|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 9, 2023 18:35:02 GMT
So there issue here is there would always be doubt. That is the problem of not ever being able to escape the fact that the only thing you can know for certain is that you exist. Doesn't this mean that you don't know for certain all of that which you have just said? Yes, at that level it does mean that.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 9, 2023 21:15:23 GMT
If there exists an omnipotent god (that's the condition, the premise of the question), it would indeed be able to make it impossible for anyone to doubt its existence Later dude. QED dude. Stay focused. The question is.. If he can do that but doesn't, then why doesn't he?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2023 19:12:59 GMT
Stay focused. The question is.. If he can do that but doesn't, then why doesn't he? It was a QED since you agreed my question was valid, which was to be demonstrated. This is because I didn't expect a definitive answer by apologists, except special pleading: for instance that, since no one can know the mind of God the question is necessarily unanswerable. or more lately God might just "prefer faith". Apparently "because it allows humans the ability to choose or reject Him" www.compellingtruth.org/God-require-faith.html where an informed choice, through say definitive evidence would not, obviously lol Then most ironically "Faith in God is not "blind faith" as some argue. Instead, it is a choice b ased on the available information." ! And. just for you: That is because God will know that indisputable proof will be the most persuasive for most current doubters, out all the alternatives. In the context of this discussion faith is seen in the light of Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” It sounds odd and forced if one suggests that in the same way a doubter "has faith" in an absence. Otherwise people would have lives of endless faith: faith that Santa Claus does not exist, that a tea tray circles Mars or that Leprachauns are imaginary etc But once again: where there is evidence, let alone proof there is no need for faith. But that is what I am asking for - evidence which is proof. The fact that you catch me so many times is no evidence it will continue let alone proof. A question I would like to ask an omniscient deity. Since you need to ask perhaps it is you who needs to remain focused, dude. Since I have never asserted that God does not exist I am assuming you have not read closely enough my answers and this is another of your straw men. ## I am happy to devote time to speculating why God probably doesn't exist (if this is what you mean) but this is not really relevant here. I am presuming on this thread the deity might be there to ask him, if my question makes sense, but felt free to speculate on one obvious, possible reason for His radio silence in an aside. Hope that helps, dude. Sounds reasonable. Of course without evidence especially of the definitive sort it is always faith. Are you saying that theists do not have a great a readiness to believe things? You will note that I do not say "gullible" although in some instances this may be more apt.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 19:29:57 GMT
Stay focused. The question is.. If he can do that but doesn't, then why doesn't he? It was a QED since you agreed my question was valid, which was to be demonstrated.. Your first post in this thread: "Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?"
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2023 19:54:10 GMT
It was a QED since you agreed my question was valid, which was to be demonstrated.. Your first post in this thread: "Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?" That still does not make for a valid question for reasons already explained, although it might still be a rhetorical one. Also you are too keen - you missed most of my last post. Here I am back at the table and you have cleared the dishes away early.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 20:03:40 GMT
Your first post in this thread: "Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?" That still does not make for a valid question for reasons already explained, although it might still be a rhetorical one. Also you are too keen - you missed most of my last post. Here I am back at the table and you have cleared the dishes away early. It's a valid question. What's the answer?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2023 20:08:29 GMT
It's a valid question. What's the answer? If I knew that, I would not need to ask would I? All I have is a suspected answer which seems reasonable (to me).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 20:12:38 GMT
It's a valid question. What's the answer? If I knew that, I would not need to ask would I? All I have is a suspected answer which seems reasonable (to me). I'm getting the impression you just wanted the question validated. Apparently your answer is "I don't know," which sounds suspiciously similar to "God works in mysterious ways."
