In all sincerity, why doesn't God simply say, "Hi"?

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,162
1,805
✟794,659.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It would help, as it would provide a sufficient and rational basis for accepting this deity is real. As it stands now, the only way to accept such is on an insufficient and irrational basis, known as "faith".

Man’s objective is not to rationally realize God exist.

Having faith, expressing faith, and relying on faith are all humbling activities any mature adult can do, it is virtually effortless, requiring nothing but trust.

What would it take for you to humble yourself to the point of accepting a charity from a giver who made a huge sacrifice for you to have that charitable gift?

Do you esteem such givers and would you want to be a totally sacrificial unselfish unconditional giver like them?

Considering that it is criteria number 1 to be "saved" / enter heaven, I'm gonna go ahead and state that apparantly this God considers it rather important that people acknowledge his existance.

Knowledge is not the number one factor in salvation. Going from nonbeliever to believer is not through knowledge of God’s existence, but trusting in a benevolent creator to the point of being willing to accept his charity. It can partly be out of a desire for such a Creator (you need to want who God is to accept His charity).


Perhaps. But what of it? As it stands now, not acknowledging his existance is apparantly already enough to be condemned to an eternal infinite punishment. So I don't think it can get much worse then "eternal and infinite".

God judges the hearts of people and not their knowledge, so having the right heart gets you into heaven. God can help change your heart, but you have to accept His help as pure charity, since that is what is being offered.

Really?
So, according to your theology, can a non-believer enter heaven?
Take me. I'm an atheist. Suppose I die this instance and christianity is true. Where will I end up, being the atheist that I am?

Again God judges the hearts of people, so have you been presented the all Loving God and rejected His Love?

Irrational beliefs are man's objective?

It is not irrational at all to believe that has to be a creator and in fact I would say it takes more “faith” to believe there is no God. Trusting in the existence of a benevolent Creator is something the lowliest mature on earth can do so it is a humbling activity and something people find hard to even admit to. Irrational it is not but humbling it is.

All the people that supposedly witnessed Jesus's and other prophet's miracles didn't have to rely on faith. Why should we?

There is always an alternative motive people can fabricate for God doing the miracle or a way the miracle did not really happen (it was a trick) or like you they can question if it really even ever happened. Signs at best will just get you to consider other alternatives to your existing believes.

People who have seen signs seem to wait for the next sign (more knowledge) instead of taking the next step in their spiritual growth (they want to rely on signs).

The Biblical examples do not support the need for signs especially now, so what is your support for your conclusion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

riesie

Active Member
Jun 22, 2015
263
150
The Netherlands
✟67,026.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
"It's already been done on a number of occasions."

When has this been done outside of the biblical perspective?

"Look at it on another level, you wouldn't deny anybody in your nation the right to leave and immigrate to another country if that was their free choice to do so? Does being an all-powerful person exempt Him from this status? A case can be made of "what's good for the gander is good for the goose" here. It's not as if the Biblical witness doesn't show Him interacting with a nation and individuals with some rather mixed results. To this day people experience life with it's blessings and curses along the way by the choices they and others make. Simply put by having the all-powerful person who created heaven and earth show up isn't going solve the issues individuals and nations have through the choices they make. It didn't work then, it would be unreasonable to believe they would work now."

The creator of the Universe showing up and saying hello once in awhile would most assuredly put aside all of the religious animosity and the infighting on spiritual grounds would cease because of the obviousness of which religion is the 'correct' one. The need for faith - believing in things unseen - would also be irrelevant because we would all know for sure that He is real.

As a matter of fact, it'd be kind of cool if I could wake up to God or one of His angels giving me some sort of hope or life advice in the morning. I'd follow His advice to a tee; mostly.

Aside from the topic of this thread, I doubt the fighting over religion will cease because there are always people denying the truth even when it's presented to them in plain sight. That's why there's always been fighting within the sane religion between different groups.
What do you think or should I make a new thread for this?
 
Upvote 0

riesie

Active Member
Jun 22, 2015
263
150
The Netherlands
✟67,026.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
And logically, wouldn't that plan include who believes and who doesn't? So if it's part of the plan that I should believe, then this god will arrange events so that it happens. How could I resist an omnipotent god? And if I never come to belief, then either there is no totally sovereign god, or my belief was never meant to be.

This is not necessarily a logical conclusion because it could be that the masterplan involves that there are generally speaking people who believe and people who don't. God wants a relationship with every human being.
Love can only be freely given and so there's need for free choice.
Because of the free will he's given us we are free to choose to believe/love or not. In this case there's still a plan with people who believe and who don't, only with the important aspect of free will included. If someone's belief is meant to be is up to the person itself because God can't, and doesn't want to, force anybody into a relationship with Him.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Man’s objective is not to rationally realize God exist.

