Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[Justin108]

Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 50 by Willum]

Willum has me dead on.

But I'm going to quote FtK here.

Freely choosing not to believe based on what I perceive as a lack of sufficient evidence.

Other than 'freely choosing', this describes me towards Christianity.

LOL. Lets see...allow me to quote myself for a minute..you know, my actual stated reasons for forfeiting.

As I stated, you have your own reasons for why you forfeited, but it doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of readers of this site i.e. people who are not you, me or wiploc, a user by the name of For_The_Kingdom debated in formal debates the topic of the Modal Ontological Argument and forfeited twice.

vs Wiploc:

I'm not going to comment on this, wiploc can talk about it.

vs rikuoamero:

This I will though, since after all, it's about me.

"I gave my opponent what I thought was a very informed reason as to why used "sprinkles" of the KCA in this debate.

And I told you MY reason for why I didn't want to debate Kalam. Because it wasn't the topic of debate. For me to allow you to use 'sprinkles' as you use the term would have required me to give it a blanket acceptance, to not challenge it, which of course I am loath to do. Unless in a debate that was supposedly about the MOA, you were prepared to shift topics ENTIRELY to then debate Kalam.

Instead of addressing my justification, he is simply giving a plain statement of "I am not going to discuss the Kalam", which is blatantly ignoring my reasons by not even explaining why.

Is "this is not the agreed upon topic of debate" NOT a good enough reason to not want to debate Kalam, even in 'sprinkles'?
I came into our debate having studied up on the MOA. I had NOT studied for a debate about Kalam. So expecting me to either accept Kalam as a fait accompli or debate it would have been grossly unfair to myself.

but my opponent still hasn't adequately address any of the premises of the argument which I laid out.

I will remind you, and tell readers who are reading this post and who may not have read the head to head we had...that I DID. My entire half of the debate was ABOUT your premises. Remember how many times I dissected and examined what Premise 1 of the MOA says and actually means?
Is that how it is in your mind, FtK? I somehow never actually talked about the MOA? Despite multiple posts of doing just that?

So, I asked you why did I forfeit and you did not provide an accurate answer

When did you ever ask that question?

And readers are more than welcome to go back and look at the debate, which is still on the record.

Yes they are, and they will notice that unlike what you have said and quoted yourself as saying that I DID respond to your premises. Why you make the accusation that I didn't, and even invite people to read the debate, I don't know.

You defeated me? LOL. Funny stuff.

You can say that if you want, even believe it of yourself, but the record stands clear. You accepted to debate the MOA, twice, with two different people, and on BOTH occasions, you used similar arguments and on BOTH occasions, you forfeited.
I'd be highly amazed if a neutral, third party person reading the debates came away from that thinking that you had won.

You feel the way you feel, apparently.

So were you going to debate Kalam, in a debate about the MOA, or were your debate opponents supposed to just accept Kalam as being valid and sound for the sake of argument?

*Sigh* In formal debates, do they have things called "opening arguments", or "opening evidences"?

Arguments. And in the arguments, they talk about the evidence (or lack thereof of their opponents).
A lawyer doesn't say "Here's a bloody knife and here's some footage on CCTV". No, he expands on that, explains what the bloody knife and the footage mean, to convince the judge/jury that the defendant handled the bloody knife and is the person on footage seen stabbing the victim.

Yeah, proof based on the things that have been created...things that any rational human being should be able to conclude intelligent design. That was the whole point of Romans and my point as well.

And of course, there is no chance at all that Paul could have been wrong, or mistaken, or deluded, or simply thought something to be true when it in fact is not the case?

[otseng]

Moderator Comment

Please cease arguing about who "won" a debate. It adds no value to the thread and it's completely off-topic.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Kenisaw]

Does God want everyone to believe in him?

This seems to be a silly question. Anyone who knows a lick about the Bible/Christianity knows that God wants everyone to believe in him.

Seriously. SMH.

I'd agree actually. The god creature of the Bible wants everyone to believe so bad that it even uses coercion via the threat of hell to get people to believe.

From post 28:

Actually, the real shame here is that you think that God can make someone freely believe in him.

Hence the coercion

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'd agree actually. The god creature of the Bible wants everyone to believe so bad that it even uses coercion via the threat of hell to get people to believe.

It ain't a threat, its a promise.

From post 28:

Actually, the real shame here is that you think that God can make someone freely believe in him.

Hence the coercion

If God doesn't exist, there can't be a threat and/or coercion now, could it?

[Justin108]

I'd agree actually. The god creature of the Bible wants everyone to believe so bad that it even uses coercion via the threat of hell to get people to believe.

It ain't a threat, its a promise.

You realize something can be a threat and a promise at the same time, right? If I promise to shoot you in the face, I'm still making a threat. It's still a threat.

If God doesn't exist, there can't be a threat and/or coercion now, could it?

And if God does exist, then he's threatening us with hell... So by your own logic, the only way for God to avoid accountability for making threats is if he doesn't exist. You played yourself. Good job.

Either
1. God exists (and makes threats)
2. Or he does not exist

Which is it? 1 or 2?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ok since I highly doubt you'll grasp the flaws in all your assumptions

Try me.

, let's skip ahead. Suppose the universe did have a creator. How do you know the God of the Bible is that creator? How do you know it wasn't, say, the God of Deism?

