Free Will Contradiction?

phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Free Will Contradiction?

I think we can all agree that an omnipotent being could certainly provide us with enough evidence of his existence to put it beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

I've seen some theists argue that he doesn't do this so as not to rob us of our free will to believe in him or not.  I disagree with this arguement on the basis that even if we knew he existed, we'd still be free to choose to follow him or not, we'd just have a good reason to do so.

What I was just thinking about as a further rebuttal of the argument is of all the people who (according to religious texts) have received just such evidence.  The speaking burning bushes, the divine interventions, the visits from angels etc.  Was the free will of these biblical characters not as important to god as everybody elses?  Did he rob them of any accountability for their actions?

It's probably been mentioned before.... but it's something I just thought about.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Free will really gets

Free will really gets pummeled by an omnipotent, omniscient creator who is omni-responsible for the state of existence.

Hmmm, I think the omnipotence alone might be enough to make someone omniresponsible since the universe would be a perfect expression of their will.

I guess the omniscience just means they should know better. Smiling 

phooney wrote:

What I was just thinking about as a further rebuttal of the argument is of all the people who (according to religious texts) have received just such evidence. The speaking burning bushes, the divine interventions, the visits from angels etc. Was the free will of these biblical characters not as important to god as everybody elses? Did he rob them of any accountability for their actions?

Excellent point. There have been a distinct lack of miracles as of late. Perhaps it is because so many people have iron chariots and God is helpless against those. (Judges 1:19)

-Triften 


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote: I've seen

phooney wrote:
I've seen some theists argue that he doesn't do this so as not to rob us of our free will to believe in him or not. I disagree with this arguement on the basis that even if we knew he existed, we'd still be free to choose to follow him or not, we'd just have a good reason to do so.

 

Point out the following verses:

http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-23.htm

http://bible.cc/romans/14-11.htm

http://bible.cc/philippians/2-10.htm

http://bible.cc/philippians/2-11.htm 

 All of them state that every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess that God is Lord. Ask your theist if God's arranging this situation is a violation of free will. 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


gobaskof
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Free will is that ability to

Free will is that ability to choose to do or not to do something, as far as I am concerned this is completely separate from belief. I don't choose not to believe in God, I don't believe in god because there is no evidence, the choice I make is that I tell people about my lack of belief.

In fact I think that a God who does not prove he exists is the God who is taking away free will. Because free will assumes that I have the information to make an informed choice, if a God hides his existence then I don't have free will about weather to worship him or not.

In conclusion, either:
God has robbed me of my free will by not showing himself.
Or that omnipotent dictator of the sky is actually just a myth.

Quote:
I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore. - Charles Darwin


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Excellent point.

Quote:
Excellent point. There have been a distinct lack of miracles as of late. Perhaps it is because so many people have iron chariots and God is helpless against those. (Judges 1:19)

triften, that was pure genius !

OK, guys, we have just been given the sollution against the actions of God: let's all have at least one car. Let's start a campaign: one car per human... that way God will be powerless against us and our "iron chariots"... who knows? the world might never come to an end for us Smiling

 

(finished 5 minutes of laughter)

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote:

phooney wrote:
I think we can all agree that an omnipotent being could certainly provide us with enough evidence of his existence to put it beyond all reasonable doubt.

I think I need to stop you right there. At no time did God ever tell us all the secrets of the universe. He did not give us any more than what we needed in the begining and when we seeked that which was not ours, he made us work for what we need. The existance of him being was always there, even Cain knew him. At the same time however, we are explained that God can and does create those who for either nobel or destructive purposes. This includes non-believers as well...

phooney wrote:
I've seen some theists argue that he doesn't do this so as not to rob us of our free will to believe in him or not. I disagree with this arguement on the basis that even if we knew he existed, we'd still be free to choose to follow him or not, we'd just have a good reason to do so.

What I was just thinking about as a further rebuttal of the argument is of all the people who (according to religious texts) have received just such evidence. The speaking burning bushes, the divine interventions, the visits from angels etc. Was the free will of these biblical characters not as important to god as everybody elses? Did he rob them of any accountability for their actions?

For a Christian, there is only one kind of free will and that is what your actions on Earth are. This does NOT include the ability to turn to God.

Romans 9:16-18 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

It is not though our actions that we can simply say "I believe"...

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

So is there free will of the spirit? No.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: phooney

razorphreak wrote:

phooney wrote:
I think we can all agree that an omnipotent being could certainly provide us with enough evidence of his existence to put it beyond all reasonable doubt.

I think I need to stop you right there. At no time did God ever tell us all the secrets of the universe....

 

I think you need to read more carefully.  He said "could", not "did".  Nobody's trying to argue that if god were omniopotent he must be giving us "the ultimate proof", only that he could.  If he can't, he's not omnipotent. 

 

razorphreak wrote:

phooney wrote:
I've seen some theists argue that he doesn't do this so as not to rob us of our free will to believe in him or not. I disagree with this arguement on the basis that even if we knew he existed, we'd still be free to choose to follow him or not, we'd just have a good reason to do so.

What I was just thinking about as a further rebuttal of the argument is of all the people who (according to religious texts) have received just such evidence. The speaking burning bushes, the divine interventions, the visits from angels etc. Was the free will of these biblical characters not as important to god as everybody elses? Did he rob them of any accountability for their actions?

