God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Er no, it's just the ever-entertaining sight of you shooting yourself in the foot. Feser and Nagel are people's names - they have written and said many things. You can't refute names - you have (finally) to tell us which bits of their arguments you find persuasive and to invite us to falsify them. Otherwise what do you expect - a chapter-by-chapter refutation of the type I linked you to?

Yeh? Any chance of you refuting Feser and Nagel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The actual meaning or your personal re-definition of it? (Remember, you fell flat on your face when you tried a Wiki link a few posts back.)

I'm sorry I've decided this discussion is no place for grown ups so cioa.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well since I've met with Colin I can say that unless you have compelling evidence that he doesn't exist and I am making that up... Which deities have you met?

Your claim to have met Colin has exactly the same epistemic value as your claim to have met “God”. Does that not concern you at all?

People were gassed to death by politics coupled by weak faith that doesn't trust God enough to a point where it hardly deserves the title. Next question.

While your “loving” god stood idly by with his arms folded. What does that make him would you say?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry I've decided this discussion is no place for grown ups so cioa.

Good to see that you finally realise that's not a set to which you belong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you refuted Dennett?

It really is pointless just to cite people. If you learned something from them - use it to present an argument here...

Dennett? No........... but then I'm not claiming to have.

The claim is that Feser and Nagel were refuted on this site.

[floo]

In reality you just refuse to accept that some people have a relationship with God. You have no knowledge of God because you don't seek him.
You who know nothing in a personal sense of whom God is, cannot tell any believer it is 'bull shit'. Arrogance that learning and growing actually changes religious beliefs in all cases is the real BS.

Some people THINK they have a relationship with god, but there is no evidence to support it is an external one, rather than generated by the human mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your claim to have met Colin has exactly the same epistemic value as your claim to have met “God”. Does that not concern you at all?

I think you know more about Colin than you are prepared to let on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your claim to have met Colin has exactly the same epistemic value as your claim to have met “God”. Does that not concern you at all?

While your “loving” god stood idly by with his arms folded. What does that make him would you say?

Death is not the end as far as God is concerned. Perhaps if you grasped God and put him firmly in the equation instead of positing him and then making him totally actionless.

[Gordon]

Have you refuted Feser or Nagel yet.

Wiggs put Feser in his place earlier - so, Vlad, what about Nagel?

iirc Nagel self-identifies as an atheist, and if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs put Feser in his place earlier - so, Vlad, what about Nagel?

iirc Nagel self-identifies as an atheist, and if I'm wrong I'm sure you'll correct me.

I'd be surprised if Wiggs did unless it was his politics. I don't think Feser has much to fear from Wigginhall
I know Nagel is an atheist. He's just not a new atheist. Unlike some I do not automatically disrespect the input of atheists and certain atheists I have read have reported being disrespected by antitheists because they dare to criticise the New Atheist movement.... something manifest in The God Delusion itself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Death is not the end as far as God is concerned.

A statement you believe to be true no doubt. All you have to do now is to find a way out of the straightjacket of "faith" to make an argument for why anyone else should think you to be right about that.

Perhaps if you grasped God and put him firmly in the equation instead of positing him and then making him totally actionless.

Perhaps if you grasped Colin and put him firmly in the equation you could become a pretty cool fiddle player too. See, that's the thing about faith beliefs - you can populate them with any assertions that take your fancy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps if you grasped Colin and put him firmly in the equation you could become a pretty cool fiddle player too. Vlad,

A statement you believe to be true no doubt. All you have to do now is to find a way out of the straightjacket of "faith" to make an argument for why anyone else should think you to be right about that.See, that's the thing about faith beliefs - you can populate them with any assertions that take your fancy.

Hillside do you want an argument for God or an argument for post mortem existence?
Lets look at this. Raising from the dead is within God's power. If you have encountered Christ as more than a good man or even the best man you would know this. The logic follows from the encounter. There are also historical accounts in the Gospels and epistles which reflect thinking within living memory of Christ.

