What Convinced you God Exists?

[FutureAndAHope]

So was it faith or "clues"?

How do you tie this to a Christian god? I hear a lot of stories like this by other faiths that connect it to their god. So how can you use this as evidence for your god and they cannot use the same type of evidence for their god? If I can use the same type of evidence for different gods then it cannot be good evidence for belief of a particular god. Atheists have stories like this as well, so how can we determine this was the Christian god working?

The reality is that, yes there are others with spiritual experiences. The Bible even says one day a man will come opposing Christ, and performing great signs, even calling fire down from the sky.

2Th 2:9-12 When the wicked one appears, Satan will pretend to work all kinds of miracles, wonders, and signs. Lost people will be fooled by his evil deeds. They could be saved, but they will refuse to love the truth and accept it. So God will make sure that they are fooled into believing a lie. All of them will be punished, because they would rather do evil than believe the truth.

God allows it, why? So that those who refused to act rightly, and would rather enjoy their sins will believe a lie rather than the truth.

Ensure you are not loving your sins more than having a humble, learning attitude.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, of course I believed in God before I had thought much about First Cause.

Let us trek all the way back to post #246. I stated:

"I have a sneaking suspicion the 'first cause' argument plays less of a role in your current belief, than you might think?.?.?.? If this should turn out to be the case, then I would rather not engage it too much further; and instead focus on the one which is more to your core reason for belief. Whatever that may actually be....?"

You skipped a direct response thereafter.?.?

As @Clizby WampusCat has asked believers, what convinced you God exists?

As my last end response states, I have a hypothesis, or a hunch, your God belief has more to do with type1 vs type 2 errors, or, something to the likes of Romans 1:18-22, verses really having anything to do with a 'first cause' apologetics argument?

Though I would love to continue with the current discussion, this is why I keep ending my responses with the topic of the type 1 error. Is this topic more central to your actual God belief? If not, what topic is.?.?.? I'm asking because, as you have clearly stated in your last response, "no impact; side issue".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let us trek all the way back to post #246. I stated:

"I have a sneaking suspicion the 'first cause' argument plays less of a role in your current belief, than you might think?.?.?.? If this should turn out to be the case, then I would rather not engage it too much further; and instead focus on the one which is more to your core reason for belief. Whatever that may actually be....?"

You skipped a direct response thereafter.?.?

As @Clizby WampusCat has asked believers, what convinced you God exists?

As my last end response states, I have a hypothesis, or a hunch, your God belief has more to do with type1 vs type 2 errors, or, something to the likes of Romans 1:18-22, verses really having anything to do with a 'first cause' apologetics argument?

Though I would love to continue with the current discussion, this is why I keep ending my responses with the topic of the type 1 error. Is this topic more central to your actual God belief? If not, what topic is.?.?.? I'm asking because, as you have clearly stated in your last response, "no impact; side issue".

Lol, it seems we have two different agendas going on, then. Not that you have been inconsistent, but maybe I've been getting distracted with definitions and logical extrapolations. I try to answer your questions one-at-a-time, instead of trying to take them in your larger context. My apologies.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are equating my 'non-first cause-ish' reason to believe --i.e. the reason I originally believed, as a child-- with 'type 1 error'.

While I may well have used poor scientific reasoning to conclude what I did --i.e. as a child I believed what I did, not because of evidence, but because I was a child and my parents told me it was true-- and in that way it could be said my logic was weak, your use of the 'Type 1, Type 2, errors' introduces a loaded question. Type 1, which you think I have done, assumes the true null hypothesis to be false, and rejects it. So I have to ask, what is this true null, that I rejected, as a child?

But no, you take it to apply to my current thinking, or mode of belief, where I can't separate the notion of First Cause from the notion of God. What is the null hypothesis that turns out to be true in this case, that I reject?

According to https://www.simplypsychology.org/type_I_and_type_II_errors.html
"A type 1 error is also known as a false positive and occurs when a researcher incorrectly rejects a true null hypothesis. This means that your report that your findings are significant when in fact they have occurred by chance." (I can't help but wonder how even a soft science (psychology) person working professionally in a field of hard science (statistics) can attribute anything to chance. That must not really be what he means, here. Maybe he means 'statistically random' (which is not truly random, but, for the statistician, it may as well be, for all intents and purposes).) Anyhow, it seems to me that you might be thinking I have incorrectly accepted a false null hypothesis --thus, type 2 error.

Whatever, if First Cause (Omnipotent God (YHWH)) exists, it matters not much how I came to believe it, nor am I wrong to believe it still, even if my logic is not perfect.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The reality is that, yes there are others with spiritual experiences. The Bible even says one day a man will come opposing Christ, and performing great signs, even calling fire down from the sky.

