If an actual existing God made His presense known, everything would revolve around what He either could or could not know, what He either could or could not do.
Though, sure, there may well be any number of folks not aware of His existence. Or, after He made it known how His omniscience could be reconciled with human autonomy, some might freely choose to defy Him. Though here that would seem to be predicated on just how clear God made it regarding the consequences of defying Him.
Exactly! What actually would happen?
Well, God would be around to explain that, right?
This can only be connected to what the actual existing relationship is between this God and any particular mere mortal.
What it means to them or how they react is not something I have control over. I put it out there and get some feedback.
I notice that I don’t get any particularly thoughtful feedback from you.
So you’re in a philosophy venue and nobody is able demonstrate the truth about God to you.
In fact, nobody has been able to demonstrate the truth of any value judgements to you.
If I don’t demonstrate it, then that’s just in line with your expectations.
All you’re doing is sitting there going … “No, not good enough. Next …”. Over and over and over.
Ever have a discussion where you are not dismissive?
IOW if you believe in God on good grounds, you should be able to demonstrate the existence of God via text to a skeptic. Anyone want to parse that for all the silly assumptions in there. Of course some theists are silly and think they can do this. And they are nicely counter-melodied by atheists who think that theists should be able to do this.
More to the point, in living lives that may well be very, very different from your own, how might that feedback be construed as either constructive or destructive?
In either a God or a No God world.
Perhaps then you should stop reading my posts.
On the other hand, would any feedback suppotive of Communism be construed as thoughful by you?
But my point is to suggest that narratives relating to God are largely existential contraptions anchored subjectively/subjunctively in dasein.
You tell me: What [u][b]IS[/u][/b] the truth about God?
They would first have to note how, with regard to their own conflicting behaviors with others, they not down in the hole that I’m in.
All I can do then is to react to what they tell me. And in the either/or world there are countless things that can in fact be demonstrated to be true for all of us. My “expectations” here are almost always in sync with what is.
Indeed, I eschew a “dismissive” attitude here time and again.
Until we are able to establish precisely what the relationship would be between an existing God and any particular mere mortal, how on earth could any “content” be realistically speculated about?
Go ahead, provide us with a hypothetical relationship.
And why not in a world where there are so many things that can be so demonstrated.
My point is that historically any number of moral and political objectivists insisted that the is/ought world could be construed in much the same way: right/wrong, good/evil, true/false.
And God help those who refused to become “one of us”.
Well, admittedly I’m not privy to the rock bottom ontological/teleological truth about existence.
But in the interim I’m willing to settle for mathematical truths, scientific truths and logical truths.
And, sure, even moral truths. If they are in fact demonstrated to exist.
But it always still revolves around “I”. As I construe this in being a moral nihilist. Here and now. In other words, “I” could come to believe that there are objective moral truths. But how would “I” then go about demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it too?
That’s because you don’t have the same standard for the demonstrations:
Someone refuses to accept that humans landed on the moon : Refuses to accept pictures, video, eye-witness testimony. Dimwit.
Someone thinks that all human life on the planet ought to be exterminated : Well you can’t argue with that, it’s a value judgement. You can’t demonstrate that it’s a crazy idea. Perfectly rational person.
At some point, you dismiss one guy as a nutter, but the other guy is never a nutter no matter what.
Well, a determinist who focuses centally Dasein cannot logically believe in rationality. All believe, not just religious ones, the determinist knows he or she is compelled to have and compelled to think they make sense. It is not necessary to add on the distortions of Dasein to this since knowing one is rational about any decision/conclusion is not possible. Knowing one has been. He loves the is ought distinction, but his own philosophy makes the distinction irrelevant and indiscernible.
Indeed, in the first context, there are any number of facts that either can or cannot be established as true [objectively] for all of us. But, sure, there will always be those who insist that since they were not in the actual capsule that landed on the Moon, there’s always the possibility that the whole thing was just made up…a government conspiracy.
And, as always, there will be the solipsists. Or those who speculate that everything – everything – that we experience from day to day is really just a manifestation of some Sim world, or some cartesean demon’s dream.
And how on earth could I demonstrate otherwise?
As for the second context, yes, there may well be those who live lives so fucking miserable that, were they able to, they would readily push the button that blew up the planet.
And how on earth would you go about demonstrating that, philosophically, such a behavior is necessarily irrational and immoral? In a No God world.
The irony here being that, if there is a God, He brings about “extinction events” on planet earth from time to time Himself.
And almost all scientists agree that it is not a question of whether but of when one or another Big One will bring about our own extinction.
So, when this occurs, will this be an example of God acting in a necessarily irrational and immoral manner.
Here, again, I will need you to note instances of this.
Since, in my view, with respect to God, religion, value judgments and morality, we are all only exchanging “existential contraptions” here, it would never occur to me to label someone a “nutter”. That would make me one.
On the other hand, please define a “nutter” for me.
Which says basically nothing because “everything” is one of those idiot words which means practically nothing. Obviously some human thinking would revolve around God and some would not.
Then you quote me :
and you respond with :
Not responding to my questions or suggesting any ideas.
More of me:
and you responded with:
That’s not really a substantive answer is it?
My hypothetical situation consisted of God having revealed himself - no demonstrations of God’s existence would be required to discuss the situation.