Faith and Atheism

[Illuminaughty]

So, basically what I was asking in rambling sort of way was how can I have certainty that such experiences can best be explained by the presence or communication with a literal objective god being?

It might be more convincing if the experience gave me access to information I couldn't possibly have on my own or gain via speculation and intuition but that never seems to be the case. All the information obtained could easily be explained without bringing a god into the equation.

 

[Hawisher]

So, basically what I was asking in rambling sort of way was how can I have certainty that such experiences can best be explained by the presence or communication with a literal objective god being?

It might be more convincing if the experience gave me accesses to information I couldn't possibly have on my own or gain via speculation and intuition but that never seems to be the case. All the information obtained could easily be explained without bringing a god into the equation.

I think it's very likely that you didn't experience an actual contact with God. I recently wrote a short post in the defense of non-coercive proof, and what it amounts to is that any miracle God ever works, ever, ever, ever, can be explained away rationally. Explaining it away may not be the best option (although in your case I believe it probably is), but it's not possible for Him to provide coercive proof of His existence while still preserving our free will.

 

[Illuminaughty]

but it's not possible for Him to provide coercive proof of His existence while still preserving our free will.

How did so many of the angels reject God then? Satan is even shown to be in heaven having a conversation with God in the book of Job yet he supposedly still rebelled against God. If Satan could still do his thing after talking with God in that manner why can't I ?

I'm not sure I understand the idea that "coercive" proof of a beings existence ruins the ability to have a good loving (or hateful) relationship with that being either. My mom has proven her existence to me in a way that is beyond any rational doubt whatsoever. I see her on a regular basis. Yet I still love her. Other people might hate their mothers.

To me the statement that there can't be "coercive" proof for something just seems like a method to brush aside a lack of evidence. It's a way of making a statement about Gods existence unfalsifiable. Add to this the shifting of the burden of proof onto those who don't believe God that normally takes place and you run into all sorts of problems. People can literally assert anything that way and claim that their assertion is somehow unassailable.

 

[Elioenai26]

How did so many of the angels reject God then? Satan is even shown to be in heaven having a conversation with God in the book of Job yet he supposedly still rebelled against God. If Satan could still do his thing after talking with God in that manner why can't I ?

I'm not sure I understand the idea that "coercive" proof of a beings existence ruins the ability to have a good loving (or hateful) relationship with that being either. My mom has proven her existence to me in a way that is beyond any rational doubt whatsoever. I see her on a regular basis. Yet I still love her. Other people might hate their mothers.

To me the statement that there can't be "coercive" proof for something just seems like a method to brush aside a lack of evidence. It's a way of making a statement about Gods existence unfalsifiable. Add to this the shifting of the burden of proof onto those who don't believe God that normally takes place and you run into all sorts of problems. People can literally assert anything that way and claim that their assertion is somehow unassailable.

You seem to be under the impression that Christians become Christians by examining a research paper on the empirical evidence for God, or by looking through a telescope and saying: "My goodness, there He is, floating around near Alpha Centauri!" I believe in Him now!" Or that Christians believe in Christ after He comes and stands beside their bed while they are watching Jeopardy on T.V. and says: "See, I am real, now believe in me!"

It simply does not work that way. I think you can understand why the above even sounds ridiculous. God is not some magician who works magic tricks in order for people to wowed and amazed by Him.

There is one thing that is overlooked in discussing how one comes to know God, and that is the idea of humility. Every person who has ever had an encounter with God has had to humble themselves and come to the point of realizing that they are, in and of themselves, unable to apprehend God. No amount of intellect, no amount of knowledge, no amount of learning, will ever make a man capable of apprehending God in and of himself.

Many in the academic community are so intellectually intelligent that their intelligence becomes an obstacle to them apprehending spiritual matters. The tendency to rely solely on one's own capabilities is a matter ultimately of pride. This can only be overcome by humbling oneself and seeking God with pure intent.

