Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #151

Post by The Tanager »

Justin108 wrote:So you're saying that unless there is evidence, something is a dead option? Please give me the evidence for the Christian God
As I've said multiple times, once the multiple issues we already have on the table (that is more than I should probably be trying to tackle time-wise) that resulted from your claims that Christianity is incoherent in such-and-such ways are concluded or you just want to move on, I would be happy to explore the evidence for with you. If you could prove that Christianity is incoherent as you have claimed it is, exploring evidence for the Christian God would be useless. I would like to honor the claims you made by analyzing them and challenging my beliefs, not changing the subject to an argument from 'my side.' If you want to drop those and move to critiquing a Christian argument, then I'm game. But, like I said, I like to have a narrow focus.
Justin108 wrote:All of these arguments end in "therefore, a supernatural being exists". Normally people then fill in the gaps and say "and that supernatural being is God". How do we know this supernatural being isn't fairies? You can use every one of these arguments to form the conclusion that fairies exist.

To illustrate:
- 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
And we could talk about those critiques if you want to switch the discussion. If not, respond to the next five posts.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #152

Post by The Tanager »

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

I've been labeling this "do we have some control over our beliefs" but that is probably mislabelling it, since this came up from an argument you made against the Christian idea of God (as I already talked about). That argument rests on your claim that we have no control over our beliefs.
Justin108 wrote:If I made the claim that I can fly and you responded with "you can but I can't", would I be able to say "you just think you can't fly but you actually can"?

But anyway, as I said before, if you insist that I can then explain to me how
Saying and showing are two different things. You are arguing that the Christian God is incoherent (or at least unjust) because you don't have control over your beliefs. It rests on the truth of that statement. I'm asking you to give me reason to believe that statement is true. Your reason is "I can't see how it's not true based on my own personal experience."

Yet you later say in post 147 that we can't use personal experience as evidence. How is this different?
Justin108 wrote:I can't do that because in virtually every instance, one option is more plausible than the other. I automatically believe the most probable outcome. When both options are virtually equal in plausibility, I take the middle ground of uncertainty.
Then what is the evidence that tips the scales of your belief "we have no control over our beliefs" into the more plausible category? Because you aren't taking the middle ground of uncertainty here and you said personal experience can't be used.
Justin108 wrote:How exactly should I explain that to you? Suppose I made the claim that "my heart beating is an automatic process and I literally cannot help it". If you were to ask "how do you know your heart beating is an automatic process?", how would I be able to explain that to you? What would be a satisfactory answer?
You would point to the science, wouldn't you, since our heart is in the realm of scientific study and science seems to have given us an answer here.
Justin108 wrote:Simply put, is it possible to make the choice to believe in fairies without evidence? If no, then it is by definition not a choice.
It may depend on what you mean by 'evidence'. Because even the person who has blind faith in God because of their parents would see the perceived trustworthiness of their parents as 'evidence' for believing in God.

I don't use it that way and so I would say some people choose to believe in God without any evidence. I think the same could be the case with fairies. This is a general statement.
Justin108 wrote:Just to clarify, you are in fact saying it is possible to choose a belief without looking at the evidence? If this is what you are saying (which, according to this quote, it is exactly what you are saying) then why can't you choose to believe in fairies? I have asked you this many times and every single time you come up with an excuse for why you won't. I am asking if you can. Here you clearly say one can make a selection without evidence. You have no evidence for fairies. Can you make the selection to believe in fairies?
Moving from the general to the personal now. I choose to search for evidence for my beliefs to see what are rational options and make my choices from what I believe to be rational options.
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
Justin108 wrote:If you think fairies are absurd, then you have simply ignored the philosophical arguments I have just provided.
No, you provided a link. If you really think this is good philosophical evidence, make the actual argument and I'll respond. If you don't think it is good evidence, don't be disingenuous.
Justin108 wrote:Can one not get a feeling of rationality from choosing theism?
Yes, one can. But you asked for a reason why a moral atheist would choose atheism over theism if they have some freedom over their beliefs, so I gave one.
Justin108 wrote:Why does this matter? All this means is that the topic of God is more popular. So this is basically an appeal to popularity.
No, it's about quality, not quantity. The quantity simply follows the quality of evidence. If the quality was not there then the philosophical debate would not have lasted as long as it has and will continue to.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #153

Post by The Tanager »

2. Radical evidence for radical claims
Justin108 wrote:To summarize, you made the claim that "Yes, I do think the average person has enough reason to believe in (the Christian?) God's existence."