2Th 2:9-12 When the wicked one appears, Satan will pretend to work all kinds of miracles, wonders, and signs. Lost people will be fooled by his evil deeds. They could be saved, but they will refuse to love the truth and accept it. So God will make sure that they are fooled into believing a lie. All of them will be punished, because they would rather do evil than believe the truth.

God allows it, why? So that those who refused to act rightly, and would rather enjoy their sins will believe a lie rather than the truth.

Ensure you are not loving your sins more than having a humble, learning attitude.

I do not love my wrongdoing and I do not believe a god exists. It seems quite unfair that God would ensure people would be fooled in believing a lie that would keep them unforgiven. It is certainly clear that God cannot stand people not worshiping Him.

 

[cvanwey]

So, if I understand you correctly, you are equating my 'non-first cause-ish' reason to believe --i.e. the reason I originally believed, as a child-- with 'type 1 error'.

No. You did touch on indoctrination and where you were raised prior. And yes, I do think these are substantial reasons why you became a believer. However, I think evolution plays an even larger role here?..?.?

I've said, in a few responses now, that we all inherently commit type 1 errors all the time - (evolution). The question remains, are you committing a type 1 error here, by invoking God where He is actually not? Or, am I invoking a type 2 error, by dismissing some events as other 'causes' besides from God? I know this kind of raises a "false dichotomy' of sorts, but the fact remains that either God is or is not intervening.

This is why I also asked prior, for which you did not seem to answer? Or, maybe you did not answer in a way which is satisfactory to me? (rephrased below)...

1. If God exists, did God set all laws into motion, and is now merely a voyeur?
2. Or, does He still interact/intervene, by sometimes disrupting these God created laws?
3. Or, maybe there is no God in any of this at all?

Case/point... Hearing a window break in the other room, while it is dark, and immediately inferring 'danger' first. Or, your given anecdotal example about your vehicle being "removed". Etc etc etc...

For you, 1. either He is there, but only watching physical laws, or, 2. He sometimes disrupts these laws to suite favor for you, or, 3. there is actually no God at all and you are instead invoking type 1 errors whenever you infer God's interaction...

For me, 1. either He is there, but only watching physical laws, or, 2. He sometimes disrupts these laws to suite favor for me and I am committing type 2 errors, or, 3. God is actually not there and I am correct.

(Which-is-to-say, it's also possible I'm willfully suppressing the evidence, because I'm allowing my innate urge to invoke intentional agency, to instead dismiss such events as natural alone.)

Am I getting warm?

While I may well have used poor scientific reasoning to conclude what I did --i.e. as a child I believed what I did, not because of evidence, but because I was a child and my parents told me it was true-- and in that way it could be said my logic was weak, your use of the 'Type 1, Type 2, errors' introduces a loaded question. Type 1, which you think I have done, assumes the true null hypothesis to be false, and rejects it. So I have to ask, what is this true null, that I rejected, as a child?

But no, you take it to apply to my current thinking, or mode of belief, where I can't separate the notion of First Cause from the notion of God. What is the null hypothesis that turns out to be true in this case, that I reject?

According to https://www.simplypsychology.org/type_I_and_type_II_errors.html
"A type 1 error is also known as a false positive and occurs when a researcher incorrectly rejects a true null hypothesis. This means that your report that your findings are significant when in fact they have occurred by chance." (I can't help but wonder how even a soft science (psychology) person working professionally in a field of hard science (statistics) can attribute anything to chance. That must not really be what he means, here. Maybe he means 'statistically random' (which is not truly random, but, for the statistician, it may as well be, for all intents and purposes).) Anyhow, it seems to me that you might be thinking I have incorrectly accepted a false null hypothesis --thus, type 2 error.

Whatever, if First Cause (Omnipotent God (YHWH)) exists, it matters not much how I came to believe it, nor am I wrong to believe it still, even if my logic is not perfect.

I trust my objective here is a little more clear now?

This is my hypothesis (continued):

1. Early indoctrination
2. Being a product of where one is born geographically. Hence, the probability of Christianity in these cases...
3. Which makes it even more reasonable/logical to infer God/YHWH in some events - (intentional agency)
4. Later, running across apologetics arguments to further strengthen belief preservation and/or conformation bias - (for which you have already admitted to in prior exchanges).

The difference between you and I, is that we seem to diverge from one another, somewhere along the way at step 3? Meaning, I may too initially infer intentional agency, but then later conclude it's more probably there's no intention at all?

