Does God Want Everyone to Know Him?

Furion said:
I would rather God speak for Himself, which is to say glean your answer from scripture.
Click to expand...
It's odd how "God speak for Himself" is being used to describe a book written by men. Even if scripture is God-breathed or God-inspired, it's still men who said that.

If you actually preferred that God speak for Himself, you wouldn't read a book. You'd start listening for God's actual voice.

... and you'd die disappointed at never having heard it.
 
CrowCross said:
I understand atheist don't believe because they are fools.
Click to expand...
But this doesn't really say anything. It doesn't say why we might be fools which is what would count. It doesn't say why or what exactly it is that atheists can't handle. So far then you haven't said anything that shows you understand why atheists don't believe.

So, a meaningless remark from you, quite illogical really. Does that make you a fool?
 
docphin5 said:
If I say, “YES”, then that makes God (1) either unwilling or unable to make himself known because some do not know him. I hear atheists default to that position a lot.

Therefore, is God either unwilling or unable to make himself known?

If unable then arguably he is unworthy of belief. If unwilling then it is unjust for him to condemn us for not believing. These are the facts of the matter.

But what if there is an answer to the OP’s question, albeit, requiring a bit of sophistication, without forcing us to choose between either an unworthy God or an unjust God? (Warning: If sophistication or critical thinking is not your thing then you can stop reading here.)

WHAT IF (I am speculating here) the state of creation (ie., the current universe or cosmos) is separated from God, NOT due to anything we have done but due to something that happened on a cosmic scale way before our time? A “Something” that may be referred to as the “cosmic sin” if we are to seek its corollary in scripture (eg., John 1:29). (At least indulge me that). A perturbation of the universal existence resulting in the Big Bang, and consequently a material cosmos that was lifeless and chaotic.

In that scenario we would ALL be born into a material world separated from God. Therefore, individuals who never believe in a divine entity remain separated from God NOT necessarily due to your choice but due to something, the cosmic sin, that preceded you. You have been “blinded” from perceiving God by the same “something” that caused a perturbation of the universal existence.

Therefore, if you never believe in an absolute Good God then you remain a part of the lifeless and chaotic cosmos due to the “cosmic sin”. Your current state REMAINS that of the material cosmos. IOW, nothing changes for you. You cannot claim God is unjust because the cosmos already paid the price for sin and you merely remain a part of that judgment for not believing.

Whereas, those who believe in and submit to the absolute Good One are being rescued from a material cosmos separated from God, —not physically rescued, but their souls are being rescued, “set apart”, for the intelligible world perceived in the future, when matter has been returned to God and made new, as it was, “in the Beginning.” It is to these souls being rescued that God has made himself known as the absolute Good One both willing and able to make himself known.

In this way ^^^^^^^^ God rescues those returning to him from a cosmic sin that separated our world from him. Unbelief is ultimately the result of something that happened way before our time that continues to ripple across space and time, but not forever.

For the sake of brevity I will end here.

——
1) For the sake of argument “God” is defined as the Most High God, namely, Elyon, an absolute Good Source of everything and therefore is itself pre-existent.
Click to expand...
My problem with this isn't that it's necessarily wrong or flawed; you may be entirely right. The problem is that entertaining it requires a level credulity (aka. a willful suspension of disbelief) that - if applied elsewhere - would literally have me entertaining most cosmogenical ideas, including religious/cultural creation myths.

I don't think you want me - a skeptic - placing your cosmogeny on the same level as a universe-supporting galactic turtle (et al).

A reasonable level of this kind of credulity leads most people to deism.
 
mikeT said:
My problem with this isn't that it's necessarily wrong or flawed; you may be entirely right. The problem is that entertaining it requires a level credulity (aka. a willful suspension of disbelief) that - if applied elsewhere - would literally have me entertaining most cosmogenical ideas, including religious/cultural creation myths.

I don't think you want me - a skeptic - placing your cosmogeny on the same level as a universe-supporting galactic turtle (et al).

A reasonable level of this kind of credulity leads most people to deism.
Click to expand...

What about - say - black holes or temporal parts theory? Or anything that science speculates regarding anything?
 
Whatsisface said:
But this doesn't really say anything. It doesn't say why we might be fools which is what would count. It doesn't say why or what exactly it is that atheists can't handle. So far then you haven't said anything that shows you understand why atheists don't believe.

So, a meaningless remark from you, quite illogical really. Does that make you a fool?
Click to expand...
No, you're a fool.
 
Semmelweis Reflex said:
What about - say - black holes or temporal parts theory? Or anything that science speculates regarding anything?
Click to expand...
Science has a long history of speculation leading to rigorous attempts at validating the factual and discarding the fanciful. For this reason alone, science will have more credibility with me than does theology. (I'd assert that the increased credibility should apply to everyone, not just me, but that is honestly a different subject, so I wont argue it here).

However, for the purposes of this thread - in which I brought up "credulity" - I'm willing to place temporal parts theory on an equal footing with cosmic turtles and @docphin5 's cosmogeny. More specifically, I need a better filtering process to know whether I should lean towards Doc's idea, or scientific speculation, or documented creation myth.

I believe the kind of credulity Doc is asking for is the opposite of a filtering process, which is why I reject the exercise (but not necessarily Doc's hypothetical).
 
mikeT said:
It's odd how "God speak for Himself" is being used to describe a book written by men. Even if scripture is God-breathed or God-inspired, it's still men who said that.

If you actually preferred that God speak for Himself, you wouldn't read a book. You'd start listening for God's actual voice.

... and you'd die disappointed at never having heard it.
Click to expand...

edit per mod I don't expect any kind of conversation from you.

If the OP.wants.to explain how he decides what God has said, he can chime in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mikeT said:
It's odd how "God speak for Himself" is being used to describe a book written by men. Even if scripture is God-breathed or God-inspired, it's still men who said that.

If you actually preferred that God speak for Himself, you wouldn't read a book. You'd start listening for God's actual voice.

... and you'd die disappointed at never having heard it.
Click to expand...

Heh. So you are demanding a big booming voice to come out of the sky, exclaiming:

"HEY, Y'ALL! I EXIST!"

And what exactly would that accomplish?
 
mikeT said:
Science has a long history of speculation leading to rigorous attempts at validating the factual and discarding the fanciful. For this reason alone, science will have more credibility with me than does theology. (I'd assert that the increased credibility should apply to everyone, not just me, but that is honestly a different subject, so I wont argue it here).

However, for the purposes of this thread - in which I brought up "credulity" - I'm willing to place temporal parts theory on an equal footing with cosmic turtles and @docphin5 's cosmogeny. More specifically, I need a better filtering process to know whether I should lean towards Doc's idea, or scientific speculation, or documented creation myth.

I believe the kind of credulity Doc is asking for is the opposite of a filtering process, which is why I reject the exercise (but not necessarily Doc's hypothetical).
Click to expand...

Really the question, then, should be does god want everyone to accept him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top