yguy

As far as obedience to Him is concerned, yes.

God didn't force His will on Job, because He did not compel Job to obey. He no more forced His will on Mary than Jefferson forced his will upon the United States by making the Louisiana Purchase in technical violation of the Constitution; just as he knew the people would approve the transaction after the fact, God knew Mary wouldn't have a problem bearing His Son.

I don't see how the flood relates to anyone's free will, unless you consider death itself a violation of it.

God doesn't round people up and lock them in a Dantean Hell, He just doesn't let them into Heaven - where they don't want to be anyway. Those who can't stand Heaven are free to create a better universe than God did using whatever resources they have, and they have eternity to do it. That's how I see it, anyway.

Not sure I follow. I didn't have in mind any attribute in particular.

Philosoft

To attempt to tie up a loose end here, you still haven't dealt fully with obvious wrongness. Some things that are obviously wrong are obviously wrong to most people. But Muslims who compel women to cover their heads are presumably doing something that is obviously wrong to the rest of us. You said before that God won't prevent us from making mistakes like this, but he has obviously done a better job of making murder obviously wrong than making women cover their heads obviously wrong.
Well, it appears that God has ways of making some things more obvious than others. Presumably, he's not going around destroying free will to do this.

7thangel

O man! what the heck is kind of logic you are trying to argue about God's existence. Too absurd and ridiculous! It's like: because you did not know the existence of SARS virus in the 70's there was no SARS virus then.

The existence of God is independent on anybody's , beliefs, opinions, understanding, or misunderstandings, whatever. When two men met and came to an absurd conclusion, does not warrant that these two men do not exist.

yguy

Is it God Who is failing to make these things clear or humans who succesfully numb themselves to them? I say the latter.

Exactly. The capacity for free will includes the ability to deny reality.

Wyz_sub10

I wouldn't say that. Being able to define them is a result of coming to know them.

How well can you know something if you cannot assign a definition to it, or be able to describe it in some detail?

Nowhere357

And you pass on the chance to actually clarify. You neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of my inference.

<snip>

I say we need a definition - and you say I'm wrong?

So yguy thinks it's wrong to use definitions for words. Whatever.

Intellectually - OF COURSE we can understand god. If god is real, god affects reality, we detect the effects, we formulate laws, and god is natural phenomenae. We would understand at least as well as we understand other natural laws.

If god is not real, then the only place to look is in the gaps - and the gaps become smaller and smaller. So we come to understand god doesn't exist. Or say god is reality and be done with it.

What exactly is the great big deal?

But you know this, you're really trying to make some other point, right? Is it possible for you to actually state your point?

You again skip over the part where you communicate by answering questions.

Okay, I know you don't like to get pinned down. Your comments are often ambiguous and you mean them that way.

Ogotay

This is not arguing about God's existence, but arguing about the belief in God's existence.

Since it cannot be proven that he exists, it all comes down to either believing or not believing.

"It's all a question of faith." Ever heard that before? Since there is no proof, it has the same meaning as "I believe, and therefore it is true."


That belief goes against the sense of logic that human beings have.

If you have any way to prove me wrong, that it is in fact a logic belief, please do so. I'm just looking for aspects on this matter, not proving anybody wrong.

yguy

If indeed you are able to define your parents - something which I have never even thought to attempt with respect to mine - how is this ability valuable?

How well can a 5 year old do any of that? Yet does he not know mom when he sees her, every time?

yguy

Hey - if you want to talk about God like scientists talk about physics, by all means fudge up whatever definition seems good to you. Leave me out of it. It's like an orchestra performing Mahler's 8th Symphony in the middle of a desert, to an audience of scorpions, lizards, and cow skeletons.

No, you can understand some construction of yours that you liken to God. Hardly the same thing.

I don't see why. Natural laws are understandable to the empirical/scientific mindset to the degree that they are repeatable and measurable. God is neither.

You're asking me?

I have.

That is an illusion caused by your desire to derive something from my comments that was never implied.

Face it dude, you want something I haven't got - but you're convinced I have it. I don't.

Wyz_sub10

At the simplest level, it will allow me to describe them should I be unable to find them. At a higher level, it would allow me to help you understand why they were important to me as people, what influence they had on my life, etc. At a higher level yet, it will allow me to more fully understand the people they were - why they thought and acted as the did. Perhaps I will grow more through this knowledge, or learn important lessons from it.

My parents are more to me than rule-setters or child-rearers, and I think more children would say as much. (Though not all)

Do you expect a five-year old to understand god the same way you do? A child knows their parents through personal contact and, more importantly, as the focal point of their lives. Knowing them further comes with age and understanding (one hopes).

I can anticipate that you will insist likewise for a realtionship with god, but I think we can at least agree that there is a marked difference between a tangible physical connection and an intangible spiritual connection.