|
jbuk43
|
|
Posted 05/27/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
A common defense for god not appearing to the world to prove his existence is that we couldn't choose to love him if we knew he existed. Perhaps we could choose to follow the instructions of a possibly extant god even if we didn't know that it existed but can we actually choose to love such a god? I would follow the god if he proved his existence, but based on his biblical behavior, I doubt that I would love him. Love is simply beyond my control.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Archsage
|
|
Posted 05/27/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
A common defense for god not appearing to the world to prove his existence is that we couldn't choose to love him if we knew he existed.
I don't think this is the defense at all. We most certainly could choose to love Him. What people are trying to say is what Jesus said to Thomas:
John 20
26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “ Peace be with you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “ Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” In the subject of seeing God, or having Him appear before you, isn't about how much you will love Him, but a question of your faith. So I think your question is a bit off?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbuk43
|
|
Posted 05/27/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
this is a very common apologetic response about choosing to love. Here is one random articulation of it-- "If God made us unable to deny his existence, we would be unable to choose to love Him. Frequent, “impressive displays of miracle” would go further than merely doing “nothing to foster love.” Rather, they would render us much less able to choose to love God. It would take a fool indeed to reject a God whose existence is completely undeniable. And if we could not deny God, we would be nothing more than puppets. Why would God want to seek to be in relationship with puppets?"
I can't choose to love anything or anybody. My natural impulses result in my feelings. Feelings about INTERNAL reality are self authenticating. Feelings, or hopes, about external and testable truth claims about reality are subject to testing.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Archsage
|
|
Posted 05/27/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
this is a very common apologetic response about choosing to love. Here is one random articulation of it-- "If God made us unable to deny his existence, we would be unable to choose to love Him. Frequent, “impressive displays of miracle” would go further than merely doing “nothing to foster love.” Rather, they would render us much less able to choose to love God. It would take a fool indeed to reject a God whose existence is completely undeniable. And if we could not deny God, we would be nothing more than puppets. Why would God want to seek to be in relationship with puppets?"
I can't choose to love anything or anybody. My natural impulses result in my feelings. Feelings about INTERNAL reality are self authenticating. Feelings, or hopes, about external and testable truth claims about reality are subject to testing.
Alright, bro, well I've personally never heard anyone make that argument ever. So you can rest assured that no one will ever say that to you in here. Instead however, you'll likely run into what I've detailed in my previous post or some variation of it. Perhaps you should address that? I mean, as it is, you're arguing against nobody right now.
Besides that, it seems that you are conflating Love with a feeling. Love is not a feeling. Love is a mindset. Mindsets are, while externally or otherwise internally influenced, volitional in nature. Whatever you do is chosen. Mind you, it is not chosen in the sense of the "eeny-meeny-miny-moe", or the "Pikachu, I choose you!", but chosen in the sense that you set your mind upon something, hence the term I used, "mindset".
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
saibomb
|
|
Posted 05/27/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
|
I feel like what you 'love' is determined by the self in the sense that you when build your character (over long periods of time) you change your natural inclination towards the things you 'love'. So you can't just get up in the morning and say "I think I'll love God today" but there can certainly be a shift over time. And at the end of the day, if you still cannot love God, I'm not sure if this is something you can be blamed for. Though to me it doesn't make much sense, because if you had a human friend that gave you life, and loved you, and had infinite power, knowledge, and all that good stuff, you'd probably want that friend to be your best friend.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbuk43
|
|
Posted 05/27/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
do you love me? what would you do for me? Would you love me even if I tried to kill you?
Do you feel the love or do you behave as if you love?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Archsage
|
|
Posted 05/27/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbuk43
do you love me? what would you do for me? Would you love me even if I tried to kill you?
Do you feel the love or do you behave as if you love?
Yes I love you, regardless of whatever course of wicked sinfulness that you may choose to take, and will always seek for your repentance and salvation so that you too may live forever, and never die. But my love is not a "feeling". Feelings are biological impulses towards certain necessary or otherwise primitive ends. Right now I'm just feeling hungry.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
bdsimon
|
|
Posted 05/29/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
|
I disagree that love cannot be chosen. A man can be faced with the choice of giving in to his hate and anger for a person (even his wife) or instead choosing to love. It is a conscience decision to lay down one's own self-interest and instead place the other's interest above your own. It can be as simple as forgiving someone and apologizing when you have done nothing wrong or simply choosing to serve someone by doing something for them that they cannot do themselves.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheProblemOfAtheism
|
|
Posted 05/29/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
|
Love is more than a feeling. It's a way of living.
Can you choose to live a certain way? Then you can choose to love.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/30/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
|
So, why is God hiding Himself then?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Noraaron
|
|
Posted 05/30/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
So, why is God hiding Himself then?
Because of how he wants to rule....neither carrot or stick, but by recipricol love.
He cant achieve that if he is "known" in a proof sense..like empirical evidence.
Because there is the chance we would love him for Fear of the stick...or love him because he gives us carrots.
We are not allowed have certainty of his existence in objective posteriori sense, otherwise it would ruin the whole concept of Faith.
You would expect his rule from a subjective, inductive a-prioiri sense, like the contingency argument...which is not proof...but inductive logic, God is still the best possible answer we have if we want to apply a possible answer apart from simply stating unknown to why or how any thing is here.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/30/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by NoraaronQuote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
So, why is God hiding Himself then?
Because of how he wants to rule....neither carrot or stick, but by recipricol love.
He cant achieve that if he is "known" in a proof sense..like empirical evidence.
Because there is the chance we would love him for Fear of the stick...or love him because he gives us carrots.
We are not allowed have certainty of his existence in objective posteriori sense, otherwise it would ruin the whole concept of Faith.
You would expect his rule from a subjective, inductive a-prioiri sense, like the contingency argument...which is not proof...but inductive logic, God is still the best possible answer we have if we want to apply a possible answer apart from simply stating unknown to why or how any thing is here.
But then surely if you are correct about that argument (which I don't think you are), then that just favours people who are good at deductive reasoning? Surely making it obvious He existed would make it fair on everyone.
Plus, isn't God meant to be able to see into everyone's hearts and understand their motivations? Otherwise Pascal's wager could work (if it wasn't horribly flawed in other ways), again biasing people good at reasoning.
I don't get how the carrot and stick issue goes away with doubt about existence. The carrot and stick thing is stick a big problem, it's just now a carrot and stick that might not actually be there.
Also, if I knew God existed, I wouldn't follow Him. So it isn't like we'd lose the choice entirely.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Noraaron
|
|
Posted 05/30/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoBut then surely if you are correct about that argument (which I don't think you are), then that just favours people who are good at deductive reasoning
Im not sure what point you are making here?.... i dont see how my argument would make it easier for those who are good at deductive reasoning?
Quote: Surely making it obvious He existed would make it fair on everyone.
Making god Apparent, makes it a competition for his affection and love, because there is no faith. Faith first....take god on his word, that should be enough evidence to have faith..if you can call it evidence...but it has to be something...faith cant come from nothing. (maybe fletching out and defining what that is, is the tricky part)
(of course why the word agrees with some and not others im not sure?i can only hazard subjective opinion)
Then Love god, but not by telling god you love him... but by following his word. I think Kants quotes explains it quite well: Quote:
- Beneficence is a duty. He who often practices this, and sees his beneficent purpose succeed, comes at last really to love him whom he has benefited. When, therefore, it is said, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," this does not mean, "Thou shalt first of all love, and by means of love (in the next place) do him good"; but: "Do good to thy neighbour, and this beneficence will produce in thee the love of men (as a settled habit of inclination to beneficence)."
- Metaphysical Elements of Ethics (1780)[1]
- Men will not understand … that when they fulfil their duties to men, they fulfil thereby God's commandments; that they are consequently always in the service of God, as long as their actions are moral, and that it is absolutely impossible to serve God otherwise.
Quote: Plus, isn't God meant to be able to see into everyone's hearts and understand their motivations? Otherwise Pascal's wager could work (if it wasn't horribly flawed in other ways), again biasing people good at reasoning.
God can read your heart. But i agree i think pascals wager is flawed. If god does not exist you've wasted your time. especially if you are inclined to be more a sinner than a saint and denied yourself, your personal sinful pleasures because you took the wager on.
Quote: I don't get how the carrot and stick issue goes away with doubt about existence. The carrot and stick thing is stick a big problem, it's just now a carrot and stick that might not actually be there.
It is canceled out by no "guarantee" of either carrot or stick happening by god, in the fact he cant be proven.
I think this comes down to perspective, in the past, people did not have the broad scope of the world we have today for lots of reasons, the only game in town for along time in the western euro world was christianity, before science started explaining where rain came from to feed their crops instead of god.
Now we can say....well the mechanics of it raining on my crop dosnt appear in any posteriori sense to lead to god existing, or supplying.
Now we can do what john locke talked about having a blank slate....and then adding to it, and same goes for god and religion when adding it to our blank slates. So when considering if to be influenced by the carrot or the stick, you have to now days factor how many gods there are in the world to choose from, and our awareness of them. With so many choices of god, the carrot and stick should not be a factor at all with the christian god, you would come to believe on other reasoning.
If there was only 1 god as being possible or no 1 god, then the carrot and stick works.
When there is multiple gods and no god to choose from...whos to say the christian god has the right carrot and stick?..maybe there is a better carrot.
It is funny how more false gods work in gods favor in this sense, to hide him even more from us.
Quote: Also, if I knew God existed, I wouldn't follow Him. So it isn't like we'd lose the choice entirely.
