Disproving God by Examining Nonbelief

[Madamadam]

I have another homemade essay for all of you to enjoy. This was actually written as the final paper for the same philosophy class as my last essay several months ago. Now that Disproving God by Debunking Theodicies is finished, I now present it to you :D:

The problem of most people not believing in Christianity is a significant issue for someone who believes in the God of Evangelical Christianity who I will define shortly. It can be used to disprove this God’s existence as shown in the book Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistance of God by Professor Theodore Drange (all elements of The Argument from Nonbelief including support for the premises and the defense presented in this essay are Drange’s work, not mine). In this essay, I will present The Argument from Nonbelief by Professor Drange, support for its premises, a rebuttal to one of the objections to this argument, and finally, a presentation of Augustine’s God and whether or not this argument applies to him.

Prior to presenting the Argument from Nonbelief, three definitions are needed. One, set P, the following propositions: There exists a being who rules the entire universe, that being loves humanity, humanity has been provided with an afterlife, and believing in Jesus will qualify you for the good afterlife. Two, situation S, the situation of all, or almost all humans coming to believe all four propositions of set P by the time of their physical death. Three, premise A, if God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties among others: being able to bring about situation S, all things considered; wanting to bring about situation S, i.e., having it among his desires; not wanting anything else that conflicts with and overrides his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as it; being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).

Using these definitions, The Argument from Nonbelief may be expressed as follows. If a being that has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain. But situation S does not obtain. It is not the case that all, or almost all, humans have come to believe all the propositions of set P by the time of their physical death. Therefore, there does not exist a being that has all four properties listed in premise A. Hence, the God of Evangelical Christianity does not exist.

If God were to exist, there are a variety of ways he could have made situation S happen. One way would have been direct implantation of belief in set P into everyone’s minds. Similarly, our genes could predispose us to believe in set P. Babies could be born with the propensity to form belief in set P as their minds mature. Another way he could have done it would be the performance of spectacular miracles. For example, a magnificent voice from the heavens could proclaim set P to all humanity. Or god could offer personal proof of his existence and truth to every single person not only to believers. God also could have done it in a non-overt way by sending angels disguised as humans to persuasively preach the Gospel to all humans in a way that everyone would believe it. And for our final example here, He could have protected the Holy Bible from every kind of error that can easily be found in it. These things make the first part of premise A true; God would be able to easily bring about situation S.

The second part of premise A, God wanting to bring about situation S finds much support in the Bible. One example of such support is the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). In this Great Commission, God directed missionaries to spread the gospel to all nations and to all creatures (Mark 16:15-16, KJV). In the Book of Acts, God even gives some of the apostles the power to work miracles. This can easily be seen as God trying to bring about situation S. Another such example can be found in 1Timothy 2:4 (NIV) when Paul says “[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” This verse very directly supports the second part of premise A.

The third part of premise A, God not wanting anything else that conflicts with and overrides his desire to bring about situation S finds support of an indirect nature in the Bible. According to one of the previous arguments which is directly supported by the Bible, God wants all people to be saved. In order to be saved, one must believe in God and his son Jesus which are part of set P. There can be no greater issue regarding humans than their salvation, so there can be no overriding desire on God’s part to usurp his desire that all humans be saved by believing set P. Also, God has explicitly commanded that people believe in his son (1Jo 3:23) and love him maximally (Matt. 22:37, Mark 12:30). God even sends missionaries, enabling some of them to work miracles to get people to believe set P. These all suggest that God’s desire for situation S is not superseded by another desire.

The fourth part of The Argument from Nonbelief’s premise A, God being rational, is a belief that just about every theist shares. No Evangelical Christian or any Christian for that matter would ever deny God’s rationality. To do so would be blasphemous. Common objections to The Argument from Nonbelief are: the freewill defense, the testing defense, the afterlife defense, expectations defense, and the unknown purpose defense. For space considerations, I will only deal with the freewill defense. For full coverage of all the defenses, read Professor Drange’s book or visit the site linked to in my citation at the end of the paper.

