Tangible proof that God exists

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]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 ...[text shortened]... ht?!? Minimally, you owe the reader some account of how to reconcile this within your own view.

Yes.

And additionally, simple belief really isn't what her religion [her god] is actually after.
And it's disingenuous to say the least to claim that it is.

The important 'Choice' if a choice is to be made is not whether to believe but whether to worship
which is entirely not the same thing.

Belief may be necessary for worship but it is by no means sufficient.

You could prove that the god of the bible exists, and prove that gods nature beyond any possible doubt
and give me 'perfect information' about the consequences of my choice to worship that god or not and
THEN I could make that choice knowing all the facts and the consequences and 'take responsibility' for
that choice [that I actually know I have in this example as opposed to reality where it's entirely clear to
me that no such choice actually exists]. And in my case I will always choose not to worship that god.

Because that is the 'choice' that she/theists are ACTUALLY talking about, because simple belief is not
actually sufficient.

The way you can tell this is to ask "If I believed that your god existed, but believed that god to be evil and
refused to worship that god and tried to convince others that that god was evil and indeed tried to find ways
to fight or kill that god... Would I still go to [your religions version of as applicable] heaven simply because
I did believe that your god was real?"

The answer is of course NO.

The religious texts, and the words of believers and preachers alike make it very clear that worship and not
mere belief is what is required and it is simply just assumed that if you believe then you will naturally worship.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]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 ...[text shortened]... ht?!? Minimally, you owe the reader some account of how to reconcile this within your own view.

The coin toss analogy vaguely reminds me of the South Park film where a person in the crowd of newly arrived lost souls in Hell complains that she and her husband always went to their Seventh Day Adventist Church, and a voice comes over the loud speaker saying: "The correct answer was Mormon...".

Since all we can exercise free will over is whether to take account of the evidence or just ignore it it seems that our willingness to be open to evidence is all that we can be held responsible for. The question of whether someone who does not believe in clouds is irresponsible is superseded by the one about their sanity, with something less obvious where it is possible to come to more than one conclusion then the only place responsibility can lie is with the decision making process and not the actual decision. So I don't think it's inconsistent to think that a benevolent God would provide imperfect information but nevertheless require belief. However, the logical quarrel would be with one's decision making process rather than one's actual decision, which seems to undermine the whole idea as then a believer who didn't think it through properly could be damned to eternal roasting while a thoughtful atheist gets into heaven.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The coin toss analogy vaguely reminds me of the South Park film where a person in the crowd of newly arrived lost souls in Hell complains that she and her husband always went to their Seventh Day Adventist Church, and a voice comes over the loud speaker saying: "The correct answer was Mormon...".

Since all we can exercise free will over is whether to ...[text shortened]... hrough properly could be damned to eternal roasting while a thoughtful atheist gets into heaven.

I don't believe God gives us imperfect evidence for us to realize He is real, I do believe
when all is said and done we will all have to acknowledge we were aware and what we
did with that information. I don't believe any of us will have an excuse before God unlike
what we present to each other.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes.

And additionally, simple belief really isn't what her religion [her god] is actually after.
And it's disingenuous to say the least to claim that it is.

The important 'Choice' if a choice is to be made is not whether to believe but whether to worship
which is entirely not the same thing.

Belief may be necessary for worship but it is by no ...[text shortened]... t is required and it is simply just assumed that if you believe then you will naturally worship.

Right. Suzianne is obviously confused on the conceptual priorities regarding evidence, belief, and choice in this case. Her view is basically that strong evidence for God's existence is antithetical to the ability to serve God freely (well, this seems to be her main thesis even though her own account cannot stop from contradicting itself on this point) . But, in contrast, any sane view would acknowledge that such evidence is actually a precondition for theistic belief, which itself is in turn conceptually prior to the subject of freedom to serve. So her account is not even in the right state of the right county of the right ballpark.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The coin toss analogy vaguely reminds me of the South Park film where a person in the crowd of newly arrived lost souls in Hell complains that she and her husband always went to their Seventh Day Adventist Church, and a voice comes over the loud speaker saying: "The correct answer was Mormon...".

Since all we can exercise free will over is whether to ...[text shortened]... hrough properly could be damned to eternal roasting while a thoughtful atheist gets into heaven.

If we are talking simply about deliberation of theoretical reasons and subsequent belief formation, then perhaps it is right to say that one's responsibility only extends so far as being open to the relevant evidence. But remember Suzianne, for whatever reason, thinks belief in God is a matter of choice. And, fundamentally, choice is not principally concerned only with theoretical reasons but with deliberation of practical reasons over courses of action or endorsement. And this ushers in a whole new realm of responsibility. One could be perfectly open to the evidence that speaks to what one thinks a situation calls for, but this is distinct from the responsibility to follow through accordingly in action.

