Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence

[emiliano]

Right. That's why I mentioned before that it's two different ways of looking at things. The point is that we can all see a baby, and agree that it's a baby. The difference is in what we attribute to it. Atheists don't generally (and I do mean generally) attribute any more meaning than that to it. In that way, it's easier to agree on that evidence.

There is another problem, sight is not the only faculty by which we know the existence of things, not every theist sees his god and believe, some believe because they perceive Him (notice using the senses: to notice something, especially something that escapes the notice of others), in Christianity this is the action of faith and God’s Grace.

 

[emiliano]

Why so impatient? It is not my job as a Christian to be responsible for other people's relationship with God. My only purpose is to experience God for myself and to share my experience with others. Through those two things, I love God and love others, thus fulfilling the commandments laid down by Jesus Christ. How am I loving people by attempting to force them to draw conclusions? Let them figure things out for themselves.

Have you noticed how this irritate non-theist?
I do share my experiences with others and give them my opinions and give the reason for my beliefs, but only when I am ask or an Atheist is tweaking what I believe as a Christian. “Let them figure things out for themselves”? how successful have you been? This is spiritual knowledge that we a talking about, it can only be assented to with God ’s help. What does this tells you? Mat 10:14 And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

 

[tomspug]

How successful have you been?

Classic self-idolatry. Good to know that Christians out there think it is their job to do God's job, which is to touch people's hearts and change them.

Write this in your mind before you turn any more people away from God: CONVERTING PEOPLE IS NOT YOUR JOB! YOUR JOB IS TO LOVE!

 

[emiliano]

Classic self-idolatry. Good to know that Christians out there think it is their job to do God's job, which is to touch people's hearts and change them.

Write this in your mind before you turn any more people away from God: CONVERTING PEOPLE IS NOT YOUR JOB! YOUR JOB IS TO LOVE!

Is that your answer to my question?
Are you telling me that you save people? that you have the power to change people’s hearts? If you do, that is classical self Idolatry, I believe that God uses people to take His Salvation message to those that He calls, if they turn don’t take God’s glory for yourself, you cannot save anybody, only God saves. Give all the glory to God.
“Let them figure things out for themselves” this is impossible without God’s help, this is the reason for the existence of Atheist, Pagans, and heretics they don’t have the gift of faith, and faith comes by hearing the word of God, if they (atheist ) do not hear you. how are they are they going to come to faith? I think that all we can do is to pray for them, every believer is the result of someone’s prayer, not of constantly repeating the massage over and over again which produces more resented than converted souls.
Turn people away from God? Nobody can turn God’s people away from Him. Joh 10:3 The doorkeeper opens to him, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. If your massage is not heeded there are two possible reasons, one: you are given the message to the wrong audience, or two: you are not the messenger that that God chose for that person and no amount of Philosophy is going to achieve a positive outcome, obstinate insistence may end up damaging you, they may convert you, thus the counsel “shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them” be careful not to take any of their doctrines and leave to God, pray that God have mercy on them.

 

[tomspug]

Is that your answer to my question?
Are you telling me that you save people? that you have the power to change people’s hearts? If you do, that is classical self Idolatry, I believe that God uses people to take His Salvation message to those that He calls, if they turn don’t take God’s glory for yourself, you cannot save anybody, only God saves. Give all the glory to God.
“Let them figure things out for themselves” this is impossible without God’s help, this is the reason for the existence of Atheist, Pagans, and heretics they don’t have the gift of faith, and faith comes by hearing the word of God, if they (atheist ) do not hear you. how are they are they going to come to faith? I think that all we can do is to pray for them, every believer is the result of someone’s prayer, not of constantly repeating the massage over and over again which produces more resented than converted souls.
Turn people away from God? Nobody can turn God’s people away from Him. Joh 10:3 The doorkeeper opens to him, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. If your massage is not heeded there are two possible reasons, one: you are given the message to the wrong audience, or two: you are not the messenger that that God chose for that person and no amount of Philosophy is going to achieve a positive outcome, obstinate insistence may end up damaging you, they may convert you, thus the counsel “shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them” be careful not to take any of their doctrines and leave to God, pray that God have mercy on them.

