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?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 103 by The Tanager]

I've always maintained that an agnostic is just a form of atheist. Regarding your third party, if they don't know for sure one way or another, than they cannot be termed a believer. If they aren't a believer, than they DON'T believe. That means they lack belief, ergo an atheist. Just food for thought

I think recently there has been a lot of unfortunate confusion over what was traditionally a quite clear distinction between being an agnostic and being an atheist. Atheism is not-theism; it's a negation of theism (the belief that God(s) exist). It's an actual belief held that theism is not true. Just like the belief that '2+2 does not equal 5' is a belief, not a lack of belief. Christians were originally called atheists because they rejected the Roman pantheon of gods; they denied they existed. It was a belief Christians held, not a lack of a belief.

Agnosticism is lacking a belief one way or the other. Agnostics either think the truth or falsity of God's existence is unknown or unknowable. They don't or can't have enough information one way or the other.

Just like 'a-unicornism would be denying that unicorns are real. They would hold the actual belief that unicorns do not literally exist like horses do in reality. An agnostic on the subject of unicorns would say they don't (or will never) have enough information to make the decision one way or the other.

Your traditional comment regarding atheism is no doubt quite accurate, but since the current definition of atheism generally includes the concept of "lack of belief" I feel that should also be considered a possibility. Many will call themselves "agnostic atheists", and I am one of them. Gnostic refers to knowledge as you well note, and that is all it refers to. Agnosticism is lacking knowledge or information, not a belief. This may be all semantics I admit, because some see "belief" as meaning a conclusion, as opposed to a blind acceptance of something, in which case it could fall under agnosticism.

Since I lack any empirical data or evidence for the supernatural (agnostic) I currently lack any belief in it (atheist).

[The Tanager]

Your traditional comment regarding atheism is no doubt quite accurate, but since the current definition of atheism generally includes the concept of "lack of belief" I feel that should also be considered a possibility. Many will call themselves "agnostic atheists", and I am one of them. Gnostic refers to knowledge as you well note, and that is all it refers to. Agnosticism is lacking knowledge or information, not a belief. This may be all semantics I admit, because some see "belief" as meaning a conclusion, as opposed to a blind acceptance of something, in which case it could fall under agnosticism.

Since I lack any empirical data or evidence for the supernatural (agnostic) I currently lack any belief in it (atheist).

As long as the terms being used are understood and being used consistently, I'm fine with whatever terms want to be used. It's unfortunate when people are talking past each other and I think the shift in definitions adds to the likelihood of that happening. I think this shift helps (generally speaking) to cause more confusion in understanding each other and even reasonably considering one's own views at times.

[Kenisaw]

Your traditional comment regarding atheism is no doubt quite accurate, but since the current definition of atheism generally includes the concept of "lack of belief" I feel that should also be considered a possibility. Many will call themselves "agnostic atheists", and I am one of them. Gnostic refers to knowledge as you well note, and that is all it refers to. Agnosticism is lacking knowledge or information, not a belief. This may be all semantics I admit, because some see "belief" as meaning a conclusion, as opposed to a blind acceptance of something, in which case it could fall under agnosticism.

Since I lack any empirical data or evidence for the supernatural (agnostic) I currently lack any belief in it (atheist).

As long as the terms being used are understood and being used consistently, I'm fine with whatever terms want to be used. It's unfortunate when people are talking past each other and I think the shift in definitions adds to the likelihood of that happening. I think this shift helps (generally speaking) to cause more confusion in understanding each other and even reasonably considering one's own views at times.

It certainly can. I think the shift in the definition of atheism happened as a response to some groups insisting it was a belief position, when it really isn't.

[The Tanager]

It certainly can. I think the shift in the definition of atheism happened as a response to some groups insisting it was a belief position, when it really isn't.

How do you define belief?

[Justin108]

For your argument to go through, you need to show P2 is true or, at least, the best explanation.

I want you to sincerely believe that fairies exist for 5 minutes. Can you do that for me?

We're back to radial claims requiring radical evidence. If you told me, for example, that you can't swim, I will believe you because this is not a radical claim. If you said you tried to fly but couldn't, then I would believe you because the inability to fly is not at all radical. In fact, it is expected.

Okay, but then you really aren't trusting me as the reason to accept the claim. You are trusting your past experiences and trusting me only because they fit with your past experiences.

Most of us do this. I would guess even you. If a friend showed up late to your house, I take it you are more likely to believe that traffic was bad or that he overslept than if he were to claim that he was abducted by aliens on the way there. Radical claims require radical evidence.

So, to bring it back to why you offered these examples, why should I accept your more radical claim (that we have no control over our beliefs) simply because you said you've tried and failed?

I have tried to get you to try it for yourself several times. I'll ask again:I want you to sincerely believe that fairies exist for 5 minutes. Can you do that for me?

I don't expect you to just take my word for it. You can try it for yourself. If you are unable to choose to believe in fairies, then you have demonstrated my point to yourself.

gullible
'g?l?b(?)l/
adjective
easily persuaded to believe something; credulous


Given that the people in the scenario you describe are more easily persuaded than others, they are gullible by definition.

Well, how about some people are more gullible than others?

For the same reason that some people like olives while others don't - people are just different.

Gullibility is consistent with P2 being true (accounting for the difference of beliefs we both observe in reality). But gullibility is also consistent with the opposite of P2 (that we have control over some of our beliefs) being true (accounting for the differences in what it takes for people to come to a certain belief). So, this leaves us in agnosticism.

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? If I offered you $1000 (incentive) to believe in fairies, I doubt you would be able to. But why would you not make this choice?

Well since belief is a choice, I see no reason why you can't simply choose to believe bribes are a source of truth.

This is a misunderstanding of what choice means. I'm not saying choice is deciding upon a belief with no consideration of any evidence or information. That would be a blind choice. Not all choices have to be blind.

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?

A free agent in the NFL gains information about prospective teams that are after him and after looking at all the information chooses which team he wants to play for. Here, whether the choice is free or determined, it comes out of various options. The choice may be limited (Tony Romo doesn't have the choice of playing for the Virginia Calvary, because they don't exist, for example), but it's not a choice void of any considerations of evidence.

Yes but he can choose any of these teams. Some might be better choices, but they are all possible choices. This is not true for belief. If I do not have sufficient evidence for a belief (such as fairies) I cannot, regardless of how much I try, I cannot believe in fairies.

What do you mean "I feel God did respond"? Can you describe the sensation? How do you know this sensation was in fact God?

I know what it feels like when I'm just having my thoughts race through my head. God's presence doesn't feel like that.

I asked how you know it is in fact God, and your answer is "God's presence does not feel like (thoughts racing through your head). Again I ask, how do you know that? You experienced something, you describe it as a clear thought (i.e not racing through your head), and you immediately assume that this is God. Why?

It feels like another presence within me

How would you know what another presence within you would feel like? How can you know something feels like X if you have never experienced X before? This would be like saying "this tastes like chicken" without you ever having had chicken before. How would you know it tastes like chicken if you've never had chicken before?

[Justin108]

Here I am trying to explore another argument that goes something like this:

P1: If God is loving, then God would want everyone to have enough reason to reasonably believe in God's existence.
P2: If God appeared directly to everyone, then they would have enough reason to reasonably believe in God's existence.
C1: Therefore, God should appear to everyone.

This argument clearly isn't valid because it still leaves room for things other than 'God appearing directly to a person' that could count for being enough reason to believe in God's existence.

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

You seem to be arguing that God's direct appearance is the only thing that results in anyone having enough reason to reasonably believe in God's existence.

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

1. There are certain pieces of evidence that point towards God's existence as the best explanation.
2. You physically see God and His tools. (This mirrors the radical evidence you wanted of Santa's existence).
3. You hear an audible voice claiming to be God speaking directly to you.
4. You have an experience with an immaterial being.

Which ones (or ones I haven't mentioned) would constitute radical evidence, if they actually happened. And why or why not for each one? To support what I think is your claim above you need to logically rule out everything except 'God appearing directly to a person.' If I'm misunderstanding your argument, please tweak the above.

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

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

2. this would be radical evidence, yes.

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.

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

I've been answering this question over several posts now... I would expect God to not allow me to be deceived. And, frankly, even if it was Satan's voice, I would still end up believing in God because for Satan to exist, God would have to exist.

But what does it mean for God to not allow you to be deceived? To go against a free will that believes the falsity?

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

I'm saying that God may have good reasons for not appearing to people. If you want to pursue that, we must look at the six things more in depth.

Fine, let's look at them in depth

Well a non-theist already lacks a relationship with God so what would it matter if they "immediately reject" this relationship with God? The end result would be the same as the starting point - no relationship. So what's there to lose in trying?

I think the point there was about wasting effort on something an omniscient God knew would not take place.

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?

If God's specified motivation to ensure Person A would believe is to allow for relationship, that motivation is lost if God knows Person A would immediately reject that relationship. What are your thoughts here?

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?

[Justin108]

Are they equally attractive? Are they even close to being equally attractive? The fact that every single person in history has chosen (2a) over (2b) clearly illustrates that (2a) is far more attractive to our nature.

Why wouldn't they be equally attractive initially?

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.

Once we choose self-reliance, that could become more and more attractive.

Why did everyone choose self-reliance if self-reliance is equally as attractive as 2b?

My experience is that the things worse for me (eating candy) are easier to become addicted to than things that are good for me (eating carrots).

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.

But, why didn't God just make it the other way round? Well, then, we would be choosing surrender out of an addiction

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

God doesn't want us in a relationship simply because we can't go against our naturally stronger attractions. That would seem to be something like choosing a wife based on your sexual addiction to her, rather than because you love her. Our will is most free when we choose to overcome simply following our natural attractions. God doesn't want people addicted to surrendering to Him, God wants people freely choosing Him

I am not suggesting God make it "the other way around" so that everyone chooses 2b. My suggestion is that both choices be equally as attractive to allow a roughly 50/50 distribution, not a 100/0 or a 0/100. As it stands, everyone chooses 2a so clearly our nature is attracted to 2a over 2b

[Justin108]

No the machine implants the knowledge of how to breathe fire. Once I use this machine, breathing fire will be as easy as breathing air to the dragon. The dragon can still refuse to breathe, but at least it knows how to if it so chooses to breathe fire.

What do you mean? I've said God has given us the knowledge of how to surrender as humans already.

Then what do we need Jesus for?

In spite of that knowledge, we don't surrender. We don't desire surrender; we don't choose surrender.

Why not? How is it that not a single one of us desires surrender? The only logical explanation would be for surrender to go against our nature.

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?

We are addicted to self-reliance and need help actually surrendering.

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.

Part of those other given Christian beliefs, that you think lead to inconsistency, is that it is within God's nature to take on a human nature.

To show my view is false you need to either:

(1) show different beliefs within that worldview to be logically inconsistent with each other...which here would involve assuming my Christian belief on God's nature including within it the ability to take on a human nature is true and showing how a different Christian belief contradicts it or

(2) show a belief within that worldview to be demonstrably false...which here would involve supporting the claim that God's nature CANNOT include within it the ability to take on a human nature.

Which one are you wanting to do here?

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?

Do humans have a divine nature?

Only if a Divine being takes on a human nature.

But here you said...

Because to lead, to hand hold us, God must be able to surrender. God can't in a Divine nature alone.

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?

The Being responsible for creating and sustaining everything, that is omnipotent, is a more likely candidate to be able to take on different natures than a created being that doesn't have such control over what they can be.

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

Unless, you can show a Divine being taking on a human nature is logically impossible.

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

Oh and remind me again why God needed to have a nature to surrender? Not only do I not see the need for God to be able to surrender, I also don't see the need why God needed to become human in order to achieve this.

To counter the Incarnation you need to be able to prove that it is logically impossible for a person to have two natures. What support do you have for that? It's not illogical in a clear sense, like a married bachelor would be. Just like it's not illogical for a person to have 0, 1, or 3 personalities.

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?

Is it possible for one being to take on a different nature?

It's possible until you can show it is logically impossible. And remember that you have been saying, given certain Christian beliefs, it leads to absurdities and therefore, we shouldn't trust it to be true concerning reality. To support that you need to show it isn't possible for one being to take on an additional nature.

Well there you have it. God could have just taken up a surrendering nature

If so, why couldn't God just take up the nature of surrendering without completely turning human?

Humans need to surrender as humans, not as rocks or something else.

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

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

Don't we already have this nature? If not then I see no reason why he would first need to become human in order to give us this nature. 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? 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?

God can give us the nature to perfectly surrender without needing to become human himself just as I can build a robot that shoots lasers without me being able to shoot lasers first.

We need to surrender in every part of being human, so God needs to take on every part of human nature and surrender it and then help us to do it in every aspect.

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

[Justin108]

Maybe... but it is logically impossible for one being to have different and contradictory traits. God cannot be said to have the ability to surrender and not have the ability to surrender at the same time. Yet, as you said earlier, Jesus has the ability to surrender while God does not, yet they are both the same being.

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?

[The Tanager]

1. Do we have some control over our beliefs?

I want you to sincerely believe that fairies exist for 5 minutes. Can you do that for me?...I don't expect you to just take my word for it. You can try it for yourself. If you are unable to choose to believe in fairies, then you have demonstrated my point to yourself.

If I offered you $1000 (incentive) to believe in fairies, I doubt you would be able to. But why would you not make this choice?

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

So, I can believe that fairies exist...if you provide evidence (or I see it on my own) that makes their existence a viable alternative for me to consider. The existence of fairies isn't a live option. The existence of God is much more wide open as the thousands of years of philosophical discussion clearly shows.

Remember the premise your argument seems to rest on (at least you didn't correct my rendition of it) - P2: We have no control over [any of] our beliefs. I'm saying we do have some control over some of our beliefs.

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?

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. Things can be unique.

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.

Still no reason to accept P2. And so your argument doesn't go through yet.

I asked how you know it is in fact God, and your answer is "God's presence does not feel like (thoughts racing through your head). Again I ask, how do you know that? You experienced something, you describe it as a clear thought (i.e not racing through your head), and you immediately assume that this is God. Why?

No, I didn't just assume it was God. And I never said it is a fact that it was God. I said I can't be one hundred percent certain. Hardly any of our beliefs are one hundred percent certain, if any are.

How would you know what another presence within you would feel like? How can you know something feels like X if you have never experienced X before? This would be like saying "this tastes like chicken" without you ever having had chicken before. How would you know it tastes like chicken if you've never had chicken before?

I know what my presence feels like. If something doesn't feel like that, then by definition it must feel like 'not-my presence.' It is actually like saying "this doesn't taste like chicken because I've tasted chicken and this is not what chicken tastes like."