Normal

Well let me ask you this, if he knew how to make you believe, and then did that, would that not be interfering with your free will? He is, after all, aware of how to make you do something, and then he proceeds to make you believe. The only way he could not interfere with your free will is to make the answer ambiguous and let you decide for yourself.

Division By Zero

Then by not making the existence of trees ambiguous, he is interfering with my free will not to believe in trees.

Normal

You have decided that belief in trees is not ambiguous.

Mageth

Originally posted by Normal
Well let me ask you this, if he knew how to make you believe, and then did that, would that not be interfering with your free will?

But I expressed my free will when I said "Actually, what I would want is, if he exists, for him to let me know." So he's interfering with my free will by not giving me what I need to believe if he exists, since I exercised my free will by asking him.

He is, after all, aware of how to make you do something, and then he proceeds to make you believe.

I didn't ask him to make me believe, only to let me know if he exists. I see a difference there, don't you?

The only way he could not interfere with your free will is to make the answer ambiguous and let you decide for yourself.

Does that mean that it's ambiguous (both now and to those he interacted with directly) as to whether Jesus was really the Christ, Son of God? That's not the answer we get from a lot of Christians around here, that's for sure.

And under those rules, it would seem that there should be no guilt or punishment for deciding he doesn't exist, should there? To do so would seem to be interfering with the all-important exercise of free will.

Zthinker07

There are many arguments for an against the existance of God. Can anyone deny that? I can't. Now everyday we see Christians (Theists in general) denying their faith and converting to atheism or agnostism. Does the existance of God depends on how many believe? Not at all. On the other hand we also see (everyday as well) many atheists given up their faith (for in a sense atheism is also based on faith) and becoming theist. Now, does the existance of a god depends on that? Not at all. We all(atheist and theist) rely on faith for our 'properly basic beliefs'. Apart from those basic beliefs (which atheists and theists share) We can only trust the evidence provided by both sides, unless one is caugth by the postmodern notion of relativism and think that there is no objective truth. Now, if we agree that there IS objective truth (those who don't agree are basically wasting their time) then we must agree this issue is important, in fact this issue is a matter of death OR life. The problem begins when we embrace a world view with no evidence of its validity and then are not willing to see what the other world views have to say. Then we become dogmatics (with no evidence for our dogma). That's when we become simplistic so that we don't have to think hard about the truthfullness of our view. Now both sides have done a pretty good job at given the evidence for their beliefs and refuting their opponets. Yet it SEEMS to me that the Theist have done a better job. Probably you think just the opposite way. What can I say? 'Let's just affirm that the whole issue is person-relative '. Umn, I CANNOT affirm such nonsense (I hope you can't). So it all comes down to one thing. Either Theist are wrong and there is no god or Atheist are wrong and there is a God. It is a complicated issue but one worth solving.
What do think?

Boro Nut

Oh. I was under the impression that Jesus prefered to have sinners for dinner. What was all that 'lost sheep' and 'prodigal son' bollocks about then, if not for the likes of me? Tell him I'll be back when I've blown my fortune on manky women and don't have a pot to piss in. Then I'll come back for my fatted calf party. Tell him I like it well done. Roast potatoes would be nice too. Dress casual.

Boro Nut

Division By Zero

It's about as unambiguous as it's possible to be. It seems obvious that if God's the one who made trees, he intends for us to believe that they're there.

It seems that God only values our free will to believe or disbelieve in paranormal or religious things like souls and angels, not mundane things like trees.

This is all nonsense, anyway. I can't pick and choose what to believe in and what not to believe in: if something's going to convince me, it's going to convince me, whether I want to believe it or not.

I think most atheists would agree with Mageth: if God exists, I'd much prefer he let me know.

Mageth

We all(atheist and theist) rely on faith for our 'properly basic beliefs'.

Not true. In regards to gods, I lack belief in them. No "faith" required. And it's not even a "belief", it's a lack of belief.

Apart from those basic beliefs (which atheists and theists share)

We do?

Now, if we agree that there IS objective truth (those who don't agree are basically wasting their time)

Why would they be wasting their time?

Yet it SEEMS to me that the Theist have done a better job.

How so? They can't even agree on which god or gods are supposted to be "out there", or what exactly one must do if their particular god is the one that comes out on top.

So it all comes down to one thing. Either Theist are wrong and there is no god or Atheist are wrong and there is a God.

What god are you talking about? And why limit it to one? Note that theists could also be wrong on both whether or not there is a god or gods and, if there is, on which god(s) it is.

Boro Nut

There is one fatal flaw with your arguement, of which there is more than ample evidence. Space.

Boro Nut

At least one between each paragraph.

Normal

This seems like an irrational argument. By the same logic, it's a violation of your free will when you don't will yourself to fly.

But you imply that the only way for you to believe is for him to make you believe, and thus making the question unambiguous. How do you know he has not already "let you know" he exists, but you have denied the evidence.

Some people have decided that the belief in trees is umambiguous as well. They are there, plain and simple. Similairly, people claim the belief in god is unambiguous. Are these people necessarily the authorities on reality?

I would claim you are only responsible for what you know. Not even to god, but to yourself.