Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

mrac · 04-07-2012 11:23AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Msg 94 on with Blowfish there's not much point in me repeating myself. In summary.

Sarky might deny that there is such a thing as objective good and evil* but his denial doesn't make it the case. If there is a God and if Sarky has been given a knowledge of good and evil by God then he is placed on the stage where his actions in the realm of good and evil constitute his answer to God on the matter of rebellion. Whether he likes it or not. Whether he's consciously aware of it or not.

I've used the word algorithm to deflect folk from the notion that a persons salvation (or not) depends on how much good and evil they do

*good and evil are but one aspect of the complete mechanism which constitutes Sarky's means of responding to God.

Sarky doesn't believe good and evil is a fairy tale. Nor does he need to consider the question of God in order to be dealing with the currency of good and evil. Which is, as I say, but one of the components of the mechanism by which he gives his answer to God.

Sarky is constructing his answer to God all day, every day. In every thought, word and deed.

Fair enough but Sarky may be (and I dont know him personally but lets give him the benefit of the doubt here) an extremely good and loving person and live a good life but still without any evidence to change his mind he would not become a believer. So how can he possibly cross over into believing without any sort of evidence?

If good and evil are but one aspect of this "algorithm" of yours, what are the other aspects?

IT-Guy · 04-07-2012 11:31AM

Been reading through this thread and have been following anti-skeptics recent posts with a bit of confusion, though the last few have cleared things up a bit.

It sounds like a rehash of 'faith as a test of one worthiness to be saved'. The impossible situation Sarky faces is to overcome his God-instilled 'programming' to not believe in him i.e. to develop faith so he can be saved. Which is ironic in that I think a lot of atheists overcome their religious indoctrination or 'programming' in realising the truth. Hitchens' quote is still very apt in this scenario

And also the notion that somehow "Sarky is constructing his answer to God all day, every day. In every thought, word and deed." is oppressive to any free thinking individual. It's also akin to the thought process of nervously-ill people, that someone is constantly observing you and judging you not just in the privacy of your own deeds but in the privacy of your own thoughts. Horrendous

Blowfish · 04-07-2012 11:42AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

<snip>

So, to summarise:

God creates everyone so that they are Atheist at birth and are rebellious.
God will not show evidence of himself unless you are 'saved'
The only way to be 'saved' is if you consciously reject your 'rebellion'

Would this be an accurate description of your God?

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 11:48AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that God then asked Sarky to do something he couldn't. Perhaps you could explain what you suppose it is Sarky is being asked to do (seeing as it's not that Sarky believe in God without evidence in order that he be saved. We have seen that God provides sure evidence of his existence after a person is saved)

That is exactly what he is being asked to do. That's the whole point of this discussion. We have not seen that 'God provides sure evidence of his existence after a person is saved'. That's like saying that people who believe in fairies receive sure evidence of their existence after they start believing in them.

And what would be the point of providing 'sure evidence' when it is no longer needed?

The amount of stuff that makes zero sense is really stacking up here.

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 11:54AM

mrac wrote: »

Fair enough but Sarky may be (and I dont know him personally but lets give him the benefit of the doubt here) an extremely good and loving person and live a good life

Supposing him more or less like any other person, I'd imagine Sarky, like me and you, has a list of selfish actions, motivations and thoughts going back to year dot that he wouldn't want hung out for all the world to see.

And that's if you measure it against Sarky's own standard of right and wrong. That standard is one that tends to be bent towards letting us off the hook.

Measure him against God's standard for goodness, which doesn't alter or waiver or get diluted to suit our own ends and you'll begin to appreciate the level of the problem..

but still without any evidence to change his mind he would not become a believer. So how can he possibly cross over into believing without any sort of evidence?

Since becoming a believer (and being given the evidence needed to support the belief) is something that is resolved for a person by God after they are saved, I can't see why you're concerned about it.

Becoming a believer is a consequence of being saved, not a cause of your being saved.

If good and evil are but one aspect of this "algorithm" of yours, what are the other aspects?

There are many possible components - too many to list - with each individuals case being made up in a way as unique as they are.

