PDS

Just in case anybody's irony meter has been turned off: the last line in my post above was parody...

I concur. And my bet is that Phil is far more likable than he lets on.

There's not much doubt that God's personality changes within Genesis. Perhaps I should have referred to the Garden of Eden God (the one who whistles as he walks, etc.), rather than the Genesis God. Btw: why be such an asshole, douche-bag, non-grownup and/or swine about this?

In Chapter 2 of his book, Neil says: This is not a novel position. In the Catholic tradition, for example, Thomists have maintained that God cannot will a logical contradiction, nor can he contradict himself. According to these theologians, it is not a limit on God's omnipotence to say that he cannot do the logically impossible, because the logically impossible is meaningless. The claim that God cannot contradict himself is more complicated and problematic, but it was essential to the Thomistic position on ethics. To the question "Does God will something because it is good, or is something good because God wills it?" Thomists argued that good and evil flow necessarily from the nature of God's creation. Although God could have created a different universe with different moral rules, given the universe as it is, even God cannot arbitrarily alter fundamental moral rules, for to do so would be to contradict the nature of his own creation, i.e., his own will. This position led Thomas Aquinas and some of his followers to admit that even atheists can live moral lives to some extent, because atheists can use their reason to discern natural moral principles without the assistance of divine revelation. Ghs George: inherent in the Thomast and other such positions is the notion that God does not evolve or change, isn't that right? In other words, God can change his mind. As I mentioned earlier, this was the premise of Jung's Answer to Job, which posits that God was so traumatized by what he did to Job that he literally decided to change course and come to earth around 6 B.C. Others have posited a different cause, such as God's failure to rescue the Judeans from Babylon, etc., but the same concept applies: if God evolves in his conception of himself, then indeed he can contradict himself, change course, do some open-field running, etc.

Well said. I have an inherent bias against TKD for the reasons you state, and because of the watered-down/strip mall mentality factor. A sub specialty of Tai Chi is Chi Kung, which is called an "internal" martial art. I have been doing a version of that called Zhan Zuang, which is more or less "standing still" as a complement to my Okinawan Kenpo. Too early to tell if any results, but interesting nonetheless.

Starbuckle wrote: "Neil's God is more limited in various ways than the omniscient, omnipotent type of God; but if Neil's God had no power to subvert or ignore the nature of things, he would not be a god at all. Yet God even in Neil's conception is still regarded as somehow above and beyond the natural world, and regardless of any inconvenient rules that might arbitrarily limit his arbitrary power." I had noticed this too, and perhaps unkindly referred to this God as "puny" in a post a week or two ago. Upon reflection, this God actually resembles the Genesis God of the Garden of Eden, who was not obviously omniscient or omnipotent, i.e., and who resembles something more akin to one's bumbling, older Uncle. If I am right, there is some very interesting ground for psychological inquiry here, and Neil's (unintentional, one presumes) choice/experience of this version of God, rather than the Conqueror-God of Isiah, or the largely silent God of Esther and the lesser books, or, for that matter, the Wagering-Whirlwind God of Job. Honestly, I do think most people would prefer a Genesis God to those random alternatives I mentioned above. Not surprisingly, given Neil's background, the Genesis God is more or less a libertarian.

Hey, you started this thread, not me...

And no, I am not Phil Coates. So I am hereby preemptively rejecting all such comparisons...

WSS: I don't see what the point is in affirmatively taunting Neil, however witty the taunts might be, and I am probably guilty of this myself. Neil is the person with the most knowledge regarding the topic of this thread, i.e., his particular experience with God. He was invited here and has participated in largely good humor, with the exception of calling most of us assholes and douche-bags, which I am betting he regrets. He has a story to tell, even if it is not for everyone. I think this thread has been quite interesting--especially his back and forth with Ghs, which, in essence, cuts to the heart of almost every discussion of the efficacy of revealed religion. It would be a shame for it to break down over some (albeit hilariously witty) school yard taunts. Neil is here in seeming good faith to explain his experience, and I would daresay anybody--however rare--who might have a similar experience would have a lot of trouble shaking it off as a low-carb side effect. I say let's let Neil tell his story, at least on this thread.

Oh, and by the way, why didn't OJ just plead guilty?

