|
Post by Admin on Aug 15, 2023 5:14:22 GMT
I agree. Whoever said that clearly doesn't understand how conditionals work. You're also entitled to dismiss the condition of the question to avoid even speculating an answer. But again, nobody is challenging your right to do so. This whole issue is an aside. I don't care about your "soft atheism," and I'm misrepresenting nothing. You presumed God's existence and his omnipotence when you asked the question, and the question itself presumes that he doesn't show himself unequivocally. But when asked to speculate why he doesn't do that, your first dodge was to say you met the requirements of the OP. Now you're dismissing the premise, which effectively invalidates the very question for which you previously demanded validation. Such smoke and mirrors debate tactics aren't necessary. If you don't want to attempt an answer, just say so. Jeez. I ask you to stay focused, you accuse me of distracting. That's rich. This is childish backpedaling. I suppose next you'll be telling me that you didn't assume complete omnipotence. "as for scripture, well, they would say that, wouldn't they?"You already ate that cake. Sorry. Indeed. Have you any speculations why he wouldn't do that? If theists believe because they want to, would it be accurate to say atheists don't believe because they don't want to? I have a question: Why would an existent, omnipotent God not show himself unequivocally? Ok... The burden of proof is non-existent in this thread. There, I dared to say it. What happens now? Are you going to disagree with yourself again just to avoid an unfortunate agreement with me? ps. Neptune is not in my back pocket, and I can prove it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 16, 2023 11:23:39 GMT
I agree. Whoever said that... I love the smell of irony in the morning. Glad we agree, time to move on then and continue with speculating on the answer(s). Hey this can be your big chance! Time to move on then, as I keep suggesting. I am sorry you don't care. I do. But in the context of our exchanges the matter is significant. But, whatever.. Already covered but thank you anyway. You mean like the meandering and extended paragraph above which does not address the question? No, it is fact. I like to choose my words carefully, which is a lesson. Sorry if it can catch you out. An completely ineffable deity would be too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words. God is described and expressed in words in scripture. God is not completely ineffable. I hope that helps. An ad hominem is not an argument. QED I posed my question to get some answers. See how it works? Again I was hoping for answers, but I can see they are not yet forthcoming. Oddly enough that was, more or less, my question. Are you paying attention? But since you very kindly entitle me to dismiss the condition of the question, then I still suspect I know one obvious answer - although I yet await any suggestions from you, lol.. You get a QED and I remind you that I was really hoping for answers... No I am going to say that there has been not a single answer to my question in your latest reply and the unfortunate avoidance of the question is wearisome. If you cannot add anything to the discussion why are you still here? Glad to hear. Can you prove God does not exist in your back pocket, too?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 17, 2023 2:35:42 GMT
I agree. Whoever said that... I love the smell of irony in the morning. Is that why you cook it up? Was I not supposed to chase your red herrings? These insignificant things that you keep injecting into our discussions are the very distractions you accuse me of. I'm pleased to know that you want to "whatever" them away, but it's not at all surprising. No, already exposed. Get it straight. It addresses what you said, but I'm glad to see we're finally on the same page. Here you're using scripture to support whatever your argument is after dismissing scripture on the first page of this thread. Do you know what it means to "have your cake and eat it too?" And what's the sic for? Do you think I misspelled "backpedaling"? It would only be an ad hom if I said you were wrong because it's childish. You really need to brush up on your logical fallacies if you're going to continue to accuse me of them. Given that you finally admitted the actual issue here (see highlighted text), the QED is misdirected. No, you posed your question to fulfill the requirement of the OP, remember? And you won't accept any answer that isn't some form of "God work in mysterious ways." (More on that below.) And so here you are, pissing on my leg again. You appear to have missed the point as you were dodging yet another question. Why do you do that, anyway? Do you think something bad will happen if you don't? You frequently use the word "credulity" when referring to theists, as if they only believe because they want to. At this point - after having asked twice - I can only assume that you don't want to admit that your so-called lack of belief is something you freely choose. This is relevant to the question because