The silence of God

[leroy]

What's Leroy's irrelevant appears to be the anything that is troublesome for his "argument".
Not only did he get the argument wrong yet again... Even his flawed version of the argumentt was discussed (and the issues raised, he subsequently ran from).

It's not hard, Leroy could:
1. Address the correct form of the argument
2. Address how his objections to his flawed form of the argument are invalid
3. Address how is flawed form of the argument brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

Leroy has opted to run away from all 3. Can't Leroy say anything relevant?

to try to keep the conversation on topic is not "running away"


My only objection to the silence of God argument is that even though I grant that God could have made his existence more evident, I don't gran that by doing it there would be more followers or people that would willing decide to have a loving relationship with God


Any comment unrelated to that point will and should be ignored.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Leroy could:
1. Address the correct form of the argument
2. Address how his objections to his flawed form of the argument were shown to be invalid
3. Address how his flawed form of the argument brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

Leroy has opted to run away from all 3 for several comments now. Can't Leroy show some integrity and address this?

Leroy will run away again...

 

[Steelmage99]

Leroy, I am going to have to ask.

Are you seriously doubting the proposition, that having more people being convinced of the existence of God would more likely than not lead to more people following God?

 

[Deleted member 619]

what you have to do is prove that if God would have made his existence more evident (whatever you would consider "more evident") there would have been more followers.

No, we really don't, and this is why it's clear to us that you don't have any grasp of even the most rudimentary logic. Frankly, when you tell somebody what they have to argue to counter your point, you look like nothing so much as an incompetent teenager trying to set up the punchline of some cheesy chat-up line. It makes you look even more stupid than your dreck already makes you look.

So here's how it really works. What we do to counter your asinine arguments is raise any objection that has a logical bearing on the soundness of your argument. Whether you have the logical competence to correctly assess whether it has a logical bearing on the soundness of your argument is not an issue for the objection, and is another matter entirely.

What you're asking us to do to counter your argument is to raise an objection that doesn't actually have any logical bearing on the soundness of your argument.

Here's an analogy to help you understand. If I want a brand new Ferrari, I'm going to have to go to the showroom. Whether or not I can actually manage to acquire a Ferrari when I go to the showroom has no logical bearing on the fact that I must go to the showroom.

The same is true of god. If god wants us to believe in him, he's going to have to provide evidence. Whether provision of said evidence is going to result in more followers has no bearing on the logical soundness of this argument.

So, really, stop telling other people how they need to argue. It's tedious, and you don't possess the competence at logic to be any good at it.

 

[leroy]

Leroy, I am going to have to ask.

Are you seriously doubting the proposition, that having more people being convinced of the existence of God would more likely than not lead to more people following God?

what I am saying is that more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would not necessarily lead to more followers

 

[leroy]

Here's an analogy to help you understand. If I want a brand new Ferrari, I'm going to have to go to the showroom. Whether or not I can actually manage to acquire a Ferrari when I go to the showroom has no logical bearing on the fact that I must go to the showroom.

sure, but more showrooms would not necessarily translate in to more Ferrari buyers .............agree?

after all many people already have their Ferrari and everyday many people buy a new Ferrari. ............those who are honestly seeking for a Ferrari, eventually they will find it and love their new Ferrari, those who are not interested wont buy a Ferrari even if there where 100 showrooms in your neighborhood


in this analogy (if I understand it correctly)


buying a new Ferrari = loving God and show room = evidence for God



so in short, what you have to prove is that more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would lead in to more followers

 

[MarsCydonia]

what I am saying is that more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would not necessarily lead to more followers

Leroy could not even give a straight answer to this simple question...

Is it any wonder that he has to twist the argument rather than address it in its correct form? And then run away rather than address the issues with his objection to his flawed version of the argument?

Well, we've waited and waited and still Leroy has not said anything relevant...

 

[Grumpy Santa]

so in short, what you have to prove is that more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would lead in to more followers

Let's add one word to that, shall we Leroy?

"...more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would lead to potentially more followers.

Worded like this, would you say this is a true statement?

