How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)...

[s2a]

I understand Jesus's death, and the purpose of it;

Which was...what? Exactly? To make people, better people? To provide an "out" beyond this present mortal existence (with a few non-negotiable caveats attached)?

...before I changed my title, I quoted myself as being a "follower of Christ"; that means (simply put, that I recognise that he tried to build a bridge between man and God so that we could understand god's ways better, and understand that his love is so extensive that he allowed his son to die for us (in what must have been unbearable physical - and mental agony), so that we might be forgiven our sins, and receive a permit for heaven.......

I get that. Really...I do. But as you have effectively dismissed any attributed accuracy/legitimacy (as a matter of evidentiary fact) regarding the Bible itself...I ask again, what source (contemporary to the "eyewitness" accountings lent in Scripture) do you consult (or might, perhaps, reference for the benefit of others) as authoritative foundation or establishment of Jesus' (otherwise) scripturally-accounted "sacrifice", or it's (Scripturally-accounted) proffered purpose for mankind's ultimate salvation?

Is there another source (book, scrolls, tablets, whathaveyou) that more accurately accounts of the "original teachings of Christ" outside of/beyond what is revealed in the New Testament of the Bible (Scripture)? I ask this, because you said; "I, personally define myself as "Gnostic" because my faith is not one based on scripture".

OK, then...what?

Personal revelation, observance, and dialogue (which I truly believe is one between me and God).

Soooo...the answer is...no?

Do you keep a diary, so that you might one day share your secretive personal dialogues with God that others might benefit? Do you feel that you experience moments of personal conscience that differ from your "dialogues" with God? If so, how do they differ, and in what unique fashion?

I asked:
Is the definition offered by the quote/link I referenced in complete error?

I dare say that there are many definitions. The reason I apply the term to myself is because the word (as I understand it) means

literally, knowledge

That response doesn't answer whether or not the referenced description provided is in error. Is it, or is it not? It's a simple question really.

I would submit that all Christians may claim to experience a "personal relationship with God/Christ". Would you agree?

I hope so, for their sakes.

I'll take that as a non-responsive "Yes"...to a (otherwise) very straightforward and unambiguous question.

I cited, then inquired:
[PPS. I read the embedded reference (Sayings of Jesus) within that same page, and I noted in Chapter 5-4:5...
"4) A rich young leader of the Jews, coming to Jesus at night, asked him, "Good Master, what must I do to be saved?"
5) Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? Only the Gods[?] are good, for they are Light, so if I am good, then I am a God, for I am Light. Search that Light within yourself, for it is your goodness and the power of your salvation, when charged with the free gift of the Son of the Eloheim. When you live according to the commandments of the Law, it is the Light that performs your good deeds."

What are the "commandments of the Law"? Specifically? Are they recorded somewhere that others might today read these "commandments of the Law" for themselves?

As I have already said, I am a Christian whose faith comes not from literature; when Christ was incarnated as Jesus, he was essentially "man" - though one whose "Gnosis" was of the highest order.

Unresponsive reply. Do "commandments of the Law" either exist at all, or justly apply to all? If so, what are they (exactly), and from whence do they originate? If "God's Laws" are secret (or only revealed to His faithful adherents), then how can anyone ever hope to subserviently obey such "laws"?

What is the most compelling extra-biblical definition of "sin"?

Sin (extra-Biblical) ?

Wow, a difficult one - or maybe not so. Biblically, we are all "children of God"; sin is the breaking of God's Laws; my understanding of sin is therefore hurting, or harming a brother or a sister of mine (in God's eyes), in such a way as to let myself down, and cause spiritual hurt to myself, as I have done to my brother or sister.

Now, ya see?

I remain confused by your self-claimed attribution of belief. Is the Bible the foundation of your faith/belief/knowledge...or is it not? Just WHERE are "God's LAWS" documented/outlined/defined?

Speed limits are repeatedly posted along major highways every few thousand feet/meters, so that "law-abiding" drivers may fully appreciate what their imposed limits entail in adherence to established laws. How does any prospective "sinner" KNOW when he/she has broken "God's Law", or which specified law?

PS. Nice to chat with you within the forum again. ;-)]

Isn't it just? Unfortunately, fate (oh gosh, don't question me on that!!! ) has dealt me a hand of cards that is extremely large at the moment. I am running hither and dither, sometimes with the realisation that I am achieving nothing. But, one must try. Why do all "nasties" have to happen all at once?