I've told others here, the reason I am no longer a theist, is because I read the Bible. I know you state, we are not there yet.' But this is why, to me, the 'first cause' argument seems like nothing more than a 'side issue', or has no "direct impact" on my current conclusions/inferences. And I doubt that this 'first cause' argument is what makes you a God believer either, (as stated above). Which also renders this argument a side issue for you as well, but for a differing reason.

I think this 'argument' serves as nothing more than to reinforce what you already believe? Which means this is not the reason(s) you believe, but is just another current reinforcement tool. Maybe kind of like if I'm a republican, I tune into Fox news over MSNBC to reinforce my current position to taste

If it were later 'proven' to be that no 'first cause' was the case, you might somehow still be a God believer. You might then simply state what some other theists sometimes state... "I must be wrong in my conclusions. There still has to be a first cause" - (via Romans 1:18-21)?.?.? Meaning, "maybe evil is clouding my rationale."

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I do not love my wrongdoing and I do not believe a god exists. It seems quite unfair that God would ensure people would be fooled in believing a lie that would keep them unforgiven. It is certainly clear that God cannot stand people not worshiping Him.

The Bible tells us that God is love. But that is not His only attribute. He also has anger against those who refuse the truth so they can keep on sinning. Now I am sure we have all done this at some point, but God is merciful to forgive.

Rom 1:18-19 For there is a revelation of the wrath of God from heaven against all the wrongdoing and evil thoughts of men who keep down what is true by wrongdoing; Because the knowledge of God may be seen in them, God having made it clear to them.

Because God is love, He wants us to live in love. Which is:

Gal 5:13-14 My friends, you were chosen to be free. So don't use your freedom as an excuse to do anything you want. Use it as an opportunity to serve each other with love. All that the Law says can be summed up in the command to love others as much as you love yourself.

God's wrath or anger comes when we choose to push away from God's love, and His command to show love. This is not a perfect perfection, but rather a balanced life. Where we love God, and do our best to be kind to others.

Ecc 7:16-17 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?

It is not strict obedience to a harsh God, but rather a life lived happily, with restrictions that protect our interactions with others. The bible actually commands us not to be religious nuts, but live balanced lives.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do not love my wrongdoing and I do not believe a god exists. It seems quite unfair that God would ensure people would be fooled in believing a lie that would keep them unforgiven. It is certainly clear that God cannot stand people not worshiping Him.

That's a misrepresentation. You are positing the matter backwards. God doesn't ensure people would be fooled in believing a lie that would keep them unforgiven. They are already rejecting him --at enmity with him. That's like the claim that God is unfair in 'not giving people the chance'. There is no such thing as chance, except in our minds. What makes you think anyone is denied the opportunity, when it is their own will that rejects him?

But beyond that, there is no reason to expect 'fair'; God has the right to be generous to some, and to the rest, to give them according to what they have earned. He owes nobody anything. 'Fair' is we all die. It is not unfair for anyone to die. It is unfair to Christ, for some to be given mercy.

 

[cvanwey]

The Bible tells us that God is love. But that is not His only attribute. He also has anger against those who refuse the truth so they can keep on sinning. Now I am sure we have all done this at some point, but God is merciful to forgive.

Introducing a compulsory or coercive proposition, where you either go to [heaven or hell alone], with no third option, is "love"?

How is this any different than the government telling you to pay your taxes, or you be punished - (via fines and/or jail)?

How is it any different than telling your children to love and worship you, or you are going to lock them in a dungeon for the rest of their life? Except that in the case for the parent and the dungeon, this option is still only temporary.

God is the play maker. He can set up any rules He so wishes. He created a dichotomy, where you either live in complete bliss, or complete anguish, forever?

Seems like a rather odd way of expressing His "love"?

Rom 1:18-19 For there is a revelation of the wrath of God from heaven against all the wrongdoing and evil thoughts of men who keep down what is true by wrongdoing; Because the knowledge of God may be seen in them, God having made it clear to them.

Basically, Romans 1 is telling it's readers that all believe in this God. And if you say you do not, you are either a liar, wicked, or stupid.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
So, if I understand you correctly, you are equating my 'non-first cause-ish' reason to believe --i.e. the reason I originally believed, as a child-- with 'type 1 error'.

No. You did touch on indoctrination and where you were raised prior. And yes, I do think these are substantial reasons why you became a believer. However, I think evolution plays an even larger role here?..?.?

I've said, in a few responses now, that we all inherently commit type 1 errors all the time - (evolution). The question remains, are you committing a type 1 error here, by invoking God where He is actually not? Or, am I invoking a type 2 error, by dismissing some events as other 'causes' besides from God? I know this kind of raises a "false dichotomy' of sorts, but the fact remains that either God is or is not intervening.

