Can one have definitive proof of "god" and still be free to reject "god"? (think critically)

That's what free will is for

DieeDiee:
That's what free will is for

Free will only works when no rules apply...the christian "god" only has "conditioned will" I.e "as far as you do x and y,z won't happen to you" but this question poses a flaw in christianity itself that christians have always tried to make excuses for...

malvisguy212 what do you have to say about the op? (remember to think critically)

davien:
Can one have definitive proof of "god" and still be free to reject "god"? (think critically)

that what freewill is all about. You reject God or you accept Him.

malvisguy212:
that what freewill is all about. You reject God or you accept Him.

The question is in two phases....can one have definitive proof of "god"?...be free to reject "god"?
You've answered the second,can you answer the first?
The question should scope how well you know the bible and reality

davien:
The question is in two phases....can one have definitive proof of "god"?...be free to reject "god"?
You've answered the second,can you answer the first?
The question should scope how well you know the bible and reality

yes. One can have definitive proof of God and still reject Him, that is exactly the trick satan use on eve, the woman know God is the creator but satan urged rebellion against God. Satan say to her, you will not die but you will be like God, that is exactly how atheists fell. The fell as god.

The answer is yes.

You could as well ask: Can someone have evidence of internal contradictions within the bible and still believe that the bible is inerrant?
We see the answer to that question here all the time. The answer is Yes.

The next question might be: How is that possible?

Well, I think that when something doesn't suit a person's pre-conceived beliefs that person will likely contort everything around it so as to dismiss it because it is the preconceived belief that matters most. There is nothing that cannot be questioned. No Authority. Not even the Authority of the senses. Seeing is not necessarily Believing. Especially when we know that hallucinations can happen and are even common.

Since an Authority is something that is not questioned and any Authority can be questioned, even the authority of the senses, It follows that the op's question is unrealistic. There can be no such thing as 'definitive proof'.

malvisguy212:
yes. One can have definitive proof of God and still reject Him, that is exactly the trick satan use on eve, the woman know God is the creator but satan urged rebellion against God. Satan say to her, you will not die but you will be like God, that is exactly how atheists fell. The fell as god.

liar.
From which bible are you reading from?
Eve never rebelled against god.
If we are to take the bible literally, then it is clear that she was simply naively misled into eating a fruit she was not supposed to eat.
How does that translate into a rebellion against god.

There is no child that has not, at one time or another, been misled into disobeying his or her father.
Good fathers don't disown their naive children on account of one small act of disobedience.

You are an expert at twisting the bible.

plaetton:

liar.
From which bible are you reading from?
Eve never rebelled against god.
If we are to take the bible literally, then it is clear that she was simply naively misled into eating a fruit she was not supposed to eat.
How does that translate into a rebellion against god.

There is no child that has not, at one time or another, been misled into disobeying his or her father.
Good fathers don't disown their naive children on account of one small act of disobedience.

You are an expert at twisting the bible.

I believe you are tired, that why you dints read my coment well.

I never said eve rebels against God, I say "satan urged rebellions against God".

God never disown his creation,God only punished them the way a father will punish his son if they did wrong.

davien:
Free will only works when no rules apply...the christian "god" only has "conditioned will" I.e "as far as you do x and y,z won't happen to you" but this question poses a flaw in christianity itself that christians have always tried to make excuses for...

Two major and only things that is in life to choose from are GOOD AND EVIL. Every other thing falls under any of these two. The freewill or the choice that we are talking about is based on these two.

PastorAIO:
The answer is yes.

You could as well ask: Can someone have evidence of internal contradictions within the bible and still believe that the bible is inerrant?
We see the answer to that question here all the time. The answer is Yes.

The next question might be: How is that possible?

Well, I think that when something doesn't suit a person's pre-conceived beliefs that person will likely contort everything around it so as to dismiss it because it is the preconceived belief that matters most. There is nothing that cannot be questioned. No Authority. Not even the Authority of the senses. Seeing is not necessarily Believing. Especially when we know that hallucinations can happen and are even common.

