on discussing god and religion

Defending Compatibilism
Bruce R. Reichenbach
at the Science, Religion and Culture website
[the focus here being on free will given an omniscient God]

Perhaps. But in regard to God where most of the faithful start is with the assumption that there is one. And that it is their God. And that their God is omniscient. Whereas while of course some philosophers start with the assumption that God installed an autonomous soul in them and that in living a righteous life they will end up in one or another rendition of Heaven, others do not.

Of course, that’s always my own point as well. Only, again, with God we are talking about a “starting point” pertaining to an entity that is alleged to exist, that is alleged to be omniscient, but that, to the best of my knowledge, has never actually been demonstrated to exist at all. Omniscient or otherwise. So, obviously, your starting point here can simply be something that you think up or others have thought up for you that “in your head” you believe. Anguish subsumed in more or less blind faith.

We’ll see.

But what does not change is that the author’s conclusions are still predicated on premises that he may or may not be able to demonstrate to be true regarding that which he construes to be God “in his head”.

"A 6.3-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Turkey and Syria, Stirring Panic"

My guess…

With the death toll now over 46,000 men, women and children from the last quake, God is now aiming for 50,000. Hard to believe, but He must have miscalculated with the first quake. You know, if 50,000 dead is His aim.

Then back to the argument some Christians will make: that since the overwhelming preponderance of the dead are Muslims, their souls are going down not up.

Though with the children that has to be tricky.

Note to God:

Just out of curiosity, what’s the point of this:

msn.com/en-us/news/technolo … c1a3ddaf6f

“‘Runaway’ black hole the size of 20 million suns found speeding through space with a trail of newborn stars behind it”

And, hopefully, You will make sure that in hurtling through space, it doesn’t someday day collide with and destroy entire inhabited planets. Earth for example.

Although I wouldn’t put it past you.

Edit:

[b]"Nasa’s James Webb Space Telescope has found a set of massive galaxies that should not exist.

The equipment was used to observe a set of massive galaxies that formed around 500-700 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was only 3 per cent of its current age. Those galaxies have stellar masses as high as ten billion times that of our Sun, and one that could be as massive as 100 billion of our Sun."[/b]

Who knew that God’s mysterious ways could go this far!!

Anyone here?

Defending Compatibilism
Bruce R. Reichenbach
at the Science, Religion and Culture website
[the focus here being on free will given an omniscient God]

Does it really matter how God became omniscient if in fact He is omniscient? We may as well ask how God came to exist at all. So, for me, it’s not how an omniscient God knew that I would be typing these words but how I can be typing them of my own volition if what I do is to be squared with an omniscient God.

And there you go. No God to the best of my own not omniscient knowledge, has even been demonstrated to exist. So we mere mortals with our mere mortal limitations regarding knowledge of this sort are tasked with suggesting “propositions” about the existential relationship between our behaviors down here and an alleged omniscient God up there.

See the problem?

It’s just the theological rendition of the fact that neither scientists nor philosophers know how or why mindless matter evolved in living matter evolved into us in a No God world.

Defending Compatibilism
Bruce R. Reichenbach
at the Science, Religion and Culture website
[the focus here being on free will given an omniscient God]

Again, more word games? In regard to a God that we don’t even know for sure does in fact exist, and is in fact omniscient, should we use the word “know” or “believe”? What God believed “in His mind” there and then when He created us about me typing these words here and now, or what God knew in His head there and then about me typing these words here and now.

Compatibilism and incompatibilism pertaining to nature revolve around the fact of biological evolution on planet Earth. Here the only alternatives are solipsism and sim worlds and dream worlds and the like.

But once God is brought into play, how is it all not just sheer speculation…in the absence of God Himself? You start with one set of conjectures; others start with very different ones.

See the inherent problem? How on Earth would either Fischer or those who think other than as he does, go about establishing what they either believe or claim to know about God?

To me, belief revolves more around what you think and feel in your head regarding something, whereas knowledge pertains more to what you are actually able to establish in connecting the dots between “in my head” and “out in the world”.

Or…?

If Mary were to refrain from aborting Jane here and now, then God would have held a false belief there and then when we created us?

If Mary were to refrain from aborting Jane here and now, then God would not have existed there and then to create us?

If Mary were to refrain from aborting Jane here and now, then God would have held a different belief from the one He actually held when He created us?

You tell me.

Armed Woman Kills 6 in Nashville School
The six victims included three children and three adults, the authorities said, and the shooter was killed by police officers who responded to the scene. new york times

nytimes.com/live/2023/03/27 … ant-school

How can something like this not be particularly hard to square with a loving, just and merciful God’s “mysterious ways”?

[b]"Experts on alert for MEGAQUAKE off US coast due to hole on fault line

Scientists fear a hole in a 600-mile-long fault line in the Pacific could trigger a catastrophic earthquake that would decimate cities along the northwestern US.

