Faith and Atheism

[seeking Christ]

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.

Here you have uncovered 2 very sobering questions. Even further: how did even 1 angel reject God? And more to the point, what exactly happened in that "rejection?" I think these are all serious warnings to us, and yes I think we're fully capable of making the same mistake.

To anyone curious about having any real contact with God, I urge you to experiment with intentionally veering away from this specific mistake, as a deliberate and conscious attempt to approach God. Of all the things anyone could "point you to" to approach God, this may be the biggest.

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

Speaking of beliefs as the word is used today, I agree with you. What the Bible refers to as faith is certainly a choice. (It could be argued we can choose to reject it but we cannot fabricate it, but I digress)

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

There are some reasons why this is not so, but the simplest is to point out that God chose to create things in such a way that He is invisible to us. This alone runs directly counter to what you assert, so, you must be wrong here.

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.

Time to wrap your head around an apparent contradiction in the Bible:

the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (where you are in this hypothetical scenario) perfect love casts out fear. (Growing room, and we all do need to grow)

 

[KWCrazy]

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.*

The one requirement for salvation is faith. Faith is the belief in things which are not proven. When God proves His existence to you, you will have no need of faith, but neither will you have any hope of salvation. Faith is God saying, "I gave my Son to take away your sins and offer you a pathway to Heaven. The arrogance of man is that he stands there, crosses his arms and tells God to prove it. He will prove it, though not until He has given you your last opportunity to come to Him by faith. When you see Him and know that He is God it will bee too late. You can confess that He is the one true God, but Satan did that as well. What condemned him was his rebellion. What condemns you is yours.

If a person seeks God, he will find God. The gift of salvation is the Holy Spirit, who reveals the true meaning of the word of God to us when we study the Bible and who carries our prayers to the father. Once you discover the Holy Spirit, there is no doubt that God is real. If you seek Him, you will find Him. If you do not seek Him, you will never find Him. Sitting there and demanding proof only makes you look as foolish as a child playing hide and seek who insists his friends do not exist because he can't find them from the comfort of his sofa.

The ignorance of those who never look for anything and then loudly proclaim that it doesn't exist would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic. If people spent half the effort looking for God that they do looking for porn America would have an enormous revival.

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

Excellent point! Now consider how great God must be, to be able to give everyone a chance, and also to judge everyone, and to do so correctly.

It boggles my mind, I know I could never do it.

 

[Jade Margery]

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

There are some reasons why this is not so, but the simplest is to point out that God chose to create things in such a way that He is invisible to us. This alone runs directly counter to what you assert, so, you must be wrong here.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here. What, specifically, does 'this' run directly counter to? I don't see how anything you have said counters anything I have said, and request a more detailed explanation of your comment. You said I 'must be wrong' but I'm not sure which part you are referring to.

Time to wrap your head around an apparent contradiction in the Bible:

the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (where you are in this hypothetical scenario) perfect love casts out fear. (Growing room, and we all do need to grow)

Love that must exist alongside the threat of unending agony cannot be perfect. At best it could be like stockholm syndrome. The kidnapped begins in fear of the kidnapper, then comes to equate any show of mercy as kindness, until they forget that the only reason they are in the retched situation at all was because they were forced to be and they stay with their kidnapper willingly and even lovingly.

Perfect love, as you have described it.

For me at least, real love does not begin with fear.

 

[Davian]

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

You would need to show that a book "written under the belief that it is true" could not be fiction. Can you do that, in a manner that would justify your comment of "very, very stupid"?

Do all of the participants in a Ponzi scheme understand that the scheme is destined to collapse?

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hawisher]

You would need to show that a book "written under the belief that it is true" could not be fiction. Can you do that, in a manner that would justify your comment of "very, very stupid"?

Do all of the participants in a Ponzi scheme understand that the scheme is destined to collapse?

