PRE-JUDGED NOR what PRESUMED 'condition' one has, or does NOT even have, what is ONLY IMPORTANT, especially in philosophical discussions are; IF the words being USED can stand up to, and thus HOLD up to, ABSOLUTE SCRUTINY.

So, what I suggest NOW is that 'you', readers, here CHANGE the WAY 'you' even BEGIN to LOOK AT 'things', and then 'you' CAN and WILL BEGIN to SEE 'things' MUCH DIFFERENTLY, and in a MUCH MORE CLEAR LIGHT, I will add.

promethean75 wrote:Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:22 pm this obstinate posting of endless capitalized strings of questions and interrogations that go nowhere fast, have got to stop.

WHY do you PRESUME and PROPOSE that they HAVE TO STOP?

My, so-called, "ENDLESS strings of questions and interrogations, "go NOWHERE fast" ONLY because 'you', posters, here are NOT YET CAPABLE of STANDING UP to the SCRUTINY, CHALLENGERS nor QUESTIONING, which they pose to 'you'.

ONCE AGAIN, I will suggest that if one can NOT back up and support their CLAIMS here, ABSOLUTELY, BEFORE they make their CLAIM in the first place, then just do NOT express the CLAIM AT ALL, and ESPECIALLY NOT HERE, in a philosophy forum.

JUST REMEMBER whatever is WRITTEN here is UP for SCRUTINY.

By the way I DECIDE WHAT and WHEN I STOP, and NOT 'you'.

'you', posters, here are absolutely FREE to GANG UP on 'me' and REMOVE 'me', or in other words, FORCE 'me' to SHUT UP. But just remember MY WORDS are ALREADY HERE, and that "others" throughout human history who have ALSO SAID and WROTE 'things', which were ALSO NOT liked, and who the 'authors' of those WORDS were ALSO FORCED to SHUT UP, through DEATH, ARREST, or in others ways, but which finally ended up to be SEEN and what WAS ACTUALLY True, Right, and/or Incorrect ALL ALONG.

promethean75 wrote:Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:22 pm when boy, when... are you gonna get your act together?!!

WHEN people do NOT want to SEE OR HEAR 'things', which are being POINTED OUT and EXPLAINED, then one way to 'TRY TO' get RID OF that 'one' is to just MAKE OUT and CLAIM that 'they' "should be regarded caution and care".

But 'what', EXACTLY, should be regarded with caution AND care are the LIES and DECEPTIONS that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, are TELLING and FOOLING "yourselves" WITH, in the days when this is being written.

If 'you' HAD, then 'you' would NOT being SHOWING SO MUCH CONFUSION and MISUNDERSTANDINGS as 'you' ARE HERE-NOW in this forum.

Thanks for the clip by the way. It is VERY APPROPRIATE.

I think it’s valuable to question any/all belief systems, especially those that turn into mammoth structures and followings in human civilization, and which claim to be the ‘truth above all others’. No one and nothing should be exempt from this scrutiny -- even if, and especially if, the belief system has built-in all of the conditions and claims to allow it to spread unchallenged.

There are visibly and understandably so many manifestations of life that have qualities whether 'spiritually-inclined' or not, that I think how immense this ‘network/collective of creative energy must be’, and I don’t imagine that anyone/anything would be excluded from such a network/collective.

Over the years, there has been a string of those on this forum who continually insist that they have a position of 'knowing some absolute truth' which includes the idea that other people are excluded in some way -- rather than questioning/considering, perhaps, that ‘God is playing with God because it’s all God’. Clearly they are getting a payoff to position themselves in such a way. Why shouldn't that arouse caution and suspicion? My question for these people is why would there be anything outside or separate from their idea of ultimate truth/God -- because how can ultimate truth/God not include all?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:11 pm Age

On the other hand, what I KNOW, is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct. But I have NOT YET LEARNED HOW TO communicate 'this' YET properly with 'you', human beings.

Maybe this will help. When Prof Skridloff and Gurdjieff met Father Giovanni, the father had special effect on Prof Skridloff. Does Father Giovanni's explanation resonate with you at all?

I must tell you that in our brotherhood there are two very old brethren; one is called Brother Ahl and the other Brother Sez. These brethern have voluntarily undertaken the obligation of periodically visiting all the monasteries of our order and explaining various aspects of the essence of divinity. Our order has four monasteries, one of them ours, the second in the valley of the Pamir, the third in Tibet and the fourth in India. And so these brethren, Ahl and Sez, constantly travel from one monastery to another and preach there.

