And with that you're now just declaring that your story (Catholic style?) is the be-all-end-all really real truth, incidentally contrary to ... — jorndoe

Man, now you`re just preaching.

In other words, the conclusion isn't God(s) don't exist, it's that if they exist they apparently don't care to set the record straight as to who if anyone is speaking on their behalf, and so probably aren't authorizing most if not all of these contradictory proselytizers to speak on their behalf at all. If they even exist. — Pfhorrest

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together, and you were not willing.

How exactly would God go about "authorizing those speaking on his behalf"? What kind of certificate would be sufficient and foolproof? Jorndoe would quibble even if the Monty Python God (from the Holy Grail, clouds parting, big crown) were to admonish him about that. People hallucinate, after all. What is the solution here?

It looks like this is an unfalsifiable quibble. If it is falsifiable, perhaps someone can offer a circumstance which would falsify it.

(And, by the way, even if it were absolutely correct, it would have zero bearing on the ethics of preaching. As pointed out earlier, if someone believes he has something good to communicate to others, why shouldn't he, as long as he respects the wishes of others to not listen to him?)

(Microscope deprecated here.) — jorndoe

If it is unnecessary for the larger argument, just say so.

Are any of these words of authoritative absent gods, preached by people claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf? — jorndoe

Yep, for the most part.

Ever looked at Supreme Court discussions? If you don't realize that they are "referring to authoritative absent gods, claiming to speak authentically and legitimately on their behalf", then you should explore the notion of "gods" in more detail.

Nobody ever has a moment (that I can recall... open to Bible quotes showing otherwise) of suddenly having the existence of God revealed to them by himself. — Pfhorrest

That is probably more damning for the modern man's consciousness than for the ancients. They also did not record any "sudden realization" that water is wet -- though you may be sure they realized it independently, without instruction from teachers.

I wrote a thread in the old PF about how modern man is unequipped to understand what "God's existence" refers to. A thorough reboot of the system is required -- a reboot consisting of shedding preconceptions (not specifically about God, but about the "real world").

A new and perhaps more depressing thread would be about how our schooling methods have a lot of responsibility in this. They make a desert and call it heaven, and then they get surprised at the ever-increasing hikes in suicide rates..

Abraham heard of God without reading a text. So did Isaac. So did Jacob. Sure, the children heard of God from Abraham, but they also had direct revelations.

The same applies to Noah. Or to Moses. Or to Samson. Or to David. Or to Salomon. Keep moving until the 21st century (i.e. beyond the Old and New Testaments) and you will always find reports (actually lots of them) of direct revelations.

The idea that a direct revelation somehow "does not count" because the recipient had heard about God once before requires a separate argument for it. I have no idea about what would this argument look like; and I'm pretty confident that it would also mean that countries, laws, traditions, habits, etc. etc. would not "count". Leading to an untenable situation.

no reports of Yahweh having informed a group of people of Him — jorndoe

Really?

No reports?

This, to my mind, is equivalent to "there are no bugs in my house". Have you bothered to look for them?

Perhaps you mean "no credible reports". Which would open the door to a discussion on standards of credibility. Probably off-topic.

But if you truly mean "no reports", you haven't bothered to look for them. (One of the great places to look for them, curiously enough, is the Bible. But there are others).

As for the larger argument, if someone has something [that he perceives as] good and wishes more people to have that, what is the problem? As long as no one's freedoms are being trampled, that is. (We are not talking about the cartoon version of missionaries).

Let me just run this by you folk:

the Biblical Yahweh is only known from manmade scriptures — jorndoe

Er, where is the evidence for that?

Curiously, Scripture is chock full of people who knew Yahweh without the aid of manmade scriptures. And so are the stories of the saints, up to contemporary people.

This first bullet of your argument ran into a huge brick wall for me, so I would like to know more about your justification for it before proceeding.

It is all going downhill, even the anti-religious posters.

Theology = the logos of the theos = the discourse about the Divine.

Philosophy of religion, on the other hand, is about religion, i.e. about the efforts of people to relate to the Divine. One of the ways on which people relate to the Divine (particularly in the Greek tradition to which we are heirs) is by argumentation, by talking about the Divine (i.e. by doing theology), so there is an overlap between the two notions, but the difference of approach is quite evident.

Yes. You tell the truth in such a way that your interlocutor disbelieves it.

In other words, you introduce a divergence between the spoken and the non-verbal language. People usually go for the non-verbal, and therefore disbelieve the spoken.

A skill mastered by many teenagers.

For the record, I don't think you are a low life. It is strange that you think that an analysis of your stance is so momentous.

In reply to your questions:

I agree that Assange has been charged with crimes by the United States.

[Whether the court system of the US is synonymous with "the United States" is another can of worms, but let's leave this to the side for now].

I agree that IF Assange is legally extradited to the US, you want him to receive a fair trial.

I agree that IF he is found guilty, you want him to receive the punishment mandated by law.

