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?

[Justin108]

Christianity seems to me to be saying that Jesus is surrenders His human nature and that human beings are also surrendering their nature.

Wait so it's not about surrendering to God anymore... it's about surrendering to our own nature? What is our own nature? Be precise. What nature are we surrendering to exactly?

[The Tanager]

1. Does the Christian God reject people for beliefs they don't have control over?

If I made the claim that I can't fly, how would I go about proving my claim?

So just because you say "I can't..." that should be accepted as true by a rational person? I can't make a choice without having control over some aspect of it. I don't have to back that view up now?

Can humans fly? There are three positions to take on this: yes, no, unknown. If you are going to make an argument that rests on the truth of one of these positions, you need to back up why you take that position. The equivalent of "prove me otherwise" doesn't rationally cut it, because you have taken the burden upon yourself by offering this as a true premise in your argument.

Do we have some control over our beliefs? There are three positions to take on this: yes, no, unknown. If you are going to make an argument that rests on the truth of one of these positions, you need to back up why you take that position. The equivalent of "prove otherwise" doesn't rationally cut it, because you have taken the burden upon yourself by offering this as a true premise in your argument.

That is why I introduced the option of "I am lying" back in post 125. If you do not believe my claim that I am unable to choose my beliefs, then you are welcome to believe that I am lying.

And as I introduced in response to that, I am also welcome to believe that you are honestly wrong.

If you insist that I can but simply do not know how, then I request again for you to explain to me how to choose a belief. I don't know how. Please tell me how.

You look at various options (you can exclude illogical ones if you want, but you don't have to), consider the plusses and minuses and when you are left with multiple plausible alternatives, pick one of the options to believe in for whatever reason you want to.

How do you think science figured out that heartbeats are automatic? Scientists have observed that they have no control over their own heartbeat. They have accepted testimony from others who claim they have no control over their heartbeat. How is this different from my own testimony that I have no control over my own beliefs?

No, scientists would have looked at the mechanisms. They would have seen if a heart could beat in someone who is not conscious. They would have observed that people cannot start and stop their heartbeat by fiat. They would not rely on personal testimony, although personal testimony could be a starting point.

But there is also a possible difference between whether we have control over our heartbeat and over our beliefs, so we have to look at each individually. Beliefs can't be observed on the unconscious, while heart beats can, for example.

Just to clarify my earlier position. When I said personal experience cannot be used as evidence, I meant that personal experience cannot be used as evidence for other people. If I saw an alien, seeing the alien is evidence (to me) that aliens exist. But I cannot use my experience of seeing aliens to prove to other people that aliens exist.

That is a good clarification. I completely agree with it.

That being said, the evidence that tipped the scale to "I have no control over my beliefs" is my personal experience of being unable to control my beliefs.

I think it would be clearer to say "...is my personal experience of feeling like being unable to control my beliefs. Just like my personal experience of God feels like another Presence there with me, but I could be wrong about that. There may not be another Presence with me and you may actually be able to control (or even actually controlling) your beliefs. Do you agree?

If so, then I think we are also agreed that your personal experience of feeling that you have no control over your beliefs should not have a role in our analysis of this argument of yours that the Christian God either (1) rejects people for beliefs they don't have or (2) is not a loving God. Do I have that right?

The other piece of evidence is my request for you to choose to believe in fairies. You could not do this. You constantly give me excuses for why you cannot. The fact that you cannot is a clear indication that belief is not a choice.

So, now we are left only with this evidence for your argument. I have not given excuses for why I cannot. I have given my reasoning. I'll try to be clearer on that below.

It doesn't matter how I define evidence. If belief is a choice, we would not need anything to make that choice. I don't need anything to choose to drink poison, or to choose to eat dirt. If we absolutely need something in order to believe, then belief is not a choice. I'll repeat the crux of my entire argument here:
if you cannot choose, it is not a choice.

That is not the crux of your argument, it's a tautology. I never critiqued that.

So I'll ask again. Can you choose to believe in fairies? I am not asking if you believe in fairies, I am asking if you can.

Going by what you just said, your answer is either
1) Yes, I can choose to believe in fairies, but I choose to search for evidence
2) No, I cannot choose to believe in fairies, but I choose to search for evidence

You tell me you choose to go by evidence. I am asking if it is possible for you to choose otherwise? Is it possible for you to choose to believe in fairies without evidence?

