# God wants Non-believers to exist. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142 "2004-09-20T15:28:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/21 "2004-09-20T21:31:20Z")
Faith _and_ Freewill, Mr. Infidel…I will exercise my faith and freewill and I’ll say a prayer for you…no sarcasm intended. Peace. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/22 "2004-09-21T01:16:05Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > You have expressed the same ambiguity that the OP expressed. Believe _what_? As the OP framed the argument, it is _given_ that the Christian God specifically exists. That is not at issue. The OP states that some men are not _convinced_. That is not a matter of will, but of knowledge. Feigning disbelief after personal contact is mere beligerence. But knowledge of His existence guarantees nothing about a man’s will to worship Him, or as the OP put it, to “be saved and go to Heaven”. Maybe there are people who do not want to be saved or go to Heaven. Maybe they don’t like God. Well, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. 🙂 God making his presence known in a more obvious way would not force anyone to worship him, or to be moral. Judas appeared to accept Christ as the Messiah, and there were many obnoxious Hebrews who just got saved by a pillar of fire. So, if we all knew that there was a god, some would worship and some would not. Today some do not worship because they intellectually don’t buy it - though they may be as, or more, moral than those who do. This is even more troubling if the way to heaven is through Jesus and not good works. This is moot if the Christian God does not exist, of course, but the issue is whether the hypothetical people we are discussing know this. Another way of saying it is: why would a Christian God set up a universe in which it seems he does not exist, and then penalize some people for acting on this evidence? The three answers I can come up with are 1. He doesn’t exist 2. He is evil and enjoys yanking our chains 3. For some reason he wants there to be unbelievers. > [@](#): > > I almost agree with your friend, except that there’s no real lastness to it. After all, from the perspective of an eternal Being, every event has not yet happened, is happening, and will happen — all at once. The moral decision has long ago been made; the newly dead merely have a new realization. Well, if you believe in last minute absolution, then the moral decisions made before don’t matter. If you believe that one must be moral and accept Jesus, then they would, and this would put the last piece in place. If you believe just being moral is enough, then this wouldn’t be necessary. So it works in all cases, unless you don’t want someone immoral through life to be saved, period. > [@](#): > > You misspelled “Catholicism”. So I did. I suspect Protestant beliefs are all over the map. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/23 "2004-09-21T02:08:24Z")
I’m an atheist because God made me that way, and who are you to question his wisdom?.. Yup. I’m sold. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/24 "2004-09-21T10:39:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Well, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. God making his presence known in a more obvious way would not force anyone to worship him, or to be moral. I’m glad we share that point of agreement, and I would take it even further. One thing I’ve said all along is that no matter how “obvious” God makes His presence, not everyone will acknowledge that He is indeed present. Every possible event that we are capable of sensing can be interpreted materialistically. Miracles? Magic tricks. Appearance in the sky? Optical illusion. Healings? Coincidences. As I said, even upon death and a face to face encounter, nothing precludes beligerence. > [@](#): > > So, if we all knew that there was a god, some would worship and some would not. Today some do not worship because they intellectually don’t buy it - though they may be as, or more, moral than those who do. This is even more troubling if the way to heaven is through Jesus and not good works. Agreed again, and of course, it depends upon exactly what Jesus personifies. If it is a matter of a particular man who is the captain of some team, and by cheering for the wrong team, I’m going to hell, then fuck heaven. If, however, He is the Love Everlasting who is reachable simply by valuing goodness above all other aesthetics, such that it doesn’t matter if we pray to Jehovah or Vishnu, then I want heaven — the metaphysical state in which I may eternally adore my favorite aesthetic. I believe that He is the one rose with many names. > [@](#): > > Another way of saying it is: why would a Christian God set up a universe in which it seems he does not exist, and then penalize some people for acting on this evidence? But if we are talking about the Christian God, then we cannot make that presumption. “Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son.” — Jesus (John 5:22). “You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” — Jesus (John 8:15). Neither the Father nor the Son acts as judge. Therefore, it is not a matter of anyone being penalized, but of people choosing for themselves what aesthetic they most value. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/25 "2004-09-21T11:28:57Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If Supreme Being is defined as a being Who is necessary, then your premise is untenable. If. Is this in fact how Christians usually define their god? No. Shall we move on. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/26 "2004-09-21T11:50:56Z")
> [@spingears](#): > > You, like Job, can argue with God but His word is final! 1/ I am all knowing. 2/ God doesn’t exist. If you doubt that, see point 1/ 3/ If you doubt point 1/, see point 1/ That wraps that up then. Mods, this thread can now be closed. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/27 "2004-09-21T15:21:16Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > While I remain as always pleasantly impressed by **Liberal** ’s valiant efforts, I do believe that **Lord Ashtar** had the proper insight. Which was what exactly? > [@](#): > > I don’t know about Tooth Fairies (there’s more than one?), but I’ve seen enough trolls around here to convince me of their existance. If the implication is that Reggies a troll, then I don’t think that follows based on what he’s presented in this thread. He might be _wrong_, but I don’t see trollish behavior. Frankly I think the question he brings up is an interesting one that merits a debate. Why exactly do some Christians receive sufficient evidence while others do not? That is, if the Christian God exists. In any event, hi Infidel Guy! I enjoyed your call in show with Hovind. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![infidelguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d2c977/32.png) [@infidelguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/infidelguy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/28 "2004-09-21T17:21:10Z")
