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.
Wow, this the lamest excuse for god not showing he exists. If god gae us a choice why does he care if he gets belief or not. He surely can't need it being omnipotent.
And why did he make it so you need faith to believe in him and make humans logical CREATURES WHO NEED EVIDENCE (at least the rational ones.)
Wow, this the lamest excuse for god not showing he exists. If god gae us a choice why does he care if he gets belief or not. He surely can't need it being omnipotent.
Actually it's a rather common excuse. It's used as an attempt to sidestep the requirement of evidence.
Guys, because you're all biased, you're taking a long time to figure out something really simple:
To prove God exists, you require evidence that he exists.
To prove God does not exist, you require evidence that he does not exist.
I will refrain from commenting on how one might go about doing the above, or even whether it has been clearly established that one needs to go about doing this to commit to the notion of whether or not God exists.
If god gae us a choice why does he care if he gets belief or not.
If your human father doesn't love you why should you care or not? Just because you may not be compotent of natural emotions doesn't mean there aren't things that are.
And why did he make it so you need faith to believe in him and make humans logical CREATURES WHO NEED EVIDENCE
There are many rational people out there who do not believe in the theory of evolution. If you don't believe I'm rational that's interesting, go ahead and read the description on my profile for the background of I have in the real world. I'm a very rational person, and if you don't understand considering you used all caps to insinuate yelling, why don't you read the original post for your answers.
Guys, because you're all biased, you're taking a long time
Thats how most debates are here, being a moderator I thought you figured this out already Strop
to figure out something really simple: To prove God exists, you require evidence that he exists. To prove God does not exist, you require evidence that he does not exist. I will refrain from commenting on how one might go about doing the above, or even whether it has been clearly established that one needs to go about doing this to commit to the notion of whether or not God exists. kthnx
The absence of evidence is in fact a system that I was putting into logical reasoning in the original post. If you haven't read it, well maybe that would be a start.
You can't prove a negative. If God doesn't exist, there wouldn't be any evidence.
In terms of what your saying that statement might be true, but applied to the real world... well you must have never been in a court of law before haha.
You can't prove a negative. If God doesn't exist, there wouldn't be any evidence.
In other words, your premises require that your evidence is that there is no evidence at any and all given points in time.
That in turn tells you just how certain you can be of the assertion that there is no God: at any given point in time something may be presented that will require you to reexamine your assertion if you wish to maintain your credibility. God does not exist is a very different statement to there is currently no evidence that God exists.
If your human father doesn't love you why should you care or not? Just because you may not be compotent of natural emotions doesn't mean there aren't things that are.
I see my father everyday and how he acts has a big effect. I have never seen godand therefore do not care.
I will refrain from commenting on how one might go about doing the above, or even whether it has been clearly established that one needs to go about doing this to commit to the notion of whether or not God exists.
If god is assumed to exist because of the lack of empirical evidence against then so does russels teapot, the IPU, the FSM. Stuff is accepted as eal with evidence or proof which at least makes it likely.
There are many rational people out there who do not believe in the theory of evolution. If you don't believe I'm rational that's interesting, go ahead and read the description on my profile for the background of I have in the real world. I'm a very rational person, and if you don't understand considering you used all caps to insinuate yelling, why don't you read the original post for your answers.
Believing with no evidence and saying that I am right beyond doubt is not rational. Saying I may be right is. And whether or not you are rational elsewhere it doesn't mean you don't have a blindspot for religion. And the caps was because I accidentally pressed caps lock and couldn't be bothered to go back and change it.
In terms of what your saying that statement might be true, but applied to the real world... well you must have never been in a court of law before haha.
In a court of law if someone is put on trial for a crime and says person X came and did this crime the judge isn't going to say since there is no evidence that person X existed but none the he didn't you won't be charged they will say there is no evidence for him to exist so we think you're making this up.
That in turn tells you just how certain you can be of the assertion that there is no God: at any given point in time something may be presented that will require you to reexamine your assertion if you wish to maintain your credibility. God does not exist is a very different statement to there is currently no evidence that God exists.
there is currently no evidence that faries or unicorns exist. But no one can go around saying they exist with being called crazy. Why is god different?
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.
You're right, many people are religious by their own decision and aren't forced to anything. Yet some are, and again others are being manipulated into a belief, no ball and chain, but habile psychology. But there are always people who leave their belief, or change it; the problem with religion is not that it forces you into belief, the problem is it offers possibilities to misuse it for your own advantage.
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.
Not very important, but just for fun: atheists going amok against religious threads is no absolute sign for god's and free will's existance, it only works as an explanation if under the assumption that god exists. There are other explanations that do not require this.
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.
Well.. we would see that there is a supernatural being that performs miracles, but is it really the christian god? We still wouldn't know what to think of that being, since the bible could still be wrong in one or several parts. Acknowledging the existance of a being is not the same than worshipping that being.
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.
Wouldn't god be able to tell whether one truly loves him or not? The religious system would still work since only those who truly love him would gain access to heaven (meaning those who do not seek to get into heaven at all cost will access it). On the other hand, an important part of faith is fear. Christianity tells us to love god and fear him since he is almighty. Those who truly fear getting to hell, would they count too? But that leaves anyway still a portion of people who would land to hell. And god could help a lot of innocent people who never had a chance of hearing about him in their life.
In general, if we follow Hebrew 11:1, Verse 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. , many people hope for other gods to exist, many people have faith in other gods. How can one know whether christianity, or any other religion, is truly the "correct" one?
In other words, your premises require that your evidence is that there is no evidence at any and all given points in time.
For God's non existence then yes. Though if no verifiable evidence has been presented it would be reasonable to assume he doesn't.
That in turn tells you just how certain you can be of the assertion that there is no God: at any given point in time something may be presented that will require you to reexamine your assertion if you wish to maintain your credibility. God does not exist is a very different statement to there is currently no evidence that God exists.
Yes something can come along and do that if he exists. Though you said present evidence of his non existence, that's not how it works. "God doesn't exist" is essentially the null hypothesis in this. So it's God doesn't exist until demonstrated otherwise.
Also why is it acceptable to say other magical things like fairies don't exist, but with God we have to be more concise?
In a court of law if someone is put on trial for a crime and says person X came and did this crime the judge isn't going to say since there is no evidence that person X existed but none the he didn't you won't be charged they will say there is no evidence for him to exist so we think you're making this up.
Again you fail to read or comprehend the original quote to begin with. I contended to say that proving a negative in a case such as this is validified but in a court of law you can prove a negative. If you couldn't I for one, and my peers, would not have a job because a DA is all about proving the negative.
Putting in place a punishment is circumventing free will. It would be direct interference.
You can still chose not to obey the laws. Plenty of people do. There are consequence for breaking laws of your country now, does that mean that you can't chose not to break them anyway? Choosing to do something that will get you punished is still choosing.
You can still chose not to obey the laws. Plenty of people do. There are consequence for breaking laws of your country now, does that mean that you can't chose not to break them anyway? Choosing to do something that will get you punished is still choosing.
What kind of choice is it that includes threats and punishments? It's no better then having a choice between going along with what a person blackmailing or extorting you wants or having them harm you. Once you throw in an imposed punishment it's not longer really free will. Wouldn't a truly loving God who holds free will at such a high regard would grant it without persuasion and threats of punishment?
