Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Mystic Warriors]

I mean, according to the Bible, God’s proved his existence before, on demand, to the people of Baal. There’s no reason he could’ do it again.

There isn't. But you will recall how infrequent these instances are. God has only "burning bush"/"rained fire" on a handful of individuals. The more typical approach is through personal intercessions of the Holy Spirit.

He also destroyed and entire country to make a point.

[Mystic Warriors]

Oh, that's a given. I don't particularly feel the need to try, tho.


That's not what was done tho. What he wanted was : " a metaphorical interpretation that reconciles all of the inaccuracies that appear when taken literally."
It's not a valid criticism, it's asking for an oxymoron.

It is. There are all these inaccuracies that you wave away as a metaphor. They're asking for this metaphor that solves all of these inaccuracies.

Is it possible that the generally unknowing/disbelieving misinterpret or do not recognize signs that they are provided? I tend to believe this is the case as God does indeed approach all individuals through workings of the Holy Spirit in their lifetime; however, it is up to them to receive and accept the process. So... Yknow it's more a lack of our acceptance than a failure of presentation.

This is God we're talking about. He should be easily able to convince all nonbelievers if he tried. The fact that he does not, or that his signs are so shit only people searching for him can see them (potentially becoming a case of confirmation bias) speaks wonders about him.

Also provide some of these signs. I bet they're easily explainable, coincidences or have other explanations than God.

You are showing confirmation bias by asking. No matter what is presented you will just deny it.

[Estanglia]

It is. There are all these inaccuracies that you wave away as a metaphor. They're asking for this metaphor that solves all of these inaccuracies.



This is God we're talking about. He should be easily able to convince all nonbelievers if he tried. The fact that he does not, or that his signs are so shit only people searching for him can see them (potentially becoming a case of confirmation bias) speaks wonders about him.

Also provide some of these signs. I bet they're easily explainable, coincidences or have other explanations than God.

You are showing confirmation bias by asking. No matter what is presented you will just deny it.

Sweet assumption about me. Because I would totally deny undeniable proof of God.

My point with that last sentence was that most 'signs' used to prove God fall into one of those three categories. Either there's an easy, proven explanation other than God, God isn't the only explanation or it's just a coincidence. Of course I'm going to deny anything that falls into those categories because they're not actual proof of God, they're assumptions at best that have as much proof behind them as 'because it is' or 'it's just a coincidence'.

[Mystic Warriors]

You are showing confirmation bias by asking. No matter what is presented you will just deny it.

Sweet assumption about me. Because I would totally deny undeniable proof of God.

My point with that last sentence was that most 'signs' used to prove God fall into one of those three categories. Either there's an easy, proven explanation other than God, God isn't the only explanation or it's just a coincidence. Of course I'm going to deny anything that falls into those categories because they're not actual proof of God, they're assumptions at best that have as much proof behind them as 'because it is' or 'it's just a coincidence'.

It's not an assumption if you admitt it.

[Estanglia]

Sweet assumption about me. Because I would totally deny undeniable proof of God.

My point with that last sentence was that most 'signs' used to prove God fall into one of those three categories. Either there's an easy, proven explanation other than God, God isn't the only explanation or it's just a coincidence. Of course I'm going to deny anything that falls into those categories because they're not actual proof of God, they're assumptions at best that have as much proof behind them as 'because it is' or 'it's just a coincidence'.

It's not an assumption if you admitt it.

You said;

No matter what is presented you will just deny it.

Unless you're admitting that all signs of God fall under those three categories and thus aren't proof of God, no I didn't. I admitted to denying non-proof. I was asking for actual signs, things for which God is the only or the most likely cause. 'No matter' implies that everything put in front of me I will deny as proof. The ones I will deny are the ones that aren't proof.

[Mystic Warriors]

It's not an assumption if you admitt it.

You said;

No matter what is presented you will just deny it.

Unless you're admitting that all signs of God fall under those three categories and thus aren't proof of God, no I didn't. I admitted to denying non-proof. I was asking for actual signs, things for which God is the only or the most likely cause. 'No matter' implies that everything put in front of me I will deny as proof. The ones I will deny are the ones that aren't proof.

Nice moving the goalposts and making assumptions about me. The last statement was you admitting it, you cant backpeddle to save face.


I never made any statements on them, just called you out for trying to lump them all into one basket to confirm your views.

[Lost Memories]

Because the Bible isn't a scientific treaty. It's the Bible.