Yet so far, all you've given me is
- the philosophical arguments, which point to gods in general and so can be used to justify just about any religion (not just Christianity)
- the evidence for the resurrection, which is "the Bible says so"

Is this what you meant when you said the average person has enough reason to believe in the Christian God? Or do you have other reasons you have not yet mentioned?
No, to summarize: you made an argument that some people don't get enough reason to believe in God, I asked you to support that and at one point you asked me if I think the average person has enough reason. I answered your question. And now you are trying to analyze a different argument than what we were talking about.

I never said the evidence for the resurrection is "the Bible says so". I've also clearly said, multiple times, about ending the analysis of your arguments before going on to analyze Christian arguments for God. They stand on their own and we should analyze them as such.
Justin108 wrote:If you can justify why it is "the best explanation", then yes.
So, you seem to me to be saying that 'radical evidence' for the radical claim of theism would include arguments for God's existence that appear to be the best explanation, even though they lack certainty. Am I understanding you correctly?
Justin108 wrote:You said "using your definition of convince (as I see it) negates free will" (post 136). What do you think my definition of "convince" is?
You seem to think beliefs automatically follow from evidence, so that if you share certain evidence, then you will convince someone of a certain belief.
Justin108 wrote:So you're asking if I would be convinced that God exists if I felt almost certain that God's pretense is within me?
No, I was offering a general reason an atheist could believe in God and wondering if you felt that such a reason would constitute radical evidence. I don't think it does, but you asked me to do the same thing with belief in God's existence that I did with Santa's existence.
Justin108 wrote:When I suggested that God speaks to me directly, you asked "how would you know it isn't Satan?". Well here's your answer.
So, your position is that God should negate your free will if you wanted God to? That if God doesn't, then God isn't loving?
Justin108 wrote:Does God "know" that I will still not believe in him if he appeared to me?
First, realize the context of 'believe in Him' has shifted to following God not just believing in God's existence. You were talking about people being damned and that is from not following God.

God knows what you do. If God appears to you and you follow Him, then God knows that. If God appears to you and you don't follow Him, then God knows that. What you do depends on you. And God knows what you do.
Justin108 wrote:This makes no sense. Can you please restructure this argument? What exactly do you mean by "chafed"?
The argument is that if God always appears to people or writes Jesus' name on DNA or whatever, we are going to be constantly confronted with God's perfection. In human society, we often grow tired of those who seem perfect. God doesn't want people to grow tired of His perfection and how they don't measure up to Him. So, this may be a good reason for God to not appear to people.
Justin108 wrote:Will all atheists get "chafed" by God's perfection? Would you get "chafed" by God's perfection if he actually showed it to you?
Not now, but maybe earlier in my life when I was confronted with my imperfections.

Are you saying God should appear to people even though it would lead to them growing tired of Him? Or are you saying, 'I can see how that would work for some people, but I'm not that kind of person so God should appear to me?"
Justin108 wrote:So God refusing our requests by ignoring us is somehow better? If I were a Christian, I would be far more offended by God not doing anything than if God told me why he isn't doing it.
The argument seems to say that. I wouldn't be offended by God not doing anything (although I would question it and the like), but I do agree that it doesn't seem better for God to refuse our requests by ignoring us.
Justin108 wrote:This is already the case in the current state of things. Many blame God for betraying them. Many feel God is obligated to help them. How would God revealing himself change anything?
I think I agree with you here, too.
Justin108 wrote:Why is it important that CS Lewis came to belief in God through faith rather than reason? What's so special about faith?
He didn't come through faith instead of reason. Reason and arguments actually played a large role in his conversion. And Lewis has made a huge impact on atheists and agnostics who have also converted to Christianity as well as Christians becoming more rationally engaged with their belief in God.