Since an Authority is something that is not questioned and any Authority can be questioned, even the authority of the senses, It follows that the op's question is unrealistic. There can be no such thing as 'definitive proof'.

the bible never contradicts it's self.

malvisguy212:
yes. One can have definitive proof of God and still reject Him, that is exactly the trick satan use on eve, the woman know God is the creator but satan urged rebellion against God. Satan say to her, you will not die but you will be like God, that is exactly how atheists fell. The fell as god.

Good....so if one can have definite proof of "god" and still be free to reject "god" like the devil(as you mentioned) then why can't we have definitive proof of "god" but have to rely on faith? is the devil more worthy to "god" that it requires evidence for "god" and still be free to reject "god"?

davien:
Free will only works when no rules apply...the christian "god" only has "conditioned will" I.e "as far as you do x and y,z won't happen to you" but this question poses a flaw in christianity itself that christians have always tried to make excuses for...

Free will is choice. You choose if you want the end result of the condition. So if there was proof of God's existence, you'd still be free to follow, for example, a christian path or not

DieeDiee:


Free will is choice. You choose if you want the end result of the condition. So if there was proof of God's existence, you'd still be free to follow, for example, a christian path or not

I understand your point, I'm talking about free-will being not free but imposed if we are forced to do what a "god/gods" wants or face its consequences...

PastorAIO:
The answer is yes.

You could as well ask: Can someone have evidence of internal contradictions within the bible and still believe that the bible is inerrant?
We see the answer to that question here all the time. The answer is Yes.

The next question might be: How is that possible?

Well, I think that when something doesn't suit a person's pre-conceived beliefs that person will likely contort everything around it so as to dismiss it because it is the preconceived belief that matters most. There is nothing that cannot be questioned. No Authority. Not even the Authority of the senses. Seeing is not necessarily Believing. Especially when we know that hallucinations can happen and are even common.

Since an Authority is something that is not questioned and any Authority can be questioned, even the authority of the senses, It follows that the op's question is unrealistic. There can be no such thing as 'definitive proof'.

So how does the devil(taken you believe in the literal being) know "god" exists since you've said it's unrealistic for one to have "definite proof" of "god"?

davien:
Good....so if one can have definite proof of "god" and still be free to reject "god" like the devil(as you mentioned) then why can't we have definitive proof of "god" but have to rely on faith? is the devil more worthy to "god" that it requires evidence for "god" and still be free to reject "god"?

first, you should know the definition of faith and know how Christianity teaches it.
I made a coment about faith when I am chatting with pleatton,

"Skepticism is important to the Christian
faith; skepticism causes us to examine
what we believe and search for the
evidence that confirms our beliefs.
Christians Are Called to be Convinced
of What They Believe;
Let each man be fully convinced in his
own mind. ( Romans 14:5)
Christians can be "case makers" precisely
because the Christian faith is an
evidential faith. When we, as Christians,
argue for the truth of the Christian
Worldview, we are not sharing an
opinion. There either is a God, or there is
not. Jesus is that God, or He is not.
Salvation comes through Christ alone (as
Jesus Himself maintained), or it does not.
This is not a matter of opinion, personal
preference or wishful thinking. The
Christian faith is grounded in evidence
that can be assessed and evaluated. The
Christian faith is an evidential faith."

Thank you.

malvisguy212:
first, you should know the definition of faith and know how Christianity teaches it.
I made a coment about faith when I am chatting with pleatton,

"Skepticism is important to the Christian
faith; skepticism causes us to examine
what we believe and search for the
evidence that confirms our beliefs.
Christians Are Called to be Convinced
of What They Believe;
Let each man be fully convinced in his
own mind. ( Romans 14:5)
Christians can be "case makers" precisely
because the Christian faith is an
evidential faith. When we, as Christians,
argue for the truth of the Christian
Worldview, we are not sharing an
opinion. There either is a God, or there is
not. Jesus is that God, or He is not.
Salvation comes through Christ alone (as
Jesus Himself maintained), or it does not.
This is not a matter of opinion, personal
preference or wishful thinking. The
Christian faith is grounded in evidence
that can be assessed and evaluated. The
Christian faith is an evidential faith."

Thank you.

Your presupposition does not express the entirety of all possible events.... for example
1."gods" could exist
2."goddesses" could exist
3."a god/goddess" could exist
4.In the event that anyone exists it could be deistic
5.It could be a "personal god"
6.It could be an "anthropomorphic god"
7.It could be an alien life-form
etc
You just grabbed number 3 and 5 and applied a circular argument that either 3 is true or not...then moved on to say "jesus" is number 5...that sir is dishonest.
And you haven't still answered my question...why can the devil have definitive proof of "god" and be free to reject "god" while we get faith alone?....why can't we have definitive proof?

malvisguy212:
the bible never contradicts it's self.

What time did Jesus die?

davien:
So how does the devil(taken you believe in the literal being) know "god" exists since you've said it's unrealistic for one to have "definite proof" of "god"?

Why don't you ask the devil?

PastorAIO:


Why don't you ask the devil?

And therein lies the topic...the question that most theists fail all the time...
You've failed to answer and so push the burden of proof..thank you for justifying the title of the thread..

davien:
And therein lies the topic...the question that most theists fail all the time...
You've failed to answer and so push the burden of proof..thank you for justifying the header.

Come again? I thought the question was:

davien:
Can one have definitive proof of "god" and still be free to reject "god"? (think critically)

Where did asking the devil anything come into it?

You asked the question and I answered it. Unless it was a trick question and I missed something.

PastorAIO:


Come again? I thought the question was:



Where did asking the devil anything come into it?

You asked the question and I answered it. Unless it was a trick question and I missed something.

Do you believe in a literal being called "god" as expressed in the bible?

PastorAIO

Taking, from your post, the only next paragraph after "the answer is yes", it doesn't go with the question. Having a 'definite proof' is different from dwelling in delusion. If we are to apply your logic to the op, it would make it appear as "can someone have a weak proof for God and still reject Him"

Hardly, if at all, can you reject God when there's definite proof. It's the lack of defnite proof in the Bible that, in fact, made some people to deconvert from Christianity. Those who believe the Bible is inerrant after having the knowledge of its flaws are deluded, and their delusion doesn't, in reality, make the Bible inerrant.

Bottom line: there isn't definite proof of God, and the belief in an ironic inerrant Bible holds no point to oppose the motion.

Pr0ton:
PastorAIO

Taking, from your post, the only next paragraph after "the answer is yes", it doesn't go with the question. Having a 'definite proof' is different from dwelling in delusion. If we are to apply your logic to the op, it would make it appear as "can someone have a weak proof for God and still reject Him"

Hardly, if at all, can you reject God when there's definite proof. It's the lack of defnite proof in the Bible that, in fact, made some people to deconvert from Christianity. Those who believe the Bible is inerrant after having the knowledge of its flaws are deluded, and their delusion doesn't, in reality, make the Bible inerrant.

Bottom line: there isn't definite proof of God, and the belief in an ironic inerrant Bible holds no point to oppose the motion.

malvisguy212:
first, you should know the definition of faith and know how Christianity teaches it.
I made a coment about faith when I am chatting with pleatton,

"Skepticism is important to the Christian
faith; skepticism causes us to examine
what we believe and search for the
evidence that confirms our beliefs.
Christians Are Called to be Convinced
of What They Believe;
Let each man be fully convinced in his
own mind. ( Romans 14:5)
Christians can be "case makers" precisely
because the Christian faith is an
evidential faith. When we, as Christians,
argue for the truth of the Christian
Worldview, we are not sharing an
opinion. There either is a God, or there is
not. Jesus is that God, or He is not.
Salvation comes through Christ alone (as
Jesus Himself maintained), or it does not.
This is not a matter of opinion, personal
preference or wishful thinking. The
Christian faith is grounded in evidence
that can be assessed and evaluated. The
Christian faith is an evidential faith."

