Does proof of God smack of coercion?

@moonbus said
No infant weighs evidence that its mother loves it.

Infants who are ignored by their mother or mistreated are unlikely to feel loved. (Or indeed 'know' love).

@moonbus said
No infant weighs evidence that its mother loves it.

It doesn't have to weigh it. It just witnesses it and experiences it.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Your overuse of those terms seems a little laboured.

Laboured? Perhaps. Appropriate? Certainly.

@fmf said
Laboured? Perhaps.

There's no perhaps about it.

@suzianne said
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? )

This analogy doesn't work and doesn't appear to be related to what I said.

@suzianne said
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).

And how is having the choice to remain unrepentant and ceasing to exist an abrogation of free will?

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

If the answer is so obvious to you, why not answer it? Here it is:

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

@suzianne said
Is live or die a true choice? Come on.

I am entirely comfortable with the prospect of being "annihilated" when I die. You surely believe that that is me exercising my choice, right?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
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?

Is "saved" through coercion really saved?

Please remember that Pascal's Wager is a fallacy. One cannot fool God. One cannot "claim" to comply (without feeling it) and satisfy the condition.

Some would try to comply (because coercion), but their hearts will still betray them.

Also, the conversation didn't start with the metric of "being saved". It started with just "belief". If something is shown to your face, there is no option to "not believe".

The New Testament is based on you hearing the argument for God/salvation and then believing in it/not believing. You are not shown the proof, because then belief (that God exists) is no longer a choice. Everyone must have a choice (including the option of turning it down) for that choice to be based on free will. The choice is yours, I've looked for the relevant verse today, but cannot find it. About how you are given this choice precisely so that you canNOT say that you were coerced.

Yes, yes, yes, I know. "Believing (or not) is not a choice! I had no choice to believe (or not)!" That is because you (along with other non-believers), as I said before, place your stock in evidence. But there is no evidence for God. So you think you have no choice. In fact, the choice is made with the heart (faith, see prior post). FMF lost faith because he stopped deciding with heart and switched to brain (thus his testimony that he just "stopped believing" (the Christian God was true) - he had no evidence).

I'm not looking for agreement. I'm just stating it as I believe it. People are free (free will, don't you know) to believe it or not. It is my testimony, not yours, I get it. We're not likely to change minds here. We're adults, our minds are pretty much made up. Yes, there are plenty of examples of people having a "change of heart" (especially as they age) but I'm not holding my breath here. And neither should you. 🙂

@suzianne said
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.

The bible is a literary work. In reality, the heart pumps blood. The brain deals with evidence, emotion, belief, doubt, love, choices etc.

@suzianne said
Nope. Direct knowledge through experience.

I have never once seen anyone here take comments you have made about your faith "...out of context and then present them like the ravings of a madman". Not once.

@fmf said
I am entirely comfortable with the prospect of being "annihilated" when I die. You surely believe that that is me exercising my choice, right?

Absolutely.

But that is in the here and now. You say this because you do NOT believe. You truly do not think there is any gravitas to anything you say now. You can talk a good game without the pressure of deciding, right here and right now, whether you live or die. When the robber shoves that gun in your face, the choice (such as it is) is immediate. You have no room for "grandstanding" what you want others to believe is your belief. Would you choose death, or life? 99 people out of 100 would choose at least the illusion of life, hoping the robber doesn't shoot them anyway, and comply.

Regardless of how they'd talk to their friends about "beating the SoB with his own gun", etc. (Remember, I'm American. Dudes here talk crap. A LOT.)

I'm talking about the truth, where the rubber meets the road, not bravado on a website, Mr. Yakuza.

@fmf said
I have never once seen anyone here take comments you have made about your faith "...out of context and then present them like the ravings of a madman". Not once.

Oh, please.

Not buying it. Please stop.

You clearly don't read @divegeester's postings.

Edit: Nice change of goalposts. I didn't say people do that about faith comments. Damn, some people's kids.