#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith? (page 4)

EdenOne

"Lack" imply an "I don't care" attitude.

Wrong: That's not atheism; that's apatheism. Atheism and apatheism aren't mutually exclusive. Just as agnosticism and apatheism aren't. I consider myself apatheist AND agnostic.

So you cannot find a better term to define "lack of belief in deities". Just accept that atheism has a broad spectrum of positions towards god. From the assertion that god doesn't exist (a minority; how most theists imagine the atheist position) to those who say "I lack belief in god because there's no compelling evidence for it" (the majority).

But shall we go back to the OP topic?

John_Mann

I'm not saying is wrong to define atheism as lack of belief in concepts of God.

But I'm saying "denial" is more complete than "lack".

I'm an atheist regarding several concepts of God. And I have in mind the "denial" not the "lack".

EdenOne

Au contraire. "Lack" encompasses denial. Denial necessitates "lack".

Fisherman

That is how things are.

John_Mann

Au contraire. "Lack" encompasses denial. Denial necessitates "lack".

I think just the opposite.

Usually I have in mind the atheism proposed by Nietzsche and the Four Horsemen.

And both concepts are denial and not lack.

But I know there's people with lack of belief.

I think that's why the majority of formal definitions of atheism have denial and/or lack.

EdenOne

If god is bound by his own nature, and his own nature is being omniscient, isn't it true that restricting the exercise of his power goes against the nature of god? For what purpose?

Why is it necessary that god shuts down his omniscience to allow the exercise of free will? I'll tell you why: Because, if god knew in advance the negative outcome of each individual's choices and did nothing about it to stop evil from happening, that would make god complicit with evil, and that is something a true believer would not have. That's why believers demand that god shuts down his "exercise of omniscience" - so that god doesn't look bad. But you can't have the cake and eat it too, can you?

In any judicial system, failing to provide assistance to someone in distress when you are able to do so is considered a crime. Why are believers seeking a "special pleading" for god, exempting him from the same principles and standards that universally accepted ethics entail?

How much more serious, then, would be to actively subject someone to distress, usually with third-party innocents being hurt, just to test their faith or integrity? That isn't consistent with the idea of a 'god of love'.

John_Mann

His omniscience makes Him know the things exactly how they are.

Free-will is imprevisible and the future it's unknown by nature.

At the hour of death of every human being God uses His medium knowledge through His omnipotence to know situations of if-then and then judge the soul.

Matthew 10:14,15 is the example of the medium knowledge used by God.

EdenOne

I think that's why the majority of formal definitions of atheism have denial and/or lack.

Even conceptually, denial of god's existence is but a subset of a broader lack of belief. Someone who denies the existence of god necessarily doesn't believe in a god; however, someone who doesn't believe in god isn't necessarily making any statement about god's existence.

An agnostic lacks belief in god, not primarily because of lack of convincing evidence, but because he is persuaded that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is in principle unknowable. As a consequence, he is only sure that he has unsolvable doubts; when in doubt, he will generally opt for the most reliable knowledge available: empirical knowledge and reason. He may also take the apatheist position which is: the existence or not of deities is irrelevant.

Free-will is imprevisible and the future it's unknown by nature.

Not according to texts like Isaiah 46:10 and 1 Samuel 23:12, 1 John 3:20. The future is knowable to god. Again, special pleading.

Rainbow_Troll

if god is able to foretell the outcome, and can do no evil (notice that not stopping evil when you have the power to do so is in itself evil) then why god put humans through tests of faith - many of them consisting of unimaginable suffering?

I asked this very question as a young boy. The answer was both simple and frustrating: Jehovah has the choice to NOT consult his omniscience. He is not consciously aware of everything that has happened, is happening and ever will happen (that would be a total cognitive overload even for him); instead, Jehovah has the equivalent of a magic 8-ball in his brain which he can choose to consult at his leisure. Why doesn't he consult it all the time? For the same reason you don't begin a novel by reading the last paragraph.

#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?

Share this