 

[MarsCydonia]

in this analogy (if I understand it correctly)

buying a new Ferrari = loving God and show room = evidence for God

so in short, what you have to prove is that more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would lead in to more followers

Leroy should try this:

Buying a Ferrari = loving god
Ferraris for sale = evidence for god

How can anyone buy a ferrari if there are no ferraris for sale? According to Leroy, the existence of ferraris would not only translate to "no ferrari buyers" but people owning ferraris would start selling theirs... because? Well, because Leroy say so without any sound reasoning. Good enough, isn't it?

And that's with a piss-poor analogy as ferraris are.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody, MarsCydonia, and now hackenslash,


you did it again, even though you commented very interesting stuff, you are still making irrelevant comments.

No I am not.

what you have to do is prove that if God would have made his existence more evident (whatever you would consider "more evident") there would have been more followers.

I already did that:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]I do not disagree with the idea that a deity can hide itself forever, I just see no clear reason why it would actively hide. However, my only point is that your reasoning fails for two reasons. First, you claim this god wants us to have a loving relationship with it. That claim is unsupported, and only rests on a Biblical claim. Second, since you want to play with the Christian mythos; Christianity only makes up nearly 1/3 of the earth's population. As you pointed out earlier, most of the world believes in some sort of god(s), but not Jesus. However, the Bible also claims that your god is a jealous god and thinks that we should not worship anything else but it. That means there are nearly 2/3 of the world's population that your god can convince (they already believe in god(s)), yet refuses to do so. That means your deity is condemning nearly 2/3 of the earth to hell fire (another Biblical claim) simply by not demonstrating itself.

[emphases added]

Remember dandan/leroy, when you say God, you actually mean Jesus Christ. Thus, there are nearly 2/3 of the worlds population that do not believe in Jesus, yet would since they already believe in some sort of deity.

he_who_is_nobody
you claim this god wants us to have a loving relationship with it. That claim is unsupported

sure, that is just my assumption. (or say a Christian assumption)



I could have adopted a more confortable position and say something like this

You don't know Gods goals, therefore you don't know if "not hiding" is consistent with his goals


but I thought that such position would have been disingenuous.

You know what is disingenuous and you have no problem doing it? Equivocating Jesus Christ as God, than using the fact that most of the world believe in at least one god that it must be the same as your. This is disingenuous since your mythos claims your god is a jealous god and condemns all those that worship false deities to hell.

You are between a rock and a hard place. Either admit that you have no bases for believing that a deity wants relationships with us or stick with that Christian mythos and also accept that the same mythos you are using to justify it means that nearly 2/3 of the world's population would accept Jesus if only he demonstrated himself.

 

[leroy]

so in short, what you have to prove is that more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would lead in to more followers

Let's add one word to that, shall we Leroy?

"...more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would lead to potentially more followers.

Worded like this, would you say this is a true statement?

sure granted

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Let's add one word to that, shall we Leroy?

"...more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would lead to potentially more followers.

Worded like this, would you say this is a true statement?

sure granted

And you do acknowledge we non-theists will not suddenly become followers without evidence to convince us there's something to follow.

So tell me, if we're going from a zero chance of becoming followers to a greater than zero chance should this god present himself in a convincing way, isn't that enough of a strong implication that the number of followers would most likely increase (as opposed to stay the same or decrease)?

 

[leroy]

in this analogy (if I understand it correctly)

buying a new Ferrari = loving God and show room = evidence for God

so in short, what you have to prove is that more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would lead in to more followers

Leroy should try this:

Buying a Ferrari = loving god
Ferraris for sale = evidence for god

How can anyone buy a ferrari if there are no ferraris for sale? According to Leroy, the existence of ferraris would not only translate to "no ferrari buyers" but people owning ferraris would start selling theirs... because? Well, because Leroy say so without any sound reasoning. Good enough, isn't it?

