Food for thought for Christians

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Me old China plate, I feel the forum has got a tad heated in the past week or so, just trying to bring a touch of brevity back in my old insane way.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

... Do we have any reasons to take them seriously?

Well one could say that just because there are many concepts it doesn't mean we don't take the God concept seriously.

In the end it comes down to a natural providence or a divine Providence with only divine providence being able to tie up any straggly ends.

I guess that's a 'no'.

[Stranger]

Dear Stranger,

Aye!! Because I say so! Right! RIGHT!! And if you have trouble with that, I will see you at four o'clock when the bell rings, bring yer mates, you will need them.

Gonnagle.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Phew for a moment I thought you had been seduced by the dark side ......or should that be Hill side?...............(several big smileys)

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Seduced by old Blue, well he is lovely but Shaker is more my type, I get a warm cosy feeling in the panty girdle region when he goes all pantheistic

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

Seduced by old Blue, well he is lovely but Shaker is more my type, I get a warm cosy feeling in the panty girdle region when he goes all pantheistic

Gonnagle.

Yes............he's a Pant-theist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Yes, we could be living in the only real universe, created by a "cosmic genius" but you have yet to supply a reason to think that we are - and that, even if we are, said genius has anything at all to do with the god you say you've experienced.

Many (mutually exclusive) god concepts are possible - so are many, many other myths, fables and works of fiction - the point is; are they at all probable? Do we have any reasons to take them seriously?

Quite so. Poor Trollboy seems to be locked into endlessly pushing at an open door of anything being possible, but he has not one scintilla of an argument to take him from the possible to the probable. It's his standard playbook play, viz Reply 113:

6. Leaving aside his definitional problem of having no idea what he means by “god” (which technically makes the rest of us ignostic in response to his claims) he seems oblivious not only to the fact that he’s pushing at an open door re the possibility that anything might be, and not only to the problem that that same door also opens the way to anything else anyone else may happen to dream up, but also to the problem that it takes him no one iota of a jot of a smidgin towards an argument to take his god from “might be” to “is”.

7. Deepak Chopra styley he throws in the notion of a multiverse – apparently in the belief that it means that anything might be actually is. Even so, he seems blissfully unaware that a god boxed in to one such sub-universe would flatly contradict the claims he makes for his god – ie, that “He” is the creator of everything, and moreover that this god is the only show in town.

When all said and done he's actually just a god of the gaps merchant: "There's stuff that physics can't explain? That must be god then" etc and tediously etc. It's a curious ploy too to argue that because other gods of the gaps merchants before him have also posited various "somethings" to explain the otherwise inexplicable and so the idea has appeared often in the literature...therefore, um, god must be real then.

Ah well.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Seduced by old Blue, well he is lovely but Shaker is more my type, I get a warm cosy feeling in the panty girdle region when he goes all pantheistic

Ooh, I've come over all rejected and offended now you heartless swine you. And after all those romantic dinners too...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Asked for your views you choose to be very flippant?
How certain are you of your belief that existence is essentially material?

sorry about the delay in replying but the site will only let me access by phone.

i keep getting website could not be found.

i was not being flippant just pointing out that obviously how certain we are depends on what the view is.

as to yout question i would say that i am pretty certain a material/external reality exists and i am not a brain in a vat. are there other non material aspects? well i have seen any evidence or good arguments for them so have no belief in them. do i expect evidence to be presented? people have been asking these questions for a long time snd the evidence is still not forthcomingv so im not holfing my breath. but you never knoe i su0pose

i know that was a long answer but i believe it clearly represents my views.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

sorry about the delay in replying but the site will only let me access by phone.

i keep getting website could not be found.

I had the same thing for some three weeks recently. A combination of Gordon and Jakwan kindly fixed it - perhaps they could do the same for you?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen,

I had the same thing for some three weeks recently. A combination of Gordon and Jakwan kindly fixed it - perhaps they could do the same for you?

Seems to be working for now. No apparent reason for the outage but if anyone did do something, thank you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

sorry about the delay in replying but the site will only let me access by phone.

i keep getting website could not be found.

i was not being flippant just pointing out that obviously how certain we are depends on what the view is.

as to yout question i would say that i am pretty certain a material/external reality exists and i am not a brain in a vat. are there other non material aspects? well i have seen any evidence or good arguments for them so have no belief in them. do i expect evidence to be presented? people have been asking these questions for a long time snd the evidence is still not forthcomingv so im not holfing my breath. but you never knoe i su0pose

i know that was a long answer but i believe it clearly represents my views.

Fair enough. It is not often somebody admits to being materialist.
For me though a materialist ontology has problems since full and honest commitment to it is impossible as the experience of the Vienna group of Logical positivist so teaches us. Neither is scientism a satisfactory philosophical formula.
Throughout history the definitions of material have changed which leaves us with a naturalism which is increasingly centred and defined not by nature but by being anti God for the sake of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gonners,

Ooh, I've come over all rejected and offended

No change there then.

[ProfessorDavey]

Throughout history the definitions of material have changed ...

I disagree - throughout history we have increased our knowledge so that we have come to understand that many phenomena that once had not been explained in a rational materialist manner have come to be. That doesn't mean that certain things used to not be material and now are, merely that we have come to recognise that they always were.

Good examples being:
Earthquakes
Thunder and lightning
Aurora borealis
etc

... which leaves us with a naturalism which is increasingly centred and defined not by nature but by being anti God for the sake of it.

Oh no, more nonsense biased paranoia.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I disagree - throughout history we have increased our knowledge so that we have come to understand that many phenomena that once had not been explained in a rational materialist manner have come to be. That doesn't mean that certain things used to not be material and now are, merely that we have come to recognise that they always were.

Good examples being:
Earthquakes
Thunder and lightning
Aurora borealis
etc
Oh no, more nonsense biased paranoia.

Non sequitur

Atheists have had their covering lie, that religious people are anti science stripped away from them and yet here you are in an attempt to resurrect it!

Given there is no problem there then......that Christians accept the science.....we are left with your confusion of the terms ontology and methodology and that the only real difference is the scope of science in describing what exists.

[Stranger]

...materialist ontology...

FFS Vlad, why don't you actually read what people say and address that, rather than spouting drivel about irrelevant and often comically misunderstood philosophy...

[Leonard James]

FFS Vlad, why don't you actually read what people say and address that, rather than spouting drivel about irrelevant and often comically misunderstood philosophy...

Because he wants to sound clever and important, when in fact he is neither.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Fair enough. It is not often somebody admits to being materialist.
For me though a materialist ontology has problems since full and honest commitment to it is impossible as the experience of the Vienna group of Logical positivist so teaches us. Neither is scientism a satisfactory philosophical formula.
Throughout history the definitions of material have changed which leaves us with a naturalism which is increasingly centred and defined not by nature but by being anti God for the sake of it.

Sighhh!

I am a materialist in the sense that I think the material exists, but then I assume you do as well?

I am not commited to a postion of the material is all the can exist. I made this plain in my previous post so the reference to scientism etc are irrelevant.

So anyway you were going to explain how you know that you have correctly identified a objectively true God as a casue for your God experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sighhh!

I am a materialist in the sense that I think the material exists, but then I assume you do as well?

I am not commited to a postion of the material is all the can exist. I made this plain in my previous post so the reference to scientism etc are irrelevant.

So anyway you were going to explain how you know that you have correctly identified a objectively true God as a casue for your God experience.

The linguistic framework provided by religious and theistic philosophy and in particular that of Christianity and the realisation that that can only bring us to a certain point in the acquisition with a relationship is the confirmation that I and I strongly suspect others have encountered God.

[Stranger]

The linguistic framework provided by religious and theistic philosophy and in particular that of Christianity and the realisation that can only bring us to a certain point in the acquisition with a relationship is the confirmation that I and I strongly suspect others have encountered God.

What the hell is that jumble of words supposed to mean?

Can you try again in English?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The linguistic framework provided by religious and theistic philosophy and in particular that of Christianity and the realisation that that can only bring us to a certain point in the acquisition with a relationship is the confirmation that I and I strongly suspect others have encountered God.

Could you perhaps start again please?

Firstly maybe you could describe the experience?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

I am a materialist in the sense that I think the material exists, but then I assume you do as well?

I am not commited to a postion of the material is all the can exist. I made this plain in my previous post so the reference to scientism etc are irrelevant.

Quite so. The straw man is Trollboy's standard trope though - materialism means that the material is all there can be; "ontological naturalism" means the natural is all there can be; morals aren't real morals unless they're universal rather than intuited and developed by people etc. I used to think that there was a least some intelligence there but its marriage with a deep dishonesty meant he could only repeat the lies so as to cling to his nonsense despite many corrections. Now I wonder if he's not just plain thick though so just can't grasp the correct meaning of the terms he so relentlessly misuses. 

So anyway you were going to explain how you know that you have correctly identified a objectively true God as a casue for your God experience.

He'll do that roughy when hell freezes over. His case for an objectively true god doesn't exist, which is why he's reducing to trolling about the arguments he doesn't like by lying about them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

FFS Vlad, why don't you actually read what people say and address that, rather than spouting drivel about irrelevant and often comically misunderstood philosophy...

Welcome to TrollboyLand (closed Wednesdays, concessions for the terminally bewildered). He's just yer classic troll - only ever lying about what's actually said and never, ever making an argument for something. 

[Rhiannon]

And as I've said before, I'm not convinced it's us he's trying to convince at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

What the hell is that jumble of words supposed to mean?

Apparently Google Translate tried to develop a Vladdish:English module but had to give up on account of none of the meanings of the words in Vladdish staying the same for more than a couple of days.