15 Mar 16
Originally posted by SuzianneSo the whole point is to make sure that people have no excuse? What if my excuse is that I was not given sufficient information to make a reasonable choice?
Man must choose, so that he owns his choice and no one can say that he had no choice.
Each man's destiny is in his own hands. Each man chooses to live or to die. What could possibly be more fair than that?
There is nothing 'fair' about it. A fair choice would be one in which you are given all the necessary information to make an informed choice. Merely presenting someone with two doors behind one of which is eternal life and behind the other is certain death and then telling them to choose is not a 'fair choice'. If someone chooses at random the can hardly be blamed for the results.
15 Mar 16
Originally posted by apathist?? What??
Right! Our choice here is infringed only by the complete LACK of proof of His existence.
Which identifies what sort of person God wants in Heaven.
How is our choice "infringed" by lack of proof? Everyone on this planet who believes in God came to this belief DESPITE the lack of proof.
Originally posted by SuzianneThey do not ignore what you write. There was no explanation given in your original post. Pretending that nobody read it when a number of posters directly replied to it asking for clarification is just plain dishonesty on your part.
It's not my fault if people decide to ignore what I write. I'm not going to write it again, and again, and again, and... just no.
But I suppose you could try the fingers in your ears, singing "La, la, la, la, la, I can't hear you." It might not work, but it would amuse me.
15 Mar 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have all the information you need to make your choice. God has seen to it that we have access to His Word. If you choose not to believe it, then yes, you have made your choice.
So the whole point is to make sure that people have no excuse? What if my excuse is that I was not given sufficient information to make a reasonable choice?
[b]Each man's destiny is in his own hands. Each man chooses to live or to die. What could possibly be more fair than that?
There is nothing 'fair' about it. A fair choice would be one in whi ...[text shortened]... e is not a 'fair choice'. If someone chooses at random the can hardly be blamed for the results.[/b]
"...chooses at random..." Ha ha, good one.
15 Mar 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadDishonesty, my shapely ass!
They do not ignore what you write. There was no explanation given in your original post. Pretending that nobody read it when a number of posters directly replied to it asking for clarification is just plain dishonesty on your part.
My point was free will and choice, and how proof negates a free will choice. That was all the explanation necessary. If someone doesn't "get it", then I can't help stupid. If someone refuses to "get it", then I can't help stubborn. My only choice, then, if they don't get, or refuse to get, my point, is to assume they ignored my point. It was right there for anyone to read. Perhaps, like you, their bias clouds their eyes, well, that's not my fault, is it? Like Dasa, you use the word "dishonesty" incorrectly here. Dishonesty implies intent to deceive. Your bias may insist that you believe that, but it is simply not true.
Originally posted by SuzianneYes. Blatant dishonest.
Dishonesty, my shapely ass!
A number of people asked for clarification and the best you could come up with was 'you didn't read my post'.
Blatant dishonest.
My point was free will and choice, and how proof negates a free will choice. That was all the explanation necessary.
Except it isn't an explanation of what you were asked.
If someone doesn't "get it", then I can't help stupid.
Most of the posters who asked for clarification, myself included, are clearly not stupid. Pretending that they are is just more dishonesty on your part.
Originally posted by SuzianneImagine I put two guns, one loaded and the other empty, in front of you, forced you to select one, put it against your head, and pull the trigger.
There is a clear choice: between God and mammon. In the Old Testament, the clear choice was between the things of God and the things of man, between God and self, between God and greed. In the New Testament, the choice changes subtly but significantly: the choice becomes between Christ and sin, between life and death, between good and evil.
The entire ...[text shortened]... his own hands. Each man chooses to live or to die. What could possibly be more fair than that?
The choice must be made. Your destiny is in your hands. You own the choice. You have exercised free will over this choice, which will determine whether you live or die.
So if you happen to blow your brains out, this is fair, right?
If you disagree with this comparison, explain how the situation with your God differs, rather than just calling me stupid.
15 Mar 16
Originally posted by SuzianneIts a trap. God seems to want the gullible and unthinking. The Bible even admits that believers are sheep!
?? What??
How is our choice "infringed" by lack of proof? Everyone on this planet who believes in God came to this belief DESPITE the lack of proof.
Why would God want sheep?
