Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by Conrau K
How do belief and faith fall within the domain of free will? When God appeared to the prophets, was that a violation of their free will? I don't get it. Drange does not mention God coercing people to believe in him.

The question becomes, what made the God appear to the prophets? Was it faith built upon faith from other human beings?

For example, where would God have started without the faith of Abraham? Is it possible that Abraham's will was key to appearing to those prophets in the future? If so, we are really discussing Abraham's free will of God appearing to those prophets. Without it, maybe it never happens.

Anyhew, how was it that Christ, who is proported to be God in the flesh, coerced anyone to believe in him when he appeared to everyone? In fact, he made his disciples swear not to reveal his identity, did he not? And just to make your head hurt further, what if Abraham never agrees to sacrifice Isaac? Would that have prevented Christ from coming and being sacrificed for us? Was Abrahams's consent needed, or to put another way, was exercising of his faith in God needed?

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is the kind of evolution I can believe in. The evolution of our
understanding. But I would just as soon get rid of the word altogether
and call this learning since the term conjures up an untrue idea to me.

Perhaps it is time for you to start changing the meanings of (your) understanding of words, then.

When I say "evolution" , i mean what you might call "spiritual evolution". Specifically the evolution of the apparatus that can perceive "God" directly. In our case it is our brains and spinal chord (our central nervous system). When properly developed our apparatus acts like an antenna for communion with "God".

Please note that my idea of 'evolution' in no way contradicts (physical) evolution as proposed by scientists ,(more or less anyway). It is merely an addition to that theory, an extension of it, if you will.
So unfortunately, without any further evidence to the contrary, I am still going to have to go along with the timelines proposed by scientists for the evolution of man. And , as I understand it, this idea is in huge conflict with your biblical timeline for the emergence/creation of man. Sorry if you thought that my idea of evolution was in anyway connected to the creation of man as proposed in the bible. What was it? 6000years?

"The evolution of our understanding" is just one part of evolution(as proposed by me).

I have always seen religion and science as complimentary and all folk should learn a bit of both to get a good understanding of the world/universe. (note- I mean "religion" here as your own , personal religion/understanding and not a group, consentual religion.)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Perhaps it is time for you to start changing the meanings of (your) understanding of words, then.

When I say "evolution" , i mean what you might call "spiritual evolution". Specifically the evolution of the apparatus that can perceive "God" directly. In our case it is our brains and spinal chord (our central nervous system). When properly developed o ...[text shortened]... your own , personal religion/understanding and not a group, consentual religion.)

In your opinion, how have we evolved since ancient times spiritually?

Originally posted by whodey
The question becomes, what made the God appear to the prophets? Was it faith built upon faith from other human beings?

For example, where would God have started without the faith of Abraham? Is it possible that Abraham's will was key to appearing to those prophets in the future? If so, we are really discussing Abraham's free will of God appearing to thos ...[text shortened]... Abrahams's consent needed, or to put another way, was exercising of his faith in God needed?

I still don't get it. Are you saying if God revealed himself clearly to mankind, that would involve some coercive violation of free will?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Perhaps it is time for you to start changing the meanings of (your) understanding of words, then.

When I say "evolution" , i mean what you might call "spiritual evolution". Specifically the evolution of the apparatus that can perceive "God" directly. In our case it is our brains and spinal chord (our central nervous system). When properly developed o ...[text shortened]... your own , personal religion/understanding and not a group, consentual religion.)

That's a bummer. 😠

Originally posted by whodey
In your opinion, how have we evolved since ancient times spiritually?

Our brains have grown. Apparently our pineal glands are underdeveloped as this gland is important for the evolution of our brains overall.
As I mentioned above, the brain and spinal chord (can) act as an antenna of sorts to pick up the signal from "God" . (please note that I am using analogies here and am not being exactly literal with my explanation. This is because we have no words yet for this function of the brain yet.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
I still don't get it. Are you saying if God revealed himself clearly to mankind, that would involve some coercive violation of free will?

When Adam and Eve sinned he withdrew himself from mankind. To not do so would be a violation of free will.

So the question is, is revealing himself a violation of the above? I would venture a guess that if God revealed himself to the unbeliever, they would simply find a way to reason away the interaction. We see this in the example of Pharaoh snubbing his nose at the miracles and probably explaining them away. I think the bottom line is that we hear what we want to hear. Why then would he appear to those who don't want to hear? I belive that those who do want to have him reveal himself in earnest will eventually have that interaction.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That's a bummer. 😠

So it was 6000 years,eh?
Oh well, you cant win them all.