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2023 20:18:32 GMT
If I knew that, I would not need to ask would I? All I have is a suspected answer which seems reasonable (to me). I'm getting the impression you just wanted the question validated. Apparently your answer is "I don't know," which sounds suspiciously similar to "God works in mysterious ways." No, I just admit that it could be meaningless and was naturally pleased that you think it is not. Are you here suggesting that the Bible is wrong about God being ineffable btw? If you have read my posts I am probably the last person to use special pleading of this sort although often see it from apologists and anticipate.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 20:24:31 GMT
I'm getting the impression you just wanted the question validated. Apparently your answer is "I don't know," which sounds suspiciously similar to "God works in mysterious ways." No, I just admit that it could be meaningless and was naturally pleased that you think it is not. Are you here suggesting that the Bible is wrong about God being ineffable btw? If you have read my posts I am probably the last person to use special pleading of this sort although often see it from apologists. So it's a rhetorical question, then?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2023 20:26:38 GMT
No, I just admit that it could be meaningless and was naturally pleased that you think it is not. Are you here suggesting that the Bible is wrong about God being ineffable btw? If you have read my posts I am probably the last person to use special pleading of this sort although often see it from apologists. So it's a rhetorical question, then? Not if you now tell me it is meaningful... see how I caught you there? The latest in a billion times...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 10, 2023 20:31:07 GMT
So it's a rhetorical question, then? Not if you now tell me it is meaningful... If meaningful means valid, then you should be good to go. What is your suspected answer?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 12, 2023 10:43:29 GMT
If I knew that, I would not need to ask would I? All I have is a suspected answer which seems reasonable (to me). I'm getting the impression you just wanted the question validated. Apparently your answer is "I don't know," which sounds suspiciously similar to "God works in mysterious ways." Well now you agree the question is valudated, perhaps you know a answer of your own to help things along? I am glad however that we both evidently think that any supposed deity's iineffability is, ultimately, an unsatisfactory although convenient answer. But no one has tried it here yet. But you are right, I don't know the answer, although I have my suspicions. Which is why, er, I asked it in the first place, hoping it was meaningful
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 12, 2023 10:44:55 GMT
Not if you now tell me it is meaningful... If meaningful means valid, then you should be good to go. What is your suspected answer? I think the thread was: what theoretical question would you ask? But since you wonder what an atheist's answer might be, my suspicion is that the deity does not exist to make itself known unequivocally. Or of course He could just be on holiday. (Last time He had a holiday He got a local girl pregnant and we haven't stopped talking about it yet)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 12, 2023 22:12:49 GMT
my suspicion is that the deity does not exist to make itself known unequivocally. That's a cop-out. You're dismissing the conditional to avoid the question again. The question presumes that God exists, that he's omnipotent, and that he doesn't make it impossible for anyone to doubt his existence. Here it is again: If he can do that but doesn't, then why doesn't he?It doesn't make sense to say God doesn't exist if he exists.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 12, 2023 23:03:00 GMT
my suspicion is that the deity does not exist to make itself known unequivocally. That's a cop-out. You're dismissing the conditional to avoid the question again. The question presumes that God exists, that he's omnipotent, and that he doesn't make it impossible for anyone to doubt his existence. Here it is again: If he can do that but doesn't, then why doesn't he?It doesn't make sense to say God doesn't exist if he exists Maybe. But I have not said that; just that as an atheist "I don't know the answer, although I have my suspicions" so that's another unfortunate straw man. One can still have contrary suspicions while assuming something as the OP insists, and it is reasonable (and honest, too, for an atheist) to hint at the elephant in the room.
btw:
"...that he doesn't make it impossible for anyone to doubt his existence."
My question actually assumed that that is the next effect of his actions to date (or lack of them) at least for the less credulous, those sceptics and doubters who would need to make an informed decision.
Now we have that out of the way, and as we agree my question is valid, why don't you come up with a proposed answer of your own for the issue of an assumed God as an absentee landlord rather than seeking to argue over my question?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 13, 2023 0:23:59 GMT
That's a cop-out. You're dismissing the conditional to avoid the question again. The question presumes that God exists, that he's omnipotent, and that he doesn't make it impossible for anyone to doubt his existence. Here it is again: If he can do that but doesn't, then why doesn't he?It doesn't make sense to say God doesn't exist if he exists Maybe. But I have not said that; just that as an atheist "I don't know the answer, although I have my suspicions" so that's another unfortunate straw man. One can still have contrary suspicions while assuming something as the OP insists, and it is reasonable (and honest, too, for an atheist) to hint at the elephant in the room.
btw:
"...that he doesn't make it impossible for anyone to doubt his existence."
My question actually assumed that that is the next effect of his actions to date (or lack of them) at least for the less credulous, those sceptics and doubters who would need to make an informed decision.