Is it God's objective to demand humans to hold irrational beliefs, and punish them if they don't?

Having faith, expressing faith, and relying on faith are all humbling activities any mature adult can do, it is virtually effortless, requiring nothing but trust.

It is irrational to do so. It is gullibility.
On faith, you can believe literally ANYTHING.

Being "humble" has nothing to do with that.
Being humble is about behaviour, not about justification for beliefs.

What would it take for you to humble yourself to the point of accepting a charity from a giver who made a huge sacrifice for you to have that charitable gift?
Do you esteem such givers and would you want to be a totally sacrificial unselfish unconditional giver like them?

That has nothing to do with believing a certain thing is actually real. I'm talking about being rationally justified in accepting a claim as correct.

Knowledge is not the number one factor in salvation

So, it doesn't matter if you are a christian or not?
Non-christians can be "saved" as well?

That goes goes against what just about every preacher has ever told me.
It also goes against things that Jesus supposedly said himself. Like "nobody gets to the father except through me".


Going from nonbeliever to believer is not through knowledge of God’s existence, but trusting in a benevolent creator to the point of being willing to accept his charity

How do you accept a being's charity, if you don't even know if that being exists?

What you say is nonsensical. The acknowledging of the existance of something, no matter what it is, requires a rational basis. Otherwise, it is an irrational acknowledgement.

It can partly be out of a desire for such a Creator (you need to want who God is to accept His charity).

Desires are irrelevant when it comes to what is actually true.

God judges the hearts of people and not their knowledge, so having the right heart gets you into heaven.

Then there is no need for the religion of christianity. Then there is no need to accept things on "faith" instead of on evidence.
Then there is no need to hold irrational beliefs.

God can help change your heart, but you have to accept His help as pure charity, since that is what is being offered.

That would require me to believe this God actually exists, first.
So we are back to square one. Make up your mind.

Again God judges the hearts of people, so have you been presented the all Loving God and rejected His Love?

People of all religions have presented me with their supernatural claims, and I found none of them believable. Which is why I am an atheist.

So, now what?
Just answer the question: according to christian theology, can I, as a non-believer, still enter heaven if I die this instance, with my present beliefs? It's a simple yes/no question.

It is not irrational at all to believe that has to be a creator and in fact I would say it takes more “faith” to believe there is no God.

To accept things without rational evidence, is always irrational.
That's how rationality works.

Trusting in the existence of a benevolent Creator is something the lowliest mature on earth can do so it is a humbling activity and something people find hard to even admit to. Irrational it is not but humbling it is.

Again, being humble has to do with how you behave. Beliefs are not behaviour.
How you justify beliefs, even less.

To believe things without sufficient evidence, is irrational.
It's just the way it is.


There is always an alternative motive people can fabricate for God doing the miracle or a way the miracle did not really happen (it was a trick) or like you they can question if it really even ever happened.
I'ld guess that an all-powerfull, all-knowing god would know exactly what kind of miracle it would take so that it couldn't be misconstrued as a trick or whatever.

In the same way that I have no reason to believe that gravity is just an illusion or whatever.

People who have seen signs seem to wait for the next sign (more knowledge) instead of taking the next step in their spiritual growth (they want to rely on signs).

I don't want to rely on "signs". I just require verifiable evidence; rational justification. I require this for all claims and I see no reason to give god-claims some kind of "special" status for which different rules apply.

The Biblical examples do not support the need for signs especially now, so what is your support for your conclusion?

I don't require reasons to NOT believe something.
I require reasons for the opposite.

If you make a claim "x exists", I'm going to ask you to meet your burden of proof.
If you fail to provide that, then I have no reasons to accept your claim.

It really is that simple.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
A rational basis for believing that God exists.

Rather there is a need for a rational basis for believing that there is no God.

No. Negative claims of existance are a waste of time.
Positive claims are the claims that require evidence.

You can't prove a negative...
If you think you can, go ahead and prove that there is NO undetactable dragon following you everywhere you go.

Can you give a rational explanation for why there is anything rather than nothing?

No. Then again, I'm not making any claims about that either.
The difference is, that I don't just make stuff up when I don't know something.

Can you give a rational explanation for Jesus?

That's YOUR job, as a christian.
Me... I don't make any claims about Jesus.

The bible gives rational explanations for both, but you will not accept them.

No. The bible makes a bunch of claims, which are in need of explaining.
The bible is not evidence of itself - that would be circular.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
true. but i talking now about a self replicating watch that made from organic components.

That's not a watch.

A watch is a non-living mechanical device, manufactured by humans, to tell the time (that is, "time" as represented by humans)/.

so what you will conclude in such a speciel case?

