John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  42

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

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

  your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

  why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  The future is knowable to god.

  Yes. Even free-will.

  But through His omnipotence and not omniscience.

  
  
  
• 
  42

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

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

  your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

  why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  42

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

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

  your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

  why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.

  
  
  
• 
  42

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

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

  your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

  why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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".
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  
  slimboyfat5 minutes agoI have come increasingly to the conclusion that ALL significant ideological perspectives on reality are self-refuting when you think about them long and hard. Some contradictions are easier to spot than others, but contradiction appears to be at the heart of pretty much any position you wish to adopt.
  scepticism - we can't know anything (including the assertion that "we can't know anything"?)
  physicalism - only physical things exist (then what is the statement/thought "only physical things exist"?)
  relativism - all viewpoints are equally valid (including the view that there are correct and incorrect viewpoints?)
  theism - there is a being who has unlimited power and is perfect in love (how can God be both loving and all-powerful in a world full of suffering?)
  naturalism - every event can be explained with reference to the rules of nature (how do you explain the existence of natural laws in the first place without contradicting this premise?)
  atheism - I can use logic and reason to show God does not exist (why should human rationality be relied upon if it is purely the result of selection for survival?)
  Self-refutation doesn't appear to be an isolated quirk. It seems to be a feature of any ideological position one may wish to adopt.

  Gödel's incompleteness.
• 
  315

  Atheism = self defeating.

  by towerwatchman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  atheism = self defeating.

  first may we define our terms.

  the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  The Four Horsemen say that there's probably no God.

  This is atheism defined as probabilistic denial.

  I think the best definition of atheism is "denial" not "lack".

  I'm not using denial as a pejorative term.

  I deny the JW concept of God. And I deny the calvinist concept of God.

  I deny these concepts because I know and understand them. I can't say I lack something a priori regarding these concepts.

  But after knowing and understanding them I deny them.
• 
  42

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

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

  your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

  why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
  
  
• 
  42

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

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

  your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

  why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  42

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

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

  your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

  why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  42

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

  by EdenOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

  your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

  why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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".