Posted: Mar 07, 2010 11:27 pm
by Sween
hackenslash wrote:
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.


:clap: Let's see here...

Your characterizations - discarding reality, denial of reality - are question-begging.

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.


A perfection is a property that is necessarily better to have than not. A perfect being is one such that it is impossible for something to be greater and impossible for there to be something else than which it is not greater

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.


I have no clue what "Demonstrate in a critically robust fashion" means. And once you've defined that, is it the case that everything which exists can be demonstrated "in a critically robust fashion"?


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.


Didn't know that you thought so highly of the Old Testament's historical reliability. Or are you attributing to me the view of Biblical inerrancy?


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?


I think you're even more articulate here than you were back at RDF, keep up the good work :thumbup: . But I don't see anything constituting an objection here, so I'll leave it at that.

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

Image


You're right, a fish hitting me in the face would not bring to mind "honest inquiry." Nonetheless, I'm honest in my inquiries.

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?


For one thing, it's not question-begging. I'd like to hear more about all this contrary evidence to theism though - but I'm guessing you'll retract that and say instead that there's no evidence supporting theism.


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.


We've discussed the evidence a number of times before, and as I remember, last time it ended with red herrings about quantum indeterminacy and virtual particles - would you like to pick up where we left off?

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.


What's your moral authority? And don't say yourself - you can't issue a moral law to yourself, I don't care what Kant says.

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

You seem to know quite a bit about my motives. Maybe you've got some kind of critically rigorous, robust, "insert honorific adjective," reproducible evidence that I'm dishonest?

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.

:lol: no you don't take the question seriously at all.

The reason for this is explained above.


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


You must have missed it. And excuse the tu quoque, but you're entire post has consisted of nothing but assertion (albeit colorful and entertaining).