Is God constantly trying to convince us of His Existence?

[Super Universe]

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?

If God wanted you to believe, you'd believe. He created the universe, it would not be difficult.

There is a very good reason that God does not make Himself known to you at this level and that reason is why the universe, the earth, and life exists.

Think about it...

 

[tomspug]

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

OK, I guess I just took your comment the wrong way. Sorry about that.

Personally, I believe that God DOES have a relationship with me 24/7 and that in the times that it doesn't seem that way it is only because of my own arrogance and stubborness to try to do things on my own.

 

[sojourner]

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?

God always seeks us out, just as God sought out Adam and Eve in the garden. But we often don't want to be found.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW - GadFly, when quoting someone else, it helps if you separate the material you quote from your responses. That way, it's clear what's being attributed to the person you're replying to and it makes it easier for other people to respond to your post.

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.

Omnipotence is a property attributed to God by every mainstream Christian denomination that I know of. It's not an unreasonable leap to bring the standard model of God for our culture into the discussion.

I know that tomspug is Christian and the questions he asked in the OP are usually asked from a Christian point of view. It's perfectly reasonable to frame the discussion in that context. If you have a different viewpoint or beliefs, you're free to express them.

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?

Don't assume. I didn't finish the sentence because I got sidetracked with something else and missed it when I came back to the post. Here's the paragraph with the finished thought:

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 He isn't trying to convince them.

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?

You weren't clearly talking about anything. What innate knowledge, specifically, are you referring to and how do you see it as evidence for God's existence?

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.

The reason I'm an atheist is that I don't believe in God. And don't presume that you know much about the way I think.

You will never come to the truth if you don't stop twisting the facts.

What facts, specifically, do you think I've twisted?

In life, winning the debate is not the point. The point of the game is learning how to live life.

If that's the case, I think I'm doing just fine.

All this may sound sarcastic to you but it is due to the way you think. God bless:bow:

Again, don't make the presumption that you know how I think. You've done a pretty poor job so far of describing my thought processes.

 

[GadFly]

BTW - GadFly, when quoting someone else, it helps if you separate the material you quote from your responses. That way, it's clear what's being attributed to the person you're replying to and it makes it easier for other people to respond to your post.


Omnipotence is a property attributed to God by every mainstream Christian denomination that I know of. It's not an unreasonable leap to bring the standard model of God for our culture into the discussion.

I know that tomspug is Christian and the questions he asked in the OP are usually asked from a Christian point of view. It's perfectly reasonable to frame the discussion in that context. If you have a different viewpoint or beliefs, you're free to express them.


Don't assume. I didn't finish the sentence because I got sidetracked with something else and missed it when I came back to the post. Here's the paragraph with the finished thought:

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 He isn't trying to convince them.



You weren't clearly talking about anything. What innate knowledge, specifically, are you referring to and how do you see it as evidence for God's existence?


The reason I'm an atheist is that I don't believe in God. And don't presume that you know much about the way I think.


What facts, specifically, do you think I've twisted?


If that's the case, I think I'm doing just fine.


Again, don't make the presumption that you know how I think. You've done a pretty poor job so far of describing my thought processes.

After re-reading my response I decided that it was disrespectful and rude. Thank you for not responding to me in the same attitude and for showing me a better way to debate. I apologize to you and others who have shared in reading this posting. I will seek to do better. Please disregard my bad behavior.:sorry1:

The GadFly

 

[GadFly]

BTW - GadFly, when quoting someone else, it helps if you separate the material you quote from your responses. That way, it's clear what's being attributed to the person you're replying to and it makes it easier for other people to respond to your post.


Omnipotence is a property attributed to God by every mainstream Christian denomination that I know of. It's not an unreasonable leap to bring the standard model of God for our culture into the discussion.

I know that tomspug is Christian and the questions he asked in the OP are usually asked from a Christian point of view. It's perfectly reasonable to frame the discussion in that context. If you have a different viewpoint or beliefs, you're free to express them.


Don't assume. I didn't finish the sentence because I got sidetracked with something else and missed it when I came back to the post. Here's the paragraph with the finished thought:

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 He isn't trying to convince them.



You weren't clearly talking about anything. What innate knowledge, specifically, are you referring to and how do you see it as evidence for God's existence?


The reason I'm an atheist is that I don't believe in God. And don't presume that you know much about the way I think.


What facts, specifically, do you think I've twisted?


If that's the case, I think I'm doing just fine.


Again, don't make the presumption that you know how I think. You've done a pretty poor job so far of describing my thought processes.

Please allow me to try this again with more respect this time. It is true that Omnipotence is a property attributed to God by every mainstream Christian denomination but in my original statement I wanted to focus on the thinking process of God and to begin a discussion on omnipotence was taking attention away from the point I was making. I interpreted this as a trick to confuse the discussion.

There are so many Christian denominations that it is impossible to pick which model of God is mainstream. It is true tomspug and I are both Christians but we both have ideas that differ. The concept that God would want to convert you is an assumption and it is based on assumption that is not part of my argument. My argument is that God left every man evidence of his existence and man is expected to follow the evidence until man finds God. That is what conversion is to me. What God could or could not do is not relative to my opinion here. What is relevant is what man does with the evidence of God. Prior knowledge, innate knowledge is evidence of God.

Again, I interpreted that you were trying to lead me away from the subject on which I was discussing and I became a little sarcastic with you. Twisting, I assumed you knew the standards of western logic, the Aristotelean logic, and were trying to substitute the concept of God in place of the topic of how God thinks. I could not imagine that you were not familiar with the logic of debate used in the American culture. So, I replied with sarcasm.

In contrast to the way I think and the way God thinks, I have a definite opinion of how an atheist thinks. I would like to explain this opinion in a future time. Believers in God and atheist have a different way of thinking which is why one is a believer and one is an atheist. If either of us decides one method is better than the other method,we can adjust what we are to what we think. In other words one of us could decide to be a convert.
GadFly:bow:

 

[logician]

"Is God constantly trying to convince us of His Existence? "

If IT is, IT's not doing a very good job of it.

 

[Willamena]

If God wanted you to believe, you'd believe. He created the universe, it would not be difficult.

There is a very good reason that God does not make Himself known to you at this level and that reason is why the universe, the earth, and life exists.

Think about it...

Okay... Um, no.

 

[Willamena]

"Is God constantly trying to convince us of His Existence? "

If IT is, IT's not doing a very good job of it.

Well, then, obviously IT's not.

 

[crystalonyx]

Well, then, obviously IT's not.

Or IT doesn't exist.

 

[Magic Man]

Or IT doesn't exist.

That's what she said.

 

[whereismynotecard]

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?

Well... I don't believe in God, of course, but if there is one, he must not like us very much, because he kills people and makes horrible things happen all the time.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well... I don't believe in God, of course, but if there is one, he must not like us very much, because he kills people and makes horrible things happen all the time.

Who did He kill? What terrible things has God done? You're making a childish argument, aren't you?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Father Heathen]

Who did He kill? What terrible things has God done? You're making a childish argument, aren't you?

Regards,
Scott

Didn't he wipe out a bunch of firstborns because they rubbed him the wrong way, and sent 2 bears to maul some children to death who playfully teased some passing prophet? Surely some children drowned in the great flood. Of course we don't get to see much of his wrath nowadays, despite the world supposedly being much more immoral and godless than it was back then.

 

[Popeyesays]

Didn't he wipe out a bunch of firstborns because they rubbed him the wrong way, and sent 2 bears to maul some children to death who playfully teased some passing prophet? Surely some children drowned in the great flood. Of course we don't get to see much of his wrath nowadays, despite the world supposedly being much more immoral and godless than it was back then.

I don't see any of those events as anything more than a one-sided "volk record" written down as much as a thousand years after the events. Folk talkes are just that . . . fable, mythos, primitive explanations for events beyond the understanding of the authors.

There is an historic "great flood", but it was a natural event and not world-wide by any stretch of the imagination.

Might as well bloame God for someone eaten by a grizzly, or killed in a flash flood.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't see any of those events as anything more than a one-sided "volk record" written down as much as a thousand years after the events. Folk talkes are just that . . . fable, mythos, primitive explanations for events beyond the understanding of the authors.

There is an historic "great flood", but it was a natural event and not world-wide by any stretch of the imagination.

Might as well bloame God for someone eaten by a grizzly, or killed in a flash flood.

Regards,
Scott

What method should believers in god use to differentiate the myths from the truths?

 

[GadFly]

Well... I don't believe in God, of course, but if there is one, he must not like us very much, because he kills people and makes horrible things happen all the time.

Your premise is incorrect. You have never seen God kill anybody. You have seen humans kill humans; therefore, using this logic, humanism is responsible for making horrible things happen. Humanism is an atheistic doctrine based on man as its model of authority. Since God is no responsible for killing and horrible things, you are free to like him.

 

[Father Heathen]

Your premise is incorrect. You have never seen God kill anybody. You have seen humans kill humans; therefore, using this logic, humanism is responsible for making horrible things happen. Humanism is an atheistic doctrine based on man as its model of authority. Since God is no responsible for killing and horrible things, you are free to like him.

It's refreshing to see you discount the bible.

 

[GadFly]

It's refreshing to see you discount the bible.

How is that?

 

[Father Heathen]

How is that?

God killed people in the bible, many of them innocent, and for petty reasons.