Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[Davian]

Just to make things even more complicated, I think happiness and truth go hand in hand. Let me quote you something super duper fascinating by Nietzsche:

This unconditional will to truth—what is it? Is it the will not to allow oneself to be deceived? Or is it the will not to deceive? For the will to truth could be interpreted in the second way, too—if only the special case "I do not want to deceive myself" is subsumed under the generalization "I do not want to deceive." But why not deceive? But why not allow oneself to be deceived?

Note that the reasons for the former principle belong to an altogether different realm from those for the second. One does not want to allow oneself to be deceived because one assumes it is harmful, dangerous, calamitous to be deceived. In this sense, science would be a long-range prudence, a caution, a utility; but one could object in al fairness: How is that? Is wanting not to allow oneself to be deceived really less harmful, less langerous, less calamitous? What do you know in advance of the character of existence to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditional mistrust or of the unconditionally trusting?

[...]

But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine.—But what if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie—if God himself should prove to be our most enduring lie?— The Gay Science​

I'm the dude who still believes that "truth is divine," i.e., that truth leads to happy places.

A nice presupposition if you can hold onto it.

If this isn't the case (if truth ultimately isn't optimistic, which for the theist can easily be so because God created the universe and has, hopefully, a good intention for it all in the end), "why not deceive?" It's only in an atheistic universe, or (more trickily validated) a universe without God

What is so tricky about that? Define your god, and ask someone else to see if it is there.

but one where truth ultimately leads to great places (without God you can't really say the truth leads anywhere beyond its immediate context), where the question of dividing truth from happiness is possible.

As I am not aware of "God" as anything other than a character in a book, I do not see what it has to do with truth.

Because with theism,

...with what you believe...

there is something tied up in truth that is godly, and the godly, after all, is what should make you the most happy, should be happiness.

Does it, for you?

So why are you in this forum? I would think you would want to keep something like that away from the statement of purpose for this forum, lest it get some holes poked in it.

 

[Received]

Davian, do you agree with the Nietzsche quote?

 

[Davian]

Davian, do you agree with the Nietzsche quote?

No.

 

[Colter]

I don't know how improbable it is, but I see no reason to believe in God.

But if I were to give arguments to think God might be unlikely, I could. It depends on the God you believe in though.

I'm not sure it even makes sense to talk about a timeless/spaceless mind. I suppose you could say it is mind-like because it acts on values, but where do the values come from?

I don't see any reason to think there's any reliable communication between religious people and God. They either slowly develop morals like everyone, or are morally backwards. Of course there are some liberal Christians, but there are liberal atheists too. Why don't people, who can talk to an omniscient being, consistently show moral and non-moral knowledge way beyond anyone else? And why doesn't God tell them how to convince others?

Also, where is this God? Can he not show himself in a clear way, or does he not care to? Where is he when people suffer and die? Is he limited or uncaring?

If I'm wrong, I want to know. I don't want to hurt people by being immoral, and it would be nice to know the truth. As I lost faith I cried many times, begging God to give me faith. Silence.

I'm not saying these points prove there is no God (I doubt you could prove it if it were true), I'm just saying that's why I'm that way inclined.

What do you think of the above?



Just asking.

This God can be found in your own heart, but to know it you must truly want to find it.

I do wonder why it is obvious to me but not to others? We take our own unlikely existence in the universe for granted while denying the existence of a mind behind the creation of mind. We demand that God prove himself when we can't even explain ourselves to our own satisfaction.

Did the building blocks of mater put up such resistance to the eventuation of conscious beings?

"Our Father is not in hiding; he is not in arbitrary seclusion. He has mobilized the resources of divine wisdom in a never-ending effort to reveal himself to the children of his universal domains. There is an infinite grandeur and an inexpressible generosity connected with the majesty of his love which causes him to yearn for the association of every created being who can comprehend, love, or approach him; and it is, therefore, the limitations inherent in you, inseparable from your finite personality and material existence, that determine the time and place and circumstances in which you may achieve the goal of the journey of mortal ascension and stand in the presence of the Father at the center of all things.

Although the approach to the Paradise presence of the Father must await your attainment of the highest finite levels of spirit progression, you should rejoice in the recognition of the ever-present possibility of immediate communion with the bestowal spirit of the Father so intimately associated with your inner soul and your spiritualizing self.

