On Non-belief

[Faith No More]

At some point in the future He will [show himself]...who knows could be soon.

Or he's already come...in, oh, say 1757 A.D. =-)

You're lucky people don't get burned at the stake anymore, Chad.

[Tex]

And no knowledge of these things grants salvation. These aren't necessary things to know. No knowledge grants salvation. Ever. The reason we have them recorded is because they are able to strengthen, but they themselves do not save.

Yes, agreed hence why God is required to make the claims of Christianity true beyond doubt so that everyone has a chance at eternal life by then putting trust in this truth.

I don't think removing any possibility for doubt is required of God. In fact, I think it's required he allow the possibility. The greater the possibility to doubt, the greater the free will. Those who investigate generally (but not always) find the evidence, but some of this evidence must be studied and contemplated before understood. All of this is an exercise of the will.

If we were simply given knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt, free will would not be very important. It would allow us to eat beef over chicken, but that's about it. Instead, because of the doubt, those that do not want to receive knowledge don't by their own free choice. Those that want the knowledge are free to obtain it by their own workings.

Finally, I don't even know if the knowledge beyond a doubt would help so many people. I can't reasonably say all, but most people would still want to do what they want, make their own way, and basically dismiss the knowledge they have as unimportant.

To note again, to for you but mainly to other readers, no knowledge saves. Even Native Americans have a chance for salvation.

No knowledge grants salvation. Native Americans before Columbus still have a chance for salvation, as does all mankind.

How does that work?

The Mormons will tell you that Jesus flew over here after he rose and died, but that is not my reasoning (nor any sane person). I believe God is partially known in an indirect manner naturally. The "transcendentals" are Good, True, Beauty, Order, and Being. These are metaphysically complex, but a person, without even having the concept of "god" might not be able to develop a complex metaphysics from these transcendentals but use them all the same.

Little At'eed and Ashkii were running around one day and come across a wounded man from another tribe, barely conscious. Both of them hide bushes as not to be seen. A few minutes pass and Ethete, a girl from a third other tribe which both At'eed and Ashkii hate, comes along the same path. Ethete doesn't run at the sight of the unknown wounded man, but instead she runs over and begins tending to his needs. The injuries are doctored and the woman helps the man back to the nearest village. Ashkii thinks that Ethete was stupid in helping. She has wasted time and energy on someone she doesn't even know, not to mention the potential danger she put herself in. At'eed thinks the opposite; Ethete was right to help and her actions may have saved a man's life.

Ethete helping the man is part of the Good. She is participating in something Godly, even though she does not know it. Indirectly, she is worshiping God. Ashkii doesn't think that what she was doing is smart, and although he saw the scenario, he puts himself in front of the needs of other. He has witness Good and finds it repulsive. At'eed has witnessed the good and, although she did not participate, she agrees with it. This is not worship, but this is a disposition toward God.

Of those that adhere to this strange metaphysics, there are 2 opinions. The first is that only Ethete can be saved since she is the only one who acts upon her dispositions. This is not my opinion. My opinion is that Both Ethete and At'eed can be saved because both have the inward disposition toward God. However, I will say that At'eed needs to begin acting on this disposition and not quell it, because quelling it may lead her away from her current path.

You can actually use that same scenario I gave for all 5 of those transcendentals: Truth is that the person had dire needs met. Beauty is the act of helping someone who has done nothing to deserve it and most likely will not get anything for it. Order is the happenstance that this girl ran along when the guy needed her. Being is simply that things "are".

[Neo-Scholastic]

I know a couple of Gnostic Christians (yes they still exist). The idea that knowledge saves falls within the scope of Gnosticism.

[Esquilax]

I don't think removing any possibility for doubt is required of God. In fact, I think it's required he allow the possibility. The greater the possibility to doubt, the greater the free will. Those who investigate generally (but not always) find the evidence, but some of this evidence must be studied and contemplated before understood. All of this is an exercise of the will.

So, you're positing a universe that has a creator god that definitively exists, has a plan for us, a way that he desires we should act for a maximally good life, and loves us enough that he wishes to spend eternity with us... but will not, in any sense, give us proof that he exists because he wants us to make our own mistakes, upon which he is personally offended and willing to punish us eternally for doing so, all the while grieving that he has to do so. Am I right in this?