I don't know. Don't you?

Why do bad things happen to good people?

I have a satisfactory answer at hand, but most people of faith-based beliefs don't find that it melds well with their own interpretations of "God's Will".

And...so...?

I am not of such ilk, an I am unlikely to take any offense in any challenges to faith-based beliefs/interpretations.

Is it your wish to shield other believers from some harmful "truth, or to shield only yourself from their hurtful and righteous rejoinders?

[PS. You alluded initially that you had been "bloodied" in some fashioned and figurative repartee likened to some injurious swordplay. As you very well know, I mean you absolutely no personal injury, nor hurt of any kind. I duel in ideas, not in personalities. I (primarily) target the most vulnerable (or unsubstantiated) claims of existential "truth"; not by skewering random personality quirks, foibles, or failings...nor do I present any rendered estimations of measured piety or personal character (beyond whatever people say/claim for themselves). Believers tend to cling to the notion that piety is fair measure of veracity...and that the more one "believes", the greater "the truth" of their faith-based claims is validated as inescapable (albeit revealed) "fact". I don't. I have no faith in such "mysteries", and my skeptical doubts regarding such claims--of superstition/supernaturalism as plausible agents of cause/effect explanations--have yet to be answered with any substantive and veracious burdened proofs beyond subjectively derived and reasoned doubts. Is that too high a standard for any claimed deity to match either of it's own volition/accord? If so, then the implied burdens of adherent [faith-based] belief actually exceed those of the very gods that believers choose to worship as "superior" to their own minimalist standards. I still don't "get that"...at all.]

 

[s2a]

Hi female11,

You quoted me in saying:
I honestly don't know. Could you provide some magic-decoder ring for your rather cryptic message, so that I and others might hope to better understand what your point is, or what you inquiry seeks as a valued answer?

Then you answered:

I think that the Pope does not believe in God, and I think that the Pope is not scared to go to hell, because he lives in a city of palaces (too much money and wealth) and you remember the words of Jesus about rich people and the possibilities of them of going to the kingdom of skies.

Um...OK.

I am not qualified, nor particularly interested, in assessing the level of earnest faith, piety, or humility the Pope may or may not possess. I really don't care, to be blunt.

In anthropology, the church (catholic church specially) is an instrument of the power in order to maintain dangerous social inequalities without rebellions, thanks to maintain an illusion of hope in the population. The miracles help to maintain this illusion.

You'll get no particular argument from me there.

Would you care to take a stab at the OP now? ;-)

 

[s2a]

Hello lew0049,

You said:

Alright s2a, first I'll say that what you are saying makes complete sense as I once thought that same exact thing. I was an atheist and at the time I couldn't agree more with the content of your message. Obviously though, what you are asking for is, more than likely, not going to happen.

Ummm...would you care to venture a reason as to why not?

But I hope you will do what I did, and read numerous books on the subject.

Which subject? Prayer? Miracles? Faith? Christianity (since you reference Jesus)?

I say this because at some point of being a non-believer, I decided that if their was a "truth" of a supernatural-being - then I would find it through logic and reason.

Bully for you. ;-)

I say logic and reason b/c my view of religion is that it is man-made in many ways and an experimental science (so to speak). The whole idea that if a religion makes you a better person then go with it struck me as irrelevant - because I didn't feel that being a better person meant I found any sort of truth (partily b/c it seemed obvious that a "truth" would subsequently make me a better person). If I didn't find a truth then nothing was lost - my position of being an atheist or non-believer would stand and I would be all the more confident.

Indeed so....

Getting to the content of your message and miracles. First, as Im sure you realize, faith is difficult - if faith wasn't difficult then I don't how it would be possible for it to exist.

Is it? Is it really? I think not. What human trait, quality, or capacity makes faith difficult? Shall we blame logic and reason...or something else?

As you mentioned, it would be great for the world (even myself) to have undeniable evidence that God exists. But when thinking about the miracles you presented, the word faith would be eliminated. It would be 100% undeniable proof that God exists.

That's the idea, yes. Oh, and it offers the added benefit of lending salvation to a few billion otherwise souls...and that's no so bad, is it?

Now, this sounds great, but at the same time, it makes no logical sense to me.

OK....

