Is God constantly trying to convince us of His Existence?

[Magic Man]

Agnostic means literally without knowledge. I don't believe in the creature you're thinking of because you told me that it's not known to exist, which tells me you're making it up. If you hadn't told me that, I wouldn't know whether to believe in it or not.

No worries, love.

I guess it's the way we see those words. I see atheism as a lack of belief in God's existence. By that definition, babies are necessarily atheistic until given more info. Agnosticism to me is literally without knowledge, but used in a specific way to mean without knowledge one way or the other on the existence of God. This, to me, only applies when you bring up the idea of the existence of God in the first place.

My creature example might be better illustrated with the example that there are plenty of deities worshipped in this world either now or in the past, which I don't believe in because I don't even know about them. I don't consider myself an agnostic toward those deities, I would consider myself the opposite of their believers, because I lack any belief in them. That however is not an active view, though, because I'm not saying x doesn't exist, because I don't even know about x.

 

[Storm]

Oh, ok.

 

[Storm]

I guess it's the way we see those words. I see atheism as a lack of belief in God's existence. By that definition, babies are necessarily atheistic until given more info. Agnosticism to me is literally without knowledge, but used in a specific way to mean without knowledge one way or the other on the existence of God. This, to me, only applies when you bring up the idea of the existence of God in the first place.

My creature example might be better illustrated with the example that there are plenty of deities worshipped in this world either now or in the past, which I don't believe in because I don't even know about them. I don't consider myself an agnostic toward those deities, I would consider myself the opposite of their believers, because I lack any belief in them. That however is not an active view, though, because I'm not saying x doesn't exist, because I don't even know about x.

Sorry, I'm just a bit anal with words.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry, I'm just a bit anal with words.

I understand. I was a language major, after all.

 

[tomspug]

Wacky nonsensical analogies aside, If god wanted us to know, he would make it unquestionably obvious. If you say the christian bible is his message to us, it would've been a very clear, concise, consistent, comprehensible and logical perfection. If it were crystal clear there wouldn't be umpteen thousand different denominations. I need more than mere words from an old book that's been translated and revised a lot throughout the millennia with vague, cryptic gobbledygook that's interpreted a billion different ways. Why does God need interpreters and middlemen, anyways? There are countless religions, countless holy books, and countless sects and offshoots, all making the exact same unsubstantiated claims of being the "truth". How am I to know which, if any, is the real deal? Everyone thinks theirs is the truth and all others are falsehoods, but only because that's what they were raised to believe based on what area of the world they were born in. I'm not impressed with any of that. I need something I can observe and experience.

I'm glad you consider me to be such a 'wacky' guy! But do try to be a little more open minded. It sounds like you want an omnipotent, all-knowing God to bend to your will before you will believe in Him. Good luck finding a God that exists like that!

 

[tomspug]

You honestly believe a newborn has the mental capacity to grasp the concept of God?

How long does it take a child to grasp the concept of a parent?

 

[Somkid]

Google philosophy of religion there are too many arguments to post here on this topic. Believe me there are a lot more than two.

 

[GadFly]

I have to disagree. Atheism for an adult is only active because another option has been presented. Right now, I'm thinking of a creature that is not known to exist. Do you believe in that creature, even though you don't know what it is? Do you actively believe that it doesn't exist, even though you don't know what it is? Babies don't even have the concept of a god until we provide it for them. If we don't provide it for them, then they don't believe in it, and they don't even acknowledge its possibility, as an agnostic would.

(I'm sorry, S, if I come off harsh. I don't mean to, it's just the day I've had. )

You are not necessarily incorrect in your premise if you think Christians believe in God because somehow God gave from the beginning an image or dream of God. God told man to search for God for God's image was not automatically given or logically acceptable. What God did provide was absolute evidence that God was. There is a big difference between God is and evidence that God is.

 

[GadFly]

If God is merely existence itself then everywhere you look you are seeing God. You are God and so am I and so is everyone, (sings kumbaya!) So the only way to reconcile the problem of a loving/hating God is that these are just two projections of emotional states from people onto a percieved external intelligence, and have no true relevance to the actual cosmic Being that simply is ALL there is.
does God love us or hate us? I think the question is relevant only toward a finite being capable of emotion. is the cosmos capable of having emotions????------HMMMMMM> Maybe it IS!!! Maybe we simply havent figured out how to communicate with it?
Or perhaps we knew how, but have simply forgotten....

You are somewhat confused. You are confused as to what God has given us with which to discover him. All the universe collectively is not God. That is a popular belief but it is not true. God is more than the cosmos as you think of it. You are in the cosmos along with me and every other person. God has given us prior knowledge of God and the pursuit of God is up to us.:bow:

 

[GadFly]

You honestly believe a newborn has the mental capacity to grasp the concept of God?

I am not sure you address this to me but I will answer it. I suppose it is possible for one to have the concept of God at birth but what I believe is that God gives every person that enters the world the evidence that God is and as that person grows to maturity, he discovers God from his evidence. Having evidence does not stand alone. How one organizes evidence will determine the specific image of God that one has.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am not sure you address this to me but I will answer it. I suppose it is possible for one to have the concept of God at birth but what I believe is that God gives every person that enters the world the evidence that God is and as that person grows to maturity, he discovers God from his evidence. Having evidence does not stand alone. How one organizes evidence will determine the specific image of God that one has.