And that's with a piss-poor analogy as ferraris are.

sure and what I would say is that more Ferraris for sale would not necessary lead to more Ferrari buyers. ..........after all people are constantly buying Ferraris and those who are not willing to buy a Ferrari wont buy it even if there where 100 Ferrari shops in their neighborhood

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
what you have to do is prove that if God would have made his existence more evident (whatever you would consider "more evident") there would have been more followers.


I already did that:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
I do not disagree with the idea that a deity can hide itself forever, I just see no clear reason why it would actively hide. However, my only point is that your reasoning fails for two reasons. First, you claim this god wants us to have a loving relationship with it. That claim is unsupported, and only rests on a Biblical claim. Second, since you want to play with the Christian mythos; Christianity only makes up nearly 1/3 of the earth's population. As you pointed out earlier, most of the world believes in some sort of god(s), but not Jesus. However, the Bible also claims that your god is a jealous god and thinks that we should not worship anything else but it. That means there are nearly 2/3 of the world's population that your god can convince (they already believe in god(s)), yet refuses to do so. That means your deity is condemning nearly 2/3 of the earth to hell fire (another Biblical claim) simply by not demonstrating itself.

[emphases added]

no you didn't , as you usually do, you made an irrelevant comment that has nothing to do with my objection to the argument. it doesn't matter if 66% of the population goes to hell, that is completely irrelevant to my comments,


again what you have to do is prove that by making his existence more evident God would gain more followers, the argument would apply regadless if you are talking about God in general or just the Christian God.


I personally would not have any problem if Grumpy descries to change his argument and apply it to the just to the Christian God

Remember dandan/leroy, when you say God, you actually mean Jesus Christ. Thus, there are nearly 2/3 of the worlds population that do not believe in Jesus, yet would since they already believe in some sort of deity.

what I mean by God is irrelevant, the relevant things what Grumpy Santa means by God, and he clearly is talking about God in the general sense, not just the Christian God.

Grumpy Santa
It's a valid argument against each and every god mankind has ever formulated as well as those yet to be thought of

to me he is clearly talking about all Gods, not just the Christian God. At any moment he can correct me an clarify that he has always been talking about Jesus and only Jesus, and in that case I would make minor modifications to my argument

 

[leroy]

And you do acknowledge we non-theists will not suddenly become followers without evidence to convince us there's something to follow.

So tell me, if we're going from a zero chance of becoming followers to a greater than zero chance should this god present himself in a convincing way, isn't that enough of a strong implication that the number of followers would most likely increase (as opposed to stay the same or decrease)?

well what could God do to increase the probabilities of converting atheist, without increasing the possibilities of loosing current or potencial followers? what specific action could God do?


i

 

[MarsCydonia]

sure and what I would say is that more Ferraris for sale would not necessary lead to more Ferrari buyers. ..........after all people are constantly buying Ferraris and those who are not willing to buy a Ferrari wont buy it even if there where 100 Ferrari shops in their neighborhood

What Leroy is asserting here:
That the number of Ferrari buyers, which is 0 because 0 Ferraris are for sale, would become less than 0 once the Ferraris are available for purchase despite
- the people wanting to buy Ferraris
- the current owners not being interested in selling.

Somehow, Ferraris being available for purchases would mean less Ferrari owners, without any explanation other than Leroy's asserting its a possibility, something completely devoid of any reasoning but the twisted reason existing solely within the brainless mind of a dishonest christian troll.

How could anyone find this logical even with such a terrible analogy is beyond me. But that's because Leroy doesn't want to admit: not only the Ferraris are not available for purchases, the manufacturer is actively hiding the Ferraris... Which brings a whole lot of other issues that Leroy wants to run from...

again what you have to do is prove that by making his existence more evident God would gain more followers, the argument would apply regadless if you are talking about God in general or just the Christian God.

Leroy fucks up the argument once again.

So Leroy could:
1. Address the correct form of the argument
2. Address how his objections to his flawed form of the argument were shown to be invalid
3. Address how his flawed form of the argument brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint.

Leroy has opted to run away from all 3 for several comments now. Can't Leroy show some integrity and address this?

Leroy will run away again...