According to the freewill defense, the third part of premise A is false because there is something that God wants more than for than situation S, that is the free formation of theistic belief. God does not want to force people to believe in him. There is much opposition to the freewill defense, one objection is that people want to know the truth; it would not be interfering with people’s freewill to show them the truth. God proving set P to every person would thus be conforming to their freewill rather than violating it. Even if God were to directly place belief into people’s minds, it would not be interfering with freewill as everyone wants to know the truth and would not care how they learned the truth. An analogy of this would be God leaving a large sum of cash under a person’s pillow, that person would be happy, it wouldn’t be said that his freewill was violated. If God begins a personal relationship with a person by introducing him to belief in His son, only good would come out of it and that person would happily accept belief. Another objection is that God does not need to use direct implantation to bring about situation S. He could do it in ordinary ways. People’s beliefs are affected all the time by what they see, read, and hear without having their freewill taken away. All of us have freely come to belief that President George W Bush exists. How? It was by looking at all the evidence for his existence. We see him on TV, read about him in the paper, and many of us are affected by his decisions. Similarly, God could bring about situation S by simply giving people enough evidence of set P’s truth. Hence, the freewill defense fails to attack The Argument from Nonbelief.

Even if there were people who do not want to know the truth and God’s showing them would result in a violation of freewill, it would still be in their best interest to know the truth. Learning that there is a God who loves humanity and that they have been provided a blissful afterlife would bring them comfort and hope. A loving God would want these people to have comfort and hope. Even if freewill was violated by him showing us his truth, a loving God would probably not refrain from doing so.

Another objection to the freewill defense is that this defense seems to claim that God wants people to come to believe set P irrationally without good evidence. It doesn’t make sense for a rational being to create rational people and then hope that they become irrational. It isn’t even clear how people are to come to believe set P without good evidence. Is finding the right religion just luck of the draw? Jesus does make the claim that he wants people to believe in him without seeing (John 20:29), but then that means that he would want us to believe based on the testimony of others. This is a good enough reason for some people but not for others. God knows this so why would he choose this method if he wants everyone to believe set P?

Finally, it is claimed that God values the human freewill very highly and would never interfere with it. The Bible, however, is full of instances of God interfering with freewill. He tells us what to do and what to believe under threats of eternal damnation. He even kills countless people, which would be interfering with human freewill considering that those people did not want to die. The Bible suggests that God knows the future and predestines people’s lives. That takes away freewill entirely. Furthermore, there are many things that interfere with freewill in this world that God does little or nothing to prevent. Such things include mental illness, mental retardation, poverty, premature death, and demonic possession (given his existence, this would be real). These things count against the assertion that God values our freewill.

St. Augustine was a Christian theologian who took the view of double-predestination. In this view, people are elected for salvation (predestined) by God from eternally in the past; the other part of double-predestination is God’s pre-life selection of people for eternal damnation. God chooses who he wants to save and damns the rest of humanity to hell. The fact that God saves anyone according to Augustine, is only by his grace. His doctrine was that God is perfectly just in his selection of individuals for salvation and cannot be faulted in any way (Samples). The Argument from Nonbelief would not apply to Augustine’s God.

A God of this nature can be faulted greatly for His immeasurable cruelty. Unfortunately, the view that God knows the future and actually does predestine people’s fates is well supported by the Bible, most clearly in Romans 8:28-30 and Ephesians1:4-5. God’s omniscience is also supported by the prophecies Jesus makes. Jesus predicts that Judas will betray him (Matthew 26:21-23, Mark 14:17-20, Luke 22:21, John 13:18-27) and that Peter would deny him exactly three times before a **** crows (Mathew 26:34, 74-75, Luke 22:34, 60-62, John 13:38) or before it crows a second time (Mark 14:30). Jesus could not have made these extremely specific prophecies unless he had complete foreknowledge of their actions (including the rooster’s actions). This strongly supports Augustine’s view that God at least knows the future including the names of all the people who will be saved. Augustine’s view that God actually selects people he wants to save is strongly supported in Matthew 13:10-15 and Mark 4:11-12. In these verses Jesus claims that he purposely disillusions the masses with parables for the sole purpose of preventing their salvation. Augustine would probably not have believed that God would want situation S. Therefore, he would reject the second part of premise A and declare The Argument from Nonbelief unsound. This is known as the Expectations Defense. Using this defense in conjunction with Bible verses like the one’s I just mentioned, God’s fall to the Argument from Nonbelief can be avoided. Unfortunately for Christians, Expectations Defense comes with a steep price because it leaves them with an evil God, One who laughs from heaven as he disillusions two thirds of the world’s men women and children into a fiery eternal torment that He personally prepared for them.