Without the silence from God (i.e., God not appearing to Him directly) Lewis would not have had the experiences and struggling through reasoning that shaped his life and writings that have so impacted so many other people.
Justin108 wrote:If God revealed himself, then people like CS Lewis would not be necessary. This is like saying "if food was readily available to people in Africa, then there would be no one helping get food to people in Africa. Therefore it is a good thing that there isn't food readily available to all people in Africa". Do you see the flaw in this reasoning?
It's about quality of Lewis' life and other people's lives. Reason and intellect and wrestling through tough questions brings a deeper element to the relationship.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #154

Post by The Tanager »

3. The Effect of Sin
Justin108 wrote:That is not the nature I was referring to. To clarify, let's define a few terms for debate

Default-nature: this is the nature we began with. This was before we chose self-reliance. This was before we chose anything.

Chosen-nature: this is the 2a, 2b we've been talking about. This is self-reliance and surrender. Each of these is a chosen nature.

So to get back to my earlier question, with these definitions in mind.
So far agreed.
Justin108 wrote:God wants us all to choose surrender, yet literally everyone of us chooses self-reliance. God wants us to have a completely different default-nature. He designed us to find self-reliance more attractive yet he wants us to choose surrender. He designed us with a default-nature that is more attracted to self-reliance. Why did he do this?
Christianity doesn't think he did. You obviously do. But you need to support this. You say that all humans choose self-reliance proves this, but do you actually support that with good reasons? How does description of what occurs necessitate prescription of what occurs? Your argument rests on this being true. Can you show it to be true?
Justin108 wrote:How do you know what atheists want? I would want a relationship with God. I just don't believe he exists
And we have already agreed that you can't want something you don't think exists, haven't we?
Justin108 wrote:So instead he forces us to die and go to hell. I would gladly go to this new earth. God allowing me would not be forcing me
I think we already talked about how my view of hell is probably not the same one you are thinking of. Hell is the continuance of a life that is not in relationship with God. 'Allowing you to go to the new earth' would be forcing you into a relationship with something you don't even think exists, which means it can't be a relationship.
Justin108 wrote:it would seem we are all the same because for some mystery reason, we all choose 2a.
So, because we are the same in one way, we are the same in every single way? I was talking about there being a variety of reasons why we choose self-reliance, a different (related, of course) issue from whether or not we choose self-reliance or surrender as a way of life.
Justin108 wrote:To illustrate, there are people with eating disorders where they eat sand. There are literally no people who choose surrender. It is more natural for us to eat sand than it is to choose surrender.
No, there are no people who choose surrender most of the time.
Justin108 wrote: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.
Justin108 wrote:Probable is an understatement. It will be staggeringly improbable for literally billions of people to all choose 2a over 2b. It's about as likely as landing heads billions of times in a row, flipping a coin.
Free will is different than something like the rolling of dice or a mechanistic process, so your arguments from probability don't really factor in.

I'll ask again: are you saying that free will MUST result in some people choosing surrender most of the time? Are you saying that outcome is determined by the probabilities?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #155

Post by The Tanager »

4. Analysis of One Analogy of the Christian Solution
Justin108 wrote:So that's it? There's the Law, and then there's him becoming Jesus? Those are the only possible options? Sounds pretty limited for an omnipotent being.
If there is another option you know of, share it. It's not a question of power, but of logic.
Justin108 wrote:Let me rephrase my earlier question: Why does he need to do it with us in order to get us to successfully surrender? Why can't he successfully help us do it without doing it with us? Why is "doing it with us" the only possible successful solution? Why is an omnipotent God so limited?
There are three logical options for our surrendering, that I see as exhaustive. (1) We do it ourselves alone. (2) We do it with the 'physical' help of another. (3) Someone does it for us.

