Faith and Atheism

[seeking Christ]

So you have to seek God with your whole heart to find convincing evidence of his existence? Yet if you have no evidence for his existence what would motivate you to seek him with your whole heart in the first place ?

Those that come unto God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

If you can't believe in him because of a lack of evidence it seems you would never get the evidence because your doubt would hamper your ability to seek him with your whole heart. Sounds like a catch 22.

Very perceptive. The new birth is a miracle, and perhaps the greatest. Life from death and all that.

 

[KCfromNC]

I answered those questions. If you can perceive those things, that's your evidence that spiritual facility exists, even in you.

I don't even know what you're claiming here - the fact that I can think about stuff means that people can sense the supernatural? You're really going to have to show how these two ideas are connected rather than just assert it.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Very perceptive. The new birth is a miracle, and perhaps the greatest. Life from death and all that.

I take it you accept the more Calvinist view that man doesn't play a role in his own salvation and that the elect are given irresistible grace? A person is saved because of Gods personal choice and action * which is completely disconnected to any concern about the nature or actions of the person in question.

If that's the case why on earth would God fail to help everyone out by saving them instead of allowing a (majority?) segment of the human population to receive everlasting torture and suffering? It would seem to imply that God really enjoys or looks forward to seeing people suffer if such a scenario were actually the case. Usually the reason I've seen given is that it somehow "glorifies God" (in relation to whom it's never really been clear). It certainly wouldn't make me have a higher view of him and one would think that God himself wouldn't have self esteem problem were he would feel the need to "glorify" himself to himself. Needing glory, being jealous, and the desire to celebrate ones own greatness while smacking down others sounds more like the attributes that would be associated with some of all too human gods of the Greek pantheon.

* That always strikes me as being kind of arbitrary. If He went in the direction of saving everyone the arbitrariness might be cool but not this way imo. A little arbitrariness now and then can be over looked but arbitrariness in the direction of causing billions of people everlasting suffering is just too much.

 

[seeking Christ]

I take it you accept the more Calvinist view

No not at all. Predeterminism is bunk and the Bible specifically says to "make our calling and election sure."

that man doesn't play a role in his own salvation and that the elect are given irresistible grace?

Our role can be debated til we die and each individual will still be different, but people have resisted God's Grace from the beginning and the Bible documents it.

A person is saved because of Gods personal choice and action * which is completely disconnected to any concern about the nature or actions of the person in question.

Also clearly false per Scripture. God gives the chance to be saved to everyone, and Scripture mentions this in a staggering variety of ways.

If that's the case why on earth would God fail to help everyone out by saving them instead of allowing a (majority?) segment of the human population to receive everlasting torture and suffering?

I hope you can see from the above that not only is this wrong (according to the way this all makes sense to me) but you can also pick apart the relevant error, or at least pinpoint the pertinent follow-up questions?

causing billions of people everlasting suffering is just too much.

Any thoughts along this line are not only completely wrong but easily disproven. (according to Scripture anyway)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can you perceive beauty?

Does the color blue exist inside of the sky, or is the sky perceived as blue because that's how our visual system works? I'd say that it is the second and that naïve realism is false.

The same goes for beauty. We may perceive certain faces as beautiful, perhaps for their symmetry, but "beauty" isn't some object or property in itself that we perceive.

Morality?

Likewise for morality. Morality is not something that we perceive, as if it hides inside of people, but something that we infer about reality. We may feel like it is something that we perceive, but as with beauty it is not. It says more about us -- about the way in which we think and feel -- than about what we actually witness.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm a moral realist, so I'm not suggesting that there is no right or wrong beyond arbitrary opinion. I'm saying only that morality is not something that we perceive, but has to do with what we infer from what we perceive.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

Does the color blue exist inside of the sky, or is the sky perceived as blue because that's how our visual system works? I'd say that it is the second and that naïve realism is false.

The same goes for beauty. We may perceive certain faces as beautiful, perhaps for their symmetry, but "beauty" isn't some object or property in itself that we perceive.