You feel like I'm dancing around the question, but I'm actually not. I can't give you a straightforward answer because I think you wording overlooks the nuances that exist here. I'll try to demonstrate what I'm talking about here.

The reasons given to believe in the existence of fairies do not include philosophicalor historical arguments even purporting to be rational, at least that I am aware of. It's not just that I think they are weak...they aren't even being offered as those types of arguments. It's fideism or, at best, relying solely on someone's testimony with no corraborating reasons to do that.

Now, for someone (like myself) who does not think these are good reasons (or 'evidence') for holding a belief, there is no choice to be made in this specific kind of belief. We 'can't' believe. We can't choose to believe in fairies without evidence.

But not every belief is like this. Sticking with fairies, (believing they aren't real) there is still the issue of what the origin of fairy stories is. It could be that people mistakenly thought they really existed, by seeing some unknown creature or having a hallucination or just trusting the people that made these stories up or it came from their own imagination. Is there only one viable option here? No. At least not that I can see. It's not like the one above where alternatives are based solely on fideism. In that uncertainty, one can choose what to believe for whatever viable reason they want.

Now, which of these two examples is the existence of God most like? You might want to say the first, but if we do, we are misunderstanding what was just talked about. We weren't talking about what category these beliefs are about (existences of things vs. sources of origin). We were talking about the reasons these beliefs are held. In the former belief (in the existence of fairies) is confined to fideism/appeal to authority. In the latter belief (in the source of origin for fairy stories) is not confined to fideism or appeal to authority.

The belief in theism is not confined to fideism or appeal to authority, so it is more like the latter kind of belief than the former. You may think the philosophical/historical arguments are weak, but most of them are not fideistic or appeals to authority. At least the ones I would engage in.

So, I think this support of your argument fails and, we said above, that was the only support left. That means your argument is rationally unsupported and, therefore, fails.

My link was not meant to be evidence. My link was a refutation of your claim that "people that tell us information about fairies don't even believe they existed" (post 140). If you follow this link, you will find people who believe that fairies exist.

That is not what you said. You said:

Have you ever wondered if fairies are real? I'm here to tell you, my friend, that indeed they are.
https://exemplore.com/magic/How-to-Find-Real-Fairies

If you think fairies are absurd, then you have simply ignored the philosophical arguments I have just provided.

You didn't say "I'm here to tell you, my friend, that indeed people believe fairies exist in reality. You said "I'm here to tell you, my friend, that indeed they are [real]." You didn't say "if you think it is absurd that there aren't people who believe fairies...then look at this philosophical argument." You said "if you think fairies are absurd" then I've ignored philosophical arguments that you just provided through the link. No biggie, if you need to clarify what you meant or use a different term now. I don't think I should jump to saying you are shifting the goalposts.

I agree there are some people out there who believe. I overstated that, thinking of the scholars in the related fields. But there is a clear difference between philosophical argumentation concerning God's existence (you even said you are open to Deism when we generally talked about those kinds of arguments and you've never said you are open to fairies existing) and a few people who claim there are fairies.

But if there is a philosophical argument in that link, you should summarize/explain it to me, because this may show that the gap is not as big as I thought it to be. What's the philosophical argument for fairies existing that puts it on par with philosophical arguments for God's existence?

I asked for reasons why a moral atheist would choose atheism. You said "because they get a feeling of rationality". But we can get a feeling of rationality from theism as well... so if we can get a feeling of rationality from both theism and atheism, why would someone choose atheism?

Because that specific person personally gets a feeling of rationality from atheism and not theism.

You said "fairies don't have thousands of years of debate on their existence" (post 140). "Thousands of years of debate" is quantity.

It is also quality. You don't have thousands of years of substantial debate if there is no quality to it.

Care to support that claim?

So, to clarify your view on that claim I just made, your honest belief is that the level of philosophical debate over God's existence is equal to the level of philosophical debate over the existence of fairies?

What quality evidence does the Christian God have that fairies don't?

Cosmological argument, ontological, historical, moral, etc. Fairies don't even have people offering those kinds of arguments to believe in them.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

It would seem that analyzing the Christian arguments for God is necessary for this subsection of the debate. If you are to support your claim that the average person has enough reason to believe in the Christian God, then I see no way around it but for you to provide said reasons. Either that, or we abandon the entire "Radical evidence for radical claims" subsection of the debate.

This subsection came about because I wondered what you meant by skepticism and what would constitute radical evidence to you. I've heard that vague phrase a lot in these kinds of debates, but it hardly ever gets specified. I love you for clarifying what you mean by it.