Stark · 04-07-2012 11:56AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since becoming a believer (and being given the evidence needed to support the belief) is something that is resolved for a person by God after they are saved, I can't see why you're concerned about it.

Exactly what kind of evidence are we talking about? Other than "I became a believer because I chose to become a believer" doublespeak.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 12:06PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since becoming a believer (and being given the evidence needed to support the belief) is something that is resolved for a person by God after they are saved, I can't see why you're concerned about it.

Becoming a believer is a consequence of being saved, not a cause of your being saved.

I'd be very interested in reading where this key principle of salvation is outlined in the Bible. It may be the single most important piece of information in Christianity. Can you provide references please?

pauldla · 04-07-2012 12:06PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Once upon a time, God granted Sarky's demand that He demonstrate His existence to Sarky. And that He do this empirically.

.........

Well, thanks for giving it a go.

So, Sarky can only know God if Sarky realizes that God is letting Sarky know God?

Is that it?

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:07PM

Blowfish wrote: »

So, to summarise:
God creates everyone so that they are Atheist at birth and are rebellious.

God created everyone whole and healthy but all are subject to the Fall, which God, through creating the potential for it, didn't create it itself.

God will not show evidence of himself unless you are 'saved'

Will not evidence himself in a way that allows a person to state categorically "I know God of the Bible exists". Unless they are saved.

The only way to be 'saved' is if you consciously reject your 'rebellion'

The only way to be saved is to unconsciously reject your rebellion. You won't know you were in rebellion against God until after you are saved.

Taking our "good + evil + yellow barrel" example. And looking at the sequence of events as they occur:

An unsaved person comes to the point where they are going to "surrender rebellion". What this means in effect is that:

They cease suppressing the truth (keeping yellow barrels under water and out of their view).

The surrender has happened but the truth has yet to surface - the yellow barrels are on their way up but haven't broken the surface yet.

When the truth does surface, the person now sees themselves as they are: polluted by selfish, wrong motivations. Whereas before they made excuses to patch over the reality, now they see themselves clearly

The anguish of this drives them to their knees and they turn to an as-yet unbelieved in God (God has made it so that surrendered folk turn to him). They turn because there is no place left to turn

God saves them and evidences his existence.

The surrender was unconscious (in the sense of not recognizing God's existence or the fact of rebellion against him prior to the surrender)

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:13PM

IT-Guy wrote: »

Been reading through this thread and have been following anti-skeptics recent posts with a bit of confusion, though the last few have cleared things up a bit.

Evidently not if this is your conclusion.

It sounds like a rehash of 'faith as a test of one worthiness to be saved'. The impossible situation Sarky faces is to overcome his God-instilled 'programming' to not believe in him i.e. to develop faith so he can be saved.

..since nowhere have I said that faith is required for salvation.

And also the notion that somehow "Sarky is constructing his answer to God all day, every day. In every thought, word and deed." is oppressive to any free thinking individual.

Somebody has to be sovereign. Turns out it's God and not you.

He created you and if he has decided that you get to determine your eternal destination then so be it.

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:18PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That is exactly what he is being asked to do. That's the whole point of this discussion. We have not seen that 'God provides sure evidence of his existence after a person is saved'.

You don't need to see it in order that the point stand.

You say Sarky is being asked to believe in God's existence in order to be saved. I'm saying that Sarky doesn't need to believe in God's existence in order to be saved (since the evidence is supplied after the point where Sarky is saved)

Since I'm not claiming what you say I'm claiming you need to drop what you say is my claim.,

And what would be the point of providing 'sure evidence' when it is no longer needed?

It's not needed in order to obtain salvation. But it is needed so that a person can know God exists. Naturally

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:20PM

Stark wrote: »

Exactly what kind of evidence are we talking about? Other than "I became a believer because I chose to become a believer" doublespeak.

It doesn't matter what kind of evidence (see post 110) so long as a) God provides it b) God configures us to be able to be convinced by it

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:26PM

pauldla wrote: »

Well, thanks for giving it a go.

So, Sarky can only know God if Sarky realizes that God is letting Sarky know God?

Is that it?

Not quite. It's that Sarky should drop his demand that only empirical evidence of God can convince him that God exists.

