Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…261262264266267…327

Comments

  • #7892
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    atheists on boards not equal to all atheists.
    That's a tad obvious allright!!!:)

    ... but the question is, are they representative of all Atheists ... and if not, why not?

    ... or are we uniquely endowed on the Boards with the only opinionated Atheists in the World, who hold to the belief that God doesn't exist, with a faith that would put many Theists to shame??:)


  • #7893
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,111 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    That's a tad obvious allright!!!:)

    ... but the question is, are they representative of all Atheists ... and if not, why not?

    ... or are we uniquely endowed on the Boards with the only opinionated Atheists in the World, who hold to the belief that God doesn't exist, with a faith that would put many Theists to shame??:)

    I reject the premise of the question. I can't think of many, if any, athiest posters that meet the criteria posed by your question.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #7894
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    J C wrote: »
    That's a tad obvious allright!!!:)

    ... but the question is, are they representative of all Atheists ... and if not, why not?

    ... or are we uniquely endowed on the Boards with the only opinionated Atheists in the World, who hold to the belief that God doesn't exist, with a faith that would put many Theists to shame??:)

    Ahem, it's boards, opinionated it par for the course.
    Most people are indifferent to both theism and atheism, it's just something that never bothers them. I know regular mass goers who couldn't tell you the 10 commandments and can't understand why anyone would need to. For them it all 'just how things are' Are they atheist? I equally know people who haven't been in a church for years and never think about it. Not part of the world view the use to live day to day.
    And to tell the truth, apart from on here, do we think about it all that much? I spend more time considering what I'll have for dinner than anything I blather about on boards.


  • #7895
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Ahem, it's boards, opinionated it par for the course.
    Most people are indifferent to both theism and atheism, it's just something that never bothers them. I know regular mass goers who couldn't tell you the 10 commandments and can't understand why anyone would need to. For them it all 'just how things are' Are they atheist? I equally know people who haven't been in a church for years and never think about it. Not part of the world view the use to live day to day.
    And to tell the truth, apart from on here, do we think about it all that much? I spend more time considering what I'll have for dinner than anything I blather about on boards.

    Good point, hang around these forums for long enough and it can become a bit of a bubble. I'd suspect the majority of theists and atheists on Boards don't go near A&A or here.


  • #7896
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Good point, hang around these forums for long enough and it can become a bit of a bubble. I'd suspect the majority of theists and atheists on Boards don't go near A&A or here.
    That's probably true. However, the point I was making is that Atheists are just as opinionated, just as likely to be brainwashed and just as committed to their belief that God doesn't exist, as Theists are about their belief in the existence of God... and with an equal likelihood of bias to match their respective worldviews.

    I was challenging the often repeated idea by Atheists that they aren't opinionated and are driven by pure logic and have no beliefs or biases ... when day and daily we see them expressing opinions, making biased statement and expressing beliefs ... just like Theists actually!!!:)
    ... and I was specifically challenging this particular posting by Koth
    wrote:
    Originally Posted by koth
    You're redefining atheist to something it's not. An atheist can have no beliefs/opinions on the subjects you mentioned, they just say 'I don't know'. Not much of a belief system.


  • Advertisement
  • #7897
    georgesstreet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 397 ✭✭georgesstreet


    J C wrote: »
    That's a tad obvious allright!!!:)

    ... but the question is, are they representative of all Atheists ... and if not, why not?

    ... or are we uniquely endowed on the Boards with the only opinionated Atheists in the World, who hold to the belief that God doesn't exist, with a faith that would put many Theists to shame??:)
    .

    Of course they represent no one but themselves. Where your thinking is muddled is that you seem to think atheists are one cohesive group, who attend meeting together and have a creed and a faith to follow and doctrines to uphold.

    Its a little like asking "is someone posting on the motor car threads representative of all Car Owners? And, if not, why not?"

    Your thinking is, simply, muddled.