Here you seem to want God but cast him in the role of villain but we have to look at your theology here. Yes Hillside you have ventured into theology.

You propose a God who hasn't here intervened to stop the laws of physics, to change peoples hearts (although that is debateable). That would say nothing about whether he has done so elsewhere. Or whether there wasn't a God of the deists (although deism is undermined by claiming a God who couldn't intervene.)

Is God guilty that he lets this happen? It depends how much you value freedom of action, order and predictability and obviously God has put a high premium on that.

Secondly I personally am convinced of Gods desire for restoration and resurrection.

Thirdly, From a non sin point of view this act was bleakly Darwinian and territorial. What then is your justification for this being (in the Darwinian schema) normal and yet terrible and unjust too?

I believe this is wrong, that the world shouldn't be like this, that it ought not happen.
Prior to my conversion there was a documentary on Bloody Friday in Ulster where they showed the top half of a headless torso with one handless arm being shovelled into a black bin.

I thought that was wrong, absolutely unequivocally wrong. Would you agree with that?..............Anyway I now believe that was part of my journey to God. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside do you want an argument for God or an argument for post mortem existence?

Lets look at this. Raising from the dead is within God's power. If you have encountered Christ as more than a good man or even the best man you would know this. The logic follows from the encounter. There are also historical accounts in the Gospels and epistles which reflect thinking within living memory of Christ.

There are lots of stories from lots of religious traditions, most of which you think to be not true. You can’t though just make assertions from your pick of them as if they were arguments – why do you think there’s an “encounter” at all?

Here you seem to want God but cast him in the role of villain but we have to look at your theology here. Yes Hillside you have ventured into theology.

I want no such thing. I merely point out a contradiction in your beliefs.

You propose a God who hasn't here intervened to stop the laws of physics, to change peoples hearts (although that is debateable). That would say nothing about whether he has done so elsewhere. Or whether there wasn't a God of the deists (although deism is undermined by claiming a God who couldn't intervene.)

I propose no such thing. I merely point out a consequence if you think there’s a god of the omnis.

Is God guilty that he lets this happen? It depends how much you value freedom of action, order and predictability and obviously God has put a high premium on that.

Higher it seems than babies dying horribly. And you think that’s morally good?

Really?

Secondly I personally am convinced of Gods desire for restoration and resurrection.

That’s nice for you. I am personally convinced that Colin the leprechaun will grant me three wishes if only I can catch the little so-and-so.

Now what?

Thirdly, From a non sin point of view this act was bleakly Darwinian and territorial. What then is your justification for this being (in the Darwinian schema) normal and yet terrible and unjust too?

What are you trying to say here? “Darwinian” or not, I’m not the one positing a morally good god remember?  The argumentum ad consequentiam seems to be your fallacy du jour just now.

I believe this is wrong, that the world shouldn't be like this, that it ought not happen.

No doubt. How do you propose to get an is from an ought then?

Prior to my conversion there was a documentary on Bloody Friday in Ulster where they showed the top half of a headless torso with one handless arm being shovelled into a black bin.

I thought that was wrong, absolutely unequivocally wrong. Would you agree with that?..............Anyway I now believe that was part of my journey to God. 

Yes. What on earth has that got to do though with a “journey to god”, presumably the very god who allowed this?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#487

Here you seem to want God but cast him in the role of villain but we have to look at your theology here. Yes Hillside you have ventured into theology.

I want no such thing. I merely point out a contradiction in your beliefs.

No.

What you do is point out what you think is a contradiction, based on your flawed understanding of Christianity.

If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=5, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the true answer of 4!!

[Stranger]

What you do is point out what you think is a contradiction, based on your flawed understanding of Christianity.

If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=5, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the true answer of 4!!

Why don't you explain it then - instead of your tedious assertions that people don't understand or have the wrong "world view"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

No.

What you do is point out what you think is a contradiction, based on your flawed understanding of Christianity.

That only works if you think the non-flawed "understanding of Christianity" is that its contradictions are fine.

If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=5, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the true answer of 4!!

