Faith: the evidence of things not seen

Sam Vimes · 09-03-2010 11:32am

PDN wrote: »

Er, I'm not criticising Sam. He's the one who has come into the Christianity forum in order to criticise.

I'm simply answering his question. And, since it doesn't provide the kind of answer he's looking for, I have no doubt that he will summarily reject it (as you have just done).

What I've said is that if you genuinely seek truth you will find it. It doesn't matter whether that truth is cold or comforting - so long as someone is genuinely interested in finding the truth.

The main problem with that reasoning is that every religion/cult/ideology/belief system ticks enough boxes to be able to convince many many people. If they didn't they wouldn't survive. I've heard a very good term for it, the embedded truth fallacy, where there is enough in there that speaks to people (love thy neighbour, eternal life, supernatural consequences for immoral acts) that they're able to ignore the bits that don't make a whole lot of sense (virgin births, walking on water, resurrections, a supposedly moral being killing millions of people). I'm sure that if I approached christianity "seeking truth" as you put it I would become a believer but I am of the firm opinion that the same would be true of scientology, Mormonism and the Jehovah's witnesses. I was even taken in for quite a while by the 9/11 truthers to my eternal shame. As far as I'm concerned the actual truth, especially truth that is supposed to come from the omnipotent creator of the universe, should be objectively convincing to even the hard hearted. I shouldn't have to approach the word of god in the same manner that would have me convinced of the 9/11 truthers in order to believe

antiskeptic · 09-03-2010 11:49am

Wicknight wrote: »

If you are not consciously aware of it then you don't believe God, you share God's belief.

If God is the voice powering conscience and you consider your conscience to be a naturalistically arrived at phenomenon, then your not being consciously aware of Gods existance doesn't alter the fact that it's his voice your believing in the case you are guided by your conscience.

To believe God you would have to believe God, you would have to be aware of God's opinion and agree with it.

You are aware of God's opinion (which is made known to you by God - we're supposing). You're just not aware it's God's opinion you're agreeing with.

I think you're getting hung up on a semantic technicality here. The interesting bit is all the actions and consequences that arise out of believing God and disbelieving him.

It is illogical to say that if I believe murder is wrong I believe God. I simply share the same opinion as God

Seeing as there would be (we are supposing) no other root source for the notion "murder is wrong" I see it as illogical to suppose you could be believing anyone/thing else

Zombrex · 09-03-2010 12:04pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God is the voice powering conscience and you consider your conscience to be a naturalistically arrived at phenomenon, then your not being consciously aware of Gods existance doesn't alter the fact that it's his voice your believing in the case you are guided by your conscience.

Yes it does. If I do not consciously accept God's opinion then I'm not believing him, I'm merely reaching the same conclusion as him.

If I slipped an anonymous note into your locker with the formula for gravity and you read it and accepted it no one would say you believe me, because you have not consciously made a decision to accept as true what I said because you don't know I said it.

You accept the piece of paper but you have no idea it comes from me so you can't believe me.

I cannot believe God unless I consciously decide that what he has told me is true based on the knowledge that he himself told me it. And I can't decide that unless I know it came from him.

Otherwise, again, I'm just sharing the same opinion as him.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are aware of God's opinion (which is made known to you by God - we're supposing). You're just not aware it's God's opinion.

And thus I cannot believe God. I can only unconsciously share the same opinion as him.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you're getting hung up on a semantic technicality here.

It is necessary for your follow on arguments that you establish we all believe God when we share his morality, even if we don't actually believe he exists.

But that is not what is actually happening, and thus you cannot base follow on argument on that axiom because it doesn't actually hold.

So the semantics are actually pretty important as they invalidate the follow on arguments.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seeing as there would be (we are supposing) no other root source for the notion "murder is wrong" I see it as illogical to suppose you could be believing anyone/thing else

That doesn't make any sense. Who is the root source for the notions that murder is great?

If it is me then why can I not be the root source for the notion that murder is wrong?

You can say that I reach that conclusion based on a God given conscience, but you must also agree that once the conscience has been given by God it operates independently of God.

Otherwise a serial killer who thinks killing and raping woman is great must be working from God's play book, as it were.

So my conscience gives me an opinion in line with God's opinion, and the serial killer's conscience gives one not in line with God's opinion. But in both cases the conscience is the source of the opinion.

Sam Vimes · 09-03-2010 12:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seeing as there would be (we are supposing) no other root source for the notion "murder is wrong" I see it as illogical to suppose you could be believing anyone/thing else

Now we're back to "I don't know so it must be god". Supposing that there could be no other root source for an opinion that murder is wrong presupposes that god exists, which we are not supposed to be presupposing. God is not necessarily the only source of that opinion, for example evolution, both genetic and social, provides a perfectly good explanation, and one that fits an awful lot better with the fact that not everyone seems to be of exactly the same opinion about when murder is wrong and when it's not. And even if we did presuppose that the only source of that opinion is a supernatural being, that being is not necessarily the one described in the bible

edit: that post encompasses numbers 1-4 from my list on the previous page

antiskeptic · 09-03-2010 12:37pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes it does. If I do not consciously accept God's opinion then I'm not believing him.

If I slipped an anonymous note into your locker with the formula for gravity and you read it and accepted it no one would say you believe me, because you have not consciously made a decision to accept as true what I said because you don't know I said it.

You believe the piece of paper but you have no idea it comes from me so you can't believe me.

I cannot believe God unless I consciously decide that what he has told me is true based on the knowledge that he himself told me it.

Otherwise, again, I'm just sharing the same opinion as him.

A voice speaks. That voice says/empowers the notion "murder is wrong". You believe that voice. That voice is God's voice. You believe God's voice.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is.

(It's worth noting that the state of belief you're in doesn't require you to do anything. God is the one powering your sense that murder is wrong - your state of belief arises out of his sustaining you in this position).

And thus I cannot believe God. I can only unconsciously share the same opinion as him.

Your opinion is powered by God. So it's not so much your opinion as his opinion sustained in you by him. Your only option is to do nothing in response to this (in which case you'll continue considering murder wrong). Or you can dispense with his sustaining this belief - in which case murder is possible for you to commit.

It is necessary for your follow on arguments that you establish we all believe God when we share his morality, even if we don't actually believe he exists.

There is no one else to believe - given that there is no other source for the 'morality' that God has - when we share it.

That doesn't make any sense. Who is the root source for the notions that murder is great?

Sin.

If it is me then why can I not be the root source for the notion that murder is wrong?

Your will (or sinful nature) is but a derivative of the root source of the notion that murder is ok. See it as your will being plugged into that source.

Sin on one side pulling you in one direction. God on the other pulling you in the other.

You can say that I reach that conclusion based on a God given conscience, but you must also agree that once the conscience has been given by God it operates independently of God.

Otherwise a serial killer who thinks killing and raping woman is great must be working from God's play book, as it were.

So my conscience gives me an opinion in line with God's opinion, and the serial killer's conscience gives one not in line with God's opinion. But in both cases the conscience is the source of the opinion.

The conscience can be considered a multiple-circuit electrical machine which requires a constant power source for it's operation. Consider the circuit dealing with murder and what happens if it's plugged out

Temporarily: the murder is committed and the person feels regret and guilt when it's plugged back in

Permanently: the murders are committed and the person feels no regret or guilt because it's never plugged back in.

The proper word to use here is 'suppression'. In your case, you haven't suppressed conscience on the issue of murder at all (we are hoping) whereas the impassioned wife-killer who languishes in prison full of regret has suppressed for a brief moment in time - but not permanently. He wasn't operating according to conscience for that brief period of time but is now, by virtue of guilt/shame/regret back within it's fold. Similarily, the serial-killer can be seen not to be operating according to a God-given conscience. Indeed, he's plugged (perhaps) permanently out in the department of conscience that deals with murder.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2010 12:47pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now we're back to "I don't know so it must be god". Supposing that there could be no other root source for an opinion that murder is wrong presupposes that god exists, which we are not supposed to be presupposing.

You've a different posting-line to deal with than mine to Wicknight - one in which you questioned the fairness of God turning up to me and not you. That position, your position, supposes God to exist in order that that "unfair!!" objection be raised.

This..

God is not necessarily the only source of that opinion, for example evolution, both genetic and social, provides a perfectly good explanation, and one that fits an awful lot better with the fact that not everyone seems to be of exactly the same opinion about when murder is wrong and when it's not. And even if we did presuppose that the only source of that opinion is a supernatural being, that being is not necessarily the one described in the bible

..falls outside the remit of that discussion.

edit: that post encompasses numbers 1-4 from my list on the previous page

I'm not in agreement with PDN's view on things - regarding overwhelming evidence avaible for God generally available .. and the advice that if only you would seek that particular claimed truth you would find. And so I'm not really interested in your objections to his position. My own position is the one I'm interested in objection to - and that one already see's you assume God's existance for the purposes of discussion.

I'm heading out so won't get back until later this evening/tomorrow

Cheers.

Zombrex · 09-03-2010 2:35pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

A voice speaks. That voice says/empowers the notion "murder is wrong". You believe that voice. That voice is God's voice. You believe God's voice.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is.

But how am I believing the voice?

Believing means I assess what is being said and who is saying it and I trust that it is true based on who said it.

That is different from agreeing, where I make my own judgement and that judgement agrees with the voice

I think you are confusing the two concepts.

Take this example, a boy comes into hospital with pains in his leg.

A doctor looks at him and assess that he has a broken leg. Another doctor comes in and is told by the first doctor that he has a broken leg.

If the doctor accepts that diagnosis based on trust of the first doctor, then he is believing him when he says it.

If the doctor assesses the the boy and comes to the same conclusion he is agreeing with the first doctor. He is not believing him

I can't believe God because I don't trust God because I don't think God exists.

I can certainly agree with what you claim God's opinion is, but it is based on my own assessment and opinion. I can certainly agree with the little voice in my head, but again that is based on my own assessment.

At no point am I believing God. Your concepts are confused.

It may seem like semantics, but the point is that to believe God requires one to trust in his opinion and authority, which I don't because I don't believe he exists. This implicate trust is used in your following arguments and thus your follow on argument are invalid.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your opinion is powered by God. So it's not so much your opinion as his opinion sustained in you by him.

But that isn't true. I can (and often do) have an opinion different to my conscience. For example my conscience could tell me it is wrong to steal a chocolate from my flat mate but I decide to do it anyway.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sin.

But "sin" isn't a thing, sin is going against God. So how do I go against God if my opinion isn't my own?

You see, I think if you think about it you would agree there is a difference between conscience and opinion, you can agree or disagree with your own conscience.

If you believe your conscience is God's voice, then sin would be you deciding not to agree with God's voice, and doing something different.

Getting back to the original point, my opinion either agrees or disagrees with my conscience, and thus if you we assume my conscience is God I either agree or disagree with God.

At no point do I believe my conscience and since I don't think my conscience is God at no point do I believe God. I may, inadvertently, agree with him.

Sam Vimes · 09-03-2010 2:36pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've a different posting-line to deal with than mine to Wicknight - one in which you questioned the fairness of God turning up to me and not you. That position, your position, supposes God to exist in order that that "unfair!!" objection be raised.

This..

..falls outside the remit of that discussion.