Now we have that out of the way, and as we agree my question is valid, why don't you come up with a proposed answer of your own for the issue of an assumed God as an absentee landlord rather than seeking to argue over my question? I've been trying to do that. See comments above about faith. Yeah yeah yeah, you didn't use those exact words. But that's what you said. In your first post to this thread, you assumed his existence, that he's omnipotent (bolstered in your second post), and that he doesn't make it impossible to doubt his existence. Under those conditions, the question is why he doesn't do that. Your answer is: He doesn't do that because he doesn't exist. Or in shorter words: Q: If god exists, why doesn't he... A: Because he doesn't exist. ie, God doesn't exist if he exists. You don't seem to get along very well with your own conditionals.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 13, 2023 11:30:07 GMT
you didn't use those exact words. But that's what you said. No, once again: I have never said that God does not exist. What I did say, in a brief aside was "As an atheist I think I know the answer. But am willing to hear any excuses." You being so keen on conditionals you will notice the "but", further indicating a lack of fixidity in my view, while I may think a lot of things without knowing for sure. I also said, after you pressed me "since you wonder what an atheist's answer might be, my suspicion is that the deity does not exist to make itself known unequivocally." A suspicion is not a certainty. I hope that helps. You can't have it both ways, asking for my suspicions to be made plain, and then condemning me for expressing them (whilst attributing to them a certainty they do not have) But since you like syllogisms, here is an improved one, in a proper form this time and which best expresses things which seem to exercise you so much: If God showed Himself unequivocally, we would know He exists for certain and lack suspicions otherwise. God does not show Himself unequivocally. Since we don't know He exists for certain, we can suspect He does not. ..which is all I was saying. or: It is more reasonable than not to suspect things do not exist until they are shown unequivocally God's existence is not unequivocal Therefore it is more reasonable than not to suspect He does not exist until shown unequivocally otherwise. The worst that can be said, is that mentioning a suspicion that God may not exist in the first place is strictly irrelevant to the terms of the thread. But as noted above it was something you specifically asked me to clarify after an aside, wasn't it? I shan't explain this again, just so you know. Now with this out of the way, please stop with the strawmen and distractions and concentrate on answering my question. Are you going to rely on the ineffability of the presumed deity? I have another suspicion too: that you don't any convincing answers.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 13, 2023 20:56:03 GMT
you didn't use those exact words. But that's what you said. No, once again: I have never said that God does not exist. Settle down. This is not one of those silly burden of proof traps. You will note that I didn't ask for the answer; I asked for your suspected answer. And that's exactly what you gave. Problem is, the question isn't whether or not God exists, for God's existence is presumed. Here it is again: Premise: God exists, he is omnipotent, and he does not show himself unequivocally. Question: Why doesn't he show himself unequivocally? Your suspected answer: "God does not exist to make itself known unequivocally." One more time for those napping in the back of the classroom: Premise: God exists. Conclusion: God does not exist. Existent, omnipotent, and unwilling to show himself unequivocally. Does that sound ineffable to you? You refuse to stay focused. The question is: "Why doesn't he show himself unequivocally?" Given the premise, we can't say it's because he doesn't exist or that he's unable. My suspected answer is that he places much importance on faith, and I've been spitballing reasons why. Perhaps you would have seen that if you weren't so busy needlessly jumping through semantic hoops to avoid an irrelevant (and dare I say non-existent) burden of proof.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 14, 2023 20:54:24 GMT
A false opposition. More peritinent (and a proper syllogism) here this: FrJack: " [On this thread] Just assume God exists..." Assumptions can be wrong. Therefore an assumption on this thread can be wrong. I am quite entitled to point out any suspicions of this fact. You're welcome. Mine was an aside which, since you keep forgetting or ignore such, its is worth repeating that you asked me to enlarge on. Moreover I am a soft atheist, as you ought to remember, or know from past messages to others over the months, so as usual you have been misrepresenting me. I suspect now that by harping on like this with such a typical distraction you just like to argue on whilst avoiding the real subject(s) in hand. But whatever. It is really time to move on, dude lol I was more relying on you for answers here, not questions. But since you ask, I did not say that God is completely ineffable - just that this claim is sometimes used as an convenient excuse by the faithful. As I am sure you know, scripture has numerous examples of where the supposed deity is entirely known for what He is, what he does or impels (such as mass killing) together with His alleged motives. In fact His evident appearances without doubt and with attendant grand effects and many supposed witnesses back then is striking, when unbelievers do not get such compelling benefits today. Also the fact that He is unwilling (since we both agree He must be able) to show Himself unequivocally is not mysterious in itself; it is why He would not when, to any objective observer, it sounds like a win-win. As noted just above his unequivocal presence was plenty in evidence back in the day (as scripture describes at length) so it might be more accurate to suggest that "He places much importance on faith in modern times" - which hair-splitting would sound like special pleading. Maybe you should suspect something else? One supposed reason I have read for God wanting believers to exercise credulity (which at base is all faith is) over having the chance for making an informed decision (i.e. through clear evidence and proof of His existence) is apparently that faith is so important because it is the "means by which we have a relationship with God." - something of a circular argument that.. And it is not clear why that "relationship" cannot be built on His existence confirmed- which would bring many more into the fold. Another seen is that "Faith enables a believer to understand further truths that could not be discovered through reason alone" seems to have things round back to front and it odd to say the least that God-given reason should take a back seat to unreasoning credulity. in this context, apologist sites like www.compellingtruth.org/God-require-faith.html summarise the matter with typical statements that "Faith in God is not "blind faith" as some argue. Instead, it is a choice based on the available information." When one still wonders why the "available information" cannot be made sufficient for more to be persuaded (not coerced) into belief thus more fulfilling God's expressed will. So then: what else do you have? I suspect your options are running out. You are unfortunately attributing me motives I don't have. Not only would a burden of proof be irrelevant in this thread it is also impossible to prove an absolute negative, such as 'God does not exist' so dare say it. I am sure you know that. Is this going to be your next distraction?
|
|