On Non-belief

[ebg]

The requirement of any God showing himself (be it a biblical God, a Greek or Roman God, or a Germanic God) is a subjective act and negates any of a Gods word as being (x) not equal to |(x)| absolute. Just the concept of a superior being within your initial equation changes (x) to |(x)|. So,as an abstract perfection (that being a God) of G, y doesn't have to happen for (x) to be accepted because the set |(x)| is derived from G.

[FallentoReason]

What exactly to you want god to demonstrate his power (like turning water into wine) in order to prove to you {x} preposition is true. Being a God, should his word be good enough, such that the set {x}=|{x)| of absolute value? How then to you expect any God have an obligation, or burdon of proof if his word (for example the bibe) isnt an absolute? So, your logic is flawed in its initial setup. Just the absolute concept of God..gives the value of his word (x)=|(x)|. And the fuction of proof is the axion of truths.

ng he is agod

While propositions x in his Holy book y necessarily has to be absolute, this doesn't at all make it clear that God's requirements for eternal paradise (x) are the true propositions we need to believe. Here's an easy proof of that: how many competing religions do we have today? It isn't clear which one holds the (obviously absolute) true proposition x required by us to believe in order for salvation.

God has an obligation to do a little more than play peek-a-boo and then have the story of this game get written down by dubious sources which at times contradict each other and known history. Clearly, this wasn't enough to make propositions x be known to be true by every human walking the earth.

---

Several problems with this argument. The first that pops out is: how are you using believe? If in the sense of faith as is usual in a religious context, and if belief in X is necessary for salvation, then knowledge of X would actually prevent salvation.

I use "believe" in the sense that if you asked someone (say, a Christian) "do you think x is true?" and they say "yes", then they believe x to be true.

How does knowledge of x prevent salvation?? I don't understand.

Second problem is: " God giving us the knowledge that x is true wouldn't negate our free will." I agree. However, with free will, we can reject that knowledge. You assume without justification that people necessarily accept truth. Atheists frequently charge theists with rejecting truth. The Bible makes the same claim regarding unbelievers in Romans 1.

God is supposed to be omniscient. He knows exactly how to do it so that we can't deny x to be true.

---

It's all about love, man (makes hippy peace sign). Once again, my response typifies any church whose traditions focus on piety. Ultimate, every Christian believes that salvation depends on Jesus Christ. That is true across the board, including me. The issue is not who serves as the ultimate source of salvation; but rather, how He conveys that salvation and how we partake of it. It's a long subject so I'm just going to throw stuff out there in no particular order. Salvation is not a get-out-of-hell-free card. Salvation is the on-going process of conforming yourself to the image of Christ. Salvation comes to us when we love both the Lord and our neighbor (as ourselves) and when we avoid evils because they are sins.

Because the Lord is Divine Good and Divine Truth, loving the Lord means loving what is intrinsicly good and desiring truth for its own sake. This opens up the possibility of 'Christ Incognito'. The idea is that if you love what is good and desire what is true, then you are indeed loving the Lord regardless of what name you attach to those attributes.

Loving your neighbor is about just that. In the course of life you are to interact with others from a spirit of charity. Relationships based merely on mutual benefit, bereft of goodwill, do not exemplify true love. Thus the negative golden rule is not truly loving. It is just another way of saying tit-for-tat. Likewise, many people refrain from doing evil simply because of civil penalty, the loss of reputation, or even just to think highly of themselves. Their behavior is actually self-serving and self-aggrandizement. Your salvation hinges on driving evil motives from your heart. To do this you must recognize that some things are contrary to divine order and avoid them because of that.

Thanks for sharing that.

In terms of responding to keep the discussion going... I don't really know where to begin. There's presupposition on top of presupposition on this baby!

[Minimalist]

The requirement of any God showing himself (be it a biblical God, a Greek or Roman God, or a Germanic God) is a subjective act and negates any of a Gods word as being (x) not equal to |(x)| absolute.

That's pretty indistinguishable from there being no fucking god(s) at all.

[ebg]

[quote='Minimalist' piad='431166' dateline='1365910850']

The requirement of any God showing himself (be it a biblical God, a Greek or Roman God, or a Germanic God) is a subjective act and negates any of a Gods word as being (x) not equal to |(x)| absolute.[/quote

That's pretty indistinguishable from there being no fucking god(s) at all.

See, you agree with me even if your math skill are weak The original set of deductions can't have a set of prepositions labeled (x) derived from God because that would make (x) an absolute truth without God having to proveprove anything becausbecause

[John V]

Several problems with this argument. The first that pops out is: how are you using believe? If in the sense of faith as is usual in a religious context, and if belief in X is necessary for salvation, then knowledge of X would actually prevent salvation.

I use "believe" in the sense that if you asked someone (say, a Christian) "do you think x is true?" and they say "yes", then they believe x to be true.

How does knowledge of x prevent salvation?? I don't understand.

With this sense of "believe" that argument isn't applicable. The problem with the argument is then that, well, lots of people do believe. The "us" in point 1 is undefined, but seems to indicate every person. But, that hasn't been demonstrated Biblically. There are plenty of passages that show that god doesn't expect everyone to be saved, so there's no reason to expect him to ensure that every person accepts his truth, whether or not that is possible. See Romans 9, and recall Jesus' parables of the broad and narrow paths, and of the sower.

God is supposed to be omniscient. He knows exactly how to do it so that we can't deny x to be true.

That presumes that there is a way that can't be denied, a point which hasn't been proven.

[FallentoReason]

I use "believe" in the sense that if you asked someone (say, a Christian) "do you think x is true?" and they say "yes", then they believe x to be true.

How does knowledge of x prevent salvation?? I don't understand.