He's forgets that: his demand acknowledges that it'd be God who has rendered empirical evidence something Sarky can be convinced by. And if reliant on God for his being convinced by empirical evidence, then he can allow God to evidence Himself any way He choses.

It's called getting off one's irrational high horse.

Stark · 04-07-2012 12:26PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't matter what kind of evidence (see post 110) so long as a) God provides it b) God configures us to be able to be convinced by it

So what makes you right and all the people configured to be convinced by Hindu gods, Norse gods etc. wrong? I mean we see thunder and lightning all the time so that's pretty convincing evidence for Thor's existence if you're configured to believe that way (which many people were back in the day).

Sarky · 04-07-2012 12:28PM

This is getting pretty daft.

You make nothing but assumptions, antiskeptic. Just to be clear (and slightly petty), I've never actually read anything by Dawkins, never listened to him speak. One doesn't need to do something like that to know a thing or two about developmental biology or evolution. Or, indeed, about how downright silly religion can be. I briefly owned a book he wrote, a day or two before I wrapped it up in paper covered in snowmen and gave it to a family member for christmas, maybe that's good enough for you? Either way, what you've done there is try to demonise me, paint me as lesser in the eyes of the reader. And the ending sucks, because the stupid argument seems to win. And that's cool, it's your fantasy, and we all know you're not a nasty little goblin in real life. Right?

And then you launch into your nonsensical argument again, word for word. Aside from the snide insults you add to it (Good job there, by the way! Although try to mention more than the God Delusion if you're going to do this again. There are thousands of other books available the demonstrate rebuttals against the stupid things you've posted so far. I'm quite fond of the Science of Discworld series, go with that next time maybe?), the points you're trying to make are still stupid, and still boil down to "God is either an idiot who made a mistake designing me" or "God is a jerk who deliberately put me in an impossible situation." And your solution to all of this remains "Hooray for low standards!". Not once are you even capable of thinking "Well, maybe I just cam about due to a whole load of natural semi-random factors, some mood music and a bottle of Aldi champaigne, and this god thing is just a load of bollocks." Perhaps you're the one with the flawed design; God is often touted as a perfectionist, do you really think he'll be impressed by people who believe on the basis of any old crap, rather than expect a decent standard of evidence?

No? Why ever not?

And then you come up with this crap about me having "a list of selfish actions, motivations and thoughts going back to year dot that he wouldn't want hung out for all the world to see". What an absolutely beautiful assumption. Just because you're filled with guilt and shame over your sins doesn't mean you get to project it onto others.

I have no regrets. Not one. Nothing to feel guilty about. Nothing to hide. Most of my life is, in fact, strewn across the internet for anyone to see. The rest I was too young to remember, or there were no cameras present. My conscience is spotless, and will be to the day I die. I wonder can you, the saved righteous defender of a god who's non-existence terrifies you into insulting people who are able to get by happily without it, say the same? Are you really as Saved as you like to think? Really?

Come up with something better, antiskeptic. Your arguments are nonsensical rubbish. You're not an idiot, try not to treat your audience as such.

Oh, hang on:

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not quite. It's that Sarky should drop his demand that only empirical evidence of God can convince him that God exists.

He's forgets that: his demand acknowledges that it'd be God who has rendered empirical evidence something Sarky can be convinced by. And if reliant on God for his being convinced by empirical evidence, then he can allow God to evidence Himself any way He choses.

It's called getting off one's irrational high horse.

You're just weirded out that you believe for flimsy reasons while other people don't, aren't you? Dude, it's ok. It's ok. I'm not going to force you to give up whatever convinced you. But I'm not going to lower my standards to make you feel better about it, either. Deal with it.

Blowfish · 04-07-2012 12:29PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

God created everyone whole and healthy but all are subject to the Fall, which God, through creating the potential for it, didn't create it itself.

I think it's pretty obvious that he doesn't. Congenital and neurological diseases/defects abound.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only way to be saved is to unconsciously reject your rebellion. You won't know you were in rebellion against God until after you are saved.

What about those who are incapable of doing so? People who are born with severe autism, psychopathy or even completely intellectually disabled. They lack the intellectual capacity to go through the process of surrender/anguish/turning to God that you describe.