  • #7898
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Apologies for the delay in replying to your post. My being on holiday, coupled with the fact that you did not quote me directly while replying to me, meant that I did not actually see your post until just now.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    1) State clearly what it is you are claiming. That a being we call God exists. That's the easy bit, it gets complicated from here on

    That is not exactly "clearly". If you call your next door neighbour "god" then clearly it is true that a "Being called god exists". In essence your definition is begging the question and says nothing at all. It merely restates the question of: What exactly is it you are talking about here???
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    (a)First cause. I'm going to do a bit of a cop out here because this is the one that every proof of anything is specifiable too. Everything we know if probed enough runs into the 'and before that?' So it not really a proof or disproof. It's a presumption.

    Then why even present it? You are attempting to answer my challenge to list things that are actually evidence for this "god" you have so poorly defined above.... yet you yourself are listing things and then explaining why they fail to meet the challenge.

    The main issue with the "first cause" way of thinking is that it is temporal thinking. And temporal thinking requires time. And Time to our knowledge was not an attribute of the universe at the big bang. Therefore any discussion of cause or causality becomes meaningless. The attempt to define a god into existence using the first cause "argument" is an attempt to apply attributes to states where there is no reason to think they apply.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    (b) Direction or as I said previously order from chaos. It could be that we only perceive it as order and theirs actually no order just chaos that we happen to be a consequence of but then we wouldn't have science or this discussion.

    There is no order from chaos per se. The universe by the law of entropy is tending towards chaos and lack of any order. What confuses the lay man however is that while the ENTIRE process tends towards chaos.... individual parts of it taken in isolation do not.

    Think of it as walking to the shop. However for every 50 steps you take to get there you take 2 or 3 backwards. You still get to the shop (chaos) but individual parts of your journey are towards your house (order).

    The reason the scientific lay man is convinced by this impression of order from chaos is that they exist inside a bubble of it, in the briefest blink of an eye in relatively near infinite amounts of time. It is merely an error of context coupled with human hubris.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    (c) Testimony; This one is not so much about the actual things they passed down but the fact that every culture has conceived of the divine.

    So what? There are sound and useful biological and evolutionary reasons for why we would be prone to that form of thinking. We are aware of those attributes, their effects, their causes, and their evolutionary advantages.

    Plus there is a bit of linguistic game play at work in your "point" here. Humans do indeed seek for meaning in life, or some levels or personal and "spiritual" development that is more than our lowly origins.

    It is you slapping the word "divine" onto this entire continuum however and acting like this is evidence for god. When in fact for many many people their seeking something "more" has nothing to do with the agenda you have here.

    To defer to a man better than I at discussing these matters, Christopher Hitchens was once asked if he could make one change in his life to the world around him, what would it be. He answered simply that he would like to install a separation in peoples minds between the "numinous" and the "divine". A separation that simply makes a mockery of the "point" you try to make here.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    (d) My own personal one. Suck it and see. It's an version of Pascals wager without the long wait.

    I already addressed just how bad an idea/approach this is in an earlier post. Since you are repeating yourself, I will not repeat myself and instead refer you back to the text in the last block/section of this post here.


  • #7899
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    georgesstreet wrote: »
    .

    Of course they represent no one but themselves. Where your thinking is muddled is that you seem to think atheists are one cohesive group, who attend meeting together and have a creed and a faith to follow and doctrines to uphold.

    Its a little like asking "is someone posting on the motor car threads representative of all Car Owners? And, if not, why not?"

    Your thinking is, simply, muddled.
    Atheists have a particular worldview (driven by their belief that God doesn't exist) ... and they do behave cohesively on this thread and others ... thanking each other and generally expressing similar opinions on matters of religion and science ... so they do seem to be representative of more than themselves ... or are you saying that organisations like Atheist Ireland are representative of nobody but their spokespersons?
    I think not.


  • #7900
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Apologies for the delay in replying to your post. My being on holiday, coupled with the fact that you did not quote me directly while replying to me, meant that I did not actually see your post until just now.
    Hope you had a good time.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That is not exactly "clearly". If you call your next door neighbour "god" then clearly it is true that a "Being called god exists". In essence your definition is begging the question and says nothing at all. It merely restates the question of: What exactly is it you are talking about here???
    I like to think of it as a small hard shining diamond with a soft marshmallow center..Oh for gods sake! what is the thread about? Just to be clear I am talking about the creator of all things seen and unseen best described though not completely by the Judao christian tradition.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Then why even present it? You are attempting to answer my challenge to list things that are actually evidence for this "god" you have so poorly defined above.... yet you yourself are listing things and then explaining why they fail to meet the challenge.

    The main issue with the "first cause" way of thinking is that it is temporal thinking. And temporal thinking requires time. And Time to our knowledge was not an attribute of the universe at the big bang. Therefore any discussion of cause or causality becomes meaningless. The attempt to define a god into existence using the first cause "argument" is an attempt to apply attributes to states where there is no reason to think they apply.
    It's presented because it as valid an argument for the existence of God as it is for everything else. All I pointed out was that it's a non argument in essence but one that turns up and can't be dismissed by claiming any exception. BTW your explanation of the non temporal nature of reality before the existence of space time is classic theology.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    There is no order from chaos per se. The universe by the law of entropy is tending towards chaos and lack of any order. What confuses the lay man however is that while the ENTIRE process tends towards chaos.... individual parts of it taken in isolation do not.

    Think of it as walking to the shop. However for every 50 steps you take to get there you take 2 or 3 backwards. You still get to the shop (chaos) but individual parts of your journey are towards your house (order).

    The reason the scientific lay man is convinced by this impression of order from chaos is that they exist inside a bubble of it, in the briefest blink of an eye in relatively near infinite amounts of time. It is merely an error of context coupled with human hubris.
    Nice catch, I was going to point to the irony of using the term layman.
    I think we may be talking across each other here. I don't think chaos and entropy are the same thing. Entropy is a direction towards heat death. Not chaos which is a state with potential. I think you are assuming that I used it to refers to something from nothing.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So what? There are sound and useful biological and evolutionary reasons for why we would be prone to that form of thinking. We are aware of those attributes, their effects, their causes, and their evolutionary advantages.

    Plus there is a bit of linguistic game play at work in your "point" here. Humans do indeed seek for meaning in life, or some levels or personal and "spiritual" development that is more than our lowly origins.

    It is you slapping the word "divine" onto this entire continuum however and acting like this is evidence for god. When in fact for many many people their seeking something "more" has nothing to do with the agenda you have here.

    To defer to a man better than I at discussing these matters, Christopher Hitchens was once asked if he could make one change in his life to the world around him, what would it be. He answered simply that he would like to install a separation in peoples minds between the "numinous" and the "divine". A separation that simply makes a mockery of the "point" you try to make here.
    Ah no game play, I misspoke. Numinous is a better term for what I meant.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I already addressed just how bad an idea/approach this is in an earlier post. Since you are repeating yourself, I will not repeat myself and instead refer you back to the text in the last block/section of this post here.
    Yeah I got that. I think Pascal was showing how little he thought of the question rather than attempting an answer tbh.
    I love a good conspiracy theory and a good one is just the right side of outrageousness that if you squint you see the sense in it. I agree that a lot of what people believe about God and the existence of God is believed because it's valid within it's own theology. No doubt about it, we can reason our way to anything once we accept certain premises. But again like science we have to relate what we believe to the real world. Once it stops working in reality we must abandon the ideas. Which is why I'm carefully not to claim anything about God that I can't experience myself, for myself. I make no claims for anyone else. And I never sought to prove the existence of God, rather to present why I believe their exists a supreme being.

    This is important because of the nature of truth when dealing with subjective things. Ultimately God is a subjective experience and 'proof' if such a term can be used for something subjective is always going to be, like the proverbial pudding, in the eating.


  • #7901
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    That's probably true. However, the point I was making is that Atheists are just as opinionated, just as likely to be brainwashed and just as committed to their belief that God doesn't exist, as Theists are about their belief in the existence of God... and with an equal likelihood of bias to match their respective worldviews.

    I was challenging the often repeated idea by Atheists that they aren't opinionated and are driven by pure logic and have no beliefs or biases ... when day and daily we see them expressing opinions, making biased statement and expressing beliefs ... just like Theists actually!!!:)

    I think most people on Earth have beliefs, but most beliefs are based on factual evidence which we can see or feel. You are not brainwashed if you only believe things which are scientifically provable. Most atheists I know, would believe in God INSTANTLY if some form of verifiable proof were produced for his/her existence.


  • Advertisement
  • #7902
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    Safehands wrote: »
    I think most people on Earth have beliefs, but most beliefs are based on factual evidence which we can see or feel. You are not brainwashed if you only believe things which are scientifically provable. Most atheists I know, would believe in God INSTANTLY if some form of verifiable proof were produced for his/her existence.

    I am a long-time athiest and wouldn't believe in god instantly, considering how much value there'd been in a fake god... BUT if I was convinced that god was real I would of course believe in it... but... saying that "god" is real doesn't of course mean that Christianity, etc., is true.


  • #7903
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    I am a long-time athiest and wouldn't believe in god instantly, considering how much value there'd been in a fake god... BUT if I was convinced that god was real I would of course believe in it... but... saying that "god" is real doesn't of course mean that Christianity, etc., is true.

    I would imagine that if we had definitive evidence of God then we would also have evidence that most of the religions were untrue. Possibly all bar one. Most likely that all were wrong to varieing degrees and the amount of actual truth in any was quite small.


  • #7904
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I would imagine that if we had definitive evidence of God then we would also have evidence that most of the religions were untrue. Possibly all bar one. Most likely that all were wrong to varieing degrees and the amount of actual truth in any was quite small.

    yessssss... but god is what exactly? A super powerful alien race? Or some sort of proof that we're living in a computer simulation... or what?

    God is only really "god" to most people in connection to religion... if you see my point...


  • #7905
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Oh for gods sake! what is the thread about?

    It is funny to me that when an atheist argues against god... and their definition of god does not match the one the theist holds.... that the theist pounces on this with wanton glee complaining that the atheist is not even listening and is attacking his own version of "god".

    Yet when the atheist... in this case me.... preempts that by attempting to get you to be specific about what it is you are claiming / espousing.... your frustration with this comes out with explanation marks and explosions.

    Some people are just never happy.

    However I think my own definition of "god" as "A non-human intelligence that is responsible for the creation and / or subsequent maintenance of our universe" is one that fits with what you are espousing here, or?
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    It's presented because it as valid an argument for the existence of God as it is for everything else.

    Except it isn't. It is not valid at all. It is a simple error. You are talking about the creation of the universe..... a point in time all our science suggests that "time" was not an attribute of.... and are attempting to make arguments about it that require "time" to be an attribute.

    So if X is not an attribute of Y... and your arguments are based on X being an attribute of Y.... exactly how is it a "valid argument"? Because you decree it to be so?
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    I misspoke. Numinous is a better term for what I meant.

    And if we were having THAT conversation you might find we agree in a vastly larger amount of areas that you might even dare to predict. I am in or around the Sam Harris area of the Atheist Continuum in that I subscribe to a lot (but not all) of the aspects of human spirituality he espouses strongly and often.... and to the derision of a lot of his atheist peers.

    But this quest for meaning in life, to explore aspects of the human condition that are more than that experienced by the average joe on the street, to discuss morality and ethics, to explore the concept of human well being and happiness, and all the other aspects of "Spirituality" are a complete non-sequitur to the conversation about whether god exists to me.

    Religion benefits strongly by placing itself in proxy to such discourse, alas to the detriment of the latter, but I can not see how any shred of it supports the assertion that a non-human intelligence exists that is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe.
    tommy2bad wrote: »
    But again like science we have to relate what we believe to the real world. Once it stops working in reality we must abandon the ideas.