People will claim that I am either making this up or altering some facts to fit in with my understanding of spirituality. All i can say is that I am not. Some of my explanations may seem easy on paper, but in practice they can be quite difficult to achieve. In fact the word "difficult" (or "hard" ) is a problem in itself, as there is no opposition in heaven. So 'easy' and 'hard' are irrelevant and it is better to say that it is "tricky" to practice in life.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Our brains have grown. Apparently our pineal glands are underdeveloped as this gland is important for the evolution of our brains overall.
As I mentioned above, the brain and spinal chord (can) act as an antenna of sorts to pick up the signal from "God" . (please note that I am using analogies here and am not being exactly literal with my explanation. This is because we have no words yet for this function of the brain yet.)

So what does your "antenna" tell you?

In addition, do you think that atheist simply have an underdeveloped antenna?

Originally posted by whodey
When Adam and Eve sinned he withdrew himself from mankind. To not do so would be a violation of free will.

So the question is, is revealing himself a violation of the above? I would venture a guess that if God revealed himself to the unbeliever, they would simply find a way to reason away the interaction. We see this in the example of Pharaoh snubbing h ...[text shortened]... those who do want to have him reveal himself in earnest will eventually have that interaction.

When Adam and Eve sinned he withdrew himself from mankind. To not do so would be a violation of free will.

I don't get it. Presumably Adam and Eve's free will was not impaired before. Why should the fall make God's epiphanies a violation of free will?

Originally posted by whodey
So what does your "antenna" tell you?

In addition, do you think that atheist simply have an underdeveloped antenna?

My antenna does not tell me anything. i think you are misunderstanding my fundamental analogy here.
The "antenna" is developed so that we may tune in to the frequency of "God" .( I know this sounds lame, but remember , it is an analogy).
We inherit a partly evolved body/brain,(which is all part of the Mind), and from there we can further develop this physical apparatus so as to tune into the spiritual "message" that is all around us. God is not hard to find. "He" is right there in front of us. It is us that do not understand the basic nature God and hence fail at comprehending God.(still not satisfactorily explained, but if you got any of that and wish me to clarify or ask any further questions, I would be only too happy to try to explain.)

As for atheists their apparatus is the same as theists. This question shows that you dont understand my point very well at all.

(imo) you can approach God from the point of view that he DOES exist OR that he DOES NOT exist. Either way the end result is the same.(Remember that buddhists are atheists for all intensive purposes yet still believe in spirituality). If one is 100%honest (in their own mind foremostly) and seeks the truth (in whatever field of study) then it is inevitable that eventually they will reach the same conclusions as someone studying a different subject.
But there are some subjects that are necessary for understanding the universe. Things like psycology. (Again, the Buddha is one example that readily springs to mind. Buddhism has been described as a system of psycology rather than a religion.)
We need not butt our heads against a wall for our whole lives, we can learn from excellent examples of ones that have come before. Jesus lived his truth and laid the path for much of our good works , of how to practice them correctly. Buddha realized the "middle way" after 6 years of fasting and self denial. He did that so we may be able to learn from his example without having to do 6 years of fasting ourselves.
(sorry if this seems of track, but I feel it is necessary to make these other points so that my analogy may be put into proper context. Even then it will not work if you are not prepared to get into the sprit of it. Again, I am not advocating that people follow my way. I am advocating that people follow their own way. If their own way leads them to become a christian ,for example, then fine. But dont become a christian out of fear or because of peer pressure)

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't think you understand the meanings of the words you use.

Starting with Presumptuous, I don't think it means what you think it means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

You don't think it means what I think it means?

The preposition, "if God exists", is presumptuous because it presumes there is no God. It's a no brainer contextual error in logic and reason. Drange's whole argument is predicated on a false premise designed to prove a negative. The entire argument is irrational.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
My antenna does not tell me anything. i think you are misunderstanding my fundamental analogy here.
The "antenna" is developed so that we may tune in to the frequency of "God" .( I know this sounds lame, but remember , it is an analogy).
We inherit a partly evolved body/brain,(which is all part of the Mind), and from there we can further develop this ample, then fine. But dont become a christian out of fear or because of peer pressure)

In the beginning Adam was already tuned in to God because they were
communicating with each other in the garden of eden. So instead of
evolving, we must be devolving. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
In the beginning Adam was already tuned in to God because they were
communicating with each other in the garden of eden. So instead of
evolving, we must be devolving. 😏

Interesting point. So you believe Adam literally, yes?
Do you believe that the whole bible should be taken literally or is some of it allegory?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Interesting point. So you believe Adam literally, yes?
Do you believe that the whole bible should be taken literally or is some of it allegory?

It is probably a little of both.