The Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 9:46 am**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 9:31 am
Fanman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 4:14 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 12:13 am
The truth is that I have pointed to fairly obvious logical problems with a number of his arguments.

In this thread he had something about metaphysics not operating in a domain where we can clearly say some output is metaphysical (which is quite obviously a metaphysical claim itself). A secondary claim from that states that metaphysical claims usually collapse into something else such as "religion, spirituality, or esotericism" (really he should report to Willy B for a lecture on aeshtetics but I doubt Willy would pay him much attention tbh). And then he follows with what looks a lot like a conclusion to that syllogistic format: "Consequently, when someone claims to be a metaphysicist, from my perspective the label carries no more practical meaning than witch or wizard."

When I pointed out the logical flaws in that construct, he tried to tell me that it isn't an argument at all, just a statement of opinions. Given how prickly he has been at the suggestion that he doesn't know what metaphysicis is, I decided not to annoy him by pointing out that an argument is just an opinion with a bunch of reasons given, and that is indeed what he presented...

I raised other issues with his reasoning for other arguments he has presented. And I am not alone in that. He in every case simple refuses to believe he has been challenged on the rationale of his arguments and just takes offence at something instead. After a while, the problem seems to be him. His claim that his arguments have gone unchallenged is just a reflection of his self-pity, or whatever it is. His best arguments are tepid and easily challenged, but persuading their author to attend to the challenges isn't actually a valuable use of anybody's time because his personality will get in the way. This is why he will find fewer and fewer people to discuss his ideas with, even on this empty and decaying corpse of a forum.
One simple request: substantiate this with evidence.

Update to my post: You know what, Flash, don't bother. If things have gotten so bad for you that you have to create a version of reality that didn't occur, that's just sad. I wouldn't want it to look like I was bullying you into facing the truth or anything. So you can keep the delusion you've written; I am sure it will bring you some form of happiness.
Did you spend two hours getting obsessive about this shit?

You can just scroll back through your own posts for the evidence. In fact I see that you have from the two more posts you wrote over the next hour or two to complain about me... but those are picking out the bits of posts that you feel personally insulted by, and skipping anything that criticises your rationale. Which is eaxctly the flaw I pointed to above. Thanks for underlining my point. It's a shame you won't understand it.

Stop trying to win an argument by digging yourself furhter into the same hole. Do some self-reflection please. I am busy today and bored of this anyway.

One thing I would like to know. You obviously went and asked an AI to agree with you about your claims regarding metaphysics not being metaphysical claims themselves. That's what you do. So the fact that you aren't printing the results of that enquiry suggests to me that you can't force an AI to agree with you on this. Is that why you are suddenly so much grumpier than before?

With someone like you, one has to be thorough when it comes to evidence and substantiation because you make a lot of things up. I'm just covering my bases for the record of the forum, to show that when asked, you were not capable, in any way, of substantiating your claims with evidence and instead tried to shift that burden to me. Now, if you believe what you're saying is real, that’s a you problem, but we both know it's not. And like I told you, as long as you continue to say negative things about me, I'm going to continue to defend myself as I see fit, whether you like it or not.

For the forum record, you started the abuse; I'm trying to put an end to it.

Do you understand?

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 4:18 pm**

The part in Romans that seems to have Gary in a freakout is here:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 5:26 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 4:18 pm The part in Romans that seems to have Gary in a freakout is here:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

That's part of it.

Thanks.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 5:48 pm**

The metaphysics are at the very least interesting — for those of philosophical mind and interested in Occidental ideas and the evolution of thought — and pretty intense insofar as Christianity is a radical perspective about man’s life here that sets itself the task of curing a maddened world.

I have offered my view many times: Christianity seemed to realize, by observing Nature tooth-and-claw, and man’s “slavery” to cruel natural processes, manifest as well in man, that it HAD TO establish itself in overt opposition. Christianity is an “imposition” of idealistic values onto Earth and Man.

The passage is a “radical Rx” is it not? A radical statement about “what is”. I will mention that the exact same notion is expressed, in more detail, with better explained metaphysical terms, in the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. It is not uncommon. I would suppose that Buddhism also has descriptions as to how and why men lose their minds.

Shall we examine it psychologically? Socio-economically? Or as a genuine assessment of “man’s spiritual condition’?