    A great but incomplete statement. I share it and operate upon it but I do not think you go far enough. Because many ideas that are patently false or unsubstantiated can still remain congruent to the reality around them. So while ideas that simply are not congruent should be abandoned as you say.... that in no way means giving a free ride to the ones that are.


  • #7906
    Balaclava1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 510 ✭✭✭Balaclava1991


    Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert since he would have known already he was the Son of God and that he would be crucified and die for the sin of humanity?

    God is all powerful and knows all things so God must have surely known in advance that Satan would rebel and that humanity would fall?

    Satan is a supernatural being who surely knows he will go to hell in the end right? Why would he choose to go to hell knowing he will ultimately be defeated at the end of time?

    Humanity is actually doing what God could have foreseen. Humanity therefore cannot help but sin and yet God punishes humanity for all eternity because they could not help but be fooled by a supernatural entity he allows to tempt mankind.

    God knew that Hitler would be tempted by Satan to become Fuhrer of Germany and that millions of innocent people would be slaughtered.

    He would have to have known that Bin Laden and his henchmen would be tempted to attack America and kill thousands on 9/11 and kick off all the wars that followed.

    Why did he let that happen?

    It makes no sense at all.

    That makes God as evil as Satan.


  • #7907
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert since he would have known already he was the Son of God and that he would be crucified and die for the sin of humanity?
    Satan believes that he is his own god ... and he therefore wants to take the place of God. He may also have thought that he could have overcome God in His Human Incarnation ... and the temptation of Jesus was therefore viewed by Satan as an opportunity to cause God to sin ... but of course, he failed.
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    God is all powerful and knows all things so God must have surely known in advance that Satan would rebel and that humanity would fall?
    Yes.
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Satan is a supernatural being who surely knows he will go to hell in the end right? Why would he choose to go to hell knowing he will ultimately be defeated at the end of time?
    Satan rebelled against God because he thinks that he is his own god ... and he is therefore happier with his own company in Hell than he is in Heaven with God.
    Self-deception and self-destructive behaviour isn't unique to Satan.
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Humanity is actually doing what God could have foreseen. Humanity therefore cannot help but sin and yet God punishes humanity for all eternity because they could not help but be fooled by a supernatural entity he allows to tempt mankind.
    Humanity has free-will to do good or evil ... to love or hate and to be Saved ... or not.
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    God knew that Hitler would be tempted by Satan to become Fuhrer of Germany and that millions of innocent people would be slaughtered.
    ... but He also knew that you and I (and many others) would be born and would help Humanity in innumerable ways!!!
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    He would have to have known that Bin Laden and his henchmen would be tempted to attack America and kill thousands on 9/11 and kick off all the wars that followed.
    God knows that this isn't how it happened!!!:)
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    Why did he let that happen?
    He allows free will.

    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    It makes no sense at all.
    Yes, invading Iraq to get Bin Ladin ... who was from Saudi Arabia and was hiding in Pakistan doesn't make a lot of sense allright!!:)
    Balaclava1991 wrote: »
    That makes God as evil as Satan.
    ...no ... it just probably means that the Americans were slightly 'geographically challenged' at the time!!!:)


  • #7908
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    JC you talk about free will and all that.

    Some people have no choice but to behave in so called immoral way's.

    There's a lot of people who have mental and cognitive conditions and they need more than spiritual guidance and God to help them out.

    Because it's not a spiritual sickness it's more medical than anything.

    Are the mentally ill people on the road to hell ?


  • #7909
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    JC you talk about free will and all that.

    Some people have no choice but to behave in so called immoral way's.

    There's a lot of people who have mental and cognitive conditions and they need more than spiritual guidance and God to help them out.

    Because it's not a spiritual sickness it's more medical than anything.

    Are the mentally ill people on the road to hell ?


  • #7910
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    JC you talk about free will and all that.