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What on earth does a ponzi scheme have to do with anything? Also, here. Non-fiction (or nonfiction) is the form of any narrative, account, or other communicative work whose assertions and descriptions are understood to be factual. This presentation may be accurate or not—that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question—however, it is generally assumed that authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition or, at least, pose them to their audience as historically or empirically true. It's from Wikipedia.

 

[seeking Christ]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here. What, specifically, does 'this' run directly counter to? I don't see how anything you have said counters anything I have said, and request a more detailed explanation of your comment. You said I 'must be wrong' but I'm not sure which part you are referring to.

You have one concluding remark in the portion I quoted. That conclusion is countered by the import of God being invisible to us.

Love that must exist alongside the threat of unending agony cannot be perfect. At best it could be like stockholm syndrome. The kidnapped begins in fear of the kidnapper, then comes to equate any show of mercy as kindness, until they forget that the only reason they are in the retched situation at all was because they were forced to be and they stay with their kidnapper willingly and even lovingly.

Perfect love, as you have described it.

First of all God forces no one, so your comparison doesn't work. Next, I make no claim of any perfection. Perhaps what you'll find most relevant is that those who experience this don't report what you speculate, so its fair to conclude that some other must be going on.

For me at least, real love does not begin with fear.

That is not the claim made, it is wisdom that begins with the fear of the Lord.

 

[Jade Margery]

The one requirement for salvation is faith. Faith is the belief in things which are not proven. When God proves His existence to you, you will have no need of faith, but neither will you have any hope of salvation. Faith is God saying, "I gave my Son to take away your sins and offer you a pathway to Heaven. The arrogance of man is that he stands there, crosses his arms and tells God to prove it. He will prove it, though not until He has given you your last opportunity to come to Him by faith. When you see Him and know that He is God it will bee too late. You can confess that He is the one true God, but Satan did that as well. What condemned him was his rebellion. What condemns you is yours.

By your own description, may I assume that the twelve apostles + the other witnesses to Jesus's resurrection/miracles did not receive salvation? After all, they had proof, which means they couldn't have faith, ergo no salvation for them.

It is not god offering me a path to heaven. It is people. Men and women who already believe something, who are handing me a book or writing me a post and saying, here, believe this. We have no proof. We can't give you any proof until after you are dead.

It's a bit like someone telling you, 'Hey, give me ten dollars every day, and when you die I will give all of your children palaces to live in. No, I can't show you the palaces first, no, I don't have any proof that I will do as I say. What's the matter with you? Why don't you have faith? Why don't you believe me?'

When god shows up in person, I'll uncross my arms. So long as it's just a bunch of fallible human beings claiming things to be true without proof or evidence, and acting no different from any of the other groups of equally fallible human beings who belong to different religions that require the same amount of blind faith, I'm not likely to change my mind.

If a person seeks God, he will find God. The gift of salvation is the Holy Spirit, who reveals the true meaning of the word of God to us when we study the Bible and who carries our prayers to the father. Once you discover the Holy Spirit, there is no doubt that God is real. If you seek Him, you will find Him. If you do not seek Him, you will never find Him. Sitting there and demanding proof only makes you look as foolish as a child playing hide and seek who insists his friends do not exist because he can't find them from the comfort of his sofa.

Analogy fail.

The ignorance of those who never look for anything and then loudly proclaim that it doesn't exist would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic. If people spent half the effort looking for God that they do looking for porn America would have an enormous revival. [/COLOR]

Seriously? Is this your first time on the internet? Porn takes no effort whatsoever. In fact you have to make an effort to AVOID it.

 

[Jade Margery]

You have one concluding remark in the portion I quoted. That conclusion is countered by the import of God being invisible to us.

So, this:

By not providing us with the truth, such a being (if one existed) is denying our ability to make free and informed choices.

Is countered by.... this?

God chose to create things in such a way that He is invisible to us.

Um.

Those things don't counter each other at all. In fact your statement actually compliments mine rather nicely.

That is not the claim made, it is wisdom that begins with the fear of the Lord.

Fair enough, I misunderstood what you were saying. I still disagree. Being afraid of the imaginary does not make you wise.

