madmax2976

This makes no sense. How would the mere confirmation of the existence of a being equate to be coerced? The only way I see coercion being a factor here is if the being threatened us if we didn't "love" him. Of course any sense that we can "freely" choose to do anything under a threat is utter nonsense.

Please explain this. I freely choose to love an honor my wife even though her existence has not been left ambiguous in any way, and yet I certainly don't feel coerced at all. Again, the only way coercion would fit into the equation is under a threat of some kind. For instance my wife demands I love her or she'll pretend she's Lorena Bobbit for one night - now there's some coercion - and it doesn't come from her mere existence.

How so? All he has to do is make clear the situation - "love me or not - its up to you. Feel free to choose as you wish". Is such a thing really all that hard for an omnipotent being?

Under this view my atheism is completely reasonable to both you and the deity in question. This is cool.

Well wait a minute. Why "must" we do anything such thing? I thought we weren't going to be coerced in to any decisions?

But please do explain why mere knowledge of the existence of such a being equates to coercion because this is really mystifying to me.

Oh my. It seems that there is an implied threat here or why else would "self-preservation" be any consideration at all? But then we're back to understanding how we can make a "free" decisions under threats.

If I am truly free to worship or not worship then doubt about this beings existence is irrelevant - unless of course he intends to coerce me with some kind of threat if I don't.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Tercel

There is an interesting essay discussing one possible response on this topic <a href="http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/MurrayDivHid.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

There is no doctrinal "Christian" answer to this sort of question and my personal thoughts about the topic differ significantly to the writer of the essay. (I post the link in order to be clear there are certainly other views than mine)
I am a lot more liberal than the essay writer, so parts of the question such as hell and the problems of disbelief don't come into it for me.

These leave the question simply as something like, "if God loves us and wants us to love him, why doesn't he definitively reveal himself?". My suggested answer to this is that He has agreed not to. I would suggest that God has agreed with Satan/angels (or whoever) for some reason that He will not directly interfere in the universe. The only way God can work in the universe therefore is indirectly, channelling His power through humans or angels who want to serve Him out of their own will.

It's merely a possible theory, and I can't prove it or anything. But it would certainly explain a range of things such as evil, divine hiddeness, how prayer works etc. All that's left is the question of "what could be a sufficient reason for God to make this agreement in the first place if he could see how bad for us the results were going to be?" And that question is conveniently undiscussable since we don't have enough knowledge about what the reasons, results of God choosing not to agree, or even what the ultimate results of this universe for us, are.

Of course, in most cases such a conveniently undiscussable and untestable theory such as this could be fairly viewed as a cop-out. However, since it is being alleged that it is impossible for God to exist, then it's up to the asserter to prove that my unfalsifiable theory isn't true. (Have fun ) Otherwise their assertion of God's non-existence stands unproven.

Tercel

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

luvluv

madmax, it has to do not with his reality, but with his omniscience and omnipotence.

If your wife were omniscient and omnipotent, are you really telling me that wouldn't have any effect on your behavior? Would you ever complain about the cooking? Would you ever take a glance at some other woman? Wouldn't you be, in effect, less free?

I think the unequvicol proof of the constant presence of an omniscient and omnipotent being would be co-ercive. If God just hung out in the sky all day long, 1000 feet tall, and appeared to everyone in the world to be constantly staring at them... I happen to think that would have an effect on everybody's behavior.

I also happen to believe that if God left hard, deliberate, and obvious evidence of his handiwork, such as though no one could deny His existence and the extent of His power, it would be coercive (though obviously not so much as the above analogy).

The God I am describing, Yahweh, is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent... and on top of all that... he has a very definite preference in how we behave. He has a passionate desire that we use our freedom to choose to love Him and become like Him. He is not indifferent to us. He can't really say "Hey love me or don't love me, I don't care." He cares about that more than he cares about anything else. And that kind of passion combined with his power would be coercive. That's what I meant about self-preservation.

It would kind of be like being followed around by your mother all day.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

dostf

luv luv:

I suggest you read the old testament again and this time take the "holy" out of it and read it as you might any other book. If you still believe in the great almighty mr. yahweh, well best of luck to you.
Samhaim- correct in saying all ideas of god are fom humans and they vary depending on experience time place etc.
HUMAN is the key.

tronvillain

luvluv: So your position is that many major biblical figures didn't freely love and honour God?

babelfish

luvluv and tercel,

Interesting theories, but where in the Bible did you come up with them?

God is a Loving Father right?

So you're saying he's like a parent who provides for his or her children without ever allowing those children to see him/her.

It would be like me getting up this morning and preparing breakfast, allowing the smell of eggs and bacon to rouse my kids from their slumber, then hurrying out of the house before they came downstairs. Then there I am, like every other morning since their birth, peering in through the window at them and listening to make sure they are enjoying their meal. Then if my son said "oh, this meal is obvious proof that we have a loving Mother," I would smile and make a note to myself to one day reveal myself to him and allow him to enjoy being in my presence for eternity. Then if my daughter said "nope, I believe this meal just appeared naturally" I would get real mad and make a note to one day reveal myself to her and throw her into a fiery oven for eternity for not being able to figure out that there was no way that delicious meal just appeared on the table all by itself!

Or maybe you guys are saying God is so huge and scary looking that just the very sight of him would cause people not only to believe in him, but to be afraid not to love him. Now that would be coercion.

And Tercel, you seem to be saying that God and Satan made a wager of some sort, and now we're all part of an enormous cosmic chess game. Very loving of him, I agree.

kwigibo

and where have all the cowboys gone?

seriously, to the original question, god just loves to play that wonderful children's game, hopscotch

madmax2976

No, not if she told me that I am really free to do those things or not. If she threatened me with punishment if I did do those things, then of course this would be a factor I must consider. But to describe this coercion as okay, and the coercion you envision as coming from the certainty of her mere existence as not okay, is nothing more than a arbitrary double standard.

Well it would leave the question of his existence as less ambiguous. But since you agree that it is ambiguous, and he has left it that way on purpose, then it is completely reasonable for me to be an atheist.

I didn't say anything about whether he cared or not. He may very well care. I am merely pointing out that if you believe this deity has left his existence ambiguous on purpose, to avoid any coercion, then atheists, agnostics, other religions, etc. are all being perfectly reasonable in holding the beliefs that they do.

Unless he actually threatened us with that power, why would it be coercive? All he has to do is make it clear that he does not intend us any harm if we do make a free choice. Then our choices can still remain uncoerced and thus truly free.

But I didn't find the mere existence of my mother coercive. I found the paddle and the bar of soap to be very coercive.

What I am saying luvluv is that either we are free to make choices or not. Coercion implies an immanent threat of some kind and it takes more than mere existence in order to convey a threat. You have to be afraid of what might happen if you don't cowtow to someone's desires.

Jayhawker Soule

But isn't this the God who "desires the free love of his creatures" under penalty of absolute eradication? That's not 'free love' but 'coerced obediance'. As for 'free choice', don't tell that to the Egyptians who, apparently, were set up.

Samhain

Heh, yup, ReasonableDoubt's right in this respect. How can one truly not be, in some form, coerced if God says: "Follow me, worship me, love me, believe in me, but if you don't, you will suffer pain and torment in a world of flame for all eternity." This is ridiculous to assume that we would not be coerced by this, although, some find it more reasonable to possibly suffer the flame rather than believe or love any god who would do that. Besides, how much free will is there if God is the omnipotent, omniscient being who has actualized us?

Read more on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000170" target="_blank">The Injustice of Divine Punishment</a> here.