    Some people have no choice but to behave in so called immoral way's.

    There's a lot of people who have mental and cognitive conditions and they need more than spiritual guidance and God to help them out.

    Because it's not a spiritual sickness it's more medical than anything.

    Are the mentally ill people on the road to hell ?


  • #7911
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    JC you talk about free will and all that.

    Some people have no choice but to behave in so called immoral way's.

    There's a lot of people who have mental and cognitive conditions and they need more than spiritual guidance and God to help them out.

    Because it's not a spiritual sickness it's more medical than anything.

    Are the mentally ill people on the road to hell ?


  • Advertisement
  • #7912
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Geomy wrote: »
    JC you talk about free will and all that.

    Some people have no choice but to behave in so called immoral way's.

    There's a lot of people who have mental and cognitive conditions and they need more than spiritual guidance and God to help them out.

    Because it's not a spiritual sickness it's more medical than anything.

    Are the mentally ill people on the road to hell ?
    God is a God of justice as well as mercy ... and therefore people who are mentally incapacitated in this life will logically, in justice be offered a choice of being Saved (or not) when they have the mental capacity to make this decision, at the entry point to the next life.
    God is fundamentally a God of love and compassion ... but His very love and compassion doesn't allow Him to coerce anybody into being Saved.


  • #7913
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    God is a God of justice as well as mercy ... and therefore people who are mentally incapacitated in this life will logically, in justice be offered a choice of being Saved (or not) when they have the mental capacity to make this decision, at the entry point to the next life.

    I think you would struggle to find biblical support for "mental capacity to choosing to be saved or not" being added to someone's faculties (assuming they lacked that ability in the first place) after they die

    I think you would also struggle to find biblical support for the notion of choosing to be saved at all. Those who don't believe would have no reason to chose to do something that required belief.


  • #7914
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I think you would struggle to find biblical support for "mental capacity to choosing to be saved or not" being added to someone's faculties (assuming they lacked that ability in the first place) after they die.
    It's stated in no less than three of the Gospels By Jesus Christ:-

    Matthew 19:26
    Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

    Mark 10:27
    Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

    Luke 18:27
    Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I think you would also struggle to find biblical support for the notion of choosing to be saved at all. Those who don't believe would have no reason to chose to do something that required belief.
    Everybody knows in their heart of hearts that God exists ... many deny it ... and some simply reject God, as is their free-will right, while knowing that He exists.

    Acts 16:30-32
    King James Version (KJV)

    30 And (he) brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

    31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.


  • #7915
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    J C wrote: »
    It's stated in no less than three of the Gospels By Jesus Christ:-

    Matthew 19:26
    Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

    Mark 10:27
    Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

    Luke 18:27
    Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”



    Everybody knows in their heart of hearts that God exists ... many deny it ... and some simply reject God, as is their free-will right, while knowing that He exists.

    Acts 16:30-32
    King James Version (KJV)

    30 And (he) brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

    31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

    This is frankly borderline mental illness ^^^

    Everyone doesn't "know" that god exists. In fact many many people "know" it doesn't exist and that people desperate to cling to such superstition are basically scared.


  • #7916
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    It's stated in no less than three of the Gospels By Jesus Christ:-

    Matthew 19:26
    Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

    Mark 10:27
    Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

    Luke 18:27
    Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

    This doesn't in any way constitute support for your particular, and quite specific proposition. That it is possible for God to do 'x' isn't support for the claim that God actually will do 'x'.


    Everybody knows in their heart of hearts that God exists ... many deny it ... and some simply reject God, as is their free-will right, while knowing that He exists.

    Acts 16:30-32
    King James Version (KJV)

    30 And (he) brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

    31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

    As that passage makes clear, the person has already believes they are in need of salvation and so the request needn't be one made from free will. Anymore than asking the way out of a burning building is the act of one freely choosing to exit it.

    Indeed, the Bible speaks of man's condition being that of a dead man. One who is blind to the things of God. There is no indication that a changeabout in that condition is produced by acts of freewill - since the will is considered bound up in sin.