If you can justify that it is the best explanation, then yes...

So, am I right that you are saying you don't think God has to necessarily appear to you in order for you to have enough reason to believe in God's existence? God being the best explanation of the evidence is enough reason to believe?

If so, then that answers my question that spawned this subset. I'd love to respond to other points you made in this section, but I need to keep narrowing the discussion down, just for time's sake. If I skipped something you felt really important, ask me again and I'll respond to it. If you are agreed with what I have said here, next time I'll move into presenting what I think is evidence for the Christian God.

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

a) The sun sets in the west in rises in the east. It is the nature of the earth's rotation that the sun sets in the west and rises in the east. We know this because this happens every single day.
b) Water boils at 100°C. That is the nature of water. We know this because every single instance of water reaching 100°C, the water starts to boil
c) All people die. It is the nature of people to die one day. We know this because every single person who has ever lived has died.
d) It is in man's nature to prefer self-reliance over surrender. We know this because every single person who has ever lived has chosen self-reliance over surrender.

Why do you believe a), b) and c), but you do not believe d)?

Because those things are clearly mechanistic processes. They do not (possibly) involve free will. If you show that free will does not exist (or at least, that this is the best explanation of reality), then I would believe (d). This is the crux of this subsection of our discussion, as I see it, so I'll focus here and you can bring something back if you think it too important to be left untackled.

Yes, I say that that all humans choosing self-reliance proves this. This is how empiricism works. If you disagree with my reasoning then you disagree with empiricism. If you disagree with empiricism then you disagree with science. While there are philosophical arguments for disagreeing with empiricism, you would need to adopt radical skepticism to make these arguments. Are you seriously so hell-bent on arguing with me that you would rather apply radical skepticism?

I don't disagree with the value of empiricism. Your empirical observations are not taking account of free will. Is there a rational reason we should not take account of free will here? If so, please share the argument. Otherwise you are just assuming free will should not be taken account of and begging the question.

[The Tanager]

4. An Analysis of One Analogy of the Christian Solution

Shifting the goalpost. Initially you just said they surrendered to God, now suddenly they surrender their natures to the Divine nature?

In post 106, you said "it directly comes out of being the Creator and not having anyone above Him to surrender to." In post 106, you were clearly talking about surrendering to an entity, yet here you are talking about surrendering to a nature.

There is a difference between honing one's argument and changing it. You have had to clarify your position and hone your terminology several times, but I haven't cried about you shifting the goalpost. I didn't write a philosophical treatise. I'm not trying to win a professional debate, but discuss an issue with you. That will usually involve honing one's language, as you have also done. The rational person will then try to analyze the honed argument, as I have done with you.

Yes, I originally talked about it in the context of one being/entity surrendering to another being/entity. But, as we've explored things, we see that beings could logically have different numbers of natures. You haven't proved that to be logically impossible. So, we need to adjust what we were originally talking about.

For humans it is the same thing to say we surrender our being to God and to say we surrender our nature to God because we are one being with one nature. But it wouldn't be the same for a being with more than one nature. That's not shifting the argument, but making the terminology more exact to be able to cover both situations. That's being rational.

How do you know it isn't a logical contradiction if you cannot grasp it? That's like saying "just because we cannot grasp a triangle with 4 sides, doesn't mean it's a logical contradiction".

No, I said we can't fully grasp it. That's different than saying we can't grasp it (which implies at all). A triangle with four sides is illogical by definition. A person with more than one nature is not illogical by definition unless you define it to avoid that possibility, which would be ad hoc and therefore irrational.

P1: Jesus = God
P2: One can only surrender to a being greater than oneself (x > y)
P3: If Jesus surrendered, he must have a greater being than himself
P4: There is no greater being than God
C1: Jesus has no one to surrender to

For Jesus to be able to surrender to God, God must be greater than Jesus (God > Jesus). Yet P1 tells us that that Jesus = God. So how can God be greater than AND equal to God at the same time?

x = y
x > y

This is logically impossible

Taking into account what I said above, so as to avoid arguing against a strawman, can you reformulate this argument or make a new one for us to analyze?

I have yet to see why it is logically necessary for God to become human in order to help us perfectly surrender. You are essentially telling me that an omnipotent being needs to become human in order to gain an ability. How can an omnipotent being gain an ability? That in itself is logically impossible.

An omnipotent being would never need to gain an ability. If it needed to, it would by definition not be omnipotent.

Omnipotence doesn't mean having every ability. It means being all-powerful. You don't have to have a body that can urinate (that is an ability) in order to be omnipotent. So, no, it's not logically impossible for an omnipotent being to gain an ability.

Surrender, by definition, is not in the Divine nature by virtue of being the Creator. So, a divine being would logically have to gain that ability in order to have it.

I've tried multiple ways to help you see the logic of why God must become human to impart in us a human nature that freely surrenders. I'm not sure why you aren't getting it. I'm sure I could do a better job of explanation. I could be wrong, but you haven't helped me to see that.

We need a human nature that freely surrenders perfectly. To give that to us God needs a human nature that freely surrenders perfectly. We haven't given God one to work with. So it's up to God. Either God can (1) create one that is prescriptively perfect or (2) create one that can become descriptively perfect. But a prescriptively perfect nature negates free will, so we can't choose (1). To guarantee that we get a human nature that will become descriptively perfect, option (2), God must become human.

That depends.

a) Are you trying to perform it yourself?
b) Or are you trying to get someone else to perform it?

God is trying to get us to perfectly surrender, correct? (b). Someone can get someone else to perform something without doing the same thing themselves. I can help my daughter swim by holding her up without me swimming.

I agree. But remember that is not the whole picture. God did what you say here by giving us the Law (in our very natures). We have not performed the action we need to. Is there another way to accomplish (b)? Yes. Using your analogy it would be like you going inside your daughter's mind and body and helping her actually have the desire to make the strokes needed and actually making the choices needed to move the body in the strokes. You can't do that, of course.
That is why I used the analogy of forming a letter. You can get someone else to write a letter without actually forming the letter with your hand. But for those who do not actually form the letter by being taught in this way, you have another method available. You form the letter with them, which does require you to actually form the letter as well.

That's my whole point! The psychiatrist can help patients without becoming an addict himself, so why can't God help humans without becoming human himself? The fact that becoming an addict does not help the psychiatrist is my entire point!

Because God is not our psychiatrist. If we were talking about God doing psychiatry, your point would go through. But we are not. You are misusing your analogy. Analogies are meant to clarify a point, not prove or disprove something. Saying I'm like a cat in a specific way does not prove that I also cough up furballs. You would have to give an argument as to why the psychiatry analogy perfectly mirrors what I'm saying about God's salvation for it to go through. It doesn't, so the analogy fails.

God can do this without becoming Jesus first.

As I've already said. But then we choose self-reliance and leave that kind of relationship with God. We need that kind of relationship restored. We fail at our attempts.

What does this part mean? "doing the actual surrendering together"? It still seems a bit vague. Can you elaborate? How exactly does Jesus "surrender together" with us?

God is not just telling us to do this and then we do it. God is not just doing it for us. God is helping us to actually surrender. The specific details depends on the situation (so, the general comment should be a bit vague).

Again, God can do this without becoming Jesus first.

Again, we left that kind of relationship and need it to be restored. God can do it by forcing us to perform certain actions or allow us our freedom and offer His help. But God doesn't force us.

Ok let's extend on that logic.

P1: I am Justin
P2: the only way for me to surrender is to surrender in a Justin way
P3: In order for God to help me surrender, he needs to surrender in a Justin way
P4: In order for God to surrender in a Justin way, he would literally have to become me
C: The only way for God to help me surrender is for God to... become me?

Why do you think we should extend the logic like that? We are all humans. We are the same kind of creature. Called to surrender to God in the same kind of way, as human creatures. We aren't all our own category of creature. Otherwise, you wouldn't reproduce humans, but only Justins.

[The Tanager]

5. On the Trinity

Christianity seems to me to be saying that Jesus is surrenders His human nature and that human beings are also surrendering their nature.

Wait so it's not about surrendering to God anymore... it's about surrendering to our own nature? What is our own nature? Be precise. What nature are we surrendering to exactly?

I didn't say that. The context of the discussion was about surrendering to the Divine. So, Jesus surrenders His human nature, just like we do. We both surrender it to the Divine nature. In order to be precise there is a nuance you must take into account when looking at a being with two (or more) natures doing this and a being who only has one nature. Thus the need to talk about natures instead of just beings. I didn't take account of this nuance at the beginning, but know we both should be. That's honing the discussion, not changing it.

[Justin108]

If I made the claim that I can't fly, how would I go about proving my claim?