From my understanding, the Argument from Nonbelief is a powerful and sound argument against the God of Evangelical Christianity (also known as the Arminian Christian God). If a loving God existed in the way Evangelical Christians say he does, situation S would have to obtain. Unfortunately, The Argument from Nonbelief is ineffective against the Augustinian/Calvinist Christian God. The Argument from Evil is more suited to disprove both Arminian and Calvinist Christianity.

See: Disproving God by Debunking Theodicies (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=533799) on GW Religion

Drange, Theodore. “The Arguments From Evil and Nonbelief” Infidels.org. 1996. 3 June 2007. <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/aeanb.html>.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. “Historical Profile: Augustine of Hippo Part 2 of 2: Rightly Dividing the Truth” Augustine Fellowship Study Center. 2001. June 18, 2007. <http://www.augustinefellowship.org/augustinefellowship/resource/00000011.shtml?main>

[Bulbasaurus Rex]

My church believes that people can be taught the gospel in the afterlife if no oppurtunity exists in their mortal lives.

[Madamadam]

My church believes that people can be taught the gospel in the afterlife if no oppurtunity exists in their mortal lives.

The Bible says that you must be saved in this life or go to hell.

II Cor. 6:2: For he says, "In the time of my favor I heard you,and in the day of salvation I helped you."[a] I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation.
Heb. 9:26-27:Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,


The Bible also says that most people will go to hell. How can this be if they are given proof of the gospel's truth after they die?

Matt. 7:14:But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Luke 13:23-24:Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" He said to them, 24"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

And what if the people in question were proselytized to by missionaries or evangelists and just happened not to believe them. Would these people be considered to have been given sufficient opportunity to be saved? It would take a lot more than regular gospel spreading to bring about situation S so why should God rely on it? Why should he create such an inefficient salvation system? He makes the rules, he could easily make the requirements to salvation such that it would be attained by everyone.

[Bulbasaurus Rex]

They still have to accept the teachings, and there's still a judgement of their works from their mortal lives to determine which degree (if any) of heaven they reach. If they don't accept the gospel when given the chance on Earth, they still get a chance in the afterlife.

[Madamadam]

They still have to accept the teachings, and there's still a judgement of their works from their mortal lives to determine which degree (if any) of heaven they reach. If they don't accept the gospel when given the chance on Earth, they still get a chance in the afterlife.

Well while not being biblical, I admire your church's position on salvation that people get a second chance in the afterlife. It's a lot better than the traditional and biblically supported "believe now or burn forever!" That to me has always been the most repulsive part of Christianity.

The only other problem I see with your church's beliefs seems to be why would God want to deprive people of a loving relationship with him in which they can get their prayers answered and have a sense of hope in this life? Bringing about universal belief during our physical lives would have all kinds of benefits including the end of religious confusion and conflict.

Are you a Mormon Bulbasaur?

[Bulbasaurus Rex]

The only other problem I see with your church's beliefs seems to be why would God want to deprive people of a loving relationship with him in which they can get their prayers answered and have a sense of hope in this life? Bringing about universal belief during our physical lives would have all kinds of benefits including the end of religious confusion and conflict.Absolute proof of God and religion during mortality would ruin the "test" of mortal life, as well as making "faith," a very important principle, impossible.

Are you a Mormon Bulbasaur?Yes, I am. I'm impressed that you figured that out from what I've said in this thread.

[Madamadam]

Absolute proof of God and religion during mortality would ruin the "test" of mortal life, as well as making "faith," a very important principle, impossible.

I didn't deal with the Testing Defense in my essay, but since you brought it up...

The challenge of the testing defense is dealt with in Professor Drange's internet essay that I linked to in my citation of his work. I will try to present some of it here myself.

Coming to believe in Christianity is based on irrationality (faith) as in believing strongly in something that has poor or no evidence. Why would a rational God create rational people in his own image and then test to see if they will succeed in forming strong irrational beliefs? It just doesn't add up.

If God wants to weed out people who would refuse to belief based on a character flaw like false pride, it would follow that he should still make the evidence for his truth very convincing. The prideful people would not be convinced while he would avoid losing people who would just make the honest mistake of not being convinced by poor evidence. He doesn't have to give absolute proof.

