Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[Justin108]

Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[Justin108]

That's irrelevant. I'm still communicating with you.

I would say no. You are communicating at me, would be more the truth.

The fact that I write something, and you reply to what I write, followed by me replying what you write, and so forth... means we are communicating. I'm not sure exactly sure what communicating "at" someone means. Care to explain?

I would say, and this is being generous... a '2'. Pretty poor.

Again, my relationship with you is irrelevant regarding my ability to communicate with you.

You asked for method - I said it was complicated.

Yes and that's not really an answer. "It's complicated" is not a method. It's an excuse for not providing a method.

Sincerely - in my own experience forming relationship with EE, communication with her brought about its own challenges...

In order for those challenges to arise, you'd first have to start communicating with "her", correct? Just give me the first step. Before "she" started challenging you in... whatever ways, what did you do? What was your 'opening line' so to speak?

as she slowly and surely peeled away the layers of attitude which comprised the costume I was not even aware I was wearing.

This implies you managed to communicate with "her" at least to some extent, despite having a "costume" on. Clearly the "costume" you had didn't prevent communication entirely.

Method isn't just about which device is best for the job. Method also involves approach.

Ok what approach did you take?

You seem to be under the impression that you can commune with others without any forming of relationship being necessary.

Normally, in the real world, people communicate in order to form a relationship. My friend became my friend after I started communicating with him. My girlfriend became my girlfriend after I started communicating with her. Before the initial conversation with these people, I had no relationship with them. It's precisely the conversation that resulted in a relationship. Sure, existing relationships may influence future conversation, but if we look back at the beginning, every relationship starts with a conversation, not the other way around as you seem to think.

This is erroneous and therefore part of the method has to include - in my answering the question - that ones approach to relationship involving communication involves adjusting ones attitude. Without the willingness to be open to that idea of approach, the method won't/can't be of any use.

Would this approach perhaps entail the a priori assumption that the EE exists?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 28 by For_The_Kingdom]

A voice out of the sky, everyone hears, but/and says everyones name, but they only hear theirs, would convince me, freely.

It could say, [Name], there is a greater power in the Universe, follow the Bible.

I'd be converted, freely.
Actually this is just an over-the-top example.

You are right, it is over-the-top...it is so over-the-top that it doesn't accurately reflect the context of what I said.

I was talking about being forced to believe in a free manner. It is a oxymoron. Fallacious.

So in your mind, giving us proof of his existence is "forcing" us to believe? And that this is a bad thing?

Do scientists force the public to believe against their will when they provide evidence for whatever scientific discoveries they make? Should scientists in the future be more subtle? Instead of writing an evidence based thesis, they should instead write some poetry with clues in it regarding what they discovered as to prevent them accidentally forcing our belief against our free will?

[For_The_Kingdom]

So in your mind, giving us proof of his existence is "forcing" us to believe?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20)

So according to the Bible, men are without excuse for not believing. What you have is a universe that began to exist, consciousness that originated from dead matter, and human bodies that began to configure.

If that isn't enough to point you in the direction of intelligent design, then I don't know what will.

Do scientists force the public to believe against their will when they provide evidence for whatever scientific discoveries they make?

No, because let you people tell it...science proves macroevolution, right? Well guess what? I don't believe it. I am freely choosing not to believe it.

Should scientists in the future be more subtle? Instead of writing an evidence based thesis, they should instead write some poetry with clues in it regarding what they discovered as to prevent them accidentally forcing our belief against our free will?

At the end of the day, either you believe it or you don't. The evidence has been presented, and you simply choose not to believe the evidence. Everyone isn't so fortunate to have a road to Damascus experience, but nevertheless, the evidence is there.

[Justin108]

So in your mind, giving us proof of his existence is "forcing" us to believe?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20)

So according to the Bible, men are without excuse for not believing. What you have is a universe that began to exist, consciousness that originated from dead matter, and human bodies that began to configure.

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

I ask again. In your mind, is giving us proof of his existence "forcing" us to believe?

At the end of the day, either you believe it or you don't. The evidence has been presented, and you simply choose not to believe the evidence.

What evidence?

Everyone isn't so fortunate to have a road to Damascus experience, but nevertheless, the evidence is there.

That's a bit unfair, don't you think? Didn't Paul go out of his way to hunt Christians at one point? And God rewards him with a miracle on the road to Damascus? I, however, used to be a devout Christian. Yet God gave me no such reward. Isn't God a God of justice?

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by Justin108]

The fact that I write something, and you reply to what I write, followed by me replying what you write, and so forth... means we are communicating.

Communication is more expansive than that. What we are doing is preliminary at best.

I'm not sure exactly sure what communicating "at" someone means. Care to explain?

GIYF

Again, my relationship with you is irrelevant regarding my ability to communicate with you.

No it is not. It is very relevant in relation to the context of my answer to your question.
You asked for method and developing a genuine relationship is part of that.

Yes and that's not really an answer. "It's complicated" is not a method. It's an excuse for not providing a method.

No - it is a genuine reason for not immediately providing you with a method. I did not claim that 'its complicated' was a 'method'. I said that the method itself was complicated.

Therein, I am saying one thing and you are deciding to reflect that back at me as something I didn't actually say, but rather how you decided to interpret what i said. Such method of communication you are employing presently, makes it difficult to form worthwhile relationship.

If you were to adopt that same method in relation to communing with EE, you won't last the course unless you change your approach in that regard.

Sincerely - in my own experience forming relationship with EE, communication with her brought about its own challenges...

In order for those challenges to arise, you'd first have to start communicating with "her", correct?

Obviously. Even then - I was not aware that it was the EE I was interacting with. That revelation came later.

Just give me the first step. Before "she" started challenging you in... whatever ways, what did you do?

That is not what I had in mind as a method. I am coming from the idea that others can skip the initial step I made. The manner in which the relationship between EE and I developed in its initial stages was something which may or may not be necessary for everyone to go through - I don't think it would be. By the time I used the particular method I did which allowed for a more direct conversational interaction, the priori had already been established sufficiently. It was not until I was well into using this method that I was informed of the EEs existence.

This implies you managed to communicate with "her" at least to some extent, despite having a "costume" on. Clearly the "costume" you had didn't prevent communication entirely.

This is correct. It did however present its own problems and required that peeling away process. Some of the things which were communicated to me went against the grain as it were. My resistance to incorporating new information often meant my beliefs were greatly challenged and in some cases this required my ceasing using the method for the amount of time necessary for me to process and integrate.

Also there was the factor of learning a different way in which language is generically used, which to begin with often annoyed me no end, but proved very beneficial once I got the hang of it.

Ok what approach did you take?

The particular method I used was a learning process in itself and required months of use and development as I went along. The method needs to be undertaken in a studious manner. It is not something which one can simply try out and if it doesn't fulfill ones expectations immediately, cast aside and claim 'it doesn't work'. One is best to remember one is communicating with an autonomous entity who has existed as that entity for an extremely long time. The better approach is to have no expectations - at least none set in stone.

Normally, in the real world, people communicate in order to form a relationship. My friend became my friend after I started communicating with him. My girlfriend became my girlfriend after I started communicating with her. Before the initial conversation with these people, I had no relationship with them. It's precisely the conversation that resulted in a relationship. Sure, existing relationships may influence future conversation, but if we look back at the beginning, every relationship starts with a conversation, not the other way around as you seem to think.

I wasn't arguing contrary to that. I was saying that relationships can be bad, good or neutral.

Your friend became your friend ( your girlfriend became your girlfriend) because you had something to do with the process. Your behavior helped make that possible. Before this, you still had a relationship with these individuals, only it wasn't good or bad. It just was.

Think about what you wanted to get out of the relationship with these individuals once the initial interaction began.

With the EE, I am not talking about a visible individual. I am speaking of an entity who exists within the form of a planet. I am also speaking of someone who knows us better than we know ourselves, so there is no hiding anything from her.

Do you really want to go there? If so, there is prepping to do. There is the designing of the device you will need to use. There is paperwork. There is simply no way in which anyone can approach this willy-nilly or in the attitude of anything less than a true and sincere will to discover and learn and forever be changed from the experience.

This is erroneous and therefore part of the method has to include - in my answering the question - that ones approach to relationship involving communication involves adjusting ones attitude. Without the willingness to be open to that idea of approach, the method won't/can't be of any use.

Would this approach perhaps entail the a priori assumption that the EE exists?

For me it did not. I was introduced to her through my approach. But that was me and my circumstance was different to your own in that regard. You have someone who claims that through this method he came to the knowledge that the EE was a real being and all that this implied - which I touch on in more detail here;

♦ The Earth Entity

...but also elsewhere in my Members Notes.

Your situation differs from mine in that I had nobody to tell me these things so I was unaware of them when I first used this method, and through using this method, became aware of them.

This is not to say that if you use this method, you will immediately be in intimate contact with the EE. There will very likely be things which need to be addressed prior to that becoming a reality. Prior to reaching that stage in the realtionship That is par for the course in relationship development.

I see no reason why you cannot approach this with the priori assumption that the EE exists.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So in your mind, giving us proof of his existence is "forcing" us to believe?

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20)

So according to the Bible, men are without excuse for not believing. What you have is a universe that began to exist, consciousness that originated from dead matter, and human bodies that began to configure.

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

I ask again. In your mind, is giving us proof of his existence "forcing" us to believe?

Um, I answered this question by implying that a house is evidence of a house builder, and a painting is evidence of a painter...and as I said..a universe which began to exist, consciousness that originated from dead matter, and human bodies that begin to configure <---are all evidence of intelligent design i.e. A Creator.

And that is just all good ole common sense, which I would have and realize even if I wasn't a Christian theist and just happen to have a Bible scripture which shares my sentiments.

