Why does God rely on blind faith?

CarreraS2 · 09:21 AM

?

arcsine · 09-09-2005, 02:05 PM

Saves a lot of time.

DaveE · 09-09-2005, 02:07 PM

It gives everyone a chance to believe or not. It it were obvious He were there................

skipdup · 09-09-2005, 02:12 PM

If we saw Him in person, or on TV, there wouldn't be much of a choice involved. It's all about the choice to believe.

tobster1911 · 09-09-2005, 02:12 PM

I feel that it is due to the idea of "Free will". If God provided 100% undebatable proof then people (definitely on this BB) would argue that they are being forced into believing. You have to ability to believe or not believe. The choice is completely left to you. This is one of the unique things about being human (as opposed to angels)

djmcmath · 09-09-2005, 02:13 PM

Yeah, kind of a funny parable (or two) about that. This fella dies and goes to hell, and he can see across the chasm into heaven to a schmuck that he mistreated while he was alive. He begs the other guy for just a single drop of water, and is told that it isn't possible. Then he says, "Listen, can you just go back and warn my friends?" The response is simple, from Luke 16: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

(shrug) IMHO, it's not blind.

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by djmcmath
SNipped.... Then he says, "Listen, can you just go back and warn my friends?" The response is simple, from Luke 16: "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."

(shrug) IMHO, it's not blind.

Well THAT doesn't make any sense at all!

So, what about in OUR case, where there is no Moses and the prophets consist of all of the other nitwits out there.

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

Not Moses on the board here, Moses.
The other one.

tobster1911 · 09-09-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhoward
Well THAT doesn't make any sense at all!

So, what about in OUR case, where there is no Moses and the prophets consist of all of the other nitwits out there.

It is the idea that, If people do not listen to people who ARE alive and speaking up; what make anyone think they would accept some "miracle" as proof?

tobster1911 · 09-09-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhoward
Not Moses on the board here, Moses.
The other one.

But I think Moses is a prophet....or makes a profit....or something...

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

jesus saves. Moses invests.

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
That may be a simple response, but it is sooo inaccurate.

I'm not terribly inclined to listen to Moses or the Prophets, at least not as reflected in a third party account written a long time ago.

You bring back, say, Einstein from the dead, and I'll listen VERY closely to what he says about God. That'd make me a believer, for sure.

That's What I'm talkin'about.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

his followers rely on blind faith?

it is due to the idea of "Free will".

Ah yes, the twin pillars holding up the house of cards we call "religion."

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

See.
What Thom said.

It's like a little god game?

"I'm thinking of a number..."

Icemaster · Icemaster's Garage

"I dont believe in god, but I'm afraid of him."

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

42!

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

RIGHT!

Superman · 09-09-2005, 03:20 PM

I've agonized over a lot of theological questions over the years, partly because of my penchant for (and education in) philosophy. But the answers came, and this is a relatively easy one.

First, He deliberately set this up as a choice. The logical extension of your question is why didn't he sidestep even your suggestion of providing positive PROOF of his existence, and just simply take everyone to Heaven. It's because he set this up as a choice. It's like YOU decide whether to be with Him or not, rather than Him deciding.

And the other part of the answer to your question is even more fascinating to me. My answer: He did. He did provide proof positive. In many ways. There are several philisophical arguments for the existence of God, all of which have merit, some of which are difficult to attack logically. Personally, my favorite is the Cartesian form of St. Anselm's proof. It goes like this:

I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater (God).
A being which exists is greater than a being which does not exist.
If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then that being is not a being than which there can be no greater.
Therefore, the being I am thinking of (God) exists.

Now, that argument sounds silly on its face, but just try to refute it. And there are many others. The famous "ontological" proof, etc. And finally, there was this guy who lived about 2 millenia ago (historical fact) and if five percent of what was said and written about Him is true, then he was either a lunatic or He was the Son of God. His remarks CLEARLY and carefully state the exact same thing as said above.....that this is a choice.

If a farmer wanted to get a stray bird into his warm barn so it does not freeze, the bird will attempt to evade capture. The bird will also not follow the farmer into the barn. But if the farmer could be a bird for a few minutes..........

And finally, one of my points is (I'm in a hurry so this probably all sounds a bit disjointed, sorry) that it's hard to imagine God providing more evidence and proof than he has already. If he were to write a message in the sky using cloud formations, most folks would waive that off as an accident. Heck, have you ever read the accounts of the miracle at Fatima? Sixty thousand people in a torrential downpour watched the sky open up, the Sun dance, chance colors and fall toward the Earth, and at the end of the experience, the ground and all the viewers were dry as a bone. They were there specifically to see the miracle that had been promised ahead of time. And that's just one story. Have you read about the miracles occurring to this day in Medjugorje? How many miracles and evidences and proofs do we need? Apparently, the decision can be laid in front of humankind in a plain and nearly-impossible-to-deny fashion, and some folks will still make the wrong choice.

And frankly, that is consistent with my observations about other decisions humans make.

Rondinone · 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
That doesn't match with my concept of free will.

Offering someone 100% proof of something doesn't force them to do anything. It just provides them with information which they can then use in determining how they should or should not act. It's just data. The person is still 100% free to act how they see fit.

(Of course, if God is all powerful, I suppose he could take away all free will and force/program everyone to believe. That's not what I'm talking about - I'm simply talking about providing some information. God isn't adverse to doing miracles, parting the Red Sea, etc. etc. Why not do a real, modern one?)

Ah yes, the old "what have done for me _lately_?"

Superman, how about Pascal's wager?

kang · 09-09-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater (God).
A being which exists is greater than a being which does not exist.
If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then that being is not a being than which there can be no greater.
Therefore, the being I am thinking of (God) exists.

I am thinking of a ferocious tiger than which there can be no more ferocious.
A ferocious tiger which exists is more dangerous that a tiger which does not exist.
If the tiger I am thinking of does not exist, then that tiger is not a tiger for which there can be more ferocious.
Therefore, the tiger I am thinking of exists.

All that is said here is that if there is a super-ferocious tiger, then it must exist. It's all based on the pre-existence of tigers. Doesn't prove anything at all.