Pride coupled with apathy towards anything spiritual makes for a great many intelligent people who are completely ignorant of God and how to approach Him.

 

[Hawisher]

How did so many of the angels reject God then? Satan is even shown to be in heaven having a conversation with God in the book of Job yet he supposedly still rebelled against God. If Satan could still do his thing after talking with God in that manner why can't I ?

Two reasons: the first is that I have no freaking idea. I'll give this some more thought and get back to you. The second is that I'm not saying it would be impossible to reject God if he appeared to you, I'm saying that it would be a strong violation of your free will to believe or disbelieve. In the Old Testament, salvation was largely a function of following God's laws to the letter (sacrifices, etc.) and generally doing your best to be righteous, but even then he didn't provide irrefutable proof of his status as the One God.
In the modern era, salvation is moreso a function of belief in Jesus. Of course, you still have to accept him (it's not sufficient to believe but be a blasphemer), but the heavy lifting is done. Also, I don't really know of anyone who could consciously and rationally reject a being that they knew would damn them eternally for doing so.

I'm not sure I understand the idea that "coercive" proof of a beings existence ruins the ability to have a good loving (or hateful) relationship with that being either. My mom has proven her existence to me in a way that is beyond any rational doubt whatsoever. I see her on a regular basis. Yet I still love her. Other people might hate their mothers.

If all God wanted was automatons that loved Him, he could make a bunch of robots.

To me the statement that there can't be "coercive" proof for something just seems like a method to brush aside a lack of evidence. It's a way of making a statement about Gods existence unfalsifiable. Add to this the shifting of the burden of proof onto those who don't believe God that normally takes place and you run into all sorts of problems. People can literally assert anything that way and claim that their assertion is somehow unassailable.

I'm not saying there's no evidence, I'm saying that we cannot prove beyond all doubt that God exists. That's different.

 

[Elioenai26]

If all God wanted was automatons that loved Him, he could make a bunch of robots.

Just a little note here:

Automatons and robots are not capable of love at all. Only persons with volitional, emotional, and rational capacities are even capable of loving...
Therefore, we, human beings, and the angels, are the only creatures (that we know of), who even have the capacity to love.....

Carry on!

 

[Hawisher]

Just a little note here:

Automatons and robots are not capable of love at all. Only persons with volitional, emotional, and rational capacities are even capable of loving...
Therefore, we, human beings, and the angels, are the only creatures (that we know of), who even have the capacity to love.....

Carry on!

Y'know, I bet that God could make a robot that could love, if he tried hard enough. It just wouldn't mean anything.

 

[Davian]

You seem to be under the impression that Christians become Christians by examining a research paper on the empirical evidence for God, or by looking through a telescope and saying: "My goodness, there He is, floating around near Alpha Centauri!" I believe in Him now!" Or that Christians believe in Christ after He comes and stands beside their bed while they are watching Jeopardy on T.V. and says: "See, I am real, now believe in me!"

It simply does not work that way.

Special pleading.

You are demanding a different set of rules for establishing the existence of your 'God' than what is typically used to explore the world around us.

I think you can understand why the above even sounds ridiculous. God is not some magician who works magic tricks in order for people to wowed and amazed by Him.

What about those bible stories where that was done?

There is one thing that is overlooked in discussing how one comes to know God, and that is the idea of humility. Every person who has ever had an encounter with God has had to humble themselves and come to the point of realizing that they are, in and of themselves, unable to apprehend God. No amount of intellect, no amount of knowledge, no amount of learning, will ever make a man capable of apprehending God in and of himself.

How do you know this?

Many in the academic community are so intellectually intelligent that their intelligence becomes an obstacle to them apprehending spiritual matters. The tendency to rely solely on one's own capabilities is a matter ultimately of pride. This can only be overcome by humbling oneself and seeking God with pure intent.

Or they see it as a work of fiction. That has far more explanatory power for why you are having so much trouble here.

Pride coupled with apathy towards anything spiritual makes for a great many intelligent people who are completely ignorant of God and how to approach Him.

