Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
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.
Thanks for your patience in answering my questions. Too often, myself included, people can rush to a conclusion without understanding the argument. While I would like to go into greater detail, and would be happy to upon your request, the simplist answer is found in Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Here we see that some who prophesy in the name of Christ, cast out devils in the name of Christ, and had done wonderful works in the name of Christ, are in fact not followers of Christ, but rather workers of iniquity. This is a sobering passage for all who profess to be in Christ (myself included). Ultimately, as you have stated, no man can no for sure what's in the heart of another man, i.e. that their faith is genuine, and so an ultimate judgment cannot be made by men. What we do know is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. While I cannot condemn an individual I can use what scripture says. What I mean is that I can't say someone is going to hell as that person could come to repentance later today. What I can say is what the scripture gives me authority to say. That those who do certain things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
My speculative opinion is that Mother Theresa's cause for doubt was because she was putting her hope in her own good works, rather than on Jesus Christ (and this stems from the Roman Catholic Church's teachings, that Christ's sacrifice alone is not enough, that a person must add their own good works to be saved). And this should be cause for doubt as we know that "no one is saved through works (personal rightousness), but rather it is through grace that no man may boast." We put our faith in Jesus Christ and his (personal) rightousness is imputed to us. So that when God looks at us he no longer sees us but rather the rightousness of Christ.
(April 4, 2014 at 12:44 am)max-greece Wrote: Your summary of my argument appears consistent with my position.
It's hard on a forum to portray tone so understand when I say the following it is not meant to be insulting but rather a strictly academic statement. Given your premises, you cannot logically infer your conclusion. The short reason why is that two of your premises violate the law of non-contratiction. If you are interested in discussions of logic I'd be happy to offer a more technical explanation.
(April 4, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Tonus Wrote: 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.
For the sake of space I shortened what was a very well written response by you. I found agreement with your writing until the above paragraph. I'll summarize your statements:
With respect to your conclusion 'I don't think we should have faith in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration' seems to have substituted the word 'faith' where you should have written 'belief'. Did you mean to write 'belief' in his existence as you have previously stated that 'belief in God is not a matter of faith? If you wrote "I don't think we should have belief in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration' that would be consistent to your definition of terms. If so I would then summarize your conclusion as: "If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically then He does not exist."
So the argument is:
Premise 1. Faith is believing that God will do what He has said.
Premise 2. Belief in God is not a matter of faith.
Premise 3. Belief in God is a matter of God revealing himself to people directly and physically.
Premise 4. If God has revealed himself to people directly and physically for thousands of years then He is able to do the same now.
Conclusion. If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically now then He does not exist.
Is this a fair and accurate representation of your argument?
(April 4, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: 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.
(April 4, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Alex K Wrote: Now, how were they supposed to know that they should do as they're being told, if they didn't know good from bad?
(April 4, 2014 at 6:59 pm)truthBtold Wrote: So ur saying they had no knowledge of evil and were punished because of that... that makes no sense..
Their comprehension or non-comprehension of good and evil is not what they were being held accountable to but rather their faith in God of which they understood they had a choice. Do we have faith (trust in God's words) or are we faithless and go our own way? This is the question they faced and we face now. And we have all made the same choice.
Your claim would be accurately stated if God gave no command to not eat from the tree of the knowledge between good and evil and no warning of the consequences, then waited for them to eat of it, and then held them accountable for it. That is however not what happened.
It should also be noted that the consequences were also clearly stated: "you shall die."
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
April 5, 2014 at 2:04 am (This post was last modified: April 5, 2014 at 2:09 am by Alex K.)
Reason is the forbidden fruit? And you just made an argument, sinner!
(April 4, 2014 at 7:28 pm)professor Wrote: 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).
orangebox,
Stating the consequences does not make Gods actions ok. And no they were nit equipped to make a judgement and be held accountable for it.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Quote:It's hard on a forum to portray tone so understand when I say the following it is not meant to be insulting but rather a strictly academic statement. Given your premises, you cannot logically infer your conclusion. The short reason why is that two of your premises violate the law of non-contratiction. If you are interested in discussions of logic I'd be happy to offer a more technical explanation.
Worry not about how I take your comments. Fire away - I don't see contradiction so I must have missed it.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
(April 5, 2014 at 2:04 am)Alex K Wrote: Stating the consequences does not make Gods actions ok. And no they were nit equipped to make a judgement and be held accountable for it.
To which actions of God's are you referring?
In what way(s) are you proposing Adam and Eve were not equipped to make a judgement?
(April 5, 2014 at 6:25 am)max-greece Wrote: Worry not about how I take your comments. Fire away - I don't see contradiction so I must have missed it.