Meaning, if I am to plausibly believe there is a God and that He gave us "free will" to make choices, it seems apparent that this 100% prof of His existance would completely neglect our free will.

Nonsense...unless you wish to suggest that God might be an "indian giver" and take our "free will" away from us?

Of course, the counter to this is that "we would still have free will to choose" but I don't see how it possible for anyone to deny a God knowingly (meaning that he/she knows the consequences of this denial). Of course there WOULD be some that knowingly deny a God even w/ 100% proof of His existance but I don't consider this as acting on free will - more like being a complete idiot.

OK...but know that there are some that consider a faith-based belief in invisible super-beings absent a shred of compelling evidence to be similarly idiotic (or wishful thinking). Being an ex-atheist yourself, you should already be aware that atheists are not "god-deniers"; they simply don't believe the claims of existent gods have any merit beyond reasonable doubt. I don't "deny" the existence of fairies; I have no good reason to believe that claims of fairies are plausible fact. But...you know that already...;-)

Consider your argument. You suggest that the only way to know (by faith) that something is veritable and real, is to "logically" conclude that no evidence of that thing actually could (or should) exist. Therefore believing (by faith) that something exists...is the only way that something can ever be real. Does that really seem logical to you? Do you apply similar "logic" in your daily choices regarding claims of cleaning products, health/diet plans/pills, or troublesome leprechauns? If so, can I perhaps interest you in some very nice land/property opportunities?

Actually, the quote I have from C.S Lewis sums this point up and seems quite logical to me:
If you choose to say, "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it", you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can." -it remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives – not because His power meets an obstacle - but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

OK...

[Pssst. I read Lewis and the Narnia trilogy when I was a kid. His unsubtle allusions were not lost on me then, nor are they any more compelling today]

As far as the Bible is concerned, it says that God is a hidden God and that you have to make an effort of faith to find him through clues (prophecies as one of course). One of the most important verses in the Bibe to me is that "Seek and you shall find." What does this mean to me? It means that those who honestly seek God will find Him.

Playing "hide and seek" as a foundational premise for altering one's entire lifetime adult view and perspective upon the cosmos and one's own existence within seems a stretch as any presented "logical" argument in it's favor.

It doesn't say that ALL will find him or that nobody wlll find Him. Keep this discussion going with more comments/questions as this is one of my favorite topics.

I'll play my part, as needs be. ;-)

Hopefully I have answered your question will some sense of logic.

I acknowledge your proffered rationalizations for your faith, but no...you haven't actually answered the OP's simple question..."What's wrong with that?"

You predicate a part of your rationale that God bestowed/gifted mankind with "free will". Could you cite the bit of Scripture that claims/validates as much?

You argue that faith is the foundation of belief. I agree, but that is not in question.

Recall that I said (waaay back) in post #1:

Resistance to this proposition is inevitable. I anticipate responses along the lines of, "If God proves His existence, then what would be the purpose of faith?", or "God doesn't need to prove Himself to you", or "All the proof you need is already here and available". Fine. If you wish to defend a position stating that your God need not prove His existence to unbelievers, please do so based upon the written tenants of your faith. Don't simply render an opinion; base your case in quotable, referenced, dogmatic/Scriptural text.

C.S. Lewis was undoubtedly a man of faith sought and discovered, but even his unabashed piety is poor substitute for the word of God Himself.

Again...is there anything within the entirety of Scripture that specifically prohibits or forbids God's own faithful adherents in praying for such a (as proposed) delivering "miracle"? Hmmm?

Many kind-hearted believers (and some distinctly less so) have offered to pray for me (just little 'ole me!), in hopes that I might find their God in my own ("hardened") heart, and humbly seek God's promise of salvation and redemption (with "Heaven" kicked in as a bonus).
Many.
Would it be so wrong of them to pray for the "miracle" that I have proposed?
What's the difference?

 

[s2a]

Hello Katzpur,

You said:

This will probably be my one and only post on your thread, s2a.

:-(

I haven't read through it and probably won't. I don't know that there is anything "wrong" with your proposal, except that it would be counter to what God wanted to accomplish by putting us here on earth.

Could you outline His goals for us all then, in a short sentence or paragraph?

I don't believe that miracles were or still are performed "to prove God's might and power." I've always been taught that faith precedes the miracle, and not the other way around.

Um...OK, but...