For a Christian, there is only one kind of free will and that is what your actions on Earth are. This does NOT include the ability to turn to God.

<snipped> 

 

What does "turn to god" mean?  Does this mean belief itself, or does this mean the traditional "turn to god for support"?

 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm curious. Are you a

I'm curious. Are you a Calvinist, razorphreak?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: I think you

Spewn wrote:
I think you need to read more carefully. He said "could", not "did". Nobody's trying to argue that if god were omniopotent he must be giving us "the ultimate proof", only that he could. If he can't, he's not omnipotent.

I know he said "could" however even under a supposed assumption, if it's wrong, I have to stop and correct it. 

Spewn wrote:
What does "turn to god" mean? Does this mean belief itself, or does this mean the traditional "turn to god for support"?

What I mean by that is no person can simply say "I believe" on his/her own.  The people that turn around and say they are saved cannot be saved by another person (that's why I wonder about those in the Episcopal church at times), and no one just can seek out God before they even know who God is.

MrRage wrote:
I'm curious. Are you a Calvinist, razorphreak?

You know I've been asked this before.  I understand what the label means but I do not apply myself to it.  I am simply a follower of Christ Jesus.  I do not subscribe to any label... Smiling 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I am

razorphreak wrote:
I am simply a follower of Christ Jesus. I do not subscribe to any label... Smiling

 So, uh, "follower of Christ Jesus" isn't a label? Is it too long or something?

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote: So,

JeremiahSmith wrote:
So, uh, "follower of Christ Jesus" isn't a label? Is it too long or something?

I don't consider it to be but if you want to consider it one, your perogative. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

JeremiahSmith wrote:
So, uh, "follower of Christ Jesus" isn't a label? Is it too long or something?

I don't consider it to be but if you want to consider it one, your perogative.

Ummmmmm. A label is a word or phrase that describes something. Does "follower of Jesus Christ" not describe you...? I mean, I know it's not unheard for theists to make up their own definitons for things but redefiniing "label" is definitely a one for me.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith

JeremiahSmith wrote:
Ummmmmm. A label is a word or phrase that describes something. Does "follower of Jesus Christ" not describe you...? I mean, I know it's not unheard for theists to make up their own definitons for things but redefiniing "label" is definitely a one for me.

Well if you need a label then its a label. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Well if

razorphreak wrote:
Well if you need a label then its a label.

What is the problem with labels, may I ask? A label is a descriptive term. That's it. Why do people seem so offended to be described? 

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Just a reminder (as I pass

Just a reminder (as I pass through reading the new posts) that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Free will

triften wrote:

Free will really gets pummeled by an omnipotent, omniscient creator who is omni-responsible for the state of existence.

Hmmm, I think the omnipotence alone might be enough to make someone omniresponsible since the universe would be a perfect expression of their will.

I guess the omniscience just means they should know better. Smiling

I like the term "omniresponsible"... although 'perfect responsibility' rings too...    Omnipotence + omniscience = perfect responsibility. This 'god' must create free will, decide its parameters, and then grant it to his creation. This renders free will moot as a responsibility dodger for 'god'.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Free will in the theistic

Free will in the theistic sense can't exist in this universe anyway. How can thoughts and actions possibly be seperated from the thoughts and actions that preceded them? Everything is is just a link in a giant causality train leading back to the beginning of time. I'm with the Meravingian (sp?) on this one.

Oh, and just because some of those causes were random because of the Uncertainty Principle doesn't mean that there's room for free will - it means the opposite; that the closest you can get to freedom from causality is pure randomness, which by definition isn't controlled by anyone.

Theist-brand free will depends on an immaterial soul that magically operates outside time and physics yet somehow manages to interact with our physical brains in this universe. Yawn. It doesn't exist because it can't.

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Spewn

razorphreak wrote:

Spewn wrote:
I think you need to read more carefully. He said "could", not "did". Nobody's trying to argue that if god were omniopotent he must be giving us "the ultimate proof", only that he could. If he can't, he's not omnipotent.

I know he said "could" however even under a supposed assumption, if it's wrong, I have to stop and correct it.

 

So it's your position that god wouldn't be able to prove to me without a doubt that he exists?   I'm confused :/ 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith wrote: What

JeremiahSmith wrote:
What is the problem with labels, may I ask? A label is a descriptive term. That's it. Why do people seem so offended to be described?

My question is why does there need to be?  Why do I need to label you an atheist or you label me a theist?  Are we not human beings first and foremost?   If we want to stop the hate and the need for segregation, we should stop needing the things that encourage them...such as labels.

Spewn wrote:
So it's your position that god wouldn't be able to prove to me without a doubt that he exists?   I'm confused :/

The other way around actually...God will make some people to do his purpose and others do be quite literately the opposite.  If he does not want you to believe then he has you here for that reason.  Will he ever change that?  Who knows for sure but his purpose for you will be revealed at the right time.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
So because he choses to

So because he choses to create me (for example) to do literally the opposite of his purpose... I'll be the one that has to suffer for it for eternity?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote: So because

phooney wrote:
So because he choses to create me (for example) to do literally the opposite of his purpose... I'll be the one that has to suffer for it for eternity?