They come to us twice a year. Their arrival at our monastery is considered among us a very great event. On the days when either of them is here, the soul of every one of us experiences pure heavenly pleasure and tenderness. The sermons of these two brethren, who are to an almost equal degree holy men and who speak the same truths, have nevertheless a different effect on all our brethren and on me in particular.

When Brother Sez speaks it is indeed like the song of the birds in Paradise; from what he says one is quite, so to say, turned inside out; one becomes as though entranced. His speech purls like a stream and one no longer wishes anything else in life but to listen to the voice of Brother Sez. But Brother Ahl's speech has almost the opposite effect. He speaks badly and indistinctly, evidently because of his age. No one knows how old he is. Brother Sez is also very old, but he is still a hale old man, whereas in Brother Ahl the weakness of old age is clearly evident.

The stronger the impression made at the moment by the words of Brother Sez, the more this impression evaporates until there ultimately remains in the hearer nothing at all. But in the case of Brother Ahl, although at first what he says makes almost no impression, later, the gist of it takes on definite form, more and more each day, and is instilled as a whole into the heart and remains there forever.

When we became aware of this and began trying to discover why it was so, we came to the unanimous conclusion that the sermons of Brother Sez proceeded only from his mind and therefore acted on our minds, whereas those of Brother Ahl proceeded from his being and acted on our being.

Yes, professor, knowledge and understanding are quite different. Only understanding can lead us to being whereas knowledge is but a passing presence in it.

--G.I. Gurdjieff, in 'Meetings with Remarkable Men'

Yes. But then ALL things resonate with Me.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:11 pm If understanding is defined by what we do, A person can experience the futility of what we intellectually know. you may know a lot but what prevents your understanding of it?

Since 'understanding' is NOT defined by 'what we do', the rest is moot.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:11 pm You communicate through defense leaving your being out of it.

If that is what is perceived, then fair enough. But I CERTAINLY DO NOT intend to communicate through 'defense'.

I, however, do NOT, at first, express OPENLY the full extent of my views and thoughts. But this is NOT in 'defense' of ANY thing NOR to 'defend' ANY thing, I do this only to INDUCE and INVITE those who are Truly OPEN and INQUISITIVE, and thus those who are REALLY KEEN to DISCOVER, LEARN, and/or KNOW MORE. Then I am READY to REVEAL, FULLY, thee Being, or who (and what) 'I' Truly AM.

I have found that there is NO REAL USE in EXPOSING and SHOWING the REAL One to those who have NO REAL INTEREST in Thee.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:11 pm It is common on philosophy sites with the goal of killng ideas for the sake of vanity.

YES this was a VERY COMMON PRACTICE, back in the days when this was being written, as can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout this forum, as well as a LOT of other writings. However, this WAS and IS some 'thing' that I have NEVER done and NEVER will, NO MATTER what ANY one thinks NOR BELIEVES.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:11 pm But you don't have to. First seriously consider the difference between knowing and understanding and what you would need to acquire understanding.

ALREADY DONE.

WHEN 'I' ACQUIRED FULL 'understanding', which is WHEN GAINING the UNDERSTANDING of 'understanding', itself, IS ACQUIRED, then that is WHEN I NOT just 'considered' what was NEEDED to acquire understanding, but ALSO WHEN I came TO KNOW the DIFFERENCE between 'knowing' and 'understanding' AS WELL.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:11 pm

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN WHAT TAKES PLACE IN ME when I see or hear anything majestic which allows no doubt that it proceeds from the actualization of Our Maker Creator.

BUT, it is NOT 'very difficult' to EXPLAIN ANY of these sorts of 'things'. WHAT is 'harder' to find though is people are READY to LISTEN, and LEARN, and ACCEPT.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:11 pm Each time, my tears flow of themselves. I weep, that is to say, it weeps in me, not from grief, no, but as if from tenderness. I became so, gradually, after meeting Father Giovanni.…
After that meeting my whole inner and outer world became for me quite different. In the definite views which had become rooted in me in the course of my whole life, there took place, as it were by itself, a revaluation of all values.
Before that meeting, I was a man wholly engrossed in my own personal interests and pleasures, and also in the interests and pleasures of my children. I was always occupied with thoughts of how best to satisfy my needs and the needs of my children.

I bet if I asked this 'one', (whoever it is), what was 'its needs' and 'its children's needs', EXACTLY. There would be, at first, a
considered response' with, 'I do NOT know', in other words, Honesty, or just DISMISSAL and/or REFUSAL to respond.