We failed at (1). Free will is negated by (3) and God does not want to take that away. The only logical option left is (2).
You agreed earlier that omnipotence does not mean doing the logically impossible, so you can't bring them up as a critique of God now, if you want to remain consistent.
Justin108 wrote:At this point it just sounds like you're making these things up as you go along
Empty rhetoric. No place for it in a rational discussion.
Justin108 wrote:Is "the Divine" someone else? Or is it the same being? If it's the same being, then Jesus is literally surrendering to himself. This is self-reliance.
Humans surrender their natures to the Divine nature. Jesus does the same. Sure, it is different because Jesus is said to be a Person with two natures and we are only persons with one nature, but just like with the Trinity, while we can't fully grasp this (since it transcends how we exist), it is not a logical contradiction. That's not 'making things up as I go along.' If you think the Incarnation is clearly illogical then give an actual argument. If you can't give that argument, then your critique fails because it is only an unsupported claim you are making.
Justin108 wrote:For the twentieth time, explain why it is logically impossible to do so.
That it is logically impossible to surrender without having the ability to surrender? You think it is possible to surrender without having the ability of surrendering. You can do things that you don't have the ability to do? Maybe you just misread my response?
Justin108 wrote:So a psychiatrist can help an addict without becoming an addict, but God can't help humans without becoming human?
Now, of course, I didn't actually say God can't help humans without becoming a human, did I? I said that God can't help humans who have not freely surrendered on their own freely surrender without becoming a human
Justin108 wrote:So in this instance, the psychiatrist has fewer limitations than God? That's odd.
Logic is odd, is it? Certain things have more or less logical limitations on them by their very nature. You can either exist or not exist. Those are only two options. You can choose from a large variety of different breakfast options. Is breakfast now more powerful than existence? It has nothing to do with power. It's about logic.

If there is another logical option, then name it.
Justin108 wrote:It is not useless as a critique. It perfectly illustrates why God would not first need to afflict himself with human-ness in order to help humans. A God that would need this is terribly finite and thus not omnipotent.
It is useless because I'm not claiming that God can't help humans without becoming human (he tried that in (1) above). I'm claiming that God can't help humans in the logical option left (2). This doesn't lead to finitude.
Justin108 wrote:Ok why are you introducing the "hand-to-hand" analogy here? That was an entirely different analogy. In this analogy, "surrender" is recovering from drug addiction.
Because your analogy misunderstood what I was saying about Christianity. I clarified with a tweak of your analogy. Analogies aren't just about throwing two terms to together, but getting the right analogical connection.
Justin108 wrote:If you don't like my analogy, then point out its flaws. Don't just shove it aside and go back to your "hand-to-hand" analogy. The reason my analogy is fitting is because according to you, God would need to change himself (become human) in order to get a surrendered-nature. My analogy captures that perfectly. The psychiatrist needs to change himself (become an addict) in order to get a surrendered nature (recovered nature). Where is the flaw in my analogy?
In this section we were talking about "my" analogy of the Christian solution. I was talking about how God would need to gain an ability in order to perform that ability with us to help us. You can't perform an ability (either for yourself or to help someone else) if you don't have that ability.

Your analogy fails because 'becoming an addict' is not the ability the psychiatrist uses to help an addict. A psychiatrist can use different abilities like communication or hand-over-hand.
Justin108 wrote:Your entire solution is vague!

Step 1 - God became Jesus
Step 2 - God achieved a surrendered human nature
Step 3 - Using this surrendered human nature, Jesus helped us surrender (somehow)

Step 3 is incredibly vague. Can you perhaps explain how he did this? Not how he metaphorically did this, so don't tell me about hand-holding again... I want to know the logical process of step 3. How did step 3 happen?
God indwells the human and lives life in concert with the human, making decisions together and doing the actual surrendering together. 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.
Justin108 wrote:Don't tell me what I implied. Read what I literally wrote. I explicitly used the word "fix". God can "fix" our nature without becoming human. If God can create our nature without becoming human, then why can't he fix our nature without becoming human?
He can fix it. Either by (1) negating our free will, which He doesn't want to do. Or by (2) giving us the knowledge of how to do it ourselves, which we've already failed at following. Or by (3) actually doing it with us. In (3) the thing we need done with us is surrendering. God can't surrender with us, without surrendering and God can't surrender without having the ability to surrender.
Justin108 wrote:The wizard is magic. He can achieve this without dragon parts.
If we were just asking the wizard to breathe fire that would be one thing. But we are talking about the wizard breathing fire in a dragonish way (i.e., God surrendering in a human way, not just surrendering in general). That means having dragon parts.

How can the wizard breathe fire in a dragonish way without dragon parts? This isn't a question of power, but of logic.
Justin108 wrote:What is your definition of a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature? Be precise in your wording
While I cannot guarantee that I am as precise as can be, I can only offer the best I've got. Here is how I defined it in post 123 (P1 of that argument):
The Tanager wrote:(Definition: A freely surrendered human nature is one that has the ability to surrender or choose self-reliance. A perfectly surrendered human nature is one that chooses to surrender in every situation.)
So, a freely and perfectly surrendered human nature is a nature that has the ability to surrender or choose self-reliance (prescriptive part) and chooses surrender in every situation (descriptive part).