to make himself known unequivocally would be to remove that choice. You're waiting for something you already have. It may not be a definitive answer, but I've provided food for the question without a single red herring on the plate. The problem here is that nobody can speak for anyone's true intentions but their own. That's why we both ensure that any answers given are properly framed as speculation. The same would apply if anyone were to ask me why you do anything at all. I can say what you did, when and where you did it, and sometimes even how. But why? Only you would know that for sure. All anyone else can do is speculate if no answer is given by you, and even then it would be a matter of taking your word for it, or not. So if God "works in mysterious ways" because we don't know why he does (or in this case, doesn't) do something, then so does everyone. It's always the whys. Ever notice that? Funny, just a moment ago, you were hoping that I would dare to say that. Keeping up with you is like tracking a moth near a porch light. I agree that responding to most of what you say doesn't add anything to the actual topic at hand. I probably shouldn't do that, but your bait is just too appealing to resist. You said it was impossible to prove a negative. Did you forget the qualification again? So with all of your red herrings out of the way (hopefully), I believe the question is why God does not show himself unequivocally. First of all, and if I haven't it made clear by now, I don't necessarily agree that he doesn't, but I am presuming it for the sake of discussion. (See how that works?) I'm also presuming that he exists, he's omnipotent in the strictest sense (ie, literally nothing is impossible for him), that he wants salvation for all, and that salvation comes through belief in his existence. These are the conditions of the question, are they not? We should probably at least agree to these terms before I repeat myself again.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 17, 2023 22:32:08 GMT
In which Admin finally offers two theoretical answers, one of which has been entirely predictable, hence delayed, all along. I love the smell of irony in the morning. Is that why you cook it up? I'll leave all that to you. You might be better doing without distractions and answering my question (or ask one of the supposed Almighty yourself in a separate post) That is still not addressing my initial question... Already covered as it was last time and I still await you addressing my question, just as I was last time in fact lol. I do enjoy your distractions, please keep them up. If you mean where I said "And as for scripture, well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" that referred to one particular example and merely reflects a common sense view that what we find in Holy Writ is usually expected from, and of, those who wrote it. And far from cake eating when I quote scripture it just shows I value it as a main source on a religious board. It would be funny if not. Hey, just realised that this ought to be good for a couple of more diverting paragraphs from you.. You are 'admin'; better tell the system not to underline questionable words in red then, (Which for me your spelling does here.) Please don't make the difference in national spellings another reason not to address the question which I am hoping for lol. No; an ad hominem addresses the man, not the argument; here you give me an unflattering attribute, of being childish in argumentation - which personalising appears to be one reason to dismiss what I said. Good for yet another of your diversions this, one expects. But it is covered here sufficiently, thank you. "it is why He would not when, to any objective observer, it sounds like a win-win." "Indeed." Here, that which was to be demonstrated ( quod erat demonstrandum) was that God revealing Himself and necessarily bringing more into the fold, would be, to the observer, a win-win. And you agreed. So QED. See how it works? The feeling is growing that you just disagree with everything I say, just to be contrary. I am well into your post now, btw, and still no sign of answer to my main question, just diversions. The rumour is that you actually get round to it below... Never the less if you reply to someone who asks a question one might reasonably expect that after several exchanges you might actually address it with some proposed answers. Avoidance noted, Try an answer and see.. but then looking below, and after all this, I can see that is more or less what I do get.. There's that beloved morning smell again... Pease don't tell me or assume what I do, and don't, believe, in. And why would I want to deny that a lack of belief a supposed deity is a matter of choice? (I like to think one based on reason, = something which, as we saw earlier the Bible downplays in favour of credulity, er, faiith At last an answer! Unfortunately a notoriously weak one and it resembles special pleading. If God revealed Himself as suggested what it would mean is the ability of all to make an informed choice. You also imply that the deity would use coercion