Exodus 7:8-10
The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake.

What do you suppose was the intended purpose of this miracle (or the numerous others detailed in Exodus)?

What of Psalm 78? Why did God continue to perform numerous miracles for the unfaithful?

Matthew 11:20
"Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent."

Why was Jesus angry that the unbelievers were unrepentant? Was He perhaps expecting faithless witnesses to repent? Why?

Mark 9:39-40
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us."

Hmmmm....

John 10:37-38
[Jesus said] "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

...and, similarly...

John 14:10-12
"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."

Why would Jesus suggest that "the evidence of the miracles themselves" validated His claim as true?

People who already believe in God's power and might don't need proof.

Indeed...but that's not what the OP proposal suggests, or requires.

God doesn't want us to believe because he spells out a message to us with stars. If we had such proof, faith would be completely pointless.

So you say...but what's more important? Your losing (or no longer needing) faith, or the potential salvation of billions of unbelieving and faithless souls?

 

[rojse]

What is all of this talk about God not wanting to reveal himself to us?

He done it numerous times in the text of the Bible. He commanded many different groups, in fact. So, why would He reveal himself then, and why would He not reveal himself now?

 

[Katzpur]

:-(

Oh, all right. Flatter me.

Could you outline His goals for us all then, in a short sentence or paragraph?

Okay, but not tonight. I've got to give this some thought. I usually don't do "short."

 

[SoyLeche]

So you say...but what's more important? Your losing (or no longer needing) faith, or the potential salvation of billions of unbelieving and faithless souls?

Sorry, need to but in for a second.

You are asking: Which is more important: A or B. You should probably consider the possibility that B isn't possible without A though. I'm not saying I know how or why that may be possible - just that the possibility needs to be on the table.

 

[s2a]

Sorry, need to but in for a second.

You are asking: Which is more important: A or B. You should probably consider the possibility that B isn't possible without A though. I'm not saying I know how or why that may be possible - just that the possibility needs to be on the table.

You input is most certainly welcomed (as is any answer you might lend to the OP).

If you wish to introduce the premise/possibility, I'm afraid I would be a stinker and request some supportive rationales as to the "hows" and "whys" (that's what makes debates--versus interjections of emotional opinions,--o much more compelling and interesting).

;-)

 

[s2a]

Oh, all right. Flatter me.

Okay, but not tonight. I've got to give this some thought. I usually don't do "short."

Tell me about it...;-)

 

[SoyLeche]

You input is most certainly welcomed (as is any answer you might lend to the OP).

If you wish to introduce the premise/possibility, I'm afraid I would be a stinker and request some supportive rationales as to the "hows" and "whys" (that's what makes debates--versus interjections of emotional opinions,--o much more compelling and interesting).

;-)

I can try and come up with something, but I believe the better approach is to not set up a dichotomy unless you have eliminated the other possibilities

For me, personally, a different approach to the question "why are we here?" provides a lot of further insight. I believe that we are here, first and foremost, to learn and gain experience. Doubt and faith are integral parts of the process, and the desired result of our mortal experience could not be achieved without them.

Using a simple analogy: If I were teaching a high school class I could very easily give out the answers to the tests. I would thereby maximize the chance that most people in the class would get an "A". However, getting an "A" isn't the purpose of the class. Learning the material is, and by giving the answers instead of having the students search for the answers I would be hurting the real goal by trying to help the false goal.

There's my .002 cents

 

[lew0049]

Hello lew0049,

You said:
Ummm...would you care to venture a reason as to why not?

Well, I highly doubt it would happen. For mankind it would be great if it happened, but why would God want to reveal himself to some people who have not even searched or have the faintist notion of it. I firmly believe that God judges everyone accordingly - meaning that someone who is given more resources and knowledge of Jesus is expected to do more than one who is not. The Bible even states that God will be fair.

Which subject? Prayer? Miracles? Faith? Christianity (since you reference Jesus)?

Any and all of the above. There are some great ones on the market.

Bully for you. ;-)
Indeed so....
Is it? Is it really? I think not. What human trait, quality, or capacity makes faith difficult? Shall we blame logic and reason...or something else?

