Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

Then we wouldn't know any more or less because he hasn't provided any empirical evidence for his own existence. What we do know is that everything we have evidence for so far points to a Godless universe or at least one where a God might exist out there somewhere but never interacts with our universe thus putting him in the same belief space as extraterrestrial life. As in they may very well exist but as far as us humans are concerned, we have no good reason to believe if they do or not and certainly are not in a position to be arguing over what they look like, how they behave, what planets they live on etc.

None of which addresses the question. Because if he did then empirical evidence would have it's uses in whatever areas God figured it to have it's uses. And not where not.

Stark

antiskeptic wrote: »

None of which addresses the question.

Exactly. Your circular reasoning could be used to justify belief in any deity or belief system, not just your christian god.

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

So seeking non-empirical evidence is acceptable, but seeking empirical evidence is pointless, and an unrighteous demand ("thou shalt not tempt the lord thy god" etc)?

Not demanding God dance to your tune is about the size of it - if looking for the overarching principle.

I don't think God would have a problem with someone humbly desiring empirical evidence of His existence. They might not get what they ask for but that's not to say that God is precluded from satisfying their underlying desire (that they come to know he exists) by alternative means.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

Exactly. Your circular reasoning could be used to justify belief in any deity or belief system, not just your christian god.

That doesn't address the question either. Do you understand a question is being asked of your position?

PS: I'm not trying to justify/prove God's existence. I'm pointing out the irrationality of demanding that he evidence himself empirically can be the only show in town.

IT-Guy

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. I've been saying that belief isn't required for salvation. Not in the sense of it be causal in a persons salvation that is..

Then neither faith nor belief are required for salvation? Then why are they mandatory for entry to heaven?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure how you can be so confident about your independence. How would you test for it? Against what standard?

I just have to look around me. The only standards that can be tested are man-made. You find that a limitation, I find it a liberation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because that's a chief purpose he's given you a free will for. Freely choose one or the other destination.

Then you don't understand fully what it is to make a choice with free will. The bolded part especially - you are free to choose but here are your choices isn't really free will, it's control. The only person it's ever acceptable to hear that from is from yourself as part of the decision-making process.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yup (where 'heaven' is actually occupancy on a recreated and perfect Earth - where God resides with man. That's actually the biblical stance on it)

You mean the imperfect earth he allegedly created before or after he created Adam and Eve? If the Earth was created imperfect before A&E then God screwed up. If he made the world imperfect after A&E then he's a vengeful, spiteful git. Always makes me laugh when a supposedly divine being displays these very undesirable yet very human characteristics, almost as if he were written into existence by humankind...

antiskeptic wrote: »

All the worlds a stage. It can't be helped. And you're an actor in this, the greatest, most profound show of all.

So nothing new there then, more profoundly meaningless drivel...

antiskeptic

IT-Guy wrote: »

Then neither faith nor belief are required for salvation? Then why are they mandatory for entry to heaven?

Since we're ploughing this furrow it might be as well to define our terms more precisely.

In the context of this thread I've been saying a person doesn't have to believe in God's existence in order that they be saved ( with salvation leading certainly to heaven). After they are saved though, they will be given evidence that convinces them of God's existence - and so they will believe in God's existence. But that belief is a consequence of salvation, not a cause.


This is a different matter to believing God - which a person must do in order to be saved. It must be underlined: there is a difference between believing in God's existence and believing God (or believing what God says).

(A simple example of an atheist believing what God says (although this example won't result in their salvation) would be the atheist holding child sexual abuse to be morally wrong (whether they happen to engage in the practice or not). Child sexual abuse morallyy wrong is something God says to the atheist via his conscience. So, if you believe child sexual abuse morally wrong then you are also believing what God says on this matter.

We can see then that a conversation can occur between God and the atheist without the atheist believing in God. God speaks via conscience and the atheist speaks back via thought, word and deed)

I just have to look around me. The only standards that can be tested are man-made. You find that a limitation, I find it a liberation.

Be that as it may, you can't test mans independence by using mans standards. That's circular reasoning. But whatever floats your boat.