With this sense of "believe" that argument isn't applicable. The problem with the argument is then that, well, lots of people do believe.

The argument is called "...from non-belief" for a reason... you might have to refresh your memory and re-read the OP.

The "us" in point 1 is undefined, but seems to indicate every person. But, that hasn't been demonstrated Biblically. There are plenty of passages that show that god doesn't expect everyone to be saved, so there's no reason to expect him to ensure that every person accepts his truth, whether or not that is possible. See Romans 9, and recall Jesus' parables of the broad and narrow paths, and of the sower.

It really says something about his apparent omnibenevolence then, doesn't it? You'll have to concede that he's not all-loving or that he doesn't exist (as per the OP) if he really is all-loving and wishes for every human to be able to go to heaven.

God is supposed to be omniscient. He knows exactly how to do it so that we can't deny x to be true.

That presumes that there is a way that can't be denied, a point which hasn't been proven.

I'm not required to prove it or show what this way is. God, being omniscient, already knows this way. If by "proven" you really mean to say it needs to be shown that it's something possible, then by definition it must be possible, because God in his omnipotence would find it possible, unless he isn't omnipotent. These two attributes he has means there is a *possible way*, unless of course you want to concede that he doesn't have one or both attributes.

[John V]

The argument is called "...from non-belief" for a reason...

Yes, the reason being that the fact of apparent non-belief is problematic for Christianity. As I've shown, it's not problematic.

It really says something about his apparent omnibenevolence then, doesn't it? You'll have to concede that he's not all-loving or that he doesn't exist (as per the OP) if he really is all-loving and wishes for every human to be able to go to heaven.

Concession made. I've argued against omnibenevolence myself. Hard to get omnibenevolence from the flood.

I'm not required to prove it or show what this way is.

If it's a necessary premise of your argument and you want your argument to stand, then yes, you need to support it.

God, being omniscient, already knows this way.

Again, this statement presumes such a way exists.

If by "proven" you really mean to say it needs to be shown that it's something possible, then by definition it must be possible, because God in his omnipotence would find it possible, unless he isn't omnipotent. These two attributes he has means there is a *possible way*, unless of course you want to concede that he doesn't have one or both attributes.

Here you'd need to support that the Bible asserts that God is omnipotent by this definition of omnipotence. It doesn't.

[FallentoReason]

The argument is called "...from non-belief" for a reason...

Yes, the reason being that the fact of apparent non-belief is problematic for Christianity. As I've shown, it's not problematic.

It really says something about his apparent omnibenevolence then, doesn't it? You'll have to concede that he's not all-loving or that he doesn't exist (as per the OP) if he really is all-loving and wishes for every human to be able to go to heaven.

Concession made. I've argued against omnibenevolence myself. Hard to get omnibenevolence from the flood.

I'm not required to prove it or show what this way is.

If it's a necessary premise of your argument and you want your argument to stand, then yes, you need to support it.

God, being omniscient, already knows this way.

Again, this statement presumes such a way exists.

If by "proven" you really mean to say it needs to be shown that it's something possible, then by definition it must be possible, because God in his omnipotence would find it possible, unless he isn't omnipotent. These two attributes he has means there is a *possible way*, unless of course you want to concede that he doesn't have one or both attributes.

Here you'd need to support that the Bible asserts that God is omnipotent by this definition of omnipotence. It doesn't.

Then why call him "god" John? It falls incredibly short of a being who is perfect if it lacks the intrinsic properties to a) have perfect morals through his omnibenevolence and b) be able to produce a perfect creation if it's not omnipotent.

You should have conceded all of this at the beginning in order to refute the argument. I can only assume I've chipped away at the "god complex" you believe in if you only now just admit God isn't a god but a less perfect creature with signs of mischevious intentions. It really makes me wonder what drives people to worship such a monster who, on its own, made it known to us that it isn't the definition of perfection.

[John V]

Then why call him "god" John?

Creator of the universe, more powerful than any other being, etc.

It falls incredibly short of a being who is perfect if it lacks the intrinsic properties to a) have perfect morals through his omnibenevolence

Omnibenevolence /= perfect morals. It would be immoral to give a convicted serial killer a cookie and a pat on the head and send him on his way, but it would be benevolent. Sending him to jail would not be benevolent, but it would be moral.

and b) be able to produce a perfect creation if it's not omnipotent.

The creator gets to decide if it's perfect or not, as it's intended to suit his purposes.

You should have conceded all of this at the beginning in order to refute the argument.

This wasn't in the argument at the beginning.

I can only assume I've chipped away at the "god complex" you believe in if you only now just admit God isn't a god but a less perfect creature with signs of mischevious intentions.

You haven't shown that the biblical god isn't perfect, that a being must be perfect to be a god, that the Biblical god has mischeivous intentions, or that a god can't have mischievous intentions. You're just spewing shit at this point.

It really makes me wonder what drives people to worship such a monster who, on its own, made it known to us that it isn't the definition of perfection.

False dichotomy. Even if you show that God isn't perfect, that doesn't equate to being a monster.

[FallentoReason]

Seems like we've spun out of control and now just about everything seems to be "on topic".

Here's a thought on God not having the 3 omnis as attributes:

A value can be assigned to each of the attributes from 0 to 1, where 0 means that the being doesn't posses the attribute at all and 1 means that the being is omni[attribute]. This being then possesses an attribute I will call the "god index" which can be obtained by multiplying together each of the values. Since our scale is continuous, there are an infinite number of possible beings ranging from a god index of 0 to 1. Since there are an infinite number, the probability of any one of them existing approaches zero.

God damn it must be hard having the role of god! "Do I have a better chance of existing if I'm omni everything or just a little bit of each attri--" *poof*