Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:09 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:10 amIt's certainly not obvious why that would work, or why you should interpret such an event that way. Maybe you'll justify it.

You asked me what evidence I would accept in order to believe in a God, the God, the Christian God.

And while waking up to a world in which no innocent children ever suffer again at all and one in which all natural disasters -- acts of God -- were a thing of the past?

How would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

When have I ever argued that I can prove anything at all pertaining to the existence of the Christian God? Or any other God. Other than the facts that are applicable to all of us in the either/or world.

No, on the contrary, that's your thing here. In fact, the main reason I respond to you is because, well, if it is in anyway possible for me to be on the one true path to objective morality, immortality and salvation, I want to pursue exchanges with those who claim that there is hard historical and scientific evidence for the existence of a God, the God. For me, it doesn't have to be the Christian God, but here you are insisiting that, in fact, it is the Christian God. Why? Because, you insist, William Lane Craig does provide us with the necessary proof in those videos. It seems we can demonstrate the existence of the Christian God residing in Heaven almost as readily as we can demonstrate the existence of the Pope residing in the Vatican.

At least until he dies?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 amI also have to ask, why would it be just the "natural disasters" that were necessary to eliminate? Most of the suffering in the world is attributable, either directly or indirectly, to other people: so what about "no more muggers," "no more stalkers, rapists, pedophiles and murderers, or "no more thieves, liars and swindlers?" How about "no more broken marriages, vengeful exes, abortions..."? Would a world with no natural disasters and yet all the human evils intact really convince you of the existence of the Christian God?

Come on, no mere mortal [to the best of my current knowledge] is omniscient and omnipotent. In fact, the irony is that most men and women would become enraged if "one of us" down here were to create disasters of this sort. And since these God-awful events go all the way back to when mere mortals lived in caves, there are going to be countless millions more who have died over the course of human history.

And this includes all the years before the world had ever even heard of Jesus Christ, right? Going all the way back to, say, Noah?

It's hard to see how any of that would compel the conclusion you claim. But maybe you can unpack that a bit further. It's not obvious, at present.

My guess: if we were to actually wake up to a world in which the truly innocent children no longer suffered and natural disasters were a thing of the past, you would be among the very first to insist it was all the Christian God's doing.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:09 am

You asked me what evidence I would accept in order to believe in a God, the God, the Christian God.

And while waking up to a world in which no innocent children ever suffer again at all and one in which all natural disasters -- acts of God -- were a thing of the past?

How would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

When have I ever argued that I can prove anything at all pertaining to the existence of the Christian God? Or any other God. Other than the facts that are applicable to all of us in the either/or world.

That wasn't the point. I was asking you what you would accept as proof for the existence of the Christian God, and you said, essentially "no more suffering children," and "no natural disasters." I was just pointing out that I can't see why that would ever lead you to the necessary conclusion.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 amI also have to ask, why would it be just the "natural disasters" that were necessary to eliminate? Most of the suffering in the world is attributable, either directly or indirectly, to other people: so what about "no more muggers," "no more stalkers, rapists, pedophiles and murderers, or "no more thieves, liars and swindlers?" How about "no more broken marriages, vengeful exes, abortions..."? Would a world with no natural disasters and yet all the human evils intact really convince you of the existence of the Christian God?

Come on, no mere mortal [to the best of my current knowledge] is omniscient and omnipotent.

Obviously. But I'm asking the same question: why would "no suffering children" and "no natural disasters" lead you inexorably to the conclusion that the Christian God exists? I can't see that your proposed test works. Can you explain why you think it would convince you?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:01 amYou asked me what evidence I would accept in order to believe in a God, the God, the Christian God.

And waking up to a world in which no innocent children ever suffer again at all and one in which all natural disasters -- acts of God -- were a thing of the past?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 amHow would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

When have I ever argued that I can prove anything at all pertaining to the existence of the Christian God? Or any other God. Other than the facts that are applicable to all of us in the either/or world.