First who said that you were created for anything other than this purpose?  Second, who said if you were to do it it means suffering?  

Romans 9:20-24 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?  What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 

Who are we to say that Hitler or Saddam were not doing what God wanted them to do?  As the verse above states, who are we to ask God why did he make us for this purpose?  It is those who oppose his will that suffer.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Just saying, if god created

Just saying, if god created me to blaspheme against the holy spirit, biblical documentation would suggest I go to hell forever, which is where I assumed the suffering would come into it.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote: Just

phooney wrote:

Just saying, if god created me to blaspheme against the holy spirit, biblical documentation would suggest I go to hell forever, which is where I assumed the suffering would come into it.

If you were created to blaspheme and the punishment is being sent to hell, it would follow that you were created to suffer in hell for eternity.  

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Romans

razorphreak wrote:

Romans 9:20-24 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Is this how you'd talk to your own child?  Doesn't this response seem defensive, immature? 

Is this how you'd treat your own family? Your children? Your neighbors?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: phooney

razorphreak wrote:

phooney wrote:
So because he choses to create me (for example) to do literally the opposite of his purpose... I'll be the one that has to suffer for it for eternity?

First who said that you were created for anything other than this purpose? Second, who said if you were to do it it means suffering?

.....

Who are we to say that Hitler or Saddam were not doing what God wanted them to do? As the verse above states, who are we to ask God why did he make us for this purpose? It is those who oppose his will that suffer.

 

So Hitler and Saddam could both be chillin' in heaven right now? 

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: So Hitler and

Spewn wrote:
So Hitler and Saddam could both be chillin' in heaven right now?

The same as Pharaoh in the story of the exodus.  The same with Judas, the man who betrayed Jesus.  If they are doing God's will, who are we to condemn?

phooney wrote:
Just saying, if god created me to blaspheme against the holy spirit, biblical documentation would suggest I go to hell forever, which is where I assumed the suffering would come into it.

First you must understand what it is you are trying to define because that "blasphemy challenge" didn't do it (look at the other threads).  Second, if he did create you for that purpose, how do you know there is any suffering because of it, either for you or for those who hear you?  It's the same as someone who loses a newborn because of complications during the birth; did God not send that child to create joy from the sorrows?  Did he not create the child to bring a renewed faith from it's death?  From your posts and others' reactions it seems pretty obvious there are far more pessimists in the world today.

todangst wrote:
Is this how you'd talk to your own child?  Doesn't this response seem defensive, immature? 

Is this how you'd treat your own family? Your children? Your neighbors?

Just as us talking back to God and a child talking back to their parent, should there not be any form of authority?  When I see children telling their mom or dad to "f*** off" what exactly does that say about the parents?  

todangst don't confuse however the role of a parent to that of a neighbor or family member.  Treat others as you would have them treat you...which goes to how a parent should treat their child but with parents, you can't be your kid's friend.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Spewn

razorphreak wrote:

Spewn wrote:
So Hitler and Saddam could both be chillin' in heaven right now?

If they are doing God's will, who are we to condemn?

 

Do we, as humans living on earth, have any means at all by which to judge whether or not a person is doing God's will?  Or is it safe to say that any person, anywhere, doing anything could be guaranteed a place in heaven as a result of their actions?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: Do we, as

Spewn wrote:
Do we, as humans living on earth, have any means at all by which to judge whether or not a person is doing God's will?

No.  That however does not mean we cannot correct someone if we feel they are going against God's word.  If I see a Christian group hating on anyone that is a homosexual, for me it's part of who I am to correct them in making sure they understand God will save or condemn that person.  We cannot run around hating that person but we can attempt to tell that person that we do not agree with their sin and help correct it from that point.  Do not mistake that to be to take them somewhere and start a conversation with "Did you know God said it was evil for you to be gay" kinda thing, but more so to live as an example and accept that individual as a friend; God will put the conversation in the proper context.

Spewn wrote:
Or is it safe to say that any person, anywhere, doing anything could be guaranteed a place in heaven as a result of their actions?

How people are judged by God first depends on their belief in Jesus first (and this is more than just saying you believe) and second based on their actions if belief is not in their heart.  Romans 2 hits on this.

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Treat

razorphreak wrote:

Treat others as you would have them treat you...which goes to how a parent should treat their child but with parents, you can't be your kid's friend.

You would want your children to treat you as a friend?

I'm glad you weren't my father.  Some of the best fathers I have known have been friends to their children.  This model of authoritarian parenthood is, for me, disturbing.

Perhaps you should read this book, as it explains how liberal and conservative worldviews are derived from different family dynamics and morality.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote:

ShaunPhilly wrote:
You would want your children to treat you as a friend?

I'm glad you weren't my father. Some of the best fathers I have known have been friends to their children. This model of authoritarian parenthood is, for me, disturbing.

You know its funny you should mention that. I heard this morning on the radio a 16 year old girl call in, talking about how she got pregnant at 13, child at 14, and living on her own without support from her mother this last year. Her mom wanted to simply be just her friend and acted as if that child could understand the consequences of having a live in boyfriend at 13; mom wanted her to learn on her own which she deemed to be "friendship". I know a lot of parents that do not understand the meaning of what being a friend to a child means and what being a parent is either. Of course what's worse is someone to try to turn it into a political issue like you just did...