Firstly, the reason I think that god has shown up to you and not me is that he hasn't actually shown up to either of us. But anyway, the part about the fairness of god showing up to me and not you presupposes his existence but our other discussion does not. You say that the criterion for god revealing himself is that you believe him, eg I must believe that murder is wrong, which I do. Believing in god should not be necessary for god to reveal himself according to you. The leap from believing that murder is wrong to believing that the reason I think murder is wrong is that god implanted that knowledge in my brain requires believing in him. This goes back to number 1 on my list, circular arguments. And if the argument is that concluding that god is the source of this opinion is reasonable because I think there can't be any other source then we're back number 3, "I don't know so it must be god"

antiskeptic · 10-03-2010 6:16pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But anyway, the part about the fairness of god showing up to me and not you presupposes his existence...

Thank you..

.. but our other discussion does not. You say that the criterion for god revealing himself is that you believe him, eg I must believe that murder is wrong, which I do.

The suggested criterion for God saving you - after which his revealing himself to you will occur - hinges indeed on your believing him (and not in him). Perhaps I didn't state clearly enough that saving belief isn't the same as general belief. General belief is that which probably all people (unwittingly perhaps) have regarding at least some of what God 'says'. Many unsaved people believe murder is wrong, many other unsaved people believe that you shouldn't steal. Many more consider lying something that shouldn't be done. All things that people believe. All things which God says don't do. Their believing him in some matters doesn't mean they are saved however. And if they are not then he won't reveal himself to them.

Here's what I said in regard to the place of this general belief in the mechanism of salvation - the machinations of general belief/unbelief hopefully leading to specific, saving belief:

antiskeptic earlier wrote:

Now actions arising out of your believing/disbelieving him bring consequences and forces to bear on you. Examples of this would be a clear conscience or a guilty one. Or sexual health or an STD (whether due to your disbelieving God or your wifes disbelieving God - no smear intended). These forces are multifold: physical/emotional/psychological/spiritual and are utilised by God in his attempt to bring you to belief about an overall issue he has in mind regarding you - namely, that there is something seriously amiss with you, something you can't evade and something you can't fix yourself.

The point of the murder example were merely to point out that a person can believe things that God says without believing in God. Assuming that point established, it should be plain that a person can be brought to the specific belief which results in their salvation - without believing in God's existance (which is good news indeed - you can be an atheist all the up to the very moment you are saved!!)

Believing in god should not be necessary for god to reveal himself according to you.

Q.E.D.

The leap from believing that murder is wrong to believing that the reason I think murder is wrong is that god implanted that knowledge in my brain requires believing in him.

True. But the knowledge that God is actually the one who implanted this belief in your head occurs post-salvation. After God turns up - resulting in a rational basis for supposing God is the one who implanted this knowledge in your head.

So we're back to the situation of not having to believe in God in order to be saved.

This goes back to number 1 on my list, circular arguments. And if the argument is that concluding that god is the source of this opinion is reasonable because I think there can't be any other source then we're back number 3, "I don't know so it must be god"

Hopefully it will be clear that these counters don't apply to the argument presented.

antiskeptic · 10-03-2010 7:27pm

Wicknight wrote: »

But how am I believing the voice?

Believing means I assess what is being said and who is saying it and I trust that it is true based on who said it.

And from which toolbox do you suppose to be able to extract the equipment necessary to arrive at the conclusion that murder is wrong (so as to "agree" with God). If not God's toolbox - I mean? There's little point in pointing to the influence of your parent's (whose consciences told them .. and they told you). Nor can you point to societies view ("society" being made up of individuals who've all had a conscience installed in them).

From whence your objection to murder anyway? Perhaps you consider life too precious to be taken? Where did you get that notion? Perhaps you consider it an act of selfishness to take anothers life and consider the pain caused to costly a price? From whence that notion? Perhaps you see the decay that would result in society were it so that everyone thought murder was okay? Don't you suppose God had the prevention of society sliding immediately into oblivion in mind when he installed conscience?

If the doctor accepts that diagnosis based on trust of the first doctor, then he is believing him when he says it.

If the doctor assesses the the boy and comes to the same conclusion he is agreeing with the first doctor. He is not believing him

You've nothing but bootstraps to pull your agreement up with - since all core strands of your anti-murder argument will find their source back at God. He's the one who wove your view - you didn't do a thing.

God designed you to be attracted to that which is his will. And in many ways you will be attracted: to honesty, decency, love, selflessness, humility. The fact that you've fallen from that perfection doesn't mean all vestiges of the design have disappeared.

The question facing you only is: which will you set your heart on? To be drawn more and more towards the 'light' (drawn by God I should add - you don't have to do a thing to be drawn) or to pull away from the light into a greater love of 'darkness'. Thankfully, God utilises our moves towards darkness in the mechanism of salvation so it's not that any love of darkness you have currently should be taken as meaning you'll be finally damned.

It's your final answer that determines your final destination. Not the answers you give on the way there.

I can't believe God because I don't trust God because I don't think God exists.

A Voice speaks. When it speaks to many, the resulting mass-conscience brings about a norm. And this norm will inevitably expand on it's view "murder is wrong" by weaving together argument based on other things revealed by God through conscience (his hatred of pride, selfishness, greed, etc - the motive for murder ofttimes).

This expanded, derivative view doesn't detract from the Voice which generated that societal view in the first place. Nor do societal blips whether major or minor (I'm thinking National Socialism and it's influence on a population)

I can certainly agree with what you claim God's opinion is, but it is based on my own assessment and opinion. I can certainly agree with the little voice in my head, but again that is based on my own assessment.

At no point am I believing God. Your concepts are confused.

As pointed out, when you agree with the voice in your head your supposedly independent assessement is being driven either by the voice in your head or the voices in other peoples head. There is no other source to supply motive power to the notion that murder is wrong.

This is where it gets interesting. For it would appear to be the case that, in order to be in agreement with God about x, your own will need do nothing. It need not act in order to be in agreement, in other words. Instead, God place's you in a frame of mind about something (eg: "murder is wrong") using the various elements that go to make up the notion (it's selfish/ugly/unfair/detrimental to society). And in order to remain in that frame of mind rega, your will has to do precisely ...

..nothing. You don't have to do something to remain precisely where you happen to be, do you? We know that objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by a force.

On the other hand, in order to murder and feel entitled in doing so you have to suppress this force ("murder is wrong") exerted by God on you. Which takes an act of will on your part. Thus;

No act of will required to remain in God's will regarding x
An act of will required to escape God's will regarding x

No credit to you for doing good
Justifiable penalty due to you for doing evil.

It may seem like semantics, but the point is that to believe God requires one to trust in his opinion and authority, which I don't because I don't believe he exists. This implicate trust is used in your following arguments and thus your follow on argument are invalid.

Hopefully you'll be dissuaded from that view by the argument which says that all the tools you apply in the matter "murder is wrong" are supplied to you by God.

That that isn't true. I can (and often do) have an opinion different to my conscience. For example my conscience could tell me it is wrong to steal a chocolate from my flat mate but I decide to do it anyway.

I didn't mean all opinions. I meant that the one's which aligned with Gods will. As argued in this post

But "sin" isn't a thing, sin is going against God. So how do I go against God if my opinion isn't my own?

There's 'sin' which is as you say - an act of will contra-God. And 'Sin' which is considered to be an influence which stimulates our nature into 'sin'. Like an act of love vs. Love the stimulant unto acts of love.

As explained, your contra-God opinions are your own. Influenced by sin, yes, but expressions of your own will ultimately.

Getting back to the original point, my opinion either agrees or disagrees with my conscience, and thus if you we assume my conscience is God I either agree or disagree with God.

At no point do I believe my conscience and since I don't think my conscience is God at no point do I believe God. I may, inadvertently, agree with him.

This has been dealt with above.

Sam Vimes · 10-03-2010 9:41pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thank you..

The suggested criterion for God saving you - after which his revealing himself to you will occur - hinges indeed on your believing him (and not in him). Perhaps I didn't state clearly enough that saving belief isn't the same as general belief. General belief is that which probably all people (unwittingly perhaps) have regarding at least some of what God 'says'. Many unsaved people believe murder is wrong, many other unsaved people believe that you shouldn't steal. Many more consider lying something that shouldn't be done. All things that people believe. All things which God says don't do. Their believing him in some matters doesn't mean they are saved however. And if they are not then he won't reveal himself to them.

Here's what I said in regard to the place of this general belief in the mechanism of salvation - the machinations of general belief/unbelief hopefully leading to specific, saving belief:

The point of the murder example were merely to point out that a person can believe things that God says without believing in God. Assuming that point established, it should be plain that a person can be brought to the specific belief which results in their salvation - without believing in God's existance (which is good news indeed - you can be an atheist all the up to the very moment you are saved!!)

I'm afraid it's not plain at all. Could you lay out exactly what is required for god to reveal himself in terms of believing him? From what I can see you've gone from saying you do nothing to saying you have to believe him (ie share his opinion of right and wrong) to saying that even believing him is not enough because many unsaved people people believe him. I'm not quite sure what the criteria are

[d.[/QUOTE]

antiskeptic · 10-03-2010 9:58pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid it's not plain at all. Could you lay out exactly what is required for god to reveal himself in terms of believing him? From what I can see you've gone from saying you do nothing to saying you have to believe him (ie share his opinion of right and wrong) to saying that even believing him is not enough because many unsaved people people believe him. I'm not quite sure what the criteria are

The illustration of your sharing his view on murder (or any other right/wrong) is only intended to illustrate that a person can believe what God 'says' without believing in God. This doesn't mean they are saved - it just means they believe God on this single issue of murder (and we won't have to look far to find examples of things they don't believe him on: sex before marriage being my own personal favorite when I was lost). Once you accept that general principle (believing God without believing in God) you can accept that the same can apply to the specific belief regarding salvation: a person can believe God on that specific, salvific issue - whilst not believing in God. And so they can be saved before they ever believe in God.

That is the overall suggestion. That is the position I'm arguing from: saved by faith (belief) alright - but not belief in God.

Now, before going on to outline the specific issue a person needs to believe God on - in order to be saved - can I confirm that you're clear on this much, this far. And are in agreement with the possibility of the principle I'm outlining (assuming God exists, of course).

Lest there be confusion still: the requirement for God revealing himself is that you be saved. So the issue under consideration moves back to that point: how is it that you are saved.

Zombrex · 14-03-2010 6:06am

antiskeptic wrote: »

And from which toolbox do you suppose to be able to extract the equipment necessary to arrive at the conclusion that murder is wrong (so as to "agree" with God). If not God's toolbox - I mean?

I don't understand what you mean by "toolbox"

Are you suggesting we don't have free will, that our actions are determined either by God (if they are good) or sin (if they are evil)?

Anyway, the point still remains. If I do not know what the voice in my head telling me that murder is wrong is coming from I cannot believe the voice, because believing someone is an act of trust based on your assessment of them, and if I don't know it is God then I cannot consciously trust him.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've nothing but bootstraps to pull your agreement up with - since all core strands of your anti-murder argument will find their source back at God. He's the one who wove your view - you didn't do a thing.

Well hold on. A minute ago you were saying I believe him? What is my "toolbox" when I'm doing that?

Either I make a decision or I don't.

If I don't then it doesn't matter if we are discussing believing someone or simply agreeing with them, neither matters because I'm doing neither.