Also, 'you', adult human beings, ONLY be occupied with thoughts of how to make 'a better life', for a select few ONLY, WAS very common, back in the days when this was written. But this way of thinking and doing WAS WHY 'the world', back then, WAS IN the MOST TERRIBLE of SHAPE that 'it' WAS IN.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:11 pm Formerly, it may be said, my whole being was possessed by egoism. All my manifestations and experiencings flowed from my vanity. The meeting with Father Giovanni killed all this, and from then on there gradually arose in me that “something” which has brought the whole of me to the unshakable conviction that, apart from the vanities of life, there exists a “something else” which must be the aim and ideal of every more or less thinking man, and that it is only this something else which may make a man really happy and give him real values, instead of the illusory “goods” with which in ordinary life he is always and in everything full

That IS ONE WAY to move AHEAD. But, as "lacewing" likes to POINT OUT - There is MORE than just ONE WAY.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:41 am I think it’s valuable to question any/all belief systems, especially those that turn into mammoth structures and followings in human civilization, and which claim to be the ‘truth above all others’. No one and nothing should be exempt from this scrutiny -- even if, and especially if, the belief system has built-in all of the conditions and claims to allow it to spread unchallenged.

There are visibly and understandably so many manifestations of life that have qualities whether 'spiritually-inclined' or not, that I think how immense this ‘network/collective of creative energy must be’, and I don’t imagine that anyone/anything would be excluded from such a network/collective.

Over the years, there has been a string of those on this forum who continually insist that they have a position of 'knowing some absolute truth' which includes the idea that other people are excluded in some way -- rather than questioning/considering, perhaps, that ‘God is playing with God because it’s all God’.

While "some others" INSIST that 'they' have a position of 'knowing HOW to obtain NOT just SOME absolute Truth but THEE ACTUAL ABSOLUTE Truth, tself. 'They' ALSO KNOW WHEN 'they' and "others" have FOUND, and thus OBTAINED thee ACTUAL ABSOLUTE Truth.

For absolutely ANY one to think, ASSUME, or even BELIEVE that absolutely ANY one else would be excluded, from thee ACTUAL ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth is just PURE ABSURDITY. just like it is PURE ABSURDITY to think, ASSUME, or even BELIEVE that one person could NEVER FIND, and thus OBTAIN thee ABSOLUTE Truth BEFORE "others" or AT ALL.

ALSO, WHEN one FINDS or OBTAINS thee ABSOLUTE Truth, then they ALSO KNOW EXACTLY HOW and WHY ALL IS God, and HOW 'this', literally, ALL PLAYS OUT.

By the way, "lacewing", have 'you' YET questioned/considered who AND what God IS, EXACTLY, instead of just continually INSISTING what 'you' CONSISTENTLY DO here?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:41 am Clearly they are getting a payoff to position themselves in such a way.

LOL Are you STILL UNDER this DISILLUSIONMENT, which was and is only being created and caused by your OWN STRONGLY HELD ONTO BELIEF, which 'you' are CLEARLY STILL FULLY LOCKED INTO?

My question to 'you', "lacewing" now IS; What is the payoff for 'you', with KEEPING such a LOCKED IN POSITION?

(But OBVIOUSLY 'you' will NEVER answer this question, because of the ramifications to and for 'you'. The Fact that did even notice this question and if 'you' did answer this question Honestly, the 'yoi' HAVE TO CONTRADICT your previous writings.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:41 amWhy shouldn't that arouse caution and suspicion?

Yes, YOUR VERY CLOUDED and DISTORTED VIEWS REALLY DO arouse CAUTION and SUSPICION.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:41 am My question is why would there be anything outside of an ultimate truth/God?

Who here, besides 'you' "lacewing", was even SUGGESTING that there IS?

Asking WHY would some 'thing' exist, when absolutely NO one that I know of was even SUGGESTING such a thing seems to be a Truly RIDICULOUS thing to do. Well to me anyway

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:41 pm

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:34 pm Here the link to the argument is again.

[My fingers are still in my ears and my hands still cover my eyes, which is contradictory, but I don't care, 'cos contradictions are my thang.]

Link away.

It won't fix the basic assumptive problems with the questions.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:16 pm Link away.

Only too glad to! It's a great way to remind you that I've presented a cogent argument against your fundamental beliefs, and that you continue to fail to respond to it in any specific and meaningful way.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:16 pm It won't fix the basic assumptive problems with the questions.

What assumptive problems? You haven't provided any. The question (singular) is complemented by an associated argument of six premises+inferences. You remain free to pick out the premise(s) that you consider to be false and explain why, or to explain why you think any of the inferences or the argument as a whole are invalid. You haven't done either.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:47 am What assumptive problems? You haven't provided any.