Then why include it at all if it'll only end up making people more ignorant and eventually make people believe the text is inaccurate after discovering the actual origins of man and the universe?

No need for that, people are always ignorant, and always will be, getting even a little bit out of it requires study and humility.

But most higher powers, and especially God, do not exist as a genie in a bottle? Thinking you can, on-demand, have access to... Whatever, signs and wonders, burning bushes, etc. is kind of hubris isn't it?

Not really no, its more like a God could provide a sign anytime he wants if he actually cares about people believing they exist.

If we go by christian doctrine, God doesn't need humans to believe in him, in the sense that God doesn't lose something from not being believed in. God is merciful, but that doesn't change the relation, it is God, and we are humans, humans have no place in ordering or demanding to God, and God can't be bribed. (differently than with pagan gods, where it was custom to try to bribe them with sacrifices)

It's humans who need the grace of God, being in a state of grace isn't something decided from above or forced (a determinist would think that, and they would be wrong), being in grace is one of the possibilities of the free will humans have, God has given the possibility for it, to everyone, realizing that possibility is up to each of everyone.
Others can point the way to God, correct mistakes, and explain what they can, but no one can give you a reason to believe, that part has always been on the single person.
Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is, lazyness is far away from the state of grace.

[Poseidonian Republic]

I don't
I won't, until I see valid, credible and non-disputable proof.
The rock paradox

[Estanglia]

You said;

No matter what is presented you will just deny it.

Unless you're admitting that all signs of God fall under those three categories and thus aren't proof of God, no I didn't. I admitted to denying non-proof. I was asking for actual signs, things for which God is the only or the most likely cause. 'No matter' implies that everything put in front of me I will deny as proof. The ones I will deny are the ones that aren't proof.

Nice moving the goalposts and making assumptions about me. The last statement was you admitting it, you cant backpeddle to save face.

Missed the word 'unless'? I'm not assuming you admitted that. And where the hell did I move goalposts? Pointing out you said that all evidence provided I'll dismiss, then pointing out that I dismiss the ones that aren't evidence isn't shifting the goalposts. Maybe next time you shouldn't make absolute statements.

And no I still haven't admitted to dismissing all evidence. Call it pedantry if you wish, but I haven't.

I never made any statements on them, just called you out for trying to lump them all into one basket to confirm your views.

I didn't lump them all into one basket. 'Most' being the key word there. And man, there must be so many that are actually signs for me to have to lump them all together to confirm my views.

Let me explain why I'm dismissing some of them:

1) It's easily explainable. There is another alternative that has proof other than God, making God an assumption with less evidence than the other claim.
2) It's a coincidence. Petty easy one. Unless there is evidence for something else, assuming God did it is, well, an assumption with no evidence.
3) There are other options. It being God is again an assumption, one with no more evidence than any other God.

I am open to a sign that doesn't fall into any of those categories being given.

[Ctulhu]

Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is, lazyness is far away from the state of grace.

If you think about it, isn't it more lazy to see something you don't understand and then say ''it must be the work of god" than to actually wait for evidence or a scientific explanation or to seek one yourself?

(I've not been following this thread until now, so don't blame me if i misunderstood your post.)

[Genivaria]

Then why include it at all if it'll only end up making people more ignorant and eventually make people believe the text is inaccurate after discovering the actual origins of man and the universe?

No need for that, people are always ignorant, and always will be, getting even a little bit out of it requires study and humility.

Not really no, its more like a God could provide a sign anytime he wants if he actually cares about people believing they exist.

If we go by christian doctrine, God doesn't need humans to believe in him, in the sense that God doesn't lose something from not being believed in. God is merciful, but that doesn't change the relation, it is God, and we are humans, humans have no place in ordering or demanding to God, and God can't be bribed. (differently than with pagan gods, where it was custom to try to bribe them with sacrifices)

It's humans who need the grace of God, being in a state of grace isn't something decided from above or forced (a determinist would think that, and they would be wrong), being in grace is one of the possibilities of the free will humans have, God has given the possibility for it, to everyone, realizing that possibility is up to each of everyone.
Others can point the way to God, correct mistakes, and explain what they can, but no one can give you a reason to believe, that part has always been on the single person.
Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is, lazyness is far away from the state of grace.

Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is

No that's called being rational, if God WANTS people to believe in him then he knows exactly how to make that happen.

[New Legland]

Then why include it at all if it'll only end up making people more ignorant and eventually make people believe the text is inaccurate after discovering the actual origins of man and the universe?

No need for that, people are always ignorant, and always will be, getting even a little bit out of it requires study and humility.

People being ignorant makes it okay to make them more ignorant? Nice to know God doesn't value knowledge and human advancement.

Not really no, its more like a God could provide a sign anytime he wants if he actually cares about people believing they exist.

If we go by christian doctrine, God doesn't need humans to believe in him, in the sense that God doesn't lose something from not being believed in. God is merciful

And yet we'll burn in Hell forever for not believing in him.

Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is, lazyness is far away from the state of grace.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's lazy to not believe in unicorns because I've yet to see any proof of their existence or reason to believe in them? You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason. This is one of, if not, the most ridiculous claim I've seen made on this thread.

[Genivaria]

No need for that, people are always ignorant, and always will be, getting even a little bit out of it requires study and humility.

People being ignorant makes it okay to make them more ignorant? Nice to know God doesn't value knowledge and human advancement.

If we go by christian doctrine, God doesn't need humans to believe in him, in the sense that God doesn't lose something from not being believed in. God is merciful

And yet we'll burn in Hell forever for not believing in him.

Waiting for a proof or reason to be given to start believing, is what lazyness is, lazyness is far away from the state of grace.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's lazy to not believe in unicorns because I've yet to see any proof of their existence or reason to believe in them? You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason. This is one of, if not, the most ridiculous claims I've seen made on this thread.

Oh my Sweet Summer Child you've seen nothing yet.

[Lunar Rheinland]

Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

Because Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, Dumbledore, Harry and Lily died for my sins.

[New Legland]

People being ignorant makes it okay to make them more ignorant? Nice to know God doesn't value knowledge and human advancement.

And yet we'll burn in Hell forever for not believing in him.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's lazy to not believe in unicorns because I've yet to see any proof of their existence or reason to believe in them? You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason. This is one of, if not, the most ridiculous claims I've seen made on this thread.

Oh my Sweet Summer Child you've seen nothing yet.

You're scaring me.

[Myrensis]

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's lazy to not believe in unicorns because I've yet to see any proof of their existence or reason to believe in them? You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason. This is one of, if not, the most ridiculous claim I've seen made on this thread.

That's because you're forgetting the inherent special pleading always attached to such arguments. Obviously you shouldn't believe in unicorns and such things without evidence, because that's just silly, but (our)God really is magic, so you should definitely believe in him regardless of evidence or lack thereof!

Comes up in things like the 'First Cause' argument as well, "Everything has to have a cause, except (our)God(because we say so), therefore God must exist!"

[Dogmeat]

People being ignorant makes it okay to make them more ignorant? Nice to know God doesn't value knowledge and human advancement.

And yet we'll burn in Hell forever for not believing in him.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's lazy to not believe in unicorns because I've yet to see any proof of their existence or reason to believe in them? You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason. This is one of, if not, the most ridiculous claims I've seen made on this thread.

Oh my Sweet Summer Child you've seen nothing yet.

You forget that on NSG it's summer that's the bad one.

[New Legland]

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's lazy to not believe in unicorns because I've yet to see any proof of their existence or reason to believe in them? You can't really be saying we should believe in things with no proof or reason. This is one of, if not, the most ridiculous claim I've seen made on this thread.

That's because you're forgetting the inherent special pleading always attached to such arguments. Obviously you shouldn't believe in unicorns and such things without evidence, because that's just silly, but (our)God really is magic, so you should definitely believe in him regardless of evidence or lack thereof!

Comes up in things like the 'First Cause' argument as well, "Everything has to have a cause, except (our)God(because we say so), therefore God must exist!"

You know, when you say it like that, it begins to make sense.

[Korhal IVV]

Oh, that's a given. I don't particularly feel the need to try, tho.


That's not what was done tho. What he wanted was : " a metaphorical interpretation that reconciles all of the inaccuracies that appear when taken literally."
It's not a valid criticism, it's asking for an oxymoron.

It is. There are all these inaccuracies that you wave away as a metaphor. They're asking for this metaphor that solves all of these inaccuracies.

Is it possible that the generally unknowing/disbelieving misinterpret or do not recognize signs that they are provided? I tend to believe this is the case as God does indeed approach all individuals through workings of the Holy Spirit in their lifetime; however, it is up to them to receive and accept the process. So... Yknow it's more a lack of our acceptance than a failure of presentation.

This is God we're talking about. He should be easily able to convince all nonbelievers if he tried. The fact that he does not, or that his signs are so shit only people searching for him can see them (potentially becoming a case of confirmation bias) speaks wonders about him.

Also provide some of these signs. I bet they're easily explainable, coincidences or have other explanations than God.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus deal with that, actually. Abraham there says that “Do they not have the prophets and the Law of Moses?” In short, the problem is disbelie, not presentation.

Divine election also comes in here; the natural state of man is to constantly deny God. God is the one initiating the process and obviously not all will get it. If you think that is unfair... well, fair would be witholding grace at all and letting every single sinful human to hell.

[Tarsonis]

It is. There are all these inaccuracies that you wave away as a metaphor. They're asking for this metaphor that solves all of these inaccuracies.



This is God we're talking about. He should be easily able to convince all nonbelievers if he tried. The fact that he does not, or that his signs are so shit only people searching for him can see them (potentially becoming a case of confirmation bias) speaks wonders about him.

Also provide some of these signs. I bet they're easily explainable, coincidences or have other explanations than God.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus deal with that, actually. Abraham there says that “Do they not have the prophets and the Law of Moses?” In short, the problem is disbelie, not presentation.

Divine election also comes in here; the natural state of man is to constantly deny God. God is the one initiating the process and obviously not all will get it. If you think that is unfair... well, fair would be witholding grace at all and letting every single sinful human to hell.

Divine election as Korhal explains it is heresy, so don’t judge us all by his metric.

[Thuzbekistan]

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus deal with that, actually. Abraham there says that “Do they not have the prophets and the Law of Moses?” In short, the problem is disbelie, not presentation.

Divine election also comes in here; the natural state of man is to constantly deny God. God is the one initiating the process and obviously not all will get it. If you think that is unfair... well, fair would be witholding grace at all and letting every single sinful human to hell.

Divine election as Korhal explains it is heresy, so don’t judge us all by his metric.

Calvinism and it's related denominations are the minority, yeah.

[Arctrucia]

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus deal with that, actually. Abraham there says that “Do they not have the prophets and the Law of Moses?” In short, the problem is disbelie, not presentation.

Divine election also comes in here; the natural state of man is to constantly deny God. God is the one initiating the process and obviously not all will get it. If you think that is unfair... well, fair would be witholding grace at all and letting every single sinful human to hell.

Divine election as Korhal explains it is heresy, so don’t judge us all by his metric.

The dead cannot look at a cross though.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-doct ... -election/

Why are some verse very explicit in God “choosing” though?

[Thuzbekistan]

Divine election as Korhal explains it is heresy, so don’t judge us all by his metric.

The dead cannot look at a cross though.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-doct ... -election/

Why are some verse very explicit in God “choosing” though?

What?

[Tarsonis]

Divine election as Korhal explains it is heresy, so don’t judge us all by his metric.

The dead cannot look at a cross though.

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-doctrine-divine-election/

Why are some verse very explicit in God “choosing” though?

In the OT much of God “choosing” is poetic. God Chose but such choices were made before time, not in the moment as it were. My point was that Korhal’s explaination of election, that God chooses who will be saved and who won’t be, is heresy to all ancient churches and many Protestant ones. Only the Calvinist bent take that heretical view. Free will is a necessary component of Christian Easchatology and Soteriology.

[Myrensis]

It is. There are all these inaccuracies that you wave away as a metaphor. They're asking for this metaphor that solves all of these inaccuracies.



This is God we're talking about. He should be easily able to convince all nonbelievers if he tried. The fact that he does not, or that his signs are so shit only people searching for him can see them (potentially becoming a case of confirmation bias) speaks wonders about him.

Also provide some of these signs. I bet they're easily explainable, coincidences or have other explanations than God.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus deal with that, actually. Abraham there says that “Do they not have the prophets and the Law of Moses?” In short, the problem is disbelie, not presentation.

Divine election also comes in here; the natural state of man is to constantly deny God. God is the one initiating the process and obviously not all will get it. If you think that is unfair... well, fair would be witholding grace at all and letting every single sinful human to hell.

Except God spends a considerable part of the Bible very actively and visibly taking part in human affairs and making himself very much known. Curious how God's exhibitionism is inversely proportional to human scientific understanding and advancement. Shame he'd gone into complete seclusion by the time we invented the camera.