No, on the contrary, that's your thing here. In fact, the main reason I respond to you is because, well, if it is in any way possible for me to be on the one true path to objective morality, immortality and salvation, I want to pursue exchanges with those who claim that there is hard historical and scientific evidence for the existence of a God, the God. For me, it doesn't have to be the Christian God, but here you are insisting that, in fact, it is the Christian God. Why? Because, you insist, William Lane Craig does provide us with the necessary proof in those videos. It seems we can demonstrate the existence of the Christian God residing in Heaven almost as readily as we can demonstrate the existence of the Pope residing in the Vatican.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 am That wasn't the point. I was asking you what you would accept as proof for the existence of the Christian God, and you said, essentially "no more suffering children," and "no natural disasters." I was just pointing out that I can't see why that would ever lead you to the necessary conclusion.

How many different ways can I say it? You asked me a question regarding what particular evidence would work for me in establishing the existence of a God, the God.

Now, those two things above would be so astounding that, in my view, the whole world would be talking about little else. Ah, but how to explain something that "out of the blue" completely reconfigured the world we live in? Of course any number of these folks --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

-- will attribute it to their own religious path.

Now, I want you to put your hand on your Bible and swear to God that you wouldn't be one of them. Again, those things happening would not necessarily prove the existence of a God, the God...but what other entity could it be?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 amI also have to ask, why would it be just the "natural disasters" that were necessary to eliminate? Most of the suffering in the world is attributable, either directly or indirectly, to other people: so what about "no more muggers," "no more stalkers, rapists, pedophiles and murderers, or "no more thieves, liars and swindlers?" How about "no more broken marriages, vengeful exes, abortions..."? Would a world with no natural disasters and yet all the human evils intact really convince you of the existence of the Christian God?

Come on, no mere mortal [to the best of my current knowledge] is omniscient and omnipotent. In fact, the irony is that most men and women would become enraged if "one of us" down here were to create disasters of this sort. And since these God-awful events go all the way back to when mere mortals lived in caves, there are going to be countless millions more who have died over the course of human history.

And this includes all the years before the world had ever even heard of Jesus Christ, right? Going all the way back to, say, Noah?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 am Obviously. But I'm asking the same question: why would "no suffering children" and "no natural disasters" lead you inexorably to the conclusion that the Christian God exists? I can't see that your proposed test works. Can you explain why you think it would convince you?

Inexorably? Go ahead, note something that I posted above or elsewhere indicating my own "rooted existentially in dasein assumptions" here lead to any "inexorable" conclusions.

As for "why?" here, hell, you can go straight down the list of religious denominations above and ask them why they believe what they do. And, by and large, they will tell you their own beliefs are embodied either in a leap of faith or in Scripture. And, as a consequence, they will tell us that Christianity is not the One True Path. After all, how could it be when it's their own path?

Now, let's focus more on the part that truly perplexes me most about you and Christianity. The part where you yourself were persuaded by the Craig videos to believe the historical and scientific evidence is there to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, your God.

Note what you believe are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:25 am How many different ways can I say it? You asked me a question regarding what particular evidence would work for me in establishing the existence of a God, the God.

I don't believe it would work for you. I don't even believe it should work for you. I can think of many problems with that particular test, as I outlined them; and I'd be mighty surprised if you couldn't see them, too.

Inexorably?

Yes. Inexorably. Unless your test was sufficiently rigorous to conduce to only one conclusion, and that being that the Christian God exists, I see no reason to think you'd have reason to regard it as telling.

Maybe you would, I suppose, if you were rather naive. Maybe you wouldn't, if you were not. But I can think of various obvious reasons why you ought not to, as outlined in my questions in my last message. It wouldn't cure the general problem of evil, it wouldn't even explain human evils, and it certainly could be explained away as some innovation of human progress, in extremis. So I see no reason why it would lead you to that particular conclusion, to the successful exclusion of all others.

