Free Will and Loving/Rejecting God

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree that the doctrine of Christ's divine nature is not stated explicitly but rather arrived at systematically. I find the work of arriving at a doctrine systematically in no way hinders the truth of a doctrine. I also find systematic theology challenging and enjoyable.

Oh it definitely is challenging, that's why there's so much variance today and has been throughout time. Some of those efforts I find more laudable than others, but it's all effort, that's for sure.

I think our definition of 'belief in God' is what is causing the conflict. In order to rectify the situation I will have to convince you that belief in a god that isn't a god is not the same thing as belief in God. It's a matter of truth, not of a claim. Let's say I claim that I believe in god. I claim that god is the tree in my backyard. If it is true that the tree in my backyard is god, then it is true that I believe in god. If it is not true that the tree in my backyard is god (it is merely a tree) then I do not believe in god but merely make the claim to.

Yeah, sorry, you're not going to get any traction with this. If you believe the tree is god then you believe in god. That the tree isn't god, meh, of course it isn't...but that hasn't stopped anyone from believing in any of the other not-a-gods either. They may not be the -same thing- (one is correct, one is not in your example...that's where they differ) however, regarding a belief in god in and of itself, they are the same thing. This was your unstated assumption. This is the premise whose unsound nature spoils any validity you might be able to cook up. You're attempting to redefine an entire phrase "belief in god" to mean "belief in -my- god". You have to know that shit won't fly.....but if you want to do that, do it out in the open, don't hide it. "

The truth is not determined by a belief claim, but rather a belief claim is validated or invalidated by truth.

Whether or not their belief is an accurate description of reality is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is a belief in god.

If people believe in a god that isn't a god then they believe in no god.

That doesn't work. That means that a person simultaneously does and does not believe in god. It's a self refuting statement Orange, and not a particularly difficult one to spot.

Certainly the atheist can understand this perspective.

lol...not -this- atheist.

No doubt I'll be insulting your intelligence when I point out that an argument is valid if there is no case in which all of the premises are true and the conclusion is false.

Just gonna cut you off right here. Validity is an issue of structure, not truth. Validity is required to arrive at truth in this system, sure, but validity in and of itself does not guarantee truth, nor does the truth of any given premise guarantee validity, regardless of the truth of the conclusion. We get it right for the wrong reasons all the time. We get it wrong for the right reasons all the time. Your premises may be true, your conclusion may be (judged externally) true, or false...but that won't actually mean that your argument is valid in either case or any juxtaposition thereof.

-An argument is "valid" when it's structure fits a fairly well defined list of structures. End of.

That is what the assumptions are doing here. I've chosen to accept the truth value of some premises in order to test the validity and soundness of the argument.

Your results aren't going to be very reliable if you insist upon approaching it in this manner...and your conclusion regarding the issue of who does or doesn't believe in god demonstrates this quite clearly.

I've found an example of where some people have seen God face to face and not believed in Him and therefore have shown the assumption within the question (that everyone who has seen God believes in Him) is false.

No, you've shown a linguistic and cultural gaff (but also just a touch of misapprehension regarding what validity is and what it can do). Let's use a baseball player, instead of your god to help explain where you went awry, eh?

You say, "Mickey Mantle" is -The Greatest Baseball Player Who Ever Lived-
I say, "Babe Ruth" is -The Greatest Baseball Player Who Ever Lived-

Does this mean, because I don't agree with you, that I don't believe in -The Greatest Baseball Player Who Ever Lived-? Clearly not, since I made my own claim to the very same. If Mickey Mantle actually were -x-..would that mean that I didn;t believe in -x- simply because I was wrong about who -x- was? No. Now, replace whats in quotes with "Yahweh" and "Ra"...and whats in dashes with -God-. As far as belief in god is concerned, The Yahwist and the Raist are on equal terms. You are both theists (and equally so). Incidentally, I think you're both wrong...but just because I think you're wrong...doesn't mean you don't believe in god...and I doubt that you would appreciate if I made such a statement about you, eh?

While you mull that over, I'll bring all of this back around. I don't think that "seeing is believing" myself, even though it certainly seems to be the case in the narrative (course..I think the narrative is fictional so I expect a little bit of of a disconnect)...but I couldn't feel comfortable saying that this was untrue on the grounds you offered.