Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

Not having conscious personal experience of them, I'm no expert but where angels have been present in the Bible they  say what God himself intends to do, so it's very much trust and wait I suppose.

So Mohammed's angel could be correct in it's revelation?
You'll just have to trust and wait?

[torridon]

Beliefs are cultural constructs. Naturalism must be a cultural construct then. Empiricism must be a cultural construct.

Not really.  Naturalism is a philosophical position, not a cultural belief system.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Mohammed's angel could be correct in it's revelation?
You'll just have to trust and wait?

I'm afraid the second person of the trinity trumps any angel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really.  Naturalism is a philosophical position, not a cultural belief system.

Theism and deism are philosophical positions. It sounds like you are specially pleading.

[torridon]

Theism and deism are philosophical positions. It sounds like you are specially pleading.

That may be true, however the belief systems that grow around the philosophical position of theism owe much to the accumulation of cultural accoutrements over the millennia.  Catholicism, for example, may embody the philosophical position of theism, but the extent of the phenomenon owes much to traditions, rituals, practices, dogmas, revelations and teachings that it has accumulated over time.  You get none of this baggage with Naturalism.  It is just a philosophical position owing little or nothing to enculturation.

[Nearly Sane]

That may be true, however the belief systems that grow around the philosophical position of theism owe much to the accumulation of cultural accoutrements over the millennia.  Catholicism, for example, may embody the philosophical position of theism, but the extent of the phenomenon owes much to traditions, rituals, practices, dogmas, revelations and teachings that it has accumulated over time.  You get none of this baggage with Naturalism.  It is just a philosophical position owing little or nothing to enculturation.

I'm not sure that this split between what is a philosophical position and what is a cultural belief really works. A belief in a god doesn't seem a philosophical position, nor really does naturalism. That said I'm not really clear what a philosophical position means here.

[Alan Burns]

Catholicism, for example, may embody the philosophical position of theism, but the extent of the phenomenon owes much to traditions, rituals, practices, dogmas, revelations and teachings that it has accumulated over time..

No.
It owes everything to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad: “It sounds like you are specially pleading.”

Also Vlad:

“The universe was definitely contingent on something else, but I can’t tell you why I think that.”

“That something else was definitely not only a god but also the god with which I just happen to be most familiar, though I can’t tell you why I think that either.”

“How could this god be his own explanation? He’s magic, obviously…”

Hmmm…

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No.
It owes everything to its various beliefs about the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

FIFY

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm afraid the second person of the trinity trumps any angel.

If the original message was mistaken/misinterpreted by it's recipients and God sent an angel to correct those mistakes, your point becomes invalid.

[Dicky Underpants]

No.
It owes everything to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Those may be the fundamentals, but not everything. You are required to accept the tradition, practice and not least the papal infallible statements and the pronouncements of the magisterium. Otherwise you might as well be Orthodox or Coptic. But you've chosen the branch closest to home - which coincidentally expresses for you the truest form of Christianity, presumably. Funny that.

[torridon]

No.
It owes everything to the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No way is that true.  Catholic beliefs and practices may have their distant roots in the life and death of Jesus, but there are many elements added over the centuries.  The veneration of Mary, the veneration of saints and relics, the infallibility of the Pope, the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, of transubstantiation and purgatory, these are all 'man made' (to borrow your favourite phrases) teachings or interpretations that do not owe directly to the teachings of Jesus and which have accreted to body of Church teachings over time.  Jesus would be totally baffled to learn that his followers were praying to his Mum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad: “It sounds like you are specially pleading.”

Also Vlad:

“The universe was definitely contingent on something else, but I can’t tell you why I think that.”

“That something else was definitely not only a god but also the god with which I just happen to be most familiar, though I can’t tell you why I think that either.”

“How could this god be his own explanation? He’s magic, obviously…”

Hmmm…

Not my actual words Hillside. You want to take your talents to Disney. Your Tinkerbell turdpolishing is wasted here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the original message was mistaken/misinterpreted by it's recipients and God sent an angel to correct those mistakes, your point becomes invalid.

But Christianity is a religion of post crucifixion and resurrection encounters with the living Christ whereas Mohammed is the ultimate in a class of prophesy.