That you use extremely poor argumentation.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
We know because we have had a personal experience with Him


Alien abductees had "personal experiences" with extra terrestials.
They "know" too.
Out of all of these there is only one that is considered knowable in some personal way and that is Allah of the Islamic faith. They do not receive communication from Allah directly or personally. They receive all communication by the Quran and believe that sometimes it happens in dreams.

It's interesting that the only one that you consider worth it, is the one that comes from the same abrahmic tradition that you adhere to.

But make no mistake, all those others had "personal experiences" with their gods as well.
True. Or we are right and all the rest are wrong.

You can't all be right, since you all believe mutually exclusive things.
You can not know Allah, Shiva, Odin, Mars or Zeus exist because none of them communicate or reveal themselves personally to their followers.
Their followers, will disagree with you on that.

That is why it is a choice, why God allows you to determine that all are wrong.

Beliefs are not a matter of "choice". At least not, in case of holding rational beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

riesie

Active Member
Jun 22, 2015
263
150
The Netherlands
✟67,026.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You can't prove a negative...
If you think you can, go ahead and prove that there is NO undetactable dragon following you everywhere you go.

Hi @DogmaHunter , I'm just wondering. Isn't "No Undetectable" a bit of a double negative statement in this case?

And i.e. I can prove that I had no shoe for breakfast if you pumped my stomach. So it's very possible to prove a negative. You can prove something is or is not, right?

Regards, Ries
 
Upvote 0

riesie

Active Member
Jun 22, 2015
263
150
The Netherlands
✟67,026.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No. Negative claims of existance are a waste of time.
Positive claims are the claims that require evidence.

Isn't it: whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
We know because we have had a personal experience with Him


Out of all of these there is only one that is considered knowable in some personal way and that is Allah of the Islamic faith. They do not receive communication from Allah directly or personally. They receive all communication by the Quran and believe that sometimes it happens in dreams.

True. Or we are right and all the rest are wrong. You can not know Allah, Shiva, Odin, Mars or Zeus exist because none of them communicate or reveal themselves personally to their followers.


That is why it is a choice, why God allows you to determine that all are wrong.

So basically, you're saying that your "personal experiences" are somehow better or more thrustworthy then the "personal experiences" of others that don't agree with your "personal experiences".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hi @DogmaHunter , I'm just wondering. Isn't "No Undetectable" a bit of a double negative statement in this case?

Off course it is.

But that's exactly what God (or anything supernatural, for that matter) is: undetectable.

Which is exactly what the question in this thread is about: "why doesn't he just say 'hi'" is symbolism for "why isn't he detectable?".

That is, in the end, how we differentiate things that exist from things that don't exist: through some form of detectability

And i.e. I can prove that I had no shoe for breakfast if you pumped my stomach. So it's very possible to prove a negative. You can prove something is or is not, right?

Nope, you can not. The shoe could have been completely digested already and out of your system. Or perhaps you vomitted it back up already.

All that we could prove, is that you HAD shoe for breakfast. And we'ld prove it by actually finding the shoe.

Since we know how digestive systems work, we have a good enough reason to assume that you did not eat a shoe upon finding no shoe, that is correct.
However, even there... we are going by the things that we DO know - not by the things that we might not know (because how could we?).

Perhaps there is some part of the digestive system that we don't know about that makes shoes disappear instantly once they enter the stomach.
I agree that it is a hilariously unlikely thing which will likely only meet laughter when brought up (and rightly so). But you can not rule it out. And that is what "proving" means.

But supporting a claim and proving a claim, are two different animals.

Having said that, I was primarily talking about claims of existance. I should have been more specific about that.

One can not prove that a unicorn does NOT exist. Because how would you know that you actually looked everywhere? Not finding unicorns could also just mean that you've been searching in the wrong place. Not finding X today, does not exclude the possibility that you'ld find X tomorrow.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This is not necessarily a logical conclusion because it could be that the masterplan involves that there are generally speaking people who believe and people who don't. God wants a relationship with every human being.

If God has designed a world with unbelievers, then that is a sovereign act. And if God is omniscient, then he already knows who will believe and who will not. So if he allows me to remain a non-believer, then it must be in accord with his will. Do you see my point? If God is truly the absolute and ultimate universal sovereign, then any outcome that occurs must logically be part of his plan.

If someone's belief is meant to be is up to the person itself because God can't, and doesn't want to, force anybody into a relationship with Him.

Really? Was Saul of Tarsus's experience on the Damascus road not an act of God? In fact, how would you know that anytime a person comes to belief it's truly their choice, and not driven by divine intervention? Why is it not possible that God arranges events so that one accepts a relationship with him and Jesus in his life? Again, it's only logical that a sovereign God would do that in order to fulfill his plan.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Isn't it: whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim?

