God's choice: quick question for Christians

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Citation?

There are dozens of them scattered all over this mb (and for WLC too by the way). Use the search facility if you're that interested, though from memory you've never yet managed to understand the rebuttals in any case.

[Stranger]

I have stated these and have given links to both theistic philosophers and atheistic philosophers eg Feser, Ruse and Nagel (cue ad hominem).

I did read the Feser link (don't recall others) but it singularly lacked any actual argument for god - IIRC seemed to suggest that we needed to buy his book. There were (again, IIRC) some hints at divine simplicity - which I've always found somewhat silly.

New atheists have not engaged philosophically because of lack of training and lack of wanting to train.

Daniel Dennett?

If you are convicted like Hawking that philosophy is finished...science has done for it you have burned your boats.

I regard philosophy as a bit of a curate's egg. Unless it can come up with some sort of compelling argument for god that isn't flawed in some way, then it isn't going to help you.

On the other hand, I think it would be far more interesting if you discussed some actual philosophical argument for god - instead reworking the endless anti-theist scientism malarkey...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There are dozens of them scattered all over this mb (and for WLC too by the way). Use the search facility if you're that interested, though from memory you've never yet managed to understand the rebuttals in any case.

I'll take that as a ''can't provide one''.
Can you give a refutation of Feser and Nagel here and now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'll take that as a ''can't provide one''.
Can you give a refutation of Feser and Nagel here and now?

Probably if you care to set out what you think their arguments that most appeal to you are.

On the other hand as I've asked you lots of question in the last few posts alone all of which you just ignored, why the hell should I?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I did read the Feser link (don't recall others) but it singularly lacked any actual argument for god - IIRC seemed to suggest that we needed to buy his book. There were (again, IIRC) some hints at divine simplicity - which I've always found somewhat silly.

Daniel Dennett?

I regard philosophy as a bit of a curate's egg. Unless it can come up with some sort of compelling argument for god that isn't flawed in some way, then it isn't going to help you.

On the other hand, I think it would be far more interesting if you discussed some actual philosophical argument for god - instead reworking the endless anti-theist scientism malarkey...

Feser is an Aristotelian and his approach is a bottom up argument going from real and common experience and deriving entities which correspond to religious descriptions of God.
You may be starting with a top down approach where you start from a conception of God. God already formulated if you will.

The trouble with requests for a philosophical argument is 1) You aren't seeing the ones you are already being presented with here 2) You guys keep shifting onto the playing field of science which aside from being IMHO irrelevant is a bad case of philosophy dodging and explains point 1.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.......why the hell should I?

Answer Because you can't?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Answer Because you can't?

Sorry, are we talking about the questions re Feser et al here or about the countless questions I've asked you that you've always ignored?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You guys keep shifting onto the playing field of science which aside from being IMHO irrelevant is a bad case of philosophy dodging and explains point 1.

If I send you a nice crisp new five pound note will you stop lying?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Sorry, are we talking about the questions re Feser et al here or about the countless questions I've asked you that you've always ignored?

IF Feser has been refuted by you a refutation should be simple for you considering the amount of verbage you put into a ''I'm giving Vlad a piece of my mind !!!!'' post.

Bring it on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

IF Feser has been refuted by you a refutation should be simple for you considering the amount of verbage you put into a ''I'm giving Vlad a piece of my mind !!!!'' post.

Bring it on.

1. Set out what you think the argument to be that most appeals to you. So far as I recall his schtick is a mixture of ad homs and medieval scholasticism that could be translated onto any religious belief, but if you think there's something of more substance tell us what it is.

2. In exchange, finally after all these years agree to answer a question in return. What for example do you think attacking a position that almost no-one holds (that "God" is not possible) tells you about the probability of that or any other non-material conjecture being true?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

1. Set out what you think the argument to be that most appeals to you. So far as I recall his schtick is a mixture of ad homs and medieval scholasticism that could be translated onto any religious belief, but if you think there's something of more substance tell us what it is.

2. In exchange, finally after all these years agree to answer a question in return. What for example do you think attacking a position that almost no-one holds (that "God" is not possible) tells you about the probability of that or any other non-material conjecture being true?

1: Refute Feser not me nor what appeals to me.
2: Outline your position on God. I will then opine as to whether it tallies with what you have previously written.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

1: Refute Feser not me nor what appeals to me.

Feser has written books. Which bits of those books do you want refuted? If it helps you, here's a link to someone who's done that chapter-by-chapter for one of them:

http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2014/10/an-atheist-reviews-last-superstition.html

Knock yourself out. On the other hand, as you're fond of throwing around terms like "philosophy" without having the first understanding of what they entail perhaps if you set out the argument of Feser's that you find most persuasive (I should warn you that you have to wade through a lot of trash talk and victim blaming finally to get to any arguments) then I'll knock it out of the park for you.

2: Outline your position on God. I will then opine as to whether it tallies with what you have previously written.

I don't have "a position on God". The term is just white noise. What I do have though is a position on the very bad arguments you attempt for this "God". That's why i asked you a perfectly simple question: What do you think attacking a position almost no-one holds about the impossibility of "God" tells you about the probability of this god?