In short, I just don't believe your proposed test would -- or should -- conduce to the necessary conclusion.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:25 am How many different ways can I say it? You asked me a question regarding what particular evidence would work for me in establishing the existence of a God, the God.

Now, those two things above would be so astounding that, in my view, the whole world would be talking about little else. Ah, but how to explain something that "out of the blue" completely reconfigured the world we live in? Of course any number of these folks --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

-- will attribute it to their own religious path.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 amI don't believe it would work for you. I don't even believe it should work for you. I can think of many problems with that particular test, as I outlined them; and I'd be mighty surprised if you couldn't see them, too.

Note to others:

Okay, you wake up tomorrow morning and discover that no innocent children are suffering anywhere around the globe. And that those devastating "acts of God" are gone for good.

In other words, among other things, this -- https://science.howstuffworks.com/scien ... rupted.htm -- will never happen.

Now, again, aside from a God, the God, what other entity could accomplish this? Donald Musk?

Inexorably? Go ahead, note something that I posted above or elsewhere indicating my own "rooted existentially in dasein assumptions" here lead to any "inexorable" conclusions.

As for "why?" here, hell, you can go straight down the list of religious denominations above and ask them why they believe what they do. And, by and large, they will tell you their own beliefs are embodied either in a leap of faith or in Scripture. And, as a consequence, they will tell us that Christianity is not the One True Path. After all, how could it be when it's their own path?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 amYes. Inexorably. Unless your test was sufficiently rigorous to conduce to only one conclusion, and that being that the Christian God exists, I see no reason to think you'd have reason to regard it as telling.

It's considerably less a "test" for me than simply reacting to a world once bursting at the seams with terrible pain and suffering that now has none of it. In particular for newborns, babies, infants, toddlers, preschoolers, school age kids, etc.

Then this part:

Now, I want you to put your hand on your Bible and swear to God that you wouldn't be one of them. Again, those things happening would not necessarily prove the existence of a God, the God...but what other entity could it be?

Come on, IC, admit it, you see no legitimate reasons for anything that anyone here posts unless it completely coincides with what you propose here actually does encompass True Christianity.

[Just out of curiosity, if Pope Francis should die, what would you imagine his fate to be on Judgment Day]

And I'm not arguing the conclusions I have come to here regarding the above is anything other than a personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein. It's just that if these things did unfold here on planet Earth, what else would anyone be talking about except who or what brought this about.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 amMaybe you would, I suppose, if you were rather naive. Maybe you wouldn't, if you were not.

Right, like this doesn't revolve almost entirely around calling others here naive. Why? Because you yourself are never naive...yet they refuse to share your own "my way or suffer the agonies of the damned" In Hell.

Now, let's focus more on the part that truly perplexes me most about you and Christianity. The part where you yourself were persuaded by the Craig videos to believe the historical and scientific evidence is there to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, your God.

Note what you believe are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 12:33 am Note to others:

Oh? So that's not for me.

Fine. I'll ignore it, then

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 3:10 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 12:33 am Note to others:

Oh? So that's not for me.

Fine. I'll ignore it, then

Gosh, who would have ever figured that the exchange would end this way?! Aside from me, in other words.

After all, it was IC himself who suggested that I start this thread.



Okay, let's bring it all down to the one thing that interest me most regarding his claims above...

Now, let's focus more on the part that truly perplexes me most about IC and Christianity. The part where he himself was persuaded by the Craig videos to believe the historical and scientific evidence is there to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, his God.

Let him note what he believes are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

Note to all of those here with any interest at all in objective morality, immortality and salvation.

Really, suppose someone told you that beyond a leap of faith or a wager or Scripture, they had actual concrete scientific and historical evidence that their own God did in fact exist.

Would that not be what you would focus on as well in exchanges with them?

Or maybe the closer you get to oblivion in a No God world, the more that sort of discussion might interest you. For all practical purposes, in other words.


Just for the record [here and now] I don't believe in God, in objective morality, in immortality, in salvation. On the other hand, little can actually be ruled out given just how vast and mysterious the existence of our universe is.