Yes. But the standard of proof for the claim "I don't believe you" is pretty low. Unless it is obvious someone is lying it is reasonable to assume they're telling the truth that they actually fail to believe in stuff they think they fail to believe in.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Alien abductees had "personal experiences" with extra terrestials.
They "know" too.
True, but doesn't equate.


It's interesting that the only one that you consider worth it, is the one that comes from the same abrahmic tradition that you adhere to.
That is incorrect, I considered many others.

But make no mistake, all those others had "personal experiences" with their gods as well.
You are assuming ancient people had experiences of which you have no way of confirming and with the Islamic faith, I have explained to you that they don't believe they are worthy to personally experience Allah.


You can't all be right, since you all believe mutually exclusive things.
You misunderstood me, when I said all of us I meant Christians.

Their followers, will disagree with you on that.
Well we will never know about the followers of the ancient gods and I don't think so as I stated above.



Beliefs are not a matter of "choice". At least not, in case of holding rational beliefs.
I didn't say nor did God that you had to give up rational thought.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So basically, you're saying that your "personal experiences" are somehow better or more thrustworthy then the "personal experiences" of others that don't agree with your "personal experiences".
Not at all. I am saying that those who follow Allah do not believe they are worthy for Allah to reveal himself to them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

riesie

Active Member
Jun 22, 2015
263
150
The Netherlands
✟67,026.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
One can not prove that a unicorn does NOT exist. Because how would you know that you actually looked everywhere? Not finding unicorns could also just mean that you've been searching in the wrong place. Not finding X today, does not exclude the possibility that you'ld find X tomorrow.

But in this case you also can't prove that a cunicorn does exist right?
What I mean is that you also not always can prove a positive.

And do you think there's a guaranty that all things we can't find now, we will find in the future? That suggests that time will reveal everything and is not more than a assumption. How do you then deal with the things we will never find and can only be dealt with by faith? Are they then by definition false?
 
Upvote 0

riesie

Active Member
Jun 22, 2015
263
150
The Netherlands
✟67,026.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Yes. But the standard of proof for the claim "I don't believe you" is pretty low. Unless it is obvious someone is lying it is reasonable to assume they're telling the truth that they actually fail to believe in stuff they think they fail to believe in.

If i.e. you make the claim: God does not exist. It is reasonable to have the burden of proof right?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
But in this case you also can't prove that a cunicorn does exist right?
What I mean is that you also not always can prove a positive.

That depends entirely on the thing being claimed to exist. If that thing is, like a god, basically defined as unfalsifiable / undetectable, then idd, it becomes logically impossible to demonstrate both its existance as well as non-existance.

Exactly right. This is why unfalsifiable claims are useless and potentially infinite in number, only limited by your own imagination.

And do you think there's a guaranty that all things we can't find now, we will find in the future?

Off course not.

That suggests that time will reveal everything and is not more than a assumption.

Sure. I never claimed otherwise.
It could very well be that there are certain things that we will simply never know about. In fact, I'm quite certain that that is the case.

How do you then deal with the things we will never find and can only be dealt with by faith?

Faith is not a way to deal with those.
Things that aren't known, aren't known - it's as simple as that.

Adding "faith" to the mix doesn't change that.

Are they then by definition false?
No. They aren't by definition true either.

They are ....drumroll..... unknown.
So why would you accept them one way or the other?

This demonstrates once again how useless "faith" is. How "faith" is anything BUT a pathway to truth.

On "faith", you can believe literally anything.
Because by defintion, as you imply here so elegantly, you apply faith to the things not known (in the sense of not demonstrated one way or the other).

You don't know what you don't know.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
True, but doesn't equate.


Why not?
Because it doesn't support your case?

That is incorrect, I considered many others.

Not what I meant.
I meant that you were rather quick to discard all the "personal experiences" from all religious believers that follow a religion that is vastly different then yours. Islam and christianity share the same abrahamic roots. They are the same "family" of religions.
You are assuming ancient people had experiences of which you have no way of confirming

Except off course, for all the hindu's alive today that claim personal experiences with the divine, as well as the many many writings from for example ancient greece and rome where they express similar experiences.

and with the Islamic faith, I have explained to you that they don't believe they are worthy to personally experience Allah.

Half my family is muslim or from muslim background. I think I know a thing or two about islam.
To say that muslims don't claim personal experiences with the divine, is beyond ridiculous.
You misunderstood me, when I said all of us I meant Christians.

I'm talking about all religious people. You can't all be right. Yet, you're all very convinced of your own religious beliefs, which you all motivate with the same kind of (bad) evidence.
There is no argument you can give, that the religious of other religions can't also give. Just by substituting words like "god" and "jesus" with their own divinities.

Well we will never know about the followers of the ancient gods and I don't think so as I stated above.

Except for the many writings they left behind.


I didn't say nor did God that you had to give up rational thought.

To demand faith, is to demand exactly that.
 
Upvote 0