Why would an atheist come to Christ, if not to avoid hell?

[JGG]

I have already explained the basic idea of why high probability is not enough. I have also explained the difference between reason and empiricism. If you want to deny my statement then you have to explain why high probability based on the sample provided by the extent of human knowledge is sufficient. You aren't actually explaining it here, just repeating in different words what you said before. You're saying that the sun has always risen before so "there is no reason to imagine that the sun would not have risen this morning". First off, there is a reason to imagine because I have imagined a region beyond the extent of current knowledge This is also the first step in any experiment. You have to know that something is unknown before you even feel the need to find that unknown. Secondly, "sun would not have risen this morning" is not future tense. We're talking about tomorrow morning, not this morning. You don't need much of any faith to believe that the sun has risen this morning unless you have memory loss

The debate can't go forward unless both sides use logic to nitpick the premises. Otherwise it just drags on forever in an endless cycle of contradictions.

I'll give you an example of a simple argumentative debate:

Person 1:
A: The sun has always risen in the morning
B: If something has always happened every morning then it will surely happen tomorrow morning
C: Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow morning

Person 2:
A: Yes, the sun has always risen in the morning
B: No, something has always happened in past mornings but tomorrow is not yet known
C: Therefore, it is not yet known if the sun will rise tomorrow morning

This is an example of a contradictory debate:

Person1:

A: Yes it will!

Person2:

A: No it will not!

Person1:

A: Yes it will!

Guess which type of debate we were having? Guess why it can't go forward?

Fair enough. You get my meaning, I get yours.

What I'm saying is that faith that the sun is going to rise (again) tomorrow, does not require the same sort of faith as having faith that there is a God who may or may not send me to hell for all eternity.

To say that we don't have all the information, and there might be a God out there somewhere does not mean that faith in it is not far-fetched. We don't have all the information, and Leonard Nimoy might be the creator of the universe, but people would find it somewhat far-fetched if I said that it was true.

I have no reason to believe that God exists (other than the argument that He will send me to Hell for all eternity if I don't, which is a poor reason). I have good reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Soothfish]

Fair enough. You get my meaning, I get yours.

What I'm saying is that faith that the sun is going to rise (again) tomorrow, does not require the same sort of faith as having faith that there is a God who may or may not send me to hell for all eternity.

To say that we don't have all the information, and there might be a God out there somewhere does not mean that faith in it is not far-fetched. We don't have all the information, and Leonard Nimoy might be the creator of the universe, but people would find it somewhat far-fetched if I said that it was true.

I have no reason to believe that God exists (other than the argument that He will send me to Hell for all eternity if I don't, which is a poor reason). I have good reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I left out two really big questions. I used to have plenty of atheist colleagues and these really made them think:

What does evidence confirming a personal God look like?

and also:

What experimental design would verify both God and the authenticity of Christ's divinity and resurrection?

Honestly, I don't know how to answer my own questions. They are too hard ;P

This is what I was talking about when I said asking for proof is going way overboard when our civilization can't even narrow down the questions

If you have an extensive education then you are welcome to try. Just be sure to think carefully first.

 

[JGG]

I left out two really big questions. I used to have plenty of atheist colleagues and these really made them think:

What does evidence confirming a personal God look like?

and also:

What experimental design would verify both God and the authenticity of Christ's divinity and resurrection?

Honestly, I don't know how to answer my own questions. They are too hard ;P

This is what I was talking about when I said asking for proof is going way overboard when our civilization can't even narrow down the questions

If you have an extensive education then you are welcome to try. Just be sure to think carefully first.

I don't have answers to those. First and foremost we would have to come up with a comprehensive and accurate definition of just what God is and does. That would seem to be impossible.

 

[someguy14]

Why would an atheist come to Christ,

Seek and ye shall find.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by JGG I think you'll find that Christians will disagree with that.

Yes I do find that they disagree....and they are wrong.

Christians appear to disagree on things about as much as they agree in the areas of Theology Eschatology, Origins Hell, the Trinity etc.

Just take a gander at the GT board sometime to see the confusion

http://www.christianforums.com/f80/
General Theology The forum for general theological discussions about issues that do not fit in any other forum, eg. Angelology

 

[Soothfish]

I don't have answers to those. First and foremost we would have to come up with a comprehensive and accurate definition of just what God is and does. That would seem to be impossible.

Exactly!

It is extremely difficult to find God considering the nature of the very question itself. The scripture says that we need our whole being to find him and that clearly appears to be the case. No number of arguments by mouth or by physical demonstration can EVER be totally sufficient because we really don't know what to look for! However, it is also true that the concept of God is far from dismissed. The default intellectual position ought to be agnosticism rather than positive atheism.