If I can actually make a decision, if I do have free will, then it is perfectly possible for me to agree with him as it is for me to believe him. Both are decisions I make based on my own assessment.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A Voice speaks. When it speaks to many, the resulting mass-conscience brings about a norm. And this norm will inevitably expand on it's view "murder is wrong" by weaving together argument based on other things revealed by God through conscience (his hatred of pride, selfishness, greed, etc - the motive for murder ofttimes).

This expanded, derivative view doesn't detract from the Voice which generated that societal view in the first place. Nor do societal blips whether major or minor (I'm thinking National Socialism and it's influence on a population)

None of that is relevant to my point. You initially required that we both work under the assumption that it is God who sets consciousness and you now you are spending a large part of the post trying to convince me this is the case. All of the above is some what irrelevant to the point at hand.

The issue at hand is does a non-believer believe God when he speaks to them through their consciousness.

The only logical conclusion, and one you have not done a particularly good job demonstrating otherwise, is that they cannot believe something they don't think exists, because to believe someone is to trust them, and you can't trust something you don't think is real.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As pointed out, when you agree with the voice in your head your supposedly independent assessement is being driven either by the voice in your head or the voices in other peoples head. There is no other source to supply motive power to the notion that murder is wrong.

Again that is not relevant (though you are getting into some what murky suggestion that we don't actually have free will)

The only issue is can I believe someone I don't think exists. Logically, by definition, I can't.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't have to do something to remain precisely where you happen to be, do you? We know that objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by a force.

On the other hand, in order to murder and feel entitled in doing so you have to suppress this force ("murder is wrong") exerted by God on you. Which takes an act of will on your part. Thus;

No act of will required to remain in God's will regarding x
An act of will required to escape God's will regarding x

Again, I'm not following the relevance of this, but since you brought it up there are plenty of things my consciousness tells me that conflict with the Christian notion of God.

The Christian idea for example that God can kill his creations if he so wishes, even going so far as to inflict terrible pain and suffering on them, because he created them, goes against my basic moral conscience that beings have rights and protections not because of who made them but because of what they are. The idea that God created you thus becomes irrelevant to whether or not it is moral to inflict pain on you.

So to be a Christian I would have to consciously go against my conscience, it would require me to do something, to ignore my gut feelings.

I'm sure if I was a Christian I could rationalize this away with some higher theological reasoning about God knows best or suffering is actually good for you, but that again would require me to do something.

Tying in with the other thread, this is a reason I think a lot of non-believers are some what nervous or even offended by Christian beliefs, the idea that you guys either have tried to rationalise this moral issue away with some loop hole theology, or more worrying, you don't have this little moral voice in you saying that this is wrong to begin with and thus don't value life in the same way as the rest of us.

But that is again moving slightly away from the original point, that I cannot believe (and thus trust) in a being I don't believe exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully you'll be dissuaded from that view by the argument which says that all the tools you apply in the matter "murder is wrong" are supplied to you by God.

Not really since that doesn't explain why it is a belief, how I can believe in God when I don't believe he exists.

antiskeptic · 14-03-2010 3:30pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by "toolbox"

Are you suggesting we don't have free will, that our actions are determined either by God (if they are good) or sin (if they are evil)?

Indeed I'm suggesting we don't have freewill. One way to visualise things is to suppose ourselves hanging from a thread. It doesn't take our will to remain suspended there, it takes the strength of the thread. The only wilful action we can take to alter the situation is to cut the thread.

We do good because God exerts influence on us to doing good (via conscience). His exertion is that thread suspending us in the realm of good. So long as the thread isn't cut we'll remain there under that influence and good will be done.

Sin is that which exerts temptation. It tells us "cut the thread, it'll feel great"

Our will can either do nothing. Which is no act of will at all. Or it can do something. The only thing it can do is cut the thread. Good powered by Gods will. Evil powered by our will (with an assist from Sin)

Oops - is that the time. Later Wicknight!

Zombrex · 14-03-2010 4:45pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed I'm suggesting we don't have freewill. One way to visualise things is to suppose ourselves hanging from a thread. It doesn't take our will to remain suspended there, it takes the strength of the thread. The only wilful action we can take to alter the situation is to cut the thread.

But isn't cutting the thread an act of free will?

antiskeptic wrote: »

We do good because God exerts influence on us to doing good (via conscience). His exertion is that thread suspending us in the realm of good. So long as the thread isn't cut we'll remain there under that influence and good will be done.

Sin is that which exerts temptation. It tells us "cut the thread, it'll feel great"

What is happening when our conscience is telling us something contrary to God? Such as the examples above?

For example, if I was living in Hebrew time and I saw two homosexuals being punished by stoning my conscience, just as now, would be screaming "THIS IS WRONG"

To be a good God fearing Jew I would have to actively go against what my conscience is telling me (which in this case means it can't be God)

So is it "sin" in my conscience that tells me stoning homosexuals is wrong?

In which case I have to rebel against my conscience to get to a place where I accept God and thus accept stoning homosexuals is moral

Sam Vimes · 14-03-2010 7:47pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The illustration of your sharing his view on murder (or any other right/wrong) is only intended to illustrate that a person can believe what God 'says' without believing in God. This doesn't mean they are saved - it just means they believe God on this single issue of murder (and we won't have to look far to find examples of things they don't believe him on: sex before marriage being my own personal favorite when I was lost). Once you accept that general principle (believing God without believing in God) you can accept that the same can apply to the specific belief regarding salvation: a person can believe God on that specific, salvific issue - whilst not believing in God. And so they can be saved before they ever believe in God.

That is the overall suggestion. That is the position I'm arguing from: saved by faith (belief) alright - but not belief in God.

Now, before going on to outline the specific issue a person needs to believe God on - in order to be saved - can I confirm that you're clear on this much, this far. And are in agreement with the possibility of the principle I'm outlining (assuming God exists, of course).

Lest there be confusion still: the requirement for God revealing himself is that you be saved. So the issue under consideration moves back to that point: how is it that you are saved.

Just to be clear, are you saying that the criteria for salvation by faith is believing in salvation by faith, and you are saying that it is possible to do this without believing in god, and to illustrate this you gave the example of people believing that murder is wrong without believing in god?
I'm afraid that doesn't work antiskeptic because the concept of salvation by faith is completely dependent on the existence of a god. Without a god there is no one to save you so you cannot possibly believe in salvation by faith without first believing that there is a god there to save you. Again we have circular reasoning.

Murder on the other hand exists independently of a god. I have a desire to avoid myself, my loved ones and my community being murdered. There are millions of very good reasons to think that murder is wrong that go well beyond "because god says so" and even further again beyond "because an old book claiming to be the word of god says so". So your analogy fails I'm afraid. I can no more believe in salvation by faith without believing in god than I can believe in cheese burgers without believing in cheese

Assuming I haven't misunderstood you.....?

antiskeptic · 14-03-2010 8:31pm

Wicknight wrote: »

But isn't cutting the thread an act of free will?

Effectively yes but technically (in an important area to do with salvation being by God and not man, no)

The normal understanding of the term "freewill" suggests that a persons will is positioned in a balanced/neutral/middle position, with equally balanced external influences/attractions placed on both sides of middle. The person then chooses which way to go. It is the will which moves the person to the left or to the right. And the will which is responsible for ending in either of the destinations.

In this other case, cutting the thread is a move in one direction. But not cutting the thread isn't a move which involves the will. If the will does nothing at all then the thread will remain uncut and the person remains where they are suspended.

The persons will is responsible for the direction achieved by cutting the thread. The strength of the thread is responsible for maintaining the person where they are.

What is happening when our conscience is telling us something contrary to God? Such as the examples above?

For example, if I was living in Hebrew time and I saw two homosexuals being punished by stoning my conscience, just as now, would be screaming "THIS IS WRONG"

This is not necessarily so. It would depend on whether or not God's requirment w.r.t. you involved your maintaining of his purpose and plan for the Israelites as bearers of his Messiah (which involved maintaining a certain real/ceremonial purity). Or whether his plan released you from that duty and was focused on your salvation.

Not all killing is murder. And it is God, remember, who convicts the conscience.

So is it "sin" in my conscience that tells me stoning homosexuals is wrong?

"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone". It was the sin-seared consciences of those addressed by Jesus which caused them to melt away.

In your case, it might be a denial of sin which has you consider as you do. "No one sins - therefore no one, not homosexuals, not anybody, deserves stoning" Or it might be that you relativise and consider stoning suitable punishment for certain abominable (to you) crimes.

Most likely is that "thou (who has no right to) shalt not kill" is writ large in your conscience and constrains you. Seeing other men kill, knowing they ought to be equally constrained, causes an outcry and disturbance to that God given sense of yours.

antiskeptic · 14-03-2010 8:41pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you saying that the criteria for salvation by faith is believing in salvation by faith

No. I'm saying that the criterion for salvation by faith is believing God (not in God) on a specific issue. That specific issue isn't the same issue as general cases where people believe God (such as beleving that murder is wrong, whilst not believing in God)

, and you are saying that it is possible to do this without believing in god, and to illustrate this you gave the example of people believing that murder is wrong without believing in god?

Exactly. It is possible to believe God on the specific saving issue (without believing in him) just as it is possible to believe him in the general issues (without believing in him)

I'm afraid that doesn't work antiskeptic because the concept of salvation by faith is completely dependent on the existence of a god. Without a god there is no one to save you so you cannot possibly believe in salvation by faith without first believing that there is a god there to save you. Again we have circular reasoning.

The misunderstanding is brought out up top I think. You don't have to believe in "salvation by faith". You have to believe God on the specific issue which satisfies his criterion for saving you.

Assuming I haven't misunderstood you.....?

I think you're confusing the title given to the mechanism by which man is saved with the belief/faith a man needs to have in order that he be saved by that mechanism. Put it this way; suppose the specific issue you need to believe in order to be saved is x

Sam believes/has faith that x is the case - but Sam doesn't believe in God
Sam believing/having faith that x is the case means he has satisfied Gods criterion for saving Sam
God saves Sam
Sam has been saved by faith (that x is the case)
Sam now saved has God demonstrate his existance to Sam in no uncertain terms
Sam now believes in Gods existance.

Zombrex · 14-03-2010 9:24pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Effectively yes but technically (in an important area to do with salvation being by God and not man, no)

The normal understanding of the term "freewill" suggests that a persons will is positioned in a balanced/neutral/middle position, with equally balanced external influences/attractions placed on both sides of middle. The person then chooses which way to go. It is the will which moves the person to the left or to the right. And the will which is responsible for ending in either of the destinations.

In this other case, cutting the thread is a move in one direction. But not cutting the thread isn't a move which involves the will. If the will does nothing at all then the thread will remain uncut and the person remains where they are suspended.

The persons will is responsible for the direction achieved by cutting the thread. The strength of the thread is responsible for maintaining the person where they are.

Ok ... but none of that means there isn't free will. I either cut the thread or I don't, that is a choice.

I either agree with the voice in my head saying don't bash that old lady to death for her hand bag or I don't.

Getting back to the original point, I'm still not believing the voice in my head. I'm merely agreeing with it or not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is not necessarily so.

I'm pretty sure it would be.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would depend on whether or not God's requirment w.r.t. you involved your maintaining of his purpose and plan for the Israelites as bearers of his Messiah (which involved maintaining a certain real/ceremonial purity). Or whether his plan released you from that duty and was focused on your salvation.

I'm not quite following this.

Are you suggesting that if I lived back then my conscience would not think stoning homosexuals was wrong as it does now because God would have changed what my conscience was telling me?

That seems some what silly and is quite easily disputed by history given that there were plenty of people around back then who argued moral positions that would run contrary to God's position. The Greeks used to regularly stone people (because God was telling them through their conscience this was ok?) which provoked some Greek writers to argue against the practice on moral grounds.

If the time period is causing issue I could pick something that still is supposed to hold in modern times which my conscience says is wrong. Homosexuality is still considered morally wrong by modern Christians.

My conscience conflicts with this idea, and thus to be a Christian I would have to rebel against my conscience.

Which provides the question what is my "conscience" when it is providing guidance that is contrary to what the Bible claims is God's views on these matters?

Do I trust my conscience or do I trust the Bible?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not all killing is murder. And it is God, remember, who convicts the conscience.

But that is what I'm asking.

If my conscience is telling me this is wrong, and that view conflicts with God, then what is motivating my conscience to say this?

The idea that it would be sin seems a little implausible, since sin is supposed to be all about the selfish desires.

It is not particularly selfish to think stoning people to death is a bad idea, or that there is nothing wrong with a loving homosexual couple being a couple.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In your case, it might be a denial of sin which has you consider as you do. "No one sins - therefore no one, not homosexuals, not anybody, deserves stoning" Or it might be that you relativise and consider stoning suitable punishment for certain abominable (to you) crimes.

But those are rationalities. I'm talking about my conscience.

The bit inside that would make you run over and stop a stoning without thinking rationally about what you are doing irrespective of any argument to justification

You are talking about the rationalities required to circumvent this.

I could rationally argue down my conscience, say that the Bible teaches us that sin exists, the Bible teaches us that God is just, the Bible teaches us that homosexual acts are an abomination, the Bible teaches us that stoning is an acceptable punishment for sin.

All these things could rationalise away my conscience telling me this is wrong, as I'm sure a lot of Christians and Jews do.

But the conscience is still screaming THIS IS WRONG, I'm simply choosing to ignore this based on a theological argument.

The scary thing of course for someone like me is people who don't have this conscience screaming at them at all.

But that isn't what my conscience says.

And, tying in some what with the other thread, if that is genuinely what some theists have in their conscience, that troubles people like myself.

antiskeptic · 14-03-2010 10:19pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok ... but none of that means there isn't free will. I either cut the thread or I don't, that is a choice.

Then you've missed the distinction. If the same result occurs with no act of will as with an supposed act of will then Ockhams Razor says....

Let's face it, a will suspended by a thread not choosing anything hangs just as well as a will suspended by a thread that decides not to cut the thread.

Getting back to the original point, I'm still not believing the voice in my head. I'm merely agreeing with it or not.

Which returns me to the toolbox. That you "agree with" suggests you have argument elsewhere sourced. And find that these arguments, elsewhere sourced, happen to align with the Voices argument. Agreement ensues. You (with your elsewhere sourced viewpoint - and the Voice.

But where did these other arguments come from? What is their source (if not ultimately, finitely regressively the Voices)?

I'm pretty sure it would be.

You can't even be close to being sure. You're not a Hebrew living then.

I'm not quite following this.

Are you suggesting that if I lived back then my conscience would not think stoning homosexuals was wrong as it does now because God would have changed what my conscience was telling me?

That seems some what silly and is quite easily disputed by history given that there were plenty of people around back then who argued moral positions that would run contrary to God's position. The Greeks used to regularly stone people (because God was telling them through their conscience this was ok?) which provoked some Greek writers to argue against the practice on moral grounds.

I have no reason to suppose that the Israelites who slew the Midianites were troubled by a guilty conscience - God afterall being the trigger pulling agent. Can you first tell me who the trigger pulling agent is in the case of these homosexuals being stoned. Because it would assist in determining which way your conscience will be leaning back then

If the time period is causing issue I could pick something that still is supposed to hold in modern times which my conscience says is wrong. Homosexuality is still considered morally wrong by modern Christians.

My conscience conflicts with this idea, and thus to be a Christian I would have to rebel against my conscience.

Which provides the question what is my "conscience" when it is providing guidance that is contrary to what the Bible claims is God's views on these matters?

Do I trust my conscience or do I trust the Bible?

Why not a cocktail? The underlying viewpoints of God mingled with your own sinful/ignorance-of-God-rationale-ignorant ways.

God favours no sinner over another. All men are born equal in his sight. SNAP!! You see so too.

God has constraints and limits on what acceptable sexual behaviour is. SNAP!! So do you. You just don't draw the line in the same place as him. Due to a mixture of sinfulness (you wouldn't perhaps want God to cramp your own style never mind the homosexual's) and ignorance as to God's rationale regarding the place of sex in the lives of humans.

But that is what I'm asking.

If my conscience is telling me this is wrong, and that view conflicts with God, then what is motivating my conscience to say this?

The idea that it would be sin seems a little implausible, since sin is supposed to be all about the selfish desires.

As I say: a mix (God interfering with anyones sexual freedom means he may well interfere with your freedom). Plus misguided "laissez-faire-ism" as a result of not understanding the place of sex in God's economy.

But those are rationalities. I'm talking about my conscience.

The bit inside that would make you run over and stop a stoning without thinking rationally about what you are doing irrespective of any argument to justification

You are talking about the rationalities required to circumvent this.

I could rationally argue down my conscience, say that the Bible teaches us that sin exists, the Bible teaches us that God is just, the Bible teaches us that homosexual acts are an abomination, the Bible teaches us that stoning is an acceptable punishment for sin.

All these things could rationalise away my conscience telling me this is wrong, as I'm sure a lot of Christians and Jews do.

But the conscience is still screaming THIS IS WRONG, I'm simply choosing to ignore this based on a theological argument.

The scary thing of course for someone like me is people who don't have this conscience screaming at them at all.

But that isn't what my conscience says.

And, tying in some what with the other thread, if that is genuinely what some theists have in their conscience, that troubles people like myself.

The overall trouble here in conflation between two themes.

The one theme; where man acts under Gods instruction for a specific time and purpose (namely, the Israelite people as a chosen people for a chosen purpose: a physical "womb"/barrier against sinfulness through which the Messiah would be "delivered" into the world. Consider how specifically this is followed through on in the virgin birth.

And the other one (operating at all times then and now) in which God deals with man directly in His enquiring into a mans heart regarding the things/attributes/nature of God. To find out whether a man loves what God represents or whether he hates what God represents.

Whilst you might be confused about the themes operable - supposing the wrath of God against sinfulness to be all that God stands for, God is not confused about where your heart lies. If your heart is in the right place (even if that means shaking your fist at a straw-god) then God sees that.

Sam Vimes · 15-03-2010 12:40am

antiskeptic wrote: »

No. I'm saying that the criterion for salvation by faith is believing God (not in God) on a specific issue. That specific issue isn't the same issue as general cases where people believe God (such as beleving that murder is wrong, whilst not believing in God)

Exactly. It is possible to believe God on the specific saving issue (without believing in him) just as it is possible to believe him in the general issues (without believing in him)

The misunderstanding is brought out up top I think. You don't have to believe in "salvation by faith". You have to believe God on the specific issue which satisfies his criterion for saving you.

I think you're confusing the title given to the mechanism by which man is saved with the belief/faith a man needs to have in order that he be saved by that mechanism. Put it this way; suppose the specific issue you need to believe in order to be saved is x

Sam believes/has faith that x is the case - but Sam doesn't believe in God
Sam believing/having faith that x is the case means he has satisfied Gods criterion for saving Sam
God saves Sam
Sam has been saved by faith (that x is the case)
Sam now saved has God demonstrate his existance to Sam in no uncertain terms
Sam now believes in Gods existance.

The question I am asking you is: What is this X that I must believe before god will decide that I am worthy of salvation and demonstrate his existence to me?

PDN · 15-03-2010 2:39am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The question I am asking you is: What is this X that I must believe before god will decide that I am worthy of salvation and demonstrate his existence to me?

If you're wanting God to deem you worthy of salvation then you're going to have a very long wait indeed.

Sam Vimes · 15-03-2010 10:29am

PDN wrote: »

If you're wanting God to deem you worthy of salvation then you're going to have a very long wait indeed.

good man, constructive and pleasant as always.

Zombrex · 15-03-2010 11:23am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then you've missed the distinction. If the same result occurs with no act of will as with an supposed act of will then Ockhams Razor says....

Let's face it, a will suspended by a thread not choosing anything hangs just as well as a will suspended by a thread that decides not to cut the thread.

But now you are switching to discussing out comes. The choice is still there, the free will. It will simply result in the same out come as if I did nothing.

Think of it this way, I'm on a speeding train and I think Will I jump off or not. That is a choice. I decide not to jump of and the train crashes and I'm thrown into a tree

Now if I was unconscious I would have done nothing and the train would have crashed and I would have ended up in the tree.

Same out come. But I don't think anyone would say that in the first instance I didn't have a choice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which returns me to the toolbox. That you "agree with" suggests you have argument elsewhere sourced. And find that these arguments, elsewhere sourced, happen to align with the Voices argument. Agreement ensues. You (with your elsewhere sourced viewpoint - and the Voice.

But where did these other arguments come from? What is their source (if not ultimately, finitely regressively the Voices)?

Me obviously.

Otherwise I'm just a puppet. What you seem to be suggesting is that if I choose God I'm actually being controlled by God and if I choose evil I'm being controlled by sin or Satan or what ever.

In which case free will evaporates. We are all just puppets controlled by different strings.

It makes the whole concept of punishment pointless. Why does God punish me for sinning when I don't choose to (since my "toolbox" comes from Satan) or reward me for not sinning when I don't choose to either.

See, that doesn't work even by Christian standards.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can't even be close to being sure. You're not a Hebrew living then.

Doesn't that hold for you as well?

What I can be sure that there were people back then, before Jesus and the New Covenent, who viewed stoning as immoral.

I've no reason, and nor have you presented on theologically or otherwise, to believe that I wouldn't be the same back then as I am now.

I've no issue with the Israelites seeing no trouble with killing or stoning, but the Israelites don't seem particularly moral people in my view.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why not a cocktail? The underlying viewpoints of God mingled with your own sinful/ignorance-of-God-rationale-ignorant ways.

It seems odd though that my sinful conscience would be telling me to stop suffering in contrast to God ordering suffering?

antiskeptic wrote: »

God has constraints and limits on what acceptable sexual behaviour is. SNAP!! So do you. You just don't draw the line in the same place as him.

Nor do I punish those who cross this line as he does.

Again it seems out that sin would cause more forgiveness and understand, rather than less forgiveness and understand.

What purpose does that server? Satan wants us all to be nicer to each other?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Due to a mixture of sinfulness (you wouldn't perhaps want God to cramp your own style never mind the homosexual's)

I wish

I know Catholic priests who have more sex than me.

It is interesting though that homosexuality can't be discussed really with you guys without it becoming a subconscious analogy for promiscuity.

Sort of shows where your head is at.

antiskeptic wrote: »

and ignorance as to God's rationale regarding the place of sex in the lives of humans.

Again rationale doesn't come into it though, we are talking about our conscience.

I can rationalize away my conscience with logic such as God knows better.

But that doesn't explain why my conscience is saying what it is saying in the first place.

