Deleted because of repetition.
#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?
by EdenOne 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
John_Mann
i've accepted my agnosticism, but doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it.
Pascal's wager for you, EdenOne.
-
Bugbear
?.??.???.????.?????.??????.......!!!!
-
John_Mann
Another straw man argument is to define "atheism" as denial of god's existence. Most atheists won't subscribe to that statement.
Really? Tell me more...
I know the Four Horsemen tried to call themselves as "bright".
But the A on atheism means no and no means denial.
Maybe you are referring to those who lack belief in God.
Well I know there are people like these but they're not activists. These people are more nihilist in the true sense. They would never bother to debate in an Internet forum. Or these people wanted to believe but can't even though they keep trying. Usually these people don't identify themselves as atheists.
If someone is an activist it must be an apologist or a denier.
If someone lacks something I don't think it would try very hard to boast its position.
There's a very clear difference in attitude between denial and lack/absence.
If someone lacks a vagina in its body would be very strange if this one identified as an avaginist.
Only denial moves a person to identify itself with a Greek "A".
-
EdenOne
How would you then define someone who lacks belief in deities for lack of sufficient evidence, but stops short of saying "deities do not exist"? Do you have a term for that?
-
never a jw
Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?
Easy. God wrote a novel and needs the visuals of every page of his novel. He knows the end, but wants the movie version. Bring the popcorn!
Even Shakespeare knew this: "All the world is a stage"
-
John_Mann
"How would you then define someone who lacks belief in deities for lack of sufficient evidence, but stops short of saying "deities do not exist"? Do you have a term for that?
I think you can't put lack and reason together. I think the correct would be denial and reason.
If you don't care about the reason (why I don't have a vagina; why I'm not an Asian; why I was not born in the 19th century; etc..) you can say you lack the motivation to even question these "no" realities.
But if you want to find a reason so you must be in denial of these realities.
Also the evidence issue again. What kind of evidence someone who lacks something would even care about?
Idk but I think defining atheism as a "lack" would bring a problem of epistemology.
When such problems arise usually a method is used to test its contingency.
For example, sex exists without rape. But rape doesn't exists without sex. So rape is contingent to sex. Rape doesn't exist by itself.
If you apply this logic to theism and atheism you'll easily notice that atheism needs the existence of theism. It doesn't exists by itself. So it's very strange the "lack" definition. I think the "denial" definition makes more sense.
"Lack" imply an "I don't care" attitude.
New atheism is much better defined as denial. Probabilistic denial because they say there's PROBABLY no God.
-
John_Mann
I'm not using denial as a pejorative term.
I deny the calvinist concept of God and I deny the JW concept of God.
I don't see a problem with the word "denial" in this context.
I deny these concepts because I know and understand them. It's not about lacking something about these concepts.
-
slimboyfat
The JW answer is that while God has the power to see the future, he restricts his exercise of this power in order to leave room for the free will of humans in relation to his purpose. So God wasn't pretending not to know the outcome when he tested people in the Bible. He really doesn't know if any particular individual will serve him faithfully or not until it unfolds.
-
John_Mann
The JW answer is that while God has the power to see the future, he restricts his exercise of this power in order to leave room for the free will of humans in relation to his purpose. So God wasn't pretending not to know the outcome when he tested people in the Bible. He really doesn't know if any particular individual will serve him faithfully or not until it unfolds.
Yes.
They use the singer's illustration.
This is very close to molinism.