rather than persuasion something which I think I dismissed a while back. You may have to fall back on Mysterious Ways after all at this rate... hey, wait a minute... It sure isn't. And if the above is not be a red herring, it is certainly thin gruel. And so God is mysterious in not revealing His intentions? What I notice is that you, somewhat inevitably perhaps, and although hedged with conditions, seem to be edging perilously close to that expected argument from inscrutability lol If in God's case we really 'don't know why he does (or in this case, doesn't) do something' that what else is He but working in mysterious ways? Or to put it another way, if we know why he does or doesn't do something then how can He be (in this example) said to be mysterious? QED I actually said that is impossible to prove an absolute negative, such as 'God does not exist'. See the qualification? Absolute: something that is free from any restriction or condition. It may be observed that a planet is not a deity. it is restricted from being in your pocket by size, proven location and etc. Unlike God who, we are told, is entirely without limit and (you blithely tell me below) presumably can do "literally anything". One notes that there you can prove no planet but not so God. Sort of the point really. I hope that helps. I understand that the supposed deity makes itself known to some in a way that is good enough for their credulity or low standards of proof. But my question was what it would take to convince everyone (or at least far many more ) of His existence ... Why not make Himself known to the entire world without any doubt? I'd accept that there will always be the obdurate (I have had the devoutly-challenged argue before, rather desperately, that this small group would be enough to put the Almighty off the whole project) but the point still is that the alleged deity knows what would persuade many more than at the present. At the risk of being accused of a diversion (and of using well-worn conundrums) would this mean He could create a rock He could not lift? Or change His nature? The more sensible statement is that 'God can do anything that He is able to'. Most theologians do not take the idea of a Maximal God seriously as the fundamentalist literalists. Yes, yes and yes.. just get on with it. You also can't repeat answers you haven't yet made. Just sayin'...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 18, 2023 2:06:03 GMT
In which Admin finally offers two theoretical answers, one of which has been entirely predictable, hence delayed, all along. You might be better doing without distractions and answering my question That is still not addressing my initial question... I still await you addressing my question [etc etc] I guess that answers my question about chasing your red herrings. Thank you for making it clear that I'm not supposed to do that and that I was correct when I said I shouldn't. For future reference, what would you prefer I do with them? Should I ignore them as if you never wrote them? No, my point stands. Nothing more to say here, especially now that I know I'm not supposed to follow you into the weeds. I would explain to you how spell checkers work and that the red underline you see is a function of your browser and not this forum, and I might even ask for the correct spelling in whatever nation you live in while openly wondering if you thought it was "peddle" like so many do, but now that I know I'm not supposed to do that, I won't. And that sucks because I'm genuinely curious. Oh well. I would elaborate on this if I wasn't supposed to, so I'll just let ride what I already said. I recommend Google if you're really interested in what logical fallacies are, why they're fallacies and when they aren't. I agreed that the issue at hand is why he would not [show himself unequivocally], and I was happy that you finally acknowledged it even though it was buried under a pile of your red herrings. Hence, your QED was misplaced. Thanks again for the tasty fish. Oh wait. Dang it. I forgot I wasn't supposed to eat it. My bad. Funny, I've been feeling the same about you, especially after you labeled agreement with me unfortunate. Imagine that. Does it smell like a dodge ball? Don't worry, I wont ask you a third time. It was rhetorical anyway. Why are you asking me? Didn't you just tell me not to speak for you? Or does that only apply to what you do, and don't, believe? Say, has anyone ever told you that you work in mysterious ways? If the reason he doesn't make himself known unequivocally is to remove that choice, the question just takes a different form: Why would he remove that choice? It's the same yo-yo on a different string. I'm sorry if you thought it was a carrot, but it wasn't presented as an answer; it was presented as being relevant to the question. You really should pay more attention to what's being said instead of setting these silly debate traps. It wouldn't be a choice at all. It appears you have already forgotten that he would be removing that choice if he were to make himself known unequivocally. Now you're dismissing things I haven't