Obviously this is subjective and varies from person to person. I guess what I mean is that I don't have faith in algebra or in the Sun - those are without question to me.
Whenever there is not 100% evidence and only clues then I would say that faith can be difficult. Personally, logic and reason are the foundation of finding my faith yet this does not mean that I, as a firm believer, never have occasional doubts like asking myself "what if?" But the Bible even says that this is natural from time to time. But this is far different than a doubter or non-believer who simply does not look for God b/c he/she doesnt want the possiblity of someone else running their life.

That's the idea, yes. Oh, and it offers the added benefit of lending salvation to a few billion otherwise souls...and that's no so bad, is it?

Refer to the first response

OK....
Nonsense...unless you wish to suggest that God might be an "indian giver" and take our "free will" away from us?

I am simply saying that I believer God gave mankind free will to make choices. Now, if the biggest choice one has to make is about God - wouldn't giving 100% proof essentially not make it a choice at all? This isn't an easy concept. I think you have to realize that some questions, even like this one, are hard as hell to understand, and might depend on where you are along your journey so to speak.

OK...but know that there are some that consider a faith-based belief in invisible super-beings absent a shred of compelling evidence to be similarly idiotic (or wishful thinking). Being an ex-atheist yourself, you should already be aware that atheists are not "god-deniers"; they simply don't believe the claims of existent gods have any merit beyond reasonable doubt. I don't "deny" the existence of fairies; I have no good reason to believe that claims of fairies are plausible fact. But...you know that already...;-)

Oh definitely, but then again, I used logic and reason to come to the conclusion that there must be a creator - thus afterwards there seemed to be compelling evidence regarding the reliability of Jesus/authenticity of the Bible etc... its not like hitting a home-run but skipping 2nd and 3rd base (if you follow).

The wishful thinking is definitely prominent among atheists/non-faith people - and this was highlighted by the thoughts of Freud, but this argument can apply to many of these atheists as well. Many people find it far more convenient to be an atheist or agnostic b/c they are afraid that their intellect or power would be compromised (and behavior dissapproved of). There are many well-known atheists who have even said this - furthermore that scientific and philosophical evidence didnt led them to this conclusion.
Regardless though, wishful thinking does not mean that it is not true of that evidence does not point to it being true.

Consider your argument. You suggest that the only way to know (by faith) that something is veritable and real, is to "logically" conclude that no evidence of that thing actually could (or should) exist. Therefore believing (by faith) that something exists...is the only way that something can ever be real. Does that really seem logical to you? Do you apply similar "logic" in your daily choices regarding claims of cleaning products, health/diet plans/pills, or troublesome leprechauns? If so, can I perhaps interest you in some very nice land/property opportunities?

Nono, that is not the only way to "know" if it is real. I "know" it is real based off of a combination of many things - logic and reason being only part of it... experience is a huge part - one that is difficult to convey to someone who is at a different point than you (not in a bad way of course). Ill answer the rest later, gtg!

OK...
[Pssst. I read Lewis and the Narnia trilogy when I was a kid. His unsubtle allusions were not lost on me then, nor are they any more compelling today]
As far as the Bible is concerned, it says that God is a hidden God and that you have to make an effort of faith to find him through clues (prophecies as one of course). One of the most important verses in the Bibe to me is that "Seek and you shall find." What does this mean to me? It means that those who honestly seek God will find Him.
Playing "hide and seek" as a foundational premise for altering one's entire lifetime adult view and perspective upon the cosmos and one's own existence within seems a stretch as any presented "logical" argument in it's favor.

I'll play my part, as needs be. ;-)
I acknowledge your proffered rationalizations for your faith, but no...you haven't actually answered the OP's simple question..."What's wrong with that?"

You predicate a part of your rationale that God bestowed/gifted mankind with "free will". Could you cite the bit of Scripture that claims/validates as much?

You argue that faith is the foundation of belief. I agree, but that is not in question.

Recall that I said (waaay back) in post #1:

Resistance to this proposition is inevitable. I anticipate responses along the lines of, "If God proves His existence, then what would be the purpose of faith?", or "God doesn't need to prove Himself to you", or "All the proof you need is already here and available". Fine. If you wish to defend a position stating that your God need not prove His existence to unbelievers, please do so based upon the written tenants of your faith. Don't simply render an opinion; base your case in quotable, referenced, dogmatic/Scriptural text.

C.S. Lewis was undoubtedly a man of faith sought and discovered, but even his unabashed piety is poor substitute for the word of God Himself.