The hole spewing hot liquid sits 50 miles off the shoreline of Oregon, on the boundary of the dipping fault known as Cascadia Subduction Zone, which spans from Northern California into Canada.

This geological feature is capable of unleashing a magnitude-9 earthquake in the Pacific Northwest - and the hole could be the fuel it needs."[/b]

Daily Mail

Note to God:

It’s your call. [-o<

In ancient cultures, gods could be born, live, and die.
They were not all-powerful.

Some people forgot that, when they crafted their theory on God.

The world is not governed by an all-mighty being.

It’s already obvious.

That doesn’t mean there is no god,
it means people are cruising for a bruising
when they set up theories about all powerful
gods, angry gods, etc.

[b]"Radio astronomers have captured a wide-angle image of one of the most violent locales in the cosmos.

A patch of pure nothing in a faraway galaxy has lately become the gravitational center of attention for radio astronomers. That would be a giant black hole, with the gravity of 6.5 billion suns, that spits high-energy particles from the center of the galaxy Messier 87, which lies some 50 million light-years from Earth."[/b] nyt

Yo, God! What’s up with that?

Why We Shouldn’t Hate Philosophy
Michael Gleghorn at the Bible.org site

Okay, but some philosophical slopes are slipperier than others. For example, there are philosophers here who can engage the Christians among us far up in what I construe to be the abstract spiritual clouds and find a common ground between philosophy and Christianity.

And I myself am more than willing to concede that given the profound mystery that is the existence of existence itself, a God/the God is one possible explanation.

And though there are many, many narratives here – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions – all are entitled to make their own existential leap of faith to God.

What I have found frustrating in exploring religious faith and spiritual convictions is the manner in which many seem to construe these subjects…

…as a bit too slippery for them. Especially number 4 as it pertains to the world that we actually do live in.

So, all I can do is to keep plugging away and hope that they will become more inclined to go there. In discussions that pertain to my own particular inclinations regarding [on this thread at PN] Christianity. Given that I was once a devout Christian myself. And thus am able to grasp why it is so appealing.

And, given that this is a philosophy forum, hopefully I will come across fewer religious folks who do blindly believe that philosophy is the “product of wild, rash, and uncontrolled human speculation.” That “it’s doctrines are empty and deceptive.” Let alone that they “may even come from demons”.

Especially into a philosophy embodied “here and now” by those like me. A philosophy that revolves around my own rooted existentially in dasein assumptions that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that in the absence of God there is no secular equivalent for establishing an objective morality and that death = oblivion.

I wonder what Tert makes/made of Jesus’ exhortation to keep asking, seeking, & knocking… of Paul’s call to examine everything & grasp the good. Etc.

How do atheists establish that their hunger for meaning cannot be satisfied & that death is mos def oblivion? Cuz I 100% agree that… if no God… it all anchors … oddly, ironically, surprisingly, strangely, and downright supernaturally, I dare say… over an abyss.

No, seriously.

Why We Shouldn’t Hate Philosophy
Michael Gleghorn at the Bible.org site

Just out of curiosity, does it?

Colossians 2:8: See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

Of course, this would be applicable to sociology and psychology and anthropology and history and political science and science itself. If something is not wholly in sync with the Bible…?

But it is my own philosophy in particular that is most disturbing to Christians. And that is because my aim is less to argue against Christianity and more to suggest that belief in Christianity is itself rooted existentially in the life one lived. After all, what if the life you lived never put you in touch with the teachings of Christ? What if, instead, it put you in touch with an entirely different God? Or with No God? In fact, the whole point of religion is to provide one with the One True Path. What that path actually is can be anything.

Start here: openbible.info/topics/philosophy

As for what philosophy is, first, of course, the dictionary:

“…the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.”

Now, I’m less interested in the “academic discipline” part myself and more intrigued by the parts that revolve around ethics and the “Big Questions”.

And, in regard to both, what could possibly more crucial than pinning down whether or not a God, the God does exist?

Of course: general philosophical questions aimed at providing the faithful with general philosophical answers.

But for those who do insist that “the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence” must begin with God, how will philosophy be approached other than to add another layer to that leap of faith?

Why We Shouldn’t Hate Philosophy
Michael Gleghorn at the Bible.org site

Start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s … philosophy

Then after exploring each of them, come back here and let us know which school, in your opinion, reflects the wisdom most deserving of our love.

Of course, what’s wrong with that is this: your school or mine? our school or theirs?

After all, in regard to religious faiths alone, whatever school of philosophy is deemed the wisest must still be subsumed in one of these…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions

…denominations. This thread in particular focusing on Christianity.

Again, start here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s … philosophy

Which assessment encompasses the optimal “examined life”? And what of those like me who, in examining life philosophically, have come to conclude that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. And that, in the end, you topple over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Then this part: “If truth is what you seek, then the examined life will only take you on a long ride to the limits of solitude and leave you by the side of the road with your truth and nothing else.” Thomas Ligotti

Again, how is this not yet another classic example of a “general description spiritual contraption” that can mean a million different things to a million different people?

