on discussing god and religion

What it means to them or how they react is not something I have control over. I put it out there and get some feedback.

I notice that I don’t get any particularly thoughtful feedback from you.

So you’re in a philosophy venue and nobody is able demonstrate the truth about God to you.
In fact, nobody has been able to demonstrate the truth of any value judgements to you.

If I don’t demonstrate it, then that’s just in line with your expectations.

All you’re doing is sitting there going … “No, not good enough. Next …”. Over and over and over.

Ever have a discussion where you are not dismissive?

You agree but post no content. #-o

Why bother.

IOW if you believe in God on good grounds, you should be able to demonstrate the existence of God via text to a skeptic. Anyone want to parse that for all the silly assumptions in there. Of course some theists are silly and think they can do this. And they are nicely counter-melodied by atheists who think that theists should be able to do this.

Don’t forget … it has to be demonstrated in such as way that “all rational men and women are obligated to accept it”. :evilfun:

Not that he has any clear idea of what "rational " means. That’s just another contraption, isn’t it? :laughing:

More to the point, in living lives that may well be very, very different from your own, how might that feedback be construed as either constructive or destructive?

In either a God or a No God world.

Perhaps then you should stop reading my posts.

On the other hand, would any feedback suppotive of Communism be construed as thoughful by you?

But my point is to suggest that narratives relating to God are largely existential contraptions anchored subjectively/subjunctively in dasein.

You tell me: What [u][b]IS[/u][/b] the truth about God?

They would first have to note how, with regard to their own conflicting behaviors with others, they not down in the hole that I’m in.

All I can do then is to react to what they tell me. And in the either/or world there are countless things that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us. My “expectations” here are almost always in sync with what is.

Indeed, I eschew a “dismissive” attitude here time and again.

Huh?

Until we are able to establish precisely what the relationship would be between an existing God and any particular mere mortal, how on earth could any “content” be realistically speculated about?

Go ahead, provide us with a hypothetical relationship.

Come on, let’s not forget what is at stake here: immortality, salvation and divine justice.

Which God then? Which Scripture?

Maybe it’s just me, but that would seem to be something a mere mortal would want to be rather certain regarding.

Could be either depending on the content.

I need the laughs.

Obviously yes.

But you have this weird idea about how and what I think, so you believe my answer is always “no”.

You have that “objectivist” stereotype and you can’t get past it.

You have your “INTELLECTUAL CONTRAPTION” stamp all inked up and no matter what I write, you’re going to use it.

And why not in a world where there are so many things that can be so demonstrated.

My point is that historically any number of moral and political objectivists insisted that the is/ought world could be construed in much the same way: right/wrong, good/evil, true/false.

And God help those who refused to become “one of us”.

You know, if there is a God.

Well, admittedly I’m not privy to the rock bottom ontological/teleological truth about existence.

But in the interim I’m willing to settle for mathematical truths, scientific truths and logical truths.

And, sure, even moral truths. If they are in fact demonstrated to exist.

But it always still revolves around “I”. As I construe this in being a moral nihilist. Here and now. In other words, “I” could come to believe that there are objective moral truths. But how would “I” then go about demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it too?

Actually, I partially did … to which you responded with no content.

That’s because you don’t have the same standard for the demonstrations:

Someone refuses to accept that humans landed on the moon : Refuses to accept pictures, video, eye-witness testimony. Dimwit.

Someone thinks that all human life on the planet ought to be exterminated : Well you can’t argue with that, it’s a value judgement. You can’t demonstrate that it’s a crazy idea. Perfectly rational person.
#-o

At some point, you dismiss one guy as a nutter, but the other guy is never a nutter no matter what.

Well, a determinist who focuses centally Dasein cannot logically believe in rationality. All believe, not just religious ones, the determinist knows he or she is compelled to have and compelled to think they make sense. It is not necessary to add on the distortions of Dasein to this since knowing one is rational about any decision/conclusion is not possible. Knowing one has been. He loves the is ought distinction, but his own philosophy makes the distinction irrelevant and indiscernible.

Please partially do it again.

Then note why you construe my reaction as lacking in content.

In any event, the first accomplishment here would seem to revolve around demonstrating the existence of a God, the God, my God.

After all, only when this is established would we able to grapple with what He does or Does not know, and what He can or cannot do.

And then grapple further with how any mere mortal might react to this.

Indeed, in the first context, there are any number of facts that either can or cannot be established as true [objectively] for all of us. But, sure, there will always be those who insist that since they were not in the actual capsule that landed on the Moon, there’s always the possibility that the whole thing was just made up…a government conspiracy.

And, as always, there will be the solipsists. Or those who speculate that everything – everything – that we experience from day to day is really just a manifestation of some Sim world, or some cartesean demon’s dream.

And how on earth could I demonstrate otherwise?

As for the second context, yes, there may well be those who live lives so fucking miserable that, were they able to, they would readily push the button that blew up the planet.

And how on earth would you go about demonstrating that, philosophically, such a behavior is necessarily irrational and immoral? In a No God world.

The irony here being that, if there is a God, He brings about “extinction events” on planet earth from time to time Himself.

These things: worldatlas.com/articles/the … earth.html

And almost all scientists agree that it is not a question of whether but of when one or another Big One will bring about our own extinction.

So, when this occurs, will this be an example of God acting in a necessarily irrational and immoral manner.

Here, again, I will need you to note instances of this.

Since, in my view, with respect to God, religion, value judgments and morality, we are all only exchanging “existential contraptions” here, it would never occur to me to label someone a “nutter”. That would make me one.

On the other hand, please define a “nutter” for me.

This:

to which you responded with:

Which says basically nothing because “everything” is one of those idiot words which means practically nothing. Obviously some human thinking would revolve around God and some would not.

Then you quote me :

and you respond with :

Not responding to my questions or suggesting any ideas.

More of me:

and you responded with:

That’s not really a substantive answer is it?

My hypothetical situation consisted of God having revealed himself - no demonstrations of God’s existence would be required to discuss the situation.

So you can’t even demonstrate facts which you claim are “true for all of us”.

Therefore, facts and value judgements are in the same boat.

Nuff said.

Don’t waste your time responding.

If one were a determinist, she would have to acknowledge that her views on determinism [and God and religion and dasein and everything else] were only as they ever could have been.

Period. Immutably.

And what then would that tell us about our exchanges on this thread?

Talk about being “stuck”!!

And, indeed, it would seem ludicrous to make a distinction between the either/or and the is/ought world. Not that we would have any choice but to do so.

But that just begs the question: How exactly would we go about demonstrating this when anything that we attempt to demonstrate [using whatever methodology that we “choose”] is in turn merely a manifestation of whatever brought into existence Existence itself.

Philosophers call these things “antinomies”: “a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox.”

And this takes us back to a world created either by God [an actual teleological component that mere mortals crave], or to that legendary “brute facticity” embedded in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that for all “living” components of it ends in oblivion.

So, you tell me: which one is it?