So, sure, if you are convinced your own belief in God can be backed up with substantive and substantial empirical evidence, link me to it.

Polemics aside, I don't mock those who choose God. After all, I have known a number of folks [especially given the years I spent as a political activist] whose intelligence was truly exceptional...and they managed to make that Kierkegaardian leap themselves.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 3:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 3:10 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 12:33 am Note to others:

Oh? So that's not for me.

Fine. I'll ignore it, then

Gosh, who would have ever figured that the exchange would end this way?!

I pretty much knew it would. It seems you're incapable of sticking to a line of thought, and you imagine there are some "others" who are out there, hanging on your every word. So sooner or later, you'll stop conversing and start trying to perform for people you imagine are keen on what you have to say. And I just can't be bothered with that nonsense.

All I can say to that is "click" and "dasein."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 4:26 am
I pretty much knew it would. It seems you're incapable of sticking to a line of thought, and you imagine there are some "others" who are out there, hanging on your every word. So sooner or later, you'll stop conversing and start trying to perform for people you imagine are keen on what you have to say. And I just can't be bothered with that nonsense.

All I can say to that is "click" and "dasein."

Oh, good, he's given me another opportunity to post this:

Now, let's focus more on the part that truly perplexes me most about IC and Christianity. The part where he himself was persuaded by the Craig videos to believe the historical and scientific evidence is there to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, his God.

Let him note what he believes are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 4:37 am Let him note what he believes are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

You poor soul. It's never going to happen, laddie. You claimed there was "no evidence," and now you know there is, and you can't understand it, apparently.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:49 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 am
How would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

When have I ever argued that I can prove anything at all pertaining to the existence of the Christian God? Or any other God. Other than the facts that are applicable to all of us in the either/or world.

That wasn't the point. I was asking you what you would accept as proof for the existence of the Christian God, and you said, essentially "no more suffering children," and "no natural disasters." I was just pointing out that I can't see why that would ever lead you to the necessary conclusion.

Well, LAUGHINGLY, OBVIOUSLY you COULD NOT WHEN you ARE AS COMPLETELY BLIND as you KEEP SHOWING and PROVING, here.

So, some one TELLS you that if there were NO SUFFERING CHILDREN, and, NO NATURAL DISASTERS, ANY MORE, then that is WHAT 'they' WOULD ACCEPT as PROOF for the existence of some, CLAIMED, God, AFTER you ASKED 'them' TO TELL you. YET you, SOMEHOW, can NOT SEE what WAS SAID and WRITTEN, here.

you HAVE SHOWN and PROVED just HOW Truly BLIND you REALLY ARE, here, BECAUSE of your PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS, BUT 'this' is GOING TO ANOTHER COMPLETE WHOLE LEVEL, here, now. It is like you REALLY DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT JUST HOW BLIND you REALLY ARE, here, and EVEN EXPRESS and HIGHLIGHT the VERY REASON WHY you ARE COMPLETELY BLIND, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:49 am I also have to ask, why would it be just the "natural disasters" that were necessary to eliminate? Most of the suffering in the world is attributable, either directly or indirectly, to other people: so what about "no more muggers," "no more stalkers, rapists, pedophiles and murderers, or "no more thieves, liars and swindlers?"

What ABOUT NO MORE "liars", and ESPECIALLY SO 'those' who LIVE UNDER THE PRETENSE OF RELIGIONS, like "christianity", for example?

After all it IS Dishonesty, Itself, WHY 'this world' that you human beings are living in when this is being written, which IS the ULTIMATE ROOT of ALL of the EVIL and Wrong doing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:49 am How about "no more broken marriages, vengeful exes, abortions..."? Would a world with no natural disasters and yet all the human evils intact really convince you of the existence of the Christian God?

LOL ONCE AGAIN, 'this one' COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED what was BLATANTLY POINTED OUT TO it.

"imabiguous" NEVER SAID JUST, the 'natural disasters'. In fact "imabiguous" even STATED, VERY CLEARLY, 'NO MORE SUFFERING CHILDREN', AS WELL.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, there would be 'NO MORE SUFFERING CHILDREN' IF, and WHEN, 'the world' is RID OF 'the things' you listed, here, as WELL AS COMPLETELY CHILDREN DESTROYING religions, like the "christian" religion, for example.

Come on "Immanuel can" it is like you are FIGHTING and ARGUING AGAINST "your" OWN 'self', here, some times.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:49 am Come on, no mere mortal [to the best of my current knowledge] is omniscient and omnipotent.

Obviously. But I'm asking the same question: why would "no suffering children" and "no natural disasters" lead you inexorably to the conclusion that the Christian God exists?[/quote]

BECAUSE, and EXTREMELY OBVIOUSLY, IF, and WHEN, there are 'NO MORE SUFFERING CHILDREN', than this, OBVIOUSLY MEANS, that this is WHEN ALL of you adult human beings are NOT DOING the Wrong, which you ALL DO, and are ACTUALLY BEING God LIKE, and HOW you were NATURALLY born LIKE, AS WELL.

HOW COME you KEEP MISSING the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, here, "immanuel can"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:49 am I can't see that your proposed test works.

BECAUSE you, OBVIOUSLY, DO NOT WANT TO.

And, AGAIN, BECAUSE of your PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS, OBVIOUSLY.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 3:49 am Can you explain why you think it would convince you?

it SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE. That is, if you were even JUST SOMEWHAT NOT AS CLOSED as you OBVIOUSLY ARE, here.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:25 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2025 1:01 amYou asked me what evidence I would accept in order to believe in a God, the God, the Christian God.

And waking up to a world in which no innocent children ever suffer again at all and one in which all natural disasters -- acts of God -- were a thing of the past?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 amHow would that prove that God -- particularly the Christian God -- was the right explanation for such a phenomenon? It doesn't seem obvious how that test would compel that particular conclusion.

When have I ever argued that I can prove anything at all pertaining to the existence of the Christian God? Or any other God. Other than the facts that are applicable to all of us in the either/or world.

No, on the contrary, that's your thing here. In fact, the main reason I respond to you is because, well, if it is in any way possible for me to be on the one true path to objective morality, immortality and salvation, I want to pursue exchanges with those who claim that there is hard historical and scientific evidence for the existence of a God, the God. For me, it doesn't have to be the Christian God, but here you are insisting that, in fact, it is the Christian God. Why? Because, you insist, William Lane Craig does provide us with the necessary proof in those videos. It seems we can demonstrate the existence of the Christian God residing in Heaven almost as readily as we can demonstrate the existence of the Pope residing in the Vatican.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 am That wasn't the point. I was asking you what you would accept as proof for the existence of the Christian God, and you said, essentially "no more suffering children," and "no natural disasters." I was just pointing out that I can't see why that would ever lead you to the necessary conclusion.

How many different ways can I say it? You asked me a question regarding what particular evidence would work for me in establishing the existence of a God, the God.

Now, those two things above would be so astounding that, in my view, the whole world would be talking about little else. Ah, but how to explain something that "out of the blue" completely reconfigured the world we live in? Of course any number of these folks --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

-- will attribute it to their own religious path.

Now, I want you to put your hand on your Bible and swear to God that you wouldn't be one of them. Again, those things happening would not necessarily prove the existence of a God, the God...but what other entity could it be?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 amI also have to ask, why would it be just the "natural disasters" that were necessary to eliminate? Most of the suffering in the world is attributable, either directly or indirectly, to other people: so what about "no more muggers," "no more stalkers, rapists, pedophiles and murderers, or "no more thieves, liars and swindlers?" How about "no more broken marriages, vengeful exes, abortions..."? Would a world with no natural disasters and yet all the human evils intact really convince you of the existence of the Christian God?