And what exactly is this little nugget of evidence of his?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If God exists, and if God is a loving God, wouldn't he be trying to be in a relationship with us 24/7? It's not like he would get tired or lose patience. He's infinite, right?

So if this is the case, than if someone DOESN'T see evidence of that effort, there are only two options:

1) A loving God does not exist, hence the lack of evidence.

2) We are blind to God's efforts, whether by our own will or some other cause.

What do you think? Aren't these the only two options?

No, they are not the only options.

From the inertia of the static-reactive to the dynamics of purposive energy, God is; in us and through us, he emerges into the universe of space and time. The evidence is in our awakening to God's presence.

 

[blackout]

Is God constantly trying to convince us of His Existence?

Nah. I don't see that God is trying to convince "us" of anything at all.

 

[Willamena]

If God exists, and if God is a loving God, wouldn't he be trying to be in a relationship with us 24/7?

If you think you are not already in such a relationship, do you consider the possibility that your idea of what 'God' is could be at fault?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not about power. It is about innate knowledge and the system of reasoning you use.

Sure it is. Apparently, God has the power to convince us, but chooses not to. To say otherwise implies a non-omnipotent God.

Shouting doesn't work. Absolute truth is inside you, even atheist should know this.

Careful with the little ad-homs and bad generalizations. Even a Christian should know it's bad form to slight an entire group.

Whatever the method that's needed to convince me or any other unbeliever, an omniscient God would know how to do it and an omnipotent God would be capable of carrying it out. If a God with both those qualities exists, the fact that non-believers still haven't been convinced means that

That type of knowledge is what you survived on, until you learned what a bottle was and it was invented from an absolute form described in Aristotelean logic.:shout

What the heck are you on about? Are you actually comparing knowledge of God and acceptance of God's existence to instinctual suckling at a nipple?

Agnostic means literally without knowledge. I don't believe in the creature you're thinking of because you told me that it's not known to exist, which tells me you're making it up. If you hadn't told me that, I wouldn't know whether to believe in it or not.

Funny... I normally consider atheism to be a negative claim (i.e. the simple lack of belief in any deity) and agnosticism to be a positive one (i.e. the belief that the existence of God is unknowable). When a person starts making positive claims about the non-existence of God, I consider that to be antitheism.

 

[Storm]

Funny... I normally consider atheism to be a negative claim (i.e. the simple lack of belief in any deity) and agnosticism to be a positive one (i.e. the belief that the existence of God is unknowable). When a person starts making positive claims about the non-existence of God, I consider that to be antitheism.

What I meant by "active stance" is that a decision has been made, not positive claim. Babies don't have the information to make that decision.

However, between your objections and Matt's I withdraw the assertion that babies are inherently agnostic. I still think that the practice of ascribing any theology whatsoever to them is asinine, though.

 

[Willamena]

Sure it is. Apparently, God has the power to convince us, but chooses not to. To say otherwise implies a non-omnipotent God.

Then the question becomes: is "power" the power to convince?

 

[tomspug]

If you think you are not already in such a relationship, do you consider the possibility that your idea of what 'God' is could be at fault?

Are you projecting assumptions onto my own beliefs? Please don't preach at me. I brought this up merely to create discussion. The question was rhetorical, I assure you.

 

[Willamena]

Are you projecting assumptions onto my own beliefs? Please don't preach at me. I brought this up merely to create discussion. The question was rhetorical, I assure you.

I said nothing about your beliefs, I merely asked for an opinion. I'm sorry if it sounded otherwise.

 

[GadFly]

Sure it is. Apparently, God has the power to convince us, but chooses not to. To say otherwise implies a non-omnipotent God.

You best allow me to state my position. For you to state it would surely to be to get it wrong. That would not be good for you spiritually. I said it was about the way you think and what did you do? You proved me correct by referring to a non-omnipotent God. You introduced a new thread into my logical presentation. Who can teach you anything if you add your interpretation before the lesson is complete? If you really want to learn about God, be patient. Patients is a virtue even for an atheist. I made no implications about power; you did. Stop thinking for God also; since he doesn't exist for you, how can you know what he chooses? See, you are not wise enough to teach this lesson.

Whatever the method that's needed to convince me or any other unbeliever, an omniscient God would know how to do it and an omnipotent God would be capable of carrying it out. If a God with both those qualities exists, the fact that non-believers still haven't been convinced means that

Since you did not finish the sentence, we are expected to make what you think is the obvious conclusion. God did know how to do it and he carried his plan out and what it means now is that you are free to accept it or the plan. What is wrong with that concussion or are you just not smart enough to make that choice?

What the heck are you on about? Are you actually comparing knowledge of God and acceptance of God's existence to instinctual suckling at a nipple?

See, you did it again. I was clearly talking about innate knowledge being an evidence of God's existence. You clearly have been conditioned to think irrationally about God.There is no other explanation for your lack of ability to use Aristotelean logic. Or, do I have to give you a lesson on that too?
Funny... I normally consider atheism to be a negative claim (i.e. the simple lack of belief in any deity) and agnosticism to be a positive one (i.e. the belief that the existence of God is unknowable). When a person starts making positive claims about the non-existence of God, I consider that to be antitheism.

I know you did not address this last quote to me but with the way you twist logic, you need the extra help. The way you think is the reason you are an atheist. Too bad for you. You will never come to the truth if you don't stop twisting the facts. In life, winning the debate is not the point. The point of the game is learning how to live life.
All this may sound sarcastic to you but it is due to the way you think. God bless:bow: