Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Could you believe that God exists?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
    [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.
    I believe that the bologna sandwich would be much more difficult.

    A universe may be basically - nothing (zero energy).

    Comment


    • #47
      I think that yes, it is possible for my mind to change and for me to believe in a god, because I know that belief cannot be chosen. If events transpire to convince me a god or gods exist then that's it - mind changed.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
        I really don't know. But if God is real, he knows what it would take and he knows how to make it happen. Whether he does make it happen is his decision.
        You're right, if God was real then he would know exactly what it would take to convince you. So now the question is, how do you know God hasn't already given you exactly what you're asking for, but you've stubbornly refused to accept it?
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          So now the question is, how do you know God hasn't already given you exactly what you're asking for, but you've stubbornly refused to accept it?
          Anything I have actually asked for is beside the point. As an ordinary human being, I have limits. Even my stubbornness (assuming it's my real problem) has its limits. Something, if it were to happen, would change my mind, even if, due to limits to my self-understanding, I myself cannot predict what it would be. Since I have not changed my mind, whatever it is has not happened yet.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
            Anything I have actually asked for is beside the point. As an ordinary human being, I have limits. Even my stubbornness (assuming it's my real problem) has its limits. Something, if it were to happen, would change my mind, even if, due to limits to my self-understanding, I myself cannot predict what it would be. Since I have not changed my mind, whatever it is has not happened yet.
            First of all, you're begging the question, so your objection falls flat on that point alone. Secondly, you basically want a God who will overpower your freewill and compel you to believe, but the Bible tells us that He won't do that. He's already shown you everything you need to believe. It's up to you to open your heart and mind and humbly acept that which He has given. As Simon Greenleaf once wrote:

            § 1. In examining the evidences of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor, to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin. “There is no other entrance,” says Lord Bacon, “to the kingdom of man, which is founded in the sciences, than to the kingdom of heaven, into which no one can enter but in the character of a little child.” The docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartially to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in the judgment of right reason. The investigation, moreover, should be pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes the greatness of the subject—a subject fraught with such momentous consequences to man. It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed.

            § 2. In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. “Christianity,” says Bishop Wilson, “inscribes on the portal of her dominion ‘Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.’ Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and head-strong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man’s responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer.”

            http://www.classicapologetics.com/g/GreenTes1.html
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Secondly, you basically want a God who will overpower your freewill and compel you to believe
              I don't agree that the presentation of incontrovertible evidence is compulsion.

              Did you, at any moment on the morning of September 11, 2001, come to believe that we'd been attacked by terrorists because you wanted to believe it? If you say that the terrorists, by their actions, made you believe it, or that the journalists, by their reporting of the event, made you believe it, did any of them violate your free will in so doing?

              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              He's already shown you everything you need to believe.
              You say so.

              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              As Simon Greenleaf once wrote:
              I posted a response to Greenleaf during the previous incarnation of this website. Then I posted a revised version on my own website. You can read it here: http://dougshaver.net/christ/greenleaf.pdf.
              Last edited by Doug Shaver; 10-28-2014, 07:55 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                Did you, at any moment on the morning of September 11, 2001, come to believe that we'd been attacked by terrorists because you wanted to believe it? If you say that the terrorists, by their actions, made you believe it, or that the journalists, by their reporting of the event, made you believe it, did any of them violate your free will in so doing?
                I was watching Fox News and as I recall they cut in to show the first hit live already burning and I was thinking an accident, as I was watching I saw the second plane hit live and thought I was hallucinating it was so surreal. I suppose one could still choose to believe there were two accidents, that's what I thought for a minute as I recall. I've seen some weird coincidences in my life. But I ruled that out using reason that they were too much of a coincidence, and chose to believe it was intentional. Then of course reports came in from the Pentagon and such and it was entirely clear.

                As for terrorists, they merely provided an external source on which to exercise a free will judgment. Reporters merely facilitated it for non-eyewitnesses. And even after the event, we still have choices to make: were they really Muslim terrorists, or was it organized by some in the American government or other nefarious parties for more insidious reasons such as to pass the Patriot Act?

                I don't see that free will choices are violated, but rather that they are enabled, by those creating and reporting events of 9/11.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                  I don't agree that the presentation of incontrovertible evidence is compulsion.