This is why I also asked prior, for which you did not seem to answer? Or, maybe you did not answer in a way which is satisfactory to me? (rephrased below)...

1. If God exists, did God set all laws into motion, and is now merely a voyeur?
2. Or, does He still interact/intervene, by sometimes disrupting these God created laws?
3. Or, maybe there is no God in any of this at all?

Case/point... Hearing a window break in the other room, while it is dark, and immediately inferring 'danger' first. Or, your given anecdotal example about your vehicle being "removed". Etc etc etc...

For you, 1. either He is there, but only watching physical laws, or, 2. He sometimes disrupts these laws to suite favor for you, or, 3. there is actually no God at all and you are instead invoking type 1 errors whenever you infer God's interaction...

For me, 1. either He is there, but only watching physical laws, or, 2. He sometimes disrupts these laws to suite favor for me and I am committing type 2 errors, or, 3. God is actually not there and I am correct.

(Which-is-to-say, it's also possible I'm willfully suppressing the evidence, because I'm allowing my innate urge to invoke intentional agency, to instead dismiss such events as natural alone.)

Am I getting warm?

Mark Quayle said: ↑
While I may well have used poor scientific reasoning to conclude what I did --i.e. as a child I believed what I did, not because of evidence, but because I was a child and my parents told me it was true-- and in that way it could be said my logic was weak, your use of the 'Type 1, Type 2, errors' introduces a loaded question. Type 1, which you think I have done, assumes the true null hypothesis to be false, and rejects it. So I have to ask, what is this true null, that I rejected, as a child?

But no, you take it to apply to my current thinking, or mode of belief, where I can't separate the notion of First Cause from the notion of God. What is the null hypothesis that turns out to be true in this case, that I reject?

According to https://www.simplypsychology.org/type_I_and_type_II_errors.html
"A type 1 error is also known as a false positive and occurs when a researcher incorrectly rejects a true null hypothesis. This means that your report that your findings are significant when in fact they have occurred by chance." (I can't help but wonder how even a soft science (psychology) person working professionally in a field of hard science (statistics) can attribute anything to chance. That must not really be what he means, here. Maybe he means 'statistically random' (which is not truly random, but, for the statistician, it may as well be, for all intents and purposes).) Anyhow, it seems to me that you might be thinking I have incorrectly accepted a false null hypothesis --thus, type 2 error.

Whatever, if First Cause (Omnipotent God (YHWH)) exists, it matters not much how I came to believe it, nor am I wrong to believe it still, even if my logic is not perfect.

Mark Q now: You said, "The question remains, are you committing a type 1 error here, by invoking God where He is actually not?"

That sounds to me like a type 2 error, accepting a false null. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me you have them backwards.

Not that it really matters which is which. Let's continue.

You say: "...the fact remains that either God is or is not intervening." Here is a loaded question; you position a play, where, if I deny 'God intervening', it means to you that I deny his being active. That is false. From his POV, I think, the 'original act of creating' is one and the same with 'intervening'. That should [have] answer[ed] your 3 questions on the subject.

But if you NEED it answered from a perspective of purely human experience --and please don't quote this last part as my posit, since it is being said in context-- he makes laws and intervenes with what some consider miracle, and by what some would call disturbing the natural order of things.

My thinking runs more along the lines, which I've already mentioned, that the whole business is him intervening, actively causing, so that miracle would be more accurately called 'unusual', not unnatural. If you need to consider it miracle since it appears to interrupt natural law, ok.

As for the evolution claim, I don't know how to answer you there. It makes no difference to me --I don't believe in Darwinian Evolution because of several ways in which the science community has failed to answer too many questions. So why not just say, we naturally make use of type 1 and type 2 errors all day?

I trust my objective here is a little more clear now?

This is my hypothesis (continued):

1. Early indoctrination
2. Being a product of where one is born geographically. Hence, the probability of Christianity in these cases...
3. Which makes it even more reasonable/logical to infer God/YHWH in some events - (intentional agency)
4. Later, running across apologetics arguments to further strengthen belief preservation and/or conformation bias - (for which you have already admitted to in prior exchanges).

The difference between you and I, is that we seem to diverge from one another, somewhere along the way at step 3? Meaning, I may too initially infer intentional agency, but then later conclude it's more probably there's no intention at all?

