Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[The Tanager]

2. Radical evidence for radical claims.

Do you believe the experience of the average person is enough reason to believe in God's existence?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Do I think the average person has enough reason to believe in God's existence? Do I think trusting on someone else's experience of God is enough reason for everyone else to believe in God's existence? Or is the following your clarification?

My experience includes a 2000 year old book... and that's it. There is nothing else that suggests the Christian God exists. So either a 2000 year old book is enough to reasonably believe in God's existence, or God does not care to convince me to believe in him.

The extent of your engagement with evidence for God's existence has only been talk about the Bible? Really? No engagement with the thousands of years of philosophical discussion? No cosmological argument for God's existence? No moral argument for God's existence? Teleological? Ontological? A historical discussion on the Resurrection? Argument from consciousness? Or any other thing?

Whatever "enough" is changes from person to person. As I've said, some people are just more gullible than others. For me, however, the evidence God has provided thus far is not nearly enough (for me). If God truly wanted me to believe, he would appear to me

If your belief that we have no control over our beliefs is right, then this last sentence would seem to follow. If not, then it doesn't follow that if God wanted you to believe he would have to appear to you.

I never said God appearing to me is the only example of radical evidence. Let me get into each...

But you just said "If God truly wanted me to believe, he would appear to me." If there are other examples of evidence then God would not have to appear to you if God truly wanted you to believe.

1. There are certain pieces of evidence that point towards God's existence as the best explanation.

1. is far too vague. What would these certain pieces of evidence be? Unless you can give me concrete hypothetical examples, I cannot say whether or not this would suffice as radical evidence

I'm talking about the general idea. Do you think evidence has to be 100% pointing to God's existence? Or do you think that 'best explanation' is enough in regards to believing in God? Theoretically, if the God hypothesis is the best explanation of the reality we know...if it makes better sense than an atheistic hypothesis...is this enough or do we need to be 100% certain?

2. You physically see God and His tools. (This mirrors the radical evidence you wanted of Santa's existence).

2. this would be radical evidence, yes.

How can you physically see something immaterial?

3. You hear an audible voice claiming to be God speaking directly to you.

3. this depends of whether there are logical explanations in my direct vicinity. Could it be someone else yelling? Could it be an intercom? A TV? Radio? If all of these are ruled out, then yes - a talking voice would be radical. Even more so if this talking voice knew things about me that no one else would.

A hallucination-type experience is always a logical possibility that would be in your direct vicinity. Or it could be an immaterial being that is not God.

4. You have an experience with an immaterial being.

4. again, too vague. What kind of experience? Be specific

One you rationally think is of an immaterial being like my experience of conversion to belief in God. This goes back to whether the standard you are using is 100% or a plausible explanation. You have no reason to think you are having a hallucination or just hearing voices in your head. There aren't others around talking to you. That kind of experience that you feel almost certain was of another being, but there would be no way to prove that to anyone else.

God would simply need to cut Satan's voice from my head. Block him. He should make it impossible for me to even hear Satan's voice if I did not want to. I was once a Christian so obviously I did not want to hear Satan's voice. It would therefore not violate my free will for God to block Satan's voice from my mind entirely

A free will is a constant thing, not a one time thing. Even if you gave God the okay, this seems to be God cutting off your free will. By your choice, yes, but still cutting off your free will for when this situation arises in the future.

This sounds suspiciously like Calvinism. Are you suggesting that it is impossible for me to accept God, even if he provided irrefutable proof for his existence?

I don't think it would be limited to Calvinists. I am not a Calvinist. I am not suggesting it is impossible for someone to accept God, even if he provided irrefutable proof for his existence.

Unless every single non-believer would still reject God even if God appeared to them, then this point is moot. If there is even a single atheist who would immediately accept a relationship with God the moment God revealed himself, then what reason would there be for God to not reveal himself to this atheist? Why would he allow this atheist to die a non-believer?

It would still have relevance to certain atheists, if true, but I agree it doesn't cover every atheist or agnostic. So, we move on to the other points. Point 2 (sketched) was:

2. Some would have an improper relationship with God. That is, the person may not recognize God as Good, reject moral transformation, lacking the right desire for God (instead just wanting gifts, experiences, to escape punishment), being jealous of God's power, considering himself an authority in the formation of the relationship.

The first part here says the person may not recognize God as Good. God appears, but the skeptic is convinced that this God is evil. God's appearance doesn't change this view of the skeptic, so it would be better for God to take a different approach to try to get the person to come to the Truth about God. What are your thoughts there?

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

You didn't respond to my point about your possible confusion on Christianity teaching a "God who says do A (surrender to me relationally in every situation) and I will reward you with B (heaven). Don't do A and you will be punished with C (hell). That's not what I think Christianity teaches. It's saying surrendering to God relationally in every situation is heaven. It doesn't gain you or result in heaven; it is the same exact thing. I think that confusion is part of what leads you to say the above. You seem to be saying that to be reasonable, God should expect and allow for us to get heaven without surrendering to Him relationally in every situation. But that would be like saying, to be reasonable, someone should allow for a bachelor to be married and remain a bachelor."

Do you think Christianity says do A and God will give you B? Or are surrender and heaven the exact same thing? And why, if you disagree with me?

If they were equally attractive initially, you would expect about a 50/50 distribution of people choosing 2a vs 2b, but since the distribution is 100/0 is a clear indication that 2b is not nearly as attractive as 2a to our nature.

If you only had to choose once you would expect something at least closer to 50/50, but we don't only have one choice between the two, we have countless ones. If we make just two choices, probability would say that we would have chosen self-reliance once.

That's because our nature is designed to seek foods with higher calories. This was crucial to our survival in the past when food was not as readily available as today. So all you're doing is illustrating my point: we choose that which is attractive to our nature.

I didn't say we choose something that is unattractive to our nature. I am saying there are multiple things attractive to our nature and so we must choose between those things that are attractive. And then our next choice may not be a 50/50 split of attractiveness.

Yet currently as you illustrated above, we choose self reliance out of an addiction, so how would this be any worse?

First, my point was only a counter to the thought that 'Why didn't God just make his desired outcome more naturally attractive to us.' Not saying you had that thought, but just trying to fully think things through as well as I can.

Second, choosing self-reliance isn't an addiction forced upon us by God. It was an addiction that came out of the choices we made. It gets stronger and stronger as we keep picking self-reliance until the point we need someone to step in to help us if we are going to change.

[The Tanager]

4. Analyzing One Theory of the Christian Solution

Then what do we need Jesus for?

Because although we know what it means to surrender, we just don't do it. And we are so addicted to self-reliance that we can't do it anymore just like a drug addict that can't stop taking that next hit until they get help from the outside.

And if we don't desire or choose surrender, then how does Jesus help? Does Jesus make us desire surrender? Does he make us choose surrender? What exactly did Jesus do to change the situation?

Because Jesus chose surrender in every single situation. He knows what it is to be tempted to self-reliance, but choose surrender every time. He has the knowledge and the willpower. We've lost the willpower, even to where we don't always know what it even looks like to surrender in a particular situation. Jesus walks us through the decision, by our side and helps us actually choose surrender.

But you just said that none of us wants to surrender, so why would any of us accept Jesus' help to surrender? If Jesus offered to help us, we would say no because as you just told me, we don't want to surrender.

We get to a point where we do begin desiring surrender (at least at various points of clarity), but at that point we can't do it on our own. If we are in that point of time then we can accept Jesus' offer. And then Jesus helps us surrender and we begin to want surrender more and more.

According to you, God cannot take on a surrendering nature, right? But God can take on a human nature. Why can he do the one but not the other? How do you know God can not take on a surrendering nature but he can take on a human nature?

That's not what I said. I said God cannot surrender in His divine nature alone. In order to surrender God must take on a surrendering nature. And since God is wanting to do this to help humans regain the ability to freely surrender to Him, God must take on a human kind of surrendering nature.

So because of God's divine nature, God cannot surrender. Yet humans, who can surrender, can have a Divine nature if a Divine being takes on a human nature. You're contradicting yourself. One moment a Divine nature prevents God from surrendering, and the next God can surrender despite him having a Divine nature?

No, this is a misunderstanding. A Divine nature alone can't surrender. A being that has both a divine and human nature can.

Then there is no reason for this Being cannot take on a nature that can surrender without needing to become human first. God could have stayed God, taken on the nature of surrendering... and problem solved. No need for Jesus

But God wants to help humans surrender. We need a surrendered human nature to be shared with us.

Well then if a person can have two natures, why can't God also have the nature to surrender while still holding on to his own nature? Why did he need to become human first?

He didn't have to become a human to gain surrender, but why did He want to gain the ability to surrender? To help us. Other things surrender, but they don't surrender in human ways. And God wants to help humans surrender.

Humans do, but God doesn't. He can help people surrender as humans without himself surrendering as a human.

No, God can't because we need a surrendered human nature to be shared with us. It does us no good to surrender like a rock does.

Can you show a Divine being taking on a surrendering nature as logically impossible?

A circle cannot have corners, by definition. That is why it is logically impossible for a square circle to exist. The definition of a divine being does not include the concept "cannot take on a surrendering nature" in it unless you are going to put it in there ad hoc. Therefore, it is logically possible unless you can show "cannot take on a surrendering nature" must be true of all divine beings or is necessitated by the other beliefs in my concept of God.

The burden here is on you. You are arguing it is ruled out. I'm arguing I see no reason to rule it out. What is your reason for ruling it out?

Don't we already have this nature?

We did, but it has been damaged. We now have a (2b). We need a (2a).

If not then I see no reason why he would first need to become human in order to give us this nature.

God needs to get a human (2a) to share with us. We haven't given God one to use for others. So He does it Himself. He can't do that without first becoming a human.

We as humans have several aspects to our nature. Surely God did not need to become every one of these natures before "imparting" it to us?

We don't have human natures. We have a human nature with several aspects to it. Jesus surrendered every aspect in every way, which is what He is sharing with us so that we can surrender it in every respect.

God gave us the nature to breathe. Did he first become human in order to breathe before he then passed that on to us? Or was he perfectly capable of just giving us that nature?

No. He also gave us the nature to surrender without becoming human. But we didn't choose surrender. We need a surrendered nature, but none of us has accomplished that. So, God became human to accomplish that for us. And God couldn't accomplish that without becoming human, because non-humans cannot live a surrendered human life by definition.

I see no reason why he cannot help us without needing to become a human first. You will have to demonstrate why that is logically impossible

Here is a more formal attempt, let me know if you see an error and why you think it is one:

P1: Humans need a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature. (Definition: A freely surrendered human nature is one that has the ability to surrender or choose self-reliance. A perfectly surrendered human nature is one that chooses to surrender in every situation.)
P2: No solely human being has/maintains a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature.
P3: Therefore, if a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature is going to be gained it must be something other than a solely human being. (from P1 and P2)
P4: God is something other than a solely human being.
P5: Therefore, God is still available as an option for gaining a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature. (From P3 and P4)
P6: God cannot create a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature.

{R1: A nature with free will (at the time of creation) means one has the ability to choose surrender or self-reliance.
R2: An perfectly surrendered nature (at time of creation) means one does not have the ability to choose self-reliance.
R3: Therefore, to create a nature with free will that is perfectly surrendered would mean that this nature both has the ability to choose self-reliance and does not have the ability to choose self-reliance. (From R1 and R2)
R4: The law of contradiction says something cannot be A and not-A in the same sense at the same time.
R5: Therefore, one cannot create a nature with free will that is perfectly surrendered. (From R3 and R4)}

P7: If God cannot create a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature without negating free will, it must be gained by other means.
P8: God must gain a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature by other means. (From P6 and P7).
P9: If God can take on a human nature, then God can gain a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature by freely and perfectly surrendering the human nature by His own choices.
P10: God can take on a human nature.

{S1: God is omnipotent, which means to be able to do anything that is logically possible.
S2: It is logically possible for God to take on a human nature.
S3: Therefore, God can take on a human nature. (From S1 and S2)}

P11: Therefore, God can gain a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature by freely and perfectly surrendering the human nature by His own choices.

[The Tanager]

5. On the Trinity:

You didn't respond to my response about how one being and three persons don't contradict. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, then please respond to my thoughts and show why you disagree.

The same goes with the definition of 'being' including things like a rock and how that affects the discussion.

I did not say (or at least never meant to say or imply) that right now both Jesus has the ability to surrender and God doesn't. I said God cannot surrender until taking on a nature that does surrender. Jesus is God gaining the ability to surrender. That's not one being having contradictory traits.

Is there anyone above Jesus?[/quote]

What do you mean by 'above'?

[Justin108]

Again, this is not what I am arguing. I am not arguing that we can just choose to believe anything whatsoever, believing against what comes out of our careful consideration of the evidence.

You seem to be confusing "belief" with "consideration". I can choose what to consider but I cannot choose what to believe. If you said "consider for a moment whether or not God made the universe", I would be able to stop and consider it... but after considering it, whether I believe it or not is beyond choice. It is outside of my control.

So to clarify, the following are within my control. The following are choices
- method of investigation
- consideration
- contemplation

But belief itself is not a choice. If it were, I should be able to choose to believe in fairies. This is true for literally every other choice we make, so why is belief the exception? If you cannot choose B over A then you cannot call it a choice. I cannot choose "belief in fairies" over "disbelief in fairies" and I cannot choose "belief in God" over "disbelief in God". Therefore it is not a choice. Consideration is a choice. Contemplation is a choice. Belief is not a choice

I am saying that if there is uncertainty in alternative positions, then we make a choice.

No then we make a consideration. This consideration naturally leads us to what we intrinsically believe is most likely to be true. At least this is how I work. I cannot be 100% sure that God does not exist. I consider the likelihood of God's existence. This consideration leads me to the intrinsic conclusion that, to me, it makes more sense for God to not exist.

Now if you do not have this same automatic intrinsic process as I do then we are either
a) clearly different (people can be different)
or
b) I am lying

So either some of us are literally incapable of choosing our beliefs (like myself), or I am a liar for saying that I am literally incapable of choosing my belief. Which would you say is the case? Am I incapable of choosing my belief? Or am I a liar?

So, I can believe that fairies exist...if you provide evidence (or I see it on my own)

Then it is not a choice. Literally any choice can be made without any requirements. I can choose to eat glass, drink poison, punch a cat, whatever... in none of these examples do I have to have a certain criteria to be met in order for me to possibly choose these actions. They are all possible choices without the need for anything. The fact that you need evidence in order to believe in fairies means belief in fairies is not a choice.

... that makes their existence a viable alternative for me to consider.

That's because consideration is a choice, not belief.

The existence of fairies isn't a live option.

What does that mean? Define "live option"

We have no control over [any of] our beliefs. I'm saying we do have some control over some of our beliefs.

Consideration is a choice. Contemplation is a choice. Seeking evidence is a choice. These things can influence our beliefs, but belief itself is not a choice.

- I have considered whether or not God exists. I made that choice. This consideration lead me to believe that God does not exist
- I have contemplated God's existence. I made that choice. This contemplation lead me to believe that God does not exist
- I have looked for evidence of God's existence. I made that choice. I couldn't find any

My conclusion was that I do not believe in God. This conclusion was not a choice. The consideration, contemplation and evidence seeking were choices, but belief was not. So if I truly have control over my belief, what choices would I have to make to believe in God?

Gullibility in isolation supports both possibilities, but once incentive is introduced, it stops making sense.

For example, if belief was a choice, surely we would always choose the belief that benefits us most, right? That is after all how we make most of our choices. They either benefit us immediately or in the long run. If this were so, why would atheists even exist? Why would any atheist choose to not believe in a perfect God promising a perfect heaven? What incentive is there in this choice?

Are you saying you see theism as being more beneficial to you than atheism? How so?

If theism were true, it would be more beneficial for me than if theism were untrue. If a perfectly moral, all-powerful God existed that offered eternal life and happiness to the good and just while punishing evil, I would sleep much better at night. Atheism promises none of this. So if belief was a choice, why on earth would I choose atheism?

No, they don't have to be. But they can be. In literally every other example of choice, it is possible to make a blind choice. It is possible for me to choose to drink poison, to saw off my own finger, to chew broken glass...all of these are possible choices. You wouldn't make these choices but you can. This is different for belief. I cannot choose to believe in fairies. It's not a matter of it being a bad idea (like eating glass), it's a matter of me being literally unable to make this choice. So why is belief so unique? Why is belief the only choice where a blind choice is literally impossible? Why can I choose to eat broken glass but I cannot choose to believe in fairies?

I'm not sure belief is unique in this way. But if it was, I don't see how that would prove anything.

If you cannot choose to believe in fairies, then by definition it is not a choice. So yes, it does prove something. In order for something to be a choice, you would logically and by definition need to have the ability to make a choice. That ability is absent in regards to choosing to believe in fairies. You can choose to consider fairies, to contemplate fairies and to seek evidence for fairies but you cannot choose to believe in fairies. Ergo, it is by definition not a choice

Things can be unique.

An unchoosable choice is more than just "unique". It is logically self-defeating. It is definition-breaking. It's the same thing as a married bachelor or a square triangle. If you cannot choose, then you have no choice. How are we even arguing about this?

I also think some people hold beliefs blindly. Why do you think blind choice is literally impossible for all beliefs? Some people believe in God without any thought whatsoever to the evidences for or against. I was only saying that not all beliefs are blind choice.

A blind belief is simply a belief without contemplation or consideration. That person still did not choose to believe in God, they simply chose to not consider the alternatives. If they dared to consider the alternatives and contemplate God's existence, they might accidentally end up not believing anymore.

I know what my presence feels like. If something doesn't feel like that, then by definition it must feel like 'not-my presence.'

Are you sure you know what your presence feels like? Could it be that up until that point, you merely experienced certain aspects of your own presence? And after your religious experience, you simply started to experience other aspects of your own presence? People often feel like they are being watched when they aren't. People often thing they see things in the corner of their eye that isn't there. People often interpret sleep-paralysis as alien abduction. People attribute epileptic fits as demonic possessions. People misattribute various sensations all the time.

It is actually like saying "this doesn't taste like chicken because I've tasted chicken and this is not what chicken tastes like."

Not all chicken tastes the same. If you eat chicken that does not taste quite the same as the chicken you had the other day, it doesn't mean it isn't chicken. Similarly, just because what you experienced feels different from what you've experienced in the past doesn't necessarily mean that it's suddenly a supernatural experience.

[Justin108]

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Do I think the average person has enough reason to believe in God's existence?

Yes this is what I'm asking

My experience includes a 2000 year old book... and that's it. There is nothing else that suggests the Christian God exists. So either a 2000 year old book is enough to reasonably believe in God's existence, or God does not care to convince me to believe in him.

The extent of your engagement with evidence for God's existence has only been talk about the Bible? Really? No engagement with the thousands of years of philosophical discussion? No cosmological argument for God's existence? No moral argument for God's existence? Teleological? Ontological?

Note I specifically mentioned the Christian God. While the philosophical arguments (cosmological, moral, teleological, ontological) can support the existence of a God, it is not enough to conclude the Christian God specifically. I actually have a fair amount of respect for Deism. I would say I am rather close to being a deist myself. But Christianity, I am almost certain is utter nonsense. The only "evidence" for the Christian God is the Bible.

A historical discussion on the Resurrection?

There is no historic evidence for the resurrection (outside of the Bible)

Whatever "enough" is changes from person to person. As I've said, some people are just more gullible than others. For me, however, the evidence God has provided thus far is not nearly enough (for me). If God truly wanted me to believe, he would appear to me

If your belief that we have no control over our beliefs is right, then this last sentence would seem to follow.

I have no control over my belief. You can either accept that you and I are different in this regard, or you can dismiss me as a liar.

I never said God appearing to me is the only example of radical evidence. Let me get into each...

But you just said "If God truly wanted me to believe, he would appear to me."

Yes because that is the most obvious example that I can think of. But let me rephrase: if God truly wanted me to believe, he would know exactly how to convince me.

I'm talking about the general idea. Do you think evidence has to be 100% pointing to God's existence? Or do you think that 'best explanation' is enough in regards to believing in God? Theoretically, if the God hypothesis is the best explanation of the reality we know...if it makes better sense than an atheistic hypothesis...is this enough or do we need to be 100% certain?

This scenario is far too subjective. You can think the God hypothesis is the best explanation while others would strongly disagree. You can be 90% certain while others are 10% certain.

How can you physically see something immaterial?

Assuming the immaterial is an omnipotent entity, surely this entity can manifest itself in some sort of material way to show itself temporarily? Didn't Moses see God's backside at one point? Didn't Jesus appear to John in Revelations in some spectacular form?

A hallucination-type experience is always a logical possibility that would be in your direct vicinity. Or it could be an immaterial being that is not God.

Fair enough. But I would be far more likely to believe in God if he spoke to me than for him to be entirely silent. Could I rationalize it otherwise? Maybe. But it's far more likely that I would believe in him then than if he remained quiet entirely. I believe we've already been through this?

One you rationally think is of an immaterial being like my experience of conversion to belief in God. This goes back to whether the standard you are using is 100% or a plausible explanation. You have no reason to think you are having a hallucination or just hearing voices in your head. There aren't others around talking to you. That kind of experience that you feel almost certain was of another being, but there would be no way to prove that to anyone else.

How would I know this experience is almost certainly another being?

God would simply need to cut Satan's voice from my head. Block him. He should make it impossible for me to even hear Satan's voice if I did not want to. I was once a Christian so obviously I did not want to hear Satan's voice. It would therefore not violate my free will for God to block Satan's voice from my mind entirely

A free will is a constant thing, not a one time thing.

Then God can play operator. Satan can try to talk to me and just before he does, God can step in and say "oh by the way, that's Satan. Do you want to talk to him or do you want to hang up?"

Even if you gave God the okay, this seems to be God cutting off your free will.

The operator analogy fixes this. He literally asked me my free will decision on whether I want to talk to Satan or not. I gave him my free will answer. Problem solved.

I don't think it would be limited to Calvinists. I am not a Calvinist. I am not suggesting it is impossible for someone to accept God, even if he provided irrefutable proof for his existence.

You said "I think the point there was about wasting effort on something an omniscient God knew would not take place" implying that God knows when an atheist is a hopeless cause or not. If this isn't Calvinism then what is it?

2. Some would have an improper relationship with God. That is, the person may not recognize God as Good, reject moral transformation, lacking the right desire for God (instead just wanting gifts, experiences, to escape punishment), being jealous of God's power, considering himself an authority in the formation of the relationship.

The only way any of this would matter is if God revealing himself caused this person to have an improper relationship. I fail to see how this is a reason for God to not reveal himself.

To illustrate:
- Jack is an atheist
- He has heard of God but does not recognize him as good, etc.
- God reveals himself to Jack, and Jack continues to not recognize him as good, etc.

In Jack's instance, God's revelation did nothing. God can now opt to cast Jack out. God revealing himself to Jack did no harm, but what harm was there in God revealing himself to Jack?

- Bill is also an atheist
- He has heard of God and believes that God sounds like a good character. He would love to be in a relationship with this God, but unfortunately Bill simply does not believe God exists.
- God reveals himself to Bill. Bill then forms a strong relationship with God that would otherwise not have happened due to Bill's disbelief.

In Bill's instance, God's revelation did a lot. God now has a relationship with Bill. God revealing himself to Bill did no harm and did a lot of good. What harm was there in God revealing himself to Bill?

The first part here says the person may not recognize God as Good. God appears, but the skeptic is convinced that this God is evil. God's appearance doesn't change this view of the skeptic, so it would be better for God to take a different approach to try to get the person to come to the Truth about God. What are your thoughts there?

1. This only applies to immoral atheists (like Jack). What reason then is there for God to not reveal himself to moral atheists (like Bill)?
2. If God literally revealing himself to the atheist (like Jack) did not bring him to the "Truth about God", what other possible method would ever bring Jack to the truth about God?

[Justin108]

You didn't respond to my point about your possible confusion on Christianity teaching a "God who says do A (surrender to me relationally in every situation) and I will reward you with B (heaven).

I don't really have much to say about that. Even if this isn't a reward system, it still doesn't make sense for God to expect us to have a certain nature when he apparently designed us to have a completely different one

It's saying surrendering to God relationally in every situation is heaven.

So heaven isn't a place of eternal happiness?

You seem to be saying that to be reasonable, God should expect and allow for us to get heaven without surrendering to Him relationally in every situation.

I'm saying God should have made it easier for us to do this. As it stands, no one ever chooses this. Literally no one. This tells us that doing this is outside our nature. It is like a tiger eating carrots. If God wanted us to surrender to him, why did he not make our nature to desire it more? Why is our nature to desire self reliance over surrender?

Do you think Christianity says do A and God will give you B? Or are surrender and heaven the exact same thing? And why, if you disagree with me?

I'm saying it doesn't make a difference. The dilemma still stands. God expects us to do one thing (surrender) yet designed our nature to do another (self reliance)

If they were equally attractive initially, you would expect about a 50/50 distribution of people choosing 2a vs 2b, but since the distribution is 100/0 is a clear indication that 2b is not nearly as attractive as 2a to our nature.

If you only had to choose once you would expect something at least closer to 50/50, but we don't only have one choice between the two, we have countless ones.

This doesn't make a difference.

To illustrate
- Jack chooses 2a
- Jack likes 2a and so he chooses 2a again
- Jack keeps choosing 2a

- Bill chooses 2b
- Bill does not like 2b and so he starts choosing 2a instead
- Bill keeps choosing 2a from this point on

Why did both Jack and Bill like 2a but Bill did not like 2b? Why is 2a so much more attractive than 2b? Why is there not a single instance of someone repeatedly choosing 2b? My explanation is that 2a is more attractive to our nature. Can you provide a better explanation?

Second, choosing self-reliance isn't an addiction forced upon us by God. It was an addiction that came out of the choices we made.

Why is it that there is not a single instance of anyone getting addicted to 2b after repeatedly choosing 2b? Why is 2a so addictive but 2b isn't?

[Justin108]

Then what do we need Jesus for?

Because although we know what it means to surrender, we just don't do it. And we are so addicted to self-reliance that we can't do it anymore just like a drug addict that can't stop taking that next hit until they get help from the outside.

Why can't God be that help? Why did he need to become Jesus first? Let me just get this clear before we go back in circles again. And this point your argument is not that Jesus teaches us how to perfectly surrender. You said in post 106 that God already gave us that knowledge, so please don't go back to your "form the letter" example.

- Why can God not help us get over our addiction?
- Why do we need Jesus?

And if we don't desire or choose surrender, then how does Jesus help? Does Jesus make us desire surrender? Does he make us choose surrender? What exactly did Jesus do to change the situation?

Because Jesus chose surrender in every single situation.

Good for him. What does that have to do with us?

He knows what it is to be tempted to self-reliance, but choose surrender every time.

Did Jesus not rely on God? If Jesus is God (which he is apparently) then Jesus relying on God is self reliance. So apparently even Jesus failed this self-reliance dilemma.

Who did Jesus surrender himself to?

Jesus walks us through the decision, by our side and helps us actually choose surrender.

Why can't God do the same? Why is it logically impossible for God to do the same?

That's not what I said. I said God cannot surrender in His divine nature alone. In order to surrender God must take on a surrendering nature.

God can take on a surrendering nature without becoming human first.

And since God is wanting to do this to help humans regain the ability to freely surrender to Him, God must take on a human kind of surrendering nature.

Why does God need to have this ability before helping humans to surrender? This is like saying a psychiatrist first needs to become a drug addict before he can help other drug addicts (since we're using an addiction analogy). God has the knowledge to know what it takes to overcome this addiction. He has the knowledge of how to help them surrender. There is literally no reason an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot help these people overcome self-reliance.

Then there is no reason for this Being cannot take on a nature that can surrender without needing to become human first. God could have stayed God, taken on the nature of surrendering... and problem solved. No need for Jesus

But God wants to help humans surrender. We need a surrendered human nature to be shared with us.

And God can take on a surrendered human nature without needing to become human. Suppose I was a mad scientist that tried to make a rat with a human nature.

Not that he ever needs to take on this nature as I explained above. A psychiatrist does not need to become an addict to help an addict.

He didn't have to become a human to gain surrender, but why did He want to gain the ability to surrender? To help us.

He can help us without that ability. HE doesn't need to surrender. WE do.

He can help people surrender as humans without himself surrendering as a human.

No, God can't because we need a surrendered human nature to be shared with us. It does us no good to surrender like a rock does.

Please explain why it is logically impossible for God to help us surrender without him surrendering himself, especially considering that God is omnipotent?

Can you show a Divine being taking on a surrendering nature as logically impossible?

The definition of a divine being does not include the concept "cannot take on a surrendering nature" in it unless you are going to put it in there ad hoc. Therefore, it is logically possible unless you can show "cannot take on a surrendering nature" must be true of all divine beings or is necessitated by the other beliefs in my concept of God.

The burden here is on you. You are arguing it is ruled out. I'm arguing I see no reason to rule it out. What is your reason for ruling it out?

I am not the one saying this is logically impossible! You are! You are the one telling me it is logically impossible for God to take on a surrendering nature without becoming human first!

We need God to take on and perfect and impart to us a perfectly surrendering human nature.

Don't we already have this nature?

We did, but it has been damaged. We now have a (2b). We need a (2a).

God gave us this nature in the first place. Why can't he just fix it without needing to become Jesus first? How did God give us this nature in the first place? Why is it that he managed to give us this nature the first time around without needing to become Jesus, but in order to fix the now-broken nature, he needs to "become human and impart a perfectly "surrendering human nature"?

If not then I see no reason why he would first need to become human in order to give us this nature.

God needs to get a human (2a) to share with us.

No he doesn't. When God first made humans, he gave us our nature. He never had to become human in order to give us this nature the first time around. Why does he now need to "to get a human (2a) to share with us"? Why can't he just fix the broken nature?

We haven't given God one to use for others. So He does it Himself. He can't do that without first becoming a human.

The he is not omnipotent, unless you can demonstrate why it is logically impossible.

No. He also gave us the nature to surrender without becoming human. But we didn't choose surrender. We need a surrendered nature, but none of us has accomplished that. So, God became human to accomplish that for us.

God can give us an accomplished nature without needing to become human. Again... omnipotence.

And God couldn't accomplish that without becoming human, because non-humans cannot live a surrendered human life by definition.

God does not need to have a trait himself in order to give that trait to others. Please explain why it is logically necessary for God to have a trait himself in order to give that trait to others

P1: Humans need a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature. (Definition: A freely surrendered human nature is one that has the ability to surrender or choose self-reliance. A perfectly surrendered human nature is one that chooses to surrender in every situation.)
P2: No solely human being has/maintains a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature.
P3: Therefore, if a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature is going to be gained it must be something other than a solely human being. (from P1 and P2)

P3 pretty much demonstrates my earlier point that it is outside of our nature to perfectly surrender

P4: God is something other than a solely human being.
P5: Therefore, God is still available as an option for gaining a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature. (From P3 and P4)

God doesn't need to gain this nature. We do. God gaining this nature serves no necessary purpose.

{R1: A nature with free will (at the time of creation) means one has the ability to choose surrender or self-reliance.

No one ever chooses surrender, suggesting that it is outside our nature to choose surrender just as it is outside a tiger's nature to eat a carrot rather than meat.

{R1: A nature with free will (at the time of creation) means one has the ability to choose surrender or self-reliance.
R2: An perfectly surrendered nature (at time of creation) means one does not have the ability to choose self-reliance.
R3: Therefore, to create a nature with free will that is perfectly surrendered would mean that this nature both has the ability to choose self-reliance and does not have the ability to choose self-reliance. (From R1 and R2)

If we define free will as having the ability to choose, and we define perfectly surrendered as not having the ability to choose, then R3 does not merely conclude that it is impossible for such a nature to be created. R3's conclusion would be that it is impossible for such a nature to exist at all. This nature, going by how you define them in R1 abd R2 is impossible and cannot exist.

R5: Therefore, one cannot create a nature with free will that is perfectly surrendered. (From R3 and R4)}

Therefore, such a nature cannot exist. It's not enough to say it cannot be created. Going by your definitions in R1 and R2, such a nature cannot exist.

P7: If God cannot create a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature without negating free will, it must be gained by other means.

As explained, it is not merely that God cannot create such a nature. Such a nature cannot exist so there is logically no means for God to gain such a nature. Such a nature cannot exist.

P8: God must gain a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature by other means. (From P6 and P7).