It's a simple enough question isn't it?

[Stranger]

Feser is an Aristotelian and his approach is a bottom up argument going from real and common experience and deriving entities which correspond to religious descriptions of God.
You may be starting with a top down approach where you start from a conception of God. God already formulated if you will.

It strikes me that the problem with basing things on people's experience is that it's so inconsistent (outside of the 'objective' or intersubjective world) - so how does one decide, first that religious experience is to be taken seriously (as opposed to, say, ghosts), second, how to reconcile the disparate beliefs that are held and have been held over human history, and lastly, even if you manage to get something out of all that, how do you tell if it's telling you about a real, external entity, rather than some aspect of the human mind?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Feser has written books. Which bits of those books do you want refuted? If it helps you, here's a link to someone who's done that chapter-by-chapter for one of them:

http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2014/10/an-atheist-reviews-last-superstition.html

Knock yourself out. On the other hand, as you're fond of throwing around terms like "philosophy" without having the first understanding of what they entail perhaps if you set out the argument of Feser's that you find most persuasive (I should warn you that you have to wade through a lot of trash talk and victim blaming finally to get to any arguments) then I'll knock it out of the park for you.

I don't have "a position on God". The term is just white noise. What I do have though is a position on the very bad arguments you attempt for this "God". That's why i asked you a perfectly simple question: What do you think attacking a position almost no-one holds about the impossibility of "God" tells you about the probability of this god?

It's a simple enough question isn't it?

You hold a very public atheism.

For the uses of ''of course God is possible'' I recommend Hillside's posts on that matter.

Thanks for the link.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

It strikes me that the problem with basing things on people's experience is that it's so inconsistent (outside of the 'objective' or intersubjective world) - so how does one decide, first that religious experience is to be taken seriously (as opposed to, say, ghosts), second, how to reconcile the disparate beliefs that are held and have been held over human history, and lastly, even if you manage to get something out of all that, how do you tell if it's telling you about a real, external entity, rather than some aspect of the human mind?

This is essentially the question Vlad always runs away from (Ok, he runs away from all of them but this is the one I've asked him most often that he's then run away from). I usually phrase it this way: "Say that I line up ten people before breakfast, one of them being you. Each of the other nine believes just as firmly, just as deeply, just as profoundly as you do that they have experienced different deities. Why should I privilege your claim over theirs?"

The only honest answer is, "there's no reason at all" but the consequences of that are too difficult for him to process so he just vanishes for a bit, then returns with straw men and distractions like his "philosophical naturalism" schtick.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You hold a very public atheism.

For the uses of ''of course God is possible'' I recommend Hillside's posts on that matter.

Thanks for the link.

Eh? I am bluehillside!

Anyways, epistemically "God" isn't possible/impossible apt because the term lacks a coherent definition. Ignoring that for now though, it's only possible in the sense that anything is possible - unknown unknowns again. Why you've invested so much in lying about that and why you think it helps you argue for "God" (as opposed to, say, for leprechauns) is anyone's guess, but there it is. 

[wigginhall]

One of the issues with reading anything by Feser is that you are required to accept a set of premises, before you get onto the main argument.  For example, with natural law, you have to accept the idea of final cause.   I'm not sure how Aristotle viewed this, but with Feser it slides over into purpose quite quickly,  so that he can say that sex is designed for babies, and gays are therefore sinful.   

Then you get this clusterfuck:

"a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic activities of human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are ours by virtue of our nature or essence."

Well, you could tear apart many of the terms here, such as 'successfully', 'determined',  'by virtue of', 'nature or essence'.   It seems to fall victim to the is/ought problem also.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Eh? I am bluehillside!

I disagree.................seriously though, So you are! Read yourself!

Thanks for the link..
I have read the preamble and review of the preface. So I suppose I am attempting a critique of a critique of a critique.
I not yet minded if this isn't another caricature of Christianity as homophobia in vestments. What it looks a lot like is an attack on Feser's politics rather than the nitty gritty arguments to which i'm thinking I don't share Feser's politics and if you want to...go ahead fill your boots.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic activities of human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are ours by virtue of our nature or essence."

Well, you could tear apart many of the terms here, such as 'successfully', 'determined',  'by virtue of', 'nature or essence'.   

Be my guest

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some,

This is essentially the question Vlad always runs away from (Ok, he runs away from all of them but this is the one I've asked him most often that he's then run away from). I usually phrase it this way: "Say that I line up ten people before breakfast, one of them being you. Each of the other nine believes just as firmly, just as deeply, just as profoundly as you do that they have experienced different deities. Why should I privilege your claim over theirs?"

The only honest answer is, "there's no reason at all" but the consequences of that are too difficult for him to process so he just vanishes for a bit, then returns with straw men and distractions like his "philosophical naturalism" schtick.

How would you measure deepness, firmness and profundity and how could you confirm they had met different deities or that the different deities had the same status?