At the time of creation there is only prescription. That is why, in R2, I said that at the time of creation a perfectly surrendered nature would mean one does not have the ability to choose self-reliance and, therefore, one could not create a nature with free will that is perfectly surrendered (R5).

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4977
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Post #156

Post by The Tanager »

5. On the Trinity
Justin108 wrote:Does God have a higher being to surrender to now?...

Are they not the same being?
See, here I wasn't as precise as I should have been. You'll probably initially think I'm moving the goalpost, but it wasn't a deceitful thing. I didn't come into this with an argument I wanted to put across to you...waiting for my chance to move the goalpost on you. That would be a ridiculous way to plan things. I'm trying to explore my thoughts and tighten them up and see if I should change them. One way to change them is through tightening up the terms being used.

And if you are after truth, your responses must change as the terms get tightened up, without faulting them now for being too loose earlier. That doesn't mean I'm right in what I'm now saying and I do want to get at truth, so I thank you for helping me in this journey.

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

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #157

Post by Justin108 »

The Tanager wrote:
If I made the claim that I can fly and you responded with "you can but I can't", would I be able to say "you just think you can't fly but you actually can"?

But anyway, as I said before, if you insist that I can then explain to me how
Saying and showing are two different things. You are arguing that the Christian God is incoherent (or at least unjust) because you don't have control over your beliefs. It rests on the truth of that statement. I'm asking you to give me reason to believe that statement is true.
If I made the claim that I can't fly, how would I go about proving my claim?
The Tanager wrote: Your reason is "I can't see how it's not true based on my own personal experience."

Yet you later say in post 147 that we can't use personal experience as evidence. How is this different?
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. 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.

Secondly, my personal experience is not the only piece of evidence I've provided. 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.
The Tanager wrote:
I can't do that because in virtually every instance, one option is more plausible than the other. I automatically believe the most probable outcome. When both options are virtually equal in plausibility, I take the middle ground of uncertainty.
Then what is the evidence that tips the scales of your belief "we have no control over our beliefs" into the more plausible category? Because you aren't taking the middle ground of uncertainty here and you said personal experience can't be used.
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 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.
The Tanager wrote:
How exactly should I explain that to you? Suppose I made the claim that "my heart beating is an automatic process and I literally cannot help it". If you were to ask "how do you know your heart beating is an automatic process?", how would I be able to explain that to you? What would be a satisfactory answer?
You would point to the science, wouldn't you, since our heart is in the realm of scientific study and science seems to have given us an answer here.
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?

I must say, I find it quite curious that you would readily believe a man came back from the dead but you are so skeptical over my claim that I cannot choose my own beliefs.
The Tanager wrote:
Simply put, is it possible to make the choice to believe in fairies without evidence? If no, then it is by definition not a choice.
It may depend on what you mean by 'evidence'.
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.
The Tanager wrote: I don't use it that way and so I would say some people choose to believe in God without any evidence. I think the same could be the case with fairies.
Can you choose to believe in fairies? I'm going to keep asking this until you answer me.
The Tanager wrote:
Just to clarify, you are in fact saying it is possible to choose a belief without looking at the evidence? If this is what you are saying (which, according to this quote, it is exactly what you are saying) then why can't you choose to believe in fairies? I have asked you this many times and every single time you come up with an excuse for why you won't. I am asking if you can. Here you clearly say one can make a selection without evidence. You have no evidence for fairies. Can you make the selection to believe in fairies?
Moving from the general to the personal now. I choose to search for evidence for my beliefs to see what are rational options and make my choices from what I believe to be rational options.
You're telling me what you do. I'm asking what you can do.
To illustrate the difference
- I drive to work every day
- I can take the bus every day

So if you asked "can you take the bus to work",if I answered "I drive to work every day", then I'm not answering your question. A proper answer is "Yes, I can take the bus every day, but I choose to drive to work".