Again...is there anything within the entirety of Scripture that specifically prohibits or forbids God's own faithful adherents in praying for such a (as proposed) delivering "miracle"? Hmmm?

Many kind-hearted believers (and some distinctly less so) have offered to pray for me (just little 'ole me!), in hopes that I might find their God in my own ("hardened") heart, and humbly seek God's promise of salvation and redemption (with "Heaven" kicked in as a bonus).
Many.
Would it be so wrong of them to pray for the "miracle" that I have proposed?
What's the difference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am simply saying that I believer God gave mankind free will to make choices. Now, if the biggest choice one has to make is about God - wouldn't giving 100% proof essentially not make it a choice at all? This isn't an easy concept. I think you have to realize that some questions, even like this one, are hard as hell to understand, and might depend on where you are along your journey so to speak.

"Easy choice" is not the same thing as "no choice".

When you go to the grocery store, do you find that the nutritional information on the packages robs you of your free will?

What about knowing prices? How about when the grocery store gives the price per unit volume/unit weight so you can compare between different sized packages?

What if all this makes it obvious that expensive Brand X is really bad for you and inexpensive Brand Y is very nutritious?

What if it's sample day, and you try Brand Y and confirm that it tastes really good? In terms of food shopping, have you now become a mindless automaton?

Personally, I think the "if God gives us proof, He takes away free will" line is absolute garbage.

 

[lew0049]

"Easy choice" is not the same thing as "no choice".

When you go to the grocery store, do you find that the nutritional information on the packages robs you of your free will?

What about knowing prices? How about when the grocery store gives the price per unit volume/unit weight so you can compare between different sized packages?

What if all this makes it obvious that expensive Brand X is really bad for you and inexpensive Brand Y is very nutritious?

What if it's sample day, and you try Brand Y and confirm that it tastes really good? In terms of food shopping, have you now become a mindless automaton?

Personally, I think the "if God gives us proof, He takes away free will" line is absolute garbage.

And it might be garbage but the example you are using in comparision to what I am is completely out of context. The decision you make between two different brands has ill-effect on your life. Now, if we are talking about knowing 100% for sure that there is a God - undeniable proof - then how could any sort of logical person choose against Him. Meaning, if you know He is the creator and the rejection of Him would be a eternity in a literal Hell - how could any sensible person go against Him? Yeah, we can sit here and say a few odd people will but to any sensible person there is no choice.

 

[Alex_G]

hey everyone, im new to the site, this is my 1st post

to lew0049's above post: so ur saying that we should believe in God out of fear of a hell that may or may not exist? is that logical? is that even healthy?

Surely there is no post-life punishment to free thinking? Whatever you happen to believe... and if there is a God so arrogent and chauvinistic that he does indeed give out these petty punishments, im pretty sure he's not worth believing in.

 

[rojse]

People believe in God, but have chosen against him already - the Satanists, and Maltheists both believe in God, but do not worship him.

 

[Alex_G]

To believe in God, but to worship against him has to be beyond illogical... almost as if attention seeking, probably revealing an insight into the persons emotional status and insecurities.

 

[s2a]

Hello lew0049,

When I asked:
Ummm...would you care to venture a reason as to why not?

You said:

Well, I highly doubt it would happen.

So you said...but you have yet to explain WHY.

For mankind it would be great if it happened, but why would God want to reveal himself to some people who have not even searched or have the faintist notion of it.

Why not? What is it to Him?

I firmly believe that God judges everyone accordingly - meaning that someone who is given more resources and knowledge of Jesus is expected to do more than one who is not. The Bible even states that God will be fair.

Such is the claim of any tyrant (or deluded psychopath)..."I am always fair in my judgments!".

When you said:

But I hope you will do what I did, and read numerous books on the subject.

I asked:
Which subject? Prayer? Miracles? Faith? Christianity (since you reference Jesus)?

You amorphously replied:

Any and all of the above. There are some great ones on the market.

Well, I have read "numerous books". Upon all of the outlined subjects above. Do you wish to test me? Or do you wish to offer something of especially keen or unique insight instead?

After you offered:

Getting to the content of your message and miracles. First, as Im sure you realize, faith is difficult - if faith wasn't difficult then I don't how it would be possible for it to exist.

I replied:
Bully for you. ;-)

Is it? Is it really? I think not. What human trait, quality, or capacity makes faith difficult? Shall we blame logic and reason...or something else?

