Seeing god? No Free Will? General thoughts

[whatever]

If god showed himself to the entire planet and said "Behold it is me, I exist... please stop fighting"

I'm sure that (given the circumstances) everyone would stop fighting and the world would be a much nicer, better place.

Now for me, the fact this does not happen means:

a. God can't reveal himself - what kind of god does this make him if he can't do something?

b. God chooses not to reveal himself - does he not want to prevent suffering?

c. God doesn't realise the positive impact such an act would have - is he dumb?

Any opinions?

Another thought (that was not my own) is that, if god is so pure and can do no wrong, that means he only ever has one option..

because he will know the outcome of all his actions inadvance, god has no free will because his action must always be the most moral... can a god not have freewill?

[Gaunt]

I'm sure that (given the circumstances) everyone would stop fighting and the world would be a much nicer, better place.

I don't think this would necessarily be the case. most of the fighting is not necessarily about whether or not there is a God.. but rather what the characteristics of said god are. If god came down and said he had certain characteristics, all the other faiths would claim it was Satan trying to deceive humanity.

the fact this does not happen means

It could also be D) That act would make faith useless.. and God seems to put high praise on faith. Didn't he say to Thomas "you have seen and then believed. blessed are they who have not seen and yet still believe" (not a direct quote, and I forget the chapter and verse but something along those lines)

god has no free will because his action must always be the most moral

It is not necessary that there only be one perfect solution. Not even in Math is that always the case. God may have free will and still work towards a perfect end result.

[Overcomer]

God DID come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ and he made it very clear who he was and why he had come. He was the Prince of Peace, but there were people who refused to believe him and refused his peace

God STILL comes to earth in the person of the Holy Spirit. And again, we have some people who recognize that and respond positively and there are others who fight him and insist he isn't real.

The problem isn't with God. The problem is with Fallen Man.

[Spongemom]

God DID come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ and he made it very clear who he was and why he had come. He was the Prince of Peace, but there were people who refused to believe him and refused his peace

There is no evidence that Jesus was in any way divine. In fact, all of Jesus' contemporary historians did not mention one word about any kind of miracles. Most of the historians who lived at the same time as Jesus did not even mention him at all, because he was simply not that important. He was just some local smalltown hero in Nazareth.

Keep in mind, christianity didn't spread around the globe until much later, when a Roman emperor happened to become christian and forced all of his subjects to become christians aswell. The roman empire christianized Europe by brutal force. And those european christians later attacked and colonized half the globe, from Africa, to America, to Australia, bringing their beliefs with them by force. Is that the way a loving god would spread his message? Certainly not.

The first written accounts of Jesus' miracles (the gospels) were written decades after Jesus was already dead, by people who never actually met Jesus in person. So, their claims about Jesus are not as credible as those accounts of Jesus written about him by people who lived at the same time as Jesus. And THOSE historians don't mention anything about any kind of miracles.

So, if someone actually finds the bones of Jesus, it still doesn't prove anything more or less than if someone finds the bones of Gandhi.

Or, let's use another example:

Imagine some crazy mass murderer like Charles Manson says he killed a bunch of people because he heard a voice in his head. He claims it was the voice of God.

Eventually the mass murderer dies. A few years go by, and someone digs up his bones. OK, now there's physical evidence the mass murderer lived, but it still doesn't prove whether he really heard a voice, and whether the voice in his head really was God, or whether he was just some schizophrenic lunatic.

[ST88]

If god showed himself to the entire planet and said "Behold it is me, I exist... please stop fighting"

I'm sure that (given the circumstances) everyone would stop fighting and the world would be a much nicer, better place.

This view of God is the left-wing idea of what God should be according to how we would be if we were God. If I were God, I'd make peace in the world. This isn't the God that God claims to be in the Bible. The Biblical God says he will allow fighting & other ills to occur, and occasionally he will perpetrate some distaster to befall someone or a number of people.

That we would force peace on the world if we were God has no relevance. According to the Bible, there is a larger picture that God sees (and paints), one which we cannot hope to understand. So if God allows war, suffering, and hideous deaths to happen, we should all take comfort in the fact that he knows what he's doing.

[Todd]

a. God can't reveal himself - what kind of god does this make him if he can't do something?

b. God chooses not to reveal himself - does he not want to prevent suffering?

c. God doesn't realise the positive impact such an act would have - is he dumb?

God can easily reveal himself and he will. This time will be the rapture and he has a chosen time for it that only he knows.




[/quote]

[The Hungry Atheist]

But why's he taking so long about it? If he'd ever made his presence unequivocal, he could've made so many things so much easier, removed so much doubt, stopped so much suffering. Where's he been? Don't you think it would make a significant, positive impact if he gave us a clear, convincing demonstration of his existence and will?

[Fallen Short]

"If god showed himself to the entire planet and said "Behold it is me, I exist... please stop fighting" I'm sure that (given the circumstances) everyone would stop fighting and the world would be a much nicer, better place."

This is called a Non-Siquitar fallacey. It means that the end doesn't by neccesity follow from the beginning. You have assumed the showing of
"God" and then politely asking us to stop fighting would by neccesity cause
us to stop fighting? What if instead we all gave God the middle finger and kept fighting?

Your responces:
a. God can't reveal himself - what kind of god does this make him if he can't do something?

b. God chooses not to reveal himself - does he not want to prevent suffering?

c. God doesn't realise the positive impact such an act would have - is he dumb?

To answer these, I have to assume what God you are talking about. So unless you intend to make me aware of otherwise, I will assume you are referring to a biblical God.

A. Obviously God is infinite and so this responce will not suffice. Unless you intend to validate this position, I am judging it as incorrect.

B. This is another Non-Siquitar. You have assumed, based on the premise of your opening statement, that the appearance of God will prevent suffering by him nicely asking us to stop. I have answered this already.

C. This is the same question as B but with an emotional appeal of "...is he dumb." added in which really doesn't give any valuable content.

"Another thought (that was not my own) is that, if god is so pure and can do no wrong, that means he only ever has one option.. because he will know the outcome of all his actions inadvance, god has no free will because his action must always be the most moral... can a god not have freewill?"

The knowledge of an even happening does not neccesitate the position of no free will. I can have knowledge of the winner of the world series this year and still say the Cardinals COULD have won, thus implying free will.

[Fallen Short]

This requires its own post. Please inform me of your sources of understanding on church history. I believe you are grossly misinformed.

"...all of Jesus' contemporary historians did not mention one word about any kind of miracles. Most of the historians who lived at the same time as Jesus did not even mention him at all, because he was simply not that important."

Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus and the Babylonian Talmud(Jewish writings) all mention Jesus. Certainly, not in good light most of the time but, especially the Talmud referring to him as a sorcerer casting out demons because he is a demon but none the less, acknowledging his existance. Galius, a pegan philosopher in the early third century is another
good evidence of Jesus. In his writtings which Turtulian and Origen both respond to him, he never attempts to disprove Jesus existance, just discredit him. If you insist on this position, you will find yourself on a very short list of historians. There has not been any serious effort to discredit at the very least, that Jesus existed. Last, according to the rules of literature and historicle criticism and interpretation, there is no reason not to look at the gospels, especialy Luke, as historicle documents.

"The first written accounts of Jesus' miracles (the gospels) were written decades after Jesus was already dead, by people who never actually met Jesus in person. So, their claims about Jesus are not as credible as those accounts of Jesus written about him by people who lived at the same time as Jesus. And THOSE historians don't mention anything about any kind of miracles."

Did you know the account of Alexander the great was writen some 500 years after his existance? In the words of F.F. Bruce, "To reject the New Testament is to throw out all literature from antiquity." There is no historicle document with so much diverse testimony to it. As to the gospel authors, Matthew and John are two of Jesus original disciples. Mark, by the
testimony of such Church fathers as Papias and Irrenaius, both not living later then the second century, Mark was scribed at the dictation of Peter. You may desire to be critical, but we have no good reason to doubt the testimony of these two church fathers. That is, infact, one of the rules of interpreting historicle literature. We assume they are correct until we have
good reason not to. Because they attest to miracles is not a valid reason to reject them.

As for your last statement, the historicle narratives (gospels) give legitemate testimony to the miracles of Jesus.

So, if someone actually finds the bones of Jesus, it still doesn't prove anything more or less than if someone finds the bones of Gandhi.

Yes, but we don't doubt the existance of Gandhi.

"OK, now there's physical evidence the mass murderer lived, but it still doesn't prove whether he really heard a voice, and whether the voice in his head really was God, or whether he was just some schizophrenic lunatic."

I have made the positive statement that Jesus existed and have briefely varified it and can do so on a deeper level if you are able to rebut what I have already stated. Now YOU have made the positive statement on the assumption that Jesus existed and claimed to be God that he was a schizophrenic lunatic. Now you must varify that through some means available to you. It can't be up to me to prove he wasn't. That would be a fallacey called proving a negative which is impossible.

The historians I am using as my sources are such as F.F. Bruce, Pete Harnack, John Lightfoot, J.D. Kelly (who is a non-believer), and Bruce Metzger. Please inform me of your source of information. I ask this because it is difficult to discuss historicle topics with someone who doesn't know about the history of a topic. How would I debate quantum physics with someone who knows it when I don't?

[mrmufin]

The spin I got from your opening statement is not so much about world peace, but about the observation that a specific god so seldom reveals itself. That the god is equipped with some awesome powers and knowledge --which would include the power to reveal itself in clear and unambiguous terms-- but elects not to use that power. Does seem kinda fishy, huh?

a. God can't reveal himself - what kind of god does this make him if he can't do something?

b. God chooses not to reveal himself - does he not want to prevent suffering?

c. God doesn't realise the positive impact such an act would have - is he dumb?

Any opinions?

There might be some more options... perhaps the gods are entirely disinterested. Perhaps Loki has been rerouting prayers through a faulty network. Perhaps the gods were fired by upper management long ago and now we're on our own. Perhaps the gods are just concepts in the minds of believers. Perhaps the gods are drunk. Perhaps they're taking a li'l siesta. Perhaps they're just so dang overburdened with this whole Universal Expansion Project, that they've let Earthly affairs slide. Perhaps the great powers and knowledge of the gods were repealed and installed in John Prine on October 10, 1946, but JP has not yet realized his awesome potential. Perhaps...

Another thought (that was not my own) is that, if god is so pure and can do no wrong, that means he only ever has one option.

Or whatever the gods do is regarded as pure because the gods only do pure and right things. For this to be meaningful we need to know whatever the gods are doing. How would we know if the gods are doing anything at all?

My short answer is that any free will paradoxes are resolved fairly painlessly once the gods are eliminated. Eliminated gods are also consistent with the lack of empirical data confirming the existence of the gods.

Regards,
mrmufin