The silence of God

[leroy]

so is anyone in this forum is going to accept their burden and show that if God world have done things differently, God would have achieved his Goal in a more efficient way?

My assumption is that Gods goal is to get as many followers as possible without removing will. feel free to grant or to reject this assumption when you present your proof

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 over a page of comments now.

As I said before, not answering to irrelevant red hearings is not running away.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

but as I mentioned earlier if God removes cancer and everyone gets hilled inexplicable>

1 most atheist would attribute this to an unknown natural cause

2 Muslims and other none Christian theist would atribute this to their God and not to the Christian God

You seem to be ignoring an important point... could your god not make it objectively clear that it's the god doing this to everyone?

3 Many individuals decide to follow the Christian God after suffering from a tragedy (like cancer) so by removing Cancer would loose all these potencial followers. After all we know that humans tend to be very stupid and don't think about God when everything is ok, we tend to only look for God when things are nasty.

Yet if this god showed up and incontrovertibly demonstrated that it was the one curing the cancer of the loved one, do you honestly think that, in light of this incontrovertible evidence, people would stop following/believing?

"OK, I'm God, and look at this, I'm curing little Timmy's cancer. Stand up, little Timmy! (Angelic choir sounds off)

"Oh God, that's amazing! Thank you! Now GTFO, we don't need you now and the next episode of Doctor Who is about to start..."

so in order to make a valid argument, you have to prove that by removing cancer the number of followers that God would gain, would outnumber the number of followers that he would loose,. and of course you have to consider past present and future

The thought that this god would lose followers by making it clear it exists simply boggles the mind. It really does. That would be like scientists capturing a family of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) and putting them on display, now the people that believed Bigfoot exists suddenly stop believing it because they see it's true. Seriously man, take a moment to rethink that argument.

it seems to me that in order to optimize the number of followers, God needs a perfect balance of good stuff and bad stuff,

Seems to be that evidence would be good enough.

 

[MarsCydonia]

As I said before, not answering to irrelevant red hearings is not running away.

You've said it before.

It was false then as it is false now. You are running away.

 

[leroy]

he_who_is_nobody
1 You pick and choose when to follow the Bible. Thus, your whole argument can be refuted by me simply rejecting the Bible as easily as you did for the parts that you do not like. Do you not understand your hypocrisy with this one?

2 Theists that do not believe in Jesus are the same as atheist (they both do not believe in Jesus).

3 Theists already accept that there is a god(s), thus since Jesus refuses to demonstrate himself he is condemning theists to hell.

4 Christianity only makes up nearly 1/3 of the world's population.

5 By remaining silence, Jesus is damning nearly 2/3 of the world's population (theists that are simply worshipping the wrong god(s) and there is no reason to assume they would not worship the real god if it presented itself.

1 irrelevant, for the sake of the argument we can assume that the bible doesn't exists

2 granted and irrelevant

3 granted for the sake of the argument but irrelevant

4 granted

5 well that is your burden you have to prove that by being less silent (whatever you would mean by that) more people would go to heaven.

my objections are only here to demonstrate that the goals you arbitrarily picked lead to very uncomfortable places for you.

well in that case given that we don't know Gods goals we cant know if being less silent would have been a good thing (according to his goals) therefore the silence of God arguments fails as a positive argument against the existence of God.

you decide, ether we don't know what God goals are, or take my word and grant that his Goal is to have as many followers as possible. in any case the argument is fails

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The only problem with that question is with the word "more". The existence of any god couldn't hardly be any LESS obvious.

Again the exístanse of a God is obvious for 99% of the worlds population and the exístanse of the Christian God is obvious for 33%.

sure there are possible worlds where his existence is less obvious,

Just to correct you on your percentages...

Global Poll: Most Believe in God, Afterlife (2011)[/url]"]A new survey shows that 51 percent of people in the world believe in God. Only 18 percent don’t and 17 percent are undecided.

What percentage of the world are atheists? (2012)[/url]"]. . . roughly one-in-six people around the globe (1.1 billion, or 16%) have no religious affiliation. This makes the unaffiliated the third-largest religious group worldwide, behind Christians and Muslims, and about equal in size to the world’s Catholic population. Surveys indicate that many of the unaffiliated hold some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as belief in God or a universal spirit) even though they do not identify with a particular faith. (See Religiously Unaffiliated

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Steelmage99]

So what?

yes granted my comment was irrelevant thanks for pointing it to me



so is anyone in this forum is going to accept their burden and show that if God world have done things differently, God would have achieved his Goal in a more efficient way?


My assumption is that Gods goal is to get as many followers as possible without removing will. feel free to grant or to reject this assumption when you present your proof

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?

I am also going to second Grumpy Santa's remark.

The thought that this god would lose followers by making it clear it exists simply boggles the mind. It really does. That would be like scientists capturing a family of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) and putting them on display, now the people that believed Bigfoot exists suddenly stop believing it because they see it's true. Seriously man, take a moment to rethink that argument.

