(April 12, 2013 at 7:02 am)FallentoReason Wrote: This isn't an original argument by me, but rather an argument from a Youtuber whose video can be found in this thread: http://atheistforums.org/thread-18268.html

Thanks for sharing that with us median. I've watched more of his videos and I can't believe he does daytime TV instead of travel the world and debate with theists. Absolutely brilliant.

Anyways. He begins by explaining an observation of our universe: here we all are, debating about whether the Christian god exists or not which apparently is too shy to show himself. It seems rather strange that his existence isn't just an everyday fact but rather an "abstract truth" that isn't all that evident, especially when there's so many religions claiming that they're the ones worshipping the true god(s). This, he says, is the last thing we should expect from Bible god. The argument is as follows:

1) If God exists, he desires for us to know x is true, where x is the set of propositions we need to believe in so that we can be saved.
2) If God exists, he has the power to make us know x is true.
3) If God exists, and given (1) & (2), we should know x is true.
4) We do not know x is true.
C) Given (3) & (4), God does not exist.

He goes on to explain that free will doesn't come into this argument as an objection, because God giving us the knowledge that x is true wouldn't negate our free will. The Bible itself gives us plenty of instances where an agent knew God exists, but yet they chose to rebel. There were even agents in the direct presence of God, yet they chose to rebel e.g. Lucifer. So clearly, God making sure we knew x is true shouldn't be a problem at all, but yet we are plagued with people not knowing x is true.

good stuff

Free will doesn't exist. You brain makes choices. No matter what god does, it makes choices. God also understands that if he gave you the ability to chose, then some must, by the nature of how we seem to work, choose against him.

(April 12, 2013 at 7:02 am)FallentoReason Wrote: …his existence isn't just an everyday fact but rather an "abstract truth" that isn't all that evident, especially when there's so many religions claiming that they're the ones worshipping the true god(s).

Remember to distinguish between general revelation and special revelation. The everyday fact of a divine aspect to reality seems to be ‘properly basic’ as MysticKnight would say. Some form of divinity is intuitively obvious, even if later application of reason, forces you to conclude that your intuition was incorrect. Meanwhile the application of reason may force others, like myself, to conclude that the original intuition was sound. Proceeding from there relies on the special revelation particular to each religious tradition – if Christian, the bible; if Hindu, the Vedas; etc.

The argument presented refutes the idea of ‘orthodoxy’ in the sense that salvation depends on having the right thoughts or holding a certain set of facts to be true. This would apply to the Reformed doctrine of ‘Faith Alone’. Are thoughts, by themselves, meritorious? The Catholic and Orthodox churches do not think so, nor does Swedenborg (who would have guessed!)

Thought, and the knowledge of truths that come from it, allows us to love more effectively and to do good. Truth plays a supporting role to love. Love alone is meritorious.

Okay. So I’m a Christian and I believe the special revelation of the bible is true, or at least a better approximation of the truth than say the Vedas. By definition, if I read something in the Vedas that contradicted the bible I would call it a false teaching. Closer to home, I think the New Church interpretation of the bible is more accurate than that of say Southern Baptists. So I would call those false teachings as well. That does not mean that a false teaching is necessarily harmful if it does not prevent the believer from cultivating love within themselves and acting out that love. Drich, Godschild, Frodo, and I all love the Lord. I would like to believe that we all live our lives in conformity to that love, despite our doctrinal differences. I’m quite certain that when we meet together in heaven we’ll all have a good laugh about how wrong each of us was.

that's right Chad.

no more "false" than Newton. Just incomplete for the information they had at the time.
God teaches us as fast as "we" can learn. The information is always there.

it can't "not" be there.

(April 12, 2013 at 8:07 am)archangle Wrote: God also understands that...

What are you, his lawyer? When did you meet with him to tell you what he understands and doesn't understand?

(April 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)frz Wrote:

(April 12, 2013 at 8:07 am)archangle Wrote: God also understands that...

What are you, his lawyer? When did you meet with him to tell you what he understands and doesn't understand?

lmao. apparently not as good a lawyer as you. Quote the whole post next time.

(April 12, 2013 at 11:05 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Remember to distinguish between general revelation and special revelation. The everyday fact of a divine aspect to reality seems to be ‘properly basic’ as MysticKnight would say. Some form of divinity is intuitively obvious, even if later application of reason, forces you to conclude that your intuition was incorrect. Meanwhile the application of reason may force others, like myself, to conclude that the original intuition was sound. Proceeding from there relies on the special revelation particular to each religious tradition – if Christian, the bible; if Hindu, the Vedas; etc.

It seems like you have a problem with premise 4? This argument doesn't account for a Deistic god, so I'll meet you half way when you say the divine aspect of reality could be properly basic. This by no means implies that such an entity decided to reveal itself, thus making the entity Theistic in nature. This is where I stand; I believe it is a non-sequitur to say a) "GOD" exists therefore b) Christianity is true. There's a whole lot of work ahead of you to get to (b), which is actually the point of the argument: the fact that it is not obvious that the claims of Christianity are the true ones.

Quote:The argument presented refutes the idea of ‘orthodoxy’ in the sense that salvation depends on having the right thoughts or holding a certain set of facts to be true. This would apply to the Reformed doctrine of ‘Faith Alone’. Are thoughts, by themselves, meritorious? The Catholic and Orthodox churches do not think so, nor does Swedenborg (who would have guessed!)

Thought, and the knowledge of truths that come from it, allows us to love more effectively and to do good. Truth plays a supporting role to love. Love alone is meritorious.

Okay. So I’m a Christian and I believe the special revelation of the bible is true, or at least a better approximation of the truth than say the Vedas. By definition, if I read something in the Vedas that contradicted the bible I would call it a false teaching. Closer to home, I think the New Church interpretation of the bible is more accurate than that of say Southern Baptists. So I would call those false teachings as well. That does not mean that a false teaching is necessarily harmful if it does not prevent the believer from cultivating love within themselves and acting out that love. Drich, Godschild, Frodo, and I all love the Lord. I would like to believe that we all live our lives in conformity to that love, despite our doctrinal differences. I’m quite certain that when we meet together in heaven we’ll all have a good laugh about how wrong each of us was.

I don't think you ever explicitly stated it here, but are you saying that believing in x is not a sufficient nor even a necessary condition to salvation? In other words, is it true that someone who is not a Christian (i.e. they don't believe x to be true, where x is arguably the fundamental teachings of Christianity such as Jesus dying for your sins) can get to heaven? If this is what you're saying, then I believe it raises more problems than answers, but I'll let you answer this first.

(April 12, 2013 at 11:22 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: ...are you saying that believing in x is not a sufficient nor even a necessary condition to salvation? In other words, is it true that someone who is not a Christian can get to heaven?

Yes. Contrary to most evangelical thinking, I believe that many non-Christians go to heaven, given certain qualifiers and conditions, etc. etc. That is also New Church doctrine, so I'm not making my own exceptions.

(April 13, 2013 at 12:06 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 12, 2013 at 11:22 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: ...are you saying that believing in x is not a sufficient nor even a necessary condition to salvation? In other words, is it true that someone who is not a Christian can get to heaven?

Yes. Contrary to most evangelical thinking, I believe that many non-Christians go to heaven, given certain qualifiers and conditions, etc. etc. That is also New Church doctrine, so I'm not making my own exceptions.

Right, so what are these "qualifiers and conditions"?

(April 13, 2013 at 12:50 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Right, so what are these "qualifiers and conditions"?

Living a life as prescribed in the bible.