I agree that IF not convicted, you want to see him release immediately...and transported to the country of his choosing.

But you are still insisting on not looking to the substantial issues, focusing only on the procedural issues (which is why you have a double standard).

Suppose Brazil had a law against posts made by people called Francisco.

Suppose you were charged with crimes according to this law.

Would you accept extradition from the US to Brazil, in order to be tried (very fairly, as fairly as a court can do), to be released in the case that you proved that your name is actually Francis?

I am using ridiculous examples to underline the weakness of the legalistic argument ("if a law is being followed according to the procedures, there is nothing wrong going on"). Perhaps Assange ought not to be extradited because his indictment is unjust, even though procedurally legal. This should be discussed by anyone who wants to understand the Assange situation. And insisting that the procedures are being followed as if this were enough to settle the matter cannot but reveal a double standard, since I'm quite sure you would not accept analogous situations (already presented), even though procedures were being followed flawlessly.

One can argue that, but in arguing it he is abandoning the legalistic principle ("if a law requires it, it must be done") which I perceived (perhaps erroneously) in Frank Apisa's defense of Assange's treatment, embodied in sentences such as "he was indicted by a US court of law, I think he must be judged there".

When someone says that laws X are worse than laws Y, he is already judging them by some other standard (in this case, an ethical standard). If you use an ethical standard (only one!) to judge the law systems of the world, you will reach different conclusions. But if you use the legalistic standard ("if it is [procedurally] legal, then it is ok"), it must be accepted in the Iranian case as well.

Don't you think this line of argument absolves religion too? Religion is also "just a method" -- the method of connecting man to the divine. That people who followed some of these methods once murdered people is not an indictment of "religion".

It was addressed to you.

And if the analogy isn't clear, that is worrisome.

You said that you were fine with the treatment of Assange because you trust the law system of your country.

If an Iranian treated Rushdie according to the law system of his country, would you think it ok?

If you would not, then you have a double standard. You think that the law system of the US is worth more than the law system of Iran.

The legalistic argument in defense of Assange's treatment breaks down. One can support that treatment because one thinks he is a criminal (and laws be damned!), but not because "Law systems ought to be respected" (unless he is fine with the Rushdie execution as well).

This is the best video I've seen explaining the theory of relativity. Give it a look.

Would you accept it in stride if some Iranian murdered Salman Rushdie in London, claiming that he had faith in the Iranian legal system, and that the Iranian legal system allowed Iranian citizens to murder people in other countries if there was a proclaimed fatwa?

I did not say (or think) that you are a hypocrite.

Another example: Salman Rushdie's fatwa was perfectly legal according to the Iranian laws.

Pinochet's prison was obviously illegal according to then-prevailing international law.

Etc.

Laws (of any country, or even international) are merely a (small) piece of the jigsaw puzzle. And if some of them are considered as of more worth than others, then we have -- by definiion -- a double standard.

I haven't got a problem. You have (if you don't want to have a double standard).

A citizen of country M is accused by people in country N. He is currently in country P, an ally of N. He is in risk of being extradited to N. He gets asylum in country Q's embassy. Later, country Q decides to revoke his asylum. Country P gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to N or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of M, as well as its own laws, but the government of M is not in a position to prevent the extradition.

Does that sound like a fair summary of Assange's position?

Now check your reaction to this scenario, in which the countries are named:

A citizen of the US is accused by people in China. He is currently in Pakistan, an ally of China. He is in risk of being extradited to China. He gets asylum in Portugal's embassy. Later, Portugal decides to revoke his asylum. Pakistan gets custody of him. It will decide whether to extradite him to China or not. In making this decision, it ought to take into account the opinion of the government of the US, as well as its own laws, but the government of the US is not in a position to prevent the extradition.

Sounds ok now?

The problem in discussing international relations with US citizens is that they often forget that they are just another country, and that their courts, government, agents, do not enjoy any special presumption of innocence. International relations is a tough game. There are no special countries.

You asked a question. I answered it. — Frank Apisa

Thereby revealing a double standard. Which is your prerogative.

Free will and determinism are complementary notions, one does not have meaning without the other.

Yep, it's all a big show.

if a court in the US decided his deportation to Ecuador were proper...away he would go. — Frank Apisa

So, wouldn't you require an Ecuadorian (or, an Australian) court to authorize the deportation to the US, in the actual scenario? That is conspicuously absent.

Note, the Ecuadorian government requested, in writing, an assurance from the UK that Assange would not be deported to places where the death penalty is a possibility (we all know who they were thinking about; it was not Iran or China).

Would this be your take if he were an American citizen who had (allegedly) engaged in crimes against Ecuador, and had received asylum in the Australian embassy in London? Would it be ok for the UK police to enter the Australian embassy, extract an American citizen from there, take him to court, and (at the end of the process) extradite him to Ecuador?