I've told others here, the reason I am no longer a theist, is because I read the Bible. I know you state, we are not there yet.' But this is why, to me, the 'first cause' argument seems like nothing more than a 'side issue', or has no "direct impact" on my current conclusions/inferences. And I doubt that this 'first cause' argument is what makes you a God believer either, (as stated above). Which also renders this argument a side issue for you as well, but for a differing reason.

I think this 'argument' serves as nothing more than to reinforce what you already believe? Which means this is not the reason(s) you believe, but is just another current reinforcement tool. Maybe kind of like if I'm a republican, I tune into Fox news over MSNBC to reinforce my current position to taste

If it were later 'proven' to be that no 'first cause' was the case, you might somehow still be a God believer. You might then simply state what some other theists sometimes state... "I must be wrong in my conclusions. There still has to be a first cause" - (via Romans 1:18-21)?.?.? Meaning, "maybe evil is clouding my rationale."

Sure it reinforces what I already believe. I thought I have said as much several times. But it not only reinforces what I already believe, but it fits Scripture so well that it has opened up a lot of reasoning for me that (whether by confirmation bias or plain logic) that has explained a lot of obscure Scripture, or otherwise explained things I did not well understand, and related one passage to another in ways I would not have seen.

(You say, 'proven' that no 'first cause'. That would have to be a very localized matter, and even then galling my mind. You would somehow have to convince me of an Pellagian type god, in the local sense, which still to me makes no sense, yet cause-and-effect must rule overall. I.e. someone would have to convince me that God can Deistically cause, then back away and suspend cause-and-effect over some items, and even, lol, to "grant limited autonomy to some creatures". The whole notion galls my sensitivities, partly because it is simply illogical and partly because it colors Omnipotent First Cause as subject to its own creation. To some, that is the definition of 'Love', to me, it is the definition of 'stupid' and 'blasphemous'. Anyhow, if I became convinced of this monstrosity, I would still demand primary cause of existence.)

So, to try to move the conversation along, I repeat what I have already said earlier, I can't separate the two, to claim one is THE main reason. If I had to do so, I would say my faith is not from my intellect, nor even from my past experience, as it is God himself --the Spirit of God, in me-- generating it, but it is tied to my intellect and experience all the same.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Introducing a compulsory or coercive proposition, where you either go to [heaven or hell alone], with no third option, is "love"?

How is this any different than the government telling you to pay your taxes, or you be punished - (via fines and/or jail)?

How is it any different than telling your children to love and worship you, or you are going to lock them in a dungeon for the rest of their life? Except that in the case for the parent and the dungeon, this option is still only temporary.

God is the play maker. He can set up any rules He so wishes. He created a dichotomy, where you either live in complete bliss, or complete anguish, forever?

Seems like a rather odd way of expressing His "love"?



Basically, Romans 1 is telling it's readers that all believe in this God. And if you say you do not, you are either a liar, wicked, or stupid.

Love, can also hate. Love hates: child molestation, love hates angry murderous individuals, love hastes rapists and those who take sexual advantage of others.

God chooses to express His great wrath at that kind of behavior with a severe penalty. That said, the penalty itself is designed to keep people from evil, as fines deter crime. Because God is no lier he made hell as both a deterrent and a penalty for wrongdoing.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Basically, Romans 1 is telling it's readers that all believe in this God. And if you say you do not, you are either a liar, wicked, or stupid.

No, Romans says there will come times where God reveals Himself to people. Not that all people believe.

Job 36:10-12 He openeth also their ear to instruction, And commandeth that they return from iniquity. If they hearken and serve him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they hearken not, they shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Introducing a compulsory or coercive proposition, where you either go to [heaven or hell alone], with no third option, is "love"?

Why not complain then, that he gave you no option in causing you to live in the first place?

How is this any different than the government telling you to pay your taxes, or you be punished - (via fines and/or jail)?

The government's purposes are not God's purposes. The Government doesn't own you, nor does it have authority over your behavior (not yet anyway ...that is, not for the most part anyway, lol).

How is it any different than telling your children to love and worship you, or you are going to lock them in a dungeon for the rest of their life? Except that in the case for the parent and the dungeon, this option is still only temporary.

God is not like our parents. They are like him, however poorly it be so. We did not create our children; we do not own them. Their lives till they die are not altogether in our hands.

God is the play maker. He can set up any rules He so wishes. He created a dichotomy, where you either live in complete bliss, or complete anguish, forever?

The focus is on the wrong thing. The focus IS God. If willed creatures turn against this all-marvelous God, they deserve what they get.

This life, and the next, is about him --not us.

Seems like a rather odd way of expressing His "love"?

Why should his love look like ours --ignorant, selfish, unreliable... And why should his love be the same across the board? We can't earn his love, it is given according to his purposes. He didn't come upon us --he MADE us. He can do with us as he pleases.

Basically, Romans 1 is telling it's readers that all believe in this God. And if you say you do not, you are either a liar, wicked, or stupid.

No, it says they KNEW him, it doesn't say they believe in him. They only believe he exists, at the most. They KNOW he exists, but turn away at every opportunity, until he does something to their hearts.

 

[cvanwey]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
So, if I understand you correctly, you are equating my 'non-first cause-ish' reason to believe --i.e. the reason I originally believed, as a child-- with 'type 1 error'.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
While I may well have used poor scientific reasoning to conclude what I did --i.e. as a child I believed what I did, not because of evidence, but because I was a child and my parents told me it was true-- and in that way it could be said my logic was weak, your use of the 'Type 1, Type 2, errors' introduces a loaded question. Type 1, which you think I have done, assumes the true null hypothesis to be false, and rejects it. So I have to ask, what is this true null, that I rejected, as a child?

But no, you take it to apply to my current thinking, or mode of belief, where I can't separate the notion of First Cause from the notion of God. What is the null hypothesis that turns out to be true in this case, that I reject?

According to https://www.simplypsychology.org/type_I_and_type_II_errors.html
"A type 1 error is also known as a false positive and occurs when a researcher incorrectly rejects a true null hypothesis. This means that your report that your findings are significant when in fact they have occurred by chance." (I can't help but wonder how even a soft science (psychology) person working professionally in a field of hard science (statistics) can attribute anything to chance. That must not really be what he means, here. Maybe he means 'statistically random' (which is not truly random, but, for the statistician, it may as well be, for all intents and purposes).) Anyhow, it seems to me that you might be thinking I have incorrectly accepted a false null hypothesis --thus, type 2 error.

Whatever, if First Cause (Omnipotent God (YHWH)) exists, it matters not much how I came to believe it, nor am I wrong to believe it still, even if my logic is not perfect.

Mark Q now: You said, "The question remains, are you committing a type 1 error here, by invoking God where He is actually not?"

That sounds to me like a type 2 error, accepting a false null. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me you have them backwards.

Not that it really matters which is which. Let's continue.

You say: "...the fact remains that either God is or is not intervening." Here is a loaded question; you position a play, where, if I deny 'God intervening', it means to you that I deny his being active. That is false. From his POV, I think, the 'original act of creating' is one and the same with 'intervening'. That should [have] answer[ed] your 3 questions on the subject.

But if you NEED it answered from a perspective of purely human experience --and please don't quote this last part as my posit, since it is being said in context-- he makes laws and intervenes with what some consider miracle, and by what some would call disturbing the natural order of things.

My thinking runs more along the lines, which I've already mentioned, that the whole business is him intervening, actively causing, so that miracle would be more accurately called 'unusual', not unnatural. If you need to consider it miracle since it appears to interrupt natural law, ok.

As for the evolution claim, I don't know how to answer you there. It makes no difference to me --I don't believe in Darwinian Evolution because of several ways in which the science community has failed to answer too many questions. So why not just say, we naturally make use of type 1 and type 2 errors all day?

You have already revealed that you were indoctrinated into this religion at a young age. This would mean you already had/have an a priori bias towards the Bible, as well When you couple this with repeated conformation - based upon the geography of your surroundings, and also inferring intentional agency where applicable, it's no wonder you later searched for arguments which fit your preconceived narrative. Hence, the 'first cause' argument and/or reading the Bible. Like I stated, it would be like me, (being a republican), choosing to watch Fox News and gravitating to arguments which reaffirm my conformation bias and/or belief preservation...

BTW: an example of a type 1 error would be inferring interaction from God, but God was not actually there. It's harmless, if actually false. A type 2 error would be not inferring a God, when it turns out to be God. This error may present a grave consequence.

Type 1 errors present no true consequences. We commit them all the time.

Sure it reinforces what I already believe. I thought I have said as much several times. But it not only reinforces what I already believe, but it fits Scripture so well that it has opened up a lot of reasoning for me that (whether by confirmation bias or plain logic) that has explained a lot of obscure Scripture, or otherwise explained things I did not well understand, and related one passage to another in ways I would not have seen.

