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

Not a single word of my OP depends on "scientism".
This is simply not true because you are always demanding scientific evidence.
Asking for scientific evidences in a metaphysical topic like the concept of God is exactly what followers of Scientism do.
You're a follower of Scientism in denial.
You're a follower of two flawed metaphysical positions: Atheism and Scientism.
Atheism while being a metaphysical position (where the only axiom is the very conclusion) denies the existence of metaphysical beings. This is pure non sense.
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

Throwing silly labels around is just another way of avoiding the challenges of the OP. Page 21 now.
It's not a silly label, is a verifiable fact. Just compare your position with the definition of Scientism.
Actually you're now projecting your own denial to me. I already answered, line by line, your OP. You can say you don't agree with my answers but you can't say I'd avoided your OP.
Denial is the most basic mechanism of defense in a deluded mind. Denial is followed by projection.
You're a follower of Scientism, cofty.
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

Still off on irrelevant philosophical tangents. The OP is about 9 simple observations. Nothing you have said since begins to address them.
Interesting, I thought your denial was only restricted to the fact that you are a follower of Scientism.
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.