So, the point I was addressing is that Suzianne has a major conceptual problem in her argument. She holds that belief in God is a matter of choice. And she claims that strong evidence for or against God would rob one of his or her responsibility in that choice. So what is her underlying commitment here? It would seem to be the idea that when one has strong evidence that a particular course of action is correct, that basically coerces the person such that we cannot say the person chooses freely or is responsible for the choice made. Rather, Suzianne argues, the evidence needs to be insufficient to compellingly recommend any particular course of action, such that when the person chooses to go this way or that way we can say it was done freely and with responsibility. Well, that is just so fundamentally wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin. First, evidence does not coerce. Conceptually, coercion is the product of an outside agency imposing control through some illegitimate means of persuasion, or some such; whereas evidence is not an agent and, on top of which, being persuaded by relevant evidence is just rational, not illegitimate. I mean isn't persuasion through evidence and reasoning thereof the whole end goal of deliberation? So the idea that compelling evidence coerces a person is absurd. Relatedly, the idea that compelling evidence effaces responsibility for a choice is likewise absurd. My point before was that this idea seems not just wrong, but profoundly wrong. For having some reasonable inkling about what is the right thing do is, if anything, conceptually prior to the responsibility to follow through on doing the right thing. So what would be a paradigmatic case where one is under full responsibility for their action? It might be a case, for example, where one knows perfectly well what is the right course of action and has great and overwhelming evidence to that effect. In contrast, what would be a paradigmatic case where it is not clear that one carries full responsibility for their action? It might be a case, for example, where there is really poor evidence on which to go for making a choice, such that the evidence does not preferentially justify any particular choice. So, at best, Suzianne seems to have it completely backwards on this point.

So, I am not accusing her of being inconsistent for holding that God would provide imperfect evidence and yet require belief (nor do I think that is inconsistent). Rather, I am responding to her commitment that insufficient evidence to go on is somehow necessary for responsibility of choice, which I find absurd.

Originally posted by LemonJello
If we are talking simply about deliberation of theoretical reasons and subsequent belief formation, then perhaps it is right to say that one's responsibility only extends so far as being open to the relevant evidence. But remember Suzianne, for whatever reason, thinks belief in God is a matter of choice. And, fundamentally, choice is not principally con ...[text shortened]... icient evidence to go on is somehow necessary for responsibility of choice, which I find absurd.

I don't believe Suzianne has it backwards at all, following God does require a choice but
at the heart of that choices goes directly against what the world projects into us. Some
examples is we are to love God and our fellow man, the world's views of that has strings
attached God does not, it is not what we can get out of it or that those around us must
some how be worthy, with God we are to love them as is. We are to forgive as we are
forgiven with God which is completely we don't get to pick and choose those we forgive
and or not we are to forgive because Jesus died for us so everything we have ever done
is forgiven. We are to be grateful in life in all things, the world is setup where we if we
doing good we can be happy about it, but we can complain and hold it against others and
God when we are not. The mind set is completely different, taking Jesus' yoke is to yield,
but it is to yield to be able to live our lives in ways that are full of grace and mercy, by
carrying for others instead of always looking out for number one and those we deem
worthy of our help. We are to be consistent with our judgments, I cannot condemn some
body else for the very thing I do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe Suzianne has it backwards at all, following God does require a choice but
at the heart of that choices goes directly against what the world projects into us. Some
examples is we are to love God and our fellow man, the world's views of that has strings
attached God does not, it is not what we can get out of it or that those around us must ...[text shortened]... e to be consistent with our judgments, I cannot condemn some
body else for the very thing I do.

You have spectacularly missed the point.

Suppose you have a decision to make about how to invest your money for retirement.
You want to make the best most responsible decision possible so as to maximise your chances of
having sufficient money to comfortably retire and support yourself in your old age.

Now Suzianne's position is that you should make that decision with absolutely no knowledge of the pros
and cons of the available choices on offer Reveal Hidden Content and that if you have accurate information
on the two different choices this would remove your ability to make a choice and that you would no longer
be responsible for what you choose to do.

Our position is that this is backwards, and that in fact to make a decision for which you are and can be held responsible
you need to have as much information as possible. Because only by having enough information to be able to determine
the consequences of your choices can you take responsibility for those choices. Indeed we would regard making the
decision without seeking out information sufficient to make an informed choice as irresponsible and reckless.

This is true regardless of the nature of the decision, whether it's about investing for retirement or deciding
whether to worship a god or not.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
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 in ...[text shortened]... tangible proof can you offer that God exists? (Yes, i know faith shouldn't require such proof).

I agree with the bible when it says "a fool says there is no God". Please, you are surrounded with proof every where. In science, nature, etc. When a person believes and submits to Jesus Christ, he/she can manifest holy spirit.
At this point in my life, I find this question absurd. During the time of Jesus, they asked the same thing. His answer?
Matt 12:39-42

39 But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. 42 The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here.
NKJV

Originally posted by googlefudge
You have spectacularly missed the point.

Suppose you have a decision to make about how to invest your money for retirement.
You want to make the best most responsible decision possible so as to maximise your chances of
having sufficient money to comfortably retire and support yourself in your old age.

Now Suzianne's position is that you should m ...[text shortened]... sion, whether it's about investing for retirement or deciding
whether to worship a god or not.