(You say, 'proven' that no 'first cause'. That would have to be a very localized matter, and even then galling my mind. You would somehow have to convince me of an Pellagian type god, in the local sense, which still to me makes no sense, yet cause-and-effect must rule overall. I.e. someone would have to convince me that God can Deistically cause, then back away and suspend cause-and-effect over some items, and even, lol, to "grant limited autonomy to some creatures". The whole notion galls my sensitivities, partly because it is simply illogical and partly because it colors Omnipotent First Cause as subject to its own creation. To some, that is the definition of 'Love', to me, it is the definition of 'stupid' and 'blasphemous'. Anyhow, if I became convinced of this monstrosity, I would still demand primary cause of existence.)

So, to try to move the conversation along, I repeat what I have already said earlier, I can't separate the two, to claim one is THE main reason. If I had to do so, I would say my faith is not from my intellect, nor even from my past experience, as it is God himself --the Spirit of God, in me-- generating it, but it is tied to my intellect and experience all the same.

I'd wager to state that no amount of evidence/logic/other would detour your current inference that [God/first cause/uncaused cause/other] MUST exist. But still, it is not THE reason you believe. My hypothesis still looks to be intact, regarding the 4 points listed prior (i.e.):

1. indoctrination
2. geography
3. applying intentional agency - (which is harmless if false)
4. apologetics to reinforce belief preservation

 

[cvanwey]

Love, can also hate. Love hates: child molestation, love hates angry murderous individuals, love hastes rapists and those who take sexual advantage of others.

God chooses to express His great wrath at that kind of behavior with a severe penalty. That said, the penalty itself is designed to keep people from evil, as fines deter crime. Because God is no lier he made hell as both a deterrent and a penalty for wrongdoing.

Your response contradicts itself. According to the Bible, no one is worthy of redemption. All that matters is belief, which leads to repent. which then leads to accepting Him as your savior. So let's now introduce a quick thought experiment. "Morality" seems almost arbitrary (i.e.).

Who is more likely to go to heaven?

A: A professed and God confirmed Christian, whom has molested children?
B. An atheist, whom also happens to be a life long philanthropist, (and has never molested anyone)?

Please remember, God hates ALL 'sin'. All sin is bad, right? It is said that everyone lies daily, whether you are a Christian or not. A lie is under one of God's given "thou shalt not" 10 Commandments. All humans are filthy, according to God. We are only redeemed by accepting God's gift. Hence, your mention of certain acts is almost arbitrary.

Aside from what I have just given, you did not address my observation. God has the ability to setup ANY stage He wishes. If God truly loves His creation, don't you find it sort of peculiar that He creates two plains of existence? Extreme bliss or extreme agony? So I ask you anew. If you claim you loved your creation, would you banish all insubordinate members to a place of eternal agony, while, in the same breath, professing your undying love for them?

 

[cvanwey]

No, Romans says there will come times where God reveals Himself to people. Not that all people believe.

Job 36:10-12 He openeth also their ear to instruction, And commandeth that they return from iniquity. If they hearken and serve him, They shall spend their days in prosperity, And their years in pleasures. But if they hearken not, they shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge.

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools"

Which-is-to-mean... These folks new God was there, and chose to foolishly rebel. Which, in this case, they might be suppressing God, which might mean they are lying to themselves. It could also mean 'evil' is blocking them. It could also mean they are too foolish/stupid.

 

[cvanwey]

Why not complain then, that he gave you no option in causing you to live in the first place?

Nice red herring here. Why not answer the observation, which was not actually addressed to you in the first place God's only options are extreme bliss or extreme ugliness? This is the only two options for the ones He claims He loves?

The government's purposes are not God's purposes. The Government doesn't own you, nor does it have authority over your behavior (not yet anyway ...that is, not for the most part anyway, lol).

You've seemed to miss the direct analogy. God is presenting a compulsory proposition, where the only alternative realm is eternal agony. At least in taxation, you can move out of the country (more options available).

God is not like our parents. They are like him, however poorly it be so. We did not create our children; we do not own them. Their lives till they die are not altogether in our hands.

You have again seemed to avoid what I am saying here. He can create any scenarios He chooses. Which is only extreme eternal bliss or extreme eternal torture alone?

The focus is on the wrong thing. The focus IS God. If willed creatures turn against this all-marvelous God, they deserve what they get.

So if I die as an unbeliever, (where belief is not a choice), I deserve eternal condemnation? (i.e.)

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Please remember, it's God whom decides whom deserves what.

No, it says they KNEW him, it doesn't say they believe in him. They only believe he exists, at the most. They KNOW he exists, but turn away at every opportunity, until he does something to their hearts.

Yes, they turn away due to wickedness/evil or foolishness. I already alluded to this proposed conclusion.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Your response contradicts itself. According to the Bible, no one is worthy of redemption. All that matters is belief, which leads to repent. which then leads to accepting Him as your savior. So let's now introduce a quick thought experiment. "Morality" seems almost arbitrary (i.e.).

