Posted: Mar 07, 2010 10:04 pm
by hackenslash
RichieDickins wrote:I don't speak for Ray, but I would argue (following Paul Moser and Kierkegaard) that God is "hidden" from disinterested observers.


In other words, the usual tripe about us not seeing him because we're not trying hard enough to discard reality. Dress this preachy bollocks up in all the flowery language you like, and it will still be a vacuous denial of reality.

If we are talking about a perfect being,


What the fuck is a 'perfect being'? In fact, what the fuck is 'prefection'? Apologetic arse-gravy and nothing more.

there is no reason to suspect that such a being would limit himself to or even take part in spectator evidence (which doesn't require any commitment or participation on the part of the observer).


Reason? What the fuck has reason got to do with the price of tea in Singapore? There is no reason to suspect that any such fucking entity exists. The rest is just spectacularly stupid apologetic flannel, and it is of absolutely no value.

A perfect being (in virtue of his moral perfection) would will what is best for all moral agents.


Moral perfection? Deary me, but you do make up some fucking tripe. Demonstrate in a critically robust fashion that there is such a thing as moral perfection, or indeed anything approaching objectve morality. Good luck with that.

This would include our coming to know him freely (because moral perfection requires respect for freedom), and freely consenting to align our behavior in accordance with his will (because he wills only what is good).


Your magic man wills only what is good, eh? Should I ask the Amalechites what they think of that assertion? Oh, no. I can't, can I, because your cretinous celestial peeping-tom's will saw to it that they're all fucking dead.

Spectator evidence would not accomplish these ends, and it would (as Kierkegaard suggests) establish an improper relationship between us, and create tension between God's moral perfection and our freedom. "There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't" (Pascal)


In other words, once again, 'you won't experience my cosmic curtain-twitcher unless you accept my vacuous bullshit'. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you what a load of ludicrous rectal curry this is?

As I've suggested before, I think one could understand it as more of a testable claim than an argument.


You've suggested many things before, and they have pretty much without exception been unsupported wibble of the most sophomoric order.

It's the claim that through honest inquiry you will find evidence that God exists.


Honest enquiry? You wouldn't fucking know honest enquiry if it hit you in the face with a big fucking fish thus:

Image

What is 'honest' about erecting apologetic nonsense for that which you have no supporting evidence whatsoever? What the fuck is honest about ignoring reality in support of such a ludicrous idea as a magic man creating the universe just for you, in the face of ALL the evidence to the contrary?

When one asks whether X exists, one must ask what sort of evidence would we expect to find if X exists, and what sort of evidence would we not expect.


Well, I would accept ANY evidence. Once again, good luck with that. As the Blue Wing├ęd One is very fond of saying, the credulous have had 5,000 years in which to present a single scrap of supporting evidence for their various flavours of astral knob-jockey. Thus far, the paucity of said evidence (read utter lack) is, to say the least, wholly underwhelming.

In this case it will be volitional, morally authoritative evidence


Morally authoritative? I only know of one moral authority, and the magic man whose knob you seem so eager to polish is not it, and doesn't remotely come close to meeting its standard.

which requires an honest intention to participation on the part of the inquirer,


There you go with that 'honesty' again. The irony here is stifling.

as opposed to the reproducible, empirical sort which would afford belief alone,


Ah, so at least you admit by implication that you envisage the utter absence of any hard evidence from reality continuing. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your frankly febrile wibblings then.

without requiring any meaningful commitment or investment in the question,


Interestingly, many of us have much more invested in the question than the credulous who already think they have the answer.

and thus without any transformation of the will.


Transformation of the will? What the holy fuck are you wibbling about?

The reason for this is explained above.


You've explained nothing. You have asserted. Case dismissed.