Evidence for God from Science

I really do not see why this is a problem. It really all comes down to this notion of perfect freewill. We have freewill to believe or not to believe - it is as simple as that. God has given us enough evidence to make a informed choice. He does not want to force our hand because that infringes on our freewill. Forcing people to believe something certainly does not make that person love that thing. When we actively seek it then thats when we will form a free loving relationship with God. "Seek and you will find". So of course unbelief exists. The fact that Jesus was sent to die on the cross for us was to address that situation - to give people something to believe in.

Unless I have misinterpreted that arguement I really do not see why there is an issue.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Well let's see when he comes in later today he will probably respond to Gabriel's post since it was the most indepth. Like I said, he's a philosophy student, who is wanting to do something like what William Lane Craig does, and he's a huge follower of Craig, Plantinga, other top Christian philosophiers. So he's at the top of his game, so if he's having major issues then I assume they are major issues for all of us. I've trying to get him to break the argument down and show specifically the details and parts of the argument which he thinks top Christian intellectuals are failing to respond to in a convincing manner. I hope he does that so even I can get a better grasp of it, since I know that the issue of God's hiddeness is a bit of a issue for me and has been for a very long time, but I never imagined that it could take on the scope which it has with him and others that see it as a worse problem than the problem of evil for the case for Christian theism. But anyway he should be on here later today. So we shall see what happens.

Who said that doubt was bad? Doubt is much better than certainty, hey i'm quite doubtful about Kristus BUT i am not certain that he was not or is not there. So can't you see doubt as something good? Ja?

Nothing is perfect, why should freewill be any different? The laws of thermodynamics mean that even perfect EVIL is not possible, even in the most vile person you could of thought of, there must of been a spark of goodness...which was never acted upon.

Its like lemons, even though they are sour they can still have sweetness.

So that brings you back to doubt, even if you are doubtful of something, you can still have surety of others.

Silvertusk wrote:I really do not see why this is a problem. It really all comes down to this notion of perfect freewill. We have freewill to believe or not to believe - it is as simple as that. God has given us enough evidence to make a informed choice. He does not want to force our hand because that infringes on our freewill. Forcing people to believe something certainly does not make that person love that thing. When we actively seek it then thats when we will form a free loving relationship with God. "Seek and you will find". So of course unbelief exists. The fact that Jesus was sent to die on the cross for us was to address that situation - to give people something to believe in.

Unless I have misinterpreted that arguement I really do not see why there is an issue.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

Very good! Even if you knew that God existed you still might not go to heaven because they may not love Him. Just because you know something exists, doesn't mean you love it. Very well said Silvertusk!

If God revealed Himself directly to people, then there would be a psychological constraint preventing us from rejecting Him (i.e. fear of Hell). In other words, it would be the equivalent of the famous example of a thief pointing a gun at you and telling you that you have a "choice" either to give him all your money or die. Obey or perish. Love God or burn in Hell forever. But God gives humans the ability to completely ignore Him if that's how they choose. As has been said, free will requires no constraints to exist when the choice is made.

Hey, I'm not really a philosopher (although philosophy interests me), but I have a few points on this. Forgive me for the long post.

This was touched on above, but because of the larger atheism vs. theism debate, some view a belief in God as sufficient reason to be saved. According to Biblical Christianity, there are many who believe in God or even in Jesus but will not put their faith in Him. Atheists will be no worse off than any who have not been saved through Christ. With this in mind, this argument seems to me to put undo emphasis on whether or not a person believes in God.

From the wiki article, I know most would argue against point 2. However, I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced of points 1 or 3 either. As a Christian I'm convinced that the existing God is loving, but I've never understood why the concept of theism itself should be effected if a god was shown to be unloving, hateful even. Deists wouldn't mind that (for that matter, those who believe that everyone goes to Heaven probably wouldn't be bothered if a loving God allowed there to be reasonable nonbelief, some Calvinists would simply shrug their shoulders and say "so?"). Point 1 is valid if this argument is specifically against the God of Christianity, but it seems to be against theism in general. I could have more to say on point 3, but seeing so little of the argument I don't want to misrepresent something. What I would say is that reason alone isn't what is used to draw close to God. If a person is seriously searching for God, God will respond, the Bible makes that pretty clear.

This argument reminds me a bit of wondering what happens to those who never heard of Christ. You can wonder about it, but a Christian can rest assured that God is in control. He is loving AND just. When judgment comes, there will be no excuses (every knee will bow and every tongue will confess!). Bertrand Russell won't be shaking his finger at God saying, "Not enough evidence!" If he was never saved (it's not the place of anyone outside of God the Judge to say who is and is not saved), he like everybody else will be fully aware that he had multiple chances, just like the rest of us. And again, ultimately it comes down to accepting Christ with our own free will or rejecting Christ of our own free will (the free will part of it is important).

So with all that basic Christian stuff in mind, I can't figure out how this argument really confronts Christianity in a meaningful way. To be honest, I think part of the reason there may not be many arguments that satisfy your friend is because it isn't a convincing argument against God for most people. I don't mean that as an insult at all, I guess it just goes to show that some arguments strike different people in different ways. So far, I haven't seen any reason why point 2 has to be true. In fact, judging only from the wiki article, that point is very unclear to me.

I believe in a god, but he is only a concept of one. Can I be saved if god to me is only the highest ideal? Or do I have to come to think of a being that really actually exists...

