God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Surely these are question you should be asking yourself aren't they?   

It seems to me you have completely ignored the following
The status of the particular God Eric the Deputy assistant God of Treasury tags or the One supreme entelechy.
That some experiences are more comprehensively transformative than others.
That they can all be true experiences of the divine.
That different religions actually make different claims which are not necessarily fundamentally exclusive.

However God obviously tickles your fancy since you are ''twisting the dragons tale'' by being on this on this website......

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

First, that’s just a “my Dad’s bigger than your Dad game”. Any of the other nine could assert their god to out-status yours.

Second, “status” tells you nothing about the cogency of an argument for the “experiencing” of one god vs another one.

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.

You’re trying to retro-fit the content of the claim to its epistemic truth. Doesn’t work – bigging up the size of the claim tells you nothing about whether that claim of an "experience" is more or less likely to be true. (It’s also the opposite of the bottom-up Feserism you espouse by the way.) 

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.

That’s not the question. The question is whether or not there’s a cogent reason to think any of you had “experienced” any of your gods.

We have discussed this before.

For the most part no we haven’t because you usually run away from the problem.

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

“Finding out for ourselves” is generally a bad way to establish objective truth because all it gives you is opinion. Your nine colleagues genuinely think just as much as you do that they have “found out for themselves”.

What makes them wrong and you right?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It seems to me you have completely ignored the following

The status of the particular God Eric the Deputy assistant God of Treasury tags or the One supreme entelechy.

It seems to me that you have ignored the status of a faith claim having nothing to say to its epistemic truth value.

That some experiences are more comprehensively transformative than others.

It seems to me that you have ignored that being “more comprehensively transformative” has nothing to say to the epistemic truth of the claim of an experience. It also by the way leaves you with a problem when other beliefs have been more transformative than your own.

That they can all be true experiences of the divine.

It seems to me that you have ignored that this “divine” would have to be hugely internally contradictory for that to be the case given the variety of faith beliefs on offer.

That different religions actually make different claims which are not necessarily fundamentally exclusive.

It seems to me that you have ignored that those same religions do make claims that are often mutually exclusive, and moreover that many of them think it a serious “sin” to buy into the claims of the others.

However God obviously tickles your fancy since you are ''twisting the dragons tale'' by being on this on this website......

And he finishes with a reification fallacy – the triple salchow of religious discussion. It’s arguments about “God”, not “God”.

How many flipping times…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, that’s just a “my Dad’s bigger than your Dad game”.

No it isn't it is about the claims of the religion. As CS Lewis has said....only Christianity has Christ.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It seems to me that you have ignored the status of a faith claim having nothing to say to its epistemic truth value.

It seems to me that you have ignored that being “more comprehensively transformative” has nothing to say to the epistemic truth of the claim of an experience. It also by the way leaves you with a problem when other beliefs have been more transformative than your own.

It seems to me that you have ignored that this “divine” would have to be hugely internally contradictory for that to be the case given the variety of faith beliefs on offer.

Or the interpretation of them has to be.

[Stranger]

No it isn't it is about the claims of the religion. As CS Lewis has said....only Christianity has Christ.

So............?

[Sassy]

Really Sass, this is such bullshit.  You think people don't change because you read something about Job.  Get real. We all change; all the time, even from moment to moment we change, we are changed by our interaction with the wider world. We learn and we grow, we do not stay the same.  This is really basic.

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So............?

The claims of Christ are that you need a saviour since command obedience is clearly impossible.
What other religion has that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It seems to me that you have ignored the status of a faith claim having nothing to say to its epistemic truth value.

It seems to me that you have ignored that being “more comprehensively transformative” has nothing to say to the epistemic truth of the claim of an experience. It also by the way leaves you with a problem when other beliefs have been more transformative than your own.

It seems to me that you have ignored that this “divine” would have to be hugely internally contradictory for that to be the case given the variety of faith beliefs on offer.

It seems to me that you have ignored that those same religions do make claims that are often mutually exclusive, and moreover that many of them think it a serious “sin” to buy into the claims of the others.

And he finishes with a reification fallacy – the triple salchow of religious discussion. It’s arguments about “God”, not “God”.

How many flipping times…

Have you refuted Feser or Nagel yet.

[Stranger]

Or the interpretation of them has to be.

So people have experiences that are interpreted in many different ways (including, we have to assume, just as experiences with no need for an external cause) - so how do we decide which is correct - or even which human experiences to include in such an assessment?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No it isn't it is about the claims of the religion. As CS Lewis has said....only Christianity has Christ.

And only Leprechaunology has Colin, the grand nabob of the fiddle players.

Look, if Fred says, "I have experienced a small dragon in my garage" and Bill says, "I have experienced a big dragon in my garage" the status of Bill's claim doesn't make him more likely to be correct than Fred. You can claim anything you like about Christ, but that tells you nothing at all about the underlying truthfulness or otherwise of the claim. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“Finding out for ourselves” is generally a bad way to establish objective truth because all it gives you is opinion. Your nine colleagues genuinely think just as much as you do that they have “found out for themselves”.

Finding out for ourselves is an aim of education. You wouldn't be back on the doctrine of psychological incompetence again would you?

[Stranger]

The claims of Christ are that you need a saviour since command obedience is clearly impossible.
What other religion has that?

Do you think that the logical absurdity of that situation combined with a loving and just god, is actually a recommendation for some reason?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The claims of Christ are that you need a saviour since command obedience is clearly impossible.

What other religion has that?

Colin is really, really good on the fiddle. What other religion has that?

You can't back-fit the content of the claim to its epistemic value - that's just your common-or-garden argumentum ad consequentiam, another of the various fallacies on this your position rests.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And only Leprechaunology has Colin, the grand nabob of the fiddle players.

 

And only Sainsbury's has a buy one box of oat crunchies get one free offer!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Have you refuted Feser or Nagel yet.

Have you told us which of their arguments you want refuted yet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Colin is really, really good on the fiddle. What other religion has that?

Look I know Colin he's a complete prick......Just like his Dad.......

Ho Ho Ha Ha He He.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Finding out for ourselves is an aim of education.

Yes, and part of that process involves finding a means to validate our findings so as to distinguish them from just guessing.

And that's your problem.

You wouldn't be back on the doctrine of psychological incompetence again would you?

That's a ludicrousness you've attempted I believe - certainly not an argument of mine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Have you told us which of their arguments you want refuted yet?

Not the trivial political ones...................................................................That's f****d you hasn't it?

[Stranger]

Have you refuted Feser or Nagel yet.

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...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Look I know Colin he's a complete prick......Just like his Dad.......

That's an analogy you want to go with is it? Children were gassed to death in Syria a couple of days ago - what would that make your non-intervening god then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, and part of that process involves finding a means to validate our findings so as to distinguish them from just guessing.

Yes validate philosophical materialism then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not the trivial political ones...................................................................That's f****d you hasn't it?

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's an analogy you want to go with is it? Children were gassed to death in Syria a couple of days ago - what would that make your non-intervening god then?

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?
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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes validate philosophical materialism then.

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.)