DMB

Normal: please answer striaghtforwardly: does the god you believe in punish people for not believing in him?

Cross Examiner

DMB,

Do fired coals punish the man who walks across them?

Mageth

Do fired coals punish the man who walks across them?

Fired coals don't typically make their existence "ambiguous", do they? And "the man" can exercise his "free will" and choose not to walk across them, insuring his feet won't get punished.

Mageth

Normal:

How? An act of god to prove himself to you is violating your free will to believe that god does not exist.

Umm, no. And that's using your own arguments on this thread, where you've indicated that, in the case of a tree or a god, it's up to us to decide, no matter what evidence is presented, as in when you said:

My argument is that every belief of yours is an excercise of your free will.

You can't have it both ways, Normal.

Cross Examiner

Ambiguous? Well upwards of 90% of Americans believe in God. And I can deny the reality of fired coals if I have a reason for doing so. Ever see those monks get into that mental state I'm alluding to? It allows them to overcome the heat. The mind is the most powerful determinant.

Likewise, the man can exercise his free will and choose to walk across them, ensuring his feet do get punished.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

The barber of Seville shaves a man from Seville only if the latter does not shave himself. Does the barber shave himself?

In a library are catalogues in which books are registered. There are catalogues which catalogue catalogues. One catalogue catalogues all catalogues which do not catalogue themselves. Is this catalogue itself in there?

Ah, the force is strong in this one.

-Kwai Chang

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Ambiguous? Well upwards of 90% of Americans believe in God.

I'm quoting Normal's argument there.

And so what if 90% of Americans believe in God? For one thing, they don't all believe in the same god. It appears to me that there are almost as many god-beliefs as there are believers.

And I can deny the reality of fired coals if I have a reason for doing so. Ever see those monks get into that mental state I'm alluding to? It allows them to overcome the heat. The mind is the most powerful determinant.

Anyone can walk on coals. It's simple physics, not mind control.

Likewise, the man can exercise his free will and choose to walk across them, ensuring his feet do get punished.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

The barber of Seville shaves a man from Seville only if the latter does not shave himself. Does the barber shave himself?

In a library are catalogues in which books are registered. There are catalogues which catalogue catalogues. One catalogue catalogues all catalogues which do not catalogue themselves. Is this catalogue itself in there?

Ah, the force is strong in this one.

-Kwai Chang

Woot. You lost me there. Is there supposed to be some point to this mumbo-jumbo?

Cross Examiner

You said the existence of coals are unambigous. I am saying that the existence of God is likewise unambigous. His nature may be more hotly debated but that is another issue altogether--not the same as wether a Creator exists or not which is rather unambigous in the minds of so, so many. If it is ambiguous to you, why? What are you doing or not doing differently? Don't say you are being intellectually devout because so, so many of the worlds' greatest intellects were theistic. So, it is not a matter of processing power...what then is it? Could it possibly, possibly be you? Possibly?

Yes, but the mind chooses what it will do with regards to the coals. Walk? Don't walk? Both are free choices executed by the man that will consider them.

The point is levity. The pebbles remain in my hand weedhopper

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
You said the existence of coals are unambigous.

That would seem obvious.

I am saying that the existence of God is likewise unambigous. His nature may be more hotly debated but that is another issue altogether--not the same as wether a Creator exists or not which is rather unambigous in the minds of so, so many.

So now, we have two theists on this thread - one claiming that the existence of god is ambiguous, the other claiming that the existence of god is not ambiguous. What's a poor atheist to do?

In any case, the problem theists have in pinning down an agreeable definition of God is indeed relevant to the ambiguity or non-ambiguity of gods' existence. How can you claim a creator's existence is "non-ambiguous" if you can't even agree on a definition of the creator?

If it is ambiguous to you, why?

Actually, the question of god's existence is not "ambiguous" to me; I've not said it was. That was Normal's claim, one of your fellow theists.

To me, the non-existence of god is unambiguous, not ambiguous, due to the total lack of evidence for god, particularly the Xian god (or gods, or however it is you choose to define your god).

What are you doing or not doing differently?

Critically examining the evidence (or, rather, lack thereof), asking hard questions, and coming to my own rational conclusion rather than accepting on "faith" what my mommy and daddy told me and what "upwards of 90% of Americans believe in"?

Don't say you are being intellectually devout because so, so many of the worlds' greatest intellects were theistic.

So what? Many people who are below average in intelligence are theistic, as well. Many of the world's greatest intellects were non-theistic or even atheistic. Argument by numbers or authority don't get you anywhere.

So, it is not a matter of processing power...what then is it? Could it possibly, possibly be you? Possibly?