                  Did you, at any moment on the morning of September 11, 2001, come to believe that we'd been attacked by terrorists because you wanted to believe it? If you say that the terrorists, by their actions, made you believe it, or that the journalists, by their reporting of the event, made you believe it, did any of them violate your free will in so doing?


                  You say so.


                  I posted a response to Greenleaf during the previous incarnation of this website. Then I posted a revised version on my own website. You can read it here: http://dougshaver.net/christ/greenleaf.pdf.
                  Is it really impossible for you to answer a short paragraph without having to chop it up and respond sentence by sentence?

                  But to answer your question, no, nobody's will was violated with reports of 9/11. Everyone is free to consider the evidence and accept it, reject it, or interpret it as they see fit (for example, the many 9/11 conspiracy theories that are floating around). In the same way, the evidence and arguments for God are there for everyone to consider and accept, reject, or interpret as they see fit. Of course I believe that in both cases, there is only one conclusion that is reasonably supported by the evidence, but that doesn't stop anybody from arriving at a different conclusion.

                  It seems to me that you're asking for God to present himself so forcefully that it will be impossible for you to reject, but short of overriding your freewill, there's no way he can do that. Suppose he whisked you away and showed you a taste of heaven. Would you accept it as real? Would you think it was merely a dream or hallucination? Perhaps a trick? Maybe it wasn't God at all but a demon. In short, there is no evidence for God or anything else in the universe that you aren't able to dismiss or reject, which leaves the question, is it reasonable to reject?

                  As for your response to Greenleaf, as far as I can see, your argument boils down to the nihilistic "Can't nobody know nothin' 'bout nothin'" mindset that is that the only conclusion consistent with atheism. In short, your rebuttal, if applied consistently, would invalidate the entirety of human history and render the past wholly unknowable, and such a consclusion is obviously unreasonable.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    It seems to me that you're asking for God to present himself so forcefully that it will be impossible for you to reject, but short of overriding your freewill, there's no way he can do that. Suppose he whisked you away and showed you a taste of heaven. Would you accept it as real? Would you think it was merely a dream or hallucination? Perhaps a trick? Maybe it wasn't God at all but a demon. In short, there is no evidence for God or anything else in the universe that you aren't able to dismiss or reject, which leaves the question, is it reasonable to reject?
                    As an atheist who spent my whole life as a charismatic Christian prior to my loss of faith, this resonates with me fairly well.

                    I have just as much reason from personal experience to believe in God as anyone I've ever met. The very first story in my history-- which takes place while I was still in the womb-- was seemingly miraculous. My mother was extremely ill, and underwent three major abdominal surgeries while she carried me. The medicines and anaesthetics which she needed to take, at the time, should have either killed me or left me permanently damaged, in the opinion of her doctors. They all advised her to abort the pregnancy for her own health and safety. But my mother truly felt that she had been given a Word from God that there was a divine hand upon me. When I was born, I was perfectly healthy-- a seeming testament to the promise my mother had felt on her heart.

                    I grew up with an ardent love for my faith. I read the Bible, I asked tough questions, and I defended my faith against detractors. Even when I was still a child, I truly felt that I could hear the voice of God speaking to me, providing me with wisdom and guidance as I needed it. I prophesied and spoke in tongues, even from a young age, and I completely believed that I felt a personal, spiritual connection to my God and his people. All of this (and a great deal more, besides) acted as extremely powerful personal experiences which had convinced me utterly of the reality of God, despite the fact that I knew I could provide no demonstrable, physical evidence of his existence.

                    Having lost my faith, I view all of that personal experience in a very different light. Things which seemed, before, to be powerfully convincing do not hold such strength, anymore. I attribute a great deal of my experience to the power of suggestion, and I draw very different conclusions. Is it reasonable for me to now reject the evidence which had once so thoroughly convinced me? I would argue that it most certainly is reasonable.

