HRG

False. Either the evidence convinces me or it doesn't. No decision is involved.

Regards,
HRG.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, here's a simple objective proof that we know the god of the bible can do (bringing it back around to the OP): rearrange the stars to spell out, "I am Yahweh, the god of the old testament," for everyone on Earth to see every night. No issues of free will and incontrivertable proof (ala the bible) every single night when the weather's clear for all eternity.

We know from the bible that belief by faith is a lie, since ol' Yahweh did all sorts of things like this to prove his existence to his followers before, so what's the problem in doing something similar and permanent?

Works for me.

Normal

You choose to trust the book's authors as being reliable sources. Similarly, you could trust the Bible's authors to be reliable sources. You decide what is and what isn't a reliable source to you and there's no interference with free will. In fact, there is no reason why you have to accept the system of algebra as being true, you choose to accept it through "reliable sources". That you reject potential evidence of god is a similiar excercise in free will by you.

Normal

I think you fail to see my point. God's existence can be accepted by evidence and it can be rejected by evidence. It is up to the person to exercise their free will and decide for themselves.

Normal

Are you sure?

On the contrary, proving anything to you by god's will is forcing you to believe. You decide if tree's are real, and you similiarly decide if god exists. No one is making you do either.

Would you know if you rejected potential evidence of his existence?

Well I'm not assuming you are in denial, I'm claiming it's possible you are in denial of evidence.

And how do you know you have not rejected god's attempt at proving he exists?

Mageth, please understand I don't mean for any of my comments to be ad hom's, if they are please point them out and I apologize. For the purpose of this argument, however, I'm claiming there is a possibility you have already rejected god's evidence of his existence, which is in line with your exercise of free will.

The answer is ambiguous is exactly what I mean.

Exactly.

I never said "withholds", I only hinted at the ambiguity of the answer derivable from that evidence. The evidence might be there, but the answer is a product of your free will.

Of course not, and I'm not saying you should.

I think it has to do with the "God should prove himself to me without interfering with my free will" paradox.

HRG

False. First I have checked the proof that they presented myself.

And I did not "choose" to trust the authors; I was convinced of their reliability (the book was published by Springer, the authors were well-known mathematicians, all the previous proofs were air-tight etc.).
No. I don't "decide" it. My belief that a source is reliable is a consequence of a cognitive, not of a volitional process, based on certain rational indicators of reliability.
You could not be more wrong, and your mind-reading crystal needs a fundamental overhaul.

Please read it again: I believe that the theorem is true because I have seen - and personally checked - a proof of it. No "trusting" or "choosing to accept" happened.

And I do not "reject potential evidence of any god"; the result of my cognitive processes (not of any exercise of free will) was that all the proffered arguments were fallacious, and that the claimed evidence wasn't evidence.

If you claim that lack of belief in a god is the result of a decision - a volitional activity -, I invite you to decide to believe in Zeus for an hour *), followed by a decision to believe in Odin for two hours. Please report back with the results of the experiment.

*) resp. to decide to accept the Ilias or the Elder Edda as reliable sources.


Regards,
HRG.

DMB

So you are prepared to entertain the idea that this omnipotent god goofs? If he is really omni-everything, he ought to know what would prove his existence to Mageth, so is he trying or isn't he?

Division By Zero

Quote:

On the contrary, proving anything to you by god's will is forcing you to believe. You decide if tree's are real, and you similiarly decide if god exists. No one is making you do either.

Is your argument here that everything is ambiguous, and God's existence is no different?

Then, is everything equally ambiguous, or are there varying levels of ambiguity?

How might the existence of trees be rejected based on the evidence?

Stephen T-B

There’s something odd about this business of having to agree that god exists.

OK, God decides he’s had enough of people going around saying they want proof he exists. “I’ll show ‘em,” he says to himself (all echoy like) and so he arranges the stars - as someone here suggested he might, and I’m sorry not to give a proper attribution but I’m too lazy to find the post - to let everyone on the planet (except for those living in cities where the ambient light makes the stars pretty well invisible) know there is a god and that he Oglademi, is it.
Then what?
I see the message. I think “I was wrong. There is a God. That’s cool.”
And I go about my business as per usual.
Then God changes the message and writes: “You must worship me.”
So I go to my local RC Church on Sunday and sing hymns of praise.
Then God changes the message and says “But not in Roman Catholic churches because the Pope is the anti-Christ.” That really annoys the Roman Catholics, who begin muttering among one another, saying: “Yea, but verily it is a hi-tech Protestant trick.” And they carry on going to their RC churches.
So I go to my local Pentecostal Church and sing hymns of praise.
Then God changes the message and writes. “Not in Pentecostal Churches either. Those people are too noisy (this takes up a lot of sky, by the way, especially since the message has to be written in all the main languages, which wasn’t something he thought about when he did that Tower of Babel thing). I like the Davidians, best.”
There’s a surprise. And now the Muslims, the Jews - but not the Hindus because basically they can go along with anything - and 99.99 per cent of the world’s Christians begin muttering among themselves, saying: “Yea, verily it is a hi-tech trick by Infidels and Pagans who are attempting to make God look foolish,” so they carry on as before. In fact the ONLY people who take any notice of this latest message are the Atheists, who have always been asking for evidence of God’s existence and are now getting it.

Then God starts saying what He wants his people to do, or they won’t go to Heaven. They’ve to have abortions on a regular basis and they’re to indulge in same-sex sex at least once a month.
At which point I join the Jews, the Muslims and 99.99 per cent of the Christians and say “Not me mate. I’d rather go to Hell.”

Questions: WHO KNOWS WHAT GOD IS? WHO KNOWS WHAT GOD WANTS?

Normal

Godel and Leibniz are well-known mathematicians, but you obviously disagree with some of their theories (even when previous proofs are "air tight"). Again, you are deciding what is convincing and what is not convincing.

And you decide what is reliable to yourself. You choose what those indicators are.

You had to trust a variety of factors. First, authorities to correctly communicate a proof to you, and your own ability to varify that proof. All along the way you are deciding what is acceptable and what is not acceptable varification of the proof.

I could just as easily cite the claimed evidence for trees isn't evidence, as Berekley and Decartes did.

I decide to not believe in those gods because I do not accept the source as reliable (Homer). If I accepted Homer as being reliable I would believe.