Kristoffer wrote:I believe in a god, but he is only a concept of one. Can I be saved if god to me is only the highest ideal? Or do I have to come to think of a being that really actually exists...

The evil entity, Satan/Devil believes in God to a greater degree than you do...what do YOU think the answer is to your question here?
.
.

That Satan Hates god, That is my answer. I have no bad will towards god. Satan however is a rebel. Why should I be in rebellion with what too me is possibly a great thing?

But really, how do you know Satan is the bad one? perhaps he works for god? Maybe not LOL.

Kristoffer wrote:That Satan Hates god, That is my answer. I have no bad will towards god. Satan however is a rebel. Why should I be in rebellion with what too me is possibly a great thing?

But really, how do you know Satan is the bad one? perhaps he works for god? Maybe not LOL.

You're either for something or against it. There is no lukewarm.

Again, having this information, what is the answer to your question. I know you can answer it yourself.
.
.

I am not being lukewarm, I am being passionate. I love a idea so much that I am ready to follow it even though I am frightened and uncertain and you call me only cool? I am not, I am quite warm about it.

Kristoffer wrote:I am not being lukewarm, I am being passionate. I love a idea so much that I am ready to follow it even though I am frightened and uncertain and you call me only cool? I am not, I am quite warm about it.

I think you know the answer if you remain "warm" to the idea the rest of your life,

Revelation 3:16 NIV wrote:So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

Kristoffer wrote:Can I be saved if god to me is only the highest ideal? Or do I have to come to think of a being that really actually exists.

I've answered this question and I know you have the answer to THIS question. It seems to me you might be looking for the "least work/belief" in order to be saved...?
.
.

Mentally less demanding than trying to compartmentalize yes, but I am prepared to do what ever. Do not accuse me of idleness, idle hands are the devils play things as we say here.

The answer is that I can wear a mask of it, and the more I wear this mask the more inwardly I will resemble the mask. Eventually I may come to think that it is a reality...eventually.

narnia4 wrote:What I would say is that reason alone isn't what is used to draw close to God. If a person is seriously searching for God, God will respond, the Bible makes that pretty clear.

This argument reminds me a bit of wondering what happens to those who never heard of Christ. You can wonder about it, but a Christian can rest assured that God is in control. He is loving AND just. When judgment comes, there will be no excuses (every knee will bow and every tongue will confess!). Bertrand Russell won't be shaking his finger at God saying, "Not enough evidence!" If he was never saved (it's not the place of anyone outside of God the Judge to say who is and is not saved), he like everybody else will be fully aware that he had multiple chances, just like the rest of us. And again, ultimately it comes down to accepting Christ with our own free will or rejecting Christ of our own free will (the free will part of it is important).

So with all that basic Christian stuff in mind, I can't figure out how this argument really confronts Christianity in a meaningful way. To be honest, I think part of the reason there may not be many arguments that satisfy your friend is because it isn't a convincing argument against God for most people. I don't mean that as an insult at all, I guess it just goes to show that some arguments strike different people in different ways. So far, I haven't seen any reason why point 2 has to be true. In fact, judging only from the wiki article, that point is very unclear to me.

Hi Narnia4 - welcome to the board! It's great that you posted such a thoughtful response. As for the first part of your second paragraph here, I like the way WL Craig wrote of that in one of the links I had posted. I'll go and try to find that and insert it here.

Ok, here is a bit from one of his essay-answers Middle knowledge and Christian Particularism:

"Now this middle knowledge perspective has obvious application to the question of the fate of the unevangelized, . . . The view holds that it is possible that God has so ordered the world that all those who never hear the Gospel and are lost are people who would not have embraced the Gospel and been saved even if they had heard it. But obviously, there are plenty of people who would not receive the Gospel if they heard it and who do in fact hear it! Again, not all persons who would believe the Gospel if they heard it are born at a time and place where they do hear it, for it's possible that some of the unevangelized do respond positively to God's general revelation in nature and conscience [and] so are saved through the atoning death of Christ without having a conscious knowledge of Christ. My concern is with the unevangelized who reject God's general revelation and are damned, but who would have accepted the Gospel if they heard it. The proposal is that it's possible, in the providence of God, that there are no such people. God is too loving to allow anyone to be damned through the historical and geographical accidents of his birth."

Kristoffer wrote:I believe in a god, but he is only a concept of one. Can I be saved if god to me is only the highest ideal? Or do I have to come to think of a being that really actually exists...

The question you really have to ask yourself is do you live up to the standards of this god with the highest ideal?. I can guarantee that like me you fail to live up to your own standards on some days (I have some very bad days sometimes). So how can you possibly be saved,

It also depends what you want your god to be. This idea of the highest ideal, like the God of Christianity, means that all will fall short. No one is worthy. For something to be of the highest Ideal, it also needs to be perfectly just and loving. Are you that? Are you perfectly sinless? Have you harboured no bad thoughts about another human being? Then if you are then you are god and have nothing to worry about.

Luckly for us God is perfectly just and loving. He knows we can't reach the standards of a perfectly just and loving God be it an ideal or a real thing- so he does all the work for us. If you dont beleive that he has done that for you - then why should you be saved? Christianity is not hard. It is probably the most easiest "religion" out there because all the work has been done on the cross - you only have to accept it. Know that Jesus has taken your place in front of the firing squad and with that comes peace of mind.

So yes you do have to believe in something real to be saved.


God Bless

Silvertusk.