Nor does sin really explain that either. Why would sin want me not to stone to death a homosexual?

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say: a mix (God interfering with anyones sexual freedom means he may well interfere with your freedom). Plus misguided "laissez-faire-ism" as a result of not understanding the place of sex in God's economy.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst you might be confused about the themes operable - supposing the wrath of God against sinfulness to be all that God stands for, God is not confused about where your heart lies. If your heart is in the right place (even if that means shaking your fist at a straw-god) then God sees that.

That seems some what of a cop out

How are you defining "right place"

antiskeptic · 15-03-2010 11:43am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The question I am asking you is: What is this X that I must believe before god will decide that I am worthy of salvation and demonstrate his existence to me?

As PDN says, he won't conclude your worthy of salvation, he'll conclude his efforts were sufficient to haul you into the position of fulfilling his criterion for saving you.

Before we begin on x there's a few things we need to bear in mind (for the purposes of discussion)

1) God exists and is the ultimate objective reality

2) Sin exists, is objectively rotten smelling whether we agree it smells rotten (as we might with murder/rape) or not (eg: sex outside wedlock)

3) You're a sinner - which means there is a objective smell of sin eminating from your. Objectively - despite your subjective notion that you smell fine (or fine enough).

4) The details that go to make up X will vary according to the individual case and it is not possible to give a single detailed example that fits the individual circumstances of all people. What follows is the general case which can be moulded to suit each individuals case.

The criterion that a man must fulfill in order that God applies salvation to him is made up of three componants:

a) a man must be convinced/believe intensely that he is a sinner

b) he must also be convinced/believe intensely that he falls short of righteousness

c) and he must be convinced/believe intensely that righteousness is precious, essential to his very existance.

Expanding a)
A man convinced that he is a sinner doesn't need to believe that God/sin exists. Rather, the conviction of sin will involve exposure to the objective fact of a mans rotten 'smell' - something which has hitherto been prevented by the mans masking of his smell (using self-justification/denial of objective truths/etc). The fact that the man now smells himself as he actually is what convinces him of his rotteness. It's a completely experiential thing. There is no need for him to attach the name "sin" to the smell in order to satisfy this particular piece of the criterion of salvation.

Expanding b)
A man must also be convinced that this state he is in isn't the way it is supposed to be. A pig rooting in **** operates in it's natural environment and shouldn't consider anything up with his smelling the way he does. A man rooting in sin's **** is a different case. At the same time as he is waking up to the stench of his actions/thoughts/motivations he need be waking up to the fact that this state is an abominable state to be in. It is not right(eous).

Expanding c)
Finally, panic should be setting in. The man is realising the stench which he gives off (even if the world; his friends & family can't see his ugly heart) can't be got rid of by him. He'll very likely have tried his best to escape the pit he is in. He will no doubt have tried to stop doing whatever it is he is doing that contributes to the smell so. And no doubt will have failed again ..and again. Indeed, he may, like me, have had some earlier success only to find himself years later sliding back into the same old pits. The most precious thing in this mans sight is to be clean, to escape his own self. To be free of the pollution that stalks his mind no matter how hard he tries to suppress it and rid himself of it.

When he is at his very wits end. When there is no stone that has been left unturned in the attempt to escape. When there is absolutely no people/medicines/self-help books/therapists/distractions/pit left to escape into, when there is no shope left, this man is faced with but two logical options. He can commit suicide* to find release. Or he can turn to an unbelieved in God - the only other logical possibility possible who can deal with this mans situation - and ask for help. Desperation has reached such levels that there is nothing left preventing the man asking such a God. This man is past being hindered by godless philosophies - for godless philosophies cannot help him.

God, having engineered this situation is, of course, awaiting this very point in time. Indeed, he has longed for this day himself. He will of course respond to the request which has been squeezed out of this man - by God. For the mans request is the summation of his believing all of the above. It is his signature on a 'document' entitled.

"I believe God (but not in God)"

On a technical/legal front, his believing God and subsequent request form a formal surrender of the mans independent-of-God life. For man was designed with the intention that he live in dependent relationship with his Creator - the relationship intended being modelled on Father & Child.

This is the only criterion God has of man in order that man be saved: a man surrendering his rebellion. All of which is understandable: a sovereign God cannot permit independent sinful rebels to run riot in his holy realm. Not for all eternity.

Sam Vimes · 15-03-2010 12:07pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

As PDN says, he won't conclude your worthy of salvation, he'll conclude his efforts were sufficient to haul you into the position of fulfilling his criterion for saving you.

Before we begin on x there's a few things we need to bear in mind (for the purposes of discussion)

1) God exists and is the ultimate objective reality

2) Sin exists, is objectively rotten smelling whether we agree it smells rotten (as we might with murder/rape) or not (eg: sex outside wedlock)

3) You're a sinner - which means there is a objective smell of sin eminating from your. Objectively - despite your subjective notion that you smell fine (or fine enough).

4) The details that go to make up X will vary according to the individual case and it is not possible to give a single detailed example that fits the individual circumstances of all people. What follows is the general case which can be moulded to suit each individuals case.

The criterion that a man must fulfill in order that God applies salvation to him is made up of three componants:

a) a man must be convinced/believe intensely that he is a sinner

b) he must also be convinced/believe intensely that he falls short of righteousness

c) and he must be convinced/believe intensely that righteousness is precious, essential to his very existance.

Expanding a)
A man convinced that he is a sinner doesn't need to believe that God/sin exists. Rather, the conviction of sin will involve exposure to the objective fact of a mans rotten 'smell' - something which has hitherto been prevented by the mans masking of his smell (using self-justification/denial of objective truths/etc). The fact that the man now smells himself as he actually is what convinces him of his rotteness. It's a completely experiential thing. There is no need for him to attach the name "sin" to the smell in order to satisfy this particular piece of the criterion of salvation.

I try to live my life as best I can but I know that I have hurt people in my life and that I will most likely do so again, just like every other human being. So I meet criterion A.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Expanding b)
A man must also be convinced that this state he is in isn't the way it is supposed to be. A pig rooting in **** operates in it's natural environment and shouldn't consider anything up with his smelling the way he does. A man rooting in sin's **** is a different case. At the same time as he is waking up to the stench of his actions/thoughts/motivations he need be waking up to the fact that this state is an abominable state to be in. It is not right(eous).

You say that we are “supposed to be” a certain way. How can that be unless there is an intelligence who has defined a way that we are “supposed to be”?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Expanding c)
Finally, panic should be setting in. The man is realising the stench which he gives off (even if the world; his friends & family can't see his ugly heart) can't be got rid of by him. He'll very likely have tried his best to escape the pit he is in. He will no doubt have tried to stop doing whatever it is he is doing that contributes to the smell so. And no doubt will have failed again ..and again. Indeed, he may, like me, have had some earlier success only to find himself years later sliding back into the same old pits. The most precious thing in this mans sight is to be clean, to escape his own self. To be free of the pollution that stalks his mind no matter how hard he tries to suppress it and rid himself of it.

When he is at his very wits end. When there is no stone that has been left unturned in the attempt to escape. When there is absolutely no people/medicines/self-help books/therapists/distractions/pit left to escape into, when there is no shope left, this man is faced with but two logical options. He can commit suicide* to find release. Or he can turn to an unbelieved in God - the only other logical possibility possible who can deal with this mans situation - and ask for help. Desperation has reached such levels that there is nothing left preventing the man asking such a God. This man is past being hindered by godless philosophies - for godless philosophies cannot help him.

God, having engineered this situation is, of course, awaiting this very point in time. Indeed, he has longed for this day himself. He will of course respond to the request which has been squeezed out of this man - by God. For the mans request is the summation of his believing all of the above. It is his signature on a 'document' entitled.

Sorry mate but that’s the mantra of pretty much every cult the world has ever seen. They all try to convince you that there’s something inherently wrong with you that you are powerless to fix yourself and that they have the solution. For every person who found their solution in Christianity there’s another who found theirs in scientology or the Jehovah’s witnesses or any one you care to name.

Take a look at tactic 5 on this list: http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html

TACTIC 5: Create a sense of powerlessness by subjecting the person to intense and frequent actions and situations which undermine the person's confidence in himself and his judgment.

So what makes your one any different? With a 1001 groups telling me that I’m worthless and they can fix me, why should I pay any more heed to you than to the scientologists?

antiskeptic · 15-03-2010 12:51pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I try to live my life as best I can but I know that I have hurt people in my life and that I will most likely do so again, just like every other human being. So I meet criterion A.

You smell a stench of rotteness eminating from the core of your being? Your words don't really bring out the full sense of that .. to be honest.

You say that we are “supposed to be” a certain way. How can that be unless there is an intelligence who has defined a way that we are “supposed to be”?

I'm saying the conviction that there is something seriously wrong dawns on a man who is fulfilling God's criterion. Where the man goes with this isn't the issue. He might consider his rotten acts the result of a psychological problem. He might consider it the result of an addiction. He need not conclude God.

Sorry mate but that’s the mantra of pretty much every cult the world has ever seen. They all try to convince you that there’s something inherently wrong with you that you are powerless to fix yourself and that they have the solution. For every person who found their solution in Christianity there’s another who found theirs in scientology or the Jehovah’s witnesses or any one you care to name.

Indeed. But there's one striking difference in Christianity...

So what makes your one any different? With a 1001 groups telling me that I’m worthless and they can fix me, why should I pay any more heed to your book than to dianetics?

I not telling you that you need to pay heed. I'm merely answering your questions on the mechanics of Gods salvation. You don't need to do a thing as such - for unbeknownst to you, God is currently active with his mechanism of salvation in your individual case. Clearly, things haven't reached the kind of climax being described in these last posts regarding your good self. Perhaps they never will with you (we can talk about how one evades salvation too if you like). But active in the attempt to save, God is...whether you like this or not, whether you're aware of this or not.

Salvation is from God, Sam. You don't need to do a thing. And whatever you do do by way of playing a part will be the result of his machinations, his actions, his prodding, his stimulus. For example (and assuming what I say is true for the moment): you have just read about the workings of the gospel of God from a representitive of God tasked with telling you. In reading so, you've have been exposed to a description about your objective state. Truth about you and your position before God is now wending itself around in your (un)consciousness. And Gods statement about the effect of truth is that it tends towards setting people free (from a lie)

Consider it a worm. A truth worm. Burying away in there somewhere. Hopefully contributing towards setting you free one day. Do let me know if ever.. okay?

Zombrex · 15-03-2010 12:59pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Salvation is from God, Sam. You don't need to do a thing.

I think many many Christians claim otherwise and like to quote Jesus in support of this.

This is another, albet off topic, problem with Christianity. Talk to 10 different Christians and you will get 10 different versions of Christianity.

antiskeptic · 15-03-2010 1:05pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I think many many Christians claim otherwise and like to quote Jesus in support of this.

That's the trouble with quotes. Hell, you can even arrive at Roman Catholicism Is True by quoting Jesus.

This is another, albet off topic, problem with Christianity. Talk to 10 different Christians and you will get 10 different versions of Christianity.

Which is no problem for the mechanism of salvation - in 'my' version of Christianity at least.

(I'll try get to your posts soon - I wrote a long reply to one in the Why thread and it disappeared into the ether. Knocks the wind out of your sails that

)

Zombrex · 15-03-2010 1:10pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is no problem for the mechanism of salvation - in 'my' version of Christianity at least.

Yeah but in your version of Christianity we seem to not have to do anything, nor can you do anything.

The problem with that is that over here (points in that direction) are a lot of Christians screaming that you do have to do something. You have to believe in Jesus (the conscious type of believing, not simply agreeing unconsciously)

Therefore being an atheist seems the best course of action. :pac:

antiskeptic · 15-03-2010 1:21pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that is that over here (points in that direction) are a lot of Christians screaming that you do have to do something. You have to believe in Jesus (the conscious type of believing, not simply agreeing unconsciously)

I suppose I'd see believing in Jesus consciously in much the same way as I see believing in God's existance consciously. It's a post-salvation occurance in both cases. A consequence of having been saved - not a cause of being saved in the first place.

So it wouldn't be incorrect to say you have to believe in Jesus. You do - in the sense of it being a marker (or identifying label) .. of the saved.

Therefore being an atheist seems the best course of action. :pac:

Not a problem for God's mechanism of salvation either.

Zombrex · 15-03-2010 3:12pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suppose I'd see believing in Jesus consciously in much the same way as I see believing in God's existance consciously. It's a post-salvation occurance in both cases. A consequence of having been saved - not a cause of being saved in the first place.

So it wouldn't be incorrect to say you have to believe in Jesus. You do - in the sense of it being a marker (or identifying label) .. of the saved.

That though would seem not to be a particularly common Christian interpretation of the Bible.

The difficulty for a non-believer is determining which of you is right, if any of you are.

Simply telling me you are because you believe you are is some what pointless, since that is what everyone else says as well.

If I believe you I obviously don't need to do anything, I just sit back and wait to see if God decides to save me.

But then doing that means I don't do what the others are telling me to do, and if they are correct I end up in a lake of fire for eternity (and under some interpretations so do you).

Sam Vimes · 15-03-2010 3:19pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You smell a stench of rotteness eminating from the core of your being? Your words don't really bring out the full sense of that .. to be honest.

No I don't sense a stench of rottenness emanating from the core of my being, I try to do good whenever I can but I acknowledge that human beings are weak and so don't do good all the time. We’re not absolutely good but neither are we absolutely bad.

And to be honest the idea of a god who would create living beings with a stench of rottenness emanating from the core of their being just to see if they notice so he can punish the ones who don't doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm saying the conviction that there is something seriously wrong dawns on a man who is fulfilling God's criterion. Where the man goes with this isn't the issue. He might consider his rotten acts the result of a psychological problem. He might consider it the result of an addiction. He need not conclude God.

Indeed. But there's one striking difference in Christianity...

I not telling you that you need to pay heed. I'm merely answering your questions on the mechanics of Gods salvation. You don't need to do a thing as such - for unbeknownst to you, God is currently active with his mechanism of salvation in your individual case. Clearly, things haven't reached the kind of climax being described in these last posts regarding your good self. Perhaps they never will with you (we can talk about how one evades salvation too if you like). But active in the attempt to save, God is...whether you like this or not, whether you're aware of this or not.

Salvation is from God, Sam. You don't need to do a thing. And whatever you do do by way of playing a part will be the result of his machinations, his actions, his prodding, his stimulus. For example (and assuming what I say is true for the moment): you have just read about the workings of the gospel of God from a representitive of God tasked with telling you. In reading so, you've have been exposed to a description about your objective state. Truth about you and your position before God is now wending itself around in your (un)consciousness. And Gods statement about the effect of truth is that it tends towards setting people free (from a lie)

Consider it a worm. A truth worm. Burying away in there somewhere. Hopefully contributing towards setting you free one day. Do let me know if ever.. okay?

What you've told me so far is that humans are flawed beings, which when you boil it right down means that we feel compelled to do things that hurt others even though on another level we don't want to. You won't get any argument from me on that point, the evidence is all around us and plain to see, humans are flawed and weak. You believe that we're creations of a perfect being but I think that our bodies and minds are the product of a billion years of blind and unintelligent evolution, a heartless process that strips away the weak and leaves only those who survived the best. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that we aren't at each other's throats 24 hours a day is, for want of a better word, a miracle. According to you this acknowledgement of inherent and unavoidable imperfection should be enough for god to reveal himself to me but I'm still waiting. Do I have to think that we're more flawed than I currently do?

I'm also very aware of the fact that there are millions of people and organisations in the world who prey on people by making them feel worthless and claiming that they have the solution and to be honest what you’re saying sounds exactly the same as the mantra of every cult that has ever brainwashed someone. You seem to be suggesting that when you're at your lowest, when you feel totally worthless, when you feel as if there's a smell of rottenness emanating from your core and this has you panicked and desperate, that this is the time when god reveals himself to you but history would seem to suggest that this is not the case. Far from enabling you to see the truth clearly, this panicked and desperate state makes people search for answers anywhere they can find them and this is evidenced by the fact that people find their answers in all manner of different ideologies, cults and religions and are not drawn to any one particular branch of one particular faith as would be expected if one were true. This is why one of the main tactics of cults is to bring you to this state, it makes you far more succeptible to their influence than you otherwise would be. What you're telling me is that in order to have the truth revealed to me I have to arrive at a state where I'm inclined to believe anything anyone tells me.

Many of these organizations have been able to convince millions, even billions of people that they are the ones who have the truth so it is quite clear that human beings aren’t nearly as good at determining truth as they think they are. You say that there is one striking difference with Christianity but that doesn’t appear to be the case other than it’s the particular one that convinced you. Millions have felt what they thought was the “truth worm” but which actually wasn’t so in a world where the vast majority of people in the world believe in a false god with the same strength that you believe in your god, how can I possibly know that what I think is the “truth worm” is actually the truth worm and not the false truth worm that all those others felt? Really the thing stopping me from picking the “true” religion is not arrogance or pride or a refusal to acknowledge my flawed nature, it’s that I acknowledge that I am too flawed to possibly be able to reliably determine the difference between a true religion and a false one, which is why I defer to externally verifiable evidence. You talk as if the way to salvation is through total humility but it seems to me that I have to decide that I'm able to determine truth where billions of others have failed before I can be saved.

antiskeptic · 15-03-2010 3:35pm

Wicknight wrote: »

That though would seem not to be a particularly common Christian interpretation of the Bible.

I dunno. When it comes to the detail of salvation mechanics then there isn't really a common view - that I can see.

You've the Calvinist version - where God simply picks this one and not that one - without any criterion involving the individual informing his choice. Clearly, believing in Christ would be as I suggest it is in that case - a consequence not cause of salvation. That said, the Calvinist view stumbles over all the assumptions it has to make along the way .. and collapses mechanically as a result.

Another view is the Arminian view which says that salvation is indeed by grace alone - but then has man choosing for God by a convoluted form of 'prevenient grace' which renders mans choice for God not mans choice for God. I haven't gotten my head around that one tbh.

The most common form you'll hear on forums like this appears to require the unbeliever to make a leap of blind faith which stumbles over the obvious objection of "why this one and not the 1001 others".

The difficulty for a non-believer is determining which of you is right, if any of you are.

Simply telling me you are because you believe you are is some what pointless, since that is what everyone else says as well.

This isn't something I'd do.

As I've probably mentioned a few times, I'm not of the opinion that anyone can be convinced by arguments presented. Rather, I see argumentation as a way of delivering the gospel message (in Trojan Horse fashion) to the lost in the context of a forum which centres around "intellectual discussion".

If I believe you I obviously don't need to do anything, I just sit back and wait to see if God decides to save me.

Don't think you won't be intimately involved in the process. It's God's job to attempt to convince you. You however, are in a position to express your will in the single direction it's able to express itself in: rejection and refusal to be brought to the point of being convinced. This too can be achieved without believing in God.

Thus:

If saved God gets the credit (for you were saved by his grace alone). He did all the work,

If lost you get all the credit. It was your refusal that prevented arrival at the one thing that could save you. Conviction about your rotten state before God.

But then doing that means I don't do what the others are telling me to do, and if they are correct I end up in a lake of fire for eternity (and under some interpretations so do you).

Well, it appears that the other systems can be logically dispensed with before a fair (as per general view on fairness). You could hardly expect a fair God to expect you to believe in something so wild and for which the evidence was other than compelling.

Leaving you with mine. Which is fair on you.

Zombrex · 15-03-2010 4:05pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

This isn't something I'd do.

As I've probably mentioned a few times, I'm not of the opinion that anyone can be convinced by arguments presented. Rather, I see argumentation as a way of delivering the gospel message (in Trojan Horse fashion) to the lost in the context of a forum which centres around "intellectual discussion".

But what purpose does that provide if it doesn't matter if I believe in God or don't choose to be saved?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't think you won't be intimately involved in the process. It's God's job to attempt to convince you.

Convince me how?

Weren't you saying earlier that God simply rearranges my brain?

Back to the original question, how do I know it is God trying to convince me, as opposed to sin or Satan.

My conscience tells me something, it seems the only way to tell if it is God's voice or Satan's voice is comparing it with the Bible.

Which becomes some what circular since how do we know the Bible is trust worthy?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Well, it appears that the other systems can be logically dispensed with before a fair (as per general view on fairness). You could hardly expect a fair God to expect you to believe in something so wild and for which the evidence was other than compelling.

That is judging God and assuming to know better though. Who is to say God wouldn't expect me to believe in something so wild and for which the evidence was other than compelling.

If that was the case I would say your version of God doesn't exist either.

And we know how I get into trouble when I start saying things like that.

Zombrex · 16-03-2010 11:13am

I notice you said in the other thread (which I didn't want to derail) that atheit beliefs sustain unbelief.

How does that tie in with all this.

Surely I'm not sustaining my unbelief? God has simply not converted me yet?

antiskeptic · 16-03-2010 11:35am

Wicknight wrote: »

But what purpose does that provide if it doesn't matter if I believe in God or don't choose to be saved?

As mentioned, your sinful-will-when-active can operate in only one direction and that direction is contra-God. So, if you consider God's influence in attempting to draw you to him as a his magnet to your iron, then the only thing preventing your arrival at him finally, is the effort your will expends in resisting his attractive force.

Expend enough effort for long enough and you'll succeed in escaping him. All you need is to activate your will long enough and hard enough. Which is wilful - which means the destination chosen is chosen for.

It might help to summarise by saying: "all people will be saved except those who exercise their will sufficiently to achieve escape"

Whilst not needing to believe in God to reach salvation, you do need to be brought to the resting place of believing God (consider that occurance as you being finally stuck to his magnet

). Which is where the gospel comes in. Consider it as part of magnetic mechanism (which isn't attempting to operate through intellectualism - even though the Trojan Horse for it's delivery happens to be intellectual discussion. Trojan Horses for courses

).

Convince me how?

Weren't you saying earlier that God simply rearranges my brain?

Consider the ingredients (which involves maintaining belief for the sake of discussion):

1) God exists and is working towards saving you if you'll have that.

2) Objective Truth is placed in your head (by reading eg: me). "You are a sinner and this means you smell objectively rotten". That truth is gone in and that can't be helped. That you don't believe it's objective at the moment doesn't alter it being so.