You then offered:

Obviously this is subjective and varies from person to person.

Why should this be "obvious" to anyone that has no requisite faith?

I guess what I mean is that I don't have faith in algebra or in the Sun - those are without question to me.

What aspects of such understanding/knowledge obviate any call for faith in those particular examples? Please provide specificity and detail in answer.

Whenever there is not 100% evidence and only clues then I would say that faith can be difficult.

Why do you suppose that is so? Are capacities of human reason and logic impediments/obstacles to faith? Can people "choose" to ignore such abilities, or must they set them aside in order to fully embrace/accept faith-based claims/concepts?

Personally, logic and reason are the foundation of finding my faith yet this does not mean that I, as a firm believer, never have occasional doubts like asking myself "what if?" But the Bible even says that this is natural from time to time. But this is far different than a doubter or non-believer who simply does not look for God b/c he/she doesnt want the possiblity of someone else running their life.

Crap. Merde. Doo-doo.

I readily acknowledge many factors that prevail well beyond my immediate control/influence; that inescapably affect my compulsory choices/decisions...all of which must bear their own inevitable consequences. I don't "disbelieve" (or disclaim) your God as some "dodge" of personal accountability/responsibility, or as some defiant fist-shaking at the sky. If anything inexorably influential can be said to be "running my life", it's my own concerns/interests for my wife and family. Believe me or not, reticent thoughts concerning your God never factor within those deliberative equations.

When I asked:
That's the idea, yes. Oh, and it offers the added benefit of lending salvation to a few billion otherwise souls...and that's no so bad, is it?

You said:

Refer to the first response.

I have, repeatedly. I found your replies...lacking...

After I observed:
OK....
Nonsense...unless you wish to suggest that God might be an "indian giver" and take our "free will" away from us?

You said:

I am simply saying that I believer God gave mankind free will to make choices.

I get that. Why not back up that "opinion" with some solid Scripture, as when I afforded you the opportunity to do so?

 

[s2a]

Now, if the biggest choice one has to make is about God - wouldn't giving 100% proof essentially not make it a choice at all?

Nope.

It would provide the option of a devoted acceptance. If any witness to the miraculous "event" chose to reject the ("100% proof") "evidence", then "believers" might rightly claim (and only thereafter) that any remaining unbelievers were decidedly "delusional"...or simply didn't want/choose to believe that anyone (or anything) was "running their life".

Recall that (in my OP) I do not suggest that a 100% "conversion" of all [proposed miracle] witnesses is likely. I would think that many ardent adherents to alternate faith-based beliefs would yet deny the "miracle" as some "trick" of their favored supernatural "deceiver" (hello, Beelzebub!). But again, that's not the promise or hope of such a proposed miracle. It's not about some measured "efficacy of deliverance" ("Jeez...we only achieved an 84% 'conversion' factor'...that's not good enough!"), it's about the prospective salvation of perhaps BILLIONS of wayward/misguided/lost human souls. Even if only one hundred unbelievers were ultimately "saved" after witnessing such a miracle...is that not enough? What is manifesting such a "miracle" to God Himself? "Eternity" is a looooong time...what's the big deal about juggling around the cosmos for a couple of weeks? Does your God really lose all His "street cred" with the miracle I propose? Even if He does, so what? He's GOD. The Big Kahuna. What does HE have to lose?

This isn't an easy concept.

I disagree. I find it exceptionally simple and straightforward.

I think you have to realize that some questions, even like this one, are hard as hell to understand, and might depend on where you are along your journey so to speak.

I acknowledge your difficulties in lending any compelling answers.

Pssst. My "journey" dealt with your "philosophical pothole" decades beforehand. I have traveled both far and wide since then...

When I said:
OK...but know that there are some that consider a faith-based belief in invisible super-beings absent a shred of compelling evidence to be similarly idiotic (or wishful thinking). Being an ex-atheist yourself, you should already be aware that atheists are not "god-deniers"; they simply don't believe the claims of existent gods have any merit beyond reasonable doubt. I don't "deny" the existence of fairies; I have no good reason to believe that claims of fairies are plausible fact. But...you know that already...;-)

You opined:

Oh definitely, but then again, I used logic and reason to come to the conclusion that there must be a creator - thus afterwards there seemed to be compelling evidence regarding the reliability of Jesus/authenticity of the Bible etc... its not like hitting a home-run but skipping 2nd and 3rd base (if you follow).