Then you don't understand fully what it is to make a choice with free will. The bolded part especially - you are free to choose but here are your choices isn't really free will, it's control. The only person it's ever acceptable to hear that from is from yourself as part of the decision-making process.

I understand that there are always boundaries for our choices - there are simply limitless amounts of things we cannot choose to do.

You can't even determine what level of independence is available to you so haven't a clue in what way your free will isn't free.

Anyway, it is as it is: man subject to God and the options he offers. Call it what you will but the choice is yours and the consequences that go with it.

You mean the imperfect earth he allegedly created before or after he created Adam and Eve? If the Earth was created imperfect before A&E then God screwed up.

Perfect for the purpose he had (he allowed the serpent tempt and so enabled a situation of choice). Then it Fell through choice

It will be recreated perfect for the next purpose - wherein no unrighteousness (i.e. no serpent) dwelleth. I gather that will be the last iteration. This current iteration will have served it's purpose - all mankind will have chosen where it is they want to dwell before shuffling off the stage.

If he made the world imperfect after A&E then he's a vengeful, spiteful git.

Hardly. He was just delivering to those whom he had given dominion on Earth to, the consequences of their choice. They fell and so all under their remit fell.

He's not sentimental. A promise is a promise.

Always makes me laugh when a supposedly divine being displays these very undesirable yet very human characteristics, almost as if he were written into existence by humankind...

Humans don't tend to keep their promises. Not when push really becomes shove.

norrie rugger

liveya wrote: »

You don't seem to understand my point. One could not live their life in peace, if they refused to bow and knew he existed;

Were he real and given what he has allowed to happen to innocents, of this world, I would have no problem knowing that he is real and telling him where he can shove his religion. I would be quite at peace with myself afterwards also

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not demanding God dance to your tune is about the size of it - if looking for the overarching principle.

I don't think God would have a problem with someone humbly desiring empirical evidence of His existence. They might not get what they ask for but that's not to say that God is precluded from satisfying their underlying desire (that they come to know he exists) by alternative means.

OK, I think I've got a handle on what you're saying now. Thanks.

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Personal conviction. It's all any of us has to go on for any of our positions on the matter of God.

And on that basis, those whose personal convictions lead them in the wrong direction due to how they were created and the 'evidence' of their life experiences are damned to hell.

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. I've been saying that belief isn't required for salvation. Not in the sense of it be causal in a persons salvation that is..

So you too agree with the 'Anonymous Christian' view? That a good person who never even heard of Jesus or the Christian God will be saved?

IT-Guy

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since we're ploughing this furrow it might be as well to define our terms more precisely.

In the context of this thread I've been saying a person doesn't have to believe in God's existence in order that they be saved ( with salvation leading certainly to heaven). After they are saved though, they will be given evidence that convinces them of God's existence - and so they will believe in God's existence. But that belief is a consequence of salvation, not a cause.

This is a different matter to believing God - which a person must do in order to be saved. It must be underlined: there is a difference between believing in God's existence and believing God (or believing what God says).

Logical dead end. You require belief that a person believe what god says without believing in god. How can anyone do what's asked of them from a person/entity they don't believe in and has yet to prove his existence directly and empirically. (Faith is the answer, blind, illogical faith)

antiskeptic wrote: »

(A simple example of an atheist believing what God says (although this example won't result in their salvation) would be the atheist holding child sexual abuse to be morally wrong (whether they happen to engage in the practice or not). Child sexual abuse morallyy wrong is something God says to the atheist via his conscience. So, if you believe child sexual abuse morally wrong then you are also believing what God says on this matter.

We can see then that a conversation can occur between God and the atheist without the atheist believing in God. God speaks via conscience and the atheist speaks back via thought, word and deed)

Woah, talk about co-opting normality! Our conscience is us talking with God? If so it only further proves my point that god is man-made, not supernatural and stems from the oppressive belief that if I'm not of similar conscience to you on a particular topic then I need to be 'saved' rather than you need to open your mind. But then again it's a belief system over 2,000 years old so to say it's outdated is understating things!

Your child sexual abuse example isn't particularly useful as I've yet to meet or read of anyone condoning it (bar perhaps those participating or covering it up), it's so obviously abhorrent there's no argument that can be made for it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Be that as it may, you can't test mans independence by using mans standards. That's circular reasoning. But whatever floats your boat.

Providing a standard for independence is nigh on impossible as it's not a measurable quantity. Also the only method of observing and measuring independence to God's standards would be to know what they are - if we knew that then wouldn't that make us God-like? There's a conundrum involved in religious teaching and preaching, eventually people learn and know enough to be their own arbiters for what's good and bad. If that's not good enough for those doing the teaching then they're more likely to be impossible to please and never happy. Or in short, religious people.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I understand that there are always boundaries for our choices - there are simply limitless amounts of things we cannot choose to do.

You can't even determine what level of independence is available to you so haven't a clue in what way your free will isn't free.

Anyway, it is as it is: man subject to God and the options he offers. Call it what you will but the choice is yours and the consequences that go with it.

Boundaries are exactly the issue here, for you or any religion to say that my thoughts and deeds are sub-consciously motivated by god is completely inappropriate to me. So it is what it is - man subject to himself and his desires as long as they don't impinge on anyone else's freedoms.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perfect for the purpose he had (he allowed the serpent tempt and so enabled a situation of choice). Then it Fell through choice

It will be recreated perfect for the next purpose - wherein no unrighteousness (i.e. no serpent) dwelleth. I gather that will be the last iteration. This current iteration will have served it's purpose - all mankind will have chosen where it is they want to dwell before shuffling off the stage.

So A&E not choosing what god wanted meant the rest of the world had to be punished? It absolute bs but let me guess it's part of god's standards? :rolleyes: Where I dwell is earth right here, right now. It hasn't 'fallen' anywhere in any sense. Kinda patronizing to suggest that you see the events and workings of the world as evidence of how it has fallen. When was it ever perfect?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hardly. He was just delivering to those whom he had given dominion on Earth to, the consequences of their choice. They fell and so all under their remit fell.

He's not sentimental. A promise is a promise.

The consequences of their choice? It's a tale to teach obedience without question, no more. There is no other lesson to be learned from the A&E tale other than obey me or else. I'm not particularly sentimental and I know a promise is a promise, it doesn't mean I'm god

antiskeptic wrote: »

Humans don't tend to keep their promises. Not when push really becomes shove.

Quite a jaded, tired sounding post. I can see the appeal of religion for you if you truly think this about people.

antiskeptic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And on that basis, those whose personal convictions lead them in the wrong direction due to how they were created and the 'evidence' of their life experiences are damned to hell.

Since the will is central in the scheme of things, the leading in the wrong direction can be laid at the door of the will itself .. ultimately.

Sure, there are supporting players such as where you were born and how you were raised but they are only supporting. God is able to ensure that that's all they are..



Look at it this way: my will was a player in my being saved, which resulted in God demonstrating his existence to me. As a result of his doing that I'm personally convinced.

A direct tie between my will and my personal conviction.

antiskeptic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So you too agree with the 'Anonymous Christian' view? That a good person who never even heard of Jesus or the Christian God will be saved?

Assuming you've accurately represented AC's view then no, I wouldn't agree with it

A person who never heard of Jesus can of course be saved. But not on the basis that they were 'good'

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming you've accurately represented AC's view then no, I wouldn't agree with it

A person who never heard of Jesus can of course be saved. But not on the basis that they were 'good'

This is getting stranger and stranger. So those people who never had a chance to be exposed to the story of Jesus were predestined to hell?

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since the will is central in the scheme of things, the leading in the wrong direction can be laid at the door of the will itself .. ultimately.

Sure, there are supporting players such as where you were born and how you were raised but they are only supporting. God is able to ensure that that's all they are..



Look at it this way: my will was a player in my being saved, which resulted in God demonstrating his existence to me. As a result of his doing that I'm personally convinced.

A direct tie between my will and my personal conviction.

And a neat example of perfectly circular logic to boot.

norrie rugger

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming you've accurately represented AC's view then no, I wouldn't agree with it

A person who never heard of Jesus can of course be saved. But not on the basis that they were 'good'

That would make the Christian god a bit of a díck no?
I can be a total gob****e and confess at the deathbed and get into heaven but be a great person all my life and go to hell?? Poor Ghandi

antiskeptic

IT-Guy wrote: »

Logical dead end. You require belief that a person believe what god says* without believing in god. How can anyone do what's asked of them from a person/entity they don't believe in and has yet to prove his existence directly and empirically. (Faith is the answer, blind, illogical faith)

I've struck out a 'belief' too many above

Woah, talk about co-opting normality! Our conscience is us talking with God? If so it only further proves my point that god is man-made, not supernatural and stems from the oppressive belief that if I'm not of similar conscience to you on a particular topic then I need to be 'saved' rather than you need to open your mind. But then again it's a belief system over 2,000 years old so to say it's outdated is understating things!

Disbelieving the mechanism to be the case isn't finding a flaw in the mechanism.

Your child sexual abuse example isn't particularly useful as I've yet to meet or read of anyone condoning it (bar perhaps those participating or covering it up), it's so obviously abhorrent there's no argument that can be made for it.

So you have two groups: those who believe God and those that don't (those participating). That's the only point being made (whether you believe it or not is irrelevant)

Providing a standard for independence is nigh on impossible as it's not a measurable quantity. Also the only method of observing and measuring independence to God's standards would be to know what they are - if we knew that then wouldn't that make us God-like?

The argument is that we know the standard (certainly in a global sense) because it is instilled in our constitution - but that we bend and excuse and evade it to suit ourselves. And that we suppress this knowledge in order that we can have our wicked ways

Interestingly, The God Delusion cites research showing that mankind the world over has the same basis morality - even remote tribes without exposure to Western mores. Indicative of a common ancestor indeed - which was RD's point

There's a conundrum involved in religious teaching and preaching, eventually people learn and know enough to be their own arbiters for what's good and bad. If that's not good enough for those doing the teaching then they're more likely to be impossible to please and never happy. Or in short, religious people.

..

Boundaries are exactly the issue here, for you or any religion to say that my thoughts and deeds are sub-consciously motivated by god is completely inappropriate to me. So it is what it is - man subject to himself and his desires as long as they don't impinge on anyone else's freedoms.

God's desires and encourages that you choose this way, sin within (i.e. you aren't as freewheeling as you think you are) desires and entices that you choose that way.

You are the one that chooses which it'll be. I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist about it being sin and God involved. Choice of any type involves different sides beckoning you.

So A&E not choosing what god wanted meant the rest of the world had to be punished?

That's what giving them dominion entailed. But it does serve a use in that the pain and suffering .. as well as the thrill and joys of life .. set the stage for us to make a choice.

Where I dwell is earth right here, right now. It hasn't 'fallen' anywhere in any sense. Kinda patronizing to suggest that you see the events and workings of the world as evidence of how it has fallen. When was it ever perfect?

Perfect always has the rider "..for purpose" attached. It's perfect now .. for the purposes God has for it. A broken, shattered, corrupted world counters all the beauty and wonder and glory of it all. Ideal for us to get a glimpse of what both sides of our choice entail.

Do we tend towards that which is death or is it that which is about life which we love.

The consequences of their choice? It's a tale to teach obedience without question, no more. There is no other lesson to be learned from the A&E tale other than obey me or else. I'm not particularly sentimental and I know a promise is a promise, it doesn't mean I'm god

I'm not really interested in a discussion about whether you believe it or not. That's a discussion of but 3 words: "I don't believe"

antiskeptic

norrie rugger wrote: »

I can be a total gob****e and confess at the deathbed and get into heaven but be a great person all my life and go to hell?? Poor Ghandi

Great/gob****e according to which standard? Yours?

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Great/gob****e according to which standard? Yours?

According to the Christian god's standard.

antiskeptic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And a neat example of perfectly circular logic to boot.

A circle would tie the two ends together. This to be achieved without adding to what I say

Fire away...

antiskeptic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

According to the Christian god's standard.