  • #7917
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    This doesn't in any way constitute support for your particular, and quite specific proposition. That it is possible for God to do 'x' isn't support for the claim that God actually will do 'x'.
    If He says that He can and will ... then I believe Him.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    As that passage makes clear, the person has already believes they are in need of salvation and so the request needn't be one made from free will. Anymore than asking the way out of a burning building is the act of one freely choosing to exit it.
    One can use ones's free will to ask for help out of a burning building ... or to go into a burning building to save other people, like rescue people routinely do.
    God lays spiritual life and death before us ... and we have the choice to choose life or death ... salvation or perdition.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Indeed, the Bible speaks of man's condition being that of a dead man. One who is blind to the things of God. There is no indication that a changeabout in that condition is produced by acts of freewill - since the will is considered bound up in sin.
    The Bible is full of people lost in their sin asking forgiveness from God and receiving it.
    Pre-destination makes God into an arbitrary and coercive God, choosing who will be Saved ... and who won't ... with no input from the targets of his biased affection.
    It renders God as a God of in-justice and no love for some people - and IMO is a major heresy by effectively attributing injustice and arbitrary bias to God.


  • #7918
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    This is frankly borderline mental illness ^^^
    It is a lot less insane than defying God to the point of rejecting His free gift of Salvation ... and facing eternal perdition because they are competely inflexible in their belief in themselves ... to the exclusion of the advice from all others, including God.
    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Everyone doesn't "know" that god exists. In fact many many people "know" it doesn't exist and that people desperate to cling to such superstition are basically scared.
    Everyone knows that there is a great power out there ... some choose to ignore Him ... some choose to deny Him ... and other to defy Him ... and I have chosen to love, honour and obey Him.


  • #7919
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    J C wrote: »
    It is a lot less insane than defying God to the point of rejecting His free gift of Salvation ... and facing eternal perdition because they are competely inflexible in their belief in themselves ... to the exclusion of the advice from all others, including God.

    Everyone knows that there is a great power out there ... some choose to ignore Him ... some choose to deny Him ... and other to defy Him ... and I have chosen to love, honour and obey Him.

    No. Everyone does not know that. You have no idea what people think. Obviously.

    And sure, believe whatever nonsense you want - faith is by definition the belief in something without proof - but don't pretend to know what everyone believes in their heart. It's an insult to everyone else and it makes you look crazy.


  • #7920
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    J C wrote: »
    If He says that He can and will ... then I believe Him.

    Me too. But I was asking where it was he says he will do what you say it is he will do.
    One can use ones's free will to ask for help out of a burning building ... or to go into a burning building to save other people, like rescue people routinely do.
    My point was that someone asking the way to salvation presupposes something having happened to prompt the question. Free will is one possibility but not the only one.

    God lays spiritual life and death before us ... and we have the choice to choose life or death ... salvation or perdition.
    And my question was where does the Bible argue that. And I don't mean a half verse here or there - this is important stuff and important stuff standing on snippets doth not sound doctrine make
    The Bible is full of people lost in their sin asking forgiveness from God and receiving it.
    Indeed. But the question arises as to free will. The Bible doesn't appear to support that notion.
    Pre-destination makes God into an arbitrary and coercive God, choosing who will be Saved ... and who won't ... with no input from the targets of his biased affection.

    It renders God as a God of in-justice and no love for some people - and IMO is a major heresy by effectively attributing injustice and arbitrary bias to God.
    I don't hold to predestination either. Not only are there your reasonable objections above but the biblical case for it is paltry - the reliance is on snippets of text to support the doctrine. Invariably, the supporting texts can be equally read such that what is predestined is what it is that is planned to occur to a category of people called 'the saved'. Not who it is will be saved in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • #7921
    randomperson12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 226 ✭✭randomperson12


    atheist should get the as out of here even an donkey has something to do with jesus because jesus exists

    Mod: Lose the abusive tone, please.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement