The "one would expect" argument regarding God.

[Elijah John]

There is an argument that is used quite frequently that "if there is a god, one would expect God to (or not to) fill in the blank.

For debate, how valid are human expectations in determining whether there is or is not a God, or if a given God is the true God?

Or are God's ways higher than our ways?

[Divine Insight]

There is an argument that is used quite frequently that "if there is a god, one would expect God to (or not to) fill in the blank.

For debate, how valid are human expectations in determining whether there is or is not a God, or if a given God is the true God?

I think it depends on the expectations. In Bible there is for example promises from God. I think one could expect God to keep promises as He has given them.

Agreed.

And Jesus promised that anything we ask in his name he will do.

So what do we do in the case of clearly broken promises?

Conclude that God lies? Or conclude that the stories are simply cultural fiction?

Which makes more sense?

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

One can't, legitimately and honestly, expect an imperfect being (people) to understand a perfect one (gods). It's not possible.
Likewise, one can't successfully attribute our thoughts/expectations towards any perfect being.

Someone can say "God should have done" this or that, but in reality we can't understand why he did or didn't do this or that.

That said, a perfect being (aka gods/God) should be able to do things in ways we can't understand (being able to provide evidence of its existence without having to rely on faith while still preserving free will, for example) but he doesn't. So his motives are questionable.

[Divine Insight]

That said, a perfect being (aka gods/God) should be able to do things in ways we can't understand (being able to provide evidence of its existence without having to rely on faith while still preserving free will, for example) but he doesn't. So his motives are questionable.

Agreed. The argument that God can't make himself known because this would violate our free will is not the least bit compelling.

Not only this but it doesn't even match up with Biblical theology.

Supposedly Satan, Adam, and Eve had all seen and known God. So they weren't asked to believe in God on faith. Yet supposedly they still make the free will choice to not do as God demands.

So there we go. The theology itself proves that the "free will" argument for why God can't make himself known doesn't hold any water. Apparently people who have seen God are still free to reject him. So any theists who are trying to lay claim to the free will argument for why God can't make himself known are beating a long-dead horse. Their theology itself does not allow for this argument. It violates this argument early on in Genesis.

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

"Supposedly Satan, Adam, and Eve had all seen and known God. So they weren't asked to believe in God on faith. Yet supposedly they still make the free will choice to not do as God demands. "

Makes you wonder that, if the above is true, and they still did what they wanted to do (aka disobey God), how can anyone expect us, who haven't experience God like they did, be guilty for not believing in him?!?!
Unless there is no free will and we're all predestined to do this or that. In that case, again, you can't be held accountable for what you were programmed/made to do.
Sorry for the sidetrack - just a random thought.

[ttruscott]

"Supposedly Satan, Adam, and Eve had all seen and known God. So they weren't asked to believe in God on faith. Yet supposedly they still make the free will choice to not do as God demands. "

I suppose this is suggesting that they saw HIM in HIS glory and then rebelled...? I sincerely doubt that.

No one would choose hell over heaven if they knew the proof.

Makes you wonder that, if the above is true, and they still did what they wanted to do (aka disobey God), how can anyone expect us, who haven't experience God like they did, be guilty for not believing in him?!?!

I suggest that we had a pre-earth experience with HIM much like we have today; many claims are made but without proof. This allowed us to make a free will decision for HIS claims or against them without being forced by HIS glory to bow to HIM nor forced by the proof of hell to accept HIM...that is, able to choose which reality we most wanted to live in, the reality we most hoped for whether it was for HIM being our GOD or against HIM as a false god.

Then there is Romans 1:18-20 which tells us that YHWH did prove HIS divinity and power to everyone so none has any excuse, (I assume all our free will decisions were finalized and our eternal relationships with HIM were locked in...) probably by the creation of the physical universe in front of us as per v20 and Job 38:7 suggest. This tells us of the great enslaving power of evil which can cause us to suppress memories of such proof, that we saw the creation of the physical universe and have repressed it because we love sin more than truth.