Yeah, I did. I criticized all four points you alleged, each one for its own reasons.

You dismissed my critiques offhandedly...which doesn't make any of them wrong, just dismissed offhandedly.

Like, where, in your account, is any understanding of, or accounting for, human freedom? And what, if anything, do you think the Divine Being owes to the issue of justice? You mention the latter, but don't seem to even know what it means. Never mind the fact that you have a theologically ungrounded conception of "original sin." All of that has already been pointed out.

Sorry...you're just wrong about that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:47 am What assumptive problems? You haven't provided any.

Yeah, I did. I criticized all four points you alleged, each one for its own reasons.

Huh? I haven't "alleged" "four points". Rather, I've asked a key question (also at the following link) and presented a complementary argument of four premises and two inferences. You have failed to answer/address either directly.

The opportunity is still there for you to pick any of the premises in the argument that you think are false, and explain why. Otherwise, the argument remains by default cogent, and you're just bleating plaintively into the wind.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am You dismissed my critiques offhandedly...which doesn't make any of them wrong, just dismissed offhandedly.

No, I responded sufficiently to the four weak protestations that you presented (perhaps this explains your reference to "four" points above?). You failed to respond in turn. The opportunity remains open for you to do so.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am Like, where, in your account, is any understanding of, or accounting for, human freedom?

The accounting for human freedom lies in the premise (#3) that no matter what finite crimes a person might freely commit during their finite time on Earth, it is neither loving nor just to damn them to an infinite (and unimaginably awful) torment. Do you accept this premise? If not, why not?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am And what, if anything, do you think the Divine Being owes to the issue of justice?

The duty of ensuring that injustices are rectified. How about you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am You mention the latter, but don't seem to even know what it means.

Go on then: tell us.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am Never mind the fact that you have a theologically ungrounded conception of "original sin."

I've invited you to provide that which you think is the theologically grounded conception of "original sin" so that the question I've posed to you can, if necessary, be amended. You simply ignored that invitation. So, again, go on then: tell us what it is.

In any case, the argument (as opposed to the complementary question on which it is based, though also at that link) doesn't refer to original sin, so you're out of luck with that protestation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am All of that has already been pointed out.

...and its irrelevance to the argument has also been pointed out.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:52 am You have failed to answer/address either directly.

Go back and read againk if you need to.

You failed to respond in turn

Your critiques, I saw, were thin and dismissive, and you didn't even bother to find out what I meant before charging onward. So I see no reason to offer more. You clearly weren't listening. In fact, you accused me of being too "Socratic" and you arbitrarily declared that what we were having was not going to be a "conversation."

So blame yourself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am Like, where, in your account, is any understanding of, or accounting for, human freedom?

The accounting for human freedom lies in the premise (#3)

No, it doesn't. This is what I mean about "thin, dismissive" responses.

Your account says nothing about whether human freedom is possible and real, or what role it would play in your estimation of God. You didn't bother to think that issue through.

Are you saying that you are now? Alright, then: do humans have will, volition, choice, and influence on real events? Or are you a Determinist?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am And what, if anything, do you think the Divine Being owes to the issue of justice?

The duty of ensuring that injustices are rectified.

Alright. Let's start there.

Give me an "injustice" that God has a duty to "rectify." Give me something you consider a clear case.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am Never mind the fact that you have a theologically ungrounded conception of "original sin."

I've invited you to provide that which you think is the theologically grounded conception of "original sin"

If you'd read any of my exchange with seeds, interspersed thoughout, you'd know I've already done so, and with some precision.

Maybe you can check now. Or not, if that's not an issue you actually care about. It looks to me to be "tacked on" to your original point, sort of scattergun fashion.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:26 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:52 am You have failed to answer/address either directly.

Go back and read againk if you need to.

I don't have to, because I've been keeping track, so, instead: link me to any post of yours which you think does this.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:26 am

You failed to respond in turn

Your critiques, I saw, were thin and dismissive, and you didn't even bother to find out what I meant before charging onward. So I see no reason to offer more. You clearly weren't listening.

You admit, then, that you failed to respond. If my critiques were "thin and dismissive", then surely it would have been quite easy to demonstrate as much. But no, you didn't, and you still haven't, because they weren't, and you can't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am Like, where, in your account, is any understanding of, or accounting for, human freedom?

The accounting for human freedom lies in the premise (#3)

No, it doesn't. This is what I mean about "thin, dismissive" responses.

