What if you seek and don't find?

[Oncedeceived]

There is speculation that there was a beginning. I pointed out that big bang cosmology does not address origins. You then switched to other cosmological hypotheses.

Do you concede that big bang cosmology does not address origins?

And, do you concede what I am saying in post #327?

What do you mean by origins? What I am addressing is that our universe, the space, the energy, the matter as well as time did not exist. Let me give another BB link.

Scientists believe our universe comes from a singularity. Scientists don't actually know where this singularity came from or exactly what it is, but they do know that a singularity is an infinitely small, hot area of infinite pressure and density. These singularities defy our known laws of physics because they didn't appear in space. Rather, space began inside them. Before the singularity, nothing existed. There was no space, no time, no matter, no energy.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/evi...ground-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is speculation that there was a beginning. I pointed out that big bang cosmology does not address origins. You then switched to other cosmological hypotheses.

Do you concede that big bang cosmology does not address origins?

And, do you concede what I am saying in post #327?

I haven't responded to #327 yet.

 

[Athée]

You've missed my point. I understand that the passage is not talking about levels of evil. I never implied it did. My point was in showing that in this passage we see that there are levels of evil that need more to eliminate them from people. The passage wasn't about that but the fact was that this person was inflicted with a stronger evil than others.

You know, I think I did miss your point ... And I now would tend to agree with you, it seems based on this verse that Satan may well have different levels of access to people. However, the point you were trying to carry was that a repeat sinner like a serial killer would be prone to more/easier access by Satan and that moreover such a sinner would be unlikely to accept salvation. I conceed that within the structure of your beliefs you have made the first point about different levels, I look forward to your support for the reminder of the argument you were making

Yes, you said that before and I am asking what evidence provides you with the certainty that no God is required? Just saying that you have this level of certainty and claiming that no God is needed does nothing to provide where this certainty arises and what evidence informed you of that.

Agreed, I am merely telling you what the fact of the observable world suggests to me. As far as I know there are no elements of the universe that absolutely necessitate a God, let alone your specific God. In the absence of such features I simply don't see the need to hypothesize one. Moreover it seems to me that you may have forgotten to respond to the actual question in there What I had asked was how could we be held morally accountable for beliefs that are not under our conscious control. I understand that you disagree that God belief, as arrived at by observations about the world, are not under conscious control, however, let's assume for the moment that this is indeed the case, that I have not made a conscious decision to not believe in God. Under those circumstances am I morally responsible for how the evidence appears to me?

Really? You really want to go here. That disappoints me. I was very impressed with your fairness and your ability to discuss your position without straw men. Darn. I mean I know that you are in a way joking but I rather see through that.

I had hoped you would see the humour in that and from your response I not sure. I hope so. In any case I am not certain this is a straw man at all. You claim to have knowledge from an invisible (non detectable) , transcendent, all knowing, all powerful being that has given you special revelation and that is in no way falsifiable... Right? Those are the basics are they not?

Considering you said you looked into science, and I would assume you held that in some position of authority that you would not question the best minds in science when they claim they do see the appearance of design in the universe. I guess I was wrong.

I'm not sure if you meant that to be snarky or pithy, so I will assume witty instead The key there of course is the appearance of design, which is a subjective statment that proposes that natural items in the world (n) are like objects designed by human like intelligence (m) and that n and m are the same in some relevant way (r). If you would like to run that argument I am happy to show you the defeaters...if you are already familiar with them then I guess you ready know that the inference to design from analogy fails, I am happy to do the same for the watch argument or really any version of the teleological argument that you prefer.
In any case the position that the universe necessitates a creator is a positive claim being made from your world view. As such the burden is not on me (except in a conversational way) to prove that your God is not responsible for the universe. It is of course possible to prove a negative, but not when the negative in question is invisible, transcendent and so ill defined as a concept as to be unfalsifiable. So rather than shifting the burden of proof, I would truly like to hear your positive case that the observable universe gives clear evidence that your God made it. If you can make this case I am happy to conceed that, maybe I have somehow made a conscious choice to deny your God and then have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness but until then...

I believe that the whole entire Bible makes that case. I think that for centuries others, actually millions of others believe as I do. So what would provide all these people including myself to change our minds? If Christianity is true as we claim, it is not the Christian that by its theology is incorrect as the Holy Spirit informs the Christian of Bible truth

Clearly the whole Bible does not make that case as we showed in the example of pharaoh, of 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and of course in the case of the thousands of infants and foetuses that God killed before they had a chance to exercise any free will at all.
Again rather than simply asserting that the whole Bible males your case and then appealing to the popularity and tradition of your position, make the case You need to deal with the counterfactuals presented above and then also make a positive case that God values human free will to the extent that you are convinced he does.