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 Tanager wrote: No, you provided a link. If you really think this is good philosophical evidence, make the actual argument and I'll respond. If you don't think it is good evidence, don't be disingenuous.
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.
The Tanager wrote:
Can one not get a feeling of rationality from choosing theism?
Yes, one can.
When why would someone choose atheism?
The Tanager wrote: But you asked for a reason why a moral atheist would choose atheism over theism if they have some freedom over their beliefs, so I gave one.
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?
The Tanager wrote:
Why does this matter? All this means is that the topic of God is more popular. So this is basically an appeal to popularity.
No, it's about quality, not quantity.

You said "fairies don't have thousands of years of debate on their existence" (post 140). "Thousands of years of debate" is quantity.
The Tanager wrote:The quantity simply follows the quality of evidence.

What quality evidence does the Christian God have that fairies don't?
The Tanager wrote:If the quality was not there then the philosophical debate would not have lasted as long as it has and will continue to.

Care to support that claim?

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #158

Post by Justin108 »

The Tanager wrote: I never said the evidence for the resurrection is "the Bible says so".
Then what is the evidence for the resurrection?
The Tanager wrote: I've also clearly said, multiple times, about ending the analysis of your arguments before going on to analyze Christian arguments for God.
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.
The Tanager wrote:
If you can justify why it is "the best explanation", then yes.
So, you seem to me to be saying that 'radical evidence' for the radical claim of theism would include arguments for God's existence that appear to be the best explanation, even though they lack certainty. Am I understanding you correctly?
If you can justify that it is the best explanation, then yes...
The Tanager wrote:
You said "using your definition of convince (as I see it) negates free will" (post 136). What do you think my definition of "convince" is?
You seem to think beliefs automatically follow from evidence, so that if you share certain evidence, then you will convince someone of a certain belief.
For some people (such as myself), yes. If you give me irrefutable evidence of something, then I literally have no choice but to believe it. As long as I understand the evidence and the implications of the evidence, I have no choice but to believe the evidence. Are you suggesting that God appearing before me would negate my free will?
The Tanager wrote:
When I suggested that God speaks to me directly, you asked "how would you know it isn't Satan?". Well here's your answer.
So, your position is that God should negate your free will if you wanted God to?
This is nonsensical. Me not wanting to hear Satan speak to me is my free will! If God obliges me, he is not negating my free will, he is fulfilling it.
The Tanager wrote:
Does God "know" that I will still not believe in him if he appeared to me?
First, realize the context of 'believe in Him' has shifted to following God not just believing in God's existence.
You're shifting the goalpost again. I am not talking about following God, I am simply talking about believing in him. We can get to the follow part later.
The Tanager wrote: You were talking about people being damned and that is from not following God.
Mark 16:16 is clear in that those who do not believe are damned.
The Tanager wrote:
This makes no sense. Can you please restructure this argument? What exactly do you mean by "chafed"?
The argument is that if God always appears to people or writes Jesus' name on DNA or whatever, we are going to be constantly confronted with God's perfection. In human society, we often grow tired of those who seem perfect. God doesn't want people to grow tired of His perfection and how they don't measure up to Him.
Christians believe God is perfect and they know they do not measure up to him. I have literally not met a single Christian that has grown tired of this.
The Tanager wrote:
Will all atheists get "chafed" by God's perfection? Would you get "chafed" by God's perfection if he actually showed it to you?
Not now, but maybe earlier in my life when I was confronted with my imperfections.

Are you saying God should appear to people even though it would lead to them growing tired of Him?
I'm saying I'm doubting your argument that people will grow tired of him.

Here's a thought... in heaven, will we not all be constantly confronted by God's perfection? If so, would we not grow tired of God in heaven?
The Tanager wrote:
Why is it important that CS Lewis came to belief in God through faith rather than reason? What's so special about faith?
He didn't come through faith instead of reason. Reason and arguments actually played a large role in his conversion. And Lewis has made a huge impact on atheists and agnostics who have also converted to Christianity as well as Christians becoming more rationally engaged with their belief in God.

Without the silence from God (i.e., God not appearing to Him directly) Lewis would not have had the experiences and struggling through reasoning that shaped his life and writings that have so impacted so many other people.
And if it was not for the struggles of WW2, Oscar Schindler would not have inspired and impacted the lives of many other people. Therefore...WW2 is good? The fact that a few good things can come from struggle does not mean that struggle is a good thing.
The Tanager wrote:
If God revealed himself, then people like CS Lewis would not be necessary. This is like saying "if food was readily available to people in Africa, then there would be no one helping get food to people in Africa. Therefore it is a good thing that there isn't food readily available to all people in Africa". Do you see the flaw in this reasoning?
It's about quality of Lewis' life and other people's lives. Reason and intellect and wrestling through tough questions brings a deeper element to the relationship.
Are you saying that if Lewis had proof of God's existence (i.e God appearing before him) then Lewis would have had a lesser quality life?