In other words any mistakes a person may hold can be corrected by Christ himself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But Christianity is a religion of post crucifixion and resurrection encounters with the living Christ whereas Mohammed is the ultimate in a class of prophesy.

In other words any mistakes a person may hold can be corrected by Christ himself.

But reifying faith claims about supposed “post crucifixion and resurrection encounters with the living Christ” as if they were facts is a logical fallacy.

0/10 See me.   

[Sebastian Toe]

In other words any mistakes a person may hold can be corrected by Christ himself.

Or God can send an angel to someone to message mankind that mistakes were made in the past and should be corrected.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But reifying faith claims about supposed “post crucifixion and resurrection encounters with the living Christ” as if they were facts is a logical fallacy.

0/10 See me.   

Within a philosophically non exclusive definition of what a fact is Hillside is your claim true?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Within a philosophically non exclusive definition of what a fact is Hillside is your claim true?

Gibberish. Faith claims are faith claims; facts are facts. Your mistake/cheat (that you do a lot by the way) is to elide the former into the latter in the hope no-one notices (see Reply 45263). 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or God can send an angel to someone to message mankind that mistakes were made in the past and should be corrected.

What mistakes since Islam honours the prophets including Jesus as prophets rather than false prophets?
If it is an exercise in correcting errors then continuing encounters with God is a more direct and efficient method.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If it is an exercise in correcting errors then continuing encounters with God is a more direct and efficient method.

Perhaps it would be if you hadn't just reified "continuing encounters with God" into a fact.

See what I mean re you trying this stunt a lot?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Gibberish. Faith claims are faith claims; facts are facts. Your mistake/cheat (that you do a lot by the way) is to elide the former into the latter in the hope no-one notices (see Reply 45263).

I think what you mean by faith and I mean by faith are probably two different things.

An encounter with God can only fail to be seen as a fact in the context of a physicalist and empiricist faith position imv.

Your cheat is to turdpolish the full meaning of philosophical empiricism out of discussion or possibility of discussion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Perhaps it would be if you hadn't just reified "continuing encounters with God" into a fact.

See what I mean re you trying this stunt a lot?

Sebastian and I are discussing (so butt out of it thankyou)the relative merits of the Islamic and Christian revelations.
In that discussion, by what we have written, we accept both on equal terms for the purposes of discussion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think what you mean by faith and I mean by faith are probably two different things.

Perhaps, though I assume you special plead your faith claims into facts while simultaneously denying my belief that my faith claim “leprechauns” is also a fact even though they’re epistemically equivalent right?

An encounter with God can only fail to be seen as a fact in the context of a physicalist and empiricist faith position imv.

So few words, so many mistakes…

- “empiricists” and “physicalist” are not the same. Lots of people here are empiricists; none of them are physicalists. It’s high time you stopped straw manning about this.
   
- Empiricism isn’t a faith position – it’s pretty much the opposite of that.

- The same could be said of my claim “an encounter with leprechauns”. How does that help you? 

Your cheat is to turdpolish the full meaning of philosophical empiricism out of discussion or possibility of discussion.

Lying about this doesn’t help you either. Empiricism is at its core tentative and provisional (which is why science is also tentative and provisional) – there is no “full meaning” beyond that no matter how much you cling to your personal straw man, absolutist misrepresentation of it (ie, physicalism) as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt.

Try to remember this.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sebastian and I are discussing (so butt out of it thankyou)the relative merits of the Islamic and Christian revelations.
In that discussion, by what we have written, we accept both on equal terms for the purposes of discussion.

1. No-one here gets to decide who replies to their Replies.

2. When your attempts at replies are littered with mistakes and fallacies you can't complain when they're pointed out to you.

3. So far as I know Seb thinks that claims of "revelations" are all bollocks regardless of which traditions make them. 

[Dicky Underpants]

What mistakes since Islam honours the prophets including Jesus as prophets rather than false prophets?
If it is an exercise in correcting errors then continuing encounters with God is a more direct and efficient method.

One mistake which was supposed to have been corrected is by their belief that Jesus was not God incarnate; another that he did not die on the cross.