When you treat someone with respect you act as you would a friend but as a parent you don't let them disrespect you for no reason, much like the example I gave of a child cussing out their mom or dad in public. Being a parent is not "my way or the highway" which you seemed to have misunderstood as to what I mean; it's about respect, leadership, and love, and understanding when and where to be the authority figure.  I suspect the reason you find that idea to be disturbing is perhaps you don't have kids and more so you don't pay attention to those who do.  Spend time with a 5th grade teacher and find out how little control they have today with some of these kids and you might get a glimpse of why today's society seems to be losing the understanding of what respect is actually about.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: You

razorphreak wrote:

You know its funny you should mention that. I heard this morning on the radio a 16 year old girl call in, talking about how she got pregnant at 13, child at 14, and living on her own without support from her mother this last year. Her mom wanted to simply be just her friend and acted as if that child could understand the consequences of having a live in boyfriend at 13; mom wanted her to learn on her own which she deemed to be "friendship". I know a lot of parents that do not understand the meaning of what being a friend to a child means and what being a parent is either. Of course what's worse is someone to try to turn it into a political issue like you just did...

Pulling out extreme examples does not make your point.  Being a friend to your child does not exclude being responsible for them or not making the rules.  The two are not mutually exclusive; friends and parents, that is.  It's true taht if you try to just be friends with your child, there will be issues.  I was simply saying that you can be their friend in addition.

I wasn't turning it into a political issue, I just thought that you would be interested in understanding how different philosophies of family dynamics influence political views.  I was simply suggesting an interesting book that explores these differences and their implications of our worldviews. 

Quote:
When you treat someone with respect you act as you would a friend but as a parent you don't let them disrespect you for no reason, much like the example I gave of a child cussing out their mom or dad in public. Being a parent is not "my way or the highway" which you seemed to have misunderstood as to what I mean; it's about respect, leadership, and love, and understanding when and where to be the authority figure.

And friendship shares many of the same qualities.  The authority aspect is mostly minimal, as it only comes up when a friend is in a position to seriously hurt themselves, and as a friend I would try to help them in this case. With a parent the authority is more prominent, but respect, leadership, and love are also very important.

Quote:
I suspect the reason you find that idea to be disturbing is perhaps you don't have kids and more so you don't pay attention to those who do. Spend time with a 5th grade teacher and find out how little control they have today with some of these kids and you might get a glimpse of why today's society seems to be losing the understanding of what respect is actually about.

I've worked with children of all ages for more than 15 years.  I work at a school where students are highly challenging, and I consider myself a teacher and a friend.  Granted, the friend role takes a back-seat to teacher most of the time, and generally only surfaces with some students who are willing to give the respect back and to look at me as more than a teacher as well. 

The loss of respect in our culture is due to many cultures, but parents being freinds with their kids is not to blame.  Parents not being good role models may be a contributing factor, bu that's not the same thing.

I give respect to my students.  When they do not return it, I am harder on them, and need to be firm.  When they return it, I give them more room and leeway, because they have earned some trust.  So far as that trust is not violated, these students will retain that leeway.  If another student complains that they don't get treated similarly, I ask them if they treat me the same way as the other students treat me.  

The real difference bwteen one's child and a friend is one chooses a friend based on their personality.  A child's personality is an unknown, but a parent is responsible for them no matter what.  How one treats those that they are responsible for but may not have chosen as a friend is indicative of how they will treat people that they are responsible for in life.  This is a political issue, as it seems that some theists in power want to treat people as inherently sinful and in need of a strong hand.  This model of thought is oppressive, as is the hand of the God of the Bible.  

Thus, God is permitted to punish those that sin, because we arehis children, right? The problem is that god is responsible for these people being sinful (example, homosexuality).  If God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc, then God knew that people who are gay (even if they did choose it, which is not the case but irrelevent), and he chose not to do anything about it.  God is responsible for ever parameter in existence, thus everything that happens is his responsibility.  This means that we essentially have no free will in thesense of being responsible for our choices.  God must have intended me to be as I am, so I or anyone else eternally damned had no choice about it.

Shaun 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: Pulling

ShaunPhilly wrote:
Pulling out extreme examples does not make your point. Being a friend to your child does not exclude being responsible for them or not making the rules. The two are not mutually exclusive; friends and parents, that is. It's true taht if you try to just be friends with your child, there will be issues. I was simply saying that you can be their friend in addition.

Isn't that what I just said?  Isn't that what I've been saying from the beginning?

Oh, and it's not an extreme - it's a lot more prevalent than you think, especially in low wage families.

ShaunPhilly wrote:
I've worked with children of all ages for more than 15 years. I work at a school where students are highly challenging, and I consider myself a teacher and a friend. Granted, the friend role takes a back-seat to teacher most of the time, and generally only surfaces with some students who are willing to give the respect back and to look at me as more than a teacher as well.

Seems like you just proved my point...

ShaunPhilly wrote:
The loss of respect in our culture is due to many cultures, but parents being freinds with their kids is not to blame. Parents not being good role models may be a contributing factor, bu that's not the same thing.

