Could you believe that God exists?

[robrecht]

with butter and mustard?

No, lettuce, tomato and mayo, on lightly toasted multigrain bread.

[Doug Shaver]

I don't think that follows, I don't think God could make men freely love Him.

I didn't say anything, because I was not asked, about whether I would love him if I believed he was real.

[Doug Shaver]

Just for the sake of argument, what if he made a baloney sandwich appear right in front of you as you are reading this post? Would that do it?

You beg the question when you say he made the sandwich appear.

If I saw a baloney sandwich suddenly materialize out of nowhere, I would certainly be baffled as to how it could have happened. But if you're with me when it happens and you say, "God did that," I will ask "Why should I think so?"

[robrecht]

You beg the question when you say he made the sandwich appear.

If I saw a baloney sandwich suddenly materialize out of nowhere, I would certainly be baffled as to how it could have happened. But if you're with me when it happens and you say, "God did that," I will ask "Why should I think so?"

Too late. I'm guessing the baloney sandwich did not in fact appear. Oh well.

[tabibito]

You beg the question when you say he made the sandwich appear.

If I saw a baloney sandwich suddenly materialize out of nowhere, I would certainly be baffled as to how it could have happened. But if you're with me when it happens and you say, "God did that," I will ask "Why should I think so?"

However, if such a sandwich should appear 5 minutes after Robrecht told you "Five minutes from now, God will make a baloney sandwich materialise before your very eyes." it would be reasonable to consider you merely recalcitrant if you did not take the claims about the existence of God seriously. (Not to say that it should be enough to convince you of and by itself, and always assuming that you had no solid reason to believe that Robrecht would stoop to deception.)

[robrecht]

I don't think Doug is recalcitrant. Maybe he just doesn't like baloney sandwiches. I'm sure God has something better in store for him.

[Juvenal]

However, if such a sandwich should appear 5 minutes after Robrecht told you "Five minutes from now, God will make a baloney sandwich materialise before your very eyes." it would be reasonable to consider you merely recalcitrant if you did not take the claims about the existence of God seriously. (Not to say that it should be enough to convince you of and by itself, and always assuming that you had no solid reason to believe that Robrecht would stoop to deception.)

Bolgona_sandwich.jpg

I don't think Doug is recalcitrant. Maybe he just doesn't like baloney sandwiches. I'm sure God has something better in store for him.

Can't speak for Doug, but personally, I can't imagine why anyone would think an ability to materialize a bologna sandwich implies an ability to create a universe. One of these two is much more difficult than the other, and that's no bologna.

[robrecht]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1923[/ATTACH]



Can't speak for Doug, but personally, I can't imagine why anyone would think an ability to materialize a bologna sandwich implies an ability to create a universe. One of these two is much more difficult than the other, and that's no bologna.

Good point. But in my defense, that one there only has boring white Wonder bread, and it isn't toasted. No tomato or mayo either.

[tabibito]

Robrecht made no mention of a BOLOGNA sandwich. Bologna Sandwich would be too easy.

[NormATive]

Could you believe that God exists?

Yes, if God acted as he did all throughout the Tanakh and Christian Testaments, one might be able to have faith in such a being. But, since he lost all of his super powers, there is no basis in believing in your god or any other for that matter. The gods these days seem so powerless and impotent.

NORM

[Scrawly]

Yes, if God acted as he did all throughout the Tanakh and Christian Testaments, one might be able to have faith in such a being. But, since he lost all of his super powers, there is no basis in believing in your god or any other for that matter. The gods these days seem so powerless and impotent. NORM

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." (Heb. 1:1-2).

It seems in the past God spoke in many ways (overtly miraculous?). Today we have the Scriptures, which were written so that we may believe. (John. 20:31).

"..for I have five brothers-- in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment. But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

It seems Jesus wasn't too concerned about producing miracles so people may believe. Although, more can be said on this, we still must deal with this passage.

"..since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.." (Rom. 1:19-21).

