Problem of Divine Hiddenness

"i.e., able to do so just by trying to. "

There's the crux, for Christians. After the fall of man, man's soul is so corrupt that he refuses to believe the truth, even when shown it. He must, so to speak, be saved against his will, because his will is fallen. Only Adam had had free will in a strong sense, and he so abused it that all mankind afterwards have only a distorted crippled sort of freedom to choose. In other words, man is NOT able to do the all important thing just by trying. That is the Augustinian doctrine, adopted by the mainstream Christian Churches during the early history of Christianity. According to Augustine, even newborn infants' are corrupt; they are not innocent at all, they just haven't had the opportunity to demonstrate their corruption yet. Left to their own devices, humans choose to believe the wrong thing--that is what the doctrine of original sin implies, and that is the Church's justification for existing: to save man in spite of himself. If mankind could save himself just by trying (to believe the truth), he wouldn't need either a Church or Christ.

Originally posted by moonbus
"i.e., able to do so just by trying to. "

There's the crux, for Christians. After the fall of man, man's soul is so corrupt that he refuses to believe the truth, even when shown it. He must, so to speak, be saved against his will, because his will is fallen. Only Adam had had free will in a strong sense, and he so abused it that all mankind afterwards hav ...[text shortened]... save himself just by trying (to believe the truth), he wouldn't need either a Church or Christ.

When I hear people talking about original sin, and how babies are born corrupt...

This is what I hear... [It's a long article, but is well written and says what
I want to say, but have never managed to articulate as well as I would
have liked.]

.... Every Christian Calvinist—and there are many—believes that people are born inherently depraved and worthy of damnation, torture and death. Those Christians who don’t believe in original sin, still expect you to eventually come of age, when you will begin acting like a human being, and end up in that same depraved and reprobate state. So, it’s a hair-splitting difference between denominations. The idea that this was being treated as newsworthy, then, was what made me most sad, because it meant that there must be a lot of people who don’t really understand that this is the lynch pin of Christian doctrine. Salvation would not be needed—Jesus would never have had to die—if you could somehow be worthy based upon your own good deeds, hard work, or merits. If you didn’t deserve death and eternal damnation, you wouldn’t need what Christianity is selling you. And seeing the furor around the TAE call, just made me painfully aware that people thought this caller was part of some extreme minority—rather than representative of the most necessary and standard Christian doctrine of “Salvation.”

I thought, “How can people not realize this, with the large majority of our population being part of this religion?” There were even other Christians posting in the comments at articles about this call, repeating what the caller had said, and defending it. In their effort to “clarify” what he was “trying” to express, they were simply re-wording the exact same views—that people are reprobate and deserve whatever horrors befall them in this life—and the next. ......

I recommend reading the whole thing.

This is the clip referred to in the article.

YouTube

Originally posted by LemonJello
Since the theists here have been oh so gracious and responsive to discussion regarding my recent original argument submission ( Thread 158639 ) as well as a submission from the literature ( Thread 158939 )...ahem...here is another offering for debate from the literature. It is an argument by John Schellenberg. I think it ough ...[text shortened]... ents, etc. So, it is a good way to get background perspectives from both sides of the argument.

I believe all of humans will have no excuse before God, because God has made
Himself clearly seen. So those that reject God will stand before God without
excuse when everything is revealed (all the things we hide from everyone
else, and I guess ourselves) we will stand then having to accept our faults
and mistakes without excuse.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe all of humans will have no excuse before God, because God has made Himself clearly seen.

And yet, as you know full well, hundreds and hundreds of millions ~ even maybe billions ~ of people do not think "God has made Himself clearly seen" [at least your version of God]. What then is your God figure up to? Why not an unequivocal revelation and demonstration of His divinity and His demands? In human terms, the calculated elusiveness [and resulting divisions between humans, believers and non-believers alike] could pretty much be described as 'passive aggression', especially when people with your beliefs think that unbelievers will meet such an agonizing and ghastly fate.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
Trying to follow this, how about i tell you what i know. God's love is not limited to only those aware of Him. God's love reaches out to all, whether you know Him or not. There are some people who fully reject Him. There are others, that do not comprehend God. They will honestly say they don't believe. Yet these people touch others with their own hearts. God knows these people, and sees all they do. It can be said, these people ARE God's children.