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke (OP)"In other words, I believe it on His authority. Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things
For a while back there, I believed in the existence of God. This belief was based on 'actual proof' that he existed, for every night when i got up to answer the call of nature, God kindly turned the light on for me. This act of kindness not only proved his existence, but also his all-loving nature.
I then of course discovered I had been peeing i ...[text shortened]... What tangible proof can you offer that God exists? (Yes, i know faith shouldn't require such proof).
on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think
trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is
such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there
must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes
in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority—because the
scientists say so.
Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman
Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a
thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings
that tell us about them: in fact, on authority..." (C.S. Lewis)
https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf
_______________________
John 1:1-5 New American Standard Bible "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [b]comprehend it." "Footnotes: a.John 1:2 Lit This one b.John 1:5 Or overpower."
____________________
John 3:16-17 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." "Footnotes: a.John 3:16 Or unique, only one of His kind."
______________
GD, thanks for launching this spirituality forum thread.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Mar 16
Originally posted by Suzianne
This is a cop-out. You create rules for yourself and you claim that these rules deny you the ability to choose. But by creating the rules, you have already chosen. You claim there is no free will so that at the end of things, you can try to claim, "But I did not realistically have a choice!" You are trying to avoid the responsibility for your own decisi ...[text shortened]... hosen, despite your fervent wish that you really have no choice. And you have chosen... poorly.
This is a cop-out. You create rules for yourself and you claim that these rules deny you the ability to choose. But by creating the rules, you have already chosen. You claim there is no free will so that at the end of things, you can try to claim, "But I did not realistically have a choice!" You are trying to avoid the responsibility for your own decisions
It's really not a cop out. It's a perfectly valid logical argument refuting your position.
And no amount of stamping you foot and "screaming Nuh-uh!" will change that.
How about instead of trying to second guess my motives and failing miserably you actually deal with the substance of
my arguments. The discussion will be both much more civil and much more productive.
And that people consistently deny proven facts, is true. And I accounted for it. I said, "If His existence were proven, then we could not choose to not believe it, just as we cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat, unless, of course, we are either stupid or just stubborn." Facts are facts, even if you try to play the game of denying facts, which, as I said, makes one either stupid or stubborn.
I fail to understand how it is that you cannot understand that this positively proves your position wrong.
IF it were true, that we did have free will but that free will was destroyed by being presented with irrefutable facts
that FORCED people to believe them then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to fail to believe facts that have
been sufficiently proven.
You yourself gave examples [and we gave more] where people clearly do fail to believe facts that have been sufficiently
proven. Thus proving that it cannot be the case that presenting people with proof removes their free will.
And please, when you talk to me about God and choice and belief, do not insult me with trivia about how many gods people have believed in over time. Neither you nor I believe in any of these supposed "gods". Mentioning them is just vanity. "Look how many gods I don't believe in!"
No, it's not vanity, it's at the very heart about what YOU do not understand about atheism.
You truly do not understand that as an atheist I am not defined with respect to Christianity and belief in an incorrectly
capitalised Christian "God" singular.
Atheism is about not believing in the existence of ANY god or gods.
I bring up those other religions and other gods because I really genuinely truthfully honestly and absolutely see no reason
at all to privilege YOUR religion and god [that I also don't believe in] over ANY other gods or religions from any period of
history.
For your argument to have any merit or weight you must give some VALID justification for selecting YOUR god and YOUR
religion out of the hundreds or thousands on offer to believe in 'based on faith'.
For you to claim that "of course we have a choice it says so here in the bible" you first have to give me some reason to
give a flying [fish] what it says in the bible. Because, and I will say this again and again until it sinks in, I DO NOT BELIEVE
THAT YOUR GOD EXISTS OR THAT YOUR RELIGION IS REAL.
I thus have no reason at all to think that ANYTHING written in the bible is true because it is in the bible. [obviously not
everything in the bible is false, but that which is true is not true because it is in the bible]
............
Look.
I would like to carry this discussion forwards, not because I think I am going to change your mind about whether your god
exists because I don't.
But because you clearly do not understand my/our position or point of view and it's clearly causing conflict.
[And it's entirely probable that I don't understand your point of view as well as I could either].