 

[leroy]

Global Poll: Most Believe in God, Afterlife (2011)[/url]"]A new survey shows that 51 percent of people in the world believe in God. Only 18 percent don’t and 17 percent are undecided.

What percentage of the world are atheists? (2012)[/url]"]. . . roughly one-in-six people around the globe (1.1 billion, or 16%) have no religious affiliation. This makes the unaffiliated the third-largest religious group worldwide, behind Christians and Muslims, and about equal in size to the world’s Catholic population. Surveys indicate that many of the unaffiliated hold some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as belief in God or a universal spirit) even though they do not identify with a particular faith. (See Religiously Unaffiliated

Kindest regards,

James

well by that criteria I am also non religious, because I don't identify myself Catholic, nor protestant, nor Anglican, etc.

I simply believe God and in Christ but am not affiliated to any religion

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If you believe in (the Christian) God, and (Jesus) Christ, then you're a Christian.

The only way one can be unaffiliated - non-religious - is if you believe in some sort of Supreme Being: you're still a theist, just areligious.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[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 over a page of comments now.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

1 irrelevant, for the sake of the argument we can assume that the bible doesn't exists

If the Bible does not exist, than where are you getting your first premise from? Remember, your objection is because you think a god wants loving relationships with us. Without first justifying this, you have no argument.

2 granted and irrelevant

3 granted for the sake of the argument but irrelevant

4 granted

Glad to know that you grant these things. However, depending on how you justify your first premise, these can become very relevant.

5 well that is your burden you have to prove that by being less silent (whatever you would mean by that) more people would go to heaven.

I have to prove nothing, since you have not justified your first premise. Without that being justified, you are holding an empty bag.

my objections are only here to demonstrate that the goals you arbitrarily picked lead to very uncomfortable places for you.

well in that case given that we don't know Gods goals we cant know if being less silent would have been a good thing (according to his goals) therefore the silence of God arguments fails as a positive argument against the existence of God.

:facepalm:

Everyone has already pointed out that this objection was aimed at your god, not a generic god. Stop trying to shift the goal post.

you decide, ether we don't know what God goals are, or take my word and grant that his Goal is to have as many followers as possible. in any case the argument is fails

Why would anyone ever take your word? Justify your first premise; tis how arguments are supposed to work. It would help if you could demonstrate a deity, but this is your problem to solve. Again, without that first justification, you have no argument.

 

[Nesslig20]

The only problem with that question is with the word "more". The existence of any god couldn't hardly be any LESS obvious.

Again the exístanse of a God is obvious for 99% of the worlds population

The percentage is less than that, more like 7% that don't believe that any god actually exists, with a total of 15% non-religious (meaning they may be deist at the most). And those people are the majority when it comes to allot of first wold nations with the highest standard of living, low crime rate, high quality education and happiness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

For some reason, the existence of any god isn't that obvious to them. You would think the more educated you are, the more you understand about the world and therefor any sign of any god would be more obvious to you. While in fact, the opposite is the case. The more you know, the more you tend to see that there is no sign from any god.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201402/why-are-educated-people-more-likely-be-atheists

And that very demographic is increasing, while christianity is in decline, even in america. So god becomes less obvious over time.

and the exístanse of the Christian God is obvious for 33%.

For hindu's Krishna is "obvious". For muslims Allah (the same god, but with different aspects of its existence) is "obvious". Religious conviction seems to be allot more about where you are born and not about the "obvious signs" of any god.

Also while for 33% the christian god is "obvious" it isn't at all obvious which version of that god is right.

Christianity suppresses those with different views by labeling them heretics, but despite this, you do have occasionally the ones who have different interpretations of the truth founding a new denominations. If the signs of the one "true" god is obvious, then why this confusion? Why do we have many different religions each with different denominations that have wildly different beliefs. Obviously, since god is not obvious it is all a matter of interpretation.

 

[leroy]

Grumpy Santa
Yet if this god showed up and incontrovertibly demonstrated that it was the one curing the cancer of the loved one, do you honestly think that, in light of this incontrovertible evidence, people would stop following/believing?

"OK, I'm God, and look at this, I'm curing little Timmy's cancer. Stand up, little Timmy! (Angelic choir sounds off)

"Oh God, that's amazing! Thank you! Now GTFO, we don't need you now and the next episode of Doctor Who is about to start..."

Ok and lets also assume that a tag in little Timmy's chest magically appears and this tags says "hilled by the Christian God" because otherwise Timmy might atribute the miricales to some other God.


So if such an event ocurres it is safe to say that Timmy and his family would willingly decide to become "followers" however if such an even happens it is posible that Aronra would fell threatened by this miracle and he would willingly decide to make videos "proving"(note the quotes) that this miracle is a fraud.