And what about people who were born into the wrong religion in non-Christian parts of the world? People tend to stick with the religion that their parents taught them and resist change. Coming to believe in Christianity would be much harder if not nearly impossible for them. The test seems to be completely unfair to these people.

The Testing Defense fails in its attack on the Argument from Nonbelief.

[Bulbasaurus Rex]

I meant "test" as in mortal life being a test to see if we can be good enough people to live with Heavenly Father and Jesus in the highest kingdom of heaven after we receive our perfected resurrected bodies. Absolute proof of God and religion in mortal life would ruin that test. You can't have real decisions when the outcome of each choice is known beforehand. Those who do believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ in mortality need to accept it in faith. For those who don't, refer to my first post in this thread. As far as faith in the afterlife, I don't know for sure (I've never been dead, and my church doesn't have an official doctrine on this), but there's probably not absolute proof in the Spirit World (the place for dead souls before resurrection), although some things are apparent such as the existance of an afterlife.

[Trance_kuja911]

All of us have freely come to belief that President George W Bush exists. How? It was by looking at all the evidence for his existence. We see him on TV, read about him in the paper, and many of us are affected by his decisions. Similarly, God could bring about situation S by simply giving people enough evidence of set P’s truth. Hence, the freewill defense fails to attack The Argument from Nonbelief.

I think God did give people enough evidence. I can see that you like to use Scripture in your essay, but have you skipped over Psalms 8:3-4 and Romans 1:18-20? However, you seem to view, with your free will, astronomical and geographical features as insufficient evidence (but wait! God hasn't damned you to hell! That means He hasn't touched your free will).

Learning that there is a God who loves humanity and that they have been provided a blissful afterlife would bring them comfort and hope. A loving God would want these people to have comfort and hope. Even if freewill was violated by him showing us his truth, a loving God would probably not refrain from doing so.

I have the peace of God and the hope that He will save me, and I believe in His son. I suppose I am one of "these people". I guess you should try it out before you claim what God gives and does not give. Besides, as far as 'doing what's best for you even if you don't like it', if you realize that concept, God is not going to just go against your will, because you are beyond an age that necessitates that. Parents only do that to their children when they are young and/or have a major problem. My sister is not a believer and is going to move in with her boyfriend. Although my parents and I believe it is wrong and not best for her, we are not going to cut off ties with her or do something to make her stop against her will. She has reached an age where stepping in doesn't cut it. After a certain age, finding out truth for yourself(REAL truth, not relativism) is what convinces you. My sister sees my parents as extremely loving because of this. Perhaps this is why God doesn't interfere; so we can see Him as a loving father who won't force us one way or the other. Oh, and, don't worry, I noticed and am glad you said "would probably not". It's quite easy to put God in a box and disprove Him while in your box. I'm not saying that you necessarily are.

Another objection to the freewill defense is that this defense seems to claim that God wants people to come to believe set P irrationally without good evidence.

Um, where is your evidence? Unless you mean by the passage in John about believing through testimonies. In that case - ya, so what if it's not good for other people? Relativism here doesn't work; faith is the key. Some just need it more than others (how do you think the disciple Thomas got his nickname?). Besides, a loving God probably would not appeal directly to any one person for evidence, even if one meant everyone individually. What smart and loving parent would spoil their children? God cares more about who we are than how we feel. That means everyone will have the same amount of evidence, even if everyone finds it or sees it differently.

The Bible, however, is full of instances of God interfering with freewill. He tells us what to do and what to believe under threats of eternal damnation.

If I tell someone to eat a cookie or I will hit them, that in no way interferes with their free will. They can easily make the choice to say "no" and also to make the choice of self-defense if I so choose to actually hit them. And what if, those threats of "eternal damnation" are actually just warnings of where our own choices can lead us? Do I have it all together? Of course not! If you're asserting what God does, then, let's role-play. Let's say God is real, and He is perfect, and He is Just and is set P or whatever. In order to maintain being God and perfect and Just, if someone doesn't believe "set P", as a perfect and Just God, where must they go? Also, did God place them there intentionally or did they land a spot as a result of their own choices? In any case please don't throw predestination at me. I'm not God, and neither are you, which means we don't know of how true it extends. And, being one who is trying to disprove God, please don't use it in an argument against me here.

