<start random bizarro post>

<end random bizzaro post>

Call me naive but i think everyone tries to live by their morels.

Very good post. I never thought about how majority of the times the Christians that espouse the idea that their version of "faith" (most often defined as belief without evidence) is necessary are also the ones that say the "know" for a fact that God exists, which would at least implicitly state that they have some sort of irrefutable evidence. Nice catch.

Now let's not confuse what you wrote here (which does appear to be the position of some) with the theological position of necessary epistemic distance. Two very different concepts that are often confused in RGT.

Imo necessary epistemic distance is just a way of asserting God cant show himself sometimes because he just cant. If that's the way it is then there is no arguing it.

I would like to know why that's true though because if i don't i cant just accept it.

What NED is stating is that God does not reveal himself completely because if he did it would be a form of coercion. It is not that it would remove free will.

If I put a gun to your head and told you to love me or I will shoot you, would your "love" be real (in the sense that it was chosen)?

There is more to it, but that is it in a nut shell. So it is not that he cannot, but that he does not as that would hinder his over all goal.

If God showing himself is a form of coercion that means all the people in the bible who knew God were coerced and had a gun to their head.

This works for a God thats defined that way but i dont think it works well for the biblical God.

If it would get in the way of some goal to show himself, thats fine, but its an assertion without proof so i dont know if its true.

this makes no sense to me as God choosing to reveal himself to a person individually, either through some "miracle" or through some undeniable personal experience is a form of coercion as God could easily choose to not reveal himself.

Regardless as Dom already pointed out, God revealing Himself as 100% real, only puts everyone on an equal playing field. It has no effect on my choosing to love/follow Him. (but before you say it does, my point is that i'm not going to choose to love/follow God before I believe he actually exists, so His existence is a precondition for me choosing to love/follow him)

Another problem is, there are people who make an honest effort to find the Christian God, and make an honest appeal for Him to reveal Himself and receive no answer. Why does God not reveal Himself to these people?

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.

Oh. I misinterpreted what you said.

Oh well at least I made a good point of my own in the process I think...

As for the unbelievers, their works are like a mirage in a desert. The thirsty traveler thinks it is water, but when he comes near he finds that it is nothing. He finds Allah there, who pays him back in full. Swift is Allah's reckoning

Most of the stories in the bible that you are referring to you can make the case that the individual already made the choice, and that God revealing himself "fully" was more for an added level of trust that was necessary to accomplish a specific goal. Of course this really cannot be said about some, like Paul.

But it could be said reasonably that it would not be coercion is all situations will all people. Which would be why God would reveal himself "fully" some specific individuals, but not on a global scale.

By not "fully" revealing himself on a global "objective" scale, that allows God the control to pick and choose the situations where it would be beneficial to the individual.

How do you propose that one goes about "proving" this theory?

Nonsense. Having absolute proof of God's existence would in no way make me love him. In fact, if nothing else changed to provide justification for why the world is such a ****ed up place, I'm reasonably certain that I wouldn't love him. Maybe be scared ****less of him. But love? Not so sure.

I don't believe the mere fact that a being created me is enough for love. Just like I think that if I abused my kids they would be justified in not loving me- in fact hating me.

Fact is: theists who believe there is a God out there who is all-loving must come up with convoluted explanations such as this in order to square the circle. You have concluded that God is good before examing his actions (or inactions) and therefore must find ways to still consider such inactions "good".

Just like someone putting a gun to your head would not make you love them.


Again, no one is saying that if God sat in the sky for all to see that this would force you to love him.

[/QUOTE]Fact is: theists who believe there is a God out there who is all-loving must come up with convoluted explanations such as this in order to square the circle. You have concluded that God is good before examing his actions (or inactions) and therefore must find ways to still consider such inactions "good".[/QUOTE]

Fact is: from my perspective atheist don't want to believe there is a God out there so they must come up with convoluted explanations on why they don't believe that he exists, even though it is obvious that he does. You have concluded that God's actions are evil without actually taking the time to understand the full scenario.

How is it obvious that the Christian God exists?

Exactly, they never even try to understand why those things had to be done. Not only that, they never have anything bad to say about the other side that received the wrath of God because of those people actions which were far worse. It's like they think people can just do whatever they want, and if it gets to a point where God has to intervene, they will just call Him the bad guy.

It's called man can't make good decisions without God.

I dont think getting mauled by a bear is appropriate action for calling a guy a "baldy". How calling someone a "baldy" is *far worse* than getting mauled to death by a she-bear is beyond me. Perhaps you'd like to expand.

Should I continue? Theres plenty more where that came from.

they can't make good decisions with God, so I'm not sure what your point is.

You aren't going to win any points arguing against the potential of coercion because it already exists (in the MOST forceful way!). Before you ask me to prove that statement, would you still worship God if you knew for sure there was no afterlife?

This is just saying God has his reasons which cant be argued with. Or show to be true.

And it shows God can coerce on some occasions with no ill effects. So the answer to your question is yes i do want God to put a gun to my head like he did with Paul and a few others.

I don't think anyone can that's why i don't know if the NED argument is valid or invalid. It could be true or it could be God doesn't have the power or desire to communicate with humans.

all genuine belief is coerced by evidence. "god is hiding because he values faith" is just a lame excuse to circumvent the OP. it is not really even a response.

not to mention even if true it still leaves you with the logical contradiction -

A. god desires that all humans accept christianity

B. god considers "faith" a virtue

C. more often than not "faith" leads humans to believe in something else
besides christianity

if you are presenting an argument for god that most of the world doesn't buy isn't it arrogant to say it's "obvious" you are right? if you're really the smartest person in the world you should be making millions doing dos equis commercials.


no we have concluded the bible is fiction because it is self-contradictory

Explain please.

i just did. god desiring all to be saved by free will choice is incompatable with god requiring faith-based belief.

The point is, that merely having certain proof of God's existence will do nothing to remove man's will to love or worship him. The whole coercion argument just doesn't make any sense.

In any event: how is all the fire and brimstone preaching, or family indoctrination, or peer pressure, less coercive than God actually appearing and providing his guidance directly?

No contradiction there. He wants people to have the free will choice to choose to be saved.

And once that happens faith is a requirement. He does not require a non-believer to have faith to continue living their life on earth. But He would like them to learn to have faith in Him. But He still gives the free will not to.

Believers believe because they want to believe.