PotAAAto...pOOOtato 

If parents are not being parents FIRST, how can they ever be a role model? 

ShaunPhilly wrote:
Thus, God is permitted to punish those that sin, because we arehis children, right? The problem is that god is responsible for these people being sinful (example, homosexuality). If God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc, then God knew that people who are gay (even if they did choose it, which is not the case but irrelevent), and he chose not to do anything about it. God is responsible for ever parameter in existence, thus everything that happens is his responsibility. This means that we essentially have no free will in thesense of being responsible for our choices. God must have intended me to be as I am, so I or anyone else eternally damned had no choice about it.

The big mistake here and I suppose I should have mentioned from the onset is trying to compare how human to human is done vs. god to human.  You are trying to bring God down, to "humanize" him if you will, to prove the point when that is simply not possible.  God does not want anyone to be damned and he has the power to call whom he will at the time he wishes. You have control over your flesh, your actions but that cannot separate you from God; if your spirit is from God and God uses it to direct you, nothing will take you away from his will.  You can say you don't believe until the day you die but if God has chosen you, you've got a ticket to ride.

Romans 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord

If you are NOT chosen, this is where Romans 2 plays in, by the "natural law" to which God will be the final judge and jury as to your damnation.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote: Just saying,

phooney wrote:
Just saying, if god created me to blaspheme against the holy spirit, biblical documentation would suggest I go to hell forever, which is where I assumed the suffering would come into it.

razorphreak wrote:
First you must understand what it is you are trying to define because that "blasphemy challenge" didn't do it (look at the other threads).  Second, if he did create you for that purpose, how do you know there is any suffering because of it, either for you or for those who hear you?  It's the same as someone who loses a newborn because of complications during the birth; did God not send that child to create joy from the sorrows?  Did he not create the child to bring a renewed faith from it's death?  From your posts and others' reactions it seems pretty obvious there are far more pessimists in the world today.

Ok, without going through all the other threads (with no search functionality for me at the moment) I'll not argue the point about the quality of my example, the blasphemy challenge.  What I was trying to provide an example of, as I'm sure you realised, was a 'sin' that would be punishable by eternity in hell, or any other punishment that god sees fit to bestow on me.  For the sake of it, let's call it "Sin A".  I define "Sin A" as an act that will result in me being punished by God.

By what you said (I think)I was created by God, and if I happen to decide to commit Sin A, it was God's will that I do it, because we are all fulfilling His purpose.  However, through committing Sin A, I will be punished, thus God created me to suffer.  What a guy!

 You also said there were no guidelines we as humans can use to decide if somebody is doing God's will and then you immediately said that if we FEEL somebody has strayed from that path we can attempt to correct them?  Even though we have no guidelines ourselves??

 And then the thread was derailed into a debate about better parenting!

hehe


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
phooney wrote:

phooney wrote:
By what you said (I think)I was created by God, and if I happen to decide to commit Sin A, it was God's will that I do it, because we are all fulfilling His purpose. However, through committing Sin A, I will be punished, thus God created me to suffer. What a guy!

You still don't understand. You are making assumptions that are not true based on scripture you don't understand, even when I just explained it to you.

If you decide to commit a sin, being "punished" is NOT what God is about. God does not issue what you or I would consider a punishment for something bad we did. If I go off and have an affair with a married woman, God is not going to cause me to get into a car accident.

phooney wrote:
You also said there were no guidelines we as humans can use to decide if somebody is doing God's will and then you immediately said that if we FEEL somebody has strayed from that path we can attempt to correct them? Even though we have no guidelines ourselves??

If someone told you that 2+2 really is four when you've been saying 5 for years, are you going against the word of mathematicians who have correctly told you what 2+2 is or is that person simply correcting you as an individual? You've merged two totally separate points...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Isn't

razorphreak wrote:

Isn't that what I just said? Isn't that what I've been saying from the beginning?

Well, if that's what you were saying, it wasn't what i gleaned from your posts.  I'm glad we are in agreement here (apparently).

Quote:
ShaunPhilly wrote:
Thus, God is permitted to punish those that sin, because we are his children, right? The problem is that god is responsible for these people being sinful (example, homosexuality). If God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc, then God knew that people who are gay (even if they did choose it, which is not the case but irrelevent), and he chose not to do anything about it. God is responsible for ever parameter in existence, thus everything that happens is his responsibility. This means that we essentially have no free will in thesense of being responsible for our choices. God must have intended me to be as I am, so I or anyone else eternally damned had no choice about it.

The big mistake here and I suppose I should have mentioned from the onset is trying to compare how human to human is done vs. god to human.

You are correct, there is a difference bwetween the two. 

Quote:
You are trying to bring God down, to "humanize" him if you will, to prove the point when that is simply not possible.

In fact, I am not doing this.  i'll explain below

Quote:
God does not want anyone to be damned and he has the power to call whom he will at the time he wishes. You have control over your flesh, your actions but that cannot separate you from God; if your spirit is from God and God uses it to direct you, nothing will take you away from his will. You can say you don't believe until the day you die but if God has chosen you, you've got a ticket to ride.

Wait, so I have control but at the same time God's will over me I cannot avoid? So, I'm free except those times that God compels me? How does one tell the difference between the two?