Many atheists end up as nihilists. They have little to no quality in life. God appearing before them would fix this.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #159

Post by Justin108 »

The Tanager wrote:
God wants us all to choose surrender, yet literally everyone of us chooses self-reliance. God wants us to have a completely different default-nature. He designed us to find self-reliance more attractive yet he wants us to choose surrender. He designed us with a default-nature that is more attracted to self-reliance. Why did he do this?
Christianity doesn't think he did. You obviously do. But you need to support this. You say that all humans choose self-reliance proves this, but do you actually support that with good reasons?
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)?

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?

Saying "just because people literally choose self-reliance every single time, does not mean that self-reliance is attractive to our nature" is no different from saying that "just because water boils at 100°C every single time, does not mean that water boiling at 100°C is in its nature". Yes. It does. Unless you abandon empiricism and adopt radical skepticism.
The Tanager wrote:
How do you know what atheists want? I would want a relationship with God. I just don't believe he exists
And we have already agreed that you can't want something you don't think exists, haven't we?
What? No. I have never at any point agreed to that at all. The fact that just about every kid in the 90's wanted a Pokemon is enough to prove this one wrong.
The Tanager wrote:
So instead he forces us to die and go to hell. I would gladly go to this new earth. God allowing me would not be forcing me
I think we already talked about how my view of hell is probably not the same one you are thinking of. Hell is the continuance of a life that is not in relationship with God. 'Allowing you to go to the new earth' would be forcing you into a relationship with something you don't even think exists, which means it can't be a relationship.
No it would not. He's the one that made the rule that only those who love him are invited to his new earth. He could easily lift this rule. Secondly, if belief is such a big issue... then God can just prove to me he exists and then allow me to form a relationship with him. It's that simple.
The Tanager wrote:
To illustrate, there are people with eating disorders where they eat sand. There are literally no people who choose surrender. It is more natural for us to eat sand than it is to choose surrender.
No, there are no people who choose surrender most of the time.
Ok, to illustrate, there are people with eating disorders where they eat sand. There are literally no people who choose surrender most of the time. It is more natural for us to eat sand than it is to choose surrender most of the time. Better?
The Tanager wrote:
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?
The Tanager wrote:
Probable is an understatement. It will be staggeringly improbable for literally billions of people to all choose 2a over 2b. It's about as likely as landing heads billions of times in a row, flipping a coin.
Free will is different than something like the rolling of dice or a mechanistic process, so your arguments from probability don't really factor in.
Then why did you bring up the dice argument in post 142?

Free will might be different than a mechanical process, but it does not make it except from the concept of probability. Suppose there was a lottery game and a million people participated. They all choose their own numbers for the lottery game (making it a free-will choice). Suppose all of them chose the exact same numbers. Suppose every one of the one million people participating chose 1, 5, 8, 22, 26, 42 as their lottery numbers. Would you find this remarkable? Would this be highly improbable for a million different people to make the exact same choice? Or does it not matter because "free will"?
The Tanager wrote: I'll ask again: are you saying that free will MUST result in some people choosing surrender most of the time?
I am not saying it MUST result in some people choosing surrender most of the time, but it is highly HIGHLY unlikely that no one would. So if this is your position, then you are appealing to extraordinary coincidence.

Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Post #160

Post by Justin108 »

The Tanager wrote:
Let me rephrase my earlier question: Why does he need to do it with us in order to get us to successfully surrender? Why can't he successfully help us do it without doing it with us? Why is "doing it with us" the only possible successful solution? Why is an omnipotent God so limited?
There are three logical options for our surrendering, that I see as exhaustive. (1) We do it ourselves alone. (2) We do it with the 'physical' help of another. (3) Someone does it for us.

