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.
I guess it depends on opinion because i still see it as free will.
I will create a forum where you can post what ever you want, it's your choice you have total free will on what topic you make and reply to. But if you make or reply to any topics other then those about God you will be banned, your choice.
It's still a choice. A terrible choice that doesn't seem like one, but still is. Like when a murderer gives you a choice. He can kill you or your mother. Is it a choice? Yes. A lousy choice, but still a choice.
then I question your courtroom procedure. The DA is all about proving a positive, that person X committed crime Y beyond a reasonable doubt. The defandant doesn't have to prove he did not commit the crime, all he has to prove is that there is reasonable doubt that he did commit it. Did Person X plan to commit a crime? If so, it is conspiracy, if they did not, it is not conspiracy. Did a person know right from wrong? Was there malice? Aggravators and mitigators are both positives, not negatives.
The Prosecuting (or plantiff depending if it's a civil case) is always viewed as the affirmative. The charges set or standing is what is on the table and the PA uses evidence that has been submitted and witness claims to persuade the judge and/or jury that the charges are in fact applicable to the defendant. It's our job as the DA to disprove the cause to downplay the effect. Either by submitting evidence that would conflict and negate the evidence set by the PA or providing enough leeway to win the ballot. I don't always have to prove that the PA's evidence is wrong, just not neccessarily applicable in comparison to the charges at hand. Since I work mostly with immigration visas, legal documentation of residence prior to the current date, and medical records are usually evidence that are brought in and submitted as evidence.
The Prosecuting (or plantiff depending if it's a civil case) is always viewed as the affirmative. The charges set or standing is what is on the table and the PA uses evidence that has been submitted and witness claims to persuade the judge and/or jury that the charges are in fact applicable to the defendant. It's our job as the DA to disprove the cause to downplay the effect. Either by submitting evidence that would conflict and negate the evidence set by the PA or providing enough leeway to win the ballot. I don't always have to prove that the PA's evidence is wrong, just not neccessarily applicable in comparison to the charges at hand. Since I work mostly with immigration visas, legal documentation of residence prior to the current date, and medical records are usually evidence that are brought in and submitted as evidence.
By the sound of it your just challenging the claims being presented.
What would your response be as DA if the plaintiff just came in and said for what ever reason that he couldn't or wouldn't present any evidence and that we were all to just believe him at his word?
What would your response be as DA if the plaintiff just came in and said for what ever reason that he couldn't or wouldn't present any evidence and that we were all to just believe him at his word?
I'm assuming your going to try to relate this back to the original post, but in a court of law I would take the money from my client and rest my case, getting another win to my record in the running. Yet setting human logic for another human is different then an omnipotent being. The PA would simply be an ill-prepared novice lawyer, as the original post states there is reasoning behinds God's workings.
"God doesn't exist" is essentially the null hypothesis in this. So it's God doesn't exist until demonstrated otherwise
funnily enough the reason why I find this a spurious use of 'null hypothesis' is the same reason I consider 'God's existence' a poor scientific theory. so what's new.
I'm assuming your going to try to relate this back to the original post, but in a court of law I would take the money from my client and rest my case, getting another win to my record in the running.
This is how we see the situation though.
Yet setting human logic for another human is different then an omnipotent being. The PA would simply be an ill-prepared novice lawyer, as the original post states there is reasoning behinds God's workings.
Since it hasn't be demonstrated that there is an omnipotent being to begin with and your claim is this being doesn't interact with us less he costs us our free will, we can only conclude all of this does come from human to human logic. It's you , a human, who is deducing the reason God doesn't provide evidence is because he doesn't want to effect free will. Your source also written by humans, with only an unbacked claim that it was divinely inspired. Which of course if it was would be providing evidence (at least the that individual) of his existence and as such impeding the authors free will.
funnily enough the reason why I find this a spurious use of 'null hypothesis' is the same reason I consider 'God's existence' a poor scientific theory. so what's new.
How is it a false use of the null hypothesis? "God doesn't exist" is a falsifiable assertion.
It's still a choice. A terrible choice that doesn't seem like one, but still is. Like when a murderer gives you a choice. He can kill you or your mother. Is it a choice? Yes. A lousy choice, but still a choice.
If God presented objective evidence of his existence we would be free to accept or reject that evidence, we still have a choice. Yet in this case it's said the removes free will. Here we have a choice that does remove our free will. If they don't make the choice God wants they are not free to go about their business, they instead have to take a punishment, thus their free will is restricted. Yet this is somehow acceptable.
But as I established, and you implicitly accepted earlier, "God does exist", is not.
There are specific claims that can be falsified however.
There are specific claims that can be falsified however.
Sure, but the reason I don't like applying null hypothesis to assertions as to the existence/non-existence of God is that at least IMO, no specific phenomena has any relevance to "roof" that God does/does not exist. It follows that (at least IMO) falsifying specific claims in this context is a grand waste of time, the only value which it might possibly serve is for people who engage in this argument to eventually collectively realise just how much time they have wasted on it.
There, I said I wouldn't comment on it, but I did anyway. Leave applying terms like "null hypothesis" to actually scientific questions.
OP, you have a point, but it's just a logic possibility based on nothing. It doesn't prove he exists, which probably wasn't your intention anyway, but it proves that if he existed it would make sense for him not to show up.
And then, it's the usual Logic Vs Faith matter. And we're back to square one.