According to the Christian God's standards, "all have fallen short of the glory of God". "There are none who are righteous, not one"

And so all fit for Hell if considering them on their own merits.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

A person who never heard of Jesus can of course be saved.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

This is getting stranger and stranger. So those people who never had a chance to be exposed to the story of Jesus were predestined to hell?

More slowly this time...

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

According to the Christian God's standards, "all have fallen short of the glory of God". "There are none who are righteous, not one"

And so all fit for Hell if considering them on their own merits.

Well that's his own fault for creating flawed people. It all comes down to him setting us tests he that he created us to fail.

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming you've accurately represented AC's view then no, I wouldn't agree with it

A person who never heard of Jesus can of course be saved. But not on the basis that they were 'good'

antiskeptic wrote: »

More slowly this time...

Well of course they 'can' be saved seeing as you have postulated an omnipotent god - he can do anything. But you are rejecting the 'Anonymous Christian' theory for some reason, even though it seems to tally with your story of how you are saved. They just miss the next step of believing because they live - for example - in an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon or somesuch.

There seems to be a strange contradiction here, as you've already said that belief is not required to be saved.

Sarky

So it still boils down to "god made a mistake" or "god's a jerk". There is of course always "god doesn't exist", but for some reason antiskeptic just discounts that one before considering it.

Shame, it's about the only way out of that circle he's made.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

According to the Christian God's standards, "all have fallen short of the glory of God". "There are none who are righteous, not one"

And so all fit for Hell if considering them on their own merits.

That I think is the point. By God's own standards it is unjust for him to forgive us simply for believing and accepting Jesus. What does that have to do with the mountains of sinful things we have done throughout our lives. As Monty says a person who spends their entire life sinning can be forgiven on his death bed where as a person who leads a relatively righteous life but who will inevitably sin but who does not believe in Jesus will be punished for his sin.

Christians try and get around that with the notion that some how our guilt was transfered to Jesus so it is actually ok to forgive some of us because Jesus has already taken our guilt and our punishment.

Frankly that is ridiculous, though possibly a bit OT for this thread

antiskeptic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well that's his own fault for creating flawed people. It all comes down to him setting us tests he that he created us to fail.

And your fault for clinging to a standard (of your own making) which concludes you a "good person". If you quit suppressing you'd admit you're rotten and get the hell on with being saved

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

And your fault for clinging to a standard (of your own making) which concludes you a "good person". If you quit suppressing you'd admit you're rotten and get the hell on with being saved

If he is rotten and deserving of hell, and God is just, then why would he be saved?

shizz

antiskeptic wrote: »

And your fault for clinging to a standard (of your own making) which concludes you a "good person". If you quit suppressing you'd admit you're rotten and get the hell on with being saved

..buuuuut... if God created that person in that way, he is the cause of that person thinking the way he does, therefore, it was God that created that standard.

antiskeptic

Zombrex wrote: »

That I think is the point. By God's own standards it is unjust for him to forgive us simply for believing and accepting Jesus.

Hi Zombrex

I wouldn't say God forgives us by believing and accepting Jesus (although that is how it is commonly put). The principle transaction is one whereby we surrender our rebellion and God extends mercy to the defeated (if considering it through the warfare viewpoint).

God, being unable to wink at sin means the sin must be punished. And so to Christ he goes.

What does that have to do with the mountains of sinful things we have done throughout our lives. As Monty says a person who spends their entire life sinning can be forgiven on his death bed where as a person who leads a relatively righteous life but who will inevitably sin but who does not believe in Jesus will be punished for his sin.

Relatively speaking, the "best" sinner stands beside the "worst" sinner like two grains of sand on a beach arguing which is closer to the moon.

When the relative distance between the two grains and the moon is so infinitely small there isn't much point in talking of one better than the other.

Christians try and get around that with the notion that some how our guilt was transferred to Jesus so it is actually ok to forgive some of us because Jesus has already taken our guilt and our punishment.

Frankly that is ridiculous, though possibly a bit OT for this thread

The forgiver pays the price / suffers the consequence of the wrongdoing against him, himself. That's what forgiveness is - true and complete foregiveness in any case.

You can't say "I forgive you - now pay the penalty due the crime"