said, but whatever. Regarding coercion, isn't that what he'd be doing if he were to make himself known unequivocally? Let's see... coercion: The act of compelling by force of authority; using force to cause something to occur Yep. No more or less mysterious than you would be if you did the same. However, given the presumption that he wants salvation for all, then it stands to reason that his intention is salvation for all. No? I understand that's what you want me to say, and so I did...but not in terms of inscrutability. What I'm saying here is that he's no more mysterious than you or I am. Note to self: Stop responding to FilmFlaneur's distractions, lest I be accused of being the distractor. If you really want to be helpful, then next time you should say it's impossible to prove God does not exist. Just don't forget to include the "lack of belief" spin so no one will accuse you of believing something that you claim is impossible to prove. Oh hey, wait a minute...I just ate another fish, didn't I? Then why do you assume that isn't what he's doing? Or as CS Lewis put it: "You must have the capacity to receive, or even omnipotence can't give." Where have I heard that before? Seems recent, maybe even in this very thread. Hmm. Anyway... Great! So... Premise 1: God exists. Premise 2: God is omnipotent. Premise 3: God does not show himself unequivocally. Premise 4: God wants salvation for all. Premise 5: Salvation comes through belief in God's existence. Given the length of this post and your antipathy for long paragraphs, baby steps seems like the way to go... First step: Given Premise 1, we can't reasonably conclude that God doesn't exist. Any objections so far?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 18, 2023 11:05:01 GMT
I would explain to you how spell checkers work and that the red underline you see is a function of your browser and not this forum, and I might even ask for the correct spelling in whatever nation you live in while openly wondering if you thought it was "peddle" like so many do, but now that I know I'm not supposed to do that, I won't. And that sucks because I'm genuinely curious. Oh well. It's a British English vs American English thing. In British English, whenever you extend a verb that ends in l with an 'ed', 'er' or 'ing', you make it a double l eg travelled, traveller or travelling. American English keeps it as a single l eg traveled, traveler or traveling.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 19, 2023 11:55:30 GMT
In which, after some fun and diversion, Admin finally settles on two answers to my question - including, as predicted, that apologist's favourite... I guess that answers my question about chasing your red herrings. Thank you for making it clear that I'm not supposed to do that and that I was correct when I said I shouldn't. For future reference, what would you prefer I do with them? Should I ignore them as if you never wrote them? Since you have only just started answering my question (assuming you ever intended to) this is especially ironic... That's good. Thanks to your diversions this exchange is long enough already. Whatever... You were addressing me and being insulting. And remember how on our last thread you called some of those who don't agree with you "nutbags"? I do. You have form. QED. Again. But now you tell us that it could be that He works in mysterious ways or conversly, being given more information forces belief on us, right? I was asking you since that is what you implied and no one else is here and hoped for an answer. not more questions. But you are right. Don't speak for me. Avoidance noted. Already covered. See my reference to an informed choice.. Good idea; try and remember that. Once again: one could always choose not to accept the now obvious. In fact, just last time, I mentioned the fact that the likelihood of the still obdurate has given some apologists an excuse why the purported God would not go this path (i.e. he can't stand disappointment apparently). Please have a look back. LOL Here with this argument you just seem desperate. All one wants to make is an informed choice. There is no 'force', although firm evidence can be thought compelling. When I decide on booking a holiday or buying a car, I naturally want as much information as I can get but acquiring that knowledge of itself does not mean that I am necessarily obliged, or forced, to proceed with the commitment. Likewise when I am familiar with the terms of thus board, or merely have IMDb2's existence confirmed, I don't feel obliged to be a member. There is also the consideration as to whether one can ever be 'forced to believe' at all (That one cannot be is an argument used against Pascal's Wager btw) QED. with statements like this I think it is fair to say that you have finally crept to the defence that I always assumed apologists will eventually in this sort of exchange. And you might also wish to know that comparing a deity to you or I is a simple category mistake. A shame that knowing what would persuade many more and will never work, he does not act to fulfil his will and intention then. But