Thank you.

FAITH: is a strong conviction, feeling or belief that something is true without having evidence of it... So according to the definition of faith as given by the dictionary, i think their is need for you to re-evaluate what you just posted.
When it comes to matters of faith, it is purely based on belief cus their is no evidence for it... If for example you get to see God and perceive his existence in ur conscious self then you will no longer believe (have faith) that he exist but you will KNOW he exist...But as you said it is either their is God or not...which means you conviction is based purely on faith and their is nothing like evidential faith...#BeGoodBro

Pr0ton:
PastorAIO

Taking, from your post, the only next paragraph after "the answer is yes", it doesn't go with the question. Having a 'definite proof' is different from dwelling in delusion. If we are to apply your logic to the op, it would make it appear as "can someone have a weak proof for God and still reject Him"

Hardly, if at all, can you reject God when there's definite proof. It's the lack of defnite proof in the Bible that, in fact, made some people to deconvert from Christianity. Those who believe the Bible is inerrant after having the knowledge of its flaws are deluded, and their delusion doesn't, in reality, make the Bible inerrant.

Bottom line: there isn't definite proof of God, and the belief in an ironic inerrant Bible holds no point to oppose the motion.

My brother. Belief influences perception.

So preconcieved ideas will determine whether you believe what you see or not to be God, or even whether you will see it at all.

As such can there by definite proof? If you see a flying pig but you think you are hallucinating because you know (believe) there is no such thing as a flying pig then how much more definite will the definite proof be.

If you believe bible to be inerrant first and then you read contradiction in the bible there is plenty of wriggle room to accommodate the contradiction to your beliefs. do you get it?

So can no christian really tell us if one can have definitive proof of "god" but still reject "god"?

PastorAIO:


My brother. Belief influences perception.

So preconcieved ideas will determine whether you believe what you see or not to be God, or even whether you will see it at all.

As such can there by definite proof? If you see a flying pig but you think you are hallucinating because you know (believe) there is no such thing as a flying pig then how much more definite will the definite proof be.

If you believe bible to be inerrant first and then you read contradiction in the bible there is plenty of wriggle room to accommodate the contradiction to your beliefs. do you get it?

Bro knowing and believing is not the same thing..... so remove the one in the bracket.

PastorAIO:


My brother. Belief influences perception.

So preconcieved ideas will determine whether you believe what you see or not to be God, or even whether you will see it at all.

As such can there by definite proof? If you see a flying pig but you think you are hallucinating because you know (believe) there is no such thing as a flying pig then how much more definite will the definite proof be.

If you believe bible to be inerrant first and then you read contradiction in the bible there is plenty of wriggle room to accommodate the contradiction to your beliefs. do you get it?

So if people don't believe in gravity they can negate it right?....
Remember "belief influences perception" ....so we should negate the perceptive effects of gravity by not believing,no?

PastorAIO:


My brother. Belief influences perception.

So preconcieved ideas will determine whether you believe what you see or not to be God, or even whether you will see it at all.

As such can there by definite proof? If you see a flying pig but you think you are hallucinating because you know (believe) there is no such thing as a flying pig then how much more definite will the definite proof be.

If you believe bible to be inerrant first and then you read contradiction in the bible there is plenty of wriggle room to accommodate the contradiction to your beliefs. do you get it?

So your saying there can't be any definitive proof of God, and, therefore, your belief in God is based on preconception. And even that preconception is not a definitive proof.

If I'm right, how rational is it, then, to believe in something you have no definitive proof for

PastorAIO:


What time did Jesus die?

asking question with a question. Answer yes or no.