So just because you say "I can't..." that should be accepted as true by a rational person?

Please answer the question

Can humans fly? There are three positions to take on this: yes, no, unknown. If you are going to make an argument that rests on the truth of one of these positions, you need to back up why you take that position.

Suppose you wanted to make the claim that humans cannot fly. How would you go about proving that?

If you insist that I can but simply do not know how, then I request again for you to explain to me how to choose a belief. I don't know how. Please tell me how.

You look at various options (you can exclude illogical ones if you want, but you don't have to), consider the plusses and minuses and when you are left with multiple plausible alternatives, pick one of the options to believe in

I'm asking you how to choose what to believe in and your answer is "by picking one of the options to believe in". That's the very thing I'm asking you how to do! Choosing something to believe and picking something to believe is the same thing! This is like asking someone how to swim and you answering "well first you go into the water, and then you swim". This is clearly not helpful instructions at all. So I'll ask again: how does one choose a belief?

How do you think science figured out that heartbeats are automatic? Scientists have observed that they have no control over their own heartbeat. They have accepted testimony from others who claim they have no control over their heartbeat. How is this different from my own testimony that I have no control over my own beliefs?

They would have observed that people cannot start and stop their heartbeat by fiat.

How is this different from me observing that I cannot choose my belief?

They would have seen if a heart could beat in someone who is not conscious.

We also breathe while unconscious. Yet while conscious, we can choose to not breathe. Breathing is still in our control. The fact that someone can do something while unconscious does not prove that we do not have control over it. So I'll ask again, how does science know heartbeats are out of our control?

That being said, the evidence that tipped the scale to "I have no control over my beliefs" is my personal experience of being unable to control my beliefs.

I think it would be clearer to say "...is my personal experience of feeling like being unable to control my beliefs. Just like my personal experience of God feels like another Presence there with me, but I could be wrong about that. There may not be another Presence with me and you may actually be able to control (or even actually controlling) your beliefs. Do you agree?

If God gave me an ability yet gave me no knowledge of how to use this ability, then he might as well not have given me this ability at all. So at the end of the day, all this argument does is shift the blame from "God did not give me the ability to choose belief" to "God did not give me the knowledge of how to choose belief". Either way, I am being condemned for an inability or lack of knowledge that I have no control over. Even upon talking to someone who has this knowledge of how to choose belief (you), I am no closer in obtaining this knowledge as you cannot tell me how to choose belief.

If so, then I think we are also agreed that your personal experience of feeling that you have no control over your beliefs should not have a role in our analysis of this argument of yours that the Christian God either (1) rejects people for beliefs they don't have

I'm shifting the argument to God either rejects us for the inability to choose belief or the lack of knowledge on how to choose belief. This is like God throwing a group of children into a swimming pool. Those who either cannot or do not know how to swim will drown. So who is to blame? Us for not knowing how to swim? Or God for throwing us in the pool?

I'll repeat the crux of my entire argument here:
if you cannot choose, it is not a choice.

That is not the crux of your argument, it's a tautology. I never critiqued that.

It's the very definition of choice. It's not a mere tautology. It is a logical necessity for choice to have a choice. If you do not have a choice, then it is not a choice.

What is a tautology is your earlier explanation of how to choose belief.

So I'll ask again. Can you choose to believe in fairies? I am not asking if you believe in fairies, I am asking if you can.

Going by what you just said, your answer is either
1) Yes, I can choose to believe in fairies, but I choose to search for evidence
2) No, I cannot choose to believe in fairies, but I choose to search for evidence

You tell me you choose to go by evidence. I am asking if it is possible for you to choose otherwise? Is it possible for you to choose to believe in fairies without evidence?

The reasons given to believe in the existence of fairies do not include philosophicalor historical arguments even purporting to be rational

As mentioned before, these arguments only support the existence of a generic god like deism but they do nothing to prove the existence of the Christian God.

Every philosophical argument given for the existence of God can be applied to the existence of fairies.

Now, for someone (like myself) who does not think these are good reasons (or 'evidence') for holding a belief, there is no choice to be made in this specific kind of belief.

How is this any different from me not having a choice to believe in God? This is a massive double standard. You don't believe there are good reasons to believe in fairies and I do not believe there is good reason to believe in the Christian God. But my belief is a choice and yours isn't? How do you justify this?

We 'can't' believe. We can't choose to believe in fairies without evidence.

And I can't believe in God without evidence. So what's the difference?

But not every belief is like this. Sticking with fairies, (believing they aren't real) there is still the issue of what the origin of fairy stories is. It could be that people mistakenly thought they really existed, by seeing some unknown creature or having a hallucination or just trusting the people that made these stories up or it came from their own imagination.

All of this could be said for the Christian God.

We were talking about the reasons these beliefs are held. In the former belief (in the existence of fairies) is confined to fideism/appeal to authority. In the latter belief (in the source of origin for fairy stories) is not confined to fideism or appeal to authority.

fideism
ˈfʌɪdɪɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the doctrine that knowledge depends on faith or revelation.

How is belief in the Christian God not confined to fideism?

The belief in theism is not confined to fideism or appeal to authority

Then what is it confined to? Remember we are talking about the Christian God so arguments for a generic god is not enough.

You may think the philosophical/historical arguments are weak, but most of them are not fideistic or appeals to authority.

The philosophical argument does nothing to prove a Christian God. It only supports a generic god.

Justin108 wrote:
My link was not meant to be evidence. My link was a refutation of your claim that "people that tell us information about fairies don't even believe they existed" (post 140). If you follow this link, you will find people who believe that fairies exist.

That is not what you said. You said:

Justin108 wrote:
Have you ever wondered if fairies are real? I'm here to tell you, my friend, that indeed they are.
https://exemplore.com/magic/How-to-Find-Real-Fairies

This was a quote from the website. It's a testimony on the website that some people believe in fairies. Again, this was not meant as evidence, this was a refutation of your claim that people do not believe in fairies.

Justin108 wrote:
If you think fairies are absurd, then you have simply ignored the philosophical arguments I have just provided.

This was a rebuttal to your claim that "If you really think they are absurd in the same way than you have simply ignored the history of philosophical debate for the past thousands of years". I then demonstrated that the same philosophical arguments for god can be made for fairies (see post 146)

- using the cosmological argument, I can conclude that fairies are the first cause
- using the teleological argument, I can conclude that fairies designed the complex world
- using the ontological argument, I can conclude that fairies are the greatest beings in the universe
- using the moral argument, I can conclude that morality comes from fairies

But there is a clear difference between philosophical argumentation concerning God's existence (you even said you are open to Deism when we generally talked about those kinds of arguments and you've never said you are open to fairies existing) and a few people who claim there are fairies.

There are no philosophical argument for the Christian God's existence specifically. This is like saying "there is evidence that aliens might exist, therefore there is good reason to believe in Jabba the Hutt because Jabba the Hutt is an alien". The philosophical arguments might support the existence of a god, but not the existence of Yahweh specifically.

I asked for reasons why a moral atheist would choose atheism. You said "because they get a feeling of rationality". But we can get a feeling of rationality from theism as well... so if we can get a feeling of rationality from both theism and atheism, why would someone choose atheism?

Because that specific person personally gets a feeling of rationality from atheism and not theism.

Did he choose to get a feeling of rationality from atheism? Or was this automatic?

You said "fairies don't have thousands of years of debate on their existence" (post 140). "Thousands of years of debate" is quantity.

It is also quality.

Quality and quantity is not the same thing. You cannot make the argument that it is quality because it is quantity. That is a non sequitur. It is entirely possible to spend long periods of time on something that has no actual quality.

What quality evidence does the Christian God have that fairies don't?

Cosmological argument, ontological, historical, moral, etc. Fairies don't even have people offering those kinds of arguments to believe in them.

I'll repeat the question: What quality evidence does the Christian God have that fairies don't?

[Justin108]

If you can justify that it is the best explanation, then yes...

So, am I right that you are saying you don't think God has to necessarily appear to you in order for you to have enough reason to believe in God's existence? God being the best explanation of the evidence is enough reason to believe?

It needs to be good reason for that person. People are different. It takes less to convince some than others. If God wanted a very skeptical person to believe, he will have to provide a lot of evidence to that person. Maybe there are good reasons to believe in God, but I don't know of any. So if God does not want to appear to me personally, then at least he will have to lead me to the good evidence for his existence. If he does not do this, then he must not be so concerned about whether I believe in him.

[Justin108]

3. The Effect of Sin

a) The sun sets in the west in rises in the east. It is the nature of the earth's rotation that the sun sets in the west and rises in the east. We know this because this happens every single day.
b) Water boils at 100°C. That is the nature of water. We know this because every single instance of water reaching 100°C, the water starts to boil
c) All people die. It is the nature of people to die one day. We know this because every single person who has ever lived has died.
d) It is in man's nature to prefer self-reliance over surrender. We know this because every single person who has ever lived has chosen self-reliance over surrender.