We failed at (1). Free will is negated by (3) and God does not want to take that away. The only logical option left is (2).
Why can't God physically help us without first gaining a surrendered nature?
The Tanager wrote: You agreed earlier that omnipotence does not mean doing the logically impossible
Yes. But I do not see why it is logically impossible for God to 'physically' help us without gaining a surrendered nature first.
The Tanager wrote:so you can't bring them up as a critique of God now, if you want to remain consistent.
I am consistent. I have consistently been asking you to demonstrate why it is logically impossible to physically help us surrender without God gaining a perfectly surrendered nature.
The Tanager wrote:
Is "the Divine" someone else? Or is it the same being? If it's the same being, then Jesus is literally surrendering to himself. This is self-reliance.
Humans surrender their natures to the Divine nature. Jesus does the same.
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.
The Tanager wrote: Sure, it is different because Jesus is said to be a Person with two natures and we are only persons with one nature, but just like with the Trinity, while we can't fully grasp this (since it transcends how we exist), it is not a logical contradiction.
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".

You keep shifting your arguments. First you said God cannot surrender because he has no one above him to surrender to, then you tell me Jesus can surrender, despite having no one above him to surrender to. You shift the goalpost to "oh but Jesus is surrendering to a higher nature", despite the fact that your initial position was clearly a matter of surrendering to a higher being and not a higher nature. And when you start to realize that none of this makes any sense, you start an appeal to special pleading by saying "oh we cannot grasp it because it transcends how we exist".

Get your argument together
The Tanager wrote: That's not 'making things up as I go along.'
It is. First you said we needed to surrender to a higher being, and now you're changing your story to us surrendering to a higher nature.
The Tanager wrote: If you think the Incarnation is clearly illogical then give an actual argument.
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
The Tanager wrote:
For the twentieth time, explain why it is logically impossible to do so.
That it is logically impossible to surrender without having the ability to surrender?
Why it is logically impossible for God to walk us through surrendering without the ability to surrender.
The Tanager wrote:
So a psychiatrist can help an addict without becoming an addict, but God can't help humans without becoming human?
...I said that God can't help humans who have not freely surrendered on their own freely surrender without becoming a human
Why not?
The Tanager wrote:
So in this instance, the psychiatrist has fewer limitations than God? That's odd.
Logic is odd, is it?
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.
The Tanager wrote:
It is not useless as a critique. It perfectly illustrates why God would not first need to afflict himself with human-ness in order to help humans. A God that would need this is terribly finite and thus not omnipotent.
It is useless because I'm not claiming that God can't help humans without becoming human
You are claiming that God cannot successfully help humans surrender without first afflicting himself with human-ness. A God that would need this to successfully help humans is terribly finite and thus not omnipotent.
The Tanager wrote: In this section we were talking about "my" analogy of the Christian solution. I was talking about how God would need to gain an ability in order to perform that ability with us to help us.
An omnipotent being would never need to gain an ability. If it needed to, it would by definition not be omnipotent.

The Tanager wrote: You can't perform an ability (either for yourself or to help someone else) if you don't have that ability.
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.
The Tanager wrote: Your analogy fails because 'becoming an addict' is not the ability the psychiatrist uses to help an addict.
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!
The Tanager wrote:
Your entire solution is vague!

Step 1 - God became Jesus
Step 2 - God achieved a surrendered human nature
Step 3 - Using this surrendered human nature, Jesus helped us surrender (somehow)

Step 3 is incredibly vague. Can you perhaps explain how he did this? Not how he metaphorically did this, so don't tell me about hand-holding again... I want to know the logical process of step 3. How did step 3 happen?
God indwells the human and lives life in concert with the human, making decisions together
God can do this without becoming Jesus first.
The Tanager wrote: and doing the actual surrendering together.
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?
The Tanager wrote: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.

So to summarize...

Step 1 - God became Jesus
Step 2 - God achieved a surrendered human nature
Step 3 - Using this surrendered human nature, Jesus helped us surrender

According to your above explanation, Step 3 is God giving us advice, making decisions with us and reminding us to do the right thing? Why are steps 1 and necessary in order to do step 3?
The Tanager wrote:
The wizard is magic. He can achieve this without dragon parts.
If we were just asking the wizard to breathe fire that would be one thing. But we are talking about the wizard breathing fire in a dragonish way (i.e., God surrendering in a human way, not just surrendering in general). That means having dragon parts.
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?

Post Reply