@fmf said"Coming to God, based on proof of God, smacks of coercion."
"Coming to God, based on proof of God, smacks of coercion."
~ A comment on another thread.
Discuss.
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.
-Removed-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 saidif 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
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 contend that one would still have free will concerning what one can think and do given the knowledge that the deity exists.
1 edit
-Removed-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?
-Removed-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 saidI'd go one step further. People who need a proof have weak faith.
"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.
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 saidAs 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).
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.
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.