No, I don't follow. I don't possess the requisite faith to believe as you do. You'll have to delve once more into that "logic and reason" you rationally employ to bring me around...

The wishful thinking is definitely prominent among atheists/non-faith people - and this was highlighted by the thoughts of Freud, but this argument can apply to many of these atheists as well.

Freud was a quack, and a hack. I readily acknowledge that I periodically indulge wishful thinking to my own interests...but I don't "believe" (as an article of faith) that wishing influences outcomes.

Many people find it far more convenient to be an atheist or agnostic b/c they are afraid that their intellect or power would be compromised (and behavior dissapproved of).

Oh?

"Compromised" by what, exactly?

There are many well-known atheists who have even said this...

OK. Waitaminnit.

That's an interesting, and particularly assertive claim. Could you please cite just ten self-professed atheists (of the "many well-known atheists" that are out there...), that have essentially (or specifically) iterated/claimed/said as much ("b/c they are afraid that their intellect or power would be compromised (and behavior dissapproved of")"?

I would find such prospective authors/claimants especially interesting reading...

...furthermore that scientific and philosophical evidence didnt led them to this conclusion.

OK...then what do you imply/suggest "led them" instead to the logical/reasoned conclusion you proffer as "truth"?

Regardless though, wishful thinking does not mean that it is not true of that evidence does not point to it being true.

Ummm...that's a tad vague and incongruous. Could you re-word that sentiment?

I said:
Consider your argument. You suggest that the only way to know (by faith) that something is veritable and real, is to "logically" conclude that no evidence of that thing actually could (or should) exist. Therefore believing (by faith) that something exists...is the only way that something can ever be real. Does that really seem logical to you? Do you apply similar "logic" in your daily choices regarding claims of cleaning products, health/diet plans/pills, or troublesome leprechauns? If so, can I perhaps interest you in some very nice land/property opportunities?

You replied:

Nono, that is not the only way to "know" if it is real. I "know" it is real based off of a combination of many things - logic and reason being only part of it... experience is a huge part - one that is difficult to convey to someone who is at a different point than you (not in a bad way of course). Ill answer the rest later, gtg!

OK. How does this following referenced explanation suit your understanding?

"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true. Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

I note that you (inexplicably) chose to quote the remainder of my previous commentary, without lending any further rebuttal/reply. You remain invited to answer/address those unaddressed inquiries however your free time and interests may be best indulged.

 

[s2a]

hey everyone, im new to the site, this is my 1st post

to lew0049's above post: so ur saying that we should believe in God out of fear of a hell that may or may not exist? is that logical? is that even healthy?

Surely there is no post-life punishment to free thinking? Whatever you happen to believe... and if there is a God so arrogent and chauvinistic that he does indeed give out these petty punishments, im pretty sure he's not worth believing in.

Hello Alex_G,

Welcome to the fray. ;-)

It's a pleasant honor that you bestow in lending your first contribution to RF within a thread of my own instigation.

I invite you to visit RF's introductory forum, to share whatever you feel is relevant about yourself, and your general perspectives.

If you would accept some gentle counsel from a more "seasoned" member like myself, I would suggest that you adapt your valued opinions to a more demanding level of critique and prospective rebuttals.

You may very well find (and most certainly encounter) many self-professed "believers" in RF are not dullards...and certainly not ill-equipped in dealing with "challenging questions" regarding their claimed faiths/beliefs.

That said, welcome...and don't be shy. ;-)

Frubals upon your arrival, and for your wise choices in thread contribution...;-)

 

[rojse]

To believe in God, but to worship against him has to be beyond illogical... almost as if attention seeking, probably revealing an insight into the persons emotional status and insecurities.

Maltheists believe that God is a liar and a bully, and that there are hidden stories within the Bible to warn people against the tyranny of God. If I thought that way about God, would I really want to worship him?

I cannot explain Satanism as well as one of our members, who belongs to that belief group, but they also believe in the existence of the Christian God. Here is a link about Satanism: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/satanism/479-satanism-overview.html

There are many religious beliefs in this world, and insulting people that believe things that you do in a different manner does your intelligence or learning capacity no service at all. Sure, disagree with their views, but do not insult them without listening to their views, and learning about them first.