Does proof of God smack of coercion?

@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.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Why does an omniscient God want people to believe without evidence and reward them for doing so? Why wouldn't such a God want people to come to him because they are convinced intellectually, based on evidence?

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

Belief is from the heart. That's what God wants.

This is the full context of what I said. Certain people here love to take comments out of context and then present them like the ravings of a madman.

Faith IS the basis of a healthy "coming to God". This was in a conversation about faith versus evidence. I said God wants people to come to him via faith and not because he's been proved to them, because following something proven to you is not devotion, but coercion. I've always claimed that God avoids leaving proof of his existence on the world, just so that unbelievers can be free to not believe. In this way, belief and whether you follow him or not becomes a personal choice and not because you were coerced.

This from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
"Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had the freedom to act according to their own motivation. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said: "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills." In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. This definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism. This view also makes free will close to autonomy, the ability to live according to one's own rules, as opposed to being submitted to external domination." -- Wikipedia (Compatibilism)

In short, you are echoing my point.

-Removed-

Why muddy the waters, instead of offering your own take on the topic?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
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 ...[text shortened]... ectual level seems very strange. Why give humans a brain at all if it's only the heart that matters.

You believed your mother loved you. Did you believe that based on evidence? I rather doubt it. Faith in a loving and benevolent God is similar.

Of course, that does not explain anything. And that is why I dispute literalists‘ interpretation of Scripture as a factually accurate report of events which really happened.

What is peculiar about Christianity, compared to paganism, is that Christianity is burdened by a massive edifice of doctrines and dogmas, which all want intellectual justifications and arguments. This plunges Christians, such as KJ, into a quite particular cognitive arena, where evidence looms large. And they struggle with it, because the evidence that Jesus rose from dead is very weak.

If Jesus does not show up for a second coming after 2,000 years, the raptureists have to come up with excuses why he was a no-show (again) and fudge calendar dates and do another ‚calculation‘ when we can all expect Jesus to re-appear.

Whereas, a pagan who dances and frolics around a bonfire to celebrate the end of winter and the coming of spring is hardly likely to be disappointed — spring is bound to come anyway, no matter what he believes about it.

Why this difference? Because no one disputes the evidence that spring comes, it is quite natural. Whereas someone’s rising from the dead is absolutely unnatural. The so-called evidence that Jesus rose from the dead (once) and will come again all rests on documents of unknown authenticity. „The documents have been tampered with.“ H.L. Mencken. When stories pass for evidence, you know the evidence is weak.

As soon as Christians stop trying to present biblical stories as evidence of events which supposedly really happened, and accept the Bible as an allegory about the human condition, I stop disputing with them. There‘s nothing to dispute about an allegory; either it speaks to you or it doesn‘t, because it‘s not about truth any more. Analogously, an infant implicitly believes its mother loves it, even if she doesn‘t; that‘s not about truth either.

@suzianne said
I said God wants people to come to him via faith and not because he's been proved to them, because following something proven to you is not devotion, but coercion.

There are little non-sequiturs in what you are asserting. In this case:

Knowledge is not coercion.

Knowledge does not preclude devotion.

By providing knowledge of its existence and its express will, a deity would still be allowing the exercise of free will in so far as people would still have the free will to be obedient or disobedient, free will to heed or ignore warnings, etc.

There is no "coercion". People continue to be free moral agents.

What moral purpose could credibly be attached to a deity "rewarding" faith?

@moonbus said
You believed your mother loved you. Did you believe that based on evidence? I rather doubt it. Faith in a loving and benevolent God is similar.

Based on how she treated me. Her actions/behaviour evidenced her love. - Do children feel loved when such evidence isn't forthcoming?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
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 ...[text shortened]... ectual level seems very strange. Why give humans a brain at all if it's only the heart that matters.

One is given a brain in order to deal with the external (the environment, your job, dangers to your safety - this requires evidence). One is given a heart to deal with the internal (self, relationships with others, God, empathy, apathy - this requires feeling/insight/emotion). One needs both, for different purposes. Choices are made differently, depending on which is used.