"Yes, I see that you have your own perspective and all, and, while I find that concept mildly amusing, let's table it and talk about MY perspective instead."

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe all of humans will have no excuse before God, because God has made
Himself clearly seen.

Please clarify this. When you say I will have 'no excuse' are you saying that I am in some way morally culpable for being unable to see what has been made 'clearly seen'? If so, why?
Or are you claiming that I have in fact seen, but have chosen to unsee? If so, why do you think I would do so?

Originally posted by FMF
And yet, as you know full well, hundreds and hundreds of millions ~ even maybe billions ~ of people do not think "God has made Himself clearly seen" [at least your version of God]. What then is your God figure up to? Why not an unequivocal revelation and demonstration of His divinity and His demands? In human terms, the calculated elusiveness [and resulting divi ...[text shortened]... en people with your beliefs think that unbelievers will meet such an agonizing and ghastly fate.

As I said, I believe all will be without an excuse before God. Meaning, they
can say they don't believe...but when it is all said and done what they have
seen throughout their lives God will have made himself known. The denial
can happen now, I get that, but when judgment comes none of that will
stand.

I'm telling you my belief, I believe it to be true. It will either be shown true
or not.
Kelly

Originally posted by moonbus
"i.e., able to do so just by trying to. "

There's the crux, for Christians. After the fall of man, man's soul is so corrupt that he refuses to believe the truth, even when shown it. He must, so to speak, be saved against his will, because his will is fallen. Only Adam had had free will in a strong sense, and he so abused it that all mankind afterwards hav ...[text shortened]... save himself just by trying (to believe the truth), he wouldn't need either a Church or Christ.

Which is why God calls us, we don't just come on our own. So I agree with
you.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
"The tooth fairy can be traced to (at earliest) around 1894, call it for Spain.
Man's belief in God?
Challenge you to find even the earliest writings of man which doesn't include it."

Is this an argument from longevity of people having belief? That's at least novel. But yes, we can mutually be gone. I will continue to seek.

Is this an argument from longevity of people having belief?
You cited the tooth fairy.
You could have pointed to any number of figures from myths, fables or folklore and the implications would have remained: each and every one of these figures have traceable origins.
The idea of God, however, is an indelible aspect of the human experience.
It originates fully bloomed with man's first appearance.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Is this an argument from longevity of people having belief?
You cited the tooth fairy.
You could have pointed to any number of figures from myths, fables or folklore and the implications would have remained: each and every one of these figures have traceable origins.
The idea of God, however, is an indelible aspect of the human experience.
It originates fully bloomed with man's first appearance.[/b]

Even if that were true, that wouldn't say anything about the existence of god/s.

It is however not true, the creation of your religion can be readily traced through
history, including to a time before it existed.

But beyond that, we can trace our evolution back into the mists of time to creatures
who definitely didn't have, and couldn't conceive of a god.

Your religion is a man made myth, just like any other.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Even if that were true, that wouldn't say anything about the existence of god/s.

It is however not true, the creation of your religion can be readily traced through
history, including to a time before it existed.

But beyond that, we can trace our evolution back into the mists of time to creatures
who definitely didn't have, and couldn't conceive of a god.

Your religion is a man made myth, just like any other.

But it brings me such great comfort that my stone-age ancestors conceived of a god before they invented the wheel or figured out how to start a fire. If god was so obvious even to these primitive people, then it must be TRUE!~

Originally posted by googlefudge
Even if that were true, that wouldn't say anything about the existence of god/s.

It is however not true, the creation of your religion can be readily traced through
history, including to a time before it existed.

But beyond that, we can trace our evolution back into the mists of time to creatures
who definitely didn't have, and couldn't conceive of a god.

Your religion is a man made myth, just like any other.