However, coming to understand [if not agree with] each others position will never happen if every time someone makes an
argument the response is an attempt to guess the motivations behind the argument rather than dealing with the argument itself.
I do not know what your motivations are, and I am not trying to guess, which is why I am trying to deal with the arguments
you make to try to make your case. You however seem determined to second guess my motivations for posting and why I think what
I think and you are getting it wrong every single time.
Why not simply ASK what I/we think and why and try to understand what I/we say instead of making it up and arguing against
your own strawman.
You will find yourself feeling a lot less besieged if you do that, in addition to it being the right thing to do.
17 Mar 16
Originally posted by Suzianne
I cannot offer tangible proof that God exists.
This is because proof of His existence would violate our free will choice to believe in Him or not. If His existence were proven, then we could not choose to not believe it, just as we cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat, unless, of course, we are either stupid or just stubborn. And so our free ...[text shortened]... of, want the responsibility for the choice to be taken from them, and this just ain't happenin'.
I cannot offer tangible proof that God exists.
This is because proof of His existence would violate our free will choice to believe in Him or not. If His existence were proven, then we could not choose to not believe it, just as we cannot choose to believe that the Earth is flat, unless, of course, we are either stupid or just stubborn. And so our free will choice is maintained by not having proof.
Those who DID receive proof of His existence have always been those who have already made the choice to believe. Thus, it follows that the important part of this is our CHOICE to either believe in Him, or not, and our free will to make this choice must not be infringed by anything, including proof. Those who want proof, want the responsibility for the choice to be taken from them, and this just ain't happenin'.
What a gem of an argument. Gets more entertaining every time you trot it out. It is confused and incoherent on so many levels, it is hard to keep track. Regardless, let us try to count the ways….
First, the argument contradicts itself. You say that in the presence of proof, one cannot choose to not believe; but then you go on in the next breath to imply that one still can, as long as one is "either stupid or just stubborn" enough. Which is it? Make up your mind; please try at least to get your story straight.
Second, the argument implies that having proof effectively robs one of responsibility. Wrong, so wrong. That basically could not be more wrong, since responsibility of choice is most fully exhibited in cases where persons have near-perfect information, in cases where one fully understands right from wrong; and least exhibited in cases where one has poor or insufficient information. For, in the former cases, imperfect information is removed as an obstacle to one’s understanding and it just comes down to whether the person chooses what he or she knows to be right or what he or she knows to be wrong. In the latter cases, can you really hold one responsible? Maybe not, since the lack of information does not provide a clear detailing of the worth of the different choice options. I mean, are you going to hold someone responsible for whether or not they correctly predict a fair coin flip?
Third: yes -- even as incredibly daft as it sounds -- you do seem intent on holding persons morally responsible for the equivalent of not correctly guessing a coin flip. According to you, we each are presented with a choice (upon which rests responsibility for the fate of our very souls, no less) and yet we necessarily have insufficient information for making a well-informed choice about it. What a silly charade. Why not just send persons to heaven or hell on the basis of a coin flip?
Fourth, this argument is hopelessly confused on the relations between information, choice, and freedom. Having strong evidence does not rob one of freedom of choice. The notion is beyond ridiculous, and I have already addressed it in numerous other threads.
Fifth, the argument grossly misunderstands the nature of belief. Belief is not choice-based. This has likewise already been discussed in numerous other threads.
Sixth, the narrative you describe does not make much sense. You say that you, as a believer, cannot present tangible proof that God exists (gee, what a shocker). And you say that one cannot have proof on the matter prior to one's "choosing" to believe or not. You're committed, on the other hand, to the idea that believers do, or at least can, have proof that God exists sometime after they "chose" to believe. To relieve this tension, you'll respond that there is a difference between public proof that one could present to others and private proof that one can have or experience directly. Fine, whatever. But, you haven't explained why having proof prior to the choice makes one a virtual robot robbed of responsibility; whereas having proof after the choice does not. Supposing you have proof now that your God exists (of course, you cannot share it with me, what a shame), why under your view are you still responsible for the initial "choice" to believe? According to your own view, I would have thought you are now basically a God-bot, robbed of her responsibility for choosing to follow God. I mean, according to your own view, you cannot choose to not believe in God now, right?!? Minimally, you owe the reader some account of how to reconcile this within your own view.