Do you think of nihilists as proud?

 

[Elioenai26]

Special pleading.

You are demanding a different set of rules for establishing the existence of your 'God' than what is typically used to explore the world around us.

I have demanded nothing. However, it is not strange or irrational to think, that since God, by definition, is wholly unlike the natural world around us, that we would not be able to establish His existence in the manner that is typical of how we establish the existence of natural entities. In fact, it would be irrational to think that God's existence could be established this way.

What about those bible stories where that was done?

The biblical accounts of miracles were far from magic tricks and they were never done so people could be wowed and amazed by them as if God were in need of an audience to perform in front of.

How do you know this?

Experience.

Or they see it as a work of fiction. That has far more explanatory power for why you are having so much trouble here.

No doubt they see it as a work of fiction. But why? Is it not that many presuppose that miracles are impossible? If so, then this is question begging for naturalism.

 

[Illuminaughty]

You seem to be under the impression that Christians become Christians by examining a research paper on the empirical evidence for God

Not really. People become Christians for all sorts of reasons. I had a conversion / born again type experience , became a Christian, and was pretty gung ho about it myself for about 5 years. It wasn't that type of research that brought me in either. So no I'm not assuming everyone becomes a Christian through that route.

It simply does not work that way. I think you can understand why the above even sounds ridiculous. God is not some magician who works magic tricks in order for people to wowed and amazed by Him.

If God existed it wouldn't sound ridiculous at all that He might make his presence irrefutably known. Especially if he was compassionate and wanted to have a relationship with everyone including the people who require evidence to believe things. Generally people have to know you exist before they can have a relationship with you. In fact, the Bible even portrays Him as having done so at certain times in the past. Talking to someone out of a burning bush. Christs transfiguration on the mountain, God actually having a conversation with Job in all his fearful glory, Christ raising the dead and walking on water, etc...

There is one thing that is overlooked in discussing how one comes to know God, and that is the idea of humility. Every person who has ever had an encounter with God has had to humble themselves and come to the point of realizing that they are, in and of themselves, unable to apprehend God.

How can I believe in God when I have yet to be convinced of his existence in the first place? Can I try real hard and make the belief arise within me despite the lack of all evidence that would normally cause me to think that way ?

It seems your going back to the "believe and then you will know" thing. That's the common teaching of all the mind control cults out there**. First you have to accept that our Guru is an Avatar and then you will witness his miracle powers of levitation and find all the evidence you require of his mighty power! That's how you run into delusion and confirmation bias. Believing is seeing as they say.

No amount of intellect, no amount of knowledge, no amount of learning, will ever make a man capable of apprehending God in and of himself.

If God existed and this were the case atheism would be Gods fault. If man can't find God and only God can reveal himself to man then his failure to reveal himself to certain people would hardly be their fault. Why hide from people ?

Many in the academic community are so intellectually intelligent that their intelligence becomes an obstacle to them apprehending spiritual matters. The tendency to rely solely on one's own capabilities is a matter ultimately of pride. This can only be overcome by humbling oneself and seeking God with pure intent.

I'm not an academic. I'm not even a high school graduate. Heck, I'm an ex junkie and by many people standards a looser. I have no delusions of grandeur that I'm smarter then everyone else in the world. I just happen to be a skeptic by nature and require evidence before I'm willing to dedicate my life to something like a religion. I've given most of the world religions a try at one point and none of them have panned out for me. I really wanted them to work too.


** Not saying you are a part of one. I'm just pointing out the danger of that type of thinking.

 

[Hawisher]

Or they see it as a work of fiction. That has far more explanatory power for why you are having so much trouble here.

And that's very, very stupid. At the very worst, it's an inaccurate work of non-fiction, which you should understand is very different from a work of fiction.

 

[Davian]

I have demanded nothing.

Special pleading. You do it every time you say "It simply does not work that way" rather than "it works this way ______".