You have it backwards. That should read: "If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=4, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the non-true answer of 5!"

[floo]

#487
No.

What you do is point out what you think is a contradiction, based on your flawed understanding of Christianity.

If your understanding is the equivalent of 2+2=5, then to you, 2+2=anything else would be seen as a contradiction, including the true answer of 4!!

And your understanding of Christianity is correct and not just your take on the subject? That religion is open to a myriad interpretations, some crazier than others.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There are lots of stories from lots of religious traditions, most of which you think to be not true. You can’t though just make assertions from your pick of them as if they were arguments – why do you think there’s an “encounter” at all?

I want no such thing. I merely point out a contradiction in your beliefs.

I propose no such thing. I merely point out a consequence if you think there’s a god of the omnis.

Higher it seems than babies dying horribly. And you think that’s morally good?

Really?

That’s nice for you. I am personally convinced that Colin the leprechaun will grant me three wishes if only I can catch the little so-and-so.

Now what?

What are you trying to say here? “Darwinian” or not, I’m not the one positing a morally good god remember?  The argumentum ad consequentiam seems to be your fallacy du jour just now.

No doubt. How do you propose to get an is from an ought then?

Yes. What on earth has that got to do though with a “journey to god”, presumably the very god who allowed this?

Hillside. You were given an opportunity to declare an act of barbarity absolutely evil and you did not do so.
That is completely explicable for a moral irrealist and yet here you are giving IMHO a Shatneresque performance on the absolute evil of God. That is both irrational and hypocritical.

What then are you?

If you think that God represents absolute evil then you have, I move found God but have no perspective of what he is. It also makes you a moral absolutist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside. You were given an opportunity to declare an act of barbarity absolutely evil and you did not do so.

If you're going to lie, could you try to be a bit less obvious about it? You asked if I agree with you, and I said "yes".

That is completely explicable for a moral irrealist and yet here you are giving IMHO a Shatneresque performance on the absolute evil of God. That is both irrational and hypocritical.

It's also not true. Besides, whose barbarity are you thinking of here - the person who committed the atrocity, or the supposedly benevolent god who allowed it?

What then are you?

Honest. You should try it.

If you think that God represents absolute evil then you have, I move found God but have no perspective of what he is. It also makes you a moral absolutist.

Well that's pretty bonkers. I merely point out that, if you want to posit a god of the omins, then it gives you all sorts of problems when you watch him fold his arms even as children are being gassed. If there was truth in your beliefs, that would seem pretty morally fucked up to me.

Don't you agree?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you're going to lie, could you try to be a bit less obvious about it? You asked if I agree with you, and I said "yes".

So you are a moral absolutist then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So you are a moral absolutist then.

Of course not - I merely expressed my opinion on the matter.

Why do you think lying helps you here, and why have you not had the good grace to apologise the the last lie I just caught you making?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of course not -

Well then you don't agree with me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well then you don't agree with me.

Why are you lying again? You're dicking around with the "absolutely, unequivocally" here - that we share opinions on something being completely immoral does not mean that they are anything other than opinions. There's no universal law we can point to to validate those opinions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why are you lying again? You're dicking around with the "absolutely, unequivocally" here -

Nope................. I am a moral absolutist and that was the whole point of my story.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nope................. I am a moral absolutist and that was the whole point of my story.

So were the 9/11 hijackers – and for the same reason: faith. That's what makes faith-based morality so dangerous - there's no arguing someone out of it.

You’re heading here into Alien’s old mistake (remember him?). He came up with ever more convoluted examples of a morally bad act, ending up with torturing a child to death just for fun or some such. I agreed “absolutely” that that would be morally wrong in the sense that I could not imagine a mitigating argument that would change my mind about that. Where he (and you) went wrong though was to think that that then meant there was some kind of universal law to that effect, a bit like there is for gravity.

For all I know a psychopath would think TACTDJFF would be morally fine, and that would be his opinion on the matter. The difference though is that, while the psychopath and I can have different opinions on a moral questions, we cannot have different gravities.