My point is this. If you are a Martian visiting Earth and observe that the Earthlings often engage in a pattern of behavior, according to which a group of them will harrass, persecute, and even kill other Earthlings, based solely on differences of opinion, you won't be able to ascertain, from that observation alone, that the persecuting group is "religious" and the persecuted group is "scientific". And you won't be able to ascertain the opposite, either. There are just too many contrary examples, whichever reductionism you elect.

The "religious x scientific" divide is, itself, an ungrounded opinion, which often rises to fanaticism. (You choose whether fanaticism is "religious" or "scientific" :D).

I was asking a question about history (since you were talking about Giordano Bruno). Do you believe that men of science never killed people because of "blasphemy laws"?

...it doesn’t change the reality of history and how theocratic states have killed men of science over the centuries due to “blasphemy”. — I like sushi

While men of science have never killed people over the centuries due to criminalization of opinion?

"Racist dog-whistle" sounds like a racist dog-whistle. Curious.

None of them would approve of the current super-surveillance-police-extortionist state.

Anyone who wants to talk about religion and culture without at the same time talking economics, politics, and social conditions is a priori ruled out of having anything meaningful whatsoever to say. — StreetlightX

An idea for another thread, perhaps: even allowing for substantial feedback between the different levels of inquiry, does it make more sense to look for explanations about "economics, politics, and social conditions" in the study of "religion and culture", or vice versa?

"The Host" also refers to the Holy Eucharist, which is why that question mark was placed in my last post.

Apparently you are no longer willing to discuss whether God is subject to experimental proof.

No, I described the established Christian view. If you disagree, you should give some sources.

Note, the "plethora of angels, demons, the Host (?), saints, miracles" does not contradict what I presented. And if you believe they do, elaborate on the reasons why you think that.

Finally, your objection is unrelated to the original concern of the OP (whether God can be discerned through examinations of the physical realm). The question is independent of the reality of angels, demons, saints, or miracles.

the search for God in the physical realm might not be as absurd as it sounds. — Jacob-B

It would be better phrased as, "the search for God's influence [or, effects] in the physical realm might not be as absurd as it sounds." Since the God of the Abrahamic faiths is, by definition, spirit (i.e., not a body), hence, not to be found in the physical realm.

It is important to note that the Abrahamic advance (over polytheism) is the principle that God is not to be confused with any physical manifestation (the Sun, warlust, sex, etc. were typical examples of divine manifestations). The Elijah sequence (1 Kings 19:11-13) is the most succinct presentation of that principle. And the epistemological result of that principle is that God is to be found within the soul of the seeker, rather than elsewhere.

The common arguments about "physical evidence for God" assume a model of the human being that is neatly divided between subject and object, between observation/inference and creativity. But the issue is not so simple -- and that is the most cogent answer to any argument about physical evidence. Concepts such as "evidence", "information", "data", "meaning", are not as simple as they sound.

(I know you're not making the argument that increased cost->increased safety, I'm just using your comment as a spring board to head off those who do) — Bliss

:up:

My impression is that he follows my suggestion rather better than I do. — unenlightened

That makes him a role model, right?

Hard to escape that one, friend.

I think my argument, such as it is, is that to orient oneself in reality according to fantasy criteria is to live in fantasy; the world in which Churchill is hero or villain - in which anyone is hero or villain - is a fantasy world, not the non-fictional world people take it for. — unenlightened

I doubt you consistently follow your own suggestion here. What do you think of Paulo Freire?

I think we need heroes and villains (role models if you wish to extract the directionality), and fiction is an excellent place to get them -- precisely because "real life" is so ambiguous.

Well, I don't know if you are arguing for "Villains do not exist" or for "everybody is a villain". I would agree with both. Which is why fictional examples are best.

Perhaps you are arguing that what we learn from studying fictionalized villains should not be used in interpreting the non-fictional world... but I don't see any argument supporting that. Sure, in the non-fictional world, no one is pure villain (or pure hero), but does that mean that we should not orient ourselves according to this spectrum of possibilities?

Perhaps they aren't. But clearly some people ask it of them.

Justice, Britain, Manhood, Oddness, etc. etc. etc.

Raising the cost of any action will result in a decrease in the amount of people willing to take it. It is the same principle that says that although any determined burglar will be able to neutralize (by killing, removing, or sedating) a watch dog if he is really interested in robbing a given home, that does not mean that the dog will not deter less determined / ruthless / prepared burglars.

That is not an argument that clinches the specific case of Trump's wall (or any other wall), of course. Cost/benefit analyses are required -- and are presumably taking place. But the point is that the goal of the proposal is not to "prevent [illegal] immigration", it is rather to raise the costs associated with it.

Good question.

I don't think that Satan is a villain, although his influence (obviously) produces villains. Satan does not want power. He (as I picture him) is more of an evil trickster than a tyrant. As for the interaction between Satan and Jesus in Matthew, I find it closer to an attempt to trip Jesus than an attempt to dominate Him.

In the "Story of Humanity" as seen by (my) Christian eyes, the villain is Man (influenced by Satan), rather than Satan himself.