Why do you believe a), b) and c), but you do not believe d)?

Because those things are clearly mechanistic processes. They do not (possibly) involve free will.

So none of what we choose is based on nature? Humans eating meat and vegetables is not in our nature, we just all happen to make the choice to eat meat and vegetables rather than sand and dry leaves?

Either
a) Humans prefer meat and vegetables over sand and dry leaves because it is in our nature
b) Humans prefer meat and vegetables over sand and dry leaves because we choose to. It just so happens that almost everyone on earth makes this exact same choice

Yes, I say that that all humans choosing self-reliance proves this. This is how empiricism works. If you disagree with my reasoning then you disagree with empiricism. If you disagree with empiricism then you disagree with science. While there are philosophical arguments for disagreeing with empiricism, you would need to adopt radical skepticism to make these arguments. Are you seriously so hell-bent on arguing with me that you would rather apply radical skepticism?

I don't disagree with the value of empiricism. Your empirical observations are not taking account of free will. Is there a rational reason we should not take account of free will here?

This is not a matter of free will or preference. Both can simultaneously exist. As illustrated above, we have the free will to eat dry leaves, but we don't because we as a species do not like dry leaves. It is in our nature. This does not ignore our free will. It still exists. But we are more likely to choose the more attractive option (meat, vegetables) over the less attractive option (sand, dry leaves).

Now please explain how the matter of choosing self-reliance over surrender is not the exact same thing? Yes, we have free will. But the fact that all of us end up preferring self-reliance over surrender tells us it is in our default nature (as defined in post 148) to choose self-reliance over surrender just as it is in our nature to choose meat and vegetables over sand and dry leaves. Self-reliance is more attractive to our default nature just as meat and vegetables are more attractive to us. Either this, or it is a massive coincidence that all of us just happened to choose self-reliance.

This is the crux of this subsection of our discussion, as I see it, so I'll focus here and you can bring something back if you think it too important to be left untackled.

I want you do address this as well

Is there an apparent causal connection? If yes, then please tell me the causal connection? If no, then this is by definition a coincidence. The causal connection that I suggested (it's in our default-nature to choose self-reliance) you reject. So do you perhaps have a different causal connection to why 100% of us choose self-reliance over surrender?

No, because it's not a coincidence. There is an apparent causal connection: we all have free will.

So us having free will causes us to choose self-reliance over surrender? Don't you mean it allows us to choose self-reliance over surrender? If it caused us to choose self-reliance, then we would not really have a choice.

Suppose an ice-cream company brought out two new flavors of ice-cream. Literally everyone chose flavor A over flavor B. They all had a taste of both, but everyone kept coming back for flavor A. Remember, these people also have free will. How would you explain flavor A's success?
1. Flavor A is more attractive
2. Coincidence
3. Other (please specify)

You can't say 3. "free will" because we already know they have free will. That's what makes them having a choice possible to begin with. What I'm asking is why, despite having a free-will choice, they always prefer choosing flavor A? Most would say "well flavor A is obviously tastier (more attractive) than flavor B". But not you. What would your explanation be for flavor A's success?

[Justin108]

Yes, I originally talked about it in the context of one being/entity surrendering to another being/entity. But, as we've explored things, we see that beings could logically have different numbers of natures.

I disagree. Beings have one nature as a whole. We may have several aspects to our nature, but it is still one nature.

For humans it is the same thing to say we surrender our being to God and to say we surrender our nature to God because we are one being with one nature.

There are literally no examples of entities with more than one nature so your assumption that God does is unjustified special pleading.

P1: Jesus = God
P2: One can only surrender to a being greater than oneself (x > y)
P3: If Jesus surrendered, he must have a greater being than himself
P4: There is no greater being than God
C1: Jesus has no one to surrender to

For Jesus to be able to surrender to God, God must be greater than Jesus (God > Jesus). Yet P1 tells us that that Jesus = God. So how can God be greater than AND equal to God at the same time?

x = y
x > y

This is logically impossible

Taking into account what I said above, so as to avoid arguing against a strawman, can you reformulate this argument or make a new one for us to analyze?

Instead of asking me to just reformulate everything, please point out which parts exactly in my argument is not accurate.

