(April 3, 2014 at 9:04 pm)professor Wrote: Not yet.
I did an experiment with microwave water on one and it withered and died but said nothing.

Sounds like maybe you weren't listening very closely

(April 2, 2014 at 3:20 am)max-greece Wrote:

---

Quote:Yes it is true that "without faith it is impossible to please God." But what kind of faith does God require? It's seems, at least in this forum, that most people define faith something like: a belief in something with no evidence nor reason, and something that cannot be proved. I'll define this as blind faith for the purpose of this discussion. Does God require blind faith? While the account of Thomas does show us that Thomas wouldn't believe unless he saw there is more to learn. Consider that if in fact God did demand blind faith showing Himself to Thomas would have disqualified Thomas. Yet the scriptures do not teach that Thomas was disqualified. (John 20:19-25) The end of the verse, "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe" is an encouragement to those who at the time believed but did not physically see Jesus resurrected as well as all subsequent generations of believers. Secondly consider Abraham. It is written that "Abraham believed God and his faith was credited as righteousness." Here is a man where the 'knowledge' came first, God spoke to him personally, therefore Abraham knew He existed. Yet this knowledge was not what was considered faith but rather it was when Abraham put his trust in God, in His words, and put them into action, that Abraham had faith. God does not demand blind faith.

---

This is an interesting turn around on what an atheist like myself sees as the inconsistency of God. He appears to some, but not to others. If your interpretation is correct then one would naturally expect that anyone who truly believes WILL get this knowledge confirmation.

I would say yes He provides knowledge though not always through a physical appearance. God spoke to Abraham, Christ appeared to some after His resurrection, today we rely on the completeness of His word.

(April 2, 2014 at 3:20 am)max-greece Wrote: The point of bringing up Mother Teresa is that, according to her diaries, she suffered doubts simply because that confirmation was not forthcoming. It appears that she never got it. As she is a candidate for Sainthood this is odd - and at odds with your interpretation.

Why do you conclude that she is a candidate for Sainthood?

(April 2, 2014 at 3:20 am)max-greece Wrote: It appears that there are some with genuine belief who are sentenced to a life-time of no-proof. This seems incredibly unfair of God, don't you think?

As you have this written yes it would seem incredibly unfair. To be sure it is in fact unfair one must determine the truth value of your initial premise: "It appears that there are some with genuine belief who are sentenced to a life-time of no-proof." Does the appearance of genuine belief equal genuine belief? Does the Bible make a distinction?

(April 2, 2014 at 3:20 am)max-greece Wrote: It is my opinion that absolute confidence and/or the "knowledge" of God is a delusion based on this evidence - even ignoring all of the other issues that an Atheist might raise.
If God doesn't exist such knowledge cannot be had.
If God does exist such knowledge could only be had if God was spectacularly inconsistent and very un-godlike in his behaviour.
Do you see what I am saying now?

I think I understand your argument. I've organized a formal argument below, please review it and let me know if it is accurate.
Premise 1: Faith in God produces knowledge of God's existence.
Premise 2: Some people have faith in God but without knowledge of God's existence.
Premise 3: If God doesn't exist, then there is no knowledge of God's existence.
Conclusion: If God does exist, knowledge of His existence could only be had if God is not consistent.

(April 3, 2014 at 7:52 am)archangle Wrote: Why can't they have the traits wrong?

To clarify, what do you mean by traits?

(April 3, 2014 at 7:52 am)archangle Wrote: This withholding thing. I would say that if there was a god he/she would withhold nothing.
In fact ... he would show us as fast as we can.

To clarify when you say 'withhold nothing' do you mean a knowledge of His existence or do you mean God would literally give us everything? Why do you conclude that God would withhold nothing?

Orange,

Mother Theresa was Beatified by Pope John Paul 2 in 2003 as a first step be being becoming a Saint. https://www.americancatholic.org/feature...nthood.asp

Quote:"It appears that there are some with genuine belief who are sentenced to a life-time of no-proof." Does the appearance of genuine belief equal genuine belief? Does the Bible make a distinction?

Well in reality its impossible to know whether what appears to be genuine belief actually is but there are cases where it is almost inconceivable that professed genuine belief is anything other than that. I used the MT example above to illustrate this.

If some with genuine belief get confirmation whilst some don't and then start to question their belief how can that be their fault? This appears to be what MT was suffering from. Note: These struggles of hers only came to light after the beatification process had started. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/ar...20,00.html and http://www.cbsnews.com/news/letters-reve...as-secret/ along with many more.

Your summary of my argument appears consistent with my position.

(April 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm)professor Wrote: Blind faith is a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing.

That assumes that faith, by definition, is therefore blind. I disagree. I'll just Copy/Paste my reply to discipulus in a different thread:

Quote:Paul defines faith as the "assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1, ASV). This is often used to denote belief with no evidence, but that does not seem to be right meaning of the word. We often use the word "faith" as a synonym for "trust." We differentiate between faith and "blind faith." Therefore, faith should involve something we know for certain, unlike blind faith.

This fits the Biblical narrative. Paul himself came to know the truth when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. If this was true, then Paul's faith in any of Jesus' promises was based on his belief that Jesus was real, which was based on his direct experience with Jesus.

Jesus chided Thomas for doubting that he had been resurrected, telling him "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29). And despite this, he did allow Thomas to see him and to put his fingers through the wounds in his hands and side. Judging by his reaction, this experience strengthened Thomas' faith.

Some Christians will tell us that if god were to reveal himself today, that this would deny us free will because we would have no choice to believe. But there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that this is a problem. Paul states that creation is such clear proof of god's existence that to deny him is inexcusable. (Romans 1:18-21) God's intervention in human affairs was common in the OT and NT, yet this is not cause for alarm.

Knowing that god exists, if he makes it plain, would certainly not require faith. Believing that he would do what he proposed would require faith as defined by Paul-- a conviction of things not seen (since they are promises of future action). But believing in god should not be a matter of faith; if he was able to make himself known directly and physically to people for thousands of years, he can do so now without issue. That he does not do so is not a matter of faith, and I don't think we should have faith in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration.

Do atheists display faith? As defined above, yes, I do. I trust in some people to live up to their word if they have shown a habit of being trustworthy. So if a particular person says he is going to the movies on Saturday and will pick me up at noon, I have faith that this will happen. If a less trustworthy person offers the same, my faith may not be as strong in his promise. If a fictional character makes general promises to everyone (or to no one in particular) I am unlikely to have any faith in him at all.

(April 1, 2014 at 1:20 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(April 1, 2014 at 5:26 am)max-greece Wrote: My understanding is that God is supposed to withhold that knowledge - which is the point of his demanding faith.

So as to not presume the foundation for your understanding, why do you claim that God withhold's this knowledge and that He demands faith?

I hardly see how believing without justification (faith) fits into anything except in a charlatans' handbook to get you to believe any claim without evidence.

This god you adore withheld the knowledge of good and evil to Adam and Eve according to the story. So how could they be blamed for their actions? They can't be accountable if they have no comprehension of right and wrong.

QT, you seem to be missing something in the Genesis account.
The couple were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Prior to their CHOICE (a familiar word in the U.S.) of eating from that tree- they had NO knowledge of evil, they only had knowledge of good.

The serpent has been offering the same tree to us in different forms ever since.
And we have been making the same choices.

(April 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm)professor Wrote: QT, you seem to be missing something in the Genesis account.
The couple were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Prior to their CHOICE (a familiar word in the U.S.) of eating from that tree- they had NO knowledge of evil, they only had knowledge of good.

The serpent has been offering the same tree to us in different forms ever since.
And we have been making the same choices.

Now, how were they supposed to know that they should do as they're being told, if they didn't know good from bad?

Btw., what is in your opinion a modern serpent+fruit analogy

(April 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm)professor Wrote: QT, you seem to be missing something in the Genesis account.
The couple were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Prior to their CHOICE (a familiar word in the U.S.) of eating from that tree- they had NO knowledge of evil, they only had knowledge of good.

The serpent has been offering the same tree to us in different forms ever since.
And we have been making the same choices.

So ur saying they had no knowledge of evil and were punished because of that... that makes no sense..

(April 4, 2014 at 6:39 pm)professor Wrote: QT, you seem to be missing something in the Genesis account.
The couple were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Prior to their CHOICE (a familiar word in the U.S.) of eating from that tree- they had NO knowledge of evil, they only had knowledge of good.

The serpent has been offering the same tree to us in different forms ever since.
And we have been making the same choices.

Doesn't matter if they have no sense of right and wrong.

It'd be no different than telling a lion not to eat you.

Alex, this is an assumption on my part- they were created with no bias toward good or evil and made a definite choice to follow the words of the snake.
She considered both the fruit of the tree and the words of the devil.

I thought you might ask about the modern scheme.
There are many of them, the Freemasons come to mind, the occult also.
You could look no farther than the upholding of Reason and knowledge found right here on AF.
(I am sure this will go over like a rat sandwich.)

Truth, if God were the monster atheists make Him out to be, you would be correct.
I reject that view.
Their choice brought specific results (I do not recall it being stated as a punishment).