hey, that is where I came in, with my original question to the supposed deity. Did I tell you that I have a suspicion why this inactivity by a proposed supine deity might be? I see you don't deny my point. I was clearly talking about God as an example, if you read closely. And sorry if being a soft atheist (one who does not believe in God but does not affirm He does not exist) denies you some easy shots. But as you "don't care " about what soft atheism is we have already learnt, one wonders why it so exercises you here. Because it is isn't working where one might expect the deity to know the most efficient way of proceeding.. I gave the figures back at the start. I had hoped those helped. Unless you think that the number of Xians in the world is the best God can manage? CS Lewis here just seems to recommending credulity (being too willing to believe) over reason. Others agree about a man considered by some to have been something of an intellectual bully: Another obvious point is this: that if one assumes that God can "literally do anything impossible" then those things would, er, not be literally impossible in the first place. And, awww, you didn't address my point about His nature and unliftable rocks He can make or not. But anyway... Yes: premise 1 is something we can reasonable conclude is unproven. Given your fondness for conditionals, I am surprised. Also above is not even a proper syllogism just baby logic, indeed! Corrected for you: Premise 1: If God exists, God's nature includes omnipotence Premise 2: God does not show himself unequivocally in modern times when He could. Premise 4: God wants salvation for all through belief; by proving Himself to all belief would be greater Conclusion: God, though capable, does not do what He knows what would greatly achieve salvation for all. Hey, I suspect I know what this apparent contradiction between presumed ability and missing performance might be.. He has it on His To Do list stuck to His refrigerator, but is too busy shuffling galaxies, making more stuff at the moment. No wait, He has just forgotten. No wait He is just messing with our heads.. No wait...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 19, 2023 21:00:06 GMT
I guess that answers my question about chasing your red herrings. Thank you for making it clear that I'm not supposed to do that and that I was correct when I said I shouldn't. For future reference, what would you prefer I do with them? Should I ignore them as if you never wrote them? Since you have only just started answering my question (assuming you ever intended to) this is especially ironic... I'll just ignore them as if you never wrote them. [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] You ate that cake when you confirmed that God's existence is a condition of the question, as well as every time you referred to God as "the presumed deity." So here you're actually invalidating the question by dismissing one of its conditions. It's a baby step, not a hurdle. Please try again.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 20, 2023 17:11:44 GMT
Since you have only just started answering my question (assuming you ever intended to) this is especially ironic... I'll just ignore them as if you never wrote them. [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] You ate that cake when you confirmed that God's existence is a condition of the question, as well as every time you referred to God as "the presumed deity." So here you're actually invalidating the question by dismissing one of its conditions. And you agreed I am entitled to question assumptions. Remember that? Thank you for listing in full the answers you have to my various points. Nothing could be clearer. But since as predicted you are finally falling back on the idea that 'God works in mysterious ways' (an Argument from Ignorance, which is fallacious), time to see you on the next thread, dude..
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 20, 2023 21:05:05 GMT
And you agreed I am entitled to question assumptions. Remember that? Indeed. You also have the right to invalidate your questions to get your back off the wall. Your question, your answer. Turns out it was rhetorical after all. I think I'll just stay seated for your next song and dance, but I might point and laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 20, 2023 21:42:17 GMT
I would explain to you how spell checkers work and that the red underline you see is a function of your browser and not this forum, and I might even ask for the correct spelling in whatever nation you live in while openly wondering if you thought it was "peddle" like so many do, but now that I know I'm not supposed to do that, I won't. And that sucks because I'm genuinely curious. Oh well. It's a British English vs American English thing. In British English, whenever you extend a verb that ends in l with an 'ed', 'er' or 'ing', you make it a double l eg travelled, traveller or travelling. American English keeps it as a single l eg traveled, traveler or traveling. Thanks for that, but I'd bet my bottom dollar he thought it was "peddle."
