You are wrong. I only agree with the first part. Actually, I say that he did not go far enough. The believers need no evidence, that is true. But the believers would discard any evidence to the contrary. They would explain away by some reference to “free will”, or by some “maybe”. Just look at any thread about the “problem of evil”.
Granted, Christianity has had to address and respond to all the calumny that has been leveled against the Church for 2 millenia.
But no one with any sense tries to “explain away evil”. On the contrary, we believe that evil is personified in Satan. We also believe in hoardes of fallen angels that engage and foment evil. One way this is done is through tempting humans to do evil, of which there is plenty. If you think is not true, then go ahead and start a thread on the problem of evil.
Now the second part is wrong, completely wrong. There can be no skepticism which cannot be “cured” by a good smack on the head. But such radical methods are not necessary. I already gave an example to PR about a situation which cannot be explained away. The laws of physics cannot be changed by us, or by any super-duper advanced space alien race.
Clearly your skepticism is immune from such interventions.
The laws of physics can, and are, changed. They are just descriptions of how the material universe functions, but the spiritual realm is more powerful.
I could give some more hypothetical scenarios. It is easy, once one starts to think outside the box. I could be convinced by God, if he so chose. But only by him.
I think not. It seems clear from your posts that there is no acceptable manner in which God can prove Himself to you. The rules and standards are appaling and unreasonable. Besides which, demonstrate an equal degree of hubris.
Nope. I am not determined at all. But I like to use my brain and poke holes into arguments. By the way, if God would present himself, I would not need to “believe”, I would KNOW. There would be no need to “force” to believe. What strange choice of words. You cannot “force” someone to believe, you can only convince one of the error of his ways.
God has presented Himself in such a way that those who wish to believe are able. A heart that is hardened against God is unwilling to accept what revelation exists. As Jesus has taught us “to he who has, more will be given”. Since you refuse the revelation that has been given, He will not give you more. It is about relationship, not proofs. If someone reveals important things about Himself and you refuse to accept it/listen, why would such a person reveal more? If I wrote you a letter, telling you important things about myself, and you sent it back (writing on it “legend”) do you think I would try to send you more?
Heb. 11: 6And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.
If you come with faithlessness and refusal to accept what has been revealed, then you will not experience the rewards given to those who come in faith.
Again, that is not correct. From the actual state of affairs - reality - one can draw two conclusions, either God does not exist, or his attributes are not what you IMAGINE them to be. Definitely not “loving” and “caring”.
Well…
We see it differently.
God is our creator, and He is above our standards and judgements. You have replaced God with yourself, and reserved the right to define what is “loving” and “caring”.
Isa 45: “Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you making?’ Does your work say, ‘The potter has no hands’?”
How is it that this sentiment has been embraced, understood, and benefitted the faithful for 4000 years? Is it not possible that others have discovered something about our Maker that you have not?
It would be a very pleasant world. No rapes, wars, murders would occur. People would be decent, they would not want to commit “bad” acts. Not because I would need to interfere, rather because I would create them with the attitude which prevents negative actions. In other words, they would “police” themselves. This alleged need for constant interference is the sign of inferior design. A good designer creates a good solution up front, not one which needs constant supervision, and tinkering. Some people might call it utopia, and their voice is filled with disdain and contempt. Strange people… what is so desirable about genocide, rape, torture and wars? Not to mention acts of terrorism.
We are all very fortunate that you are not our Maker. He knows what is best for us, and He created us in love, for love. Love resides in freedom, not slavery or compliance. He did not want creatures that were designed to be puppets, but those made in His image and likeness. True freedom includes the freedom to disobey, and rebel.
Your statement reflects the fact that you do not understand what love is.
Of course people would have free will, they would simply not WANT to commit those heinous acts which make this world pretty bad - especially for the victims and their families.
It does not work that way. True freedom means that a person has a choice. A choice means that what is unwanted also exists. You do not understand freedom either.
