Death Thread I: No God => Death is God.

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But which God are you talking about? I've heard of thousands of Gods, how are you so convinced that only your one God is real and the rest are not?

All theists are actually atheists - about every other religion / god / deity but their own.

Id like to contest that. All theist are atheist becouse their faith has its concreate limits, I would say.

 

[Tigranes]

By process of elimination.

Inefficient and impractical, impossible for most people. Remember, when skeptics ask how do YOU know, "you" should be replaced by any average representative of human race. If Salvation exists it should be available both to the Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy and to illiterate hardworking abused mother of 3.

If God really exists, and He is Holy, and He loves you -- He would visit your world in Person. He would go through the same suffering average and above average person has to go through in this word.

Then you can use your heart and mind to evaluate accounts of His visit.
And make moral choice to trust those accounts or dismiss them. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

 

[bhavv]

Phylosophy??? Seriously? And you wrote it twice.

Just stop.

If you're on this forum and you play Civ, there's no excuse for that double typo.

 

[El_Machinae]

Which one would that be? How do you know there's only one?

I think it's fair to just stipulate. The Hindu have it correct here, I think. They're obviously polytheist, but their faith/philosophy shows that it boils down to one. Heck, even as an atheist, I think the universe can be summarized into one set of metalaws.

If Salvation exists it should be available both to the Doctor of Phylosophy in Phylosophy and to illiterate hardworking abused mother of 3.

In principle, I agree. It's a foundational reason for my atheism (since so many arguments for God seem to rely on gullibility, or at least (more generously) aren't convincing from a variety of perspectives). Like I said, I don't think the Christian variant of God (historical errors aside) makes philosophical sense.

But, I don't think your faith even suggests that your position is wholly true. I think upthread you stipulated that there was no Salvation for animals. Animals differ from us based on genetic heritage. There is nothing a dog did for it to be unworthy of Salvation or to have Salvation unavailable, it was just deemed so billions of years ago as its heritage was being locked in.

The two people in your example also differ in their heritage. Why assume that the mother has the je ne sais quoi the dog apparently lacks? Why believe that an elmac (who distinguishes photons from their qualia, which is (I think) a reasonable position) even has Salvation available?

It requires the assumption that people are 'special' in the same metaphysical way. That's just not something you can know, really. There's also no way to look at a dog and know that Salvation is not available to it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Remember, when sceptics ask how do YOU know

avoid answering that question in any shape or form and just keep on trucking and talking as if YOU know.

 

[Borachio]

A sceptic is someone whose thirst for truth is higher than that of the believer.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

A sceptic is someone whose thirst for truth is higher than that of the believer.

Men cooks better than women.

 

[Borachio]

Do they? They might for all I know. Though I doubt it.


But how is that relevant? Is it just a random statement of belief?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Phylosophy??? Seriously? And you wrote it twice.

Just stop.

If you're on this forum and you play Civ, there's no excuse for that double typo.

Maybe he plays as an Inca and finishes before philosophy?

Anyway he is making mistakes but has a good expression and style...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Do they? They might for all I know. Though I doubt it.


But how is that relevant? Is it just a random statement of belief?

You made a statement so did I. Usually I would expect something to support your statement to take it seriously. There can easily be lazy sceptic and eager believer

 

[Borachio]

Well. Maybe.

I just wrote what I thought was a maybe truthful pithy aphorism. You don't have to like it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well. Maybe.

I just wrote what I thought was a maybe truthful pithy aphorism. You don't have to like it.

The way you wrote it its simply neither pithy or truthful. If you would add "may be" than I would say: yeah, he has a good point, sceptics can be someone whose thirst for truth is higher than that of the believer but the way you have written it you are giving it absolute value and put it in the stone - almost as if replacing one dogma with another.

 

[Tigranes]

Phylosophy??? Seriously? And you wrote it twice.

Just stop.

If you're on this forum and you play Civ, there's no excuse for that double typo.

Look, dude. It's easy to fix typos. They exist for people like you to take an issue with typos on gaming forum. If you can do something more substantial -- try to do it on your own expense. Don't be gramanazy. You got the message -- that's all I care about, vateva.

 

[Borachio]

The way you wrote it its simply neither pithy or truthful. If you would add "may be" than I would say: yeah, he has a good point, sceptics can be someone whose thirst for truth is higher than that of the believer but the way you have written it you are giving it absolute value and put it in the stone - almost as if replacing one dogma with another.

OK. Aren't you going to qualify your own statements with a maybe, then?

you are giving it absolute value and put it in the stone

Absolutely nothing I say has an absolute value. Why would anyone think it has? Given my reputation for being almost infallibly wrong?

Pithy my statement most certainly was. I can't see how anyone could dispute that.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

OK. Aren't you going to qualify your own statements with a maybe, then?



Absolutely nothing I say has an absolute value. Why would anyone think it has? Given my reputation for being almost infallibly wrong?

Pithy my statement most certainly was. I can't see how anyone could dispute that.

Yes to both.

 

[Tigranes]

I think upthread you stipulated that there was no Salvation for animals. Animals differ from us based on genetic heritage. There is nothing a dog did for it to be unworthy of Salvation or to have Salvation unavailable, it was just deemed so billions of years ago as its heritage was being locked in.

Never said that, but saying it now. Yes. Dogs don't need to be saved. Carrot is living material flesh. Dog is living flesh with material brain and immaterial soul -- it can have intelligence, emotions, and the will (essence of soul). El_Machine is living flesh with material brain and immaterial soul -- he can have intelligence, emotions, AND, he has a spirit, his moral compass. Dog cannot go right or wrong in the eyes of the Holy God, El_Machine can (and does (more often than he realizes even) ). One doesn't need Salvation if one has no spirit.

As for your philosophical objections against Christianity, or God in general, -- bring it up, one item at a time. My line of thought is documented in the most widely available
script ever existed on this planet. So you know ahead of time what I have to say in essence. I have much harder time knowing ahead of the time about your line of thought. At best you leave pretty eclectic impression on me.

 

[Borachio]

What's the difference between the functioning physical brain, the so-called immaterial soul, and the spirit (which I presume is also "immaterial")?

Can you show me examples of these last two? What makes you think either of them exists?

What is the mechanism whereby the immaterial can interact with the material? How is information transferred between them?

 

[warpus]

My line of thought is documented in the most widely available script ever existed on this planet. So you know ahead of time what I have to say in essence.

Not true, different people will interpret the text differently. Some will take it all to be all allegory and metaphors, others will take it all to be literal, while most will view it to be a mix of both.. but what kind of mix you don't know until you talk to them.

 

[El_Machinae]

Reordered quotation for convenience

At best you leave pretty eclectic impression on me.

I am aberrant, I won't deny. Many people here would agree. I am also very sincere. I also take great pains to not be wildly wrong. Obviously, I cannot completely factor out my own stupidity, but some people try more than others.

Never said that, but saying it now. Yes. Dogs don't need to be saved. Carrot is living material flesh. Dog is living flesh with material brain and immaterial soul -- it can have intelligence, emotions, and the will (essence of soul). El_Machine is living flesh with material brain and immaterial soul -- he can have intelligence, emotions, AND, he has a spirit, his moral compass. Dog cannot go right or wrong in the eyes of the Holy God, El_Machine can (and does (more often than he realizes even) ). One doesn't need Salvation if one has no spirit.

Again, here is something you cannot possibly know. There is no way for you to know that elmac (please, elmac for short. The underscore is inconvenient) has a spirit but dogs don't. You're saying you know more than me about dog spirits. This just ain't true. It's the height of hubris to insist you know more. Dog spirits are not within our plane of knowledge.

As for your philosophical objections against Christianity, or God in general, -- bring it up, one item at a time. My line of thought is documented in the most widely available script ever existed on this planet.

This deals with my original objection (where I thought we were kind of agreeing). Why should it come down to a contest between my skepticism and your intelligence backed by a few hundred thousand hours of effort by theologians? I'm not unreasonably skeptical; I believe in other minds despite solopsism and ardvarks and asteroids despite never seeing them. Suppose my skepticism is reasonable (please). It's pressingly obviously that if you were VASTLY more intelligent than me, you could smoothtalk your way around my skepticism. Why is this the contest? Why did your god task you with being maximally convincing to the least clear-thinking?

As you said, "If Salvation exists it should be available both to the Doctor of Phylosophy in Phylosophy and to illiterate hardworking abused mother of 3."

But, in your system, it apparently doesn't. The non-skeptic has Salvation as much more available than the skeptic. And, I daresay, the gullible has it within more easy reach than the non-gullible. I should know, when I was younger I believed for obviously gullible reasons. If my thinking had been clearer, I'd've not fallen for the cognitive traps laid by the proselytizers.

It's not available to both. It's not available to the person that thinks Moses is a myth. It's not available to the person who wonders if Muhammed really communed to a messenger of God. You can say I am being willful, maybe. But how do you distinguish willfulness from reasonable skepticism? I am literally skeptical that the Israelites were former Egyptian slaves. Too much of your script is provably false for me to think it's 'probably correct' regarding things people could not possibly know.

The fact that it's a gullibility contest, where the mentally deficient are the most likely to believe 'appropriately' is a major objection of mine.

 

[Tigranes]

Not true, different people will interpret the text differently. Some will take it all to be all allegory and metaphors, others will take it all to be literal, while most will view it to be a mix of both.. but what kind of mix you don't know until you talk to them.

Oh, are you back? For the moment I thought I lost another soul to Ditech theologians.

On the serious note, I am glad you are here, even if only for a second. You love to travel, and I have good analogy for you. Seeking God is like seeking true north during cloudy night. With no map, or signs, or stars, or compass of any kind you can follow horizon for your lifetime and never get to the North Pole. Now if you are Roman Catholic from Rome or Anglican from England you both will arrive to the North Pole, if given the right map and working compass. Details of your journey, and parts of the map you have to highlight, may and will end up being very different. Details are irrelevant, getting closer to the true north is (El_machine is welcome to take an issue with South Magnetic Pole not being exactly positioned in the North Pole ).


Seeking God is a lifelong experience for every believer and unbeliever alike. While alive, you never get there like you never get to the line of the horizon. Seeking truth and love, pursuing happiness. That's the purpose of life, even if you don't realize it. God is a Spirit of Living Truth and Living Love. St. Thomas Aquinas asserts that every soul is hungry for true purpose and true happiness. You find them in God. Your Creator tells you about your true purpose, your Heavenly Father gives you true love. That's how you can still pursue happiness whether you are illiterate hardworking abused mother of 3, or Professor of Theology. Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.