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 933
Likes: 297
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 14, 2024 20:42:42 GMT
To film flâneur The answer to your question does exist in catholic sunday school. It is called free will. What you ask basically from the lord créator of the universe is to act like Harry Potter’s baddie, going into show business, probably scare every sinner out of their wits with every disorder that would ensues, and taking free will from its créatures doing it.
Is free will hypocritical ? It May be. But the point is that if you were to plead you never heard about free will, I can’t buy it, in 2024 with Google and all of that.
And, truly, you and Admin could have skipped the pissing contest getting to the point earlyer. You ask à question which is answearable by a Child. Not a mere creature, but an infant mere creature. Are you being disingenuous ?
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 933
Likes: 297
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 14, 2024 21:11:31 GMT
To someone who might be the op : We are getting into fiction if we suspend disbelief. What will be the fee for doing that ? I do take 80c a word. In bitcoins.
Fiction asde, some presocratic philosophers who thought the way science do now describe the universe had conceived the notion of the universe including gods, but they did not thought those would take our well or bad being into their ... hands. (Or flippers or what) They were to be mostly indifferent to us,only slightly pleased if man would happen to do well when they watched in the good way.
I think some movie about Ghandi put into his mouth a sentence that amounts to ”I might quite well admit that god is real”, talking to a friend minister, ”but I doubt god is about to bother about (miserable) me”. I do not know if the Mahatma knew about those presocratic ideas, but he was literate and he might have.
Suspension of disbelief in order to conceive a talking god , on the other hand, is , well, when it is à god, it is not in our league, we have no community, no affectio societatis with it, hence, no language to talk to it. A computer one has to write to is more like it, I’d say. So if someone invites me to asks question pretending to be god, i’ d be very polite and say ”what on earth happened to you, Sir, is there any help I can provide, incense, myrrah,er, Whatever ?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 15, 2024 21:06:41 GMT
[FilmFlaneur's question : "You know what it would take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?"] The answer to your question does exist in catholic sunday school. It is called free will. What you ask basically from the lord créator of the universe is to act like Harry Potter’s baddie, going into show business, probably scare every sinner out of their wits with every disorder that would ensues, and taking free will from its créatures doing it. Actually God would know what would work to convince, but without the coercion you describe. To assume it would be necessary is misleading and limits your deity. (Although one notes that we are still threatened with hellfire if we don't believe, as standard) All that is being asked is the ability of all to make an informed decision. I wouldn't buy a house or buy a car without that, so why should I build a personal belief system? Greater certainty as to the existence of your supposed deity does not mean free will would still not be in play when deciding to accept fresh unambiguous and overwhelming evidence. Legs growing back at Lourdes for instance would do it for me and many others, I suspect. And your omniscient deity knows that. When I have raised this issue before, other believers have claimed that God does not do it because there would always remain the obdurate refusing to accept the newly-obvious - an excuse which contrary to yours, actually assumes that independent free will is alive and well if wrongly used. (Another reason sometimes given is that God 'does not like rejection' and some would still be likely - which makes the Lord of the Universe rather a shrinking violet!). The point is that we read that “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4). In this verse in 1 Timothy, a declaration is made about God's heart and desire towards mankind. We also know that The Bible speaks about “the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). Everything that happens is woven into the purpose of God. And nothing that happens is outside of His will. So why doesn't He do something along the lines I suggest and ensure His will and purpose are done more effectively? Sounds a win-win to me. God's will is to be done and all ought to be saved but, after some thousands of years of proselytising and the urging of scripture (not to mention all that internecine strife, the Inquisition and Crusades etc), Christians still only make up, er, 2.38 billion of the worldwide population of about 8 billion people. It's not working that good so far is it?. If God was to make himself unambiguous to more people, say with letters a mile high in flame, I AM JEHOVAH then more would surely ''come to the knowledge of the truth''. Hey, perhaps time for JC to come back? As an atheist, sad to say for your faith, I have a strong suspicion why your purported deity doesn't, and won't ever, make itself known clearly and unambiguously with some obvious steps. And it is not that it works in mysterious ways either lol. Everyone has heard of free will and I have no idea why you would suggest anyone would say they haven't. However, if you are to plead how much value your purported god places on it, then perhaps you ought to ask yourself why, in the light of what I just said, He does not allow it to exercised with all the facts demonstrated clearly before all - not to mention that several times in the Bible your Almighty actually hardens the heart of men, so that they then are more likely to think the way He wants! bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Hardening-People The child better think again.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 933
Likes: 297
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 16, 2024 0:48:26 GMT
To film flâneur
I’m a she. Pissing contests don’t agree with me .. I wrote I won’t engage into fiction without à fee. [/sub] Fiction. Yours. I do not describe a thing. ”I wouldn't buy a house or buy a car without that, so why should I build a personal belief system?” If your want to have delusions about sometime, some place when and where you are free to buy à house, fine with me. There is a gap between that house Business and the building of the personnal belief thing. I won’t make anyting of it. All that is asked...informed... You mean the law as it comes to contracts someplace. Gee my fee is even higher in that field. What’s your fee ?