Come on, no mere mortal [to the best of my current knowledge] is omniscient and omnipotent. In fact, the irony is that most men and women would become enraged if "one of us" down here were to create disasters of this sort. And since these God-awful events go all the way back to when mere mortals lived in caves, there are going to be countless millions more who have died over the course of human history.

And this includes all the years before the world had ever even heard of Jesus Christ, right? Going all the way back to, say, Noah?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:59 am Obviously. But I'm asking the same question: why would "no suffering children" and "no natural disasters" lead you inexorably to the conclusion that the Christian God exists? I can't see that your proposed test works. Can you explain why you think it would convince you?

Inexorably? Go ahead, note something that I posted above or elsewhere indicating my own "rooted existentially in dasein assumptions" here lead to any "inexorable" conclusions.

As for "why?" here, hell, you can go straight down the list of religious denominations above and ask them why they believe what they do. And, by and large, they will tell you their own beliefs are embodied either in a leap of faith or in Scripture. And, as a consequence, they will tell us that Christianity is not the One True Path. After all, how could it be when it's their own path?

Now, let's focus more on the part that truly perplexes me most about you and Christianity. The part where you yourself were persuaded by the Craig videos to believe the historical and scientific evidence is there to demonstrate the existence of a God, the God, your God.

Note what you believe are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

"immanuel can" has be SO DECEIVED, here, LAUGHINGLY, BY the VERY 'thing' that it CLAIMS TO OPPOSE, that it is NOT even ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE that it is ACTUALLY FOLLOWING the EXACT SAME ACTS of DEFLECTION, and DECEPTION, which it WAS and IS BEING FOOLED and DECEIVED BY.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:25 am How many different ways can I say it? You asked me a question regarding what particular evidence would work for me in establishing the existence of a God, the God.

I don't believe it would work for you. I don't even believe it should work for you.

AGAIN, what 'we' have, here, are MORE PRIME examples, and MORE IRREFUTABLE PROOF, of just HOW 'BELIEF', itself, FOOLS and DECEIVES the UNSUSPECTING.

AGAIN, BECAUSE 'this one' BELIEVES some thing to BE TRUE, it has SHUT "itself" OFF, COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY, TO EVEN the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of things.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 am I can think of many problems with that particular test, as I outlined them; and I'd be mighty surprised if you couldn't see them, too.

LOL As you 'outlined' them. LOL "immanuel can" you ACTUALLY ENDED UP FIGHTING and ARGUING AGAINST "your" OWN 'self', there, as 'I' HAVE ALREADY ACTUALLY OUTLINED.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 am

Inexorably?

Yes. Inexorably. Unless your test was sufficiently rigorous to conduce to only one conclusion, and that being that the Christian God exists, I see no reason to think you'd have reason to regard it as telling.

Are you TRYING TO COME ACROSS, here, as the MOST CLOSED, BLIND, and STUPID, here, in this forum, "Immanuel can"?

LOL 'This ones' BELIEFS have been SO FIXED, through LIES and DECEPTION, itself, 'this one' BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that if ANY one has ANY conclusion OTHER than some so-called "christian god" EXISTS, then it IS 'them' who has BEEN FOOLED and DECEIVED.

LOL you ARE LIVING PROOF of 'the one' who has BEEN FOOLED and DECEIVED 'the MOST', BY 'the VERY DEVIL', itself.

And, AS ALWAYS, IF ANY ONE IS Truly INTEREST and CURIOS IN the IRREFUTABLE PROOF, here, then allow 'us' to JUST HAVE A DISCUSSION.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 am Maybe you would, I suppose, if you were rather naive. Maybe you wouldn't, if you were not. But I can think of various obvious reasons why you ought not to, as outlined in my questions in my last message. It wouldn't cure the general problem of evil, it wouldn't even explain human evils, and it certainly could be explained away as some innovation of human progress, in extremis.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, 'now', TO "Immanuel can" anyway, if there were 'NO MORE SUFFERING CHILDREN', then 'this', SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY, MEANS that some so-called 'general problem of evil' has NOT BEEN RESOLVED, NOR IN the PROCESS of BEING RESOLVED. Also, OBVIOUSLY children would ONLY BE LIVING WITHOUT SUFFERING IF ALL adults HAD STOPPED DOING Wrong, or EVIL, AND, OBVIOUSLY, the ONLY WAY that they COULD, and WOULD, is AFTER the VERY REASON WHY they ALL DO Wrong, or EVIL, BECAME KNOWN, TO 'them', AS WELL. And, ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS, is that 'this one' DOES NOT SEE that A WORLD WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIVING WITHOUT SUFFERING IS NOT 'some innovation of human progress' have ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED.