In this way, knowing of the great power of sinfulness to manipulate our desires and thoughts, we now know that we must have sinned by our free will before the proof was offered because once we sinned we had no more free will.

We repress the proof about YHWH from our minds because we love sin more, Rom 1:20 to the end of the chapter. This is what causes us to be unmindful of the proof of HIS deity in this world though we saw the creation.

Unless there is no free will and we're all predestined to do this or that. In that case, again, you can't be held accountable for what you were programmed/made to do.

This is the truth of course, which Calvinists and others have given up a long time ago to make their theology work on earth.

We must have chosen to be sinful OR GOD created evil and evil people, a blasphemy, and we are NOT guilty for any sin we do because of mens rea, no guilty intent as we did not choose evil but GOD (sometimes Adam is accused) made us do it.

[Divine Insight]

nor forced by the proof of hell to accept HIM...

Sorry Ted but this fails miserably.

If the idea is that we are supposed to LOVE God, then proof of hell could never accomplish this.

If a God proved his existence to me and proved HIS hell as well, and the sentence for not "loving" him was to be cast into hell then I could never love him.

Based on the ultimatum you've just given us if we "accepted HIM" to avoid HIS hell, it could never be an act of love on our behalf. To the contrary we would most likely resent him gravely and secretly hate HIM with all our heart, soul, and mind, all the while pretending to love him just to avoid his EVIL wrath.

In short Ted, the God you are attempting to sell would be a seriously heinous entity that no sane-mined person could ever love.

How could you love someone who is threatening to cast you into a state of eternal torture if you refuse to love him?

So you are dead wrong. Even if we knew that Hell was true, that wouldn't make us love this God. To the contrary, it could only make us despise him all the more.

You are basically demanding that your God is no different from an abusive husband.

In fact, that appears to be your thesis as you are always telling us that God wants to marry us.

You don't get a woman to love you by threatening to beat the hell out of her if she refuses you. Why would you think it would be ok for a God to do such a dastardly thing?

Your apology makes no sense. You're basically demanding that your God is EVIL and unworthy of anyone's sincere love.

[Aetixintro]

Atheist: Then how do you know that god has characteristics X, Y, and Z.

Theists: Ultimately, we get eternal bliss in Heaven and God's blessing and salvation when we live.

You just shot yourself in your own foot there. If you know that god has characteristics X, Y, and Z, because you're going to heaven when you die, then clearly you know nothing at all.

The belief that you'll be going to heaven when you die is an entirely faith-based belief. If you think that you know this to be true, then the only person you have succeeded to fool is yourself.

I don't think so. Take the soul, for instance. People can now have a trip Out-of-Body Experience by rationality so as to do it and embody the body once again. In doing so, Heaven becomes an ever more intelligible place that one is drawn to. I do not live in year 1900 CE, I live in 2019 CE with the current science to go! Sorry.

[Divine Insight]

I do not live in year 1900 CE, I live in 2019 CE with the current science to go!

Then you should be aware that scientists have determined that OBEs are delusions caused by the brain. They are even on the cutting edge of learning how to induce these delusions at will. As well as explaining how they are created within the brain.

[Bust Nak]

For debate, how valid are human expectations in determining whether there is or is not a God, or if a given God is the true God?

As valid as the logic used to get from description of God to an expectation. So it depends.

Or are God's ways higher than our ways?

Does it matter? We are limited to operating in our ways, regardless of which is higher. A logical argument isn't gonna become illogical when it contradicts God's way; nor would a fallacy become logical where it lines up with God's way.

Appealing to God's way sounds a lot like conceding to your opponent's argument while not caring about losing the argument.

[Bust Nak]

I suggest that we had a pre-earth experience with HIM much like we have today; many claims are made but without proof. This allowed us to make a free will decision for HIS claims or against them without being forced by HIS glory to bow to HIM nor forced by the proof of hell to accept HIM...

That's not a decision, that's a guess. You conceded that much in our last conversation: A free will decision must be made in light of all the consequences, claims without proof doesn't give us a full picture of the consequences.