Normal

But you can and do. You decide what is convincing evidence for yourself, no one else.

But the only way for him to really let you know is to make the answer unambiguous. Like it or not, the existence of trees is only umambiguous because you have decided so. Likewise many people have determined the answer of "does god exist" unambiguous. There is no interference with free will in either case because you are deciding was constitutes ambiguity in each case. Were god to "show himself to you" in the manner you suggest, that would remove the ambiguity of the question completely.

Mageth

Originally posted by Normal
This seems like an irrational argument. By the same logic, it's a violation of your free will when you don't will yourself to fly.

Umm, no. It's physically impossible for me to fly without the aid of a flying machine of some sort. I would assume it would not be impossible for God to show me he exists. And since I've exercised my free will to not only give him permission to, but to actually ask him to, he wouldn't be violating my free will by doing so.

Not irrational at all.

But you imply that the only way for you to believe is for him to make you believe, and thus making the question unambiguous. How do you know he has not already "let you know" he exists, but you have denied the evidence.

No, I did not imply that. Once again, I didn't ask him to make me believe, only to let me know if he exists. Your second sentence here shows that you think it's possible for him to do so without making me believe, BTW. And note, I do know that he has not already "let me know" and that I'm now in denial.

And wasn't it you that brought up the "ambiguous answer" bit? It would seem that you wouldn't be much in support of the "in denial" hypotesis, anyway. It seems to run counter to your whole free will/ambiguous answer argument.

Some people have decided that the belief in trees is umambiguous as well. They are there, plain and simple. Similairly, people claim the belief in god is unambiguous. Are these people necessarily the authorities on reality?

Huh? Are you claiming that the answer is both ambiguous and unambiguous, or that it's ambiguous to some and unambiguous to others? I honestly don't see what you're getting at here.

I would claim you are only responsible for what you know. Not even to god, but to yourself.

If god intentionally withholds evidence of his existence in order to be ambiguous, then it would seem that he would be at least partly, if not wholly, responsible for what I know or don't know in regards to him. I can't know what can't be known, after all.

And so what if I am "responsible"? Does that equate to holding me accountable or punishing me for exercising my free will and for not knowing (or believing) what, according to you, is ambiguous, what is deliberately withheld for the higher good of protecting the free exercise of my will? That doesn't make much sense, Normal.

Mageth

But the only way for him to really let you know is to make the answer unambiguous. Like it or not, the existence of trees is only umambiguous because you have decided so. Likewise many people have determined the answer of "does god exist" unambiguous. There is no interference with free will in either case because you are deciding was constitutes ambiguity in each case. Were god to "show himself to you" in the manner you suggest, that would remove the ambiguity of the question completely.

Your argument seems to contradict itself. First you say "Like it or not, the existence of trees is only umambiguous because you have decided so." All you have to do for a tree to let you know it exists is to run into it headlong.

Then you say "Were god to "show himself to you" in the manner you suggest, that would remove the ambiguity of the question completely". What happened to the decision bit you alloted to the existence of trees? Wouldn't it still apply to the existence of God, if he made it so you could "run headlong into him"?

Autonemesis

Why indeed? Why should he bother with any of it? Why bother creating anything at all?

Mageth

Why, because he wants to get to know us, of course.

JCS

That statement is as ass backwards as it gets. The reason I don't care is because there is no evidence that it what ever it is even exists. It has nothing to do with what I want. I didn't wake up one day and say "today I don't want to believe in any gods".

I think the concept of a benevolent overseer has a certian desirability, but the truth is I see no evidence of this. Further more how would it be force if I asked for the evidence of its existance? :banghead:

JCS

B U L L S H I T ! If I ask and he doesn't provide than it is interfering with my will to have a answer. I'm not asking to be brainwashed, I'm asking for comprehensible convincing evidence of its existance.

If I recieve compelling evidence I could exercise my "free will" to either reject or accept the evidence. If the answer is suppose to be ambiguous, then what is the point anyway.

Normal

And similarily it's not possible for your will alone to do anything.

You could ask him for a million dollars too.

What would entail "letting you know" if he exists, but not making you believe he exists, and how do you know he has not already done this?

I see you've answered this below, but what you are basically asking is for god to remove the denial from you.

I'm only saying it possible you are in denial, you shouldn't assume I'm actually asserting that you are. The point is you are free to accept and deny any evidence as you see fit. For god to "let himself be known to you", you imply that god should remove the ambiguity, so it is no longer possible to be in denial. You want evidence beyond all doubt, for you admit yourself there could have been evidence that you denied, but you want more.

People judge the ambiguity of the question based on different things. Some people see the question as unambiguous, some people see the question as ambiguous. You decide yourself whether it is ambiguous or not. That's all I'm saying.

This all has to do with judging evidence, and what constitutes evidence for what. You are the only judge of what you know and what can be known to you. If you think god is withholding evidence, that is your judgement.

It equates to holding yourself accountable for what you can reasonable expect to know yourself. You make judgements about the belief of things all the time. It's completely your choice.

Normal

It's paradoxical because you admit you might be denying the evidence, but you want more so that it's not even a question anymore.

Normal

You are already doing that now. Adding that colorful adjective "compelling" is just implying you want the question to be gone completely.