Why Christ is the Son of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

Because I say so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

You really don't have the first clue about logic, do you?

Just to confirm the point for you, he's unwittingly just crashed into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy over on the Searching for God thread. This is all getting a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel now I think.

[Stranger]

Because I say so.

Not good enough.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You have to find that God is true.

We've been over this in depth before. We agreed that if you really really try you might come to believe that God is objectively real. However, as you have admitted this doesn't get you one stepper closer to showing that god is objectively real.

What you quaintly refer to as logic doesn't conjur God up.

So how did you decide that your experience of God was an experience of an objectively true God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some,

Just to confirm the point for you, he's unwittingly just crashed into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy over on the Searching for God thread. This is all getting a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel now I think.

Would you care to run your definitions of Scientism and philosophical naturalism past us again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

So how did you decide that your experience of God was an experience of an objectively true God?

He liked the feeling. Really liked it.

Also...

...oh no, sorry. That was it.

The scam he's attempting here by the way is to re-define "philosophical naturalism" to mean, "the natural is all there is or can be" rather than its actual meaning (ie, that the natural is all we can reliably access, test, model and predict pending any evidence to the contrary). Then he labels the rest of us with his own personal definition, and demands that we justify it.

He's also entirely oblivious to the fact that - even if he could ever find someone who did accept his personal definition - all that would leave him with would be an "anything could be". It would say nothing about the probability of his or any other god, and if he really wanted to use it as a back door to let in his god then he'd have no choice but to let in to any other "just popped into my head-ism" too, leprechauns included. After all, "anything might be" (with which no-one disagrees) just means, well, that anything might be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We've been over this in depth before. We agreed that if you really really try you might come to believe that God is objectively real. However, as you have admitted this doesn't get you one stepper closer to showing that god is objectively real.


So how did you decide that your experience of God was an experience of an objectively true God?

Did we agree that an encounter with God is somehow made real by trying?

There are many reluctant encounters with God and some famous ones at that.

If one encounters a rock one doesn't have to try to make it real ......and one recognises it because it fits a linguistic descriptive framework.

There is only an issue with the above if firstly one is a philosophical materialist and secondly if you believe a linguistic descriptive framework is a complete description of the thing itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stephen,

He liked the feeling. Really liked it

That isn't how I have reported my own experience or how others describe theirs including some well known examples......but then why let a fact get in the way of a good story eh.

Conviction of ones current status by the Holy Spirit is often not a bed of Roses.In fact the sheerness of it can make one draw back.

Any chance of your definition of scientism and philosophical naturalism again?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Did we agree that an encounter with God is somehow made real by trying?

Well you suggested it earlier on this thread by saying that you have to find God.

There are many reluctant encounters with God and some famous ones at that.

If one encounters a rock one doesn't have to try to make it real ......and one recognises it because it fits a linguistic descriptive framework.


There is only an issue with the above if firstly one is a philosophical materialist and secondly if you believe a linguistic descriptive framework is a complete description of the thing itself.

All you seem to be saying here is that your description seems to fit the description of an encounter with God. But since we don't know of anyone who has definitely met God we don't have a description of what such an experience would be like.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well you suggested it earlier on this thread by saying that you have to find God.


All you seem to be saying here is that your description seems to fit the description of an encounter with God. But since we don't know of anyone who has definitely met God we don't have a description of what such an experience would be like.

No what I'm saying is that the linguistic framework which fits the encounter happens to be that of Christianity. The linguistic framework that fits a stone, or Dennetts theory of the self is different and does not cover the experience. That is all.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

No what I'm saying is that the linguistic framework which fits the encounter happens to be that of Christianity.

And? That demonstrates it to be objectively true how exactly?

[Gordon]

No what I'm saying is that the linguistic framework which fits the encounter happens to be that of Christianity.

It may seem that way to Christians: but it only seems that way since, no doubt, adherents of other religions would say the same (linguistically speaking of course) of their 'encounters'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

And? That demonstrates it to be objectively true how exactly?

Worth noting too that the language that just happened to describe encounters with the Roman gods described those gods, with the Sumerian gods described those gods, with the Aztec gods described...etc

Funny that. A rationalist might just conclude that - whatever causal agencies happened to be responsible for those and for the Christian god "encounters" too - the subjects merely reached for the language that was most familiar to them to describe the cause.

Trollboy is in other words attempting a quite spectacular piece of ass-backwards reasoning, even by his standards.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

What you quaintly refer to as logic doesn't conjur God up.

So you reject the traditional arguments for the existence of God then. WLC has got it all wrong?

Ironically that also includes the ontological argument and we all know that you can't beat a bit of ontology of a Sunday teatime

[Shaker]

Oh, for fuck's sake don't start him on ontology, we'll be here all bleeding night.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And? That demonstrates it to be objectively true how exactly?

Let me lay my cards on the table.I am not bound by terms which are philosophically naturalistic....and neither are you.........got that? Good so now we may proceed. The key word is encounter. That a thing is establishes its ontology. Not that it can be reasoned into existence.

When one encounters God one is neither encountering a stone or an intellectual theory, rather God is disturbing you. A stone disturbs, theory may disturb but it is not the disturbance but what causes the disturbance.

Given that there are now fewer alternatives to counter the reality of God. Bluehillside knows this and makes frequent recourse to it.............The counter argument is that the encounter is due to brain abérration. At which point we know the kind of thing he is alluding to ....and it doesn't fit the bill.

Hillside is condemned to shoehorning stuff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stephen,

Worth noting too that the language that just happened to des
cribe encounters with the Roman gods described those gods, with the Sumerian gods described those gods, with the Aztec gods described...etc

Funny that. A rationalist might just conclude that - whatever causal agencies happened to be responsible for those and for the Christian god "encounters" too - the subjects merely reached for the language that was most familiar to them to describe the cause.

A rationalist might also more likely conclude that anyone does this on encountering the new and some people shoehorn their experience into a framework in order to contain it unreasonably eg into a philosophical naturalist secularist framework they were born into.....rather than looking further afield and accepting there are no words for some of their experience........You would have to find a rationalist.I don't think you'll find one on this forum.

[Shaker]

When one encounters God ...

By what means would one know?

[Shaker]

A rationalist might also more likely conclude that anyone does this on encountering the new and some people shoehorn their experience into a framework in order to contain it unreasonably eg into a philosophical naturalist secularist framework they were born into.....rather than looking further afield and accepting there are no words for some of their experience........You would have to find a rationalist.I don't think you'll find one on this forum.

I don't know about anybody else but I can't cope with all these -ists ...

[Rhiannon]

By what means would one know?

It's a matter of faith, not knowledge. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Mostly to themselves.

[trippymonkey]

Trippy, either make a statement with evidence or bow out. It is obviously outside your area of expertise and knowledge.
Your answer does show that to be the case.

You don't need me to do this so either answer my point or run off & hide, shouting abuse as you get thrown about again - AS USUAL !!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a matter of faith,

What do YOU mean by that?

[Gordon]

When one encounters God one is neither encountering a stone or an intellectual theory, rather God is disturbing you. A stone disturbs, theory may disturb but it is not the disturbance but what causes the disturbance.

That certainly does sound disturbing, Vlad - an infinite regress of disturbances: disturbances all the way down (which makes a change from turtles I suppose).

Don't let it disturb you too much though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That certainly does sound disturbing, Vlad - an infinite regress of disturbances: disturbances all the way down (which makes a change from turtles I suppose).

Don't let it disturb you too much though.

Ah, just the man....You argue that resurrection never happens.......what about the Conservatives in Scotland?

[Rhiannon]

What do YOU mean by that?

In terms of what we are discussing here, it means a confidence in something you experience and believe to be real, rather than know to be real.

Faith isn't a bad word, Vlad. I have faith in all kinds of things. Without faith there would be no relationships, no trust, no friendships, no love. It's actually quite lovely. I don't get why you want to shoehorn knowledge in where it isn't necessary.