If God does not want us damned, then God will compel us to act in such a way that we won't be.  So are you rejecting the concept of eternal punishment?  I'm really trying to grasp your theology, but it doesn't seem to cohere.  You claim to not be labeled or to be doing anything except following Jesus, but I'm not sure there is one unequivocal way to do this, so I'm asking what your interpretation of following Jesus you have.

---

The thing about the diffeence between parents and God; Parents are responsible for their children.  They took on that responsibility by deciding to have the child in the first place (or allowing the pregnancy to commence, at least).  God has a responsibility for us because God created us (I'm conceding this for the sake of argument).  The difference is that God is omnipotent and omniscient (unless your view of God does not include one of both of these qualities), and thus has a difference kind of responsibility for his creation than parents do for their children.  

When parents have a child, they did not create every aspect of that child's form.  They are not responsible for everything that is in it's environment.  Tehy don't have perfect knowledge of all of the factors that will ever happen in that child's life.  They don't have perfect information to tell them (if they choose), nor do they have the ability to heal any malformity, psychotic disorder, etc (not to mention that they don't decide to put them there in the forst place).

God, when creating the universe, had the power, if omnipotent ,to make the universe any way it wanted to.  And even if, hypothetically, god had to bow to logic, still the universe could have been formed in any way that is logically possible to happen.  It is possible that life could exist without death and disease.  It is possible to have a world without tsunamis and earthquakes, if God wanted that.

And it is possible to create a human being that will not sin, thus invalidating the Fall as an explanation.  God created Adam, as the story says, and put him in a paradise.  Why didn't God forsee the need for Eve (and why make Adam such that he would need something not already present?).   But why was the universe created in such a way that eating of the tree of knowledge was bad (or even possible) unless God wanted it that way.  Why make Eve temped by a sin, and why make it sin?

I know you can't answer these questions (because you are not God), but the point is taht God could, theortetically, have done otherwise.  God created us exactly as God wanted to, and he knows everything.  Thus, even if I actually choose to do X, God knew it, and created me knowing I would.  This leave no room for responsibility on my part, but of God's.

So, again, I'm asking you to explain if you believe God punishes some people eternally in Hell, and if so why? Lastly, have you ever read Plato's Euthyphro?

If not, read it now.  Go look it up and read it now.  NOW! 

Quote:
If you are NOT chosen, this is where Romans 2 plays in, by the "natural law" to which God will be the final judge and jury as to your damnation.

So, if I'm not chosen, then God created me to be eternally punished?

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly

ShaunPhilly wrote:

ShaunPhilly wrote:
Thus, God is permitted to punish those that sin, because we are his children, right?...

Quote:
You are trying to bring God down, to "humanize" him...

In fact, I am not doing this.

You see where you are yet?

ShaunPhilly wrote:
Wait, so I have control but at the same time God's will over me I cannot avoid? So, I'm free except those times that God compels me? How does one tell the difference between the two?

You'd dismiss it as the "angel on your shoulders" scenario or others call it your conscious, but even if you dismiss that God has a way to make sure you get the message. You have control over your flesh but not your spirit - that's the message I've been saying from the beginning.

ShaunPhilly wrote:
If God does not want us damned, then God will compel us to act in such a way that we won't be. So are you rejecting the concept of eternal punishment? I'm really trying to grasp your theology, but it doesn't seem to cohere. You claim to not be labeled or to be doing anything except following Jesus, but I'm not sure there is one unequivocal way to do this, so I'm asking what your interpretation of following Jesus you have.

It's difficult to make you understand when you first reject it flat out as being contradictory or "delusional" (i.e. prejudgment).

I'm not rejecting that there is eternal punishment since it's mentioned by Jesus several times. God does not want us to be damned and he DOES tell you what you SHOULD do. A lot of times we are too thick headed to follow along. Say you meet someone who has a weakness to sex. That person KNOWS he/she shouldn't be thinking about having sex with someone they don't love because of what it does emotionally (on top of disease of course). That weakness is a weakness of the flesh, not the spirit since the spirit is telling that person don't do it because you know the consequences. Same could be said about drug users, about robbers, or even a murderer. Are ANY of those going to condemn that person to hell? That is where the repenting heart is known by God and if that individual accepted Jesus (in their heart, not by words), mistakes or not.

ShaunPhilly wrote:
So, if I'm not chosen, then God created me to be eternally punished?

Not accepting Jesus, that is not chosen by God, carries with it the final judgment. That is when your actions will be used to judge you in the end. It did not give you the "go to jail card" automatically. For example the tribes in the Amazon who never have heard of the bible or Jesus, how would they be saved? By their actions...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
You are srguing for a

You are srguing for a dualist view of humans; a body and a spirit. There is no evidence or reason to believe that a soul or spirit exists.

You say that the conscience is spririt, while the scientific literature on the subject shows that our moral faculty is based on physical brain-processes. Read the work of Marc. D. Hauser, Antonio Damasio, and other experts in the firlds related to neuroscience and morality, and you can see this for yourself.

Our brains are responsible not only for all thought, but unconscious drives, emotions (these are actually based on the whole nervous system and other glands taht release hormones and balance chemicals in the body), etc. There is no reason to propose a spirit, as it explains nothing.