Sunday school is not about thinking, actually. When the Child creature provides to you the answear out of it sunday school book, it does not comes out of the Child creature’s thinking processor. It’s out of his her book.
Sorry but your question comes with a why.
You know what it would take to convince everyone of your existence and also what would never work. Why not make yourself known to the entire world without any doubt and thus bring many more souls to salvation?"
Removal of doubt is removal of free will.
”and I have no idea why you would suggest anyone would say they haven't.’ I suspect you are indeed being disingenuous.
How do you get from presocratic gods to me owning à god, i do not even want to know. That kind of callistenics hurts my ... er muscles.
You have not said à word. Can’t, using a social network. Its at the end of your fingers, not on the tip of your tongue.
”Greater certainty as to the existence of your supposed deity does not mean free will would still not be in play when deciding to accept fresh unambiguous and overwhelming evidence. Legs growing back at Lourdes for instance would do it for me and many others, I suspect. And your omniscient deity knows that. When I have raised this issue before, other believers have claimed that God does not do it because there would always remain the obdurate refusing to accept the newly-obvious - an excuse which contrary to yours, actually assumes that independent free will is alive and well if wrongly used. (Another reason sometimes given is that God 'does not like rejection' and some would still be likely - which makes the Lord of the Universe rather a shrinking violet!).
The point is that we read that “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3-4). In this verse in 1 Timothy, a declaration is made about God's heart and desire towards mankind. We also know that The Bible speaks about “the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). Everything that happens is woven into the purpose of God. And nothing that happens is outside of His will. So why doesn't He do something along the lines I suggest and ensure His will and purpose are done more effectively? Sounds a win-win to me.
God's will is to be done and all ought to be saved but, after some thousands of years of proselytising and the urging of scripture (not to mention all that internecine strife, the Inquisition and Crusades etc), Christians still only make up, er, 2.38 billion of the worldwide population of about 8 billion people. It's not working that good so far is it?. If God was to make himself unambiguous to more people, say with letters a mile high in flame, I AM JEHOVAH then more would surely ''come to the knowledge of the truth''. Hey, perhaps time for JC to come back?
As an atheist, sad to say for your faith, I have a strong suspicion why your purported deity doesn't, and won't ever, make itself known clearly and unambiguously with some obvious steps. And it is not that it works in mysterious ways either lol.”