Incidentally, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you are now contradicting both the OP and totus tuus. Do you see them both as being wrong?

Also, the obvious question remains, if God planned to do it this way all along, why did he appear to unbelievers a bunch of times in the Bible?

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:30PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd be very interested in reading where this key principle of salvation is outlined in the Bible. It may be the single most important piece of information in Christianity. Can you provide references please?

I'm doing most of the writing here so how about you do a little work?

Find me somewhere in the Bible which says you need to believe to be saved - in the sense that the believing is causal in salvation (your position) rather than consequential (my position)

pauldla · 04-07-2012 12:33PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not quite. It's that Sarky should drop his demand that only empirical evidence of God can convince him that God exists.

He's forgets that: his demand acknowledges that it'd be God who has rendered empirical evidence something Sarky can be convinced by. And if reliant on God for his being convinced by empirical evidence, then he can allow God to evidence Himself any way He choses.

It's called getting off one's irrational high horse.

You're being quite patient.

So Sarky should drop his demand for empirical evidence, and allow other, non-empirical evidence for the existence of god to be manifested? Open his heart to the truth and allow himself to feel god, for example?

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:47PM

Blowfish wrote: »

I think it's pretty obvious that he doesn't. Congenital and neurological diseases/defects abound.

"...but all are subject to the Fall". Think Fall, think very hard landing

What about those who are incapable of doing so? People who are born with severe autism, psychopathy or even completely intellectually disabled. They lack the intellectual capacity to go through the process of surrender/anguish/turning to God that you describe.

Forgive my skipping past this but when the conversation turns to "infants and idiots" I take it a a dodge. Not saying that's your intention but there's the global to be tackled without kicking to minority touch.

Incidentally, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but you are now contradicting both the OP and totus tuus. Do you see them both as being wrong?

I've read neither.

Also, the obvious question remains, if God planned to do it this way all along, why did he appear to unbelievers a bunch of times in the Bible?

His appearing to unbelievers back then didn't make then believers. Take the Israelites in captivity in Egypt. They witnessed the most remarkable things and had only just dried their feet on passing through the parted sea when they began to fashion a false god from gold

The same method has always been the case in bringing about believers of the eternal kind.

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:57PM

pauldla wrote: »

You're being quite patient.

I've been reconfigured ... it wasn't always so.

So Sarky should drop his demand for empirical evidence, and allow other, non-empirical evidence for the existence of god to be manifested? Open his heart to the truth and allow himself to feel god, for example?

He should just drop that demand and do nothing else in it's place.

It's only a drop in an ocean of rebellion but placing an unrighteous demand on God is rebellion-in-fact and any retreat from rebellion is a good thing - if a person at all considered that they might like to find God sometime.

He could say to an as yet unbelieved in God that he wouldn't be able to believe in His existence unless He provided convicting evidence. That is a righteous and reasonable demand placed on God - simply because Sarky cannot believe in God's existence otherwise.

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 12:59PM

Stark wrote: »

So what makes you right and all the people configured to be convinced by Hindu gods, Norse gods etc. wrong? I mean we see thunder and lightning all the time so that's pretty convincing evidence for Thor's existence if you're configured to believe that way (which many people were back in the day).

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

pauldla · 04-07-2012 01:03PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've been reconfigured ... it wasn't always so.

He should just drop that demand and do nothing else in it's place.

It's only a drop in an ocean of rebellion but placing an unrighteous demand on God is rebellion-in-fact and any retreat from rebellion is a good thing - if a person at all considered that they might like to find God sometime.

He could say to an as yet unbelieved in God that he wouldn't be able to believe in His existence unless He provided convicting evidence. That is a righteous and reasonable demand placed on God - simply because Sarky cannot believe in God's existence otherwise.

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

Sarky · 04-07-2012 01:05PM

So you're right because you believe you're right.

You could have just said that instead of your long-winded rant about empirical evidence.

I don't particularly believe I'm right about much. I like to see what evidence is available before making a decision. You'd prefer I make my mind up without thinking about it.

That's really, really stupid. I do hope we can all agree on why without having to drag that out as well.

IT-Guy · 04-07-2012 01:13PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Evidently not if this is your conclusion.