If you can't even determine what my thoughts and positions are how in the world would I think you are capable of knowing what God could of or should of done to bring you and the minority of others holding your position to choosing God?

Again not sure if this was meant as snarky so as always I will assume not
Here is the problem, I don't know what it would take to convince me, I don't know what experience I would need to have to choose God of my own free will. Buy if God exists he does know and so far he has chosen not to do it. Moreover, throughout history (on the assumption that the Bible is accurate) he has allowed uncountable thousands to die without providing them the experience that would lead them to salvation. What else are we to conclude but that God does not want us all saved?

This is how I think, this is what my position clearly is and now you need not assume what my position is or believe something that you think I believe when I don't. Are we good?

Of course we are good, it might have been helpful though if you had just answered, yes, the first time

 

[Davian]

What do you mean by origins? What I am addressing is that our universe, the space, the energy, the matter as well as time did not exist. Let me give another BB link.

I am not disputing the cosmological model that explains the structure of the observable universe.

Scientists believe our universe comes from a singularity. Scientists don't actually know where this singularity came from or exactly what it is, <snip>

Big bang theory only goes back to this point. Do you concede this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know, I think I did miss your point ... And I now would tend to agree with you, it seems based on this verse that Satan may well have different levels of access to people. However, the point you were trying to carry was that a repeat sinner like a serial killer would be prone to more/easier access by Satan and that moreover such a sinner would be unlikely to accept salvation. I conceed that within the structure of your beliefs you have made the first point about different levels, I look forward to your support for the reminder of the argument you were making

Good. I can live with that.

Agreed, I am merely telling you what the fact of the observable world suggests to me.

Would I be wrong to assume that this was not always the case?

As far as I know there are no elements of the universe that absolutely necessitate a God, let alone your specific God. In the absence of such features I simply don't see the need to hypothesize one.

There is no need to hypothesize one, considering that you once considered yourself a born again Christian. The universe hasn't changed since then and now, so what evidence informed you that no God was required for the universe?

Moreover it seems to me that you may have forgotten to respond to the actual question in there What I had asked was how could we be held morally accountable for beliefs that are not under our conscious control. I understand that you disagree that God belief, as arrived at by observations about the world, are not under conscious control, however, let's assume for the moment that this is indeed the case, that I have not made a conscious decision to not believe in God. Under those circumstances am I morally responsible for how the evidence appears to me?

But you did. You made a decision based on what you said was research into the Bible and science and came to the conclusion that the Bible was incorrect and God did not exist. This was and is a conscious decision.

I had hoped you would see the humour in that and from your response I not sure. I hope so. In any case I am not certain this is a straw man at all. You claim to have knowledge from an invisible (non detectable) , transcendent, all knowing, all powerful being that has given you special revelation and that is in no way falsifiable... Right? Those are the basics are they not?

Are you not in the process of trying to falsify my position? If it is in no way falsifiable what is your motivation in the discussion? I know it seemed you were joking but then you have just admitted that it is the basics and that it was not made in jest...correct?

I'm not sure if you meant that to be snarky or pithy, so I will assume witty instead

I am passionate and I am usually pretty much to the point. Many times I come off snarky when the intent is not there but in this case I apologize because the intent was not free from snarky. Sorry.

The key there of course is the appearance of design, which is a subjective statment that proposes that natural items in the world (n) are like objects designed by human like intelligence (m) and that n and m are the same in some relevant way (r).

Ok, so what reason would you suggest that explains why scientists make such claims since it is not motivated by belief in God or my worldview?

If you would like to run that argument I am happy to show you the defeaters...if you are already familiar with them then I guess you ready know that the inference to design from analogy fails, I am happy to do the same for the watch argument or really any version of the teleological argument that you prefer.
In any case the position that the universe necessitates a creator is a positive claim being made from your world view. As such the burden is not on me (except in a conversational way) to prove that your God is not responsible for the universe.

Do you believe that you have no responsibility for defending with evidence or some physical means for your own position?

It is of course possible to prove a negative, but not when the negative in question is invisible, transcendent and so ill defined as a concept as to be unfalsifiable. So rather than shifting the burden of proof, I would truly like to hear your positive case that the observable universe gives clear evidence that your God made it. If you can make this case I am happy to conceed that, maybe I have somehow made a conscious choice to deny your God and then have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness but until then...

