Mageth

What Normal’s saying, I take it, is that if his god were to provide evidence of its existence, we would be denied the opportunity of choosing to believe or not to believe. We would KNOW.

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think it's necessarily true. There are plenty of examples of people who don't "know" or accept the facts in spite of sufficient evidence to know. If god provided "sufficient" evidence, he would not be forcing me to believe or know (accept the evidence) that he exists (even Normal indicates this). I might be an idiot if I didn't know from the evidence, but that does not equate to god "forcing" me to believe (or know).

In any case, most Christians (and the bible) make it clear that believing or knowing isn't sufficient - something about "even the demons believe". One still has to choose to serve God, to jump through the right hoops, so our free will to accept or reject God would be intact even if God provided sufficient evidence of his existence (this seems to be clearly indicated by the Bible).

Stephen T-B

I was thinking of "knowing" god exists in the same way you "know" you've got a big toe.
Knowledge is characterised, perhaps I should have said, by consensus among reasonable people.

My final remark about the reality of Internet Infidels ruling out the reality of a god was, I now realise, trite and inaccurate. (But it does sound good...)
A thing can be real, yet not have presented sufficient evidence of its reality for a consensus to have been formed. For instance, the reality of atoms, as defined by physicists, wasn’t brought about by a consensus that they do, in fact, exist.
However - a big ‘however,’ this - definitions of Normal’s god suggest it could very easily provide all the evidence any sensible person needs in order to conclude that it is real.
Looking for reasons why it doesn’t accounts for this insistence that somehow it’s our fault that we can’t believe in it.

Furby

Actually, i think what Normal is saying is that sufficient evidence is entirely subjective.

As an example, believers now feel that there is sufficient evidence to believe in God while non-believers do not. If God, were to say, raise the level of evidence somewhat, some non-believers may view it to be sufficient and convert while others will still hold it to be insufficient.

In short, we get a tautology such as

"Person A will believe X if he thinks that there is sufficient evidence but Person A will only think there is sufficient evidence if he believes X."

Thus, God showing sufficient evidence to the non-believer is tantamount to making the non-believer believe, hence, entailing a loss of free will.

Stephen T-B

Your last point, I think, is crucial, Mageth.
As you say, the question of whether we choose whether or not to believe in god is actually taking us up a blind alley.
What we must choose to do is either obey or disobey his commandments. That’s why he made himself obvious to the Children of Israel. He didn’t require them to guess if he was real or not. He made it perfectly clear he was; what they had to do was to obey him - or not.

I don’t think we’ll get an explanation as to why he has changed tactics, giving us the added challenge of trying to believe in him - then deciding whether or not to obey those commandments.

Furby

I think, at the very least, God should divinely interfere to ensure that the bible is passed down accurately from generation to generation. Historical events in the bible should be verifiable through external sources and the chronological order of these events should be consistent. Needless to say, there should not be such glaring contradictions in the bible and it would be helpful if the prophecies can be shown to be true.

That would seem to me to be pretty good evidence for the existence of God.

Stephen T-B

posted in error

Cross Examiner

DMB,
As promised here, I am responding to your post, in a thread I felt was waxing argumentative. Nonetheless:

OK. I checked your links. I will reiterate my original assertion more simply. Fire burns flesh. That was my point...only. Where were you planning to go with this exactly?

Then let's bring out some good evidence.

You think I say God created man "to a certain pattern?" Not at all. I say man, according to the pattern of his behavior, the sum of his choices, decides who he is and is not set to some pattern.

Holy God cannot eternally tolerate sin in His presence as he cannot make a round square. There are logical limitations to omnipotence.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Justice. Mercy. I didn't make it up.

Yes, without free will I see no human culpability. There is a sound Biblical basis for this doctrine if you are interested.

Interesting thought. What do you mean by this?

95% confident

Allah takes no partners.

With the evidence I currently have seen on the Resurrection, I can only ascribe a 5% chance that Islamic teaching is accurate since they both declare mutual exclusivity with regards to this event. Apart from being personally satisfied with Christ, this is where my more pragmatic side comes in for rejecting Islam.

If I'm wrong about atheism, what do I lose? What if you are wrong about Christianity, what do you lose? I know, this is essentially Pascal's Wager, but I think it is applicable (finally) to the question above. And no, I don't say I've seen enough. I am always seeking more. The duty of he who would seek and learn.

What exactly was my "position" when you quoted me?

Are you sure the above is among my reasons for "not exhaustively investigating other religions?" I've asked these last two questions because I know you've (unintentionally) taken them completely out of context. I would encourage you to read these words again in the context of the whole post and the posts that preceded them. You still want to know why not? OK.

The (real) short answer for why I do not exhaustively research other religions is that they all implicitly or explicitly deny the Resurrection! Finally, we have a litmus test for truth. That's the beauty of an historical event like the Resurrection, either it did or did not happen. There is no third option whatsoever. So I can quickly judge each religion against this event that I have studied (being an amatuer historian, among other things) and have 95% confidence in. Using the example of Islam, muslim clerics/mullahs teach that Yeshu (Jesus) was a virgin-born prophet (among other Messianic qualities) that did not resurrect from the dead. Based on my current knowledge, I can easily reject that version of Islam. Though there is an interesting Qur'anic case that Muhammed (pbuh) believed that Jesus was the Christ. That for another time though. So if a muslim wanted to convert me he'd only have to show me why the Resurrection is a sham, hoax, never happened, Jesus never lived etc. The exact same burden the atheist has to convert me! See how simple I am?