I probably don't have to argue the rest of your argument since I've already demonstrated that such a nature cannot exist, regardless of God's method. So the rest of your argument falls flat. There is no means to achieve this nature because this nature cannot logically exist

[Justin108]

Is there anyone above Jesus?

What do you mean by 'above'?

In post 106, you said "it directly comes out of being the Creator and not having anyone above Him to surrender to". So no one is above the Creator, right? So who is above Jesus? Who did Jesus surrender to?

[The Tanager]

1. Do we have some control over our beliefs?

You seem to be confusing "belief" with "consideration". I can choose what to consider but I cannot choose what to believe. If you said "consider for a moment whether or not God made the universe", I would be able to stop and consider it... but after considering it, whether I believe it or not is beyond choice. It is outside of my control.

Not sure that I am. I think we can choose what to consider and to choose what we believe after that consideration if the consideration shows multiple uncertain possibilities.

But belief itself is not a choice. If it were, I should be able to choose to believe in fairies.

Here is an attempt at a reason that I already responded to, so you probably already responded to that and I'll see if my belief on the matter changes.

No then we make a consideration. This consideration naturally leads us to what we intrinsically believe is most likely to be true. At least this is how I work. I cannot be 100% sure that God does not exist. I consider the likelihood of God's existence. This consideration leads me to the intrinsic conclusion that, to me, it makes more sense for God to not exist.

Now if you do not have this same automatic intrinsic process as I do then we are either
a) clearly different (people can be different)
or
b) I am lying

So either some of us are literally incapable of choosing our beliefs (like myself), or I am a liar for saying that I am literally incapable of choosing my belief. Which would you say is the case? Am I incapable of choosing my belief? Or am I a liar?

False dilemma. You could also be honestly thinking you are incapable of choosing your belief, but just be wrong. We already talked earlier about how someone just saying something is the case isn't a rational reason to come to that conclusion ourselves. Do you have an argument that shows this consideration leads you to an intrinsic conclusion for me to rationally consider? If not, then it is an unsupported claim.

Then it is not a choice. Literally any choice can be made without any requirements. I can choose to eat glass, drink poison, punch a cat, whatever... in none of these examples do I have to have a certain criteria to be met in order for me to possibly choose these actions. They are all possible choices without the need for anything. The fact that you need evidence in order to believe in fairies means belief in fairies is not a choice.

We obviously disagree on what choice means. Merriam-Webster defines choice as 'the act of choosing' and defines choosing as 'to make a selection'. There is nothing in there about one only making a selection without evidence or just with evidence. I think one can make a selection both with and without evidence. The definition I just gave, however, leaves that question open rather than just begging the question. Your definition of choice begs the question...unless you can share a rational reason why I should be agreeing with your definition where choices can only be made in the absence of evidence?

What does that mean? Define "live option"

I'm using it to mean plausible options. A square circle is an option, but it's a dead option because such a thing is logically impossible. 490 BC is a live option for the Buddha's historical birth, but 1315 AD is a dead option.

If theism were true, it would be more beneficial for me than if theism were untrue. If a perfectly moral, all-powerful God existed that offered eternal life and happiness to the good and just while punishing evil, I would sleep much better at night. Atheism promises none of this. So if belief was a choice, why on earth would I choose atheism?

What if you did unjust and evil things? That person would not sleep better at night and might want to choose atheism. A feeling of rationality, whether well-informed or not, could be a reason. A belief that an immoral act was better than the moral acts could theoretically be a reason to be an atheist. I'm sure there are others.

If you cannot choose to believe in fairies, then by definition it is not a choice. So yes, it does prove something. In order for something to be a choice, you would logically and by definition need to have the ability to make a choice. That ability is absent in regards to choosing to believe in fairies. You can choose to consider fairies, to contemplate fairies and to seek evidence for fairies but you cannot choose to believe in fairies. Ergo, it is by definition not a choice.

Belief in fairies isn't a choice. This doesn't mean all beliefs are not a choice. Fairies are a dead option, not a live option. I'm saying we choose beliefs when there are multiple live options, multiple plausible options. That isn't the case with fairies. It is the case with God.

An unchoosable choice is more than just "unique". It is logically self-defeating. It is definition-breaking. It's the same thing as a married bachelor or a square triangle. If you cannot choose, then you have no choice. How are we even arguing about this?

I am not arguing that. You think I am because you are taking belief in fairies to speak for ALL beliefs. It doesn't.

Are you sure you know what your presence feels like? Could it be that up until that point, you merely experienced certain aspects of your own presence? And after your religious experience, you simply started to experience other aspects of your own presence? People often feel like they are being watched when they aren't. People often thing they see things in the corner of their eye that isn't there. People often interpret sleep-paralysis as alien abduction. People attribute epileptic fits as demonic possessions. People misattribute various sensations all the time.

Yes, I could be wrong about it. I've already said that. So I have various live options and, therefore, I can choose what I'm going to believe.