PS: Talk about “complicity”!

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:13 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 5:48 pm The passage is a “radical Rx” is it not?

It is. But given the radical need of the moment, quite necessary.

I will mention that the exact same notion is expressed, in more detail, with better explained metaphysical terms, in the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita.

Actually, it's not. I've read the Gita. And I have it here.

I think you'll find that the Gita is totally fatalistic about these things, and does not at all participate in the Christian conception of sin. It even advocate outright murder...of one's relatives, if necessary, you'll recall. "Thou wilt but slay the slain..." (Ch.11) The "god" of the Gita is a giant, slavering, all-devouring maw (same chapter) ...Fate...not the real God, and nothing to do with salvation from that state or relationship with God.

The Gita is assuredly nothing close to Romans. That much is very obvious.

More generally, when one examines "religions" in any detail at all, one quickly realizes that a) all have something different that they offer, and b) they are not the same. I think we do a disservice to competing religions when we treat them all as merely warm pablum of the same flavour -- usually watered down until it also is palatable to our own preconceptions. To give them their due, whatever else one can say about them -- good or bad -- they're definitely distinct in many, many ways. We need to honour the distinctions they demand of us, even if afterward, we reject their findings.

And even if we disagree with them, there's no need for us to insult others by pretending otherwise.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:26 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 19, 2026 4:43 pm If there was a resounding collapse in Europe in the late nineteenth century of that “horizon’ Nietzsche said had been ‘erased’, there simultaneously arose “alternative” routes of experience of and investigation of those suppressed and uncommon paths of knowing and understanding — and having experience — of what is generally described as ‘divinity’ but perhaps not quite as much as open revelation of “God”. But that too is contradicted by, for example, our own cosmic voyager Seeds.

Unlike Bloody Mary or Beetlejuice, most of the time you only need to say my name once to get me to appear.

Anyway, now that I am here, I suggest that if you want to understand what the "Secret of the Universe" might possibly be, then I invite you to read a fascinating conversation I recently had with Google AI (Gemini) at the following link to a post in the ILP forum...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/my-bu ... 33?u=seeds

If you do not agree that what I - and the AI oracle - discussed in that exchange is the most logical and most beautifully natural depiction of our ultimate and eternal destiny,...

...then you just don't understand what was being said, and you will simply continue playing what the AI oracle called "Womb Games."
_______

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:28 pm**

To IC: A similar idea is expressed. And in other places more of the consequences of negative choices are outlined.

The 16th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is called Daivasura Sampad Vibhaga Yoga - The Yoga of Distinguishing the Divine and Demoniacal Natures.

Krishna explains that all human character falls into two broad tendencies.

1. Daivi Sampad - The Divine Nature: He lists 26 qualities of those born to divine nature. They include fearlessness, purity of heart, steadiness in knowledge, charity, self-control, sacrifice, study of scriptures, austerity, straightforwardness, non-violence, truthfulness, freedom from anger, renunciation, peace, compassion for all beings, modesty, gentleness, absence of fickleness and greed, vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, and freedom from envy and excessive pride. These qualities lead to liberation and spiritual progress.

2. Asuri Sampad - The Demoniacal Nature: The opposite tendency is marked by hypocrisy, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness, and ignorance. Such people do not know what should be done and what should not. They deny any moral order, believe the world is without truth or a God, and is driven only by lust. They cling to insatiable desires, are bound by egoism, and use unjust means to accumulate wealth for sensual enjoyment.

Krishna warns that the demoniacal nature leads to bondage and repeated birth into lower, darker states. The root of this downfall is three gates of hell: lust (kama), anger (krodha), and greed (lobha). One who abandons these three can work for self-realization.

He concludes by telling Arjuna to follow the injunctions of the scriptures to distinguish right from wrong action, and to not act under the impulse of selfish desire.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:46 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:13 pm I think you'll find that the Gita is totally fatalistic about these things…

You should already have found, and internalized, that I do not regard you as an authority in these matters.