The long answer for why I do not exhaustively research other religions is way out of scope for here and now and would probably put you to sleep anyway

On the subject of the divinity of Christ, I like this stylistic prose of Napolean Bonaparte, who was not a confessed Christian as far as I am aware:
"I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is not a man. There is between Christianity and other religions the distance of infinity. We can say to the authors of every other religion, you are neither gods or the agents of deity. You are but the agents of falsehood molded from the same clay as the rest of mortals. Your temples and priests proclaim your origin. But Jesus Christ astounds me and fills me with awe!"

On the subject of L'Empereur, my wife and I recently flew to New Orleans (our last hurrah before my firstborn son arrives) to attend the New Orleans Museum of Art's (NOMA) exhibition celebrating the bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase: "Jefferson's America, Napolean's France." Utterly amazing the artifacts we saw. Both TJ and NB were giants (not literally) of history. Check it out if you're a history buff. Well, the exhibition was not the really the only reason we went to the Crescent City, I also love Cajun/Creole food

A little limerick I wrote, be kind, I'm no poet :
If God is God, and He came as man he would have lived as Jesus had and would have done as Jesus did to reconcile man unto Him.

I understand what you are saying. I work with a lot of Europeans and we're always joking about the world according to Americans, namely that there are two kinds of people in the world: Americans and not-Americans. The second kind are usually brown and get bombed. I lament that America's more imperialistic policies gets associated with her "Christianity."

I'm sure that most are American but I'd disagree that that is why Christianity is a hot button here.

Probably so. Though America has many "cultural Christians" too. Which are a different breed of folk entirely.

True.

True.

Yes. Islam is highly regional, as it is as much about culture as it is about religion. Christianity is distributed much more evenly across the globe than is Islam. Communist China has many more Christians than does the USA.

Superiority? I don't want superiority. I just want truth, same as you.

No black mark at all. Red and yellow black and white they are precious in His sight

It just occurred to me that you might not know that song, being European. Simply, Christ is universal.

Good choice.

The Resurrection? You too?

If Jesus Christ did indeed raise from the dead then He is who He says He is. The implications of which are world shaking, life changing and history altering. You could say Christianity has changed the world, lives and history already. But there is a personal application for you from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, namely salvation from sin, an incredeible fellowship with the very mind of the Living Eternal God and the security of His eternal presence in the life to come, when this finite proving-ground of an existence ends: "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved (Romans 10:9-10)."

And there is much more that can be said.

American, yes. Christian, no.

Comparitively speaking, my look was hardly brief. I know a good deal on Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism, respectively.

It's not that simple with regards to any of the four mentioned above.

Previous ideas? Yes to the sentence above up to the point of "previous ideas."

For the same reason you are interested in other religions, I am as well. Religion is the expression of humanity, the quest for significance. I am intrigued by religion in general and continue to study as I am able. I am not particularly interested in the Eastern Religions (Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism etc.)as they offer little in the way of objective or purpose, comparitively.

A bit patronizing but I understand what you are trying to say. So, yes, I suppose.

That's rather broad. God will judge each, not I, though I do know that each is responsible for what he has been given.

My God is also here with us, grieving with us over the evil in the world, patiently seeing His plan for reconciliation of all Creation unfold per His sovereign will. By my current understanding of eschatology, the world will unite under a common economic system for the facilitation of commercial transaction. You might have heard of the One World movement? Such a thing will happen and there will be peace in the Mid East, centered upon Jerusalem, if only for a short time. The book of Revelation speaks a good deal on what must first come to pass before God will set things right.

Anyway, you seem to be interested in my profile, possibly sensing that I am the typical arrogant American Neanderthal? A bit about me:
-when I was 14 I was watching CNN and CSPAN religiously while my "colleagues" watched Beavis and Butthead.
-I speak French conversationally (certified by Parisian Chamber of Commerce)
-I have a BA in International Business
-I am a Network Engineer for a satellite-broadband services provider
-I begin my MBA next semester, JD thereafter
-I will be married for four years in Jan '04
-my firstborn son will be here any day now
-I'm 6'4 and in health
-I own two homes in California
-I am 25 years old

Why would I list these things? Because I count such things as rubbish compared to the surpassing knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord (Philippians 3:7-8). I take no credit but give God the glory for anything good that might come of my life, it is utterly in His service and care. Do you want to know the implications of the Resurrection for you?

"Now is Christ risen from the dead . . . even so in Christ shall all be made alive (I Corinthians 15:20,22)."

He has "begotten us again unto a living hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (I Peter 1:3)."

If Jesus rose from the dead, then Jesus IS GOD. If Jesus is GOD then He has told us how we are to live. If he did not resurrect, then I'll do something else, anything else. Maybe gardening. That sounds nice. Let truth prevail, regardless the outcome.

Regards,
BGiC

"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32)."

Normal

My claim is that there may be sufficient evidence, but the real claim is that were god to provide you with sufficient evidence, you could not choose to not believe. You would be forced to believe because there is sufficient evidence.

If god presented you with sufficient evidence, how could you possibly choose not to believe?

If you believe there is sufficient evidence for something (ie. that it is raining), you cannot say "It is not raining, though I believe it is". "It is not raining' is a direct inference that you have sufficient evidence to believe it is not raining. "I believe it is [raining]" is a direct inference that you have sufficent evidence to believe it is raining.

That's why it's a paradox.

Normal

One cannot "choose to believe the unbelievable". My point is you decide what is believable and what is unbelievable, so in the end, the choice to believe that god is unbelievable is an act of your free will.

Correction: The fact that god doesn't force you believe is not an indication that god doesn't exist.

Correction: The fact that he is not an indisputable reality does not mean he doesn't exist.

Normal

It might be better expressed as this:

1. A person decides what is sufficient evidence.
2. A person who has decided what constitutes sufficent evidence necessarily believes in those things that have sufficent evidence.