Where from here?

[fr0d0]

God is the descriptor. To give it another name is pointless.. it already has a name. And BTW we're not talking any God here, but specifically the Christian understanding of God (EV DON'T comment lol ). Just so we're clear.

Carry on...

Fr0d0, you completely missed the point. Conceding the hypothetical that there is something does not mean conceding a "Christian something". You need to actually prove that, and that's what Dotard is getting at. If we pretend to accept that TAG is true and there is a God, how do we know it's Christian?

And I think you missed the point your loveliness... The hypothesis specifically invokes the Christian definition and no other.. this is all JP was proposing, and not a generic nondescript 'god' of the countless others that are described. I never bothered to follow the TAG train but wasn't that addressing the Christian God as well (I seem to remember JP saying that a few times).

So what Dotard is wanting to accept hypothetically is specifically the Christian concept of God, if he's taking JP's presentaion. This much is clear.

[Eilonnwy]

The Old Testament God isn't Christian until the New Testament is figured in.. THEN he becomes the Christian God, and you work backwards. (Roll up one trouser leg and touch your bared right nipple for the full effect )

You realize Jews would take issue with you. Christians and Jews don't have the same views on the Old Testament God.

---

And I think you missed the point your loveliness... The hypothesis specifically invokes the Christian definition and no other.. this is all JP was proposing, and not a generic nondescript 'god' of the countless others that are described. I never bothered to follow the TAG train but wasn't that addressing the Christian God as well (I seem to remember JP saying that a few times).

So what Dotard is wanting to accept hypothetically is specifically the Christian concept of God, if he's taking JP's presentaion. This much is clear.

Ah no, considering I know what the TAG argument actually is. TAG argues for mind to exists the created the logical absolutes. That says absolutely nothing about the Christian God. JP tries to say it does, but he failed every single time to prove it.

Either way, Dotard's post specifically says he's conceding the hypthetical "something" not the hypethetical "Christian something". He's trying to get JP to prove this something has the Christian properties of god.

[fr0d0]

Or that it even cares to communicate with us. Or that it 'loves' us. Or that it reproduced (Jesus). Or that it has morality equal or greater than mine. Or that it was catholic or not. Or that it is indeed not me?

• Jesus was always part of God, taking in the New Testament to the mix.. hence the 'Christian God'.
  
• It's morality, together with everything else is superior to ours.
  
• catholic (small c) definitely. Catholic as well, 's'all good.
  
• Well yes, dare it not be you!
  

[Darwinian]

The Old Testament God isn't Christian until the New Testament is figured in.. THEN he becomes the Christian God, and you work backwards. (Roll up one trouser leg and touch your bared right nipple for the full effect

Well that's just bizarre! You're saying that God himself became Christian about 2000 years ago which effected a huge personality change? What did he do, accept Christ and suddenly see the error of his ways? Is he a born again God?

Talk about doing intellectual and literary contortions to desperately make what is a jumbled collection of myths and stories seem like a coherent narrative.

And what about this God then? Isn't he supposed to be pure, actus purus? If so, how can he possibly have such a complex and volatile personality?

[Dotard]

If JP started with the xtain god and then threw all that first cause stuff out there to support it I'm sorry, I must have missed that.

I could have sworn I read JP say somewhere his arguments did not presuppose a christian god.

I'll wait until JP either confirms or rebutts this claim of Frodo's that the presupposition of the xtain god is required.

[fr0d0]

You realize Jews would take issue with you. Christians and Jews don't have the same views on the Old Testament God.

Exactly - the Jewish God IS NOT the Christian God - the Christian God was always Christ - that's why I made the distinction.

Ah no, considering I know what the TAG argument actually is. TAG argues for mind to exists the created the logical absolutes. That says absolutely nothing about the Christian God. JP tries to say it does, but he failed every single time to prove it.

Wikipedia (may it be worshipped in it's holiness) disagrees with you, like JP did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcenden...nce_of_God

Either way, Dotard's post specifically says he's conceding the hypthetical "something" not the hypethetical "Christian something". He's trying to get JP to prove this something has the Christian properties of god.

Is he? That's why I'm pointing out that we already know this is the Christian God

What I think Dotard is wanting is the next step. Labotomy. Or something.

---

The Old Testament God isn't Christian until the New Testament is figured in.. THEN he becomes the Christian God, and you work backwards. (Roll up one trouser leg and touch your bared right nipple for the full effect

Well that's just bizarre! You're saying that God himself became Christian about 2000 years ago which effected a huge personality change? What did he do, accept Christ and suddenly see the error of his ways? Is he a born again God?

Talk about doing intellectual and literary contortions to desperately make what is a jumbled collection of myths and stories seem like a coherent narrative.

And what about this God then? Isn't he supposed to be pure, actus purus? If so, how can he possibly have such a complex and volatile personality?

I see you need a trip up this mountain too Dar.

God did not 'become' a Christian. God's nature was revealed to include Christ. That changed the understanding, retrospectively, of the whole thing. Suddenly it all makes perfect sense, and fulfills JP's philosophy of pure actuality with the perfect motives explained through the life of Christ.

I'll take a round pebble.

---

If JP started with the xtain god and then threw all that first cause stuff out there to support it I'm sorry, I must have missed that.

I could have sworn I read JP say somewhere his arguments did not presuppose a christian god.

I'll wait until JP either confirms or rebutts this claim of Frodo's that the presupposition of the xtain god is required.

I asked JP personally last night and he confirmed this. (no it wasn't a 'dream' or 'vision' playmates)
Plus there's the slight clue in post number one of his thread: "I will try and answer any questions you may have on God and Christianity from an orthodox Christian perspective".

[Dotard]

Frodo.

Presupposition of the xtain god is required first then the TAG applies to support that presupposition?

I know you're having fun being an ass like those damned atheists do, but I'm seriously inquiring of you the question I just posed.

See Frodo, I'm not a atheist anymore. I'm a theist! The TAG has showed me the light.and I no there now God exists! Big 'G' God. My problem now is how do i know the christian god is THE God? From my years as an athiest i no the bible and koran pretty well and some writing of other gods and i pray hard but I just don't know which is the true words of God? Help a brother out here.

[Edwardo Piet]

God is the descriptor. To give it another name is pointless.. it already has a name. And BTW we're not talking any God here, but specifically the Christian understanding of God (EV DON'T comment lol ). Just so we're clear.

Carry on...

Is there a ban on me commenting?

Guess what? The argument is supposedly for a Christian God but I still fail to see how Christ is even implied! At all!

EvD

P.S: This thread is awesome for me, because as I've been saying...calling it a Christian argument doesn't mean it's arguing Christianity if it actually isn't. Where does it evidence Christ being God or the son of God... in any shape or form?

[fr0d0]

From the Holy Wiki Dotard...

"The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately (though unwittingly) presuppose the Christian worldview, and that God's absolute nature is the source of logic and morals."

Like I said, I haven't looked into it. JP has, and as you say you take on his hypothesis, you should already understand how the above holy tome is correct.

Please explain to me how you understand JP's words to be true to you. I'm a Christian and I require proof of another Christian through testimony. Share brother, no one will bite off your head. Our sacred protector will see to their impotence.

---

Is there a ban on me commenting?

Guess what? The argument is supposedly for a Christian God but I still fail to see how Christ is even implied! At all!

EvD

Brethren! Behold! I prophesied and it came to pass. Bow down, for you are not worthy!

[Edwardo Piet]

Calling a Christian argument doesn't mean it argues Christianity if it doesn't even address Chist implicity! Along with a lot of other unexplained stuff.

EvD