 

[Soothfish]

Seek and ye shall find.

It has to be noted over and over again that the seeking part is profoundly difficult. God doesn't want to force people to believe. You have to look with everything you have. Far beyond mere passing thoughts and demonstrations.

 

[someguy14]

It has to be noted over and over again that the seeking part is profoundly difficult. God doesn't want to force people to believe. You have to look with everything you have. Far beyond mere passing thoughts and demonstrations.

Boasting in being a promoter of truth leaves no excuse to that effect, unless that boating is in vain. All will eventually witness that God is THE truth, friend.

The work is thriving and the workers few. Forget the physicality of the reward, the only reward is in Heaven with God. This all soon passes, so soon. There is so much work to be done, lets get busy friend. All of creation yearns for the love and knowledge of God. This is true.

 

[someguy14]

When there will be a great gathering, beware, there will also be a great falling away. Stay strong and give all glory to God and God alone, for His marvelous works.

 

[JGG]

Exactly!

It is extremely difficult to find God considering the nature of the very question itself. The scripture says that we need our whole being to find him and that clearly appears to be the case. No number of arguments by mouth or by physical demonstration can EVER be totally sufficient because we really don't know what to look for! However, it is also true that the concept of God is far from dismissed. The default intellectual position ought to be agnosticism rather than positive atheism.

I'm an agnostic atheist, so in a way I think you're right. But I'm not sure the position necessarily is agnosticism. Your question is "How do we seek God?" My question is: "Why would I even begin to seek God?" We cannot understand it, we cannot define it, we cannot see it. And yet you say "we need our whole being to find [it]." Yet, what would inspire me to do that? Why would I look?

 

[Soothfish]

Boasting in being a promoter of truth leaves no excuse to that effect, unless that boating is in vain. All will eventually witness that God is THE truth, friend.

The work is thriving and the workers few. Forget the physicality of the reward, the only reward is in Heaven with God. This all soon passes, so soon. There is so much work to be done, lets get busy friend. All of creation yearns for the love and knowledge of God. This is true.

We can boast only about being saved by the blood of Christ. It is actually quite fortunate that we can't go around boasting about having a superior scientific theory. That leads one perilously close to the edge of pathological narcissism.

Case in point: a certain evangelical anti-theist insists that his fellow [non]-believers be referred to as "brights".

 

[oi_antz]

Yet, what would inspire me to do that? Why would I look?

Hi JGG, I think this question is one you should concentrate on because only you can find the answer to it.

 

[JGG]

Hi JGG, I think this question is one you should concentrate on because only you can find the answer to it.

Then, realistically, it's more honest for me to say I see no reason to look.

 

[oi_antz]

Then, realistically, it's more honest for me to say I see no reason to look.

I think it is fair that it is as much your decision as it is His. I don't know why you don't marvel at the suggestion that the very one who designed everything that is, can be known and has made Himself known. Why don't you feel inspired to know Him?

 

[JGG]

I think it is fair that it is as much your decision as it is His. I don't know why you don't marvel at the suggestion that the very one who designed everything that is, can be known and has made Himself known. Why don't you feel inspired to know Him?

I imagine for much the same reason that nobody else here feels inspired to know Brahman, or Zeus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The idea that all that is was "designed" by something we can call "Him" or refer to as a "self" is somewhat underwhelming. That such a thing could be known at all seems unrealistic. I'm not inspired to look because it doesn't seem promising.

 

[oi_antz]

I imagine for much the same reason that nobody else here feels inspired to know Brahman, or Zeus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The idea that all that is was "designed" by something we can call "Him" or refer to as a "self" is somewhat underwhelming. That such a thing could be known at all seems unrealistic. I'm not inspired to look because it doesn't seem promising.

The promises are there, you are ignoring them.

 

[JGG]

The promises are there, you are ignoring them.

Those promises are being made by men. And I don't trust men to make such promises. Besides, that's not exactly what I meant. I meant it doesn't seem realistic.

 

[oi_antz]

I meant it doesn't seem realistic.

Do you mean that you believe your own assumptions are more reliable than the one who has the experience?

 

[JGG]

Do you mean that you believe your own assumptions are more reliable than the one who has the experience?

My experiences are more reliable to me than someone else's, if that's what you're asking.

 

[oi_antz]

My experiences are more reliable to me than someone else's, if that's what you're asking.

Yes, good statement. Am I correct that you believe you have never experienced God?