However, it is not strange or irrational to think, that since God, by definition, is wholly unlike the natural world around us, that we would not be able to establish His existence in the manner that is typical of how we establish the existence of natural entities. In fact, it would be irrational to think that God's existence could be established this way.

What is this 'definition' that you refer to? Other than, again, telling us what is this god it not.

The biblical accounts of miracles were far from magic tricks and they were never done so people could be wowed and amazed by them as if God were in need of an audience to perform in front of.

They may have been tricks, or complete works of fiction. Regardless, in the story where Jesus fed the 5000, did the recipients walk up and collect their share as if it was a typical trip the the market?

Experience.

Personal testimony of something you were"unable to apprehend". Weak evidence indeed.

No doubt they see it as a work of fiction. But why? Is it not that many presuppose that miracles are impossible? If so, then this is question begging for naturalism.

Let's go with that goalpost move, from "God" to "Miracles".

No, they might see gods as works of fiction in that "miracles" to date have turned out to be hoaxes, deceptions, have natural explanations, or be complete works of fiction.

From my previous post, do you think of nihilists as proud?

 

[Jade Margery]

Two reasons: the first is that I have no freaking idea. I'll give this some more thought and get back to you. The second is that I'm not saying it would be impossible to reject God if he appeared to you, I'm saying that it would be a strong violation of your free will to believe or disbelieve. In the Old Testament, salvation was largely a function of following God's laws to the letter (sacrifices, etc.) and generally doing your best to be righteous, but even then he didn't provide irrefutable proof of his status as the One God.

Can you go into more detail about why it providing evidence for something 'violates' our free will?

For one thing, it seems to me that belief isn't something you actually choose anyway. Either you are convinced that something is true, or you aren't--there's no choice in the matter. You could ACT as though you are convinced when really you aren't, but what you actually believe is not something you get to control.

Could you, right now, sincerely and truly believe that Santa exists? Is that a choice you can freely make? Can you say, 'From this day forth, I will believe in the jolly old elf with all of my heart' despite all of the evidence and knowledge you have accumulated that suggests it simply couldn't be so?

Could you, as a christian, sincerely decide to stop believing in god right this second?

If not, then I would posit that belief has nothing to do with free will.

What does violate free will is withholding information from someone who is making a crucial decision. For example, suppose a man and his wife are getting intimate. The man (or woman, it doesn't matter) has been unfaithful, and has a sexually transmitted disease that is fairly dangerous, but does not tell his partner about it. If the other person was in full possession of the facts, she would probably not choose to have sex with him. By not providing her with the truth, he denies her ability to make a free and informed choice and is also putting her at risk for illness or even death.

Presumably an all powerful being possesses the power (since it is all powerful) to personally provide every single person with proof of its existence that will convince them of the truth, regardless of how skeptical or disbelieving that person was previously. With this greater knowledge in hand, everyone could then make informed decisions about whether or not to obey/love/worship this being. By not providing us with the truth, such a being (if one existed) is denying our ability to make free and informed choices, and is also putting us at risk for eternal torture.*

In the modern era, salvation is moreso a function of belief in Jesus. Of course, you still have to accept him (it's not sufficient to believe but be a blasphemer), but the heavy lifting is done. Also, I don't really know of anyone who could consciously and rationally reject a being that they knew would damn them eternally for doing so.
If all God wanted was automatons that loved Him, he could make a bunch of robots.

Well, if god did exist as you described, I certainly wouldn't be a loving robot. I wouldn't reject him (no, I'm not ready to be tortured forever to prove a point to a psychotic) but I would only obey out of fear, not love. Rather like a child in an abusive relationship, constantly under threat and willing to do anything to avoid torment.



*Unless you're a universalist.

 

[Hawisher]

Coercive evidence violates your freedom to choose or reject God. My thoughts were a little jumbled, there. Let me restate: If you know, beyond all doubt, that God exists, cannot choose to accept or reject Him from a truly free standpoint. Belief isn't so hard and fast as you describe. It's rarely in granite; it's usually made of soapstone. If you want to believe, it's not hard to find reasons to believe, and if you want to disbelieve, it's even easier.

 

[Davian]

...
Many in the academic community are so intellectually intelligent that their intelligence becomes an obstacle to them apprehending spiritual matters.
...

...
Or they see it as a work of fiction. That has far more explanatory power for why you are having so much trouble here.

And that's very, very stupid.

Are you calling me stupid?

At the very worst, it's an inaccurate work of non-fiction, which you should understand is very different from a work of fiction.

No, at it's very worst, I would say that what we call 'spiritual matters' are a complete fabrication, created with the intent to deceive. That is a possibility.

But, going with your "inaccurate work of non-fiction" comment: Sure. Spiderman is an inaccurate work of non-fiction. He lives in New York, located on the east coast of the United States. What part is not accurate?

 

[Hawisher]

Are you calling me stupid?

No. I'm saying a position that you hold is stupid. I hold some stupid positions as well.

No, at it's very worst, I would say that what we call 'spiritual matters' are a complete fabrication, created with the intent to deceive. That is a possibility.

But, going with your "inaccurate work of non-fiction" comment: Sure. Spiderman is an inaccurate work of non-fiction. He lives in New York, located on the east coast of the United States. What part is not accurate?

Can you seriously not tell the difference between a book written under the belief that it is true and a book that is written with the knowledge that it is false?

The first is an inaccurate work of non-fiction, and the second is a work of fiction.

 

[Belk]

Coercive evidence violates your freedom to choose or reject God. My thoughts were a little jumbled, there. Let me restate: If you know, beyond all doubt, that God exists, cannot choose to accept or reject Him from a truly free standpoint. Belief isn't so hard and fast as you describe. It's rarely in granite; it's usually made of soapstone. If you want to believe, it's not hard to find reasons to believe, and if you want to disbelieve, it's even easier.

I disagree. I will agree that it would violate my ability to believe or not believe in God, but I am still able to accept or reject is offer. In fact, it makes it much more simple of a matter to accept or reject since I would know it was a serious offer backed by a real entity.

 

[Jade Margery]

Coercive evidence violates your freedom to choose or reject God. My thoughts were a little jumbled, there. Let me restate: If you know, beyond all doubt, that God exists, cannot choose to accept or reject Him from a truly free standpoint. Belief isn't so hard and fast as you describe. It's rarely in granite; it's usually made of soapstone. If you want to believe, it's not hard to find reasons to believe, and if you want to disbelieve, it's even easier.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of 'truly free'. I consider one to be free to make a decision only when one is fully informed about the situation with the most accurate knowledge available at the time. It is impossible to be completely knowledgeable about all aspects and circumstances, but those who deliberately withhold or obscure crucial information cannot be said to allow others to make 'truly free' decisions.

Your definition, as near as I can tell, seems to be almost the exact opposite. People are only 'truly free' to make a choice when they are given no provably accurate information that could possibly bias them in any way, since informing them might 'coerce' them to one way of thought or the other.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not equate ignorance with freedom.

 

[seeking Christ]

So, basically what I was asking in rambling sort of way was how can I have certainty that such experiences can best be explained by the presence or communication with a literal objective god being?

It might be more convincing if the experience gave me accesses to information I couldn't possibly have on my own or gain via speculation and intuition but that never seems to be the case.

That would be the biggie for me. I'd like to say that in every instance there was a certain "knowing," but that's probably not true in my case. I had exposure to it under conditions when I wasn't sure, so Faith is something that develops.

 

[seeking Christ]

I think it's very likely that you didn't experience an actual contact with God. I recently wrote a short post in the defense of non-coercive proof, and what it amounts to is that any miracle God ever works, ever, ever, ever, can be explained away rationally.

I see what you're saying and of course doubters can poo pooh, but I have experienced things that defy rational explanation. And yet that never happened in an environment where I could possibly doubt if God existed, so it doesn't violate your basic premise either.