GeoTheo

Not if looking at the King caused you to sh*t your pants at the prospect of pissing him off by not serving him. You would at least be forced to serve out of fear.

Bible Humper

What do you mean specifically by "overwhelming evidence"?

If you mean enough evidence that the conclusion "Yahweh exists" is the only rational one, then you must admit that the "evidence" often presented in favor of the existence of the deity is not ultimately convincing. Otherwise, it would indeed be "overwhelming".

The biblical stories, personal accounts of intervention by the deity, the profundity of the Xian philosophy, the credibility of miracle claims, and the power of prayer all need to be admitted to be "less than reliable" if you wish to believe that the deity didn't leave "overwhelming evidence" of himself for the sake of not forcing us to believe.

I have a thread devoted to this topic <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000641" target="_blank">here</a> so I'd appreciate it if you were to contribute over there as well.

Bible Humper

If you are willing to acknowledge that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of the deity, then you have new problems.

The hypothesis that there is indeed a deity but that he specifically crafted the universe in such a way as to disguise his intervention leads to the conclusion that a universe created by the deity is indistinguishable from a universe that occured naturalistically.

If this is the case, what possible rationale can offered to justify belief in the deity since he himself saw to it that his existence cannot be "evidentially proven"?

There are trillions of possible scenarios, equally believable or more, if one is willing to accept that the universe was created in such a way as to "not give away the secret".

This would be like a fairy magically creating a tree alongside another of the same kind, which most people would assume is where the seed came from, and then deciding to bless or curse those who pass the tree depending on whether they assume the tree came from a seed dropped by the older one beside it or was created by a fairy!

The kicker is that even if some druid comes along and preaches that the tree was created by a fairy, it is still actually irrational for him to make that claim even though it is true because the tree was specifically created in such a way that it's creation is not "evidentially provable".

Not to mention the fact that if this druid feels justified choosing supernatural explanations despite no actual evidence of supernature, for what reason did he assume a fairy instead of a gnome?

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Jamie_L

Suppose someone comes to your door asking for a charitable donation. You have not ever heard of the charity. He says he will only give you information about whether or not the charity is real after you have give him money. Would you give him money?

Now, suppose the person first gives you all manner of information about the charity, including references to call and research, and says he will come back in a few days after you've had time to consider it. Has this person in any way impaired your free will to choose whether or not to donate to the charity?

You know there's an interesting contradiction here. The basis of this arguement is that if the atheist had convincing evidence of belief in God, he would not be free to choose disbelief. On the other hand, atheists are constantly accused of actively disbelieving in a God that is obvious to them.

Both of these positions cannot be true. If atheists are rejecting a God for which they know, on some level, there is evidence, then we have free will to reject God in the face of evidence. On the other hand, if evidence is intentionally insufficient to convince people, then it cannot be true that atheists are choosing to reject a God whose existence is clearly obvious.

Jamie

K

GeoTheo:

Now if the king were truly good and just and really only wanted my loyalty if it were freely given, I would have no reason to sh*t my pants at the prospect of pissing him off. If that King demonstrated his goodness and kindness and, as a matter of course, let those who rejected him live their lives without punishment for the rejection, fear would not even be consideration. Such a king would be worthy of loyalty.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Why assume that all of us need a 'King'?

I need no 'leader', I look to a government only to recognize my rights, and protect those rights. This doesn't require 'loyalty', 'fealty', or 'allegiance'. This only requires that the government do its sole valid job--protect the individual, human rights of its citizens.

I can have admiration for such a government, or contempt for a government that fails to recognize and/or protect my rights.

Such a government does not control my life, it leaves me free to control my own. Citizens do not live 'by the leave' of their government, the government exists 'by the leave' of its citizens.

I need no 'ruler' of any kind.

Keith.