Who is more likely to go to heaven?

A: A professed and God confirmed Christian, whom has molested children?
B. An atheist, whom also happens to be a life long philanthropist, (and has never molested anyone)?

Please remember, God hates ALL 'sin'. All sin is bad, right? It is said that everyone lies daily, whether you are a Christian or not. A lie is under one of God's given "thou shalt not" 10 Commandments. All humans are filthy, according to God. We are only redeemed by accepting God's gift. Hence, your mention of certain acts is almost arbitrary.

Aside from what I have just given, you did not address my observation. God has the ability to setup ANY stage He wishes. If God truly loves His creation, don't you find it sort of peculiar that He creates two plains of existence? Extreme bliss or extreme agony? So I ask you anew. If you claim you loved your creation, would you banish all insubordinate members to a place of eternal agony, while, in the same breath, professing your undying love for them?

Humans are not filthy, when God created man He said "behold it is good", He knew man would sin. Do you think His opinion changed? Not at all, the bible says:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

As for your question, the bible:

A Christian who molests children will certainly die. He will not live, his abode will be hell.

An atheist who does good, if he is truly interested in what is good, and not just doing actions for show, there is the following scripture:

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

God will ensure the good, see the light, see God as He is and are saved.

Eze 18:20-23 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools"

Which-is-to-mean... These folks new God was there, and chose to foolishly rebel. Which, in this case, they might be suppressing God, which might mean they are lying to themselves. It could also mean 'evil' is blocking them. It could also mean they are too foolish/stupid.

true.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nice red herring here. Why not answer the observation, which was not actually addressed to you in the first place God's only options are extreme bliss or extreme ugliness? This is the only two options for the ones He claims He loves?

You've seemed to miss the direct analogy. God is presenting a compulsory proposition, where the only alternative realm is eternal agony. At least in taxation, you can move out of the country (more options available).

You have again seemed to avoid what I am saying here. He can create any scenarios He chooses. Which is only extreme eternal bliss or extreme eternal torture alone?

You miss my point in all three above: You present the scenario of an absolute blank slate upon which God has the ability to write whatever story he wishes (to do whatever he pleases). You think he should have been able to give other options between bliss and torment. The problem with that is not only that it fails to take into consideration what God's purpose is in creating in the first place, but it fails to consider what an extreme thing GOD is.

So if I die as an unbeliever, (where belief is not a choice), I deserve eternal condemnation? (i.e.)

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Please remember, it's God whom decides whom deserves what.

You deserve eternal condemnation for SIN, not for being unable to choose to believe. You make the same grammatical leap in logic that many do in your quote: 'Whoever does not believe will be condemned' does not mean that they are condemned FOR not-believing, but that not-believing describes or identifies them.

If you are an unbeliever when you die, you die as a sinner, not being forgiven for SIN. You have not 'traded places' with Christ's righteousness.

Yes, they turn away due to wickedness/evil or foolishness. I already alluded to this proposed conclusion.

 

[cvanwey]

Humans are not filthy, when God created man He said "behold it is good", He knew man would sin.

Do you think His opinion changed? Not at all, the bible says:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

If humans are deemed 'good', then humans should be able to get to heaven on their own accord. But, according to the Bible, humans must instead pledge allegiance to a God-created loop hole. (i.e.) God cloning Himself, sending Himself down to earth, and atoning for all 'sin'. Thus, if God does not deem humans filthy, on their own accord, then that means He is not letting humans into heaven, on their own, for some other arbitrary reason? He is sending them to remain in eternal agony for a 'lesser' reason.

According to God, we are all filthy sinners. This is the entire reason God created the 'substitutional atonement" scenario, because He thinks we are too filthy, on our own, to ever reach heaven.

As for your question, the bible:

A Christian who molests children will certainly die. He will not live, his abode will be hell.

An atheist who does good, if he is truly interested in what is good, and not just doing actions for show, there is the following scripture:

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Even the Verse you provided demonstrates what I am saying. Almost all morals are arbitrary. You must pledge allegiance to Him. This is really the crowning jewel alone. All will sin, up to the point of your death; whether you are a proven Christian or not No one is without 'sin', according to God. Under Christian doctrine, 'sin' and 'morals' become virtually arbitrary.

God will ensure the good, see the light, see God as He is and are saved.

Eze 18:20-23 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

All people "sin", up to the point of death. Please remember, all lie, probably every day. God hates lies, because God hates 'sin'. "Not lying" is listed as one of the 10 Commandments. Your explanation is false.