Your account says nothing about whether human freedom is possible and real, or what role it would play in your estimation of God. You didn't bother to think that issue through.

Are you saying that you are now? Alright, then: do humans have will, volition, choice, and influence on real events? Or are you a Determinist?

Your selective quoting is intellectually dishonest. My "account" (premise #3 of the argument in particular) assumes free will, because the sort of retributive punishment you believe God to undertake makes no sense without free will (it makes no sense anyway, but that's a separate issue).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am And what, if anything, do you think the Divine Being owes to the issue of justice?

The duty of ensuring that injustices are rectified.

Alright. Let's start there.

Give me an "injustice" that God has a duty to "rectify." Give me something you consider a clear case.

No, dude, you don't get to just ignore my question and then pose one of your own. My question, again, which you've elided from the end of that which you have quoted of me, is:

"How about you?"

Answer that, and then I'll answer yours, should you continue to pursue it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:26 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 3:03 am Never mind the fact that you have a theologically ungrounded conception of "original sin."

I've invited you to provide that which you think is the theologically grounded conception of "original sin"

If you'd read any of my exchange with seeds, interspersed thoughout, you'd know I've already done so, and with some precision.

Maybe you can check now.

Maybe you can link me in to any post directed to seeds in which you think you've done that, and propose a revision of my question in that light.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:26 am It looks to me to be "tacked on" to your original point, sort of scattergun fashion.

Given that it isn't present in the complementary argument that I presented: yes, it was superfluous to my original point. Still, you haven't explicitly presented an alternative conception. We're all still waiting...

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:43 am Given that it isn't present in the complementary argument that I presented: yes, it was superfluous to my original point.

On reflection: it wasn't superfluous after all. It reflected the minimum culpability for which the supposedly loving and just God of Christianity would sentence a person to eternal torment.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:16 pm Link away.

Only too glad to! It's a great way to remind you that I've presented a cogent argument against your fundamental beliefs, and that you continue to fail to respond to it in any specific and meaningful way.

What may appear as 'clear, logical, and convincing' to you does NOT necessarily mean that 'it' is 'clear, logical, and/nor convincing' to absolutely ANY one else.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 12:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:16 pm It won't fix the basic assumptive problems with the questions.

What assumptive problems? You haven't provided any. The question (singular) is complemented by an associated argument of six premises+inferences. You remain free to pick out the premise(s) that you consider to be false and explain why, or to explain why you think any of the inferences or the argument as a whole are invalid. You haven't done either.

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:04 am

Harry Baird wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:43 am Given that it isn't present in the complementary argument that I presented: yes, it was superfluous to my original point.

On reflection: it wasn't superfluous after all. It reflected the minimum culpability for which the supposedly loving and just God of Christianity would sentence a person to eternal torment.

There idea and MISINTERPRETATION that God, Itself, would sentence an INDIVIDUAL person to 'eternal torment' IS as STUPID as it REALLY SOUNDS.

So called "christians" only EXPRESS and CLAIM this MISINTERPRETATION is true BECAUSE, just like you, they ALSO have been TAUGHT that this was what was meant.

This was NEVER meant and will ALSO NEVER be what was meant. To ASSUME or BELIEVE otherwise is just ABSURDITY and STUPIDITY in the EXTREME.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:41 am I think it’s valuable to question any/all belief systems, especially those that turn into mammoth structures and followings in human civilization, and which claim to be the ‘truth above all others’. No one and nothing should be exempt from this scrutiny -- even if, and especially if, the belief system has built-in all of the conditions and claims to allow it to spread unchallenged.

There are visibly and understandably so many manifestations of life that have qualities whether 'spiritually-inclined' or not, that I think how immense this ‘network/collective of creative energy must be’, and I don’t imagine that anyone/anything would be excluded from such a network/collective.

Over the years, there has been a string of those on this forum who continually insist that they have a position of 'knowing some absolute truth' which includes the idea that other people are excluded in some way -- rather than questioning/considering, perhaps, that ‘God is playing with God because it’s all God’. Clearly they are getting a payoff to position themselves in such a way. Why shouldn't that arouse caution and suspicion? My question for these people is why would there be anything outside or separate from their idea of ultimate truth/God -- because how can ultimate truth/God not include all?

There are and have been a minority who for one reason or another came to realize they reside in Plato's Cave governed by imagination. If they have the need and courage they seek to understand why it is so and find the way out. The majority defend cave life because it provides purpose and meaning. That is why on philosophy sites The Cave allegory is never explored and those willing to do so without interpreting it into oblivion, are banished. To do so threatens ones reason to exist so is intolerable for secular sites.