Does proof of God smack of coercion?

"Coming to God, based on proof of God, smacks of coercion."

~ A comment on another thread.

Discuss.

I don’t understand what the writer means tbh.

@fmf said
"Coming to God, based on proof of God, smacks of coercion."

~ A comment on another thread.

Discuss.

"Coming to God, based on proof of God, smacks of coercion."

That's getting close, but not quite there. Coming to God, based on faith is far more accurate. With faith, there is no need for either proof or coercion.

@mchill said
"Coming to God, based on proof of God, smacks of coercion."

That's getting close, but not quite there.

Getting close to what exactly?

@divegeester said
I don’t understand what the writer means tbh.

The assertion "proof of God smacks of coercion" presupposes that if a deity reveals its existence to you in a way that is beyond doubt and makes faith unnecessary, then that abrogates your free will regarding whether to believe in that deity or not. This is a belief that Suzianne and millions of other Christians hold.

@fmf said
The assertion "proof of God smacks of coercion" presupposes that if a deity reveals its existence to you in a way that is beyond doubt and makes faith unnecessary, then that abrogates your free will regarding whether to believe in that deity or not. This is a belief that Suzianne and millions of other Christians hold.

if a deity reveals its existence to you in a way that is beyond doubt and makes faith unnecessary, then that abrogates your free will regarding whether to believe in that deity or not

I contend that one would still have free will concerning what one can think and do given the knowledge that the deity exists.

@divegeester said
Getting close to what exactly?

I thought I made that clear, but I'll spell it out. The answer to the question, does proof of God smack of coercion is somewhat accurate, digging up what one considers proof of God carries with it an implication that one should or must follow God, but it ignores the concept that you don't need proof or coercion if your faith is strong.

Got it now?

@mchill said
I thought I made that clear, but I'll spell it out. The answer to the question, does proof of God smack of coercion is somewhat accurate, digging up what one considers proof of God carries with it an implication that one should or must follow God's rules, but it ignores the concept that you don't need proof or coercion if your faith is strong.

Got it now?

You said in your first post “it’s getting close but not quite there”.

I’m asking you “close to what?”
Close to truth?
Close to heresy?
Close to something else?

There’s no need for you get snippy.

@divegeester said
You said in your first post “it’s getting close but not quite there”.

I’m asking you “close to what?”
Close to truth?
Close to heresy?
Close to something else?

There’s no need for you get snippy.

I’m asking you “close to what?”
Close to truth?
Close to heresy?
Close to something else?

If you go back and carefully read what I posted, you'll find I answered these questions. If you choose to ignore this, that's your privilege.

As for getting "snippy" This term sounds like a bit of frustration coming from someone who tried to win a debate - and failed. 😏

@mchill said
If you go back and carefully read what I posted, you'll find I answered these questions. If you choose to ignore this, that's your privilege.

I already had done, three times.

Your inability to effectively communicate in writing on spiritual matters is well documented in this particular forum, which is odd as you seem well able to do so elsewhere.

@mchill said

As for getting "snippy" This term sounds like a bit of frustration coming from someone who tried to win a debate - and failed.

I assure you mchill you do not frustrate me at all.

If you were perhaps more willing to discuss your ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and be unequivocal about them, perhaps I would find you frustrating.

But I guess we will never know.

@divegeester said
I already had done, three times.

Your inability to effectively communicate in writing on spiritual matters is well documented in this particular forum, which is odd as you seem well able to do so elsewhere.

Your inability to effectively communicate in writing on spiritual matters is well documented in this particular forum, which is odd as you seem well able to do so elsewhere.


So, noted. Now if you'll excuse me the workweek will be here in a few hours, and they'll be much to do.

@fmf said
The assertion "proof of God smacks of coercion" presupposes that if a deity reveals its existence to you in a way that is beyond doubt and makes faith unnecessary, then that abrogates your free will regarding whether to believe in that deity or not. This is a belief that Suzianne and millions of other Christians hold.

I’ve never thought of it like that. With so much (potentially) at stake E.g. eternal life, eternal torture etc, I would think it beneficial for humans to have no doubt as to wether or not said deity exists.

It seems a odd way to view free will imo.

@mchill said
"Coming to God, based on proof of God, smacks of coercion."

That's getting close, but not quite there. Coming to God, based on faith is far more accurate. With faith, there is no need for either proof or coercion.

I'd go one step further. People who need a proof have weak faith.

When someone, such as KJ, enters into a discussion about evidence, he's already admitted that his faith is weak and needs bolstering. Of course, his need is vehement, and he confuses this for strong faith.

@moonbus said
I'd go one step further. People who need a proof have weak faith.

When someone, such as KJ, enters into a discussion about evidence, he's already admitted that his faith is weak and needs bolstering. Of course, his need is vehement, and he confuses this for strong faith.

As an atheist, I put my 'faith' in things that I trust to be correct, and this trust is firmly built on a foundation of evidence. (Very rarely will this evidence be 100% conclusive, but close enough to put my trust in).

For theists not to take the same approach to God is odd to me. The idea that God wants people to believe things they haven't been convinced by on an intellectual level seems very strange. Why give humans a brain at all if it's only the heart that matters.