Your fallacy is that of begging the question; in trying to determine the varacity of claims about the supernatural, you are assuming the supernatural (spirit).

There is some truth to the fact that there are aspects of oursleves that our will does not control. In fact the moral faculty that we have built-in often acts before we have time to consciously reflect on the question. It happens largely automatically and without reflection.  Often, this unconscious 'conscience' conflicts with what our willsmight choose to do, thus the analogy of the angel and devil on the shoulders.  Thus, we might feel that pull of the conscious because our in-built conscience has made some conclusion--it may be the right solution or not.  What we need to do isreflect on our feelings and reason to decide which is the right decision, as this faculty evolved as a tool that gave us advantage for surviving, and not necessarily for being correct.

If you want to call this conscience 'spirit,' then fine; but you have to concede that it is still material. if you don't, you have the burden of proof to show why a non-physical spirit is necessary, or simply demonstrate that it exists. You cannot merely assert it.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Ah back to that, the

Ah back to that, the "scientific" cop-out.

It doesn't concern me that you have no evidence and will dismiss that I say I do.  Interesting how that's the point that's brought up at the end of questioning theism, or like in this thread, a specific point in the bible.  

One thing, my descriptions to you are simple analogies.  Do not assume when I say "consious" and "spirit" I mean them to be one and the same.  Sometimes I forget that I have to explain that about 100 times under each example.

I am not here to prove God, the spirit, or theism (see my quote).  The evidence you demand has been presented time and time again but dismissed because you'd rather not accept it (why I've used the "proof of ghosts" analogy time and time again).  If God is going to reveal it to you, as I said before you'll know.  

Because you've responded that way, I can only assume now that you understand what the Christian point of view to "free will" is about... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
As far as I know, most

As far as I know, most people use the free-will arguement to remedy the problem of evil, not clarity and inexcusiblity.

God, I believe created the world in such away that leaves man without excuse to know him (see romans 1:20 for a nice biblical reference). I do not believe the free-will arguement is a valid defense.

I would conclude if the Bible is the word of God, then God must have made it that is so clear that every man at every time, if they seeked, could find God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Ah back

razorphreak wrote:
Ah back to that, the "scientific" cop-out.

Science is incapable of being a cop-out, by definition.

And as Jaden puts forward(welcome by the way), we do not have free will to choose whether or not to believe in god. At the least I do not. My mind clearly recognizes the barrier between imagination and reality. God falls under the imagination category. I can pretend, I cannot believe.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

Ah back to that, the "scientific" cop-out.

It doesn't concern me that you have no evidence and will dismiss that I say I do. Interesting how that's the point that's brought up at the end of questioning theism, or like in this thread, a specific point in the bible.

How is it a cop-out? And why do you say I don't have evidence? Your ignorance of scientific progress in understanding how the brain works is not my fault. The literature is there, go read it.

And if you do have evidence, then present it. I'm genuinely interested in being shown evidence, but I've seen none (and yes, I have looked for it). I won't dismiss that you say you have evidence until sufficient time has passed and you haven't presented evidence. So far, I've seen no evidence from you for the existence of a spirit/soul.

Quote:
One thing, my descriptions to you are simple analogies. Do not assume when I say "consious" and "spirit" I mean them to be one and the same. Sometimes I forget that I have to explain that about 100 times under each example.

OK, fair enough.

Quote:
I am not here to prove God, the spirit, or theism (see my quote). The evidence you demand has been presented time and time again but dismissed because you'd rather not accept it (why I've used the "proof of ghosts" analogy time and time again). If God is going to reveal it to you, as I said before you'll know.

I haven't seen any evidence from you yet. I want the truth. If God is real and Christianity is true, I want to know. So far, I have not been convinced. You don't have to believe that I'm open to your evidence, but I am.

Quote:
Because you've responded that way, I can only assume now that you understand what the Christian point of view to "free will" is about...

I think I might understand what you mean. It isn't the same as other "Christians" have argued, however.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the

Thanks for the welcome. From a philosophical stand point there are 3 views of free-will.  And while reading these comments, I think that some people on here are using different versions, and each have different consequences. The Libertine View seems to be the most popular one here, and amongst some types of theists. Which states if you are free, you can do otherwise. It's opposite is Hard Determinism, you are not free to do otherwise. (you are not free) Both have the same assumption and break down the same way.  So I have choice A or choice non-A, at one point I must make a decision or an action. And that action is based off values (I choose chocolate over vanilla, therefore I, at this moment, value chocolate more). So if I cannot choose otherwise, something must have caused this event, so freedom equals uncaused events (logically impossible). If these events are uncaused, then is my action? Therefore freedom would be not my action. Which is a contradiction. This is only one view to think about freedom and free-will. Freedom cannot mean 'to do otherwise.'

 


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote:

ShaunPhilly wrote:
How is it a cop-out? And why do you say I don't have evidence? Your ignorance of scientific progress in understanding how the brain works is not my fault. The literature is there, go read it.

It's a cop out in the sense that "science" seems to be your excuse, not your defense. SciencTISTS have been wrong before and saying that science corrects itself does not justify what any single person states. Since one scientist can be wrong, ANY of them can be wrong. I know what you'll say, but, that same type of assumption has been used but you and others to justify "a+b must equal c".