Liberal: You are correct. Thank you for pointing that out that my argument is not a syllogism. You are indeed correct. I was using the wrong term. However, the argument still stands as a logical argument. I’d like to see you dismantle it. If I’m wrong, I’d like to see how. I grow as a person in doing so. Thank you for your diligence in this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/29 "2004-09-21T19:42:20Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > If the implication is that Reggies a troll, then I don’t think that follows based on what he’s presented in this thread. > > He might be _wrong_, but I don’t see trollish behavior. Just to be clear, I wasn’t implicating anyone as a troll. I was just making a general observation. ---
**Author:** ![infidelguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d2c977/32.png) [@infidelguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/infidelguy)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/30 "2004-09-21T20:01:58Z")
Thanks for clearing that up Lord Ashtar! 🙂 Hi Meatros, glad to see you here. In Reason, Reginald V. Finley, Sr. The Infidel Guy > **[The Infidel Guy Show](https://www.infidelguy.com)** > > "To be truly open-minded is to first accept the possibility that you could be wrong, and to then be honest enough to change your position once sufficient evidence has been presented." - Reginald Finley, Sr ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/31 "2004-09-21T23:16:56Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Liberal](#): > > I’m glad we share that point of agreement, and I would take it even further. One thing I’ve said all along is that no matter how “obvious” God makes His presence, not everyone will acknowledge that He is indeed present. Every possible event that we are capable of sensing can be interpreted materialistically. Miracles? Magic tricks. Appearance in the sky? Optical illusion. Healings? Coincidences. As I said, even upon death and a face to face encounter, nothing precludes beligerence. This is what I just cannot get my head around. Nothing logically precludes belligerence, true. But your examples (miracles, healings, etc.) are the kinds of things that theists often cite as evidence of God. They appear to be insufficient as a means of persuading someone who does not already believe. Is there any reason to think that a face to face encounter with the Supreme Being is even remotely similar? Asserting that nothing precludes belligerence is really only saying that it is _possible_ that one person, although in the presence of the full and perfect glory of God, would still deny him. What about all the others who long for such an encounter? Why are they left out? ---
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/32 "2004-09-22T03:09:39Z")
While I find the OP’s argument to be full of holes, I won’t go into that, as others have already done better than I could. What I’d like to know is, why should the burden of proof be on us nonbelievers? Atheism, agnosticism, theism, and any other purely philosophical (as opposed to moral) positions are intrinsically justified because we were born with brains, and might as well use them. The burden of proof is thus on the dogmatists to show that one cosmological position is more morally sound than another. I suspect there may be a supreme entity of one kind or another, but I don’t see how, if one exists, it logically follows that belief in it (not to mention worshipping it) is a moral imperative. Seems to me that any God even _worth_ worshipping (i.e., one that is rational) wouldn’t give a damn whether I believe in him/her/it or not. Seems like a shame to give a bunch of souped-up apes such hypertrophic frontal lobes, only to eternally punish them if they get a piddling multiple-choice philosophical question wrong, _with no direct effect on the well-being of their fellow mutant apes_. (The lack of a direct effect on others’ well-being is why I characterize belief or nonbelief in a God as a purely philosophical position, as opposed to a moral one, like “all bagpipe players must be killed.”) ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/33 "2004-09-22T03:40:54Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m glad we share that point of agreement, and I would take it even further. One thing I’ve said all along is that no matter how “obvious” God makes His presence, not everyone will acknowledge that He is indeed present. Every possible event that we are capable of sensing can be interpreted materialistically. Miracles? Magic tricks. Appearance in the sky? Optical illusion. Healings? Coincidences. As I said, even upon death and a face to face encounter, nothing precludes beligerence. I’m not sure I buy this. While I agree that some people would forever remain snits, I don’t find it plausible in the least that the reason God doesn’t bother to make his existence apparent to humans on their own level of observing things is just because a couple of people would be sticks in the mud about it. The vast majority of non-believers would, in fact, go: oh, okay, so THAT’s what you were talking about. And really, what is the POINT of having there be debate over God’s EXISTENCE if the real point is supposed to be about whether or not someone loves God or not and is a good person? It seems like a ridiculously pointless diversion and confusion… all to what end? Why the extra layer of confusion when there are much more important things to worry about? And your paraody of skepticism is neither charitable, nor, I think, even in good faith. If there really were miraculous healings that were unambiguous as the normal human events we are used to observing, there really would be little room for skepticism. If God would openly display anything truly out of the ordinary, it would be pretty obvious and undeniable as a superior being (though trust is at some point impossible for a being that is far beyond the scope of humankind to observe and understand and come to predict) ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/34 "2004-09-22T04:51:11Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > Court me? He’s never even bought me dinner or returned any of my phone calls. > > And I woulda let him get to second base, too . . . Operator… get me Jesus… on the line! ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/35 "2004-09-22T04:59:50Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Since we’re being all uppity, it’s two words, not one hyphenated word. It’s the negation of the third person singular present tense of _sequ_ — to follow. Not to nitpick a nitpick, but _sequ_? I don’t have my Latin dictionary here right now, but I don’t ever remember seeing an infinitive form of a verb end in a ‘u’. Off the top of my head I’d imagine the conjugates of the word would be something like: sequor, sequitus, sequitutus, as a deponent verb. ---
**Author:** ![NewHeart\_Male](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@NewHeart\_Male](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NewHeart_Male)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/36 "2004-09-22T17:30:26Z")
**Liberal** I hope you do not mind me asking but are you a logician? It’s just that reading many of your posts it seems to me that you have extensive knowledge on the subject of _Logic & Argumentation_. Would you mind giving me a brief overview of your (academic &/or professional) background? [I realise that for the purposes of the thread this may constitute a **hijack** - and also you may not wish to answer in such a public forum. If not, I can be reached via e-mail: [robnewhart@hotmail.com](mailto:robnewhart@hotmail.com)] With gratitude, Rob. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/37 "2004-09-22T18:25:03Z")
[QUOTE=trandallt] > [@](#): > > This is what I just cannot get my head around. Nothing logically precludes belligerence, true. But your examples (miracles, healings, etc.) are the kinds of things that theists often cite as evidence of God. They appear to be insufficient as a means of persuading someone who does not already believe. Is there any reason to think that a face to face encounter with the Supreme Being is even remotely similar? Asserting that nothing precludes belligerence is really only saying that it is _possible_ that one person, although in the presence of the full and perfect glory of God, would still deny him. What about all the others who long for such an encounter? Why are they left out? The problem is that the miracles and healings supposedly happened a long time ago, and are no different from miracles that support other religions. I was referring to verifiable miracles, which are non-existent. (Healings are done by quack psychic surgeons, we know the liquid that simulates blood from a bleeding Jesus, etc.) As **Apos** said, for a non-believer to believe and honor a deity, you must first demonstrate that there is something there to believe in. Though you might say it is belligerent not to honor an evident god, how can you say it is belligerent to not honor a god you are convinced does not exist. (And I’m speaking of a specific god here, for which hard atheism is more reasonable than for the general class of gods.) As for your second question, perhaps believers are considered to not need an encounter, since if god existed they’d get one after they are dead. **Apos** , I agree, but in other fora I have seen atheists state that they would not believe no matter how solid the evidence is. So **Lib** ’s comment is not off-base. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/38 "2004-09-22T18:37:10Z")
> [@NewHeart](#): > > Would you mind giving me a brief overview of your (academic &/or professional) background? Academically, I am self-educated, having completed nothing beyond high school. Professionally, I had to work my way up from the bottom. After a couple of years of bumming around, working as a bell-hop and what-not, I began my career in earnest as a warehouse clerk for an industrial distributor. Eventually, I became a purchasing agent, and was moved into sales when, quite by an accident of inspiration, I managed to rescue an important customer from a rather dire situation. Eventually, I transfered to our corporate headquarters to accept a position as the Manager of Customer Service for our twelve locations. There, I taught myself computer programming in order to write the software that I felt I needed. When implemented, it caught the attention of our Chief Financial Officer, and I was promoted to Corporate Data Processing Manager. I left that job for an entrepreneural venture that failed. I then took a job as Director of Development for a software house, specializing in applications for the fast-food industry. There, I taught object oriented programming and first-order logic to our staff. The workshops were so successful that the firm farmed me out to other software houses where I taught them the materials and how to conduct the classes. I formed my own consulting business, but tired of it after about a year. I’m currently the Senior Vice-President and Vice-Chairman of the Board for a marketing firm, specializing in Information Technologies. ---
**Author:** ![NewHeart\_Male](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc8723/32.png) [@NewHeart\_Male](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NewHeart_Male)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/39 "2004-09-22T18:43:11Z")
Wow. That’s fascinating **Lib** thanks. I wouldn’t have expected your job to be as it is - you seem to have such a large body of knowledge concerning (what appears to me at least) a wide variety of topics. I have much respect for you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142/40 "2004-09-22T19:10:07Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Not to nitpick a nitpick, but _sequ_? I don’t have my Latin dictionary here right now, but I don’t ever remember seeing an infinitive form of a verb end in a ‘u’. Off the top of my head I’d imagine the conjugates of the word would be something like: sequor, sequitus, sequitutus, as a deponent verb. Yes, it’s a third conjugation deponent: sequor, sequeris (-re), sequitur, sequimur, sequiminí, sequuntur — would be the present indicative. I shouldn’t have implied that the root was the infinitive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-wants-non-believers-to-exist/265142.md?page=3)