What evidence?

Kalam cosmological argument
Argument from Design
Ontological argument
Argument from consciousness
Argument from language
Moral argument
Argument from Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which gets you to Christianity)

Each argument is independent and stands on its own feet, so that even if you were to debunk any one of them (and that is a big if), the other ones will remain standing.

So they all stand on their own feet individually, and collectively, it is fire proof. All evidence points toward the direction of creationism (theism).

That's a bit unfair, don't you think?

No, that's not what I think. We will all be held accountable for the evidence that we receive, starting with the finitude of the universe which should point every rational human being towards the direction of theism.

Didn't Paul go out of his way to hunt Christians at one point?

He sure did.

And God rewards him with a miracle on the road to Damascus?

It could be the case that Paul could/would have been convinced by lesser means, but God wanted to convince him with a more direct, dramatic approach.

I, however, used to be a devout Christian.

"It aint about where you from, it is about where you at (are), and what direction you are going in". -Calvin, inmate at Rahway prison, Scared Straight

Yet God gave me no such reward.

Your reward is Jesus Christ..you don't want that reward and God isn't going to force his gift upon you.

Isn't God a God of justice?

Yup...justice, mercy, grace, love, discipline, righteousness, holyness, etc.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by For_The_Kingdom]

Um, I answered this question by implying that a house is evidence of a house builder, and a painting is evidence of a painter...and as I said..a universe which began to exist, consciousness that originated from dead matter, and human bodies that begin to configure <---are all evidence of intelligent design i.e. A Creator.

I see, so because you cannot imagine how something would occur, it obviously couldn't.
Since you don't have the chemical background to understand how proteins can form from nitrogen, carbon, and so on, they obviously cannot.
Since you don't have the chemical background to understand how DNA comes from proteins, it obviously cannot.
Since you don't have the biological background to understand how proteins can self-replicate, they obviously cannot.
Since you don't have the biological background to understand how self-replication can endure, it obviously cannot.
Since you don't have the background to understand how endurance would lead to life, if obviously cannot.
Since you do not understand how life can evolve, it obviously cannot.
Since you do not understand how evolution would lead to tools, and houses, it obviously cannot.

I do hope you understand how the Sun will rise tomorrow, or how crops grow, lest the world, nay universe be in trouble, because if you don't understand how it happens, it obviously cannot.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by For_The_Kingdom]

Kalam cosmological argument
Argument from Design
Ontological argument
Argument from consciousness
Argument from language
Moral argument
Argument from Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which gets you to Christianity)

Each argument is independent and stands on its own feet, so that even if you were to debunk any one of them (and that is a big if), the other ones will remain standing.

I just have to remind you of two things. One, you've debated the ontological argument three times, twice in a head to head, one of them being with myself, and in both head to heads, you forfeited.
Second, in the head to head with myself, you attempted to start talking about Kalam, which I of course refused to do, since we were debating Ontological. Why is it you say each one is independent, able to stand on its own, when in a formal debate about one argument, you wanted to shift topics to another argument altogether?

Also, I have to point out, as Justin will no doubt do...
Arguments are not evidence. Arguments may deal with and talk about evidence sure, such as your mentioning of houses and paintings...but they are not themselves evidence.

I also want to point out a glaring contradiction. You earlier stated that God would not give us proof of his existence, because then that would be forcing us to believe in (and worship) him.

You then went on to state that despite the evidence provided to you in favour of (macro)evolution...you choose to discard it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I see, so because you cannot imagine how something would occur, it obviously couldn't.

Um, nope. It is more like "because it is impossible for x to be true, therefore, y."

Since you don't have the chemical background to understand how proteins can form from nitrogen, carbon, and so on, they obviously cannot.
Since you don't have the chemical background to understand how DNA comes from proteins, it obviously cannot.
Since you don't have the biological background to understand how proteins can self-replicate, they obviously cannot.
Since you don't have the biological background to understand how self-replication can endure, it obviously cannot.
Since you don't have the background to understand how endurance would lead to life, if obviously cannot.
Since you do not understand how life can evolve, it obviously cannot.
Since you do not understand how evolution would lead to tools, and houses, it obviously cannot.

Well, tell those that do have a background in all of that good stuff to go in a lab, and get sentient life from non-living material. Until then..theism.

I do hope you understand how the Sun will rise tomorrow, or how crops grow, lest the world, nay universe be in trouble, because if you don't understand how it happens, it obviously cannot.

The sun, crops, etc...all had a beginning, amigo.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 39 by For_The_Kingdom]

No, no amigo:
The boys in the lab don't have to do something impossible to prove your impossible beliefs are valid.

Labs make no claims of spontaneous generation of intelligent life, but life has been created from non-living material, and evolution has been proved.

Whereas matter as we know it, requires no creation, except in fairy tales.
Science has changed in 2000 years, you should catch up.

Syphilis isn't the punishment of the goat spirit for sin anymore.