Even if that were true, that wouldn't say anything about the existence of god/s.
There's no "if," of course, but you're absolutely right regarding proof or disproof.
It is a highly compelling fact which demands a satisfactory explanation.

It is however not true, the creation of your religion can be readily traced through history, including to a time before it existed.
Genesis 1:1
"In beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."
That's about as far back as you can get by my thinking.

But beyond that, we can trace our evolution back into the mists of time to creatures who definitely didn't have, and couldn't conceive of a god.
One, speculative.
Two, unfounded.
Three, (operating under the assumption of the truth of your unfounded speculation) what creatures are you imagining?

Your religion is a man made myth, just like any other.
It just might be, but yours is all the more so if you think about it.
Mine just has the added bonus of having been around forever.
Yours is a marketing blockbuster that's less than 155 years old.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Even if that were true, that wouldn't say anything about the existence of god/s.
There's no "if," of course, but you're absolutely right regarding proof or disproof.
It is a highly compelling fact which demands a satisfactory explanation.

It is however not true, the creation of your religion can be readily traced through history, including t ...[text shortened]... of having been around forever.
Yours is a marketing blockbuster that's less than 155 years old.

I deal in reality. Genesis is total bunk.

HISTORY goes back farther than that, let alone pre-history.

However if we are going to measure science vs religion I will take that fight any
day of the week.

Science kicks religions ass at everything. [except being wrong, religion wins at that]

Would you like me to start by listing all the diseases you haven't died of because of science?
Or maybe I could ask if you want to give up your computer and internet?
How about the food you eat that was flown in, and kept fresh in a refrigerator?

I mean seriously, why on Earth would you want to put science and religion on the same
platform and ask people to pick one?

Science ACTUALLY WORKS. Unlike prayer [for example]. And it does so reliably and on demand.

We had thousands of years of religion and ignorance and poverty and disease and suffering,
with less than 200 years of science we have built a world that those in the past barely dreamed
of and we're not done yet.


So if you want the battle of science vs religion... yeah, bring it on. WE want that fight, because
we always win it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I deal in reality. Genesis is total bunk.

HISTORY goes back farther than that, let alone pre-history.

However if we are going to measure science vs religion I will take that fight any
day of the week.

Science kicks religions ass at everything. [except being wrong, religion wins at that]

Would you like me to start by listing all the diseases ...[text shortened]... tle of science vs religion... yeah, bring it on. WE want that fight, because
we always win it.

I deal in reality. Genesis is total bunk.
Those sentences contradict each other.

HISTORY goes back farther than that, let alone pre-history.
That's now three sentences which are demonstratively false.
Three for three!

However if we are going to measure science vs religion I will take that fight any day of the week.
What are you planning on measuring?

Science kicks religions ass at everything. [except being wrong, religion wins at that]
This may come as a total shocker (just kidding, I already know it will), but science has a built-in obsolescence factor: it enters every study knowing what it 'proves' today will be rejected as false tomorrow.
So by your measure, science is horribly wrong on a consistent basis.

Would you like me to start by listing all the diseases you haven't died of because of science?
No, I'd prefer you start by having a basic understanding of what science is and what (as you call it) religion is, as well as their aims.

I think it would also be helpful for you to get the tiniest of clues as to how modern science even came into being relative to who the original practitioners were and what they believed as well as why they adopted the protocols they did.

I mean seriously, why on Earth would you want to put science and religion on the same platform and ask people to pick one?
That's a question you need to put to yourself, since you're the one who is offering it.

So if you want the battle of science vs religion... yeah, bring it on. WE want that fight, because we always win it.
This type of thinking merely reinforces the points I've made: you have no clue.
Science isn't in opposition to Christianity except in the small minds of divisive people such as yourself.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I deal in reality. Genesis is total bunk.
Those sentences contradict each other.

HISTORY goes back farther than that, let alone pre-history.
That's now three sentences which are demonstratively false.
Three for three!

How does the two first sentences googlefudge wrote contradict each other?
How is his assertions about historical time "demonstrably" false? You may wish
to demonstrate it, when you make a comment like that.