3) You have sin aplenty on your account. Sin is objectively rotten - but you can't smell it because you have a sinful nature which works to suppress and deny wrong doing. Thus is avoided your having to face the full extent of the smell eminating from your thoughts/actions/motivations. You'd probably admit to being a little bit 'past your best-before-date' in some areas of activity - you'd accept you do things you shouldn't at times, in other words. But you'd deny that you stink to high heaven.

That's suppression (which you don't fully consciously realise your doing. It's not necessary that you do fully realise it)

4) On suppression. Suppression is a word that conjures up the idea of applying a force to subdue. For instance, we need to apply a force to a childs football in order to keep it below the surface of the water in a swimming pool. We suppress the balls 'desire' to float in other words. Similarily, God's light works on sin to bring it to the surface and we apply suppressive effort to prevent that happening. We do evil deeds in (literal) darkness in order to prevent them being exposed by the (literal) light

It is important to realise that the suppressive force required to keep our sin out of our (and everyone elses) sight is constant and permanent. Once we sin and decide to suppress that sin then, like a childs football in a swimming pool, we need to maintain the suppressive force for as long as we want the sin suppressed.

And so the effort to suppress increases day by day, year by year. It being our will that applies the effort. Suppression by act of will: bare-faced denial, self-justification, bending truth, evasion, misdirection, letting ourself off the hook, etc.

5) You ask how God convinces you? Well consider all the above. Pressure building up and up. Suppression building up and up in step with that. God is the one that maintains the pressure. You're the one that maintains the suppression. Either your will gives or your will won't.

If it does then the walls containing the pressure rupture and the pressure releases with explosive force. The objectivity of your rotteness breaks to the surface of your consciousness in an overwhelming release that brings you to your knees. You are convinced because you now have all the objective evidence you need to be convinced.

If it doesn't? Well you maintain suppression to the very end. And have all revealed anyway at Judgement. Your will wins - in that it has it's own way finally.

Back to the original question, how do I know it is God trying to convince me, as opposed to sin or Satan.

You don't. And what you think isn't relevant to the effective operation of the mechanism of salvation in your case

My conscience tells me something, it seems the only way to tell if it is God's voice or Satan's voice is comparing it with the Bible.

Which becomes some what circular since how do we know the Bible is trust worthy?

Again, not relevant to the mechanism of salvations operation. There is no reliance on your conscious judgment. There is merely objective truth and your response to it (whether you believe in objective truth or not being irrelevant)

That is judging God and assuming to know better though. Who is to say God wouldn't expect me to believe in something so wild and for which the evidence was other than compelling.

If that was the case I would say your version of God doesn't exist either.

And we know how I get into trouble when I start saying things like that.

It's not judging God. It's utilising the general view on what constitutes fair dealing and measuring a mechanism of salvation against it to see how it measures up. Expecting you to believe something you have no basis for believing isn't by anyones reckoning, fair.

antiskeptic · 16-03-2010 12:00pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I notice you said in the other thread (which I didn't want to derail) that atheit beliefs sustain unbelief.

How does that tie in with all this.

Surely I'm not sustaining my unbelief? God has simply not converted me yet?

See above discussion on suppression. A simple example has a naturalist write off what would be objectively wrong behaviour as the result of his being an evolved creature. "Evolution is the cause - not me." Take for example the promiscuous: "nature has determined that I sow my genes as widely as possible and that is why I do as I do".

It's important to remember that God is as interested in providing a means whereby we can escape him as he is a means whereby he can capture us. He's primarily concerned that our will regarding him and what he represents wants and won't skew the balance. Because we are thinking, reasoning beings he provides (or permits others to provide) means of suppression that are maintained using the facilities of thinking and reasoning.

You're not operating in a vacuum - you've been created by God and God is as intent on finding out your answer as he is anyone elses. The "flotative force" of sin is everpresent and increasing. It needs belief in and application of suppressive tools in order that a person vprevent arrival at the belief they are rotten. Consider how the exact same effect can be achieved through the seemingly contra-atheist view: religious belief. Take Roman Catholicisms 'confession' for example: you sin and go periodically to have your sins forgiven which "releases the pressure" and you're back to being "clean" again. You are, of course, not cleansed at all - God's mechanism of salvation doesn't permit it's motive force: a build up of pressure, to be dribbled away so. This religious activity is as unbelieving as is anything atheism can produce. All sides of the same unbelieving coin.

Zombrex · 16-03-2010 12:18pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

See above discussion on suppression. A simple example has a naturalist write off what would be objectively wrong behaviour as the result of his being an evolved creature. "Evolution is the cause - not me." Take for example the promiscuous: "nature has determined that I sow my genes as widely as possible and that is why I do as I do".

Leaving a side that this isn't actually what evolution has designed us to do, how can someone do that if they aren't actually deterring their own morality?

To use your own terminology, what "toolbox" are they using, given that you don't have your own toolbox, you either get one from God or from sin.

And how would this sustain unbelief? It can sustain promiscuous behavior, but what does that have to do with unbelief? If God has not choose to make me believe then there is nothing I can do about that

antiskeptic · 16-03-2010 12:20pm

It's just occurred to me that an excellent image to convey wilful suppression in the face of the God's utilsation of our sin is the "yellow-barrel scenes" in the flim(sic), Jaws.

You'll remember the function of the barrels. They were hooked into the shark in order to bring him to the surface. The shark applies his will to suppress the effect the barrels try to exert on him.

Well the barrels can be seen as the pressure God brings to bear to bring our sin into the light. And the great whites effort can be seen as our wilful effort to prevent that occurring. More and more barrels are added to us with each passing sin. And it takes more and more effort to maintain the suppression.

The final result depends on the exertion of our will. If we really don't want to come to the surface and into the light then God won't force it. A point comes where he doesn't attach any more barrels to our sin and we can remain submerged forever.

Zombrex · 16-03-2010 12:24pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's just occurred to me that an excellent image to convey wilful suppression in the face of the God's utilsation of our sin is the "yellow-barrel scenes" in the flim(sic), Jaws.

You'll remember the function of the barrels. They were hooked into the shark in order to bring him to the surface. The shark applies his will to suppress the effect the barrels try to exert on him.

Well the barrels can be seen as the pressure God brings to bear to bring our sin into the light. And the great whites effort can be seen as our wilful effort to prevent that occurring. More and more barrels are added to us with each passing sin. And it takes more and more effort to maintain the suppression.

The final result depends on the exertion of our will. If we really don't want to come to the surface and into the light then God won't force it. A point comes where he doesn't attach any more barrels to our sin and we can remain submerged forever.

Ok, but that some what contradicts your earlier posts.

Getting back to the toolbox analogy, you implied earlier that we can't make our own moral judgements, these are decided earlier by God or by sin.

So when we fight against the barrels it isn't actually us fighting against them, it is sin or Satan or who ever.

So a more accurate analogy would be a tug of war between God and Satan with us tied up in the middle.

We certainly feel the tug of war, but we have no control over who is pulling the hardest.

antiskeptic · 16-03-2010 12:34pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Leaving a side that this isn't actually what evolution has designed us to do, how can someone do that if they aren't actually deterring their own morality?

Sorry, I was using your terminology that had evolution purposeful

. Let's agree that those whose tendency is to spread their genes far and wide are those that increase their survival chances.

I'm not sure what question you're asking. Could you rephrase?

To use your own terminology, what "toolbox" are they using, given that you don't have your own toolbox, you either get one from God or from sin.

It is your own toolbox in that it's your nature to desire that which is sinful. It's just that your nature isn't left solely to it's own devices. If it was it would always cut the thread and plunge into sin. But God exposes us to beauty and goodness which act to constrain us (his toolbox). He shifts our will into neutral as it were. The question is: will we slot ourselves into motion again - so as to drive off in the only direction our will is able to drive off in - towards sin.

And how would this sustain unbelief? It can sustain promiscuous behavior, but what does that have to do with unbelief? If God has not choose to make me believe then there is nothing I can do about that

Sustaining unbelief works to prevent arrival at belief. Assigning promiscuous behaviour to Evolution is suppression of the truth regarding promiscuity (the truth being that sin is what is driving it). Suppression sustains unbelief because it prevents the truth bubbling to the surface (as per mechanism outlined).

antiskeptic · 16-03-2010 12:43pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Getting back to the toolbox analogy, you implied earlier that we can't make our own moral judgements, these are decided earlier by God or by sin.

I'm not sure I implied that. We are given a knowledge of good and evil so we do know what is right and wrong*. God's voice tells us so. We also have the magnetic draw of sin within and without pulling us in the direction of evildoing.

When we cut the thread - so as to plunge into sin - it's us doing the cutting. Us doing the deciding to cut.

(*leaving aside the callousing that takes place as the conscience is repeatedly suppressed over the course of a career in sin)

So when we fight against the barrels it isn't actually us fighting against them, it is sin or Satan or who ever.

Thus not. The tug of war is between God's will and our sinful will. Satan is like power-assisted steering: an assist to the driver, not the driver himself.

The overarching things to see is that

a) We are exposed to sin which has attributes and characteristics and attractive power. That exposure takes the form of something internal to our makeup (as well as the external assist)

b) We are exposed to good which has attribute and characteristics and attractive power. That exposure takes the form of something external to our makeup (even though we might think our conscience is an internal part of us)

Our will is the final decider on our destination. If finally relinquishing self-determination we will arrive at God via his drawing power (hence fisher of men pictures in the Bible). If finally refusing to relinquish self-determination we won't arrive at God via his drawing power.

Will finally neutralised = salvation
Will finally active = damnation

Zombrex · 17-03-2010 6:07pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure I implied that. We are given a knowledge of good and evil so we do know what is right and wrong*. God's voice tells us so. We also have the magnetic draw of sin within and without pulling us in the direction of evildoing.

Which means we don't decide our own moral judgements, surely.

You said this originally when I suggested that I arrive at the same conclusion as God and thus agree with him. You said that I can't do that because the toolbox is not my own. When I arrive at the same conclusion as God it is actually God, because God is the source of everything.

Which is fair enough, but surely that applies to the other side as well. I can't agree with sin (ie disagree with God) because that would not be my own conclusion either, it would be sourced from sin.

antiskeptic wrote: »

When we cut the thread - so as to plunge into sin - it's us doing the cutting. Us doing the deciding to cut.

But from what source? Our sinful nature is obviously not a rational decision.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thus not. The tug of war is between God's will and our sinful will.

But it is not our sinful will, in the same way it is not our God given will.

Sin was placed in us by the Fall, in the same way that goodness was placed in us by God.

If it is actually God when I see a person on the ground and I help them up, then it is actually the Fall when I see a person on the ground and I rob them.

If I can't agree with God then I can't agree with sin, and thus I'm agreeing with nothing.

You seem to want your cake and to eat it. You want our good actions to be actually the glory of God, but our bad actions to be all our own fault.

But that is ultimately illogical since we no more decided our bad nature than we decided our good nature.

antiskeptic · 18-03-2010 2:58pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Which means we don't decide our own moral judgements, surely.

You said this originally when I suggested that I arrive at the same conclusion as God and thus agree with him. You said that I can't do that because the toolbox is not my own. When I arrive at the same conclusion as God it is actually God, because God is the source of everything.

Which is fair enough, but surely that applies to the other side as well. I can't agree with sin (ie disagree with God) because that would not be my own conclusion either, it would be sourced from sin.