I actually see you as an obstacle in an effort to communicate sound metaphysical and spiritual ideas. The reason you present like this, I have determined, is due to a defect in your character. I know that you do not like to be told this but there you have it. Your brand of Christianity, or the way you wield it, is narcissistic and fanatical. “For obstinacy makes him unable to hear for all that he has ears”. I think the defect is deeply enmeshed with the same mental defects Luther himself manifested. However, one does find a similar structure of defect in other religious zealots, so do not feel too bad!

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:50 pm**

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:26 pm If you do not agree that what I - and the AI oracle - discussed in that exchange is the most logical and most beautifully natural depiction of our ultimate and eternal destiny,...

...then you just don't understand what was being said, and you will simply continue playing what the AI oracle called "Womb Games."

I did not read it. I assume you could encapsulate the gist in a paragraph. If so, post it and I will read it.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:55 pm**

Nota bene: I am trying to develop two lines of analysis and commentary:

1) What in some religious formulation is worthy of consideration, even if the religious imperative is expressed with such adamancy.

2) How we can see and recognize a religiously obsessed fanatic, understand that he blocks and inhibits comprehension while we do not lose sight of the elements in the religious expression that may contain value.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:57 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:28 pm To IC: A similar idea is expressed. And in other places more of the consequences of negative choices are outlined.
The 16th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita is called Daivasura Sampad Vibhaga Yoga - The Yoga of Distinguishing the Divine and Demoniacal Natures.

Krishna explains that all human character falls into two broad tendencies.

1. Daivi Sampad - The Divine Nature: He lists 26 qualities of those born to divine nature. They include fearlessness, purity of heart, steadiness in knowledge, charity, self-control, sacrifice, study of scriptures, austerity, straightforwardness, non-violence, truthfulness, freedom from anger, renunciation, peace, compassion for all beings, modesty, gentleness, absence of fickleness and greed, vigor, forgiveness, fortitude, cleanliness, and freedom from envy and excessive pride. These qualities lead to liberation and spiritual progress.

2. Asuri Sampad - The Demoniacal Nature: The opposite tendency is marked by hypocrisy, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness, and ignorance. Such people do not know what should be done and what should not. They deny any moral order, believe the world is without truth or a God, and is driven only by lust. They cling to insatiable desires, are bound by egoism, and use unjust means to accumulate wealth for sensual enjoyment.

Krishna warns that the demoniacal nature leads to bondage and repeated birth into lower, darker states. The root of this downfall is three gates of hell: lust (kama), anger (krodha), and greed (lobha). One who abandons these three can work for self-realization.

He concludes by telling Arjuna to follow the injunctions of the scriptures to distinguish right from wrong action, and to not act under the impulse of selfish desire.

Yes, I'm aware. But neither in the content nor in the solution the two books propose am I seeing any significant similarity at all.

The Bible certainly praises the having of certain traits of character, as does the Gita. And a few of them overlap pretty well. But unlike in the Gita, in the Biblical telling, these can never be produced by the person him or herself, because of the very problem identified in Romans 1...namely, that man chooses to be alienated from and hostile to God, and seeks to produce his character for himself. He is consequently poisoned by his sinfulness and rebellion, and in no fit mental state or state of capacity to rescue himself from himself.

In Hinduism, "salvation," (to the very limited extent that concept even really exists as the same concept there) is what one does to save oneself through strict spiritual disciplines that are supposed to free the captive soul to "enlightement" or even Nirvana. It's recursions of reincarnations, doing one's duty (dharma), and building favourable acts oneself (karma) that one ascends the spiral of suffering and escapes the illusory world (samsara). All of it is done by the efforts and virtues of the individual, to which he has unrestricted access. A man can be as "good" as he chooses to be self-mastered.

But in Christianity, none of this is the case. The world is not samsara, but a good Creation, intended by God to be good, not a trap of the soul. Man himself is not a capable, self-mastered virtue-seeker, but rather a lost soul in need of immediate divine rescue. And while there is some small overlap in the disciplines admired by both, in Christianity, the spiritual disciplines follow salvation, not precipitate it, and this salvation is a thing done without human effort. In the Christian way of telling it, as Isaiah puts it, "all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our deeds of righteousness are as filthy rags." (the language here, in the original Hebrew, could not have been stronger). Likewise, the NT instructs, "Not by deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to [God's] mercy, He saved us..." (Titus 3:5)

So the means of salvation and of character reform are actually diametrically opposite, in the two books. There's no substantive harmony between them, as soon as we look beyond the superficial resemblance offered by a few -- not all -- of the virtues listed. Even in those small areas in which there is agreement, the mechanics and the dynamics remain entirely opposite.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:58 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:13 pm I think you'll find that the Gita is totally fatalistic about these things…
You should already have found, and internalized, that I do not regard you as an authority in these matters.