 

[seeking Christ]

By your own description, may I assume that the twelve apostles + the other witnesses to Jesus's resurrection/miracles did not receive salvation? After all, they had proof, which means they couldn't have faith, ergo no salvation for them.

Actually the Bible gives us insight into this, that they did not have proof at all. Jesus spoke some highly divisive words to Peter about being the rock the Church was to be built on, but it was predicated upon a revelation directly from God rather than proof. In doubting Thomas' famous scene the same exact thing happens, although most people usually miss that.

It is not god offering me a path to heaven. It is people.

Actually, people can do no such thing. As much as we might like to, the Kingdom is not our's to offer. The most we can do is point you to Jesus.

It's a bit like someone telling you, 'Hey, give me ten dollars every day, and when you die I will give all of your children palaces to live in. No, I can't show you the palaces first, no, I don't have any proof that I will do as I say. What's the matter with you? Why don't you have faith? Why don't you believe me?'

Perhaps it is, a bit; but He also gives us a downpayment that we can experience now.

When god shows up in person, I'll uncross my arms.

Fair enough, but only kinda. He doesn't have to "show up," being omnipresent and all. We are the ones who need to have our eyes opened, for lack of a better term. It does take effort on our part. While some of us may wish to help, none of us can tell you exactly what you must do. We can narrow down the range of possibilities though.

 

[seeking Christ]

So, this:

Is countered by.... this?

Um.

Those things don't counter each other at all. In fact your statement actually compliments mine rather nicely.

Only if you insist on your assumption that God is "out to get you." Which is the exact fear you say you don't have, and won't accept. On the other hand you could very well entertain the notion that God designed us so that He would be invisible to us, so therefore we would not have proof such as you seem to want, but we could arrive at truth anyway. I don't know if you can see what I'm saying, but it is rather different than your idea.

Fair enough, I misunderstood what you were saying. I still disagree. Being afraid of the imaginary does not make you wise.

It should be obvious that no one is advocating being afraid of the imaginary.

 

[KWCrazy]

By your own description, may I assume that the twelve apostles + the other witnesses to Jesus's resurrection/miracles did not receive salvation? After all, they had proof, which means they couldn't have faith, ergo no salvation for them.

You certainly aren't foolish enough to confuse the fact that they knew Christ was the son of God before the resurrection with the new covenant that was fulfilled BY the resurrection are you? Jesus was the final prophet; the true son of God. He told us there would be no other prophets, and that no man would come to the Father but through Him. If you lived then, saw His miracles and believed, good for you; but aren't you kinda old?

It is not god offering me a path to heaven. It is people.

Why?
Why would we care whether you went to Heaven or Hell?
What concern is it of ours? We could just sit back and watch you, and laugh to ourselves knowing that you're the one who will be condemned for thinking you know things you don't.
Why don't we?
Because we are commanded to love our neighbors, and to spread the Gospel. We can't make you listen, we can only tell you what we've learned. We can't make you read the bible, we can only tell you that God reveals Himself to the person who seeks Him.

We can only pass on God's word. We can't make you listen or believe it. You are free to continue to be like the fool who says in his heart, "There is no God." Part of free will is the ability to accept or reject what you wish to.

You could find literally thousands of personal experiences with the supernatural online. Some, maybe even most are made up. Not all. What constitutes proof to one person doesn't constitute proof to others. To people who were there, this is a miracle. Of course, since it didn't happen to you and you weren't there, it's pretty obvious that you won't believe it.

People talk about wanting proof of God's existence, but the reality is that there is no proof you would ever receive that would convince you. If you choose not to believe, there will never be enough proof.

 

[Davian]

What on earth does a ponzi scheme have to do with anything?

It is an example of a situation where some of the participants in a scheme are aware that the potential for all to profit is zero, while most of the participants believe otherwise. We would refer to those individuals as "deceived".