I am going to miss Neil's presence on this thread, assuming he stays away. Seems like a good dude when he's not pissed off that we under-appreciate that the Author of the Universe entered his body for 8 hours one day, several years after having threatened to kill him.

Ghs wrote: "It took a personal experience with God before you abandoned your atheism. You didn't accept the second-hand accounts of religious experiences reported by others. So why do you expect me to behave any differently? Why do you expect me to do what you were unwilling to do? I simply view your report in the same light that you viewed (and still view) the reports of others." This is the nub of the matter. Second hand accounts generally will not do for most people, and absent direct revelation or some form of mind meld, that is all there is when it comes to the existence of God. Unfortunately, absent some reasonable criteria for judging such revelations/melds, the person who experienced God is left with, in effect, an argument from authority. Quite honestly, I was more inclined to credit Neil's interpretation of his subjective experience with God before I learned he thought OJ was innocent. Anybody who has read Vincent Bugliosi's book on this subject, or seen his arguments, is going to have trouble believing that God implied to Neil that OJ is innocent.

Yup. There’s not much to say about it. Maybe JV will come out with the results of his mind-meld with God, and we'll finally learn who really committed the OJ murders: TheBrandens!!! (no offense, JNS) Okay now, that was funny on about 6 different levels. Nicely played, sir.

I have trained for 2 years in Okinawan Kenpo Karate and before that Krav Maga. For those interested in self defense only, I recommend Krav--mainly teaches you the best way to kick someone in the balls. Of course, most people are best off running away, or surrendering, when in danger.

Why doesn't a teacher hand out the answer sheet to students taking a test? Why do parents whose teenager asks for a car make the kid work a summer job before they'll help pay for it? I propose that God's central intent with respect to humanity is to encourage thinking for yourself and growing into an adult with an independent mind and learned moral compass. I'm also confident that some breakthroughs in various fields of study, including oncology, have been "inspired." With respect, Neil, I think the average cancer patient might find your response wanting, and hopeful for some accelerated "inspiration."

I knew that Nozick essentially overruled himself in TEL, thus my reference above, but I didn't know that he distanced himself from that reversal later, per the 2001 interview you reference. All of which raises two important issues: 1. Shouldn't the author of Love Story be sued for something other than rent control issues, say, perhaps, crimes against humanity?, and, 2. Should I rename this thread "Wilt Chamberlain Shrugged"? Notwithstanding these issues, I still think reading TEL is better than a poke in the eye...I will read the critical essays re: AS & U in the next few days. Thanks for the references.

dustt: Here are the answers to your questions: yes. no. no. maybe, but doubtful. no. I don't know. Hope this helps with your very important and timely inquiries.

Head and shoulders my favorite: The Year of Living Dangerously. Mel Gibson, Sogourney Weaver, and Linda Hunt playing a male dwarf. Great soundtrack. Nice development and scenery.

Here is my main frustration with direct revelation: how come God never "reveals" the cure for cancer to those lucky few who hear the call? Why are the revelations so often either self-serving, or generally useless to humanity?

I confess a fondness for Robert Nozick, perhaps because when I "grew up" intellectually, he was in his prime, and the author of Anarchy State and Utopia had not yet overruled his own best opinion, so to speak. Ghs has recently commented on Nozick's tendency to be too clever by half, which is hard to deny, but sometimes he was clever in exactly the right way, as, for instance, when Nozick used Wilt Chamberlain to prove that income distribution not only violated rights, but also is/was doomed to fail: Cool stuff indeed. Throw in Nozick's attempt to show how the minimal state might develop naturally, and one can't help but say that Nozick gets an A for effort in AS & U. Of course, as most of us know, from Day One, Nozick was persona non grata in O-world, for all of the usual reasons...a sad and early example of the Objectivist Movement's lack of willingness to engage on the broader intellectual stage, all to its detriment. For myself, I have always enjoyed Nozick's twilight book, The Examined Life, and highly recommend it. Contra to Nozick's stated goal, there are some "intellectual figure eights" in TEL, but they are worth the trouble, as are most of Nozick's works. The saddest part of TEL is Nozick's reference to his father, and his (implicit) belief that he would live into his dotage. Alas, it wasn't to be. Nozick died at far too young an age, but he left behind works of significance and relevance for Objectivists, and Objectivism.