We’ll need a context in other words.

Free will, the Holocaust, and The Problem of Evil
David Kyle Johnson

Click.

And around and around some will go in this direction or around and around others will go reconciling the Holocaust with a morally perfect existing God.

How?

Of course: a morally perfect existing God, the morally perfect existing God, my morally perfect existing God’s mysterious ways.

So, Mr. Atheist, go ahead, prove this is wrong.

Not only that but atheists of my ilk, in rejecting God and religion, are left dealing with the existential reality of living in an essentially meaningless and purposeless world, being fractured and fragmented morally and awaiting their own tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Sure, some will take pride in having the intellectual mettle and integrity to accept the consequences of living in a No God world. Me, I’m rather partial myself to finding a way back onto the path that leads to immortality and salvation.

Of course, here even the staunchest atheist is “for all practical purposes” an agnostic. After all, in a free will world, whether you entirely accept or reject God’s existence you’re still stuck with “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”.

Starting here:

• Why something instead of nothing?
• Why this something and not something else?
• Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
• What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
• What of the multiverse?

In other words, philosophically.

Why We Shouldn’t Hate Philosophy
Michael Gleghorn at the Bible.org site

I’m certainly interested in hearing “a rational presentation and defense of the gospel”. With or without philosophical components. But of far more importance is the extent to which such a presentation and defense can be connected to actual demonstrable proof that, given what is at stake for mere mortals on both sides of the grave, the gospel is the real deal.

And I still recall back when I was a student at Essex Community College, my own encounters with Campus Crusade for Christ folks. Back when I was a rabid Marxist. I’d leave them sputtering. So, I can only imagine their reaction to the components of my philosophy today.

And, of course, when the author here speaks of those philosophers who “will be ready to respond with trust in Christ” what sort of philosophy will they actually have?

But that’s the point. If you do encounter men and women who are able to reconcile philosophy with Christianity, you are already assuming certain assumptions about them that are far removed from how others construe philosophy. And if they are not able to reconcile the two that becomes all the proof one needs that the philosophy is “hollow and deceptive”. My own certainly is, isn’t it?

Still, if there are those here who have in fact managed to reconcile the two, please, by all means, provide details.

And a few contexts.

Dr. Craig is a Christian philosopher I don’t always agree with, but he’s good. Great, actually. Good stuff here, but feel Plato got a bad rap if solve dialectic riddles in Republic & other dialogues:
youtu.be/90nVkHPwy_I

^that’s at Lawrence Livermore Lab recently^

Why We Shouldn’t Hate Philosophy
Michael Gleghorn at the Bible.org site

First of all, what on Earth does a philosophy “which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world” even mean? Any Christians here care to explore this given particular contexts?

Also, how can any philosophy other than Christ’s own not ultimately be short of the mark on Judgment Day?

Okay, for those Christians here among us, note particular aspects of modern-day philosophy that would be construed as empty and deceptive…and aspects that would not be.

Given sets of circumstances that most here will be familiar with. Philosophy, in other words, pertaining to our actual interactions from day to day such that conflicts might arise over value judgments that as Christians you presume will be judged by God as well.

Note to God:

Don’t let this…

cbsnews.com/news/campi-fleg … searchers/
livescience.com/planet-eart … tists-warn

“If Campi Flegrei were to reenact its largest previous eruption, it would punch molten rock and volcanic gases high into the stratosphere, unleash 100-feet-high (33.5 meters) tsunamis and spread a plume of sulfur and toxic ash that could plunge Earth into global winter for years — killing crops and causing mass extinctions.”

…happen, okay?

From PN:

The Ontological Argument Revisited
Peter Mullen explores the argument that by definition, God exists.

How can it not be embarrassing to actually use this as your “proof” that God exists? You literally define Him into existence by making certain assumptions about Him that are just part of the definition itself.

I mean, if you wanted to demonstrate instead that the Pope exists in the Vatican, would you start with a definition of the Pope, a definition of exists, a definition of the Vatican? Or would you point to tons and tons of actual hard evidence that he does in fact exist and resides in the Vatican.

Well, at least when he is actually at the Vatican.

On the other hand, suppose you attempted to argue that women should be permitted to become Popes. How far could you go there…by definition or otherwise.

In other words, if you want to believe in objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side of it, there clearly must be “that thing the greater than which cannot be conceived”. That and a Judgment Day said to exist “by definition or otherwise”.

Again, what’s crucial of course is that he worked this all out entirely in his head. Whereas if someone was doubtful regarding the existence of the Pope, mere mortals could come down out of their heads and, empirically, materially and phenomenologically, make it abundantly clear that he does exist.

Though there are some here who don’t seem to get that distinction at all.