Now do I detect some snarky? You continue to claim that my position is unfalsifiable, but you turn around and claim that you have complete certainty that the universe doesn't require God. Do you see the contradiction? If one can has complete certainty that the universe doesn't require a God, it would by necessity falsify my claims that God is required. You are making a positive claim.

Clearly the whole Bible does not make that case as we showed in the example of pharaoh, of 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and of course in the case of the thousands of infants and foetuses that God killed before they had a chance to exercise any free will at all.
Again rather than simply asserting that the whole Bible males your case and then appealing to the popularity and tradition of your position, make the case You need to deal with the counterfactuals presented above and then also make a positive case that God values human free will to the extent that you are convinced he does.

Fair enough. Let me think about this.

Again not sure if this was meant as snarky so as always I will assume not

This time not at all. I am being completely serious. We share the same period of time in earth's life, we share the same language, we share common understanding and yet intent is very hard to determine. We have to assume the motivation behind our words even though we use the same ones to convey our thoughts. Do you see?

Here is the problem, I don't know what it would take to convince me, I don't know what experience I would need to have to choose God of my own free will.

You have a unique experience here because you once assumed that some experience were from God prior to your change of heart. What was it that brought you to the Christian faith to begin with?

Buy if God exists he does know and so far he has chosen not to do it. Moreover, throughout history (on the assumption that the Bible is accurate) he has allowed uncountable thousands to die without providing them the experience that would lead them to salvation. What else are we to conclude but that God does not want us all saved?

I have made a very reasonable argument about this but you have not once addressed it. God knows that in all possible situations, in all possible worlds that some would never accept Him. Do you think that is a reasonable possibility?

Of course we are good, it might have been helpful though if you had just answered, yes, the first time

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not disputing the cosmological model that explains the structure of the observable universe.

Big bang theory only goes back to this point. Do you concede this?

Most certainly. However, our universe...the one of space, matter, energy and time had a beginning. Do you concede this?

 

[Davian]

Most certainly. However, our universe...the one of space, matter, energy and time had a beginning. Do you concede this?

On what happened prior to what is explained by the big bang model I can only speculate.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

stuff...

I see you are busy, but I just wanted to put in a reminder that I'm waiting on answers for several questions. Take your time, I just didn't want my post to disappear into the murk.

 

[Athée]

There is no need to hypothesize one, considering that you once considered yourself a born again Christian. The universe hasn't changed since then and now, so what evidence informed you that no God was required for the universe?

But I didn't become a Christian based on the evidence from the observation of the world. I became Christian because I was swept up in it from a relational perspective. When I actually considered the evidence, including the universe, I realized that I didn't actually believe that there was a God as described in the Bible.

But you did. You made a decision based on what you said was research into the Bible and science and came to the conclusion that the Bible was incorrect and God did not exist. This was and is a conscious decision.

No I don't think so. I would agree that it was a conscious choice to look deeply at the evidence rather than simply accepting what the Christian's around me and the pastors were saying. However, once again, the evidence either convinces you or it does not, for me it did not. The challenge I had with loosing faith was that I had had these experiences that I called relational, when I prayed I felt like I was talking to God, the Bible spoke into my life as I read it daily, I experienced peace and joy when meditating in Jesus, I felt prompted through the day by the spirit, leading me to do better and be that city on a hill. Looking back every single part of those experiences is absolutely explainable without a God existing and once I realized that, I was free to follow the rest of the observable evidence where it led.

Ok, so what reason would you suggest that explains why scientists make such claims since it is not motivated by belief in God or my worldview?

They see structures that are well suited to thier tasks, complex etc. I'm sure you know all this, and since we are answering questions with questions, why do you think that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields do not see the natural world as designed?

Do you believe that you have no responsibility for defending with evidence or some physical means for your own position?

If this were a formal debate, you would be the affirmative but since it is just a conversation I am happy to continue to answer your questions and to try to make my case.
Again though this does not seem to address the many questions I asked of you in that post, although to be for you are keeping multiple discussions going at once

Now do I detect some snarky? You continue to claim that my position is unfalsifiable, but you turn around and claim that you have complete certainty that the universe doesn't require God. Do you see the contradiction? If one can has complete certainty that the universe doesn't require a God, it would by necessity falsify my claims that God is required. You are making a positive claim.

I actually don't claim complete certainty, I admit that it is possible that I am mistaken. But my confidence that I am not, is quite high. Moreover, my level of certainty does not have any bearing on the truth of reality. If I were 100 percent certain that aliens have visited our planet in secret, it would not make it true.

I have made a very reasonable argument about this but you have not once addressed it. God knows that in all possible situations, in all possible worlds that some would never accept Him. Do you think that is a reasonable possibility?

I think it is hard to reconcile that defence with a God who loves his creation and has all possible power and knowledge. By deploying this defence it seems to me that you make God very powerless. If what we observe is the absolute best he could do, then he really isn't much of a God or as I have said before he really doesn't care about us, but rather he values his glory and pleasure. You are asking me to believe that the God who created this universe, who as you have said has such a sophisticated control that he can even use all our sinful choices, all Satan's manipulation to achieve his perfect plan, is also helpless to save most of humanity even though he wants to. Is helpless to stop natural disasters, famines, illness, even though he wants to. That somehow he is just stuck with things as we see them. Can you see why this is not very compelling? Sure it is a possibility, but so is the possibility that God is evil and is just toying with us and I think a more likely explaination is that there is no all powerful being in control, working all things for the good of those who love him and for his own glory.

I feel like a lot of questions I asked got overlooked in your response there so if you have a chance to go back and address them that would be appreciated
Have a great night!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Giving up is good. You need to quit depending on self and turn to God just willing to accept His help. We talk about surrendering wimping out or giving up as a first step.

Generally speaking, this sounds like an awful philosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I didn't become a Christian based on the evidence from the observation of the world. I became Christian because I was swept up in it from a relational perspective. When I actually considered the evidence, including the universe, I realized that I didn't actually believe that there was a God as described in the Bible.

Forgive me if I've asked you this before -- I like to ask everyone who claims they were born again at one time, then gave it up -- but are you saying you gave up all this ...

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... as well as this ...

Psalm 51:12a Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation;

... for something else?

 

[AV1611VET]

Generally speaking, this sounds like an awful philosophy.

It should.

It's dynamite theology!

 

[Ana the Ist]

It should.

It's dynamite theology!

Lol are you implying that good theology makes for bad philosophy? You could be right in that...depending on what the goal of the theology is...

As the quote I replied to made it sound, it's utter defeatism. "We talk about giving up as the first step"....why? Because you're too weak and powerless to make it through this life on your own?

 

[AV1611VET]

Lol are you implying that good theology makes for bad philosophy?

I'm implying that good theology makes philosophy bad.

Colossians 2:8a Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy ...

"We talk about giving up as the first step"....why? Because you're too weak and powerless to make it through this life on your own?

As we like to put it:

Aim for earth, get earth; aim for Heaven, get both.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm implying that good theology makes philosophy bad.

Colossians 2:8a Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy ...As we like to put it:

Aim for earth, get earth; aim for Heaven, get both.

Gotcha no philosophy...don't start thinking too hard. Better to just follow the lemmings...

I can't think of any connection to giving up, surrendering, wimping out...and what you just said about aiming for heaven. Is that how one "aims for heaven"? Curl up and die?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that how one "aims for heaven"? Curl up and die?

You're close.

You left out two words: "to self."

Luke 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

 

[Davian]

Forgive me if I've asked you this before -- I like to ask everyone who claims they were born again at one time, then gave it up -- but are you saying you gave up all this ...

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... as well as this ...

Psalm 51:12a Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation;

... for something else?

Are you implying that beleif is under one's conscious control?

 

[Davian]

It should.

It's dynamite theology!

Once was just explaining to me, in this thread, how in her theology serial killers and child rapists can go to heaven, while those that believe in other gods, or are simply not convinced of the existence of gods, will burn forever for reasons beyond their control.

Does that sum up your theology?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you implying that beleif is under one's conscious control?

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

 

[Oncedeceived]

So it seems you agree that I can't really just decide that I am convinced that God exists; I need to actually be convinced. And you do not think Jesus appearing to Paul violated Paul's free will. So why do I not get a visitation or similarly unambiguous experience to save my soul? God knows that that's what I need and it obviously is not difficult considering he's omnipotent. So why do I have to suffer damnation for something I can't change on my own when he could easily set me on the right path like he did with Paul? These aren't rhetorical questions; I want you to try to answer them as best you can.

First let me say that I had responded to this post and for some reason it must not have loaded. Grrrrr. I keep thinking you hadn't responded to me and when you said you wanted to keep the posts to you in the same place I thought you meant you would respond to both when you answered mine. Sorry.

If God knows what it takes to bring you to Him, He will do it. That being said, if He knows that whatever He does in any situation you will deny it is Him, and you would do this in every possible world, you may be one of those that there is no way to allow you your free will and to save you. God says that all know He exists but they suppress that knowledge. I understand that these are not rhetorical questions and believe me I take it very seriously. I also get from your posts that you feel that you believe that God is immoral and not worthy of worship. He will allow you to make that assessment.