If I had to pare down my current library of 5000+ volumes to a core library of 100 books, the two-volume work by Troeltsch is definitely one of the books I would keep. It is that good. You can find less expensive copies of the volumes, sometimes sold separately, here . Ghs George: some day when you are extremely bored and prone to self-sacrifice for the benefit of mankind, I would love to hear some of the other entries that would make your Top 100. Fascinating that this work makes your list.

So you were already, shortly before your 'encounter with God', in a situation where you prayed to a god, i. e. you were no longer an atheist denying the existence of a God? On the other hand, you also wrote: But how can you be an atheist while at the same time regarding your God experience as real? This is like saying A is non-A. You claim to have had an encounter with God but at the same time deny that this was a religious experience? From your interview with Gary York: http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/libertarianprophet.html "God gave up being the only person who existed" (Neil Schulman) Your encounter led to to think of God as a person? "so he could live forever after as a less-than-omnipotent person within an existence containing other individual persons. And those he created with the power to disagree with him. How fucking libertarian is that?" (Neil Schulman) This God looks more like an "altruist". For giving up splendid solitude in exchange for an existence in a messed-up world may well be regarded (by Objectivists) as exchanging a higher for a lower value. ;) But considering the premise which conceives of god as as a person, then conceiviog of god as a group animal, a group person is only logical. "Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?" is the title of the thread. "Absolutely" is the answer. For one can logically justify anything which is correctly derived from a premise. If you don't check the premise itself, that is. Example: Major premise: All bears belong to the class "fish" Minor premise: I saw a bear in the zoo. Conclusion: This bear belongs ings t the class is a fish Am I 'logically' justified in belieiving in the truth of my conclusion. Absolutely. For logical conclusions can be derived from false premises. Therefore let's check premises, folks. This joint venture will unite all those of us (regardless of where they philosophically stand) thirsting for the fountain of truth. Xray: you might want to read the book. It doesn't take that long.

George: I consider myself one of your invisible friends, and am therefore offended by your comment.

Starbuckle wrote above: "(Why does he simply not reveal himself to all in a wholly unequivocal and undeniable way? Too easy and perhaps not very interesting and amusing. God is a kind of happy-go-lucky jester, perhaps.)" Our friend Robert Nozick (he is/was an Objectivst's friend, is he not?), wrote something on this topic in The Examined Life which I have always considered quite interesting (I am paraphrasing): it is not all that obvious how even God himself could provide a convincing proof of his own existence. Thus, the failure of people to do so is not all that surprising. Assume a booming voice from the sky announced God's existence, or some other type of signal with equal clarity. Wouldn't we just assume trickery/misinterpretation/hallucinations anyway? (p.49-50) Nozick, in his cleverly Nozkickean manner, shows how even the Sun itself could be a "proof" of God but still subject to much dispute. The reality (pun intended) is that Neil's special revelation--by definition quite personal to him--is the only way an individual is ever really convinced of the existence of God, as opposed to having the existence of God "proven" to him. Neil is willing to share his personal revelation, but I don't sense that he expects anybody to accept that revelation, on faith, as proof of God. If I had ever had or have in the future such a revelation, I would probably share it too.

Sorry -- I stopped reading the article to post the passage but got distracted and never returned to it. At least my instincts were correct. One of my favorite Ingersoll lines runs something like this: With a little soap, baptism is a good thing. I first read this line while a sophomore in high school. I thought it was hilarious, but some people I quoted the line to didn't seem to agree. Ingersoll, though not generally well-known today, was a very big deal in 19th century America. His speeches attracted thousands of people, and, in the pre-microphone age, the voice of the great orator carried far enough for all to hear. From the Wiki article on Ingersoll: A bio of Ingersoll that I read many years ago told the following story: When a reporter visited Ingersoll at his home, Ingersoll asked the reporter if he would like to see the world's most expensive library. Of course, the reporter said Yes, so Ingersoll took him into another room. The library, which contained many freethought volumes, was impressive, but the reporter was skeptical, saying that he had seen larger and more expensive libraries before. "This library cost me the presidency," Ingersoll replied. Ghs That's it--my new Christmas present to myself: an Ingersoll biography. George--somebody owes you a commission.