Posts by John_Mann

posted

496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Like I said, one that is not bound by anything, nor good, nor evil, nor his nature.
This means a very unstable being, right?
Stability is greater than instability.

Such being doesn't appeal to you (or me, for that matter), but it meets St. Anselm's axiom criteria.
No way.
Your logic is flawed and you know that.
The Christian concept of God meets the St. Anselm's criteria but your defined being not.
they are greater to you in the physical realm, but who's to say about the metaphysical domain?
Because there are necessary truths that are the same in all possible worlds, physical and metaphysical.
And the metaphysical is accessible.
You are the one saying the metaphysical world/realm/domain is not accessible or/and inexistent.
I say the metaphysical realm is more accessible than the physical realm actually. Your consciousness is metaphysical.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Can god change his nature?
No.

Can he be evil?
No.
Does he give himself that choice?

No.
How do you know?
Several independent sources.
But in this case I'm just using the first axiom from St. Anselm's ontological argument.
Stability is greater than instability, remember?

Was he evil in the past?

No.
Has he regreted it?
No.
That is, if we go by your flawed logic.
I'm following the St. Anselm's ontological argument.
The St. Anselm's ontological argument is a logical argument.
Please use logic to prove his logical argument is flawed. I challenge you.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Flexibility is greater than inflexibility
Flexibility it's not "bound by nothing".
Choice is greater than no choice.
You don't need to be" bound by nothing" in order to have choice.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

That means you have crafted a god according to your wishes.
No.
I'm bound by the first axiom of St. Anselm's ontological argument.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Well, here's the thing: I can think of a being that isn't bound by anything.
A being like this could turn to evil by random whim.
This would be a very unstable being.
Stability is greater than instability.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

In my view, a god that doesn't clearly, universally and unequivocally reveals himself to the creatures he requests worship from, isn't worth wasting time with.
If a god is something "that than which nothing greater can be thought", then god should be the epitome of clarity, transparency and uncontroversial truth. None of the above applies to the purported god of christianity.
But it's exactly like this, clearly as crystal.
"Fax mentis incendium gloriae" and "Memo bis punitor delicatum". Like Willy Wonka said. LoL
But while one stands in revolt and denial only a black cloud is visible.
Don't let the Watchtower fill your vision with revolt. If so you will continue being a slave.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

Like it or not, the Christian worldview is consistent.
Very consistent.
Actually is the most consistent philosophical worldview that I know.
And I know a lot of philosophical worldviews.
Atheism and Scientism are the most flawed. Even more than JWism.
77
Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.
by towerwatchman in
1. watchtower
2. bible
interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.
John_Mann

Looks like the trinity concept belongs to the workings of the human mind.
The human mind only perceives and understand reality through itself.
So yes, the concept of Trinity is a map to understand the territory.
But the map it's not the territory.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

My OP does not require a formal argument in reply. It just invites an informal conversation. I offer 9 examples of observable things that don't easily reconcile the with the claims of Christians.
You have hidden from inconvenient truths behind tons of incoherent and untestable assertions.
The one paltry attempt you did make to directly address the problem was truly pathetic.
Just your opinion, cofty.
A truly honest and sincere position must offer something very clear in turn.
You offer Atheism that ironically is also a metaphysical position (you advocates against metaphysics).
And you also offer Scientism that's another metaphysical position. This one you even deny to advocate. Are you using the BK tactic? (just kidding, I know it's not your intention and I really think you aren't even aware of being a follower of Scientism).
Both things you offer are pure non sense IMHO. And your very position is very contradictory because you use metaphysics to deny/refute metaphysics.
Agnosticism is a much more consistent position, for example.
I know you think Catholicism is pure non sense but it's just your metaphysical opinion too.
In the end we're still agreeing in disagree. But I think you're a very intelligent man and I have a lot of respect for you and as I said before you're the best of your kind in this forum.
496
This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
by cofty in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann

No I'm asking for reasonable responses to a few common sense observations.
By common sense you mean statistical consensus?
Everything I said is completely unreasonable?
Do you understand that's a subjective opinion of you, right?
I'm trying to put my reasoning in a formal logical structure so you can point to an exact axiom and say "I don't accept this".
Just saying that my entire argument is unreasonable it's not a meaningful thing to affirm. You must point it out where exactly the structure falls.
My starting point is the St. Anselm's ontological argument. Please point out the flaws in it.