The mortals of the realms of time and space may differ greatly in innate abilities and intellectual endowment, they may enjoy environments exceptionally favorable to social advancement and moral progress, or they may suffer from the lack of almost every human aid to culture and supposed advancement in the arts of civilization; but the possibilities for spiritual progress in the ascension career are equal to all; increasing levels of spiritual insight and cosmic meanings are attained quite independently of all such sociomoral differentials of the diversified material environments on the evolutionary worlds." UB 1955
​

 

[BL2KTN]

Still waiting on those answers, Received.

 

[bhsmte]

Just to make things even more complicated, I think happiness and truth go hand in hand. Let me quote you something super duper fascinating by Nietzsche:

This unconditional will to truth—what is it? Is it the will not to allow oneself to be deceived? Or is it the will not to deceive? For the will to truth could be interpreted in the second way, too—if only the special case "I do not want to deceive myself" is subsumed under the generalization "I do not want to deceive." But why not deceive? But why not allow oneself to be deceived?

Note that the reasons for the former principle belong to an altogether different realm from those for the second. One does not want to allow oneself to be deceived because one assumes it is harmful, dangerous, calamitous to be deceived. In this sense, science would be a long-range prudence, a caution, a utility; but one could object in al fairness: How is that? Is wanting not to allow oneself to be deceived really less harmful, less langerous, less calamitous? What do you know in advance of the character of existence to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of the unconditional mistrust or of the unconditionally trusting?

[...]

But you will have gathered what I am driving at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine.—But what if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie—if God himself should prove to be our most enduring lie?— The Gay Science​

I'm the dude who still believes that "truth is divine," i.e., that truth leads to happy places. If this isn't the case (if truth ultimately isn't optimistic, which for the theist can easily be so because God created the universe and has, hopefully, a good intention for it all in the end), "why not deceive?" It's only in an atheistic universe, or (more trickily validated) a universe without God but one where truth ultimately leads to great places (without God you can't really say the truth leads anywhere beyond its immediate context), where the question of dividing truth from happiness is possible. Because with theism, there is something tied up in truth that is godly, and the godly, after all, is what should make you the most happy, should be happiness.

What do you take away from Nietzsche's quote?

 

[Davian]

This God can be found in your own heart, but to know it you must truly want to find it.

That sounds like an exercise in self-deception.

I do wonder why it is obvious to me but not to others?

Absence of evidence.

We take our own unlikely existence in the universe for granted while denying the existence of a mind behind the creation of mind.

I am not denying it, I am skeptical of unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims.

We demand that God prove himself

I do not demand proof. I ask for something, small, testable, to show that we are not simply talking about characters in books.

when we can't even explain ourselves to our own satisfaction.

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

Did the building blocks of mater put up such resistance to the eventuation of conscious beings?

Your question is nonsensical. The "building blocks of matter" do not have intent.

"Our Father is not in hiding; he is not in arbitrary seclusion. He has mobilized the resources of divine wisdom in a never-ending effort to reveal himself to the children of his universal domains. There is an infinite grandeur and an inexpressible generosity connected with the majesty of his love which causes him to yearn for the association of every created being who can comprehend, love, or approach him; and it is, therefore, the limitations inherent in you, inseparable from your finite personality and material existence, that determine the time and place and circumstances in which you may achieve the goal of the journey of mortal ascension and stand in the presence of the Father at the center of all things.

Although the approach to the Paradise presence of the Father must await your attainment of the highest finite levels of spirit progression, you should rejoice in the recognition of the ever-present possibility of immediate communion with the bestowal spirit of the Father so intimately associated with your inner soul and your spiritualizing self.

The mortals of the realms of time and space may differ greatly in innate abilities and intellectual endowment, they may enjoy environments exceptionally favorable to social advancement and moral progress, or they may suffer from the lack of almost every human aid to culture and supposed advancement in the arts of civilization; but the possibilities for spiritual progress in the ascension career are equal to all; increasing levels of spiritual insight and cosmic meanings are attained quite independently of all such sociomoral differentials of the diversified material environments on the evolutionary worlds." UB 1955
​

 

[Received]

What do you take away from Nietzsche's quote?

That the association of truth with happiness is influenced by theism -- hence "God is truth,...truth is divine." Thing is, you can't know the "end" of the truth simply because nobody has reached the end. Therefore it becomes a matter of faith that truth is ultimately a good thing. This faith makes perfect sense connected to a narrative that "the truth shall set you free," i.e., the more truth you have, the better. But in an atheistic universe, anyone who adheres to the idea of truth as ultimately a good thing is really holding onto the residue of a dead God. It might as well be the case that truth leads to negativity. But wait: that would be a faith as well, which atheism is ferociously against. Therefore the most fitting perspective of truth for atheism is that it's just a contextual thing: it might work well for you in situation A, or bad in situation B, but you can't really know if truth is intrinsically good or bad simply because of your finitude -- the further you get down the truth path and conclude it's good or bad, who's to say that a little further down the path you might change your opinion?

I think this is an absolutely staggeringly insightful thought (I almost said "post") by Nietzsche, and one of the best in the entire book (one of his very best).

 

[Received]

Asking a question in response to my questions provides me with zero information as to your beliefs, the point of the questions. It is like seeing a question about George Washington on a test and responding to it with a question about molecules. It is nonsense.

The point of an argument isn't to know the individual's personal beliefs, because arguments aren't about the people arguing, but about propositions and reasoning. To make it about people is to make it no different than a celebrity interview. Asking a question in response to your question is one way of doing this. In my case it summarized what I saw as the essence of your argument and presented it back as a dichotomy. You disagreed with the question by saying "no". You didn't say, "no, I disagree with how the question is even worded." You said "no". And you have the ridiculous spleen to assume I have ulterior motives: a completely unproven assumption. It's called Socratic questioning, BL. Get with the program.

You don't really believe in what you say. You defend it and you hang on to it, but you know it unravels under real scrutiny.

If you claim to know this, then why the hell do you keep on arguing with me? To boost your testosterone?

 

[Jack Jackson]

Fair enough…

Clearly and concisely in lay terminology (though I don’t mind if you add detail) can you answer me a few questions? (Because I find ostentatious language a bit distracting and non-substantial to conversing in a meaningful way) I know you’ve answered this but I would rather just ask again and start this conversation from that point.

Religion:

1.) Why do you believe in the Christian god and/or Christ? What led you to your belief, and why?

2.) You speak as though you are fascinated by the concept of god (correct me if wrong), why is that?

3.) This isn’t a notion I prescribe myself to, (or that the truth can be put in such context, and I personally hate ‘truth’ being used as a noun) You seem (correct me if wrong) to define god as your ‘personal truth to things’ (that’s not a quote, just a paraphrasing of how you have talked) Why is that, what led you to that conclusion?


Existentialism: I really only one question here, and I only ask because the definition of this word is so loosely defined and can be interpreted in a number of ways.

1.) Do you think (from within your own thoughts) that it’s possible to find objective morality outside of the faculties of religion? Why or Why not?

In general:

1.) What value or reason do you find in debating with others?


Any of this I really just ask because I’m curious. You talk as a (seemingly) very articulated person, and that’s something I find uncommon (from personal experience) with people of faith and/or religion, it’s the level of description more than anything. For now, that’s all I really have to ask, and you’re more than welcome to ask me anything in return.

 

[Davian]

...
It's called Socratic questioning, BL. Get with the program.
...

 

[BL2KTN]

The point of an argument isn't to know the individual's personal beliefs, because arguments aren't about the people arguing, but about propositions and reasoning.

1. There was no argument.
2. I asked questions to determine your propositions being made, thinking that your beliefs and propositions matched.

To make it about people is to make it no different than a celebrity interview.

I simply wanted to know what you meant by "God". Thus I asked for a clarification of the term.

Asking a question in response to your question is one way of doing this. In my case it summarized what I saw as the essence of your argument and presented it back as a dichotomy.

So because I requested you clarify the term "God", you invented an argument I hadn't made, found the essence of the imaginary argument, and presented the imaginary argument's essence back to me as a false dichotomy.

I don't think anyone could mishandle being asked questions about a term any more flamboyantly than you have. It has been astonishingly ridiculous. Please feel free to cease the ridiculousness by answering the questions.

You disagreed with the question by saying "no". You didn't say, "no, I disagree with how the question is even worded." You said "no". And you have the ridiculous spleen to assume I have ulterior motives: a completely unproven assumption.

We're closing in or have passed ten pages of you avoiding answering the questions. It doesn't take much spleen to figure out why.

It's called Socratic questioning, BL. Get with the program.

Can you find in a reference to Socratric Questioning the method you have used: avoid clarification of term by assuming someone else's unstated argument, determine unstated argument's essence, ask questions about assumed, unstated argument essence without clarifying term, refuse to clarify term, pout that other person won't continue without clarification of the term, stall, banter, pout some more.

I'd love to see that.

