I've decided to devote a thread to the belief system in which I believe God works on.
Let's begin on what God is all about: 1rst we will look at choice. As many of you will argue that religion is something that once you get into it, you will simply blindly follow and you are given a ball and chain and there is absolutely no choice whatsoever. That's simply not the case. I'm sure you know as well as I do that there are extremist out there, but nonetheless God created us with freewill. Otherwise there wouldn't be any atheist to go haywire on this thread after they have read it. We as humans have a choice in which we set our faith (or lack thereof) our morals, our beliefs, and so on and so forth. God didn't want robots without any choice. He wanted something you could make that he could love him and something intelligent enough to love him back.
2nd we will look at faith. Religion is based completely on faith. Hebrews 11 is all about faith (NIV translation)
Verse 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. Verse 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Godâs command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Verse 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
In part of God not wanting robots he decided to make life more interesting. He wants us to love him through faith and nothing more. This way he can understand how real your love for him truly is.
Now let's delve into Compromised Choice shall we. Atheism is the lack of faith of a divine being. Athiest prefer backed evidence compared to stories or biased sources. They need to see to believe contrary to Hebrews 11:1. But why would that be contrary to God?
Why would an omnipotent being need to be seen only through faith?
Because remember the first thing about God - he is all about choice. Therefor revealing himself outright would compromise this. Let me put it in a case of a scenario. If right now, wherever you are, God appeared right in front of you. He called you by name, then snapped his fingers and all of a sudden an elephant was created next to you, or he healed someone right there in front of you. Better yet let's say he did it at an international science convention where it was broadcast all over the world. Now God is there preforming miracles for the entire scientific community to see. Every single scientist in the world could run any number of tests that there is and get positive results that standing right there is indeed an omnipotent being.
So given that scenario, you have all the evidence you need. You have seen with your own eyes along with the rest of the world that God exist. You have all the scientific evidence in the world to back it as well. What reason would you have to NOT believe God existed? There would be miniscule reasoning to not believe in God.
Now this brings us to the second part of the Compromised Choice system. Faith. If you could see God right there in front of you, there would be no reason to have faith. You could love him or not but either way that love would be superficial. If you knew you could go to heaven or hell just by loving him there would be little choice in choosing a path because the only logical thing would be to believe in him.
God does not want to work on human terms because he has no need to. He gave the guidelines for what he would like for us to do and he has kept those guidelines for thousands of years and we continue to have a choice in what we do. But there is logical reasoning behind him never showing himself in the first place because he refuses to compromise his original intentions.
Haha master I've been here on these forums long enough. I'm ready. I'm just giving logical appeal to introduce a different view for athiest to look at.
Haha master I've been here on these forums long enough. I'm ready. I'm just giving logical appeal to introduce a different view for athiest to look at.
If you've been here long enough you will also know they won't accept a single argument you make
Believing in God myself, i can't argue anything against faith in God so I will probably not contribute to this.
redbedhead, that reminds me about the argument proving the non-existance of God in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix. It is a universal translator which simultaneously translates from one spoken language to another. It takes the brainwaves of the other body and what they are thinking then transmits the thoughts to the speech centres of the host's brain, the speech heard by the ear decodes the brainwave matrix. When inserted into the ear, its nutrition processes convert unconscious sound waves into conscious brain waves, neatly crossing the language divide between any species. The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore both proves and disproves the existence of God: Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
The choice is akin to me telling you that I'll shoot you (send you to hell) unless you give me your money (believe in god).
It's funny because scientific ethics would actually prevent a scenario like this from happening because they dictate that there should be no punishment for not complying but rather an incentive given for complying. Basically Christians should go to heaven and everyone else should go to, basically, an area of neutral happiness.
There is choice but it's rigged.
Atheism is the lack of faith of a divine being. Athiest prefer backed evidence compared to stories or biased sources.
How is that possibly a bad thing? We ask for evidence and think critically. In most situations most people do this, for some reason religion is the exception.
There would be miniscule reasoning to not believe in God.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe thatâ"and shudder. -James 2:19
Belief does not equal love and therefore belief would not remove the ability to choose.
I for one would not worship God if we revealed himself to me. He's much to sadistic and cruel.
Just a warning, prepare for an army of athiest to contradict everything you just said.
Aye, seriously? Some might not but others, like myself, are open to any logical presentation that makes its way into these forums.
I haven't seen you on the forums much so maybe you'll be the acceptation to the statement. For a good while, i stayed away from the WEPE because it was a futile arguing.
For a good while, i stayed away from the WEPE because it was a futile arguing.
I realize this, a few users have a tendency to be idiots when it comes to religious debates but that shouldn't be a reflection on atheists as a whole including the users here.
Don't get me wrong I will argue you until death but I will never overlook a fact or logical statement simply because I don't agree with it. Or as long as I cannot present a counterargument to it.
lets tell prisoners that they can leave jail anytime but will get shot is they do so.
2nd we will look at faith
I really believe my bank account has a million dollars in it but shows differnet.
He gave the guidelines for what he would like for us to do and he has kept those guidelines for thousands of years and we continue to have a choice in what we do. But there is logical reasoning behind him never showing himself in the first place because he refuses to compromise his original intentions.
So if a piece of paper came in the mail saying it was from God telling you to build a bomb and blow people up would you do it?
I realize this, a few users have a tendency to be idiots when it comes to religious debates but that shouldn't be a reflection on atheists as a whole including the users here.
Don't get me wrong I will argue you until death but I will never overlook a fact or logical statement simply because I don't agree with it. Or as long as I cannot present a counterargument to it.
Plenty of people here present good arguments but either way, this goes both ways. You won't see many religious people accepting an argument a atheist makes. I'm the exception to that but we are off topic now so let's get back to the thread.
*sighs* I'm the same as Samy, however, instead of directing my energies to disproving your claims directly, because we will both become irritated and ilogical, I'll simply ask a question.
If the situation you propose is a compromise, then both parties must meet in the middle. However, nothing in your statements suggests god sacrifices anything. So the question is simple:
What does God sacrifice as his part of the compromise?
You're a whole different scenario then; I was referring to red though. What's your argument :P
I thought you and wolf were talking to me but either way, i still don't understand the question because I'm not sure who he is talking to and what he is referring to.
