God wants Non-believers to exist.

Faith and Freewill, Mr. Infidel…I will exercise my faith and freewill and I’ll say a prayer for you…no sarcasm intended. Peace.

Well, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. :slight_smile: 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.

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.

So I did. I suspect Protestant beliefs are all over the map.

I’m an atheist because God made me that way, and who are you to question his wisdom?..

Yup. I’m sold.

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.

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.

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.

If.

Is this in fact how Christians usually define their god? No.

Shall we move on.

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.

Which was what exactly?

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. :slight_smile:

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.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t implicating anyone as a troll. I was just making a general observation.

Thanks for clearing that up Lord Ashtar! :slight_smile:

Hi Meatros, glad to see you here.
In Reason,

Reginald V. Finley, Sr.
The Infidel Guy

[QUOTE]

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?

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.”)

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)

Operator… get me Jesus… on the line!

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.

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]
With gratitude,

Rob.

[QUOTE=trandallt]

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.

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.

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.

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.