If you claim to know this, then why the hell do you keep on arguing with me? To boost your testosterone?

I'm still waiting for the terms to be clarified.

Please answer the original questions. I'll be happy to submit to your script once you've done so.

 

[Received]

1. There was no argument.
2. I asked questions to determine your propositions being made, thinking that your beliefs and propositions matched.

Is this with the intent of arguing or the intent of finding my personal beliefs? If the latter, you're going against the point of these forums (to discuss, not interview).

So because I requested you clarify the term "God", you invented an argument I hadn't made, found the essence of the imaginary argument, and presented the imaginary argument's essence back to me as a false dichotomy.

I don't think anyone could mishandle being asked questions about a term any more flamboyantly than you have. It has been astonishingly ridiculous. Please feel free to cease the ridiculousness by answering the questions.

If the essence was imaginary, the correct grammatical thing to say would be, "no, you got my argument wrong," not "no". "No" doesn't imply that I got your argument wrong; it implies you agreed with one part of my question, thereby prompting me to respond further, which I did, which would therefore put the emphasis on you to respond, which didn't happen. The fact that you responded "no" without clarification because you thought without evidence that I have an ulterior motive doesn't magically change the meaning of the "no" from "no" to "no, I disagree with your summary."

Not as ridiculous as your lack of emotional intelligence. Anyone with a millisecond of thought can see that statements just like the second paragraph are going to invite the opposite response in *anyone*. But, again magically, you expect me to take the provocation submissively. Lower your steroid dose, BL.

We're closing in or have passed ten pages of you avoiding answering the questions. It doesn't take much spleen to figure out why.

We're closing in on ten pages of you not understanding how to use the word "no".

Can you find in a reference to Socratric Questioning the method you have used: avoid clarification of term by assuming someone else's unstated argument, determine unstated argument's essence, ask questions about assumed, unstated argument essence without clarifying term, refuse to clarify term, pout that other person won't continue without clarification of the term, stall, banter, pout some more.

I'd love to see that.

All that would be conditional on you knowing how to use the term "no". Seriously.

I'm still waiting for the terms to be clarified.

Please answer the original questions. I'll be happy to submit to your script once you've done so.

Funny, I was thinking the exact thing with how you used the term "no".

But one thing is certain about this exchange, and that's how I've never had such a thrilling conversation over the use of the word "no" before. I'm getting much more out of this than you're getting out of me not responding.

 

[bhsmte]

Is this with the intent of arguing or the intent of finding my personal beliefs? If the latter, you're going against the point of these forums (to discuss, not interview).



If the essence was imaginary, the correct grammatical thing to say would be, "no, you got my argument wrong," not "no". "No" doesn't imply that I got your argument wrong; it implies you agreed with one part of my question, thereby prompting me to respond further, which I did, which would therefore put the emphasis on you to respond, which didn't happen. The fact that you responded "no" without clarification because you thought without evidence that I have an ulterior motive doesn't magically change the meaning of the "no" from "no" to "no, I disagree with your summary."

Not as ridiculous as your lack of emotional intelligence. Anyone with a millisecond of thought can see that statements just like the second paragraph are going to invite the opposite response in *anyone*. But, again magically, you expect me to take the provocation submissively. Lower your steroid dose, BL.



We're closing in on ten pages of you not understanding how to use the word "no".



All that would be conditional on you knowing how to use the term "no". Seriously.



Funny, I was thinking the exact thing with how you used the term "no".

But one thing is certain about this exchange, and that's how I've never had such a thrilling conversation over the use of the word "no" before. I'm getting much more out of this than you're getting out of me not responding.

The OP does say to ask you stuff.

 

[Received]

The OP does say to ask you stuff.

True. However, my intention with the OP was to start a debate, given that this is a debate forum (not an interview one), and plenty of other posters (including yourself) have responded in debating style. I'll edit this into the OP. That said, regardless of this, the problem still revolves around the question of "no".

 

[bhsmte]

True. However, my intention with the OP was to start a debate, given that this is a debate forum (not an interview one), and plenty of other posters (including yourself) have responded in debating style. I'll edit this into the OP. That said, regardless of this, the problem still revolves around the question of "no".

Well, I am not going to get in the middle of your thing with Blue, but I am a big question asker myself. To learn and to form a foundation for discussion, I believe we have to ask pointed questions, so we know what we are dealing with in regards to defining where the other person is coming from, as opposed to making assumptions about the other person's position.

Just my opinion.

