Atheism and the Universal Knowledge of God

[variant]

I'm not trying to attack your character.

You already called me a liar so that ship has sailed.

 

[variant]

You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

I doubt it.

 

[brightlights]

I doubt it.

Fair enough. But I find it interesting that you refused to answer.

 

[variant]

Fair enough. But I find it interesting that you refused to answer.

I answered, you just don't believe me.

 

[brightlights]

I answered, you just don't believe me.

Could you direct me to the post that contains your answer? Maybe I missed it.

 

[variant]

Could you direct me to the post that contains your answer? Maybe I missed it.

Here:

brightlights
Variant let me ask a question. Are your main objections with the God of the Bible evidential objections or emotional and personal objections? In other words, do you wish that the biblical God existed but are disappointed to find no evidence? Or do you also find the biblical God offensive (along with lacking evidence for his existence)?

I have severe evidential objections to the bible or any other human being speaking for God.

 

[brightlights]

All due respect you didn't directly answer my question. I know that you have evidential objections. Do you also have personal and emotional objections or do you wish that the God of the Bible was real?

 

[variant]

All due respect you didn't directly answer my question. I know that you have evidential objections. Do you also have personal and emotional objections or do you wish that the God of the Bible was real?

Your question said "main objections" in it and when you didn't get the answer you wanted you decided to continue to question my motivations.

After this post mind you:

Now it should also be said that all people are naturally at enmity with God because of sin. All people are opposed to his lordship because it threatens their autonomy. It is only by the grace of God that his enemies are turned into friends and willing servants.

I say this to qualify that I don't think that I believe because I'm in some way better than others. I believe because of God's gracious initiative with me.

Which means you have already made up your mind about my motivations, so I refuse to discuss them any further.

I've answered enough of your questions, go ahead and demonstrate that God is evident.

 

[brightlights]

Okee doke. But this is a demonstration of my point. It's not primarily that God isn't evident. There are plenty of things that aren't entirely evident that we believe anyway because we need these beliefs or want these beliefs (such as the three I mentioned earlier).

People reject belief in the God of the Bible because they find him offensive.

 

[variant]

Okee doke. But this is a demonstration of my point. It's not primarily that God isn't evident.

Except as I said that is my main objection. What I object to mainly is other people telling me what God thinks when they have demonstrated no authority on the matter.

I find you offensive, that has nothing to do with God.

And yeah, it has everything to do with what is evident.

You can not call something knowledge when it is not in evidence, so you lost this thread in the title.

 

[brightlights]

Except as I said that is my main objection. What I object to mainly is other people telling me what God thinks when they have demonstrated no authority on the matter.

I find you offensive, that has nothing to do with God.

And yeah, it has everything to do with what is evident.

You can not call something knowledge when it is not in evidence, so you lost this thread in the title.

Well let's go back to those three questions. If you believe in a consistent dependable universe, moral norms, or knowledge per se then you already assume God's existence. His existence is the only explanation for these things. The best way to demonstrate this is to walk through it together. Do you believe any of these three propositions?

 

[variant]

Well let's go back to those three questions. If you believe in a consistent dependable universe, moral norms, or knowledge per se then you already assume God's existence. His existence is the only explanation for these things. The best way to demonstrate this is to walk through it together. Do you believe any of these three propositions?

Propositions 1 and 3 are fine second being debatable.

Please continue.

I'm going to need a definition of "god" somewhere along the line.

 

[brightlights]

Propositions 1 and 3 are fine second being debatable.

Please continue.

I'm going to need a definition of "god" somewhere along the line.

I gave my definition in the OP. Do you find this unacceptable?

 

[variant]

I gave my definition in the OP. Do you find this unacceptable?

No. "the cause of all things" is free not to be a God.

 

[brightlights]

No. "the cause of all things" is free not to be a God.

My definition was "the person who created the world, who appeared to the fathers, who raised Israel from Egypt, and who raised Jesus from the dead."

 

[variant]

My definition was "the person who created the world, who appeared to the fathers, who raised Israel from Egypt, and who raised Jesus from the dead."

I was reducing that to it's simplest form and refuting it out of the gate.

You can continue though I would like to hear the rest of the argument.

 

[brightlights]

I was reducing that to it's simplest form and refuting it out of the gate.

You can continue though I would like to hear the rest of the argument.

I'm not sure how a definition can be refuted. What do you mean?

 

[variant]

I'm not sure how a definition can be refuted. What do you mean?

If it's not appropriate.

You could for instance beg the question by saying that "God is the creator of a stable universe" and try to prove your conclusion that way.

I will accept your definition for "the sake of argument".

 

[Hetta]

If the God of the Bible is divine then all people have immediate knowledge of him.

I don't see how you can prove this. I know about God because I was taken to church from birth (literally) and raised in a church. I know many people who were not taken to church and had parents who simply never thought about God. They didn't hear about God until some time in grade school. They had no idea what other people were talking about. I have a relative who was born to a Buddhist family in a Buddhist country. She never heard of God until she came to the west. I can't imagine how it must be for those who are on the very margins of non-western societies who have no media, and little contact with the outside world, but they certainly have no concept of God - otherwise, why the need for missionaries?. The original inhabitants of America had 'gods' of nature because that was what they lived with and so that is what they prayed to. According to your theory, they should have had immediate knowledge of God. Obviously they did not. Europeans brought Christianity to America.

 

[brightlights]

Continuing...

Let's first look at a dependable universe. We can count on the physical world to continue to function the way it's always functioned because a personal God has promised to uphold it. If you remove the personal God then you have no reason to believe that what's been observed in the past will continue in the future. This is simply a nice thought that you embrace but it is embraced irrationally. People often try to demonstrate this using empiricism:

1. We have always observed a consistent world
2. What we've always observed will continue in the future
3. Therefore we can depend on what we've always observed.

Premise 2 is entirely without support. Scientists predict future events using empiricism but empiricism itself can give no reason to suppose that anything will continue as it has. Hume demonstrated that. Scientists also incorporate the Christian idea of a consistent universe upheld by a personal God, though they may reject the God bit. They're still co-opting the biblical idea.