Stephen T-B

Sorry Normal, but I just don't understand that.
Judging by the way things are going here, I think the chances of our reaching agreement are nil.

I’m trying this for the very last time:

God is omniscient. Right? He knows me inside out. He knows my genetic make up. He knows all the character / personality traits I have inherited from my ancestors. He knows how these are going to interact with everything I experience from my conception onwards. He knows how I think, how I weigh things up, how my brain works. In other words, nothing, but nothing, I do in my life will surprise him.
He knew, before he created the Earth, that when I was cycling home on August 7, 2003 and faced with the choice of turning right at a road junction or going straight on and adding another three-and-half miles to my journey, I would decide to go straight on. He knew all the factors I would take into account before making my choice, and he knew the choice I would make. (He also knew that I’d not, in fact, put my choice down to an exercise in free will; he knew that I think “free will” is a chimera and that I’d suppose I was exploiting an opportunity to take a course of action which, at the time, I calculated would deliver the greater reward.)

He also knew, from the beginning of time, what it would take to convince me he exists. So, here we are, August 8, 2003, and he either decides to convince me he exists, or he decides NOT to convince me he exists.
Frankly, I can’t see how this can be made more simple. Eight bags of evidence, and I know there’s a God. Seven bags of evidence and I don’t know.
If he gives me seven bags, he KNOWS (because he knows how my brain works and what my psychological needs are) that I won’t believe he exists. So, he decided, before he created the Earth, that he did or did not want Stephen T-B to believe in him. (And it looks like he didn’t want him to.)

Stephen T-B

It occurred to me Normal, while I was in the city centre getting something for my lunch, that the reason you are struggling to make us (well, me anyway) grasp your argument is because you’ve not brought in your Big Bertha heavy gun - either out of sensitivity for our feelings or because you’d forgotten it was in your arsenal.

Let me slip a shell in the breach for you.

Is it not the Christian’s case that God provides us all with ample evidence for his existence, his love, his forgiveness and the life everlasting, but that those of us who listen to the desires of our own wicked hearts say it’s not enough because we have chosen to follow the broad road to damnation rather than follow the straight and narrow road which leads to heaven?

Normal

Why are you seperating belief in god from everything else? Isn't it also true that he knew who would be mass murderers, who would be ruthless dictators, and who would be rapists? Does this mean they are all exonerated? If you answer "No" then your argument fails.

The "Big Bertha" heavy gun is entirely unnecessary for this argument, methinks.

Randy X

First provide a definition of God?

I had absolutely no idea that "God" had any power at all.Can anyone enlighten me as to what "power" God has? He isn't all powerful, so that is clear.Is he a morally perfect just being, NO.Is he an all-loving being, NO.He sends athiests to hell, even though it should be within his power to show us his presense.What power does God have, please i'm curious to know?

Regards

Enigma

Quick question then:

Are there any free-will constraints against God giving an amount of evidence sufficient to pass the "sufficient evidence to believe" requirement of anyone except the most die-hard nihilists or solipsists (i.e. "The universe doesn't really exist/may not conform to our sense perception of it so we can't trust any evidence presented within it" kinda crowd)?

If yes, then by all means do share exactly what prevents God from doing such a thing. After all, people are free to choose not to believe.

If no, then God must obviously want a significant number of people to disbelieve in him (if he didn't then he would up the evidence to the level described above), which is counter to any Christian theology that I have yet to encounter and turns evangelism on its head.

Normal

Everyone has a level of "sufficient evidence to believe", even those with "sufficient evidence to believe there is nothing with sufficient evidence to believe in".

Randy X

That made complete sense.

Regards

Normal

That's because the statement "There is no truth" is self referentially false.

Thanks for the eye rolling though.

:boohoo:

Enigma

However the level of "sufficient evidence to believe" for one thing, and the "sufficient evidence to believe" for another can be different. That's how such belief systems as Nhilism and Solipsism arise in the first place. Perhaps your highness can now actually answer my question now.

"There is no other truth than this" would be something of a functioning statement for nhilism.

Was there some point to this game of semantics?

Randy X

Oh its my pleasure

Regards