Based on the definitions you provide, your case seems to be even weaker. All those words mean basically the same thing. So how do you support the claim that we are actually seeing a progression in Pharaoh's hard heartedness?

I am going to concede this point because I am not sure if when taken on their own if they show progression.

That's the thing: we don't know that his intent was to reject God and keep the Israelites despite the plagues. That's the position you're trying to argue so you can't use it as a given. What we actually read is that Egypt suffered a few plagues until Pharaoh relented and said he'd let the Israelites go, then God hardened his heart. Furthermore, the fact that the author wrote more than once that Pharaoh hardened his own heart but also makes the distinction that God hardened his heart really undercuts the claim that in all cases Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Can you please provide the translation that shows us that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" means the same thing as "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart"? If not, then you really have no biblical support for making that claim.

One thing in studying the early Hebrew language and the way words were used and the difficulty in translation of the "intent" of the wording is not so cut and dried. Just like in times we have figures of speech that we recognize as not meant to be literal. Let's hit the road, doesn't mean that we are really literally going to go out and hit the road with our fists. If I say don't bite my head off if someone is angry with me, I don't literally mean that this person is going to literally bite my head off. We see this type of figures of speech in the Bible as well. In the case of David setting it up Uriah to be killed in battle. Nathan accusing David says: 2 Smauel 12:9 "You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword". We know that David did not literally do the killing. He actually sent a letter telling his general to put Uriah into the most vulnerable place in the battle. Both are accurate but we know that David didn't actually take a sword and kill Uriah. I think this is something of the same we see in the verses of God hardening the heart of Pharaoh. He didn't literally harden Pharaoh's heart but set up the circumstances that permitted Pharaoh to have to make a decision. He used His plagues and Moses to set up the circumstances that presented Pharaoh a way to reject God.

Now several time in this scenario we find that Pharaoh said that he would set the people free if the plague would be lifted and when the plague was lifted he would go back on his word and not let them go. So we already know that he lied about it before why do you think he wasn't lying when he said he'd let them go again?

What do you mean "acted accordingly"? I thought you said God wasn't actually manipulating Pharaoh's will in any way. Are you saying God knew he would be treacherous and so forced him to be treacherous just to get on with the Plan?

I think you realize that I don't think that. I think that God gave plagues that could be replicated by the magicians so that Pharaoh could believe that God was not any more powerful than they were. I think that He could have forced the issue if He had sent horrendous plagues that lasted and lasted and forced Pharaoh into doing God's will but He chose to allow Pharaoh to reason against God if that is what he chose to do. Each time he said he'd let the people go and when he didn't and God didn't completely annihilate him as he would if it were him. He probably thought that God was able to read his mind when he lied and said he'd let the people go, so he thought he could deceive God. He thought God wasn't as powerful or as smart as he was. So in these circumstances, his heart was hardened but by the circumstances and his own will.

Interesting. So your position is that in this instance the slaughter of infants was moral and good. Is that right?

This seems to conflict with your ideas about free will however. You say God knew these infants were evil or were going to grow up to be evil and they had to be eliminated. But this means they were slaughtered without ever having the chance to exert a free will choice to be evil. According to you it is very important to God that we use our free will to either accept him or not, so why in this instance was it okay to kill those babies before they got that chance?

So you think that having the freedom to do evil, including killing their own young and killing other weak and young in other nations (which is what they would have done) is more moral than allowing them to die and go directly to heaven? How is that moral and good?

If you go back to my post you'll note that I didn't ask you if there are circumstances under which you would kill. I asked you if you would kill babies if commanded to by God. Now you have said that you would not because Jesus says no killing unless your life or your family is at risk. This is interesting because I thought most Christians believed in the Trinity. does this mean you do not consider God and Jesus to be different versions of the same being?

In any case, my question remains the same:

Knowing in your heart without a shadow of a doubt that JESUS (not an impostor) had really commanded you to kill babies, would you do it? (This is a hypothetical so please do not simply say that Jesus would never command such a thing because that isn't the point).

You are setting up an impossible scenario, as Jesus would not command me to kill babies. So the hypothetical scenario is not in alignment with the age we live in. The two times we are discussing where God either brought the flood or commanded the killing are in direct purpose with Christ being born. If God had allowed the evil to continue they would have killed off all of the Jews which would have eliminated the path for Christ to be born.