What !?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 16, 2024 17:35:33 GMT
To film flâneur FF "Actually God would know what would work to convince, but without the coercion you describe. " Fiction. Yours. I do not describe a thing. "What you ask basically from the lord créator of the universe is to act like Harry Potter’s baddie," ... As described by you . Good job that, (whatever you are on about) since the point remains that, before any decision - especially that of some importance - one quite reasonably and sensibly expects to be able to make an informed decision. One notes that you have been unable to explain simply why in the event this would be necessarily be a bad thing... apart from suggesting (see below) that certainty, or something close to it, automatically means one cannot decide freely anything again - a lack of a sensible objection which says it all, really. There is no fee - but there can certainly a cost to making significant choices without firm information. Indeed. Which is a state of affairs shared with a lot of the credulity which informs grown up religions too. Removal of doubt is merely certainty. Many Christians are certain your purported god exists. Or that the Pope is infallible and your god's representative on earth. Or, that your Christ supposedly rose from the dead and at the end drifted up into the sky like a loose balloon. Are they therefore by your reckoning 'without free will'? This was in response to your "if you were to plead you never heard about free will." I still have no idea why anyone would say they have never heard of it. In fact the disingenuity here is arguably yours, proposing something so rare as to be unbelievable, to further a point. No idea what you are on about here, sorry. Would you like it spelt out more explicitly? Sunday school can be tough can't it?
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 933
Likes: 297
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 16, 2024 22:20:26 GMT
Film flaneur, A comparison is now a description ? Actually?
This what ? Are you wrting that I wrote that information is à bad thing ? Actually ?
Anyway, I would stick to the accusation. Disingenuity. Almost sure.
Sorry bub, I was trained to discuss the law. For a fee. Point.
To doubt is to raise questions, not to believe everything.
Only some Greeks in ancient times would accusé one who would stop not being sure of ubris. But There is no freedom if someone is pushed against one’s will to know anything.
How do you get to presocratic gods refers to the post for the op to me owning à god ? You wrote ”my ”?supposed deity or not? I definitely have no hand in writing sunday school books.
I see you take the liberty of modifying even the way I typed. Suits you. There was à whole paragraph between two things you put together.
” ” ”greater ... lol”
Now sorry, But what ?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 17, 2024 21:07:09 GMT
Film flaneur, A comparison is now a description ? Actually? You said: "What you ask basically from the lord créator (sic) of the universe is to act like Harry Potter’s baddie" - which is a description, through the drawing of a comparison. But keep going. It was you who claimed that empowering an informed decision would remove free will, was it not? Then you will recognise the law of diminishing returns when you repeat yourself. Match point. True, hence the point of this thread - and its value to those who do not have your levels of credulity at least. Also even if I was persuaded that your supposed god exists, I may still doubt such a jealous, angry, vengeful and murderous god was worth worshipping. Something a traditional religious education, naturally, would never ever engender from its participants. When I suggest this, feel free to raise this point again. No one is suggesting that your supposed deity ought to use coercion when making itself unambiguous. (Although it has a history of making threats in the past, I admit so I can see why for you it might seem natural.) You are rambling again. But if the Christian one is not yours then have no fears; there are plenty of others to choose from. All of whom are subject to the same strictures. If one wants to quote someone or something in your work, and you notice the source material contains a spelling or grammatical error, you use sic to denote the error by placing it right after the mistake. That does not modify anything. I hope that helps if English is not your first language. The quote was in full. But what is explain simply why, in the event, making an informed choice (especially compared to making one in ignorance) would be necessarily be a bad thing. Let alone why it would not be crucial when making a significant decision.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 933
Likes: 297
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 18, 2024 0:23:37 GMT
Film flaneur I suspect also that you won’t stop manipulate format and contents to your own purpose. It is boring. I am bored. Please consider that modifiying someone’s creation is offensive and stop cutting my post.
You modified my work by changing two separate paragraphs into one. Manipulation. It’s is not really alarming. Only I know manipulation’s implyies long, very long delay and excuse my french but that is boring.
As it comes to the empowering, the way you asked your question, you do not have empowerement of the masses on your mind imho, and furthermore you ignore blatantly one religious doctrine which forbid to force anyone’s will were that be with information . That could have been the error of a true atheist. Only most of atheists almost worship science. And you can’t get a single post without tearing it into pieces which suits you. Science think systems. Not tears systems appart. About the what, the paragraphe between the brackets i don’ get. SORRY. !
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2024 8:21:00 GMT
empowering an informed decision You're still on this? IIRC, it's been explained to you that when the choice is removed, there's no decision to be made.
|
|