Here is what you're doing. Replace every time you use the word "God" with "me", and that is what you are really saying. And no, atheists do not exist because they don't have the "gift" of faith. They exist because Christians talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. They look at the church and think one thing: hypocrisy. We should live by example, not by talking people's heads off and quoting scripture like it will magically solve people's problems.

 

[PureX]

Christ is not a religion that one "professes" to "believe in". Christ is a state of being. I have met atheists and agnostics who exemplify the state of being called "Christ". And I have met devout religionists that also exemplify this Christ state of being. What is this state of being? It's the state of being the expression of God's love and forgiveness in human form. It's the act of loving God, yourself and your brothers and sisters as though they are all one and the same. For an atheist or agnostic, the idea of "God" is replaced perhaps by the act of living, or the gift of existence. For the religionist, "God" is more specifically defined, according to the tradition of the religion he follows.

I wish there were more of these people around. I wish I were more able to be like them, myself.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

An absolutely excellent post, PureX.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Christ is not a religion that one "professes" to "believe in". Christ is a state of being. I have met atheists and agnostics who exemplify the state of being called "Christ". And I have met devout religionists that also exemplify this Christ state of being. What is this state of being? It's the state of being the expression of God's love and forgiveness in human form. It's the act of loving God, yourself and your brothers and sisters as though they are all one and the same. For an atheist or agnostic, the idea of "God" is replaced perhaps by the act of living, or the gift of existence. For the religionist, "God" is more specifically defined, according to the tradition of the religion he follows.

I wish there were more of these people around. I wish I were more able to be like them, myself.

Me too. The real question, it seems, is what set of beliefs best correlate with the reality? Does life without a higher purpose, God, have any meaning? If the answer is "yes," what is it? Are relativism and existentialism (creating one's own purpose) valid points of view? How can they be if the universe is a unified whole? How does the divisiveness of relativism promote or preserve moral behavior? How does society promote and preserve morality without a common ground? Reason? Whose reason? Sentiment? Whose sentiment? Intimidation? Is intimidation a civilizing influence? Passive resistance? Did passive resistance help the Jews in WW II?

So, you see, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Human beings are creatures of mind as well as emotions and both are inexorably linked in how we relate to the world.

Paul said that all men are without excuse, but I'm not so sure. He did, however, show in his letters that at least some humans are blind to God's existence by choice when he wrote: "Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law...are a law unto themselves" and manifest what is written in their hearts. This is taken out of context and I'm no theologian, but the idea is called "general revelation" by theologians. The denial of the is Author isn't blindness so much as "willful ignorance" and childish rebellion.

 

[PureX]

Me too. The real question, it seems, is what set of beliefs best correlate with the reality? Does life without a higher purpose, God, have any meaning? If the answer is "yes," what is it? Are relativism and existentialism (creating one's own purpose) valid points of view? How can they be if the universe is a unified whole? How does the divisiveness of relativism promote or preserve moral behavior? How does society promote and preserve morality without a common ground? Reason? Whose reason? Sentiment? Whose sentiment? Intimidation? Is intimidation a civilizing influence? Passive resistance? Did passive resistance help the Jews in WW II?

So, you see, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Human beings are creatures of mind as well as emotions and both are inexorably linked in how we relate to the world.

Paul said that all men are without excuse, but I'm not so sure. He did, however, show in his letters that at least some humans are blind to God's existence by choice when he wrote: "Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law...are a law unto themselves" and manifest what is written in their hearts. This is taken out of context and I'm no theologian, but the idea is called "general revelation" by theologians. The denial of the is Author isn't blindness so much as "willful ignorance" and childish rebellion.