10-4. The argument again:
Quote: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.
Premise 1 states that faith in God produces knowledge of God's existence. Premise 2 states that some people have faith in God but do not have knowledge of God's existence. If faith in God produces knowledge of God's existence than people cannot have faith in God without knowledge of God's existence.
We know that an argument is valid only when a true conclusion is inferred from true premises and there are no instances where the premises can be true and the conclusion false. There is no instance with which your first premise and second premise can be true at the same time, because premise two is a negation of premise one. So if we were to assume premise 1 is true then it's negation (premise 2) would be false and vice versa. If there is no instance with which all your premises are true you cannot logically infer any conclusion.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
April 8, 2014 at 9:43 am (This post was last modified: April 8, 2014 at 9:45 am by Tonus.)
(April 4, 2014 at 7:28 pm)professor Wrote: 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.
When you think about it, that was the natural reaction of a person who had no concept of good or evil, and who simply did as she was told. Given an opportunity to make her own choice once a crucial barrier (fear of consequences) had been removed, she had no reason to be concerned about taking the fruit.
Thus, the problem was that a talking serpent was allowed to enter the garden and speak to Eve. Presumably, to this point the only beings able to talk would have been the two humans and god, and perhaps any messengers he sent. As long as god was there to tell them what to do, there was no issue with them not knowing what was good or evil. Why did god abandon Eve to the tender mercies of the serpent if he knew that she did not have the necessary instincts or knowledge to reject his offer?
(April 5, 2014 at 1:58 am)orangebox21 Wrote: So the argument is:
Premise 1. Faith is believing that God will do what He has said.
Premise 2. Belief in God is not a matter of faith.
Premise 3. Belief in God is a matter of God revealing himself to people directly and physically.
Premise 4. If God has revealed himself to people directly and physically for thousands of years then He is able to do the same now.
Conclusion. If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically now then He does not exist.
Is this a fair and accurate representation of your argument?
Yes, I think that sums it up well. And yes, "belief" is more accurate than "faith" in my last sentence.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
Quote:13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“[b]I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
[my bolding and italicizing]
In the case of the serpent and the woman, God is the one doling out the "consequences" - and what are imposed consequences called but punishments? The only one who could even make the argument that God wasn't punishing him was Adam, but only because there is no first person "I will" from God when describing what will happen to Adam because of his actions. Inferring from what God tells the serpent and Eve, though, it's reasonable to read Adam's "consequences" as being doled out as a punishment by God, too.
Who or what could have determined the consequences of eating the fruit of the tree but God since God supposedly created everything and therefore would have also had to create all the consequences for doing anything, including the fact that certain plants will poison you if you eat them or touch them, that you will suffer as a result of diseases and what will happen to you if you eat a piece of fruit God told you not to.
You could also read these passages as all coming as punishments from God because it takes a person to strike a curse upon another person and God curses the serpent, and curses Adam.
Or do you think curses just materialize out of no where? In that case, who or what causes a curse but God, since God is supposedly the creator of all things and would therefore be the one ultimately responsible for creating the parameters for how and when someone will be cursed?
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
CM, it is like-
Do not go into that bramble bush, stay out of it.
Or, as I say about the occult- if you play in that playpen- you will get played with, and the owner of it does not play nice.
How was God under a moral obligation to explain all the details of transgression?
It really was a test.
A fair test would, of necessity, consist of being completely free to choose.
To be otherwise, God would have created beings no more appealing to him than a robot.
You would quickly be bored with a robot for a companion and companionship is the sole reason for creation.
The serpent (satan) understood Man was his replacement (and destined to be higher than him).
Can you not see that the serpent is still here?
His hiss is audible but disguised.
"Hath God said?" Still works pretty good.
April 9, 2014 at 9:29 am (This post was last modified: April 9, 2014 at 9:34 am by archangle.)
(April 5, 2014 at 1:58 am)orangebox21 Wrote:
(April 4, 2014 at 12:44 am)max-greece Wrote:
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
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.
Thanks for your patience in answering my questions. Too often, myself included, people can rush to a conclusion without understanding the argument. While I would like to go into greater detail, and would be happy to upon your request, the simplist answer is found in Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Here we see that some who prophesy in the name of Christ, cast out devils in the name of Christ, and had done wonderful works in the name of Christ, are in fact not followers of Christ, but rather workers of iniquity. This is a sobering passage for all who profess to be in Christ (myself included). Ultimately, as you have stated, no man can no for sure what's in the heart of another man, i.e. that their faith is genuine, and so an ultimate judgment cannot be made by men. What we do know is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. While I cannot condemn an individual I can use what scripture says. What I mean is that I can't say someone is going to hell as that person could come to repentance later today. What I can say is what the scripture gives me authority to say. That those who do certain things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
My speculative opinion is that Mother Theresa's cause for doubt was because she was putting her hope in her own good works, rather than on Jesus Christ (and this stems from the Roman Catholic Church's teachings, that Christ's sacrifice alone is not enough, that a person must add their own good works to be saved). And this should be cause for doubt as we know that "no one is saved through works (personal rightousness), but rather it is through grace that no man may boast." We put our faith in Jesus Christ and his (personal) rightousness is imputed to us. So that when God looks at us he no longer sees us but rather the rightousness of Christ.