LOL 'This one' REALLY DOES NOT YET RECOGNIZE that it WAS ONLY AFTER the EXPLANATIONS OF WHY ALL adult human beings DID Wrong, ABUSED children, and thus WERE DOING EVIL, that 'that EVIL' COULD BE STOPPED, ONCE, and, literally, FOR ALL, and that ACTUAL 'human PROGRESS' COULD ACTUALLY BEGIN.

What 'this one' KEEPS MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING, here, ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY is that the EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY, which is THE CAUSE, OF ALL Wrong DOING has to be LISTENED TO, and HEARD, BEFORE PREVENTING your OWN Wrong DOING COULD BEGIN. Which, in and of itself, is True PROGRESSION, itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 am So I see no reason why it would lead you to that particular conclusion, to the successful exclusion of all others.

LOL you have ONLY ONE CONCLUSION, and ONE CONCLUSION, ONLY, here. And, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE you have NO ACTUAL, LOGICAL and RATIONAL, REASON FOR the ONLY CONCLUSION, which you are ABSOLUTELY DESPERATELY 'TRYING TO' REACH "yourself", then this is WHY you SEE NO REASON WHY "imabiguous" has been SAYING would LEAD TO that ONE 'particular conclusion', ONLY, which you, ONLY, HOPE is the ACTUAL True, and Right, One, IN Life.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:01 am In short, I just don't believe your proposed test would -- or should -- conduce to the necessary conclusion.

LOL AND 'this' IS BECAUSE there IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN the WHOLE Universe that could NOR would CONDUCE TO what you, LAUGHINGLY, call the 'NECESSARY CONCLUSION'.

1. It is ONLY A 'necessary conclusion' TO 'you' ONLY, BECAUSE of your 'current' BELIEFS.

2. There is NOTHING CONDUCIVE TO 'that Truly IRRATIONAL and IMPOSSIBLE CONCLUSION', FOR the VERY SIMPLE Fact that it IS JUST AN ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY that a 'being with male genitals and a beard' CREATED the WHOLE Universe AT ONCE, or AT ALL.

LOL Even you "immanuel can" ADMIT that there is NOT A TEST in the WHOLE Universe that could - or would, be conducive to your COMPLETELY MADE UP OWN CONCLUSION, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 4:46 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Feb 25, 2025 4:37 am Let him note what he believes are the most powerful points raised by the Reasonable Faith folks.

You poor soul. It's never going to happen, laddie. You claimed there was "no evidence," and now you know there is, and you can't understand it, apparently.

We've been over this before. Forget about me. Think of all the others here who will burn in Hell for all of eternity if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

Sure, if you want to pursue other things like Corporation Socialism, go for it. But how on Earth can saving souls not be something that every Christian strives to put right at the top of his or her list. I know when I was a Christian, that's often all I thought about.

You told me that beyond faith and Scripture, you are able to direct others to this historical and scientific evidence.

In fact, if not for that, I would never have heard of Reasonable Faith.

Like you noted, the evidence might be there but I'm just not able to grasp it. Which is precisely why there's always the possibility that you might be able to explain it to me. And to others.


On the other hand, there's something about the posts you submit here that makes me believe you may well be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Or, perhaps, as with Rebecca, Julian and I doing our "Magus thing", you come here in order to provoke reactions that you then factor into, well, whatever is of importance to you here.