Moob, I humbly suggest you read your posts #57, #60, and #68 on this thread. Read them as if you asked the question you're answering, and you might begin to understand why folks are thinking that you did, in fact, claim what you are denying.
#57 and #68 directly mention coordinating by time, and #60 implies again that the issue is one of coordination rather than whether God will contact HAL. So no, the posts support my claim that if HAL's issue is when
God will contact HAL, then he has the option of being proactive. They do not in any way, shape, or form make any claims about whether
God will contact HAL.
Meanwhile, I am not responsible for supporting other members' straw men. If other members misread my posts in light of another member's straw man, that is a shame, and I hope they can correct that error. However, me giving legitimacy to that error by attempting to read my posts in light of it will not correct the error. It will only perpetuate it.
I didn't even accuse you of trolling, I accused you of dodging.
What about people who die as atheists or belonging to another religion? Has God left it too late to save those people from eternal damnation? Said non-believers haven't had the chance to turn away from their path and be saved.
I can't speak for other Christians, as there's some variation between denominations. However, I agree with my own denomination's distinction between never finding God and rejecting God.
People who have never heard God's word, such as infants, isolated peoples, etc., have not had the chance to reject God, and thus they die without having made a choice to be separate from God. Likewise, those who seek God through other religions or who haven't found God through any religion, but still follow their God-given consciences are not outright rejecting God either. While these people might not believe in the fullness of God's gospel, they've at least made some attempt to turn towards God (even if they don't know it), and thus are not automatically doomed.
On the other hand, those who hear God's message, believe that it is real, yet turn away are indeed rejecting God. If these people are not interested in pursuing a relationship with God, and just want God to leave them alone, He doesn't force them. If they die in this state, then they're separated from God eternally. For a Christian who strongly desires union with God, this would be the ultimate torture. For someone who doesn't want God, this might not be so bad.
No, I don't know of an exact relationship meter cutoff between heaven and hell (or purgatory), and I think that thinking that way misses the point. We're here in this life to grow in knowledge, love, and service of God and others. Our goal should be to work towards that, regardless of where we think we might be going (or not going) after we die. And indeed, we should avoid doing the opposite not out of fear of hell, but rather the fear of throwing our lives away and leaving a wake of destruction behind.
There are people who start to question their faith who call out to God, but in turn get no answer.
I know. I've been there many times.
So it's terrible advice to tell them to ask God.
Yes, it's the worst advice possible. But it's really the only place to start. You're not going to find God by talking to me, or completing a logical syllogism, or reading a book, or going to church, or drawing up statistics on how much Christians have raised for charity in the past year, or eating a wafer, or speaking in tongues, or any of the hundreds of other things people pretend belief is about that have nothing to do with actual belief.
The only way that you can find God is to find God. And if you've looked but have had no luck, your options are either to keep looking, try a new tactic, or take a break. And I understand fully why people take the third option: as an agnostic theist, that option is always on the horizon for me, and I've embraced it quite a few times. I've never quite lost all my faith (yet), but there's been plenty of times when I've been close. And only in the past few months have I come off quite a long break and started trying again.
So yeah, I don't know what to tell you with your prayers. As I said in a previous post, there's any number of reasons the connection may have failed, one of which may very well be that God doesn't exist. I personally don't believe that's the case, so I'm still looking. It's up to you whether you want to do the same.
If God established his relationship much sooner in people's lives think how much better the world could be and how little violence there would be between religions.
Ideally this is supposed to start at Baptism, with the sacrament acting as a symbol of initiation into God's church. So the relationship is supposed to be life long. As I said above, I don't exactly know why many relationships with God fail. And I don't think I'll ever know, since these are personal things that are different for every person. I can only focus on my own.
I was looking for an admission that your beliefs are demonstrably untrue. All you need to do is say some aspect of your belief is wrong, because it obviously is.
I have yet to see the evidence that my beliefs are untrue. Until then, I can only reserve judgement.
But whatever it is, you should admit your model of reality is flawed.
The relationship of my model of reality to my belief in God is a bit complicated. But suffice it to say, they are not equivalent. Elaborating more would likely require its own tangent thread.
Whether I expressed a true prayer or not, omnipotent god should know my thoughts and feelings.
Omnipotent God should also know your true thoughts and feelings, better than you yourself. So if your conscious mind says, "I think I want this," and your subconscious mind says, "This is all a load of crap," an omnipotent deity would know both. So there's uncertainty on this point.
And as far as me not being open to friendly, omnipotent god's response, I told you, I was interested in and actively seeking god. Your reply says, maybe I wasn't. I cannot make you accept that I am being honest. But if you are not going to take me at my word - which you said you would - then there is little reason for us to engage.
I take at your word that you think you were interested. But I can't know your inner thoughts and desires, or anything else.
That borders on a common and higly insulting xian fallacy I have run into before. The variant I see most is the No True Scotsman version. Some xian says "you were never a true xian", and I ask, "how do you know", and they reply, "you're an atheist now, so obviously you could never have been". Wheee! Around we go with the circular logic.
Not quite. You're saying my belief that God wants a relationship with everyone is "demonstrably untrue," and you want me to "admit" this. However, I'm pointing out the confounding variables that prevent this untruth from being demonstrated.
You may very well have reflected on your own thoughts and experiences and satisfactorily demonstrated it to yourself, but that doesn't mean it can be demonstrated to me. Just as some can demonstrate "I feel God in my heart" or "I hear God in my prayers and I know it's Him and not me" to themselves, but cannot possibly demonstrate it to you.
Your testimony to me is just that: your testimony. And because of that, I have no way to know if you're telling the truth (I assume you are, though), that you observed and gathered all relevant information, that you interpreted it correctly, or that you're relaying it accurately. Just as I have no way of knowing if someone who totally witnessed an undocumented miracle is telling the truth (though I assume that they are), have observed it properly and gathered all relevant information, interpreted it correctly, or relayed it accurately to me. These types of evidences are just by nature much more reliable to the original observers than they are to third parties, because the third party cannot corroborate those observations.
They have a belief - "true xians don't lose faith" or "god answers prayers" - and rather than test whether the belief is a reasonable belief by the results, they assume the belief is valid and judge the results.
Have I done this here? I provided my belief, when asked, in response to a question about sin. I replied to you and openly admitted multiple possibilities for a lack of response, with God being non-existent on the list. However, until I can safely cross off the rest of the options, I can't say that this is the only option.
For example, the belief that god wants a relationship with everyone could be simply validated by surveying people who wanted and requested relationships with god. If everyone who wanted one got it, it would be a reasonable belief. But, if there was even a single miss, the belief is invalidated. So, here I am, a catholic who invites god to a relationship, but is rebuffed. Does that invalidate the belief? It should.
It should if there's some positive evidence that you were rebuffed. If being rebuffed is a conclusion from an argument from silence, then there are other possible conclusions and I mentioned in my last reply to you.
- god doesn't want relationships with everyone
- god is incapable of having relationships with at least some people (for whatever reason)
- god does not exist
If people are indeed being rebuffed, then yes.
But the believer would rather hold his belief. So he keeps the belief - god wants relationships - and judges the outcome - no relationship with god - and concludes I must have been doing it wrong or I was lying. Hurray for circular logic.
The believer admits that he simply doesn't have enough evidence to draw any conclusion, including the conclusion that God doesn't exist.
re: dogs laying eggs - as far as I know the only mammal that lays eggs is the duck billed platypus as in "Perry the Platypus" who is totally badass.
There's a second one: the echidna.