A mortal God?

[felix]

Of course, I would not presume to deny that you had such an experience.

However, what you write could be read as saying "unless and until one has some 'felt experience' of God's presence, one cannot be a Christian".

Such an assertion is something I would definitely challenge.

The assertion that I mentioned is with respect to the OP. It is true not all require it. Some have faith in Christ and believe completely as little children do.

 

[Free]

Well, if you don't believe so (and you are better than some theists) then you have esstially won the argument. We do not know how much power God has, so you, by the knowledge we do have ( Almost none) of the scope of God's power, can put forth any case, and it becomes a plausible case. The only fault would be you are assuming, that God is real, and your case isn't valid, unless he is there.

You have founded your argument on a assumption, which, as of now, hasn't been proven.

And because you base yourself on TWO assumptions ( one is very reasonable, though) that there is a God, and he is not all powerful, Your case is a fallicious one.

An example would be:

Wizards can do magic, but not all magic is avaliable to Wizards.

The basis, is an assumption that Wizards exist, and then the third assumption is that ALL magic are not aviable to them

If thething you are attributing the things to, is a being in which you have to assume, you can't put up a very good case.

If the premise is unfounded, no matter how good the logic is, the things you attribute to them are also unfounded, and suspect.

Last I checked this was a Christian forum and this topic was discussing the Christian God. You also seem to think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which would be a fallacy on your part.

 

[Drew]

To continue:

When man falls, all creation becomes "infected" with a malevolent, personal force. We can call this the power of evil for short.

Now at this point, I must be quite insistent that it is simply not correct to roll your eyes patronizingly and think that you are dealing with some person who has no understanding of how science has successfully described the world without the need to resort to "primitive" ideas, such as the notion of a force of evil.

I am, at the risk of seeming self-promoting, well-studied in the field of science, and I believe I understand the nature of a scientific theory. We can talk about this more, but I want to pre-empt the kind of dismissive response these ideas often elicit.

Yes, there are people who refuse to take science and its methods seriously and cannot handle the complexity of any model of the world except one where everything is either "good" or "evil". And yes there are people who are not concerned with rigour in their arguments.

I am not one of those people, and I believe the position I hold on this matter is well-thought out and not easily dismissed.

So much for the defensive "please do not dismiss me as an ill-informed nutjob" prologue. More later.

 

[Drew]

The assertion that I mentioned is with respect to the OP. It is true not all require it. Some have faith in Christ and believe completely as little children do.

Fair enough - we are in agreement. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Atothetheist]

Last I checked this was a Christian forum and this topic was discussing the Christian God. You also seem to think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which would be a fallacy on your part.

I am sorry, but I never thought I seemed to indicate Absence of evidence is evidence of Absence.

If you are thinking about the first post on this thread, I was making a remark on how theists say this phrase a lot.

Absence of Evidence, does indeed not indicate evidence of absence.

It indicated ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.

There is no evidence of unicorns, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. But because there is no evidence, I am inclined not to believe in unicorns until there is evidence.

 

[Atothetheist]

Last I checked this was a Christian forum and this topic was discussing the Christian God. You also seem to think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which would be a fallacy on your part.

Free, that doesn't at all make me have to assume the Christian God exists. Nor should I.

 

[Free]

I am sorry, but I never thought I seemed to indicate Absence of evidence is evidence of Absence.

If you are thinking about the first post on this thread, I was making a remark on how theists say this phrase a lot.

Absence of Evidence, does indeed not indicate evidence of absence.

It indicated ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE.

There is no evidence of unicorns, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. But because there is no evidence, I am inclined not to believe in unicorns until there is evidence.

"The only fault would be you are assuming, that God is real, and your case isn't valid, unless he is there.

You have founded your argument on a assumption, which, as of now, hasn't been proven."

Are you disagreeing that your above statements seem to be suggesting that there is a lack of evidence for God and therefore God is unlike to exist?

Free, that doesn't at all make me have to assume the Christian God exists. Nor should I.

The point being, being that this is a discussion about the Christian God, it is not fallacious to first assume that he exists. Hence Drew's argument is valid as it relates to the Christian God.

 

[Free]

BTW, I will move this thread to Apologetics and Theology with a redirect.

 

[Drew]

Well, if you don't believe so (and you are better than some theists) then you have esstially won the argument. We do not know how much power God has, so you, by the knowledge we do have ( Almost none) of the scope of God's power, can put forth any case, and it becomes a plausible case. The only fault would be you are assuming, that God is real, and your case isn't valid, unless he is there.