He even kills countless people, which would be interfering with human freewill considering that those people did not want to die.

Dude, if you intentionally step on my foot when I clearly don't want you to, how is that at all interfering with my free will?

The Bible suggests that God knows the future and predestines people’s lives. That takes away freewill entirely.

God does know the future, but the whole part on predestination is very debatable in context, seeming as how people can dig up debatable evidence for Arminianism as well.

Furthermore, there are many things that interfere with freewill in this world that God does little or nothing to prevent. Such things include mental illness, mental retardation, poverty, premature death, and demonic possession (given his existence, this would be real). These things count against the assertion that God values our freewill.

If you are asserting that God exists here, that means that you must assert that God is who he is according to the Bible. If you are asserting this, who are you, as it says in Isaiah, to question what God does and does not? Who are you to compare Him to a standard where the concept of God allowing disabilities and illnesses confuse you? Don't get me wrong, it confuses me, too, but I am secure enough to say that I can't fathom God's decisions and reasonings. I am saying all this if my assertions about your assertions are correct. However, if you are not making that assertion, then please scratch what I just said.

Augustine’s view that God actually selects people he wants to save is strongly supported in Matthew 13:10-15 and Mark 4:11-12. In these verses Jesus claims that he purposely disillusions the masses with parables for the sole purpose of preventing their salvation.

Why are you distorting Scripture? If you look at the verses in Matthew 13:15(and on) you will find that Jesus said that over Israel's history people's hearts have become calloused to the truth (yet again their choice, not God's). Ya, actually in the verse you listed (15) Jesus says that He would heal them if they would once again open their eyes and ears to truth. Yes, He was talking about the "Scriptures being fulfilled", but it can only be fulfilled as a result of people choosing to become calloused to God and the truth. And to prevent their salvation? Actually, the Scriptures needed to be fulfilled so that He could die and give every one of them and other person (including you, my friend) on the earth salvation, not to prevent it. Same thing with Mark.

Unfortunately for Christians, Expectations Defense comes with a steep price because it leaves them with an evil God, One who laughs from heaven as he disillusions two thirds of the world’s men women and children into a fiery eternal torment that He personally prepared for them.

Romans 9:14-26. Just because God's decisions aren't in line with your opinion or don't make moral sense to you doesn't mean that God is evil or that your argument is right. Call me a person with blind faith, but I would much rather seek God with an open mind than put Him in a box and risk being wrong when I see Him on Judgment Day.

Anyhoo, I might not be able to get back to this topic until Sunday evening. Goodday, mates!

[Madamadam]

[QUOTE=Bulbasaurus Rex]I meant "test" as in mortal life being a test to see if we can be good enough people to live with Heavenly Father and Jesus in the highest kingdom of heaven after we receive our perfected resurrected bodies. Absolute proof of God and religion in mortal life would ruin that test. You can't have real decisions when the outcome of each choice is known beforehand. Those who do believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ in mortality need to accept it in faith. For those who don't, refer to my first post in this thread.

But ask yourself what is more important, saving as many souls as possible or some silly and unnecessary test. Belief and repentance is all it takes to make you good enough to live with God. It doesn't have to be absolute proof, it could just as easily be sufficient evidence. As I said before, strong faith is a very real kind of irrationality. Why would God create us rational and then hope for us to become irrational?

As far as faith in the afterlife, I don't know for sure (I've never been dead, and my church doesn't have an official doctrine on this), but there's probably not absolute proof in the Spirit World (the place for dead souls before resurrection), although some things are apparent such as the existance of an afterlife.

Mere speculation, but you would think that finding yourself in an afterlife would send you scrambling to be religious in some way. Those poor souls wondering which religion is the right one while waiting for judgment. That's if postmortem salvation is really an opportunity. As far as the Bible is concerned, it isn't.

I think God did give people enough evidence. I
can see that you like to use Scripture in your essay, but have you
skipped over Psalms 8:3-4 and Romans 1:18-20? However, you seem to
view, with your free will, astronomical and geographical features as
insufficient evidence (but wait! God hasn't damned you to hell! That
means He hasn't touched your free will).

