Could I request something from any believers here, who have a good relationship with God and who regularly pray to God for guidance and direction and who hear God's voice (no matter how subtle)?I'm sure this sounds perfectly reasonable to many atheists. It's like a scientific test, what better way to prove that no one is "up there answering prayers?" There are some problems with approach. The irony is I remember an atheist on CARM who had as a signature some quote about "if God revealed himself to me I would not believe my senses." So he's saying een if God revealed himself I wouldn't believe is. So why ask? I know all atheists aren't saying that, but at least for that one guy it's a real pretense to ask questions like this.
Next time that you pray, could you ask God to tell any of the non-believers here something profound?
A message from God himself for the non-believers here would be appreciated.
I'm being serious. Not joking.
The major problem is it's a means of circumventing the search in the heart that God has designed belief to be. The search is real imporant becuase it enables us to interlace the values of the good. If God did force his presence upon the world in such a way that no one could doubt many would resent it. the more lib service they felt forced to give the more deeply they would resent it. But those who seek for the truth and find in a leap of faith have a personal commitment of love. It's that existential aspect that people most fear, and this is most necessary to the search; the point whereon realizes the nature of ones own being is that of content upon God. That's the moment of truth, the only choices are get "real" with God in your heart (repent and change) or reject the whole thing and live in pretense telling yourself "i'm a smart tough cool skeptic."
Meta:
the evidence is he communicated with us. your evidence that he doesn't is just that you haven't open enough to receive it. that is not a disproof. your narrow mindedness is not a disproof of God.
Originally Posted by A Hermit View Post
Then you have no reason to expect anyone else to believe, do you? I never said I EXPECT anyone to believe me. I expect people to listen and think about my reasons but so atheist ever do.
META:
Those are a rather different order of belief though; I have a mother and brothers and went to school too; on the other hand you're telling me that the almighty, all loving creator of the universe chooses to talk to you, but not to me; or on the other hand that I'm too stupid/ignorant/selfish/small minded/evil/not fully human enough to measure up to your standards when it comes to appreciating the depth and beauty of life because I don't choose to embrace you language for it.
"talk" here is metaphor right? I didn't say God wont communicate with you. You are decided to ignore and pretend it's unreal the communication that he did do and to close off the possibly of future communication. that's your deal.Yes you do or you wouldn't work so hard at convincing me and others, or react so strongly to something as innocuous as my last comment...
I'm not out to destroy or damn anyone or anything; just to suggest an alternative point of view. Why does that make you so angry?Originally Posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
God is (supposedly) omnipotent. If he tried to communicate to anyone, he would do so. Claims that he tries but fails mean that he is not omnipotent. If you believe God to be not omnipotent, fine. If you do not, you are contradicting yourself.
No, you do not prove God at all.
Meta:
I have discussed in the past the problem with the concept of omnipotence and how it's an anti quested concept. that's become your excuse. the one thing God requires you to do is the one thing you refuse to do.
becuase you refuse to do it your big excuse is "it's God's fault I rejected him because he didn't make it so overwhelming enough I couldn't deny it."
that's an excuse. that's not searching.
"you don't prove God at all!" can't you see what an excuse that is? I say over and over again. Its' not about proof, can't prove it because God is beyond understanding. the battle is in the heart. you have to search in your heart and when God reveals himself that's where he iwll do it."
your answer to all that is "but he didn't do it MY WAY so I'm absolved of all responsibility!"
as long as you refuse to repent and seek God in the heart! there ant gonna be no revelation.
why should the king of existence surrender to your terms? YOU surrender! you take his terms!
Posted by Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) 2012
31 comments:
The idea that an entity of any kind might have power but not use it, surely isn't that hard to understand. If God forced God's Self on humans, that would be wrong Love doesn't force. If you want to hear God, you have to open your heart. God won't invade. And you have to let go of your expectations of what hearing from God might be like. It's different for different people. Open your mind as well. You just might be surprised what happens.
well said Kristen.
there are christians not raised as christians, that is an argument against it.
Pix said: "Is this, the greatest commandment from God, not trying to force love?"
Actually, no-- because of the context. Jesus was a Jew speaking to other Jewish people about the commandments of their covenant. This was part of the covenant-- part of an agreement of the Jewish people with God. It is, in fact, their duty to give God love. It is interesting to note that in the first letter of John (which is to all Christians, Jewish and Gentile), he says, "We love God because God first loved us." The same is implied in the Jewish commandment -- that love is a proper response to God's love in entering into covenant with them -- but 1 John makes it more explicit.
Pix also said: "To do what you suggest, I would first have to believe God exists."
This is not necessarily true. You could first open your mind to the possibility of God, and then, exploring that possibility, open your heart in an "if You're out there" kind of exploratory gesture.
Pix said: "The reason virtually all Christians are from Christian backgrounds is they were conditioned to think Christianity is true from an early age."
My parents became atheists when I was six years old. So I was an atheist too, until I was 15, when I decided to open my heart to God in case God was there. You could say that I returned to what I first believed in my earliest years-- but the question remains as to why I didn't just remain as I had been taught for 2/3 of my childhood years. Anyway, the idea that people raised Hindu are Hindu, and so forth, is not an issue. I adhere to the Hindu idea that we are all reaching towards God as blind people reach for an elephant. It's the same elephant, but one religion is touching the trunk, another a foot, another an ear. It doesn't matter to the Elephant which part we touch-- it matters that we do reach out and touch.
The issue is not about atheists choosing to disregard evidence. It is a question of what constitutes evidence that merits belief. Empiricists rely on objective evidence, while believers rely on "feelings in their heart", which is certainly not objective evidence. Just give me objective evidence, and that will determine what I believe.
skepie you need a course in existentialism. A discussion about personal salvation is an existential matter. subjective is part of the deal. There is a shared aspect called "inter-subjective."
Kristen: Actually, no-- because of the context. Jesus was a Jew speaking to other Jewish people about the commandments of their covenant. This was part of the covenant-- part of an agreement of the Jewish people with God. It is, in fact, their duty to give God love. It is interesting to note that in the first letter of John (which is to all Christians, Jewish and Gentile), he says, "We love God because God first loved us." The same is implied in the Jewish commandment -- that love is a proper response to God's love in entering into covenant with them -- but 1 John makes it more explicit.
What? So if a commandment to love someone is part of a contract, you think that that means it is real love?
Okay, you can say love is the proper response, though that sounds more like the love of a dog for his master, but nevertheless God is commanding it.
Kristen: My parents became atheists when I was six years old. So I was an atheist too, until I was 15, when I decided to open my heart to God in case God was there. You could say that I returned to what I first believed in my earliest years-- but the question remains as to why I didn't just remain as I had been taught for 2/3 of my childhood years.
But the point remains that you picked the Christian God, not the Muslim God. Why? Because you were raised in a Christian culture.
Kristen: Anyway, the idea that people raised Hindu are Hindu, and so forth, is not an issue. I adhere to the Hindu idea that we are all reaching towards God as blind people reach for an elephant. It's the same elephant, but one religion is touching the trunk, another a foot, another an ear. It doesn't matter to the Elephant which part we touch-- it matters that we do reach out and touch.
But it does matter if the elephant is just made up. All we can really say is people have a tendency to see something, but whether that is a real elephant or we happen to imagine elephants because of some quirk of evolution, we cannot say.
Why do Hindus always see the trunk, while Christians always see the tail?
Pix
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said..."The major problem is it's a means of circumventing the search in the heart that God has designed belief to be"
It is your claim that God has designed belief to be a search in the heart. It is an excuse to accommodate divine hiddenness. If we are to believe the OT, God had no qualms about showing himself.
why should the king of existence surrender to your terms?
He shouldn't. And that is fine as long as he has no expectations of us in return.
Cuttlebones said...
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said..."The major problem is it's a means of circumventing the search in the heart that God has designed belief to be"
It is your claim that God has designed belief to be a search in the heart. It is an excuse to accommodate divine hiddenness. If we are to believe the OT, God had no qualms about showing himself.
In special circumstances
why should the king of existence surrender to your terms?
He shouldn't. And that is fine as long as he has no expectations of us in return.
the Parent knows better than the child
Cuttlebones raises an interesting point. Was Doubting Thomas saved? If evidence circumvents the search in the heart that God has designed belief to be, then Thomas is damned.
Joe: In special circumstances
Ah, right. So basically you fit the explanation to the observation. Doubting Thomas was saved because he believed after he was given overwhelming evidence. Other people are not given any evidence at, so for them it must be different.
It is all just ad hoc rationalisation.
Pix
I'll leave the long one for Kristen to answer since it seems to be addressed to her.
I have a question for Pix first. What do you think about the companion commandment to love your neighbor? Do you view it in the same terms, that it can't possibly be genuine if it's commanded? That it's like the love of a dog for its master?
>> "subjective is part of the deal. There is a shared aspect called "inter-subjective.""
Subjective is not part of the deal for empiricism, or for science. Intersubjectivity is the subjective aspect of experience that is shared. If it is shared by everyone, that's what we call objective.
skep we are not doing science, nor empiricism. This is ethics and theology.
The atheist's request is for objective evidence as justification for belief.
With regards to this: "The atheist's request is for objective evidence as justification for belief," and this: "If evidence circumvents the search in the heart that God has designed belief to be, then Thomas is damned.... Doubting Thomas was saved because he believed after he was given overwhelming evidence" --
I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what "belief" means in Christian thought. To be fair, a lot of Christians misunderstand it too-- especially fundamentalists. "Belief" as used in the teachings of Jesus and in the early church was not about mental agreement to a set of propositions, nor was it about acknowledgment of the conclusions which one reaches by reviewing evidence. "Belief" is about relationship, and it's about trust. When Kenny Rogers sings, "But she believes in me. . . she has faith in me," he's coming a lot closer to what we're talking about than "I believe in this doctrine" or "I believe in quantum physics," or what have you.
Doubting Thomas needed to believe, to put his trust in, Jesus. Jesus gave him evidence that he could still trust in Jesus-- that he had not been mistaken about who Jesus was; that Jesus was not a failed messiah, killed by the Romans and now departed from history. What was Thomas's response? Not, "Ok, I see that you are alive again after all, guess I was wrong." It was "my Lord and my God!" This was about relationship, about trust, not about evidence and acceptance of evidence.
Those who reduce belief to evidence and acceptance of evidence are, in essence, missing the whole point.
the Parent knows better than the child
Do parents hide from their kids? Do parents not communicate their expectations?
>> "Those who reduce belief to evidence and acceptance of evidence are, in essence, missing the whole point."
- Then you should stop claiming that belief is based on evidence. It ain't.
Since when have I ever said that? However, belief is not about blind insistence on a set of propositions in the teeth of all evidence, either-- which is what many atheists like to think it is.
Kristen, excuse me. I thought you were defending the topic of this post. Clearly, Joe thinks that these feelings in the heart (which are actually emotional feelings) are evidence that is not received by the atheist. The atheist simply wants objective evidence.
Kristen, in the case of Thomas it was about believing what the other disciples were telling him. He wanted evidence and, according to the story, he got evidence.
Saying "to reduce belief to evidence and acceptance of evidence is, in essence, missing the whole point." Is IMO just a justification for the lack of evidence.
Cuttlebones, IMO you have just shown that you have indeed missed the whole point. So we'll just have to leave it there. :)
Skep said: "Kristen, excuse me. I thought you were defending the topic of this post. Clearly, Joe thinks that these feelings in the heart (which are actually emotional feelings) are evidence that is not received by the atheist. The atheist simply wants objective evidence."
To be more accurate I thnk the effect of having the experience is the effect it has on the experiencer.. Not that I feel someone is there but the fact feeling that causes me to seek God more or whatever.
CB: "the Parent knows better than the child
Do parents hide from their kids? Do parents not communicate their expectations?"
The parent-child model is a metaphor not a 1x1 correspondence. God is not hiding from those who seek him.
Hey Kristen, good arguments, I am impressed.
>> "To be more accurate I thnk the effect of having the experience is the effect it has on the experiencer.. Not that I feel someone is there but the fact feeling that causes me to seek God more or whatever."
So by your reasoning, if I take a drug that gives me this feeling and causes me to seek God, that would be evidence that God exists. Or how about this: What if human beings naturally tend to have feelings of awe and unity that can be triggered by any number of things - such as certain drugs, electro-chemical stimulation of the brain, or by ritualistic practices, or by psychological manipulation, or emotional episodes? What if the resulting religious behaviors evolved because they tend to unite the clan and enhance survival? Does all that amount to evidence for God?
Yes, I agree. Faith isn't about belief with no evidence or belief in spite of the evidence. But evidence isn't the point. Human reliance on and interaction with the divine is the point
You say evidence isn't the point. I say epistemology is the key. What do we know, and how do we know it? We can be deceived by our feelings. Objective evidence is real justification for belief.
Kristen: I have a question for Pix first. What do you think about the companion commandment to love your neighbor? Do you view it in the same terms, that it can't possibly be genuine if it's commanded? That it's like the love of a dog for its master?
I was thinking more about the other way. Can you really claim God loves you if he is commanding you to love him? That does not sound like love to me.
But yes, is it love if you are doing it because that is commanded of you?
Pix
Pix, I think the first thing is that we have to define love as more than just an emotion or a feeling. Love in Christian thought is not just something you feel (though it is that), but also something you do. More importantly, in its highest form it's something you CHOOSE to do, and when you make the choice, the feelings usually follow. The reason I asked the question about "love your neighbor" is that it makes this clear. If we take "neighbor" as Jesus meant it in his parable of the Good Samaritan, it means any fellow human being, even if they're from a different tribe and have different customs and ways of thinking. Obviously, "love your neighbor" here can't mean "conjure up feelings of affection that aren't naturally there." It can mean something more like "Choose to see and treat your neighbor as someone worthy of everything good that you want for yourself, and choose to want those things for your neighbor too."
If we take this idea into the meaning of the word "love" in this passage, then one thing we can be certain it's NOT, is like the love of a dog for its master. The love of a dog for its master arises without thought or conscious choice in the dog, purely out of its nature.
The question of whether God could truly love us if God commands us to love him, then, doesn't really make sense with this definition of love. Of course God could love us-- could choose to see and treat us as worthy and want the best for us-- even if God didn't have the feelings of affection which are part of love, and which I think God does have for us, because I have felt the presence of a great love, care and compassion when I pray. And these feelings are part of love too, just not all it is.
The importance of the commandment to love as central to the commandments, then, in both Jewish and Christian thought, is that they focus the commandments on the internal, on attitudes and values, and not on external obedience to a set of actions. If God just said, "don't murder, don't steal, don't commit adultery," etc., and all it was about was not doing those things, then you could hate your fellow humans as much as you wanted, you could belittle them in your mind and dehumanize them, you could be cruel to them or ignore their suffering, or pass laws that make you prosper but impoverish them-- anything, as long as you didn't cross the line into breaking the words of the commandments.
No, you can't be forced to have feelings of affection towards someone, and if were commanded just to have those feelings, the most you do was try to conjure them up. But you can make choices and have intentions as to how you focus your thoughts and attitudes. And that's what the commandment is about. I think if more people made this choice to truly value and desire the best, even for strangers, the world would be a better place.
great answers Kristen
Post a Comment