Most of those questions only matter in context. "Meaning" is what we say it is. "Value" is what we say it is. "God" is what we think it is. The "truth" is what is. Regardless of us. We are mostly blind and ignorant and we do the best we can within those limitations. There is no way to step out of this human condition, and look back at it, to see the "truth" of it. This is what we must accept. And once we do accept it, we are free to value as we please, and label as we please, and judge as we please. Though to what end, I have no idea. Perhaps simply to define ourselves as ourselves while we're here.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Most of those questions only matter in context. "Meaning" is what we say it is. "Value" is what we say it is. "God" is what we think it is. The "truth" is what is. Regardless of us. We are mostly blind and ignorant and we do the best we can within those limitations. There is no way to step out of this human condition, and look back at it, to see the "truth" of it. This is what we must accept. And once we do accept it, we are free to value as we please, and label as we please, and judge as we please. Though to what end, I have no idea. Perhaps simply to define ourselves as ourselves while we're here.

The post speaks well but says nothing...sorta like a politician. It doesn't answer the questions posed: Are relativism and existentialism (creating one's own purpose) valid points of view? How can they be if the universe is a unified whole? How does the divisiveness of relativism promote or preserve moral behavior? How does society promote and preserve morality without a common ground? Reason? Whose reason? Sentiment? Whose sentiment? Intimidation? Is intimidation a civilizing influence? Passive resistance? Did passive resistance help the Jews in WW II?

Everything ties together, nothing happens in isolation. Like I said, human beings are creatures of mind as well as emotions and both are inexorably linked in how we relate to the world. Like it or not, we are active participants in the evolution of the cosmos, not passive or powerless observers.

 

[robtex]

With that in mind, I bring up this question: how can we be sure that God isn't completely evident? .

counter-question...if he was completely evident would you even have to ask that question? Doesn't the very idea that you have to question how evident God is or isn't suggest he/she/it is something less than completely, 100 % evident?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Doesn't the very idea that you have to question how evident God is or isn't suggest he/she/it is something less than completely, 100 % evident?

Not at all.

 

[PureX]

The post speaks well but says nothing...sorta like a politician.

Yes. *smile*

It doesn't answer the questions posed: Are relativism and existentialism (creating one's own purpose) valid points of view?

Valid according to what criteria? You choose.

How can they be if the universe is a unified whole?

They are as much a part of that whole as any other part. That we think is part of the whole truth. What we think, then, is also a part of it. But what part of it? Does that even matter? Only if we choose to believe that it matters.

This is why I don't believe it matters whether "God" exists apart from our idea of God or not. It's the idea of God that we have access to. It's the idea of God that effects us for better or worse. The "truth" of that idea is something we can't resolve, and so becomes a moot question (to us). The truth of God remains a mystery. But then so do a whole lot of things.

How does the divisiveness of relativism promote or preserve moral behavior?

It neither promotes nor denies moral behavior. Moral behavior is our choice. The fact that we perceive our existence as a complex relationship of 'parts' doesn't change that fact. We can choose to embrace and promote the gift of being, or we can choose to despise and destroy it. That was always our choice to make.

How does society promote and preserve morality without a common ground?

Society is it's own common ground. Humans join together for safety, security, and survival. These goals are the common ground upon which we can make our laws and set or moral codes. And if we are clever, within those functional social laws and codes we can still be somewhat free to live and believe as we wish as individuals. But it is a trade-off. We do have to give up some freedom for the security that comes from living and working together for the well-being of the whole group.

Everything ties together, nothing happens in isolation. Like I said, human beings are creatures of mind as well as emotions and both are inexorably linked in how we relate to the world. Like it or not, we are active participants in the evolution of the cosmos, not passive or powerless observers.

And like it of not, we are blind, deaf, and dumb to the truth of what is. So we live in a kind of make-believe reality in which we choose 'what is'. We choose the truth of God. We choose morality, and value, and meaning of our own lives.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

How does the divisiveness of relativism promote or preserve moral behavior?