The observable age of the geographical and astronomical features
around us, significantly counts against the notion that they were
created 6000 years ago. I'm no expert on the science of all that but
many of these things have been sufficiently explained in naturalistic
terms. Besides, even if these things provided evidence of a god, there
is nothing that points to the Biblical god being the creator.

I have the peace of God and the hope that He will save me, and
I believe in His son. I suppose I am one of "these people". I guess
you should try it out before you claim what God gives and does not
give.

I was a faithful Christian for a good part of my life and found it
wholly unsatisfying intellectually and emotionally toward the end when
I actually started thinking for myself.

Besides, as far as 'doing what's best for you even if you don't
like it', if you realize that concept, God is not going to just go
against your will, because you are beyond an age that necessitates
that.

What if my will is to know the truth (and it is)? The Christian God if
he exists is depriving me of sufficient evidence of his existence. How
can I be too old to be shown the truth? I've never heard of some age
cap after which people shouldn't be allowed to be enlightened.

It's quite easy to put God in a box and disprove Him while in
your box. I'm not saying that you necessarily are.


The definition of God in this essay is perfectly fitting for the God
of Evangelical Christianity. Wanting to bring about universal belief,
being able to do so, not wanting anything that conflicts with and
overrides his desire, and being rational. It's a very open ended
definition.

Um, where is your evidence? Unless you mean by the passage in
John about believing through testimonies. In that case - ya, so what
if it's not good for other people? Relativism here doesn't work; faith
is the key.

My evidence? It's the lack of any good evidence of the truth of Christianity.

Some just need it more than others (how do you think the disciple Thomas got his nickname?).

um...

Besides, a loving God probably would not appeal directly to any one person for evidence, even if one meant everyone individually.

It certainly seems like Thomas got a hell of a lot more evidence than any Christian who is merely expected to believe the story in the Bible. Jesus appealed directly to Thomas' desire to feel his wounds.

What smart and loving parent would spoil their children? God cares more about who we are than how we feel. That means everyone will have the same amount of evidence, even if everyone finds it or sees it differently.

What smart and loving parent would keep the truth from his children especially when that truth is essential to their going to heaven and avoiding an eternity in hell? The 500 people who Jesus appeared to after his resurrection got a whole lot more evidence than anyone today. There is no good reason why we shouldn't get it too.

If I tell someone to eat a cookie or I will hit them, that in no way
interferes with their free will. They can easily make the choice to
say "no" and also to make the choice of self-defense if I so choose to
actually hit them.

By serving that person an ultimatum, you are interfering with his free choice. Without your threats, he would eat the cookie if he felt like it. You influenced his choice which impinges on his freewill.

And what if, those threats of "eternal damnation"
are actually just warnings of where our own choices can lead us? Do I
have it all together? Of course not! If you're asserting what God
does, then, let's role-play. Let's say God is real, and He is perfect,
and He is Just and is set P or whatever. In order to maintain being
God and perfect and Just, if someone doesn't believe "set P", as a
perfect and Just God, where must they go?

God makes the rules. He could easily purify every soul after death and bring them unto himself regardless of their beliefs during their mortal lives.

Also, did God place them there intentionally or did they land a spot as a result of their own choices? In any case please don't throw predestination at me. I'm not God, and neither are you, which means we don't know of how true it extends. And, being one who is trying to disprove God, please don't use it in an argument against me here.

I mentioned predestination in my essay because I had to relate the Argument from Nonbelief to one of the philosophers in the curriculum (that would be St. Augustine who believed strongly in predestination).

Dude, if you intentionally step on my foot when I clearly don't want
you to, how is that at all interfering with my free will?


If your will is to not get hurt, I am interfering with your will by stepping on your foot.

If you are asserting that God exists here, that means that you must
assert that God is who he is according to the Bible.

The basis of this argument is that if God is who he is according to Evangelical Christianity, situation S would have to obtain. I'm not asserting that God exists, I am speaking hypothetically.

If you are asserting this, who are you, as it says in Isaiah, to question what God does and does not? Who are you to compare Him to a standard where the concept of God allowing disabilities and illnesses confuse you? Don't get me wrong, it confuses me, too, but I am secure enough to say
that I can't fathom God's decisions and reasonings.

It's simple rationality, if God wants people to freely form belief in him, he should not put obstacles like mental illness, disability, or demonic possession into their lives. Such things corrupt freewill.