An omnipotent being would never need to gain an ability. If it needed to, it would by definition not be omnipotent.

Omnipotence doesn't mean having every ability.

Umm... yes it doesn... but anyway.

Luke 1:36-37

36 “And look, your relative Elizabeth has also become pregnant with a son in her old age—although she was called barren, she is now in her sixth month! 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.�

Ergo, successfully helping us surrender without first becoming Jesus is possible with God.

You don't have to have a body that can urinate (that is an ability) in order to be omnipotent.

"Having a body" is not an ability. Urinating is, and so I imagine God could urinate if he felt like it.

Surrender, by definition, is not in the Divine nature by virtue of being the Creator.

By what definition exactly?

So, a divine being would logically have to gain that ability in order to have it.

I don't care about God having the ability to surrender, I care about God helping us surrender. He does not need to have the ability to do it himself in order to help us do it successfully. Please explain why it is logically impossible for God to successfully help us surrender without him surrendering first? A man who cannot swim can help someone else swim. Why can't God who cannot surrender successfully help us surrender?

We need a human nature that freely surrenders perfectly. To give that to us God needs a human nature that freely surrenders perfectly.

What do you mean by God giving us a freely surrendered nature? Is he going to take our current nature away and give us a new one? Please clarify what you mean by "give that to us"?

That depends.

a) Are you trying to perform it yourself?
b) Or are you trying to get someone else to perform it?

God is trying to get us to perfectly surrender, correct? (b). Someone can get someone else to perform something without doing the same thing themselves. I can help my daughter swim by holding her up without me swimming.

I agree. But remember that is not the whole picture. God did what you say here by giving us the Law (in our very natures). We have not performed the action we need to.

Let me rephrase. Someone can get someone else to successfully perform something without doing the same thing themselves. I can help my daughter successfully swim by holding her up without me swimming.

Is there another way to accomplish (b)? Yes. Using your analogy it would be like you going inside your daughter's mind and body and helping her actually have the desire to make the strokes needed and actually making the choices needed to move the body in the strokes.

Is this what God does? Does God go inside us and change our desires?

That's my whole point! The psychiatrist can help patients without becoming an addict himself, so why can't God help humans without becoming human himself? The fact that becoming an addict does not help the psychiatrist is my entire point!

Because God is not our psychiatrist.

Yes God is so much more, so why is God so much more restricted than the psychiatrist?

What does this part mean? "doing the actual surrendering together"? It still seems a bit vague. Can you elaborate? How exactly does Jesus "surrender together" with us?

God is not just telling us to do this and then we do it. God is not just doing it for us. God is helping us to actually surrender.

Again, I am asking you how he does this? I am asking how he helps us surrender. Telling me "well he does it by helping us to actually surrender" does not answer my question. You have a habit of explaining things through tautologies, I've noticed. So without repeating that he helps us surrender, can you please explain to me how exactly he helps us to surrender?

The specific details depends on the situation (so, the general comment should be a bit vague).

Give me one example

If the surrender is to feed the homeless drunk and the person wants to walk on by, God brings to the human's mind what they should do and provides the courage to get over themself and actually love the person and is with the human every step of the way.

Again, God can do this without becoming Jesus first.

Again, we left that kind of relationship and need it to be restored. God can do it by forcing us to perform certain actions or allow us our freedom and offer His help. But God doesn't force us.

I never suggested he force us. All I suggested is that he brings to the human's mind what they should do and provide us the courage to get over ourselves and actually love the person. At what point is God forcing us to do anything here? As for needing to restore our relationship first... many Jews in the Old Testament managed to follow God's guidance in the above described way. Was Moses being "forced" when God lead him to free the Jews? No? Then why is someone being "forced" by following God's lead to help the homeless?

Ok let's extend on that logic.

P1: I am Justin
P2: the only way for me to surrender is to surrender in a Justin way
P3: In order for God to help me surrender, he needs to surrender in a Justin way
P4: In order for God to surrender in a Justin way, he would literally have to become me
C: The only way for God to help me surrender is for God to... become me?

Why do you think we should extend the logic like that?

Seems arbitrary, doesn't it? That's my point. I see no reason why just surrendering isn't enough. Why do we need to surrender in a human way? Why can't we just surrender in a generic manner? If we absolutely need to surrender in a human way, then why don't I also need to surrender in a Justin way?

We are all humans. We are the same kind of creature.

And surrender is surrender. What does it even mean to surrender in a "human way"?