Is the "divisiveness" of relativism the poorer choice, compared to the limitations of having one set of morals, dictated by an arbitrarily chosen group of individuals?

 

[Magic Man]

Not at all.

Not surprisingly, this is an incorrect statement. If something is completely evident, then there is no question as to whether it exists.

 

[Magic Man]

The post speaks well but says nothing...sorta like a politician. It doesn't answer the questions posed: Are relativism and existentialism (creating one's own purpose) valid points of view? How can they be if the universe is a unified whole? How does the divisiveness of relativism promote or preserve moral behavior? How does society promote and preserve morality without a common ground? Reason? Whose reason? Sentiment? Whose sentiment? Intimidation? Is intimidation a civilizing influence? Passive resistance? Did passive resistance help the Jews in WW II?

Everything ties together, nothing happens in isolation. Like I said, human beings are creatures of mind as well as emotions and both are inexorably linked in how we relate to the world. Like it or not, we are active participants in the evolution of the cosmos, not passive or powerless observers.

RS, your ability to take up lines and lines with big words and ultimately say absolutely nothing constantly amazes me. Does it really make you feel better about yourself to use big words to say absolutely nothing, in an attempt to confuse people into thinking you are very wise and more intelligent than them?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

RS, your ability to take up lines and lines with big words and ultimately say absolutely nothing constantly amazes me. Does it really make you feel better about yourself to use big words to say absolutely nothing, in an attempt to confuse people into thinking you are very wise and more intelligent than them?

That's funny. I was going to say the same about PureX

 

[The Voice of Reason]

RS, your ability to take up lines and lines with big words and ultimately say absolutely nothing constantly amazes me. Does it really make you feel better about yourself to use big words to say absolutely nothing, in an attempt to confuse people into thinking you are very wise and more intelligent than them?

In his defense, he can say an awful lot of nothing with small words also.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The post speaks well but says nothing...sorta like a politician. It doesn't answer the questions posed: Are relativism and existentialism (creating one's own purpose) valid points of view?

They're no less valid than any others, IMO.

And personally, I think that all viewpoints are forms of relativism and existentialism, and that objective morality is something that actually exists is incorrect. IMO, to claim that one's own viewpoint is based on some higher standard than personal belief steeped in societal influence is a form of hubris.

How can they be if the universe is a unified whole?

How do you define "unified whole", and do you think that the universe is one? If so, why? How do you think this would affect the correctness or validity of any particular philosophy or basis of morality?

How does the divisiveness of relativism promote or preserve moral behavior?

The "divisiveness" of relativism does not promote or preserve moral behaviour, but it exists, so it's best if we come to terms with it and decide how to deal with it, which is made more difficult if we pretend that we have some other choice besides relativism.

And personally, I think that the "divisiveness" of relativism recognized for what it is is still much less divisive than the divisiveness caused by multiple forms of different relativism all claiming to be objective, and therefore immutable.

How does society promote and preserve morality without a common ground?

There can still be common ground with relativism. Every human society has been based on relativism, even if they didn't recognize it as such, and (IMO) we've done a pretty good job of promoting and preserving morality, and finding common ground.

Reason? Whose reason? Sentiment? Whose sentiment? Intimidation? Is intimidation a civilizing influence? Passive resistance? Did passive resistance help the Jews in WW II?

Umm... how exactly did you make the leap from relativism to the Holocaust? Just curious.

BTW - if passive resistance didn't help the Jews in WWII, their general belief in an objective basis for philosophy and morality apparently didn't help them either.

Everything ties together, nothing happens in isolation. Like I said, human beings are creatures of mind as well as emotions and both are inexorably linked in how we relate to the world. Like it or not, we are active participants in the evolution of the cosmos, not passive or powerless observers.

Sure, but what you're suggesting isn't a necessary conclusion from relativism.

 

[Magic Man]

That's funny. I was going to say the same about PureX

I'm not surprised. The difference is that PureX actually says something, whether or not he uses big words.