Why are you distorting Scripture? If you look at the verses in Matthew 13:15(and on) you will find that Jesus said that over Israel's history
people's hearts have become calloused to the truth (yet again their choice, not God's). Ya, actually in the verse you listed (15) Jesus says that He would heal them if they would once again open their eyes and ears to truth. Yes, He was talking about the "Scriptures being fulfilled", but it can only be fulfilled as a result of people choosing to become calloused to God and the truth. And to prevent their salvation? Actually, the Scriptures needed to be fulfilled so
that He could die and give every one of them and other person (including you, my friend) on the earth salvation, not to prevent it. Same thing with Mark.


Mark 4:11-12: He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'[a]"


I'm not distorting anything, that's what it says and it's as plain as day.


Romans 9:14-26. Just because God's decisions aren't in line with your
opinion or don't make moral sense to you doesn't mean that God is evil
or that your argument is right. Call me a person with blind faith, but
I would much rather seek God with an open mind than put Him in a box
and risk being wrong when I see Him on Judgment Day.

Are you trying say that God is above morality? Sorry, that just doesn't work. If God creates absolute morality, his actions must be measured against it as well. If it is wrong to torture people unnecessarily, God's action of throwing people into the fires of hell when all he had to do was give them evidence of his existence is pure unadulterated evil, period.

[Bulbasaurus Rex]

[QUOTE]But ask yourself what is more important, saving as many souls as possible or some silly and unnecessary test. Belief and repentance is all it takes to make you good enough to live with God. It doesn't have to be absolute proof, it could just as easily be sufficient evidence. As I said before, strong faith is a very real kind of irrationality. Why would God create us rational and then hope for us to become irrational?The test is not silly nor unnecessary. You must pass it to live with God, or you aren't worthy. There's no other way.

You must also accept the truth in faith, or you haven't really accepted it. Let's just agree to disagree on whether faith is rational, although the rationality of faith is helped by the Holy Ghost helping people to feel that the gospel is true.

Faith and repentance are also only the first two steps. You must also be baptized, recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost, and follow the commandments to an acceptable degree. Out of those 5 things, my church allows the first 4 to be done after death (baptism and Holy Ghost done by proxy among the living members of my church), if necessary, although doing them in life is always preferable. The 5th item is the judgement of your works in mortality, although those who die before the age of accountability (8 years old) basically get a free pass on that one.

The observable age of the geographical and astronomical features around us, significantly counts against the notion that they were created 6000 years ago. I'm no expert on the science of all that but many of these things have been sufficiently explained in naturalistic terms. Besides, even if these things provided evidence of a god, there is nothing that points to the Biblical god being the creator.The Earth was created from material that was already in existance. I know my house is 14 years old, but the materials that make up my house are geologically a lot older.
Mark 4:11-12: He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'[a]"


I'm not distorting anything, that's what it says and it's as plain as day.Jesus was still implying that if the people repented and followed him, they would be privy to the interpretations of the parables, as well.

[Madamadam]

The test is not silly nor unnecessary. You must pass it to live with God, or you aren't worthy. There's no other way.

The test would be less unfair if God gave much better evidence of his existence to everyone. I mean he should at least make Christianity seem likely.:whatever: Instead, you've got people like me telling you how Christianity is logically impossible.

You must also accept the truth in faith, or you haven't really accepted it. Let's just agree to disagree on whether faith is rational, although the rationality of faith is helped by the Holy Ghost helping people to feel that the gospel is true.


The Holy Ghost only helps after a person is already a believer. Something that helps nonbelievers is necessary to obtain situation S. Unfortunately it didn't happen and many a non-Christian has died in a puddle of his own sin. I know you believe people get a second chance, but Evangelical Christians don't. They are who this argument is aimed at. I'd like to talk about faith too. Please check out my new thread Faith and Rationality (http://forums.gamewinners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7584524#post7584524)

Faith and repentance are also only the first two steps. You must also be baptized, recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost, and follow the commandments to an acceptable degree. Out of those 5 things, my church allows the first 4 to be done after death (baptism and Holy Ghost done by proxy among the living members of my church), if necessary, although doing them in life is always preferable. The 5th item is the judgement of your works in mortality, although those who die before the age of accountability (8 years old) basically get a free pass on that one.