Believing in God is a job for faith, because there can be no evidence of God. Therefore, I say that proof of God renders faith moot. You no longer have a choice to believe in him, so your belief is coerced. The choice is ripped from you. And this is why those who put all their stock into evidence claim they had no choice what to believe -- they're not used to working from faith.

@suzianne said
This is the full context of what I said. Certain people here love to take comments out of context and then present them like the ravings of a madman.

This claim about "people here" is profoundly dishonest. If, on the other hand, you are being honest, then I'd say your claim is delusional and paranoid.

@suzianne said
Therefore, I say that proof of God renders faith moot. You no longer have a choice to believe in him, so your belief is coerced.

It does not mean one is coerced. One still has free will. One can still choose to devote oneself to God or not. One can still choose to obey God or not. One can still choose to ignore God or not. There is no coercion. There is still free will.

@moonbus said
You believed your mother loved you. Did you believe that based on evidence? I rather doubt it. Faith in a loving and benevolent God is similar.

You believed your mother loved you. Did you believe that based on evidence?

Yes, copious amounts of evidence. You disagree?

I find your analogy doesn't ring true.

Care to elaborate?

@fmf said
You believed your mother loved you. Did you believe that based on evidence?

Yes, copious amounts of evidence. You disagree?

I find your analogy doesn't ring true.

Care to elaborate?

No infant weighs evidence that its mother loves it.

@fmf said
There are little non-sequiturs in what you are asserting. In this case:

Knowledge is not coercion.

Knowledge does not preclude devotion.

By providing knowledge of its existence and its express will, a deity would still be allowing the exercise of free will in so far as people would still have the free will to be obedient or disobedient, free will to heed or ignore warnin ...[text shortened]... e free moral agents.

What moral purpose could credibly be attached to a deity "rewarding" faith?

This is patently false.

Someone puts a gun in your face and demands your money. You have two choices. One: comply. Two: overpower the person and neutralize the threat. If you CAN overpower him, you still have two choices. If you cannot, your choices are limited to one. (Granted, you could take the pedantic tack and claim the you have a third choice, to get shot in the face and probably die. IS that a true choice? )

If God showed his face to everyone tomorrow, we'd still have those two (three) choices. 1: Comply, not through faith, but by coercion (knowledge of the result of non-compliance). 2: Overpower God. (Really? I guess if you were insane, you could try - leading us to the last choice) 3. Remain unrepentant and be annihilated (die).

Being disobedient is like refusing the robber and getting shot in the face. Would you really really choose that? No. Then you are coerced to believe and comply. It is NOT an act of free will. The decision has been stolen from you.

We are told in the Bible (numerous times) that the choice (God/Not God) comes from the heart, not from the brain. This difference (Heart/Brain) is characterized by the same difference between Faith/Evidence.

And your last question is so obvious to most that I leave it for homework for you. (Life/Death)

@fmf said
This claim about "people here" is profoundly dishonest. If, on the other hand, you are being honest, then I'd say your claim is delusional and paranoid.

Nope. Direct knowledge through experience.

@suzianne said
One is given a brain in order to deal with the external (the environment, your job, dangers to your safety - this requires evidence). One is given a heart to deal with the internal (self, relationships with others, God, empathy, apathy - this requires feeling/insight/emotion). One needs both, for different purposes. Choices are made differently, depending on which is used ...[text shortened]... ck into evidence claim they had no choice what to believe -- they're not used to working from faith.

If God made it crystal clear He existed, through evidence, wouldn't more people be saved? Why is it more important people come to him through faith alone, when this will no doubt result in more people not being saved?

@fmf said
It does not mean one is coerced. One still has free will. One can still choose to devote oneself to God or not. One can still choose to obey God or not. One can still choose to ignore God or not. There is no coercion. There is still free will.

Is live or die a true choice? Come on.

@fmf said
This claim about "people here" is profoundly dishonest. If, on the other hand, you are being honest, then I'd say your claim is delusional and paranoid.

Your overuse of those terms seems a little laboured.