You have founded your argument on a assumption, which, as of now, hasn't been proven.

I have never suggested, stated, or implied that I have proven or demonstrated anything. I have merely been describing a self-consistent model of God that allows one to reconcile of the presence of evil and suffering in the world with the existence of a good God.

And because you base yourself on TWO assumptions ( one is very reasonable, though) that there is a God, and he is not all powerful, Your case is a fallicious one.

How, precisely, is my case fallacious? What error of logic have I committed?

Again, please do not patronize me!

I am more than fully aware that I have not "proven", or even made a case for the existence of God.

However, I would suggest I am showing that one can construct a self-consistent, contradiction free model of the world that includes both a good God and suffering / evil. Of course, I fully understand that this does not "prove" that such a model actually describes the world.

 

[Atothetheist]

"The only fault would be you are assuming, that God is real, and your case isn't valid, unless he is there.

You have founded your argument on a assumption, which, as of now, hasn't been proven."

Are you disagreeing that your above statements seem to be suggesting that there is a lack of evidence for God and therefore God is unlike to exist?


The point being, being that this is a discussion about the Christian God, it is not fallacious to first assume that he exists. Hence Drew's argument is valid as it relates to the Christian God.

It is fallacious, and will continue to be until the being is proved, regardless if you are a believer, you are believing an assumption, that neither has enough evidence to be proven, and it should be noted that it is an assumption.

I am not saying it isn't a valid argument for you guys, I am saying he is basing it off an assumption that hasn't been proven, and there fore the arguments base is fallacious from a scientific standpoint and from a logical standpoint.

There isn't enough evidence to believe in a deity, I thought I got across that very well in both posts.

 

[Atothetheist]

I have never suggested, stated, or implied that I have proven or demonstrated anything. I have merely been describing a self-consistent model of God that allows one to reconcile of the presence of evil and suffering in the world with the existence of a good God.


How, precisely, is my case fallacious? What error of logic have I committed?

Again, please do not patronize me!

I am more than fully aware that I have not "proven", or even made a case for the existence of God.

However, I would suggest I am showing that one can construct a self-consistent, contradiction free model of the world that includes both a good God and suffering / evil. Of course, I fully understand that this does not "prove" that such a model actually describes the world.

The case is fallious because the base of it, God is an assumption. The whole case you're about to make is hinged on that assumption.

If the very foundation of the case is an assumption, then the argument isn't very convincing, except to people who believe in that assumption.

 

[Free]

It is fallacious, and will continue to be until the being is proved, regardless if you are a believer, you are believing an assumption, that neither has enough evidence to be proven, and it should be noted that it is an assumption.

I am not saying it isn't a valid argument for you guys, I am saying he is basing it off an assumption that hasn't been proven, and there fore the arguments base is fallacious from a scientific standpoint and from a logical standpoint.

You are dead wrong on this. Again, in a discussion about the Christian God, it is entirely acceptable to assume that he exists in an argument that is showing how his actions are consistent with his nature, as given in the Bible. His existence goes without saying. There is no fallacy in his argument.

 

[Atothetheist]

You are dead wrong on this. Again, in a discussion about the Christian God, it is entirely acceptable to assume that he exists in an argument that is showing how his actions are consistent with his nature, as given in the Bible. His existence goes without saying. There is no fallacy in his argument.

From a theistic standpoint...

If he is proclaiming it as truth, then it is fallacious, because it is based on an assumption. If he says " This is based of a being called God that is described in the bible" then no, it's not. I assumed he was trying to present a case that this actually happened in the real world.

 

[Free]

From a theistic standpoint...

If he is proclaiming it as truth, then it is fallacious, because it is based on an assumption. If he says " This is based of a being called God that is described in the bible" then no, it's not. I assumed he was trying to present a case that this actually happened in the real world.

As he stated:

I have never suggested, stated, or implied that I have proven or demonstrated anything. I have merely been describing a self-consistent model of God that allows one to reconcile of the presence of evil and suffering in the world with the existence of a good God.

That is what this topic is about, yes?

 

[Atothetheist]

As he stated:

That is what this topic is about, yes?

Alright, my mistake. I must have skipped over that for some reason.

If it is just desribing something that isn't intended to affect reality, then it is fine.

Sorry, I was in the wrong here.

 

[AlexBC]

Ok, a lot of arguments here for consistent models of God etc.

The only problem is that even if I were not having any doubts and I whole-heartedly believed in God i'd still reject him.

He does not come across as a very likeable person. To be honest, he comes across as really manic-depressive, narcissistic, absent minded, cruel...