Yes, this is presuppositional argumentation, however, I have come to experience the reality that humans are not the most trustworthy. Are we not all liars? Could human beings really be suppressing the truth of God in their heart of hearts? Well, I'll leave that for you to ponder.

[tabibito]

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." (Heb. 1:1-2).

It seems in the past God spoke in many ways (overtly miraculous?). Today we have the Scriptures, which were written so that we may believe. (John. 20:31).

"..for I have five brothers-- in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment. But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

It seems Jesus wasn't too concerned about producing miracles so people may believe. Although, more can be said on this, we still must deal with this passage.

"..since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.." (Rom. 1:19-21).

Yes, this is presuppositional argumentation, however, I have come to experience the reality that humans are not the most trustworthy. Are we not all liars? Could human beings really be suppressing the truth of God in their heart of hearts? Well, I'll leave that for you to ponder.

This does not deal with the fact that after Jesus' ascension, God continued to display signs and wonders, and to appoint and send out prophets and such as his workers. Now, had no new prophets and other workers been appointed subsequent to Jesus' ascension, the argument might hold some weight - though only some, as signs and wonders, and prophesying continued. As it stands though, and given that there was no indication anywhere in the New Testament (nor the Old, come to that) that the procedure would end, a careful examination needs to be conducted to ascertain why these things are no longer being done.

None of this lot

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." (Heb. 1:1-2).

Today we have the Scriptures, which were written so that we may believe. (John. 20:31).

"..for I have five brothers-- in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment. But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

"..since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.." (Rom. 1:19-21).

even begins to address the issue.

Yes, this is presuppositional argumentation

Which is to say - dream up an excuse and then look for ways to rationalise it.
When you ask "why are there no prophets, no miracles" and search for the answer, rather than dreaming one up, that answer becomes apparent in short order.

[whag]

This does not deal with the fact that after Jesus' ascension, God continued to display signs and wonders, and to appoint and send out prophets and such as his workers. Now, had no new prophets and other workers been appointed subsequent to Jesus' ascension, the argument might hold some weight - though only some, as signs and wonders, and prophesying continued. As it stands though, and given that there was no indication anywhere in the New Testament (nor the Old, come to that) that the procedure would end, a careful examination needs to be conducted to ascertain why these things are no longer being done.

None of this lot

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." (Heb. 1:1-2).

Today we have the Scriptures, which were written so that we may believe. (John. 20:31).

"..for I have five brothers-- in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment. But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

"..since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.." (Rom. 1:19-21).

even begins to address the issue.


Which is to say - dream up an excuse and then look for ways to rationalise it.
When you ask "why are there no prophets, no miracles" and search for the answer, rather than dreaming one up, that answer becomes apparent in short order.

Is your view informed by holy spirit epistemology in addition to scripture? Awhile back, you said you received a message from God re: Anwar Saddat's assassination.

[tabibito]

Is your view informed by holy spirit epistemology in addition to scripture? Awhile back, you said you received a message from God re: Anwar Saddat's assassination.

There was a time when I questioned whether the source of my experience might not be what it seemed.
I searched the scriptures to find out whether there could be
1/ any movement by the Holy Spirit commensurate with the that of the times of the founding apostles. [yes]
2/ whether there was any support for the concept that the gifts of the Holy Spirit would cease to be available. [no]

Next step, given those answers: search to find out why are the gifts not in general use? [まさか] I spent a lot of time trying to find a different answer.

[Doug Shaver]

However, if such a sandwich should appear 5 minutes after Robrecht told you "Five minutes from now, God will make a baloney sandwich materialise before your very eyes." it would be reasonable to consider you merely recalcitrant if you did not take the claims about the existence of God seriously. (Not to say that it should be enough to convince you of and by itself, and always assuming that you had no solid reason to believe that Robrecht would stoop to deception.)

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose someone from another religion were to tell you, "Five minutes from now, the God I worship will make a baloney sandwich materialise before your very eyes." And five minutes later, the sandwich appears. What would be your response?