(April 4, 2014 at 12:44 am)max-greece Wrote: Your summary of my argument appears consistent with my position.
It's hard on a forum to portray tone so understand when I say the following it is not meant to be insulting but rather a strictly academic statement. Given your premises, you cannot logically infer your conclusion. The short reason why is that two of your premises violate the law of non-contratiction. If you are interested in discussions of logic I'd be happy to offer a more technical explanation.
(April 4, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Tonus Wrote: 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.
For the sake of space I shortened what was a very well written response by you. I found agreement with your writing until the above paragraph. I'll summarize your statements:
With respect to your conclusion 'I don't think we should have faith in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration' seems to have substituted the word 'faith' where you should have written 'belief'. Did you mean to write 'belief' in his existence as you have previously stated that 'belief in God is not a matter of faith? If you wrote "I don't think we should have belief in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration' that would be consistent to your definition of terms. If so I would then summarize your conclusion as: "If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically then He does not exist."
So the argument is:
Premise 1. Faith is believing that God will do what He has said.
Premise 2. Belief in God is not a matter of faith.
Premise 3. Belief in God is a matter of God revealing himself to people directly and physically.
Premise 4. If God has revealed himself to people directly and physically for thousands of years then He is able to do the same now.
Conclusion. If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically now then He does not exist.
Is this a fair and accurate representation of your argument?
(April 4, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: 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.
(April 4, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Alex K Wrote: Now, how were they supposed to know that they should do as they're being told, if they didn't know good from bad?
(April 4, 2014 at 6:59 pm)truthBtold Wrote: So ur saying they had no knowledge of evil and were punished because of that... that makes no sense..
Their comprehension or non-comprehension of good and evil is not what they were being held accountable to but rather their faith in God of which they understood they had a choice. Do we have faith (trust in God's words) or are we faithless and go our own way? This is the question they faced and we face now. And we have all made the same choice.
Your claim would be accurately stated if God gave no command to not eat from the tree of the knowledge between good and evil and no warning of the consequences, then waited for them to eat of it, and then held them accountable for it. That is however not what happened.
It should also be noted that the consequences were also clearly stated: "you shall die."
****************************************************
Messed up the cute and paste
more accurately ... "you shall know".
But to "know more" means you are not as you were, "you then" is dead.
You "now" has been given a breath into "life".
The ego holds tightly onto "you then", thinking that is the only you there is. In some ways it is right. But it is in error thinking that this body is all there is.
(April 5, 2014 at 1:58 am)orangebox21 Wrote: So the argument is:
Premise 1. Faith is believing that God will do what He has said.
Premise 2. Belief in God is not a matter of faith.
Premise 3. Belief in God is a matter of God revealing himself to people directly and physically.
Premise 4. If God has revealed himself to people directly and physically for thousands of years then He is able to do the same now.
Conclusion. If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically now then He does not exist.
Is this a fair and accurate representation of your argument?
Yes, I think that sums it up well. And yes, "belief" is more accurate than "faith" in my last sentence.
Sounds good.
Your conclusion would follow if you changed 'then He does not exist' to 'belief in Him does not exist.' If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically now then people's belief in Him does not exist. This would logically follow.
Here's why you cannot logically infer that God does not exist from your premises.Your premises are all propositions involving the concept of 'belief' and your conclusion changes concept to 'existence'. You have not argued for existence but rather belief in existence. It's comparable to the fallacy of equivocation. Secondly you have already established that God does exist in premise 4 (a valid argument must have true premises). You state that God has revealed Himself to people for thousands of years (therefore exists) and this revelation has led to belief, but then concluded that God does not exist. This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction (God cannot both exist and not exist).
I'll speculate that a lot of people who derive their knowledge soley from empiricism share in your thoughts. i.e. If God doesn't show himself to me then he doesn't exist. But what should be added to the end of the sentence to make your argument valid is 'to me', 'he doesn't exist to me.' It's doubting Thomas. You can certainly from your premises logically conclude that God does not exist to you (or anyone He doesn't directly and physically show Himself to), however to conclude that God does not exist would be illogical.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists... and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible... would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