No, with God your retirement is all about time you are not promised. The best most
responsible decisions will be what moves all of our lives forward into the everlasting
Kingdom of God. It again goes to what is really important what will last over the
here and now. The here and now are important but not the most important, you should
plan for the future, but always with the mindset you are not even promised to live out
the rest of today.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, with God your retirement is all about time you are not promised. The best most
responsible decisions will be what moves all of our lives forward into the everlasting
Kingdom of God. It again goes to what is really important what will last over the
here and now. The here and now are important but not the most important, you should
plan for the future, but always with the mindset you are not even promised to live out
the rest of today.

You have missed the point again.

Ok lets try this.

Imagine that you are forced to choose between two retirement plans A and B for you to pay into over your career.

One of these plans is run by a reputable and well regulated big bank that will invest the money soundly
and when you reach retirement you will have enough money saved to retire comfortably.
The other plan is run by a con artist who will take your monthly checks until you try to retire and then
they will disappear with all your money leaving you destitute.

You have no idea which of those policies is which, or even that one is good and that the other is bad.

You have to choose either A or B and you have no idea which one is the sound choice and which is the
the con and what's more you wont find out which policy was which until you actually retire by which time
it will be too late.


Now I have three questions:

1) Do you think that this setup is sensible?

2) And do you think that having been forced to make a choice between two options with no information about those
two choices that you are responsible for the outcome of that choice?

3) And finally, if you were given all the information about the two policies and told [correctly] which was which and
then were able to choose would you bear more or less responsibility for the outcome of that choice than you did
when you had no clue which was which?



EDIT: And please don't try to second guess my meanings, just answer the questions.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You have missed the point again.

Ok lets try this.
[i]
Imagine that you are forced to choose between two retirement plans A and B for you to pay into over your career.

One of these plans is run by a reputable and well regulated big bank that will invest the money soundly
and when you reach retirement you will have enough money saved to retire c ...[text shortened]... which?



EDIT: And please don't try to second guess my meanings, just answer the questions.

Here is the deal it is God has and does reveal Himself to us, yet some reject Him. Those
that do hear and respond towards Him show that by the choices they make, just as those
that reject Him do too. So it isn't like making a choice where you've no idea about what it
is you need to do, what you need to do has been revealed so your response will be very
revealing.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Here is the deal it is God has and does reveal Himself to us, yet some reject Him. Those
that do hear and respond towards Him show that by the choices they make, just as those
that reject Him do too. So it isn't like making a choice where you've no idea about what it
is you need to do, what you need to do has been revealed so your response will be very
revealing.

Can you please, for the love of the god you believe in, answer the question I actually asked instead of answering a question nobody was actually asking.

I asked three questions, could you please answer THOSE questions.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You have missed the point again.

Ok lets try this.
[i]
Imagine that you are forced to choose between two retirement plans A and B for you to pay into over your career.

One of these plans is run by a reputable and well regulated big bank that will invest the money soundly
and when you reach retirement you will have enough money saved to retire c ...[text shortened]... which?



EDIT: And please don't try to second guess my meanings, just answer the questions.

1) Do you think that this setup is sensible? nope

2) And do you think that having been forced to make a choice between two options with no information about those
two choices that you are responsible for the outcome of that choice? Nope

3) And finally, if you were given all the information about the two policies and told [correctly] which was which and
then were able to choose would you bear more or less responsibility for the outcome of that choice than you did
when you had no clue which was which? Your choices your responsibility

Originally posted by KellyJay
1) Do you think that this setup is sensible? nope

2) And do you think that having been forced to make a choice between two options with no information about those
two choices that you are responsible for the outcome of that choice? Nope

3) And finally, if you were given all the information about the two policies and told [correctly] which was which ...[text shortened]... at choice than you did
when you had no clue which was which? Your choices your responsibility

Thankyou.

I/We agree that those are sensible [and correct] answers.

What Suzianne is arguing is that those are not the correct answers, and that when it comes to god
and belief based on faith you should reverse the answer to all those questions.

That is why we are arguing that Suzianne has it backwards.

Now you are claiming Suzianne doesn't have it backwards, but you are not arguing Suzianne's position
you are arguing YOUR position and YOUR beliefs.

Now I don't agree with your beliefs either but they are not the same as those Suzianne is trying to defend.

What Suzianne is claiming IS backwards, and not the same as what you are claiming.

That is why I kept saying you had missed the point.


I would note that the thing [in this instance] that you both do have in common is that you respond to what
you think people are asking/talking about instead of what they actually write.

If you stop doing that life will get a whole lot simpler.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Thankyou.

I/We agree that those are sensible [and correct] answers.

What Suzianne is arguing is that those are not the correct answers, and that when it comes to god
and belief based on faith you should reverse the answer to all those questions.

That is why we are arguing that Suzianne has it backwards.

Now you are claiming Suzianne doesn't ...[text shortened]... nstead of what they actually write.

If you stop doing that life will get a whole lot simpler.

My bad....you are right here I was wrong.
I'm popping in and out of here with a little time and missed your points.
Sorry

Sorry about not reading your post as I should have!