I'm not concerned. Nor am I asking you that you should. We can stick to the text, and it will show us the truth, either way.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 7:35 pm**

Fanman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 9:46 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 9:31 am
Fanman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 4:14 am

One simple request: substantiate this with evidence.

Update to my post: You know what, Flash, don't bother. If things have gotten so bad for you that you have to create a version of reality that didn't occur, that's just sad. I wouldn't want it to look like I was bullying you into facing the truth or anything. So you can keep the delusion you've written; I am sure it will bring you some form of happiness.
Did you spend two hours getting obsessive about this shit?

You can just scroll back through your own posts for the evidence. In fact I see that you have from the two more posts you wrote over the next hour or two to complain about me... but those are picking out the bits of posts that you feel personally insulted by, and skipping anything that criticises your rationale. Which is eaxctly the flaw I pointed to above. Thanks for underlining my point. It's a shame you won't understand it.

Stop trying to win an argument by digging yourself furhter into the same hole. Do some self-reflection please. I am busy today and bored of this anyway.

One thing I would like to know. You obviously went and asked an AI to agree with you about your claims regarding metaphysics not being metaphysical claims themselves. That's what you do. So the fact that you aren't printing the results of that enquiry suggests to me that you can't force an AI to agree with you on this. Is that why you are suddenly so much grumpier than before?
With someone like you, one has to be thorough when it comes to evidence and substantiation because you make a lot of things up. I'm just covering my bases for the record of the forum, to show that when asked, you were not capable, in any way, of substantiating your claims with evidence and instead tried to shift that burden to me. Now, if you believe what you're saying is real, that’s a you problem, but we both know it's not. And like I told you, as long as you continue to say negative things about me, I'm going to continue to defend myself as I see fit, whether you like it or not.

For the forum record, you started the abuse; I'm trying to put an end to it.

Do you understand?

I'm fairly sure I was correct that if you could get the AI to say that those claims weren't metaphysical you would have done so and declared that a victory. Is that what you are saying I made up? I tried asking an AI myself to double check and I got the expected response.

The forum record may as well show that in my early interractions with you I poked fun at you for writing stuff like:

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

and

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days?

and that anybody who writes such pompous slop needs to have the piss taken out of them.

So I ask that pesky question again.... You obviously went and asked an AI to agree with you about your claims regarding metaphysics not being metaphysical claims themselves. That's what you do. So the fact that you aren't printing the results of that enquiry suggests to me that you can't force an AI to agree with you on this. Is that why you are suddenly so much grumpier than before?

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 8:50 pm**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2026 6:57 pm The Bible certainly praises the having of certain traits of character, as does the Gita. And a few of them overlap pretty well.

This is a Red Letter Day! I am so proud of you! You acknowledged the point I made. Woo-hoo!

For I had written:

A similar idea is expressed. And in other places more of the consequences of negative choices are outlined.

Posted: **Thu Oct 22, 2026 9:05 pm**

AJ wrote:You should already have found, and internalized, that I do not regard you as an authority in these matters.

IC wrote:I'm not concerned. Nor am I asking you that you should. We can stick to the text, and it will show us the truth, either way.

My concerns extend beyond, far beyond, a specific text from a specific tradition, expressed in a certain mood, at certain time in history. I choose not to minimize the value that exists in that text or any text, but I do not operate here like a narcissistic Evangelical zealot as you certainly do.

Your apologetics are atrocious. Your methods counter-productive.

You are far better off noticing, and valuing, what accords with the metaphysical and ethical truths that you most value, in the various traditions of religious spirituality, such as the Gita, or Buddhist scripture, etc.

You never gain any ground, IC!

The truth here is dual. On one hand the text has ‘truths’ in it. On the other there is a zealous Christian Evangelical asshole. Two truths!

The Philosophy Now Forum

God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality

Re: God and morality