Based on the evidence for the Resurrection, I know which God. If the God of X religion is true, then the evidence for Christianity would be false. But since the evidence for Christianity is true (in my opinion), that would make the gods of X religions false.

We shouldn't be arguing over whether a god exist, rather, which god exists.

What evidence?

Kalam cosmological argument
Argument from Design
Ontological argument
Argument from consciousness
Argument from language
Moral argument

All of these, assuming they are valid, simply point you to a generic creator, not necessarily the God of the Bible. [/quote]

That is why I threw in the Argument from the Resurrection of Jesus Christ...which gets you past the generic stuff and places you right in the specific stuff.

Can you elaborate? What is the Argument from Resurrection of Jesus Christ exactly?

The argument seeks to prove that the Resurrection of Jesus is historically more probable than not.

That doesn't change the fact that Paul received a hell of a lot more evidence than we did. The fact that we all received evidence (in your mind) does not change the fact that Paul received more evidence, even though he didn't deserve it.

God determines what someone deserves, not man. Let God be the truth and all man liars.

If your mom gave you and all your brothers and sisters a cookie, but gave your brother Billy a whole bag of cookies, wouldn't this be unfair? Sure everyone got a cookie, but Billy got so much more.

If I asked mom "Why does Billy get a whole bag and we only get one?", Im sure mom would have a good explanation.

Okay... and why can't I get this same direct, dramatic approach?

I don't know...I don't know how you will respond to X or Y evidences...God does. And besides, the Bible states that all man should be convinced based on the evidence that they DO receive..Paul was already half-way there...he believed in God, just not Christ..you, on the other hand, can't even get half-way there. Get half-way there first, and then we can talk about Christ.

What makes you think I don't want that reward?

If you want it, you will take it. You haven't taken it, therefore, you don't want it.

Yet God rewards a man who hunted down Christians with a divine appearance, while others like myself who never did anything as bad as what Paul did get no such reward. How is that justice?

"You have seen, therefore, you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen, and STILL believe" (John 20:29).

Be blessed.

[Kenisaw]

I'd agree actually. The god creature of the Bible wants everyone to believe so bad that it even uses coercion via the threat of hell to get people to believe.

It ain't a threat, its a promise.

Which all falls under the heading: coercion.

From post 28:

Actually, the real shame here is that you think that God can make someone freely believe in him.

Hence the coercion

If God doesn't exist, there can't be a threat and/or coercion now, could it?

Not from the god. The people that actually still believe in it anyway could still use the tale as coercion. A god doesn't need to exist for a threat in that god's name to be issued...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 56 by For_The_Kingdom]

The argument seeks to prove that the Resurrection of Jesus is historically more probable than not.

I'm not familiar with the Resurrection argument. How does one go about showing this?

[ttruscott]

Ok can you perhaps try to actually form a rational argument and not just base your argument on a quote from the Bible?

Will you form a rational argument from the Bible without reference to secular material scientism or do you demand control over the playing field condemning spirit based ideas as prima facie irrational?

[Justin108]

, let's skip ahead. Suppose the universe did have a creator. How do you know the God of the Bible is that creator? How do you know it wasn't, say, the God of Deism?

Based on the evidence for the Resurrection

What evidence for the Resurrection?

Can you elaborate? What is the Argument from Resurrection of Jesus Christ exactly?

The argument seeks to prove that the Resurrection of Jesus is historically more probable than not.

Okay... I didn't ask you what the argument seeks to prove, I asked you what t he argument is. In other words, how do you know the Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable? What evidence is there? And is it enough to conclude that someone actually came back from the dead? I sincerely hope you have more to offer than hearsay and an empty tomb.

That doesn't change the fact that Paul received a hell of a lot more evidence than we did. The fact that we all received evidence (in your mind) does not change the fact that Paul received more evidence, even though he didn't deserve it.

God determines what someone deserves, not man. Let God be the truth and all man liars.

Even though you cannot in any way explain why Paul, a man who actively hunted down and persecuted Christians, could possibly deserve this kind of miracle from God? We're just expected to believe based on the presupposition that God is just?

and all man liars.

Paul was a man... was he lying about his experience on the road to Damascus?

If your mom gave you and all your brothers and sisters a cookie, but gave your brother Billy a whole bag of cookies, wouldn't this be unfair? Sure everyone got a cookie, but Billy got so much more.

If I asked mom "Why does Billy get a whole bag and we only get one?", Im sure mom would have a good explanation.

You'll have to do better than "I'm sure God has his reasons". Let me ask you this... do you believe the god of Islam is a just, fair and righteous god?

And besides, the Bible states that all man should be convinced based on the evidence that they DO receive..Paul was already half-way there...he believed in God, just not Christ..you, on the other hand, can't even get half-way there. Get half-way there first, and then we can talk about Christ.

I was all the way there for 19 years of my life and God never gave me a road to Damascus experience. So there goes that excuse.

What makes you think I don't want that reward?

If you want it, you will take it. You haven't taken it, therefore, you don't want it.

Suppose I told you there was a suitcase with a billion dollars buried under a tree in France. Would you take my word for it, buy a ticket to France, go to the tree and dig a hole? Probably not. But would your refusal to do so mean you don't want a billion dollars? Or would it simply mean that you don't believe my claim that such a suitcase exists?