Many current and potencial followers will willingly watch Arora's videos, subscribe to his channel, let themselves being manipulated by Aronras fallacious arguments against God and willingly become atheists, so this miracle would lead to a chain of events that would eventually lead to less followers than without such miracle.


Of course I can not prove that this is what would happen is such a miracle occurs, but it is a possible (and realistic scenario) it could be that a miracle leads to a series of events that eventually lead to less followers.


It is simply impossible, (at least for human minds) to predict what would happen in the short and in the long term if God hills little Timmy. you simply cant know that by doing that God would gain more followers.


you have a heavy burden proof, you have to show that by curing Timmy, God would gain more followers considering all the humans that exists and will exist, you have to prove that humans would react in such a way that it is consistent with Gods goal, given that human actions are ether non deterministic or chaotic it is nearly impossible to prove it.

 

[leroy]

Everyone has already pointed out that this objection was aimed at your god, not a generic god. Stop trying to shift the goal post. .

That is my point, Given that you are talking about my God, (my personal interpretation of God) I am suppose to explain what Gods goals are suppose to be.



but given that you rejected my free gift of telling you what is the goal suppose to be, you now have to carry an even heavier burden proof.


what you have to do is prove that if God exist he would have been less silent, good luck

 

[MarsCydonia]

So if such an event ocurres it is safe to say that Timmy and his family would willingly decide to become "followers" however if such an even happens it is posible that Aronra would fell threatened by this miracle and he would willingly decide to make videos "proving"(note the quotes) that this miracle is a fraud.

So in this scenario, god would establish his existence to Timmy, his family and Aron Ra and then go hide so his existence remains hidden, powerless in front of Aron Ra's videos.

you have a heavy burden proof, you have to show that by curing Timmy, God would gain more followers considering all the humans that exists and will exist, you have to prove that humans would react in such a way that it is consistent with Gods goal, given that human actions are ether non deterministic or chaotic it is nearly impossible to prove it.

Irrelevant.

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 over a page of comments now.

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

If you believe in (the Christian) God, and (Jesus) Christ, then you're a Christian.

The only way one can be unaffiliated - non-religious - is if you believe in some sort of Supreme Being: you're still a theist, just areligious.

Kindest regards,

James

whatever


the point is that the existence of God is obvious for some people, this proves that God could have made his existence less obvious

 

[MarsCydonia]

That is my point, Given that you are talking about my God, (my personal interpretation of God) I am suppose to explain what Gods goals are suppose to be.

but given that you rejected my free gift of telling you what is the goal suppose to be, you now have to carry an even heavier burden proof.

what you have to do is prove that if God exist he would have been less silent, good luck

Irrelevant.

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 over a page of comments now.

 

[MarsCydonia]

well by that criteria I am also non religious, because I don't identify myself Catholic, nor protestant, nor Anglican, etc.

I simply believe God and in Christ but am not affiliated to any religion

Irrelevant.

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 over a page of comments now.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

If you believe in (the Christian) God, and (Jesus) Christ, then you're a Christian.

The only way one can be unaffiliated - non-religious - is if you believe in some sort of Supreme Being: you're still a theist, just areligious.

Kindest regards,

James

whatever

the point is that the existence of God is obvious for some people, this proves that God could have made his existence less obvious

That's simply not the case.

Even if a creator-entity exists - whether a single or multiple god(s) - nobody can tell which "god(s)" is/are the real one(s).

Thus the creator-entity has failed to prove its existence.

It's possible that the "one true faith/religion" has ceased to exist because its followers were either killed, through wars, or converted to other "false" religions.

Thus all with which we're left are false religions.

In which case, the creator-entity has utterly failed in keeping/winning (back) new followers.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Everyone has already pointed out that this objection was aimed at your god, not a generic god. Stop trying to shift the goal post. .

That is my point, Given that you are talking about my God, (my personal interpretation of God) I am suppose to explain what Gods goals are suppose to be.



but given that you rejected my free gift of telling you what is the goal suppose to be, you now have to carry an even heavier burden proof.


what you have to do is prove that if God exist he would have been less silent, good luck

:facepalm:

Again, I have to do no such thing. You have to justify your first premise. Stop trying to shift your burden. You think your god wants loving relationships why? Without this first step, you are left with an empty bag. As I said before, I would think the first step is demonstrating a deity actually exists, but this is your problem to solve. You could also take MarsCydonia's advice and address the actual argument or the implications it has for Christianity.

ProTip: Saying because you said so is not a justification. That is just you admitting to making up nonsense about things only found in your head.

 

[surreptitious57]

the point is that the existence of God is obvious for some people this proves that God could have made his existence less obvious

That argument is invalid because it assumes the existence of God without any evidence. It also assumes that subjective interpretation
constitutes proof. Now just because something is obvious does not automatically make it true. For if the existence of God was obvious
from an objective perspective it would be so to everyone not just some