How does this not strike you as a cosmic-level act of passive aggression?

If we were simply given knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt, free will would not be very important. It would allow us to eat beef over chicken, but that's about it. Instead, because of the doubt, those that do not want to receive knowledge don't by their own free choice. Those that want the knowledge are free to obtain it by their own workings.

Why would god wish for a universe to exist wherein it is possible for his creations, that he loves, to fall into sin, which he hates? How does this make sense to you?

Finally, I don't even know if the knowledge beyond a doubt would help so many people. I can't reasonably say all, but most people would still want to do what they want, make their own way, and basically dismiss the knowledge they have as unimportant.

This contradicts your earlier statement that absolute knowledge of god would suppress free will, but I do agree with you; knowing that something exists doesn't necessarily entail that one must worship it. It would, however, be a much better way of ensuring the maximum number of people are fit to enter heaven, no?

To note again, to for you but mainly to other readers, no knowledge saves. Even Native Americans have a chance for salvation.

It'd sure as hell help.

[Drich]

[quote='FallentoReason' pid='430764' dateline='1365764532']
[quote]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:[/quote]I always find better to let you tubers do all of my thinking as well..

[quote]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.[/quote] So it is 'your belief' (by differing to this guys logic) That X is needed for salvation? If so does that make Jesus a Liar? He seems to think there wasn't a 'set of propostition needed for salvation.' He taught the oppsite, that we only needed that faith of a mustard seed.

[quote]2) If God exists, he has the power to make us know x is true.[/quote]And He does to all of those who act on their faith.

[quote]3) If God exists, and given (1) & (2), we should know x is true.[/quote]If X Can simply be the absolute knoweledge of God. Then God can let us know that X is true.

[quote]4) We do not know x is true.[/quote]If you do not know it is because you have not asked, sought, or knocked as outlined in Luke 11.

[quote]C) Given (3) & (4), God does not exist.[/quote]
..And If 'X' is a known quanity then can it also be said God does exist?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
rebellion is not the objection to free will here. When people have a true heart for God they will seek him out no matter the obstacial, when they do not then then nothing that can be provided in the way of proof or convincing will make them give themselves over to God. Christ speaks of this when He addresses the Luke warm believers. These people know of God without reservation or doubt, they simply do not give themselves to God, as God asks us to do.(Which is rebellion enough to sentence them to Hell) Which is why Christ identifies them as non believers. There will be no greater torment than being in Hell not not understand why you are there. The current seperation God has placed between non believers and believers is for the benfit of those non-believers who are honest enough with themselves to claim that title.

Without this clear seperation the vast majority of those in Hell would have gone through the motions of Christianity and may not fully understand why they are there.

mt7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

[archangle]

I know a couple of Gnostic Christians (yes they still exist). The idea that knowledge saves falls within the scope of Gnosticism.

It is not that "it saves". it's just the best we got for now. I mean think of the opposing thought. "don't use knowledge to make a choice." At some point we have to use some reason. And Jesus used what he knew of the world around him to make some basic choices. He stood ageist a literal religion because it goes against using knowledge. He showed us how to reject the apple.

[Tex]

I don't think removing any possibility for doubt is required of God. In fact, I think it's required he allow the possibility. The greater the possibility to doubt, the greater the free will. Those who investigate generally (but not always) find the evidence, but some of this evidence must be studied and contemplated before understood. All of this is an exercise of the will.

So, you're positing a universe that has a creator god that definitively exists, has a plan for us, a way that he desires we should act for a maximally good life, and loves us enough that he wishes to spend eternity with us... but will not, in any sense, give us proof that he exists because he wants us to make our own mistakes, upon which he is personally offended and willing to punish us eternally for doing so, all the while grieving that he has to do so. Am I right in this?

How does this not strike you as a cosmic-level act of passive aggression?

I'm positing a universe that has a creator god that definitively exists, has a plan for us, a way that he desires we should act for a maximally good life, and love us enough that he wishes to spend eternity with us... but will not give an unnecessary surplus of proof that he exists because he wants us to be free beings, which often is abused and harm is caused and is personally offended and willing to punish those who latch on to the sins, all the while grieve that he has to do so.