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

One of the issues with reading anything by Feser is that you are required to accept a set of premises, before you get onto the main argument.  For example, with natural law, you have to accept the idea of final cause.   I'm not sure how Aristotle viewed this, but with Feser it slides over into purpose quite quickly,  so that he can say that sex is designed for babies, and gays are therefore sinful.

Yes. He uses "prima facie" quite a bit, and then proceeds on the basis the his premises that are prima facie true have somehow been demonstrated. Given how much we know that's "prima facie" true isn't true at all it's an odd position to take, especially for a philosopher. 

Then you get this clusterfuck:

"a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic activities of human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are ours by virtue of our nature or essence."

Well, you could tear apart many of the terms here, such as 'successfully', 'determined',  'by virtue of', 'nature or essence'.   It seems to fall victim to the is/ought problem also.

Nightmare innit? Assumption upon assumption about these terms meaning what he wants them to mean with nothing to support or even to explain why he thinks these things. What I wonder does he think "our nature or essence" to be, and why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How would you measure deepness, firmness and profundity and how could you confirm they had met different deities or that the different deities had the same status?

Surely these are question you should be asking yourself aren't they? How would you know that Fred the leprechaunist standing next to you hadn't had "experiences" more deep or profound than your own, that he hadn't "met" his deity but you hadn't met yours?

All I have is the words from each of you - so why should I privilege your clam of an "experience" over theirs? More to the point, why should you?

Oh, and the "status" of a faith belief tells you nothing about whether or not you experienced it by the way.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some,

This is essentially the question Vlad always runs away from (Ok, he runs away from all of them but this is the one I've asked him most often that he's then run away from). I usually phrase it this way: "Say that I line up ten people before breakfast, one of them being you. Each of the other nine believes just as firmly, just as deeply, just as profoundly as you do that they have experienced different deities. Why should I privilege your claim over theirs?"

The only honest answer is, "there's no reason at all" but the consequences of that are too difficult for him to process so he just vanishes for a bit, then returns with straw men and distractions like his "philosophical naturalism" schtick.

I have said that there is a difference in the depth of experience where one looks at what is fundamentally existential. Whether you have poo pooed the idea of such an experience or not I have addressed this issue. Christianity in it's claims is more existential.
My own experience is that when I became a theist around the time of reading CS Lewis I did try a bit of
commandment following and pleasing God on my own efforts but this was overtaken by a challenge to commitment by Christ.
Also, intellectually IMHO Christianity speaks of a more intimate relationship between the divine as and people than other faiths....and in mystic experiences labels tend to break down.

I think you are mistaking running away from answers with you not getting the answers you want to here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Surely these are question you should be asking yourself aren't they? How would you know that Fred the leprechaunist standing next to you hadn't had "experiences" more deep or profound than your own, that he hadn't "met" his deity but you hadn't met yours?

All I have is the words from each of you - so why should I privilege your clam of an "experience" over theirs? More to the point, why should you?

Oh, and the "status" of a faith belief tells you nothing about whether or not you experienced it by the way.   

I am not talking with a status of a faith belief I am talking about the status of the particular God.

Did they meet Eric the deputy assistant god for treasury tags or The One God, the supreme entelechy of our being. Did Eric tell you how to use a treasury tag in a way pleasing to him or did he cause your chains to sin and guilt of past sin f  If it doesn't make any difference to you that is your choice to be flippant.

If you are just talking about meeting a deity why would I doubt that he had met something divine. The question is how intimately and existential was that meeting.

We have discussed this before.

We can of course not know except for finding out for ourselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have said that there is a difference in the depth of experience where one looks at what is fundamentally existential.

And you would know that how? How would you distinguish any existential belief from any other for this purpose, and how in any case (as you asked yourself) are you measuring “depth” for this purpose?

You might feel to every fibre of your being that you’d “experienced” a deity. So though might the chap next to you about a different deity entirely.

Now what?

Whether you have poo pooed the idea of such an experience or not I have addressed this issue. Christianity in it's claims is more existential.

Priceless! How are you measuring “existentialness” to work out which one is more existential than all the rest, and what on earth has that to do with epistemological truth in any case?

Good luck reverse engineering the logic for that one!

My own experience is that when I became a theist around the time of reading CS Lewis I did try a bit of
commandment following and pleasing God on my own efforts but this was overtaken by a challenge to commitment by Christ.

All very meaningful for you no doubt, as for them are the experiences of those from different faiths entirely.

Now what?

Also, intellectually IMHO Christianity speaks of a more intimate relationship between the divine as and people than other faiths....and in mystic experiences labels tend to break down.

Not sure why you’re bringing in a naturalistic concept like intellect into a discussion about faith, but either way presumably the rationalisations of the other nine no doubt intellectually do the same for them.

Now what?

I think you are mistaking running away from answers with you not getting the answers you want to here.

Then you think wrongly. Not only have you always run away, you’ve also always run away from the question about why you run away. Now you have at least tried to answer, your problem is that you’ve provided nothing that couldn’t just has readily been said by the other nine.

Do you see the problem here? There’s no logical path from (subjective) faith beliefs to (objective) true for you too facts.