The biggest obstacle that keeps you from theism?

[Davian]

No I do not agree.

Just because there is nothing to reconcile evil with, does not make evil disappear.

I never claimed that evil would go way. It only resolves the "problem of evil" as stated.

Doing away with God actually does away with the only good explanation for evil as well as the solution to it.

Well, you will need to substantiate this claim of your god as 'the only good explanation' for why there is evil, and the solution for it. Why doesn't your god do anything about it? What's he waiting for? Why does it appear as gods are nothing more than characters in books? More special pleading?

My proposal fits all of the available data, and is falsifiable.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's not what I said, is it?

But it is what you implied.

 

[variant]

No I do not agree.

Just because there is nothing to reconcile evil with, does not make evil disappear. Doing away with God actually does away with the only good explanation for evil as well as the solution to it.

"Evil" is more likely the result of being born into a universe that is not necessarily hospitable.

God doesn't solve this problem or even offer a solution.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Evidently that means you did NOT experience Him as he does, nor as I do, nor as the Church has.

I was the epitome of a Christian, for over 3 decades, and donated much of my time and money to my faith. I shared my experiences with other Christians and it was very evident that my experiences were the same as most Christians I met over that time.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

As the title states:

1. For those that are non-theists, including atheists, ignostics, agnostics, anti-theists, apatheists etc. etc., what is the single biggest obstacle for you in being a theist?

Non-cognitivism. And/Or the arbitrariness of the God concepts. It is a very basic, fundamental problem, which makes almost any argument for the existence of God fall flat.

2. If this biggest obstacle, question, complaint, etc. etc. could be addressed either partly or completely, is it rational to think that any other questions or obstacles, or complaints could be addressed that you may have which is hindering you from affirming the existence of God?

I am not sure if I understand you correctly here. If the non-cognitive nature of God could be addressed, could other complaints be addressed too? The way I see it, it is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You are damned if you don't, because all the other popular arguments for the existence of God are meaningless. For instance, the fine-tuning argument can't ever be really successful until you can show how, if God exists, it is that the fine tuning constants are how they are. The same applies to all the very -- what I would call -- God-of-the-Gaps type of argumentation. This type of argumentation is too popular and rampant to be ignored.

And you are damned if you do address this obstacle, because you'd harm the (almost necessarily) mystical and incomprehensible nature of God. It would also cast severe doubts on what precisely the religious hoi polloi believes. Plus, it'd be arbitrary.

3. Is this obstacle, question, complaint volitional or intellectual in nature?

Definitely intellectual.

4. If God exists, do you think there would be evidence of His existence?

Hmmm ... I have no way to tell. Sure, I could say either "Yes" or "No" here, but that would be arbitrary.

5. If God exists, do you think He would reveal Himself to us or desire to have a relationship with us?

The same as above. I have no way to tell. Sure, I could say either "Yes" or "No" here, but that would be arbitrary.

6. What is your understanding of the concept "God"?

Despite the fact that non-cognitivism is a very basic problem to me, I do have certain requirements for "God":
In order for something to be God it must
1. be necessary being. Read, the fundamental parts of all existence.
2a. intelligent, conscious, a mind or something along those lines. In a meaningful sense.
2b. have libertarian free will.

Now, (1) is easy; there are definitely parts of all existence which are the most fundamental and necessary. This has never been a problem. With (2a) and (2b) non-cognitism comes to bear with full force. I consider (2b) even as impossible, incoherent in addition to meaningless.

7. If you were given sufficient evidence that Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

Evidence has pretty little with all this^^^. The only hope is that I somehow cross over into mysticism, and/or just adapt "God" to my 'world-view'. (Keep in mind that there are different 'versions' of what it means to be a Christian.)

 

[Freodin]

And you still are missing the mark.

One does not repent, and ask Christ to forgive them of their sins because they see it as being the intellectually honest thing to do.

Ah, I fear it is you who keep missing the mark. What you describe in the next paragraph is the intellectually honest way.

One repents, and asks Christ to forgive them of their sins because they see themselves as being utterly lost and hopeless without Christ. They come to the point, through a revelation from God, of seeing themselves as God sees them and this acute awareness of sinfulness and utter need is why one repents, and asks Christ into their heart and for cleansing of sin.

"They see themselves... they come to the point... acute awareness... " all of these are intellectual processes. And if you reached all these conclusions: that you are utterly lost and hopeless and you don't take the solution that you have found - "ask Christ into your heart" - then you are not intellectually honest. You are lying to yourself.

For that "acute awareness" their is only one solution for a honest person: don't do it.

In fact, it is not primarily an intellectual matter at all, but one in which the heart is guided by an awakened consciousness of sin from a position of self-sufficiency to a position of utter humility and helplessness.

You are using the false dichotomy that Christians make up between "heart" and "mind". Your "heart" - your feelings - are just a part of your mind, just as your reasoning is. But it is your reasoning that must have the last word in any decision, because only your reasoning connects to the outer, the real world. Your feelings only connect to yourself.

God beckons unto us to come to Him so that He can reason with us, this is the intellectual aspect i.e. we hear about the gospel, and assimilate its truths as being true indeed and this intellectual assent then is proceeded by the above. From start to finish, it is the work of God.

Then why ask the initial questions at all? They are misleading. You ask people for their own personal reasons when you have already found your own personal answer that disregards any of the responses you get. That is quite dishonest.

So Freodin, I admire your honesty in saying you would become a Christian if you were given sufficient evidence.

I don't believe you. Your whole approach does nothing but make fun of my honesty.

The question I have to ask you is: What is sufficient evidence? The evidence is not of such a manner as to pull you by the collar and force you or coerce you to believe.

There is no need for your exaggerations. Evidence compels you... it does not force or coerce you. But that is the flaw in the Christian worldview. If you base your whole approach on authority, you become incapable to see any non-authoritative means of reasoning.

But to answer your question: "sufficient evidence" needs to be sufficient to change my mind. It needs to present a valid, reasonable and verifiable explanation for an observation or claim, while also exculding other equally valid explanations.

Yet I am interested why you ask this question at all, when you have already established in your mind that no such evidence does or can exist.

I shall leave you with the words of the Great Mathematician Blaise Pascal:

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)

That, for example, is not sufficient evidence. It is not verifiable nor falsifiable, thus making it no more that an ad-hoc rationalisation.

Pascal was indeed a great mathematician, but he was a lousy philosopher.

 

[Freodin]

It is a confession that YOUR stated preferred method doesn't seem to be the reality. God has prescribed very specific ways of coming to Him, that are at the same time malleable enough to accommodate anyone who wants to.

So elieonai, a professed Christian, confesses that OUR, the Atheists, stated preferred method is not real.

Somehow you have a slightly crooked view of what "confession" means.