 

[Received]

Well, I am not going to get in the middle of your thing with Blue, but I am a big question asker myself. To learn and to form a foundation for discussion, I believe we have to ask pointed questions, so we know what we are dealing with in regards to defining where the other person is coming from, as opposed to making assumptions about the other person's position.

Just my opinion.

I have no qualms with BL asking a question. I have qualms with 1) his response of "no" to my question in response, which on its face implies he disagreed with the content of the question and not the way it was asked (as a summary and reflection of his previous statement), 2) his assumption I have ulterior motives (which would, if true, validate his use of "no"), 3) the belief that you can't respond to a question with another question, i.e., rejection of socratic questioning as a debate style, and 4) his emotionally provocative use of "just answer the question", etc., which is really a form of argumentative bullying.

 

[BL2KTN]

Is this with the intent of arguing or the intent of finding my personal beliefs? If the latter, you're going against the point of these forums (to discuss, not interview).

This question is pointless as you already know the reason of the questions: clarification of the term.

If the essence was imaginary, the correct grammatical thing to say would be, "no, you got my argument wrong," not "no".

There was no argument, there was a request for term clarification.

"No" doesn't imply that I got your argument wrong; it implies you agreed with one part of my question, thereby prompting me to respond further, which I did, which would therefore put the emphasis on you to respond, which didn't happen.

No means no.

The fact that you responded "no" without clarification because you thought without evidence that I have an ulterior motive doesn't magically change the meaning of the "no" from "no" to "no, I disagree with your summary."

It took several pages of blathering before I realized the "ulterior motive" (your words not mine). Let's not confuse the timeline.

Not as ridiculous as your lack of emotional intelligence. Anyone with a millisecond of thought can see that statements just like the second paragraph are going to invite the opposite response in *anyone*. But, again magically, you expect me to take the provocation submissively. Lower your steroid dose, BL.

Still waiting for you to clarify the term.

We're closing in on ten pages of you not understanding how to use the word "no".

No.

All that would be conditional on you knowing how to use the term "no". Seriously.

No.

Funny, I was thinking the exact thing with how you used the term "no".

But one thing is certain about this exchange, and that's how I've never had such a thrilling conversation over the use of the word "no" before. I'm getting much more out of this than you're getting out of me not responding.

Nobody's amused. Rather than continuing to stall by pretending the word "no" is due some sophistry, why don't you just answer the questions. Better yet, you can save face by not answering the questions but still clarifying the term, which was their entire intent:

When you use "God" in your argument, what does the term mean? Also, does this "term" explicitly refer to a specific god, Yahweh?

As soon as you've clarified what your argument is about, you can Socratic method all of us to death.

 

[Received]

This question is pointless as you already know the reason of the questions: clarification of the term.

What questions?

There was no argument, there was a request for term clarification.

1) A clarification is a constituent in an argument, 2) See below.

No means no.

Therefore the onus was no you to respond rather than going off the rails with ad hominems and provocative statements and just restating your question stubbornly rather than continuing the argument.

It took several pages of blathering before I realized the "ulterior motive" (your words not mine). Let's not confuse the timeline.

Dude, your crappy attitude that anyone with self-respect wouldn't respond to was apparent all the way back at 109 when you went off the rails. Do you really expect anyone with self-respect to respond to your flames? Go ahead, deflect and tell me what this says about me, and I'll even leave a line where you can do it:

___________________________________________________________

Still waiting for you to clarify the term.

How on earth does: "No. Please answer the question." Mean a clarification. "No", as you incisively said, means "no". Therefore, you responded to the content of my question.

Nobody's amused.

I am. Trust me.

Rather than continuing to stall by pretending the word "no" is due some sophistry, why don't you just answer the questions. Better yet, you can save face by not answering the questions but still clarifying the term, which was their entire intent:

Question begging.

When you use "God" in your argument, what does the term mean? Also, does this "term" explicitly refer to a specific god, Yahweh?

You're not reading.

As soon as you've clarified what your argument is about, you can Socratic method all of us to death.

This assumes your "No. Please answer the question." is a clarification. And it can't be a clarification if, as you incisively say, no means no -- indicating that you responded to one part of my question, allowing me to continue.

 

[BL2KTN]

I don't think that in ten pages you've figured out yet that I am completely uninterested in your debate tactics. All you have to do is clarify what you mean when you use the term "God" and does the term refer to a specific god, Yahweh.

Until then, you're just blathering. Page after page...