Lost marbles (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 22:15 (5297 days ago) @ David Turell

Matt: As I read over your responses to me, I seem to be seeing a set of rigid philosophic limits on your part that you imply I must accept,. I've read 3 books by John Leslie, 2 by Adler and one by Flew. They all have either become theists, or perhaps Leslie was one to start with, and at least Adler and Flew accept divinity on Earth among humans, represented by Joshua ben Joseph, proclaimed God's son by religion and given a new name that wasn't so Hebrew. THESE READING DO NOT SEEM TO IMPOSE UPON MY THINKING THE LIMTS YOU SAY I MUST HAVE. It appears, according to religions, God can be supernatural and natural at the same time. Where is the discrepancy in my thought patterns? I admit I have almost no background in one of your chosen fields, philosophy, but frankly, what you write does not make sense to me. Adler uses as his acceptable proof of God, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Of course there is a leap of faith at that point, and I am willing to take, and I have taken that leap to faith and belief. Apparently you can't 'leap' and I view that as due to your limits that you place on yourself. Adler and Flew don't seem to think those 'Matt limits' are valid. I find many of my ideas quite close to Frank as he is revealing them.-The only thing I can say in response is that you haven't thought through the full implications and impact of certain "moves" if you will within this philosophical playground. Adler was a pretty strict Thomist/Aristotelian, and I've already posted previously what I think about some of his implications. I have to admit that my current expertise in philosophy is without much of the 20th century with the exception of Heidegger and Rand, neither of which had too much to say about the nature of God or its relation to man. (At least, not in a way pertinent to this discussion.) Whether or not you choose to tackle the philosophical problems that you raise is up to you--that's what philosophers are for. But I do think that my job sometimes is at least to bring things like this to attention. -The limits I discuss are not self-imposed, but imposed by the systems of thought that you automatically accept by these various tools we use--naturalism, science, etc. Having not read these authors, I cannot presume that they didn't think all of these things through. However since you have and these questions I raise seem new to you, I would presume to say they haven't. -What I find more disappointing is that you'd rather dodge the questions than try to meet them in some way. You think they don't apply to you, but in my estimation, they do. At least, I don't see how they can't. Science doesn't work without the assumptions of naturalism, and at the minimum this challenge must be met. -I did a little more reading on Flew and it seems that he takes an extreme deism--quite similar to the "strawman" one that I was beaten with last summer between... you and dhw? Not sure who exactly.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"