Likewise for morality. Morality is not something that we perceive, as if it hides inside of people, but something that we infer about reality. We may feel like it is something that we perceive, but as with beauty it is not. It says more about us -- about the way in which we think and feel -- than about what we actually witness.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm a moral realist, so I'm not suggesting that there is no right or wrong beyond arbitrary opinion. I'm saying only that morality is not something that we perceive, but has to do with what we infer from what we perceive.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are describing (and using) spiritual facility to be able to engage those things, which was a concept questioned in this thread. You are allowed to think of it in different terms you are more comfortable with, but I thought it might be a good opportunity for people to see what others are talking about, at least a little.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are describing (and using) spiritual facility to be able to engage those things

Assuming this is true, we're also using our "spiritual facility" to come the conclusion that God isn't worth believing in. Now what?

 

[seeking Christ]

I don't even know what you're claiming here - the fact that I can think about stuff means that people can sense the supernatural? You're really going to have to show how these two ideas are connected rather than just assert it.

That's not just "stuff" you're thinking about; those are a couple common things that connect us to the spiritual realm, that defy being quantified otherwise.

 

[seeking Christ]

Assuming this is true, we're also using our "spiritual facility" to come the conclusion that God isn't worth believing in. Now what?

You are correct, that is also a spiritual involvement. I'm not I understand what you're asking, or if it is as simple as it seems you are surely asking the wrong one. (Although I can point out there's a relevant tarheel joke here)

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are describing (and using) spiritual facility to be able to engage those things, which was a concept questioned in this thread.

I am using a mental facility, and it is not a sense organ. That's my point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

I am using a mental facility, and it is not a sense organ. That's my point.

So you see there is an overlap between mental facility and spiritual facility, as the poster at the bottom of your posts attests (freedom being a spiritual thing)

 

[Eudaimonist]

So you see there is an overlap between mental facility and spiritual facility, as the poster at the bottom of your posts attests (freedom being a spiritual thing)

Which poster? Which post of his?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

Which poster? Which post of his?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your poster, about the liberating aspects of knowledge

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your poster, about the liberating aspects of knowledge

I don't interpret Frederick Douglass's quote to be about anything "spiritual". He's simply saying that slave owners try to keep slaves ignorant in order to more easily keep them in slavery. If anything, he is asserting the value of rational thought.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

Yes I realize you look at it that way, which is exactly why I pointed out what i did.

 

[KCfromNC]

You are correct, that is also a spiritual involvement. I'm not I understand what you're asking, or if it is as simple as it seems you are surely asking the wrong one. (Although I can point out there's a relevant tarheel joke here)

My point is that this alleged spiritual "sense" doesn't seem to have any sort of way to validate the stuff it produces. Therefore it seems self-defeating - for instance, I can claim my spiritual "sense" tells me conclusively that I shouldn't trust anything it tells me. There's nothing you could possibly say to refute that "knowledge" without eliminating it as a source of information about anything else.

All of this fluff about a spiritual "sense" sounds like post hoc rationalization for believing whatever you wish were true but can't find another reason to believe. Want to prove me wrong - show that this "sense" is able to generate anything which can be confirmed by other people.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes I realize you look at it that way, which is exactly why I pointed out what i did.

I don't see any overlap, because I don't see how his quote has to do with anything spiritual. I'm not sure what you think I'm supposed to get out of what you are trying to tell me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

I could demonstrate it. If I were with you in person. Thats what brightlights was talking about when he mentioned the word "relationship".

I don't think you can. I think you are just saying that in an attempt to pull your claim out of the nosedive it took when it hit that simple phrase.

However, if you are at all serious, I would refer you to here:

"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. "

Challenge Info

They do mention...

"To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests."

 

[seeking Christ]

Both posts 176 and 178 are fools errands for a faithful person to engage. This is what is meant by the phrase you cannot confine God to a test tube. Same with the so-called "research" into prayer. What you have under the microscope is dead, not at all part of the Kingdom.

God doesn't carry Christians against our will into His Kingdom, either.

 

[Gadarene]

Then it's a fool's errand to believe it.