..since nowhere have I said that faith is required for salvation.

OK to be pedantic, if it's belief that's necessary for salvation then how is faith not required for salvation? Faith is just delayed belief...

antiskeptic wrote: »

Somebody has to be sovereign. Turns out it's God and not you.

He created you and if he has decided that you get to determine your eternal destination then so be it.

Well thanks for clearing up that philosophical conundrum so concisely! Here's the problem, I (yes I - independent of any God, indoctrination or belief system) disagree.

If he created me and gave me free will then why would he have any say whether I get to determine my eternal destination? And what exactly does eternal destination mean exactly? Are you talking about heaven and hell here? The last sentence of your post makes no sense tbh, it's an attempt at an all encapsulating stance i.e. no matter what I say or do it's because God made me that way :rolleyes: What made me 'this' way is the product of my upbringing, education and life experience, deciding which of it is a healthy, positive influence and which needs to be discarded in order to progress. Religion is firmly in the latter category.

Stark · 04-07-2012 01:16PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

So pretty much a case of "I'm Catholic or Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist because that's what my parents or schoolteachers tell me I should be" like everyone else in the world then.

Empirical evidence is what distinguishes medicine from blood letting, spherical earth from flat earth, heliocentric solar system vs geocentric solar system and whatever other daft beliefs that people were once "configured" to believe.

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 01:18PM

Sarky wrote: »

This is getting pretty daft.

You make nothing but assumptions, antiskeptic. Just to be clear (and slightly petty), I've never actually read anything by Dawkins, never listened to him speak.

Loosen up will ya! Your persona has been taken over to represent classic atheism-think.

And then you come up with this crap about me having "a list of selfish actions, motivations and thoughts going back to year dot that he wouldn't want hung out for all the world to see". What an absolutely beautiful assumption. Just because you're filled with guilt and shame over your sins doesn't mean you get to project it onto others.

The argument states that people will suppress the truth about their actions and motivations which is what you are doing here (according to the argument).

Now either God doesn't exist - in which case your contention about me is correct. Or else God does exist and my contention about you is correct. I'm not upset about your contention so try not to be about mine. It's a discussion of argument - not a personal attack.

I have no regrets. Not one. Nothing to feel guilty about. Nothing to hide. Most of my life is, in fact, strewn across the internet for anyone to see. The rest I was too young to remember, or there were no cameras present. My conscience is spotless, and will be to the day I die.

Yours to cut out and keep.

I wonder can you, the saved righteous defender of a god who's non-existence terrifies you into insulting people who are able to get by happily without it, say the same? Are you really as Saved as you like to think? Really?

They say the gospel is good news for bad people. And bad news for people who think they're good. I'm one who recognized I belong to the former category.

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 01:20PM

Stark wrote: »

Empirical evidence is what distinguishes medicine from blood letting, spherical earth from flat earth, heliocentric solar system vs geocentric solar system and whatever other daft beliefs that people were once "configured" to believe.

And if God invented empirical evidence (and our being configured to be convinced of things via it)?

Stark · 04-07-2012 01:21PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if God invented empirical evidence (and our being configured to be convinced of things via it)?

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

endacl · 04-07-2012 01:41PM

Isn't 'classical atheism-think' just...... well..... bog-standard rational thinking?

It's not complicated.

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 01:46PM

IT-Guy wrote: »

OK to be pedantic, if it's belief that's necessary for salvation then how is faith not required for salvation? Faith is just delayed belief...

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

Well thanks for clearing up that philosophical conundrum so concisely! Here's the problem, I (yes I - independent of any God, indoctrination or belief system) disagree.

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

If he created me and gave me free will then why would he have any say whether I get to determine my eternal destination?

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

And what exactly does eternal destination mean exactly? Are you talking about heaven and hell here?

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

The last sentence of your post makes no sense tbh, it's an attempt at an all encapsulating stance i.e. no matter what I say or do it's because God made me that way :rolleyes: What made me 'this' way is the product of my upbringing, education and life experience, deciding which of it is a healthy, positive influence and which needs to be discarded in order to progress. Religion is firmly in the latter category.

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

Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

Comments