This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty 496 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    God's existence is not governed by cofty. Cofty's morality cannot disqualify God's existence. Cofty's views labeled by cofty as cofty's objective facts do not refute the existence of God. Cofty's not wanting to believe is disguised as cofty's modifiers.

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne
    The moral evil is done by free conscious agents. The only problem is natural evil.

    No. Read what I wrote. The persistence of evil. There's no compelling enough reason that an Almighty and all-loving god would tolerate the persistence of evil, natural or caused by free-willed agents. And why does god need that humans (again, mediators) explain to other humans why god tolerates evil? Why can't he clearly tell that to everyone, directly?

    what kind of mediation do you mean?

    Why is god unable / unavailable to communicate with humans universally? Is he bound by time so that he only has 24 hours a day? is he bound by space so that he can only be on some place at the same time? Why does god require a religious framework, prophets, priests, seerers, mediums in order to relay his messages and accept worship from his creations? The most efficient method of communication would be two-way direct communication with each individual, anywhere, anytime. Why is god unable to do so, and instead seems to rely on means that are prone to introduce error and distortion into the communication?

    This is a very strict concept of God.

    Well, it's what Jesus and Paul, pillars of the Christian faith, have said about the necessity of faith. "Without faith is impossible to please God" (Heb 11:6) The god of the bible doesn't necessarily demands my reason, but clearly demands my faith, or my belief in unsubstantiated claims. Actually, it demands that I chose faith over reason, should both be in conflict.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    The persistence of evil. There's no compelling enough reason that an Almighty and all-loving god would tolerate the persistence of evil, natural or caused by free-willed agents.

    I mean any individual can only be subject to a finite amount of evil in its temporal lifetime.

    And why does god need that humans (again, mediators) explain to other humans why god tolerates evil? Why can't he clearly tell that to everyone, directly?

    Are you talking about the God's will or the existence of God?

    Why someone choosing to speak through mediators implies its non existence?

    The god of the bible doesn't necessarily demands my reason, but clearly demands my faith, or my belief in unsubstantiated claims.

    As I said this is just an interpretation. A very crazy interpretation.

    Actually, it demands that I chose faith over reason, should both be in conflict.

    My position is that is impossible to faith and reason to be in conflict. If they are it means your faith or/and your reason are wrong.


  • cofty
    cofty
    Well you seem to call scientific or empirical evidence as "objective fact". This is pure nonsense.

    Empirical evidence is objective fact.

    You seem to talk about a very strict concept of God. A Sola Scriptura pentecostal/calvinist concept of God.

    My OP is an observation about all forms of theistic deity. It doesn't depend on sola scriptura as I have pointed out multiple times. The god of the pope is equally guilty.

    You seem to apply scientific evidence to refute a philosophical system (theism). This is scientism.

    I am not objecting to a "philosophical system" I am objecting to claims that theists make about god. Things that conflict with reality. By god I mean the god and father of Jesus.

    These are basically the problems in your OP.

    These are only problems in your imagination.

  • cofty
    cofty

    By the way you have not adequately addressed natural evil.

    To say that it is necessary is not an answer. Tsunamis are clearly not necessary.

  • S K Ditta
    S K Ditta
    I Would Need in Order to Believe

    May I ask, do you wish to believe? Pardon my impertinence! I am new here.

  • John_Mann
    John_Mann
    Empirical evidence is objective fact.

    If you really think this so you're plainly wrong. There's no objectivity without subjectivity. Empirical evidence is produced by the scientific method which in turn is built with metaphysical axioms chose by consensus of subjectivity.

    What you call objectivity is a consensus among people who subjectively (through faith) accepts the axioms of the scientific method.

    My OP is an observation about all forms of theistic deity.

    You have a very strange position about universal applicability. Actually you seem very addicted to the idea of a universal tool. Your analysis its not universal.

    I am not objecting to a "philosophical system" I am objecting to claims that theists make about god.

    If you're objecting to theism so you're objecting to a philosophical system. I don't understand your denial.

    To say that it is necessary is not an answer. Tsunamis are clearly not necessary.

    Please read about necessity and contingency in philosophy.

  • cofty
    cofty

    John_Man - My OP consists of nine simple, common-sense observations.

    They concern reasons that make me doubt the existence of the god of Jesus. They assume very little about specific doctrines other than the absolute basics of christian theism - a god of love who made the world and who desires a relationship with his creation.

    They are not complex philosophical arguments or knock-down proofs that god does not exist. If I had to rate them individually in terms of how compelling I find them, they would be on a spectrum. Imagine a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is a very weak objection to theism and 10 is proof that the christian god does not exist.

    I would would rate all of them above 5 and I would put natural evil at the top of the chart with a 9 out of 10.

    You have not actually addressed one of them yet.

  • cofty
    cofty
    May I ask, do you wish to believe? - SKD

    Of course you may ask, thank you for the question.

    I think it's a common mistake to imagine that we can actually choose our beliefs. It's better to ask questions, study, debate and reflect. Our beliefs happen while we engage in that process.

    I used to be a christian. I kept learning new stuff. Now I'm not a believer.

    During the many conversations I have had on this forum and elsewhere I often come across believers who claim that atheists just refuse to believe and that no evidence would ever be enough for them. This thread is a response to that common canard.

  • Saethydd
    Saethydd

    I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I do in fact wish that I could have a belief in a personal deity that cares about me and will allow me to continue my conscious existence after I die.

    But like cofty I see so many things that I can't just disregard in order to hold on to that belief, no matter how much I would like for it to be true.

Share with others