• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by UnI, Nov 16, 2017.

  1. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +749
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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?

    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).


    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.

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

    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.

    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?
     
  2. riesie

    riesie Active Member

    223
    +116
    Protestant
    Married
    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?
     
  3. riesie

    riesie Active Member

    223
    +116
    Protestant
    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.
    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.
     
  4. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Is it God's objective to demand humans to hold irrational beliefs, and punish them if they don't?

    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.

    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.

    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".


    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  5. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    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.

    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.

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

    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.
     
  6. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    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)/.

    That you use extremely poor argumentation.
     
  7. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship


    Alien abductees had "personal experiences" with extra terrestials.
    They "know" too.
    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.
    You can't all be right, since you all believe mutually exclusive things.

    Their followers, will disagree with you on that.

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

    riesie Active Member

    223
    +116
    Protestant
    Married
    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
     
  9. riesie

    riesie Active Member

    223
    +116
    Protestant
    Married
    Isn't it: whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim?
     
  10. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    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".
     
  11. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    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

    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.
     
  12. jayem

    jayem Naturalist

    +3,547
    Atheist
    Married
    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.

    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.
     
  13. KCfromNC

    KCfromNC Regular Member

    +5,708
    Atheist
    Private
    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.
     
  14. Oncedeceived

    Oncedeceived Senior Veteran

    +541
    Christian
    Married
    True, but doesn't equate.


    That is incorrect, I considered many others.

    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 misunderstood me, when I said all of us I meant Christians.

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



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

    Oncedeceived Senior Veteran

    +541
    Christian
    Married
    Not at all. I am saying that those who follow Allah do not believe they are worthy for Allah to reveal himself to them.
     
  16. riesie

    riesie Active Member

    223
    +116
    Protestant
    Married
    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?
     
  17. riesie

    riesie Active Member

    223
    +116
    Protestant
    Married
    If i.e. you make the claim: God does not exist. It is reasonable to have the burden of proof right?
     
  18. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    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.

    Off course not.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  19. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Yes.
     
  20. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,425
    Atheist
    In Relationship


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

    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.
    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.


    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.
    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.

    Except for the many writings they left behind.


    To demand faith, is to demand exactly that.
     
Loading...