There are 8 things you must do to be saved according to the Bible.

Luke 10:25-28
Luke 18:18-22
Luke 14:26-33
John 6:53-54
Matthew 18:2-3
John 3:3-8
Matthew 5:17-20
John 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:25-28;%20Luke%2018:18-22;%20Luke%2014:26-33;%20John%206:53-54;%20Matthew%2018:2-3;%20John%203:3-8;%20Matthew%205:17-20;%20John%203:16&version=31)

Jesus never mentions an age of accountability. Woe unto all those unbaptized babies. Of course Mormons don't have to worry.

Jesus was still implying that if the people repented and followed him, they would be privy to the interpretations of the parables, as well.

Try reading those verses without the preconceived notion of a loving Jesus. He is explicitly trying to confuse those on "the outside." It is said to them in parables so (with the purpose/intention) of confusing them so they will never believe and repent.

[Trance_kuja911]

Madamadam, I'm sorry, bro, but you're measuring God by your own measures of morals and principles. I definitely believe there is a concrete form of morals, but you can't measure God by your own set of morals, especially if your morals are not even Biblically followed. Honestly, it seems you have a close-minded view of the universe. If you are just another one of those atheist or naturalistic people who believe in nothing other than what you see, taste, or hear, then I am sorry.

At the heart of believing in Jesus Christ is believing that there is more to life than just what we see and experience here, that life is more about the material and what we can see, feel, touch, observe, etc. If your beliefs, like many others, persevere in that only what we can see and measure and observe is real with nothing else being real, good luck. You mentioned to me that you openly seek truth. So, being a man of truth, you tell me which of the two views I listed is more close-minded. Or how about which one is more open? Truth is easier to see when one looks at life openly. I don't think you'll disagree with me on that.

If you do not believe the view of believing in Jesus Christ I mentioned to be valid, then you must have a) not studied the Bible thoroughly, b) been mislead by hypocritical believers (not saying I am not at times; I definitely don't have it all together), or c) both. If you feel you have been mislead, please ponder on the following quote. You may find it familiar:

"Never judge a philosophy by its abuse." - St. Augustine

[Madamadam]

Madamadam, I'm sorry, bro, but you're measuring God by your own measures of morals and principles. I definitely believe there is a concrete form of morals, but you can't measure God by your own set of morals, especially if your morals are not even Biblically followed. Honestly, it seems you have a close-minded view of the universe. If you are just another one of those atheist or naturalistic people who believe in nothing other than what you see, taste, or hear, then I am sorry.

My measures of moral principles? It says in the Bible that God wants "all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." It's simple: if God is willing and able, whatever he wants necessarily happens. If you think I'm closed-minded, you should read my response to TAG. I think that really shows how open minded I am.

At the heart of believing in Jesus Christ is believing that there is more to life than just what we see and experience here, that life is more about the material and what we can see, feel, touch, observe, etc. If your beliefs, like many others, persevere in that only what we can see and measure and observe is real with nothing else being real, good luck. You mentioned to me that you openly seek truth. So, being a man of truth, you tell me which of the two views I listed is more close-minded. Or how about which one is more open? Truth is easier to see when one looks at life openly. I don't think you'll disagree with me on that.


Do I only believe in only material things? I don't even necessarily believe in material things at all (for all we know this is a Matrix). I base my reasoning on observations of our physical universe. Non-material things are irrelevant to my world view (which is and only can be of the physical world), but do I deny that things could exist which we could never observe? No, I don't. Even things that we see as logically impossible could exist outside our reality (including gods). The only thing is that they couldn't exist in our apparently logic bound reality (ruling out the Christian God).


If you do not believe the view of believing in Jesus Christ I mentioned to be valid, then you must have a) not studied the Bible thoroughly, b) been mislead by hypocritical believers (not saying I am not at times; I definitely don't have it all together), or c) both. If you feel you have been mislead, please ponder on the following quote. You may find it familiar:

"Never judge a philosophy by its abuse." - St. Augustine

I'm judging the theology by its own logical incoherence, not by the believers. Logical impossibility is why Christianity is invalid. I think I've shown you enough Bible verses in context to have demonstrated sufficient understanding of them.

And St. Augustine himself was rather incoherent when it came to his beliefs (a combination of freewill theodicy and double-predestination).