If we were simply given knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt, free will would not be very important. It would allow us to eat beef over chicken, but that's about it. Instead, because of the doubt, those that do not want to receive knowledge don't by their own free choice. Those that want the knowledge are free to obtain it by their own workings.

Why would god wish for a universe to exist wherein it is possible for his creations, that he loves, to fall into sin, which he hates? How does this make sense to you?

The device "free will" is necessary for God to have a parent-child relationship. I love my computer and all the awesomeness within. However, my computer does not love me. Those awesome things I love do not love me. Free will lets us love God back. It also allows us to reject. This tool is necessary in order to make humans from mathematically determined robots to people.

Finally, I don't even know if the knowledge beyond a doubt would help so many people. I can't reasonably say all, but most people would still want to do what they want, make their own way, and basically dismiss the knowledge they have as unimportant.

This contradicts your earlier statement that absolute knowledge of god would suppress free will, but I do agree with you; knowing that something exists doesn't necessarily entail that one must worship it. It would, however, be a much better way of ensuring the maximum number of people are fit to enter heaven, no?

I didn't make it clear (sorry!), but assuming it doesn't mess with free will, I don't even know how much it would help. I'm still pretty sure that forcing knowledge upon someone messes with freedom of choice, but if I'm wrong, I still doubt it would affect much.

It'd sure as hell help.

This is what I questioned above. I don't think it would. I know Romney exists. I know what he's done and I know his plan for us. I could know all sorts of things about Romney. None of that knowledge actually means we're friends. That doesn't even mean I vote for him. In fact, sometimes, the more you know the more you hate. It's uncontested that Romney exists, but his platform is obviously contested. I think the same scenario would happen.

[pocaracas]

I don't think removing any possibility for doubt is required of God. In fact, I think it's required he allow the possibility. The greater the possibility to doubt, the greater the free will. Those who investigate generally (but not always) find the evidence, but some of this evidence must be studied and contemplated before understood. All of this is an exercise of the will.

If we were simply given knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt, free will would not be very important. It would allow us to eat beef over chicken, but that's about it. Instead, because of the doubt, those that do not want to receive knowledge don't by their own free choice. Those that want the knowledge are free to obtain it by their own workings.

Finally, I don't even know if the knowledge beyond a doubt would help so many people. I can't reasonably say all, but most people would still want to do what they want, make their own way, and basically dismiss the knowledge they have as unimportant.

How does all this measure up with the account of Abraham? You know, the guy that started all the "abrahamic" religions...

[Tex]

I don't think removing any possibility for doubt is required of God. In fact, I think it's required he allow the possibility. The greater the possibility to doubt, the greater the free will. Those who investigate generally (but not always) find the evidence, but some of this evidence must be studied and contemplated before understood. All of this is an exercise of the will.

If we were simply given knowledge beyond the shadow of a doubt, free will would not be very important. It would allow us to eat beef over chicken, but that's about it. Instead, because of the doubt, those that do not want to receive knowledge don't by their own free choice. Those that want the knowledge are free to obtain it by their own workings.

Finally, I don't even know if the knowledge beyond a doubt would help so many people. I can't reasonably say all, but most people would still want to do what they want, make their own way, and basically dismiss the knowledge they have as unimportant.

How does all this measure up with the account of Abraham? You know, the guy that started all the "abrahamic" religions...

Abraham had more specific knowledge that was not the self-evident that is required. God revealed to him more. This isn't a problem, but nothing that God reveals actually increases Abraham's faith. The communication between God and Abraham didn't start Abraham's belief. The communication was given so that the world could be shaped in a particular way.

God revealed to a guy that was a believer anyway. He could reveal knowledge because it would be in accordance with Abraham's will rather than force it against itself.

[catfish]

Abraham had more specific knowledge that was not the self-evident that is required. God revealed to him more. This isn't a problem, but nothing that God reveals actually increases Abraham's faith. The communication between God and Abraham didn't start Abraham's belief. The communication was given so that the world could be shaped in a particular way.

God revealed to a guy that was a believer anyway. He could reveal knowledge because it would be in accordance with Abraham's will rather than force it against itself.

Are you taking the story literally? God wouldn't ask me to murder anyone and if "he" did, I'd fucking refuse...
.