ShaunPhilly wrote:
It isn't the same as other "Christians" have argued, however.

You can always tell who wants to impose their own will over God's. ANY Christian who does this is wrong with their explination. Period.

Jaden wrote:
As far as I know, most people use the free-will arguement to remedy the problem of evil, not clarity and inexcusiblity.

Those who have are also the types that don't like to take personal responsibility for their own actions. There are no excuses for actions of the flesh for the spirit knows the right way...

Jaden wrote:
God, I believe created the world in such away that leaves man without excuse to know him (see romans 1:20 for a nice biblical reference).

He did. But you can't stop there. If you read just a bit further, starting with verse 21, you'll see that because they knew God but chose to not give thanks to the creator, God simply let them do their own thing. That is not free will but God's will to allow them to follow their flesh. Again, re-read the other portions of this thread - there is no free will of the spirit.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Fine for them. What about

Fine for them. What about us? Noone on the planet today knows god. If they did, by definition, they could spread the knowledge. Instead we see a lot of people spouting logical fallacies and physically impossible fairy tales.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Fine for

Vastet wrote:
Fine for them. What about us? Noone on the planet today knows god. If they did, by definition, they could spread the knowledge. Instead we see a lot of people spouting logical fallacies and physically impossible fairy tales.

And if I told you that I KNOW God, how quickly will you dismiss me as delusional?  Delusional if you do, unfaithful if you don't.... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Vastet

razorphreak wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Fine for them. What about us? Noone on the planet today knows god. If they did, by definition, they could spread the knowledge. Instead we see a lot of people spouting logical fallacies and physically impossible fairy tales.

And if I told you that I KNOW God, how quickly will you dismiss me as delusional?  Delusional if you do, unfaithful if you don't.... 

Pretty quickly. Don't take it personally. You're hardly the only one. I've been known to be delusional every now and then too.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
So, how can a Christian go

So, how can a Christian go about proving God's existence? More over, how can God prove his own existence.

Just for conversation, in the bible, when the Jews are trying to leave Eygpt, God sends the 10 (?) plagues. And still the pharoh does not believe in god's existence or His power and His favor to the Jews. If god were to write in the clouds " i exist" I am sure I would come up with some story about aliens playing a prank on us. So since you have Razorphreak in a catch 22, how can he get out of it???


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Jaden wrote: So, how can a

Jaden wrote:
So, how can a Christian go about proving God's existence? More over, how can God prove his own existence.

Just for conversation, in the bible, when the Jews are trying to leave Eygpt, God sends the 10 (?) plagues. And still the pharoh does not believe in god's existence or His power and His favor to the Jews. If god were to write in the clouds " i exist" I am sure I would come up with some story about aliens playing a prank on us. So since you have Razorphreak in a catch 22, how can he get out of it???

OK what catch 22?  Even your example of the plauges of Egypt, you forget, Pharaoh ACKNOWLEDGES God in the end...did you forget that (Exodus 12:31-32)?

No Christian needs to prove God's existence.  And as far as God proving it to you, when he does, you'll know.  Then you'll become delusional as well...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


marcdav
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Friendship and God

Getting back to the parenthood vs. authority or friendship strain of this thread, it is interesting that Jesus says in John 15:13 that he does not call his follower servants but friends.  I think Shaun is right, it is possible to be both a an authority figure in someone's life and a friend.  I have three kids and I think I am a good friend to each of them, but I am also a very strong authoritarian when I have to be.  Being a friend means that we have heart to heart talks and we play together.  Being an authority figure means that they better get up for school when I tell them too or else.Laughing


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
marcdav wrote: Getting back

marcdav wrote:
Getting back to the parenthood vs. authority or friendship strain of this thread, it is interesting that Jesus says in John 15:13 that he does not call his follower servants but friends. I think Shaun is right, it is possible to be both a an authority figure in someone's life and a friend. I have three kids and I think I am a good friend to each of them, but I am also a very strong authoritarian when I have to be. Being a friend means that we have heart to heart talks and we play together. Being an authority figure means that they better get up for school when I tell them too or else.Laughing

I'll accept that you can be a friend and a parent to a child however no matter what, you are a parent first and foremost.  You know that better than anyone as a parent. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
On the catch-22 part I was

On the catch-22 part I was referring to this:

"And if I told you that I KNOW God, how quickly will you dismiss me as delusional?  Delusional if you do, unfaithful if you don't.... "

"Pretty quickly. Don't take it personally. You're hardly the only one. I've been known to be delusional every now and then too. "

To the pharoh: at that point he tells Moses and Aaron to take the Israelites and go.  Then later he takes the army and chases after the Israelites (then the parting of the Red Sea occurs).

Nevermind the point I was trying to make, it wasn't towards you (and I obviously failed in attempt) . It was more or less trying to say, it matters not the proof Christians bring here, because they think all Theists are delusional. So they might as well be talking to crazy people. So if all people who believe in God are crazy, is it rational to listen to them. So there's the dilemma for you Razorfreak.

So I would like to know your interpertation of 2 Corinthians 10:5
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

If it is not your responsiblity to prove that God exists, then why does Paul say this, what does he mean. How can you demolish arguements against God, if you cannot prove that He exists?

And to the Atheists, what is the proof you need to possibly believe that God exists.