So, this how it goes:
- "Followers of god", let's call them christians after all, can only be christians when they believe god exists. This is basically tautological: a christian, who is a believer in god's existence, is a believer in god's existence. Being a christian also means accepting christian concepts such as salvation through Jesus, etc.
- None of the unbelievers in god's existence is a believer in god's existence. This again, is tautological but this also means that none of the unbelievers in god's existence are christians.
- God, being all-knowledgeable and all-powerful could establish his existence to all the unbelievers thus turning them all into believers.

Now, here's how it gets really interesting:
Leroy's objection is that god wants a certain number of christians, "more followers", which means that after establishing his evidence, the net number of christians must be what it currently is or higher. His objection is that god wouldn't reveal himself if that number droped/equaled less followers. So that means that either:
A) 0 of the current unbelievers would become christians. This is the scenario Leroy thinks is more probable than at least 1 of the unbelievers would become a christian. There are former christian believers that ceased to believe because they lacked evidence. Leroy is basically saying that none of them would go back to being christians despite having the evidence they sought. Of course, we should not expect any support for this from Leroy.
or
B) Some of the current unbelievers would become christians but more of the current christians would cease to follow god. This is the other scenario that Leroy thinks is more probable than improbable. Of course, deconversion happens mostly because of the lack of evidence. So Leroy is saying that more people would cease to be christian despite the reason for why it mostly happens today becoming a non-issue! This is even more ridiculous than scenario A so I wouldn't expect any support for this from Leroy either.

But all of this doesn't save Leroy from the main issue with the 1st premise: Does god want people to have a relationship with him or not? Leroy is basically saying that "Yes, God wants a relationship with people but only with the current number of people or more" which actually means that god doesn't want a relationship with certain people because it would risk losing some of his current followers. So "God wants a relationship with people" is no longer accurate but that means that the people god is wilfully hiding from will be punished because of god's own desire to hide from them as non-christians go to hell.

And I'd point out that Leroy would show some consistency with this... Think about it, god doesn't want to establish his existence to people in fear of losing current followers, so why is Leroy trying to convince us god's existence then? At best it's futile, god wants the current number not lower and establishing his existence would lead to lower numbers so Leroy is purposefully trying to send people to hell for not believing...

 

[Grumpy Santa]

And you do acknowledge we non-theists will not suddenly become followers without evidence to convince us there's something to follow.

So tell me, if we're going from a zero chance of becoming followers to a greater than zero chance should this god present himself in a convincing way, isn't that enough of a strong implication that the number of followers would most likely increase (as opposed to stay the same or decrease)?

well what could God do to increase the probabilities of converting atheist, without increasing the possibilities of loosing current or potencial followers? what specific action could God do?


i

Are you implying that his followers would leave if they found out he was actually real?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Are you implying that his followers would leave if they found out he was actually real?

He's implying that not only some of his followers would leave if unbelievers found out god was actually real but that they would leave in greater numbers than the followers that would be gained.

His reasoning for this? Completely absent.

 

[Steelmage99]

Leroy, I am going to have to ask.

Are you seriously doubting the proposition, that having more people being convinced of the existence of God would more likely than not lead to more people following God?

what I am saying is that more evidence for God (whatever you would consider evidence) would not necessarily lead to more followers

And I am asking whether you oppose the idea that it would more likely lead to more followers.

 

[Steelmage99]

And you do acknowledge we non-theists will not suddenly become followers without evidence to convince us there's something to follow.

So tell me, if we're going from a zero chance of becoming followers to a greater than zero chance should this god present himself in a convincing way, isn't that enough of a strong implication that the number of followers would most likely increase (as opposed to stay the same or decrease)?

well what could God do to increase the probabilities of converting atheist, without increasing the possibilities of loosing current or potencial followers? what specific action could God do?


i

In what way would making it's existence known to non-believers in any way, shape or form make already established believers lose their faith in a Yahweh?
Surely "hard" evidence would only strengthen their conviction, that they made the right choice on faith alone.

Please, help me understand this.

I could draw parallels to other similar issues, but I am rather worried you would "inadvertently get distracted" (see Change The Topic) if I do so.