Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:46 pm Are you still going on about Bacon?

It's a "Dubious" concern, it's true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:03 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:46 pm Are you still going on about Bacon?

It's a "Dubious" concern, it's true.

Well I might rejoin the conversation when you're done with Bacon, so you have that to look forward to.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:03 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 9:46 pm Are you still going on about Bacon?

It's a "Dubious" concern, it's true.

Well I might rejoin the conversation when you're done with Bacon, so you have that to look forward to.

Dubious is the one driving this car. I'll let you know when it's in park.

Immanuel Cant wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:03 pm It's a "Dubious" concern, it's true.

Well I might rejoin the conversation when you're done with Bacon, so you have that to look forward to.

Dubious is the one driving this car. I'll let you know when it's in park.

More to the point [ICs] Dubious, Harbal and I will burn in Hell for all of eternity unless we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior. Given that, what possible concern can it be to mere mortals where Bacon fits into it? Unless he can, in fact, demonstrate one way or the other whether a God, the God does or does not exist.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:44 pm
More to the point [ICs] Dubious, Harbal and I will burn in Hell for all of eternity

I'd forgotten about that.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:57 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:44 pm
More to the point [ICs] Dubious, Harbal and I will burn in Hell for all of eternity

I'd forgotten about that.

Not to worry. That's what I'm here for.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:44 pm More to the point [ICs] Dubious, Harbal and I will burn in Hell for all of eternity unless we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior.

If it were IC's point, it wouldn't matter a whit. But as it happens, it isn't mine at all. Apply to the original writer for clarification, if necessary.

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil." (John 3:17-19)

Who's 'Bacon'? U guys talkin about Kevin Bacon?

Bacon told The Times in 2005 that he did not believe in god. So I don't see how u can attribute his advances in science to Christian theology.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:19 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:03 pm It's a "Dubious" concern, it's true.

Well I might rejoin the conversation when you're done with Bacon, so you have that to look forward to.

Dubious is the one driving this car. I'll let you know when it's in park.

I'm letting you know so you can let everyone else know, it's in park. The sizzle in Bacon has evaporated into a greasy mess.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:38 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:44 pm More to the point [ICs] Dubious, Harbal and I will burn in Hell for all of eternity unless we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior.

If it were IC's point, it wouldn't matter a whit. But as it happens, it isn't mine at all. Apply to the original writer for clarification, if necessary.

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil." (John 3:17-19)

Weed in the old days must have been particularly potent!

Immanuel Cant wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:38 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 10:44 pm More to the point [ICs] Dubious, Harbal and I will burn in Hell for all of eternity unless we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior.

If it were IC's point, it wouldn't matter a whit. But as it happens, it isn't mine at all. Apply to the original writer for clarification, if necessary.

Please. Leaving Bacon out of it, do you or do you not believe that those who refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior can still be saved?

Instead, what becomes far more crucial [to me] is exploring the actual evidence that the Christian God does exist. And, instead of going back to those YouTube videos to prop your beliefs up, you go back to the Bible!

Immanuel Cant wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:38 pm"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light; for their deeds were evil." (John 3:17-19)

How does that make any sense at all with so much at stake on both sides of the grave? There are, after all, lots and lots of Scriptures out there to choose from.

Otherwise, from my frame of mind, you are absolutely shameless.



Note to others:

I have attempted twice to contact the Reasonable Faith folks about coming here and exploring those videos. Nothing so far. And William Lane Craig is quite familiar with Philosophy Now magazine. After all, an article of his was published there.

I'd appreciate anyone else here who is interested in the evidence they claim to provide contacting them and inviting them over: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/contact-us

Ya know about fifteen years ago Searle and Chalmers had a brief debate at philosophyforums.com. I was there and saw the whole thing, u guys. I sure did.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 3:14 pmThey were too addicted to astrology, or to metaphysics that required the Earth to be flat, or to be the center of the universe, or to be a stage of star-controlled manipulation...so superstition so corrupted their thinking.

Frankly, that is exactly what I think is wrong with your thinking. Assuming you care, how could you persuade me otherwise?

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 9:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2024 3:14 pmThey were too addicted to astrology, or to metaphysics that required the Earth to be flat, or to be the center of the universe, or to be a stage of star-controlled manipulation...so superstition so corrupted their thinking.

Frankly, that is exactly what I think is wrong with your thinking. Assuming you care, how could you persuade me otherwise?

Well, we'll see.

What's your justification for supposing that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 10:01 pmWhat's your justification for supposing that?

You don't think your god is metaphysical? Given that there is no more compelling evidence for your god than any other, the most plausible explanation for your faith is that you wish it to be true. Rather than persuade non believers you blame them, that is not the strategy of someone confident in their belief.