Also, here. Non-fiction (or nonfiction) is the form of any narrative, account, or other communicative work whose assertions and descriptions are understood to be factual. This presentation may be accurate or not—that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question—however, it is generally assumed that authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition or, at least, pose them to their audience as historically or empirically true. It's from Wikipedia.

I am not going to make that assumption. Whatever works you are referring to, if they do not line up with the scientific observations of the world around us, they are not understood to be factual.

That you believe that they have been presented as historically or empirically true does not preclude the works from being partially or entirely fabricated.

Again, the burden is on you to show how a book "written under the belief that it is true" could not be fiction. That the writers - in some cases transcribing oral traditions to paper - believed the the stories to be true, is insufficient.

 

[Elioenai26]

Here you have uncovered 2 very sobering questions. Even further: how did even 1 angel reject God? And more to the point, what exactly happened in that "rejection?" I think these are all serious warnings to us, and yes I think we're fully capable of making the same mistake.

To anyone curious about having any real contact with God, I urge you to experiment with intentionally veering away from this specific mistake, as a deliberate and conscious attempt to approach God. Of all the things anyone could "point you to" to approach God, this may be the biggest.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here. What, specifically, does 'this' run directly counter to? I don't see how anything you have said counters anything I have said, and request a more detailed explanation of your comment. You said I 'must be wrong' but I'm not sure which part you are referring to.



Love that must exist alongside the threat of unending agony cannot be perfect. At best it could be like stockholm syndrome. The kidnapped begins in fear of the kidnapper, then comes to equate any show of mercy as kindness, until they forget that the only reason they are in the retched situation at all was because they were forced to be and they stay with their kidnapper willingly and even lovingly.

Perfect love, as you have described it.

For me at least, real love does not begin with fear.

You would need to show that a book "written under the belief that it is true" could not be fiction. Can you do that, in a manner that would justify your comment of "very, very stupid"?

Do all of the participants in a Ponzi scheme understand that the scheme is destined to collapse?

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By your own description, may I assume that the twelve apostles + the other witnesses to Jesus's resurrection/miracles did not receive salvation? After all, they had proof, which means they couldn't have faith, ergo no salvation for them.

It is not god offering me a path to heaven. It is people. Men and women who already believe something, who are handing me a book or writing me a post and saying, here, believe this. We have no proof. We can't give you any proof until after you are dead.

It's a bit like someone telling you, 'Hey, give me ten dollars every day, and when you die I will give all of your children palaces to live in. No, I can't show you the palaces first, no, I don't have any proof that I will do as I say. What's the matter with you? Why don't you have faith? Why don't you believe me?'

When god shows up in person, I'll uncross my arms. So long as it's just a bunch of fallible human beings claiming things to be true without proof or evidence, and acting no different from any of the other groups of equally fallible human beings who belong to different religions that require the same amount of blind faith, I'm not likely to change my mind.



Analogy fail.



Seriously? Is this your first time on the internet? Porn takes no effort whatsoever. In fact you have to make an effort to AVOID it.

So, this:

Is countered by.... this?

Um.

Those things don't counter each other at all. In fact your statement actually compliments mine rather nicely.



Fair enough, I misunderstood what you were saying. I still disagree. Being afraid of the imaginary does not make you wise.

What Hawisher and seeking Christ are saying, and what I have been saying as well, is what the French Mathematician Blaise Pascal said more eloquently in his Pensees. I provide it below:

Pascal on God's Hiddenness

​

"God has willed to redeem men and to open salvation to those who seek it. But men render themselves so unworthy of it that it is right that God should refuse to some, because of their obduracy, what He grants others from a compassion which is not due to them. If He had willed to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself so manifestly to them that they could not have doubted of the truth of His essence; as it will appear at the last day, with such thunders and such a convulsion of nature that the dead will rise again, and the blindest will see Him.” It is not in this manner that He has willed to appear in His advent of mercy, because, as so many make themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in the loss of the good which they do not want.

It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him.

He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition."

- Blaise Pascal, Pensées

(430)

 

[Davian]

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.