I dont see how you would know that before it has even occured? you must be a fortune teller. |
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/30/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Noraaron
Im not sure what point you are making here?.... i dont see how my argument would make it easier for those who are good at deductive reasoning?
You said it was possibly to get a decent a priori argument for God going. If you are correct, then this gives people who are good at such arguments an advantage.
Quote:
Making god Apparent, makes it a competition for his affection and love, because there is no faith. Faith first....take god on his word, that should be enough evidence to have faith..if you can call it evidence...but it has to be something...faith cant come from nothing. (maybe fletching out and defining what that is, is the tricky part)
How can I take God on His word that He exists? You have to believe someone exists first before you can believe they are telling the truth. Quote:
God can read your heart. But i agree i think pascals wager is flawed. If god does not exist you've wasted your time. especially if you are inclined to be more a sinner than a saint and denied yourself, your personal sinful pleasures because you took the wager on.
If God can read your heart then He can tell if the motivation for you following Him is good or not. The hidden bit is useless.
Quote:
It is canceled out by no "guarantee" of either carrot or stick happening by god, in the fact he cant be proven.
I think this comes down to perspective, in the past, people did not have the broad scope of the world we have today for lots of reasons, the only game in town for along time in the western euro world was christianity, before science started explaining where rain came from to feed their crops instead of god.
Now we can say....well the mechanics of it raining on my crop dosnt appear in any posteriori sense to lead to god existing, or supplying.
Now we can do what john locke talked about having a blank slate....and then adding to it, and same goes for god and religion when adding it to our blank slates. So when considering if to be influenced by the carrot or the stick, you have to now days factor how many gods there are in the world to choose from, and our awareness of them. With so many choices of god, the carrot and stick should not be a factor at all with the christian god, you would come to believe on other reasoning.
If there was only 1 god as being possible or no 1 god, then the carrot and stick works.
When there is multiple gods and no god to choose from...whos to say the christian god has the right carrot and stick?..maybe there is a better carrot.
It is funny how more false gods work in gods favor in this sense, to hide him even more from us.
Most Christians I have spoken to are certain that their God is the real one. Do you really know that much about any god other than your own? The idea that they way up all the gods seems contrary to experience. Moreover, this means that everyone prior to a couple of centuries ago was at a disadvantage.
Quote:
I dont see how you would know that before it has even occured? you must be a fortune teller.
If Hitler came back to life would you follow him? I don't see why you'd think such a conclusion requires prescience.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Noraaron
|
|
Posted 05/30/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoYou said it was possibly to get a decent a priori argument for God going. If you are correct, then this gives people who are good at such arguments an advantage.
I didnt say decent. I said subjective. Take the ontological argument...it is good reason to believe in a god if you need it to back up your faith or tackles someone elses atack on your belief. But there is no obligation, well rather absolute reasons to believe the argument that any of the premises are true.
Quote: How can I take God on His word that He exists? You have to believe someone exists first before you can believe they are telling the truth.
The word of the bible. That is what faith is built on. You dont need to hear it...you can read it. And if at that point you dont think the word is reasonable you can choose not to have faith...if you are using reason that is.
Quote: If God can read your heart then He can tell if the motivation for you following Him is good or not. The hidden bit is useless.
I dont see how it makes the hidden part useless? He can read your heart to tell if you are worthy or feel empathy etc... Dosnt mean he is speaking to your heart telling you to believe. Even then the heart may be filled with good intentions for god, but the volition maybe weak to carry out those predilections of the heart.
Quote: Most Christians I have spoken to are certain that their God is the real one. Do you really know that much about any god other than your own? The idea that they way up all the gods seems contrary to experience. Moreover, this means that everyone prior to a couple of centuries ago was at a disadvantage.
They probably where at a disadvantage as it was so simple to choose which god, but with the drawbacks of low knowledge base, belief became tainted in other ways. (Chatholic church and there pomp) So nowdays it is not as simple as it was, but we have alot more knowledge and are more rigourus in believing, making faith stronger in someways...yet weaker in others when things like issues of homosexuality, abortion etc.. are accepted by christians as being Ok making faith weaker based on kowledge, ideas that abortions are just groups of cells, which scietifically is true...but technically i am also just a bunch of cells..going off there.
Anyway..Every situation is going to be dependent on experience and knowledge, People will believe for the wrong reasons. Some will not believe and yet may be more christian than not...look at westboro. They sound like they think, they will be eating the carrot and waving the stick instead of god. Quote: If Hitler came back to life would you follow him? I don't see why you'd think such a conclusion requires prescience.
Didnt you say that you wouldnt follow god even if you knew he existed? I dont see how you would know that if you dont think he dosnt exist and you havent even meet the guy? maybe he is just a natural leader and men will follow him regardless of there individual defiance. Right time and right place i might follow hitler. Have you seen that film Good?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