                    Which brings me to the question of this topic: could I change my mind and believe that God exists? Honestly, it depends very greatly on how one defines the concept of "God," as there are some formulations of this concept which I find to be wildly incoherent; but in general, if a convincing case can be made for a subject, I am more than willing to change my mind on that subject.
                    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                      Which brings me to the question of this topic: could I change my mind and believe that God exists? Honestly, it depends very greatly on how one defines the concept of "God," as there are some formulations of this concept which I find to be wildly incoherent; but in general, if a convincing case can be made for a subject, I am more than willing to change my mind on that subject.
                      I find this interesting. Isn't what one finds convincing or unconvincing often rather subjective? Was your experience of God really only due to the "the power of suggestion?" How do you know that? From where do you jump off to even begin to decide if what you believe today is rational as opposed to what you believed in the past?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        I find this interesting. Isn't what one finds convincing or unconvincing often rather subjective? Was your experience of God really only due to the "the power of suggestion?" How do you know that? From where do you jump off to even begin to decide if what you believe today is rational as opposed to what you believed in the past?
                        I attribute my experiences to the power of suggestion. Whether or not that attribution reflects absolute reality is another question, but it does seem to be the most concise and tenable explanation.

                        As for beginning to decide upon the rationality of my beliefs, the answer is that I began to reassess my own beliefs from the ground up in an attempt to ensure that I had cogent definitions and sound logic behind them. I very quickly realized that I did not, and upon this realization, I could no longer bring myself to believe things which I could not even define-- primary amongst these being my incoherent understanding of God. If I am to rationally believe that God spoke to me, then I must first rationally believe that God exists. If I am to rationally believe that God exists, I must first have cogent definitions for 'God' and 'existence.' By stripping-out as many of my own ill-defined or unsound beliefs as I can, I can rest assured that the remainder are largely rational.
                        "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                        --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                          I attribute my experiences to the power of suggestion. Whether or not that attribution reflects absolute reality is another question, but it does seem to be the most concise and tenable explanation.
                          The question is - were you deceived back then or are you deceived now?

                          As for beginning to decide upon the rationality of my beliefs, the answer is that I began to reassess my own beliefs from the ground up in an attempt to ensure that I had cogent definitions and sound logic behind them. I very quickly realized that I did not, and upon this realization, I could no longer bring myself to believe things which I could not even define-- primary amongst these being my incoherent understanding of God. If I am to rationally believe that God spoke to me, then I must first rationally believe that God exists. If I am to rationally believe that God exists, I must first have cogent definitions for 'God' and 'existence.' By stripping-out as many of my own ill-defined or unsound beliefs as I can, I can rest assured that the remainder are largely rational.
                          Why would God have to be coherent to your limited and finite understanding before He could successfully interact with you? That makes no sense.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            The question is - were you deceived back then or are you deceived now?
                            And the answer is that I have very good reason to suspect that I was deceived, then, and no reason to suspect that I am deceived, now.

                            Why would God have to be coherent to your limited and finite understanding before He could successfully interact with you? That makes no sense.
                            I didn't say that God needs to be coherent in order to "successfully interact" with me, whatever that means. I said that I would need to have a cogent definition for a deity in order to be rationally convinced that one exists.
                            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              And the answer is that I have very good reason to suspect that I was deceived, then, and no reason to suspect that I am deceived, now.
                              Except back then you thought you were not deceive for good reasons. Who knows what you will believe ten years from now.

                              I didn't say that God needs to be coherent in order to "successfully interact" with me, whatever that means. I said that I would need to have a cogent definition for a deity in order to be rationally convinced that one exists
                              .

                              Well you said: If I am to rationally believe that God spoke to me, then I must first rationally believe that God exists. If I am to rationally believe that God exists, I must first have cogent definitions for 'God' and 'existence.'

                              So why would you need a cogent definition of God before He could speak to you?
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Except back then you thought you were not deceive for good reasons.
                                No, I actually did not have good reason for believing that I was not deceived, back then.

                                Well you said: If I am to rationally believe that God spoke to me, then I must first rationally believe that God exists. If I am to rationally believe that God exists, I must first have cogent definitions for 'God' and 'existence.'

                                So why would you need a cogent definition of God before He could speak to you?
                                You are quoting my words, but you don't seem to be reading them. I never claimed that I would need a cogent definition of God before he could speak to me. I said that I would need a cogent definition of God before I could rationally believe that God spoke to me.
                                "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                                --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                38 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X