 

[Atothetheist]

Ok, a lot of arguments here for consistent models of God etc.

The only problem is that even if I were not having any doubts and I whole-heartedly believed in God i'd still reject him.

He does not come across as a very likeable person. To be honest, he comes across as really manic-depressive, narcissistic, absent minded, cruel...

You and I have something in common.

I use the analogy to hitler all of the time, and I get called on for Gordon's Law... But regardless

If Hitler was my supreme leader, and he is talked about in high remarks by my parents, peers, etc... If he ordered genocide, Rape, codemnation, killing of my children, I would reject him, even if it means a bullet to the head.

If a person commits deeds I deem immoral, and he expects me to think of him as good, then he is out of luck. I believe that to a certain degree, the ends justify the means, but I will only side with that when I see evidence that it is having the desired effects, and he isn't doing what he doesn't have to.

God has shown none of that.

 

[AlexBC]

Exactly. Is the term "God-fearing" still in popular use?

 

[evenifigoalone]

I wish I knew what to say, Alex. Once again, I wish you all the best.

If you're interested, here are a few more sites with various articles relating to Christianity and apologetics:
Christiananswers.net
Leadership University
Ravi Zacharis (He's an apologist and speaks on some of the issues you are pondering.)

As for the term God-fearing, the way I'd explain it is...you fear God like you'd fear a parent. A parent will punish you if you deserve it, but they do it out of love. (A good parent, anyway.) If you do something wrong, you fear what your parent will do to punish you.

Again, I'd like to let you know that the answers are there. Even though there are so many different views on doctrine.
Even doing a Google search on a specific issue is helpful, and will pull up articles from both sides. (Although you may have to play with the wording a bit.)


For the record...I do believe that God is all-powerful. Christianity wouldn't make a lot of sense otherwise. If there is someone more powerful than God, then likely I am headed for trouble.
So it would seem there are problems with the logistics either way. TBH, I am convinced that every point of view contains some flawed logic.
Speaking of that, I know of a guy on another site who does some stuff on apologetics and sometimes points out some logical flaws in Atheism. (His stuff goes over my head sometimes.) Here he is, if you're interested.


Also, the book I mentioned earlier--The Hiding Place, by Corrie Ten Boom--really is an interesting read. (And the account is a true one.)
And I can name one miracle she mentioned--while in the concentration camps, she got a hold of some vitamin tablets and gave them to her sister, who was ill. I think she also shared them with other people as well, and was afraid they'd run out.
They lasted as long as they needed them--which was a pretty long time, if I remember correctly. When they were able to get a new bottle of the vitamins, the one they already had suddenly ran out.
It's been a while since I read the book, but I'd encourage you to read it.

 

[evenifigoalone]

A videos by that guy, Ravi Zacharis, that I mentioned.
[video=youtube;j_dt9_iAhJI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_dt9_iAhJI&feature=plcp[/video]





If I may also share something from my life that I consider to be something of a miracle...
Last year, some bad things were going on in my life and my family's life as well. Things that really got to me. I began to feel almost depressed (and I have gone through depression before, so I know what it's like), and I began to get angry at God.

I did tell the people at my Bible study about it, a little bit, (wonderful people, always willing to listen and do what they can) but I didn't tell them everything.
Other than that, I told no one. Even my family didn't know. I vented, but only in very subtle ways. Such as placing some excerpts from certain songs in my signature, and making subtle vent art that I made sure not to label as such. I think I only posted three of them online. The only thing that was remotely obvious was that I did make a journal entry on dA asking people to pray for my family, saying some things were going on and mentioning briefly that I didn't want to see my parents divorce all over again. (They weren't planning on it at all, but at the time I was afraid that that was the direction things were going.) Other than that, I said nothing about how I was feeling.

Then, one of my online friends, who at the time I had only met just recently and hadn't really talked to much, sent me a message, saying that he believed that God was telling him to contact me and ask me what was going on, also stating that he wasn't completely sure why.

That, there--that he was offering to try to help me because God seemed to be telling him to, really got through to me. If he hadn't done that, I don't know what I would have ended up doing. The way I was feeling at the time, if it had gone on long enough, I would probably have begun considering suicide.
I still felt rather blue for the few weeks following, but I felt that God had shown to me that He still cared and was still watching out for me, and hadn't forgot me...and that was a huge relief.


I'm not sure if sharing that is a good idea or not...but there it is.


What the guy said at the end of the video, about asking Jesus to show Himself to you....it might be a good idea.