All of this can be reversed and applied to your belief, you know. Is the fact that you believe god's existence is ambiguous, rather than accepting the unambiguity of god's non-existence, not a matter of your processing power? Could it possibly, possibly be you? Possibly?

Yes, but the mind chooses what it will do with regards to the coals. Walk? Don't walk? Both are free choices executed by the man that will consider them.

So? If he chooses not to walk, should he be punished for exercising his free will?

Your analogy doesn't make much sense, and doesn't do much for your argument, whatever that is. I haven't been able to figure that out yet.

The point is levity. The pebbles remain in my hand weedhopper

Those aren't pebbles - they're cow chips. I don't think I want to grab them.

Cross Examiner

Mageth,

What is a theist but a man who believes in God? I believe that my computer exists. That essential thing, existence, is not ambiguous. If God is ambiguous to a theist, is that man a theist or perhaps something else? Or perhaps was this other "theist" saying something other than God's existence is ambiguous?

An essential role of God is that of Creator. Whether or not He is YHWH, Allah, or God is another issue. All three mono-biggies agree that He, if nothing else, is Creator. This is unambiguous. What is more hotly contested is the nature of this Creator, but that is an orange and we were talking apples. We can talk about the Orange another time if you'd like.

Apple=the existence of God. Orange=the nature of God.

I've applied the same methodology yet have come to a different conclusion. Perhaps there is more to this decision than intellect or methodology?

Argument by numbers? Argument by authority? More apropos nomenclature would be argument by will (free will...or human will if Calvinist) as main determinant of theological position, not determined by merely intellect or methodology.

And I do apply it to myself. I am the product of my choices within the greater framework of God's sovereignty.

Definitely. Which evidence we seek. How we color such evidence. What we predetermine to be convincing...all a function of choice. There are intelligent men and intelligible arguments on both sides of the aisle. You can rationally choose either. You can rationally be theist. You can rationally be atheist. It is not a matter of reason. What will you be though? What is your will in the matter?

You cannot be anythig but atheist because the evidence leads you that way? Read Plantinga. Read Geisler. Read Craig. Absorb Christian apologetics as you seek to understand as much of the other side as possible. You are what you read and you choose what you read. As a man think himself, so is he.

You've reversed my analogy. If he chooses not to walk over the coals he will not get burned. Conversely, if he chooses to walk over the coals he will. He will do as he wills. Choice is paramount.

Regards,
BGiC

Koyaanisqatsi

And if "god" commands him to walk on those coals or he/she won't receive salvation? Then is it still a choice?

Is there a "choice" (in any substantive manner; i.e., in which you are a free agent acting according to your own will) in the following scenario?

I will either punch you or I will hug you.

Do "you" have any choice in that scenario? No, you do not, since no matter what you "choose" you are being acted upon against your will. That a hug is less painful is academic; the fact of the scenario is that "you" are being acted upon in some manner regardless of your own will.

For it to be a true "choice" wherein you are free to exercise your own will, the scenario would have to be expanded to:

I will either punch you or hug you or do nothing to you at all at any point (either directly or indirectly).

Then and only then, can such a scenario be considered a "choice" in which you are a free agent to choose of your own will.

It is merely a misnomer when someone says, "You have a choice between heaven and hell," if you're going by the bible, since the bible makes it perfectly clear that you have no choice at all. God will either cast you into the burning lake or "he" will not. It's not a choice; it's a consequent; a threat.

For it to be a scenario in which you are a free agent, capable of acting out of your own will, then it would have to be: "You have a choice between heaven, hell, or neither" with no adverse consequences to you for choosing "neither."

If there are adverse consequences (either directly or indirectly), then it is nothing more than a threat in the false guise of a "choice."

Just using the word "choice" does not necessarily make it an actual "choice" wherein you are a free agent acting according to your own will; especially not in the examples I've provided.

I will either punch you or hug you ultimately means that you have no choice at all, since, ultimately, I will be effecting you whether your want it or not.

And please spare us all the crap about "everything has consequences," since we're not (ultimately) discussing every "thing," we're (ultimately) discussing the ultimate "thing;" the alleged "gift" of "free will" as it relates to our (ultimate) salvation. If we aren't entirely free to exercise our own will (independent of God), then we can't freely choose salvation. The problem is, of course, that if we are punished for not choosing salvation (either directly or indirectly), then you can't factor out such a threat from the equation effectively for humanity to have "chosen" salvation for salvation's sake (and not, e.g., from fear of being punished).

This is, of course, why the whole apologetic (like all apologetics) is just another fraud to trick people into maintaining their allegiance to their cult.