It's neither an adamic-style free will - in which the drive in either direction is sourced from within your will alone. Nor is it a robotic-will (as you suggest above) - in which neither direction is sourced in you. Rather, its a will which either expresses itself (in which case evil occurs) or a will which doesn't express itself (in which evil doesn't occur). The source driving to evil is within the will itself. The source stilling the will into inactivity is sourced in God.

His thread, your scissors.

But from what source? Our sinful nature is obviously not a rational decision.

I'm not sure what rationality has to do with it. Attraction would be a better word. You have a sinful nature and so find sin attractive (the source of evil is internal in that it lies in your very nature). You are also exposed to that which is beautiful and are arrested by it (source of good is external to you). This good also comments on your evil and condemns evil in you. It presents argument to you - in othe words

The question is whether you'll be convinced by it.

Sin was placed in us by the Fall, in the same way that goodness was placed in us by God.

Goodness wasn't placed in you. Your will is sinful (internal) with goodness an external-to-you influence (according to our model of why you do good and why you do evil)

Your nature was indeed affected in this way at the Fall. No matter - it is your will all the same. Remember that in order to sin, you have to choose to suppress goodness. It's not an automatic thing that must occur (otherwise you'd do nothing but sin all day)

If it is actually God when I see a person on the ground and I help them up, then it is actually the Fall when I see a person on the ground and I rob them.

Hopefully you'll appreciate that it's your wilful suppression of the restraint placed on the Fall within you that produces robbery. The Fall is merely influence (internal), just as God is a restraint on that influence (external). The decider is your will.

Do nothing and remain restrained. Do something and sin.

You seem to want your cake and to eat it. You want our good actions to be actually the glory of God, but our bad actions to be all our own fault.

It's the only rational way I see salvation by grace alone - without work. Which is the biblical position.

You'd agree that if fallen as I suggest you've fallen then this is the only way your salvation can be accomplished. You can't do the work yourself, it's just not within your makeup.

But that is ultimately illogical since we no more decided our bad nature than we decided our good nature.

It's not our deciding which nature we have that matters - for we're not responsible for the fact we inherited a sinful nature. It's what we decide to do when that sinful nature is placed in the same arena containing an external counter-restraint to that sinful nature.

What we're left with (and will be judged for) is responsibility for what it is we decide to lay our hearts desire with. And for the sinning we are responsible for plumping for.

Zombrex · 18-03-2010 3:18pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully you'll appreciate that it's your wilful suppression of the restraint placed on the Fall within you that produces robbery. The Fall is merely influence (internal), just as God is a restraint on that influence (external). The decider is your will.

Do nothing and remain restrained. Do something and sin.

It's the only rational way I see salvation by grace alone - without work. Which is the biblical position.

You are going to have to explain the "do nothing" bit again because at the moment it is not making any sense.

I see an old woman on the ground. Now, natural if I do nothing I do nothing, I neither help her or hinder her. I just stand there (which in itself is probably bad, but for argument sake)

I have a little voice in my head, which we are assuming is God, saying "Go help her up"

And I have another little voice in my head, which we are assuming is the sinful nature placed inside me by the Fall, saying "Screw her, lets go get a burger"

You seem to be implying if I don't make any rational choice my default action will be to help her because that is what God wants me to do.

That I don't agree with God and say yes I should go pick her up, I just do that unless I otherwise choose not to. The only choice I can make is to not help her. But that implies that when we do good we are merely robots. We don't choose to do good, we simply do it.

It also makes choosing not to help her some what illogical. How is it a "choice" is I can only pick one thing?

antiskeptic · 18-03-2010 3:57pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You are going to have to explain the "do nothing" bit again because at the moment it is not making any sense.

I was looking at a programme on foetus/new-born baby brain development last night. They were illustrating that a baby already knows at birth not to wander off a table edge (if placed on a table). Even when the mother beckons and urges, the baby will only travel to the edge. There they stop and reach and cry - but won't go over the edge.

The baby's will wants only one thing. Mommy. And heads in the direction of it's will. The knowledge placed in the baby (which isn't being rationalised because the baby doesn't yet know to be afraid of heights for rational reasons) restrains the baby from going so far as to fall off the table. It's not the will of the baby that stops it falling over the edge. It's will wants only one thing. It's the knowledge installed in it which is restraining the will. The will is "doing nothing" to contribute to not falling over the edge.

Similarily, a knowledge of good and evil restrains the sinful will except in the case of an older person, that restraint isn't sure to prevent an exercise of will. If the will insists, the person can tip over the edge. It can cut the thread.

I see an old woman on the ground. Now, natural if I do nothing I do nothing, I neither help her or hinder her. I just stand there (which in itself is probably bad, but for argument sake)

We aren't supposing "doing nothing" to mean you enter suspended animation when faced with decisions. Rather, "doing nothing" means not exercising your will to the point where the restraint is cut. When it's not cut you'll remain restrained from sin and it's opposite (good) will be done. Good could be physcically active or passive - which it is, isn't the point.

I have a little voice in my head, which we are assuming is God, saying "Go help her up"

Indeed.

And I have another little voice in my head, which we are assuming is the sinful nature placed inside me by the Fall, saying "Screw her, lets go get a burger"

Okay. Although it must be noted that the sinful nature is you. Not something separate to you. You, your personhood, and it, are one

You seem to be implying if I don't make any rational choice my default action will be to help her because that is what God wants me to do.

Again, I'm not sure where rationality comes into it. You've got two influences operating in you and you're not going to remain standing there. One will win out.

That I don't agree with God and say yes I should go pick her up, I just do that unless I otherwise choose not to. The only choice I can make is to not help her. But that implies that when we do good we are merely robots. We don't choose to do good, we simply do it.

Indeed. Although I wouldn't say robot because essential in the good doing was your will remaining inactive. It didn't have to. And so you are not like a robot at all. Robots have to do what they do.

It also makes choosing not to help her some what illogical. How is it a "choice" is I can only pick one thing?

As stated. Your will doesn't have to activate (which will only result in sin). If it does act then it was you doing it. It's not a choice of a freewilled type (which involves active choice in either diection). But there are still two positions and you're the decider as to which one you'll be in - passively so in the one direction and actively in the other.

Consider: a person lifts your eyelids and places a matchstick under them to keep them open. You'll now see (and be affected and influenced by) whatever travels across your vision. You'll keep on seeing until such time as you choose not to see. All you have to do is knock away the matchsticks and your eyes will close.

No act of will is required to see - you're seeing as a result of someone elses will. The choice is still there however.

It's a mall technicality Wicknight. Something which brings about salvation by grace alone (for which there are good reasons)

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 2:37pm

Sam Vimes wrote:

And your arguemnt fails because there are a billion different views of god, all claiming to be the one true one. God's existence is actually irrelevant here because it is abundantly clear to that EVEN IF a god exists, personal experience alone is not a reliable indicator of its nature.

We're not talking of his nature. We're talking of his existance. That three people view a car crash in three different ways doesn't alter the fact that the car crash exists.

In fact if I was to accept your argument, that empiricism is no more reliable an indicator, then t here is no reliable indicator, none whatsoever so we shouldn't even bother ourselves with the question because the answer is unknowable

A logical argument stands until logically refuted. Your non-acceptance need be based on logical refutation.

I agree that no means of knowledge can be deemed absolute. That doesn't seem to cause anyone concern in their day to day lives.

Oh but it does because there are a billion people who are all just as sure as you that god has been revealed to them but if you are right then they must all be wrong

.

Indeed.

Without any form of independent verification it simply becomes an arrogant declaration that you know better than the billion other people who are as sure as you are that they know the truth.

You sh/would agree that if God has revealed himself to me and not to them then they cannot be as sure as I am that they know the truth.

I agree that I can't know I know the truth (any truth) in any absolute way - not unless I became God*. I'm no more concerned about that than I am that I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar in any absolute way.

*which happens to be what occurs. Children of God are like order with God. Perhaps it's safe to say I can know the truth absolutely

How can you possibly know that you haven't been fooled in the same way they have?[/uote]

Can God reveal himself to a person so that they know he exists and their not being fooled? Note the emphasis on the person empowering the knowledge and the person in receipt of it.

I think you need to start with the admission that he can - and work from there.

Sam Vimes · 21-03-2010 2:47pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're not talking of his nature. We're talking of his existance. That three people view a car crash in three different ways doesn't alter the fact that the car crash exists.

That is true but if you are trying to find out what happened in the crash and all you have is three conflicting stories then EVEN IF one of them is absolutely correct, you have no way of determining which one that is. If a god exists but there is no reliable way to determine its nature then its existence is irrelevant

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would agree that if God has revealed himself to me and not to them then they cannot be as sure as I am that they know the truth.

No I don't agree, that's the whole point. They are exactly as sure as you, I would argue some are even far more sure than you, such as people who have died for their gods. People who are mistaken do not know they are mistaken

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree that I can't know I know the truth in any absolute way. I'm no more concerned about that than I am that I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar in any absolute way.

Sure is sure. It's not being God.

Can God reveal himself to a person so that they know he exists? Note the emphasis on the person empowering the knowledge and the person in receipt of it.

I think you need to start with the admission that he can - and work from there.

No you don't need to start with that because EVEN IF HE CAN, it is abundantly clear that there are a billion people who think that god has been revealed to them who are wrong. The point is not deciding if he can or not, it's determining if he actually has or if you're one of the billion people who have deluded themselves into thinking he has. And if I accept your argument that empiricism does not help here then there is no way to do that. You simply have to have total confidence in your own ability to determine truth where a billion others have failed

antiskeptic · 21-03-2010 10:20pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That is true but if you are trying to find out what happened in the crash and all you have is three conflicting stories then EVEN IF one of them is absolutely correct, you have no way of determining which one that is.

If a god exists but there is no reliable way to determine its nature then its existence is irrelevant

?

We don't need to have an absolute correct view of anything in order that it's existance be very relevant indeed. Are we to suppose the existance of the car crash irrelevant just because we don't know which of the three versions is true (or closest to true)?

You seem to be taking a very black and white view. If we can't tell everything then we can tell nothing. Life just doesn't work like that, Sam.

No I don't agree, that's the whole point. They are exactly as sure as you, I would argue some are even far more sure than you, such as people who have died for their gods. People who are mistaken do not know they are mistaken

Which brings us back to God's ability. Assuming God is able to demonstrate his existance to someone then he must be able to engender something in that person that the other person doesn't have. God-source certainty would differ from false certainty in a material way.

Else God cannot demonstrate his existance to someone.

You're slipping again into the error of putting the onus on me to correctly ascertain God. And not on God to be able to demonstrate his existance.

Can God reveal himself to a person so that they know he exists? Note the emphasis on the person empowering the knowledge and the person in receipt of it. I think you need to start with the admission that he can - and work from there

No you don't need to start with that because EVEN IF HE CAN, it is abundantly clear that there are a billion people who think that god has been revealed to them who are wrong. The point is not deciding if he can or not, it's determining if he actually has or if you're one of the billion people who have deluded themselves into thinking he has.

The same error again. IF God has demonstrated his existance to someone THEN there is no deciding on the issue of whether he has or not. He's just done so and the objection stops.

And if I accept your argument that empiricism does not help here then there is no way to do that. You simply have to have total confidence in your own ability to determine truth where a billion others have failed

Ditto the above..

IF God can .. there is no reliance on me in this.

Faith: the evidence of things not seen

Comments