(my bold)
This for me would be a convincer, whether it be for 'supernatural' claims of ESP, or talking to the dead, god(s), or alien spaceships hiding behind approaching comets. As you say, it always seems to fall short.

 

[Davian]

What Hawisher and seeking Christ are saying, and what I have been saying as well, is what the French Mathematician Blaise Pascal said more eloquently in his Pensees. I provide it below:

Pascal on God's Hiddenness

​

"God has willed to redeem men and to open salvation to those who seek it. But men render themselves so unworthy of it that it is right that God should refuse to some, because of their obduracy, what He grants others from a compassion which is not due to them. If He had willed to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself so manifestly to them that they could not have doubted of the truth of His essence; as it will appear at the last day, with such thunders and such a convulsion of nature that the dead will rise again, and the blindest will see Him.” It is not in this manner that He has willed to appear in His advent of mercy, because, as so many make themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in the loss of the good which they do not want.

It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him.

He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition."

- Blaise Pascal, Pensées

(430)

Or, a more parsimonious explanation, particularly for when you cannot find something that cannot be defined or evidenced, may be that it does not exist.

And didn't you already post this same text in this thread followed by the admission that it isn't supposed to be convincing?

Also:

• Do not repetitively post similar or identical posts or threads

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_rule_0​

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Reality imposes on my free will all the time. Why is the question of god(s)' existence any different than me learning that my free will is restricted by knowing that gravity exists?

 

[brightlights]

I'm going to repost in order to try and get us back on topic:

There is another implication of this. Evidence for God is often requested in a way that makes sense to our empirical or rational faculties. For instance -- show me God or give me an argument for God's existence.

But in the case of morality, the best arguments simply appeal to conscience. I believe this is because the conscience is the thing that sees morality. It sounds silly to say "prove that x is wrong". The best we can do is appeal to conscience or rationally demonstrate that "if you think x is wrong, you should also think y is wrong because x=y". That argument is an appeal to conscience.

If God is perceived by spiritual faculties then his existence can never be proven or disproven by empirical data or rational argument. Neither of these things can see God just like neither of these things can see morality or beauty.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'm going to repost in order to try and get us back on topic:

There is another implication of this. Evidence for God is often requested in a way that makes sense to our empirical or rational faculties. For instance -- show me God or give me an argument for God's existence.

But in the case of morality, the best arguments simply appeal to conscience. I believe this is because the conscience is the thing that sees morality. It sounds silly to say "prove that x is wrong". The best we can do is appeal to conscience or rationally demonstrate that "if you think x is wrong, you should also think y is wrong because x=y". That argument is an appeal to conscience.

If God is perceived by spiritual faculties then his existence can never be proven or disproven by empirical data or rational argument. Neither of these things can see God just like neither of these things can see morality or beauty.

I have problems with this line of argument. The idea that we arrive at moral epiphanies because there is an objective standard is rather strange to me; certain regions in the brain have been shown to correlate with the exercise of morality, and external stimulation of these areas can and do change people's moral standards. In this way, morality becomes purely evolutionary; the best morality is the one that confers the most survival advantage at any given point in time. To me, this also renders obsolete the idea of a 'conscience', because it is just an arbitrary construct that reduces cognitive dissonance - to paraphrase the Oracle in The Matrix, you've already made the decision. The conscience is to make you feel good about it.

It would therefore follow that the idea of God, going by your analogy, is an artificial construct whose sole purpose is to make us feel good about what we are. This is fine, insofar as it is purely imaginary and makes no predictions about the natural world (though there are obvious psychiatric implications of such a belief). The problem arises when this idea of a deity begins to inform our understanding of the world - the Earth must be at the center of the universe because... We have lightning because... The vast array of species on our planet came about because... This is my real beef with religion. It lessens humanity because it restricts what we strive for. It prevents us from looking at things with the critical and scientific eye that allows us to know more about what we look at. It replaces all the 'why' and all the 'how' with 'God did it'.