Originally posted by C Hess
What do you mean by position? A theory?

What do you mean by "what do you mean?"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What do you mean by "what do you mean?"

?? 😵

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Show us the relevant evidence, then.
Pretty sure that falls to the one staking the claim in the first place.
As has been discussed more times than necessary but apparently requires repeating here, man's default position has always been theistic/deistic in nature.

According to the World Factbook of 2010 (I know, I know: it's a propaganda tool of ...[text shortened]... t of the agent.[/b]
All well and good, LJ, but doesn't explain how we all start off loving God.[/b]

Freaky, if I understand your objection correctly, you are arguing that premise (4) of the argument is false because the claim that there exists nonresistant nonbelief is false. Here is my understanding of what your counter-argument (FCA for Freaky's counter-argument) amounts to. Please correct me if I have misrepresented anything.

(FCA.1) Humans have been and continue to be naturally inclined to believe in a perfectly loving God.

(FCA.2) It requires concerted effort (purposeful intent involving emotional and behavioral opposition) for a human to have nonbelief in something in which humans have been and continue to be naturally inclined to believe.

(FCA.3) Therefore, any case of a human having nonbelief in a perfectly loving God is a case of resistant nonbelief.

(FCA.4) So, there are no cases of a human having nonresistant nonbelief in a perfectly loving God: premise (4) of Schellenberg's argument is false.

This is your reasoning, is it not? The main problem with this counter-argument is that (FCA.2) is clearly false; and so, not too surprisingly, (FCA.3) and (FCA.4) are also false. The reasons why FCA.2 is false are legion. I will just go over two of the most salient reasons below.

First, (FCA.2) rests on a deep misunderstanding regarding the notion of natural inclination. From the fact that, say, some large population is generally naturally inclined to X, in no way does it follow that every member of that population is naturally inclined to X (it is a form of fallacy of division). Natural propensities virtually never manifest equally and uniformly throughout a population, and there are virtually always outliers regardless. So, from the idea that humans have been and continue to be naturally inclined to believe, in no way does it follow that all humans are so inclined. But if not all humans are so inclined, then why would concerted effort in the form of emotional and behavioral opposition be required for nonbelief? It wouldn't, of course. That sort of concerted effort you are talking about is there only if the natural inclination to believe is there. So, ultimately, (FCA.2) rests on a faulty inference that general natural inclination for X of the human race implies natural inclination for X for all humans (again, a fallacy of division).

Second, even if a human is naturally inclined to believe, it STILL would not follow that emotional and behavioral opposition is required for this human's having nonbelief. Humans have self-awareness and complex forms of intentionality and are thus able to stand back even from naturally infixed features and introspect on them. Even if the natural inclination to believe P is there, one can still introspectively ask the question "But is P really the case?" This is a question that deals with theoretical rationality in this case, so this will prompt rational inquiry in the question. So this involves study of the available evidence and this can result in nonbelief. These sorts of inquiries often proceed in an intellectually honest, dispassionate manner, happens all the time. The "emotional and behavioral opposition" is required for precisely none of this.

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.

I am not sure how any of that is relevant to the opening argument. Is there a premise in there you would deny? Which one(s) and why?

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.

I think this rests on a misreading of premise (1). Premise (1) does not imply that, supposing a perfectly loving God exists, a capable, open human will be able to attain salvation just by trying to do so. In fact premise (1) says nothing directly about salvation at all that I can tell. Rather, it says basically that a capable, open human will be able to enter into relationship with such a God just by trying to do so. This is a very big difference: in the former, faulty reading it is the human who saves himself; whereas the second, correct reading is consistent with its still being God who does the saving, or even some combination of God and the human doing the saving together. (Again, the premise asserts nothing about salvation or saving, so it entails nothing regarding it.)

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

So which premise(s) are you rejecting?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Freaky, if I understand your objection correctly, you are arguing that premise (4) of the argument is false because the claim that there exists nonresistant nonbelief is false. Here is my understanding of what your counter-argument (FCA for Freaky's counter-argument) amounts to. Please correct me if I have misrepresented anything.

[quote](FCA.1) Huma ...[text shortened]... all the time. The "emotional and behavioral opposition" is required for precisely none of this.

I also have strong objection to FCA.1

Humans have a natural tendency to superstition.
We tend to anthropomorphize and attribute intention where none exists.
This natural tendency has lead to belief in gods, including but not limited to
monotheistic gods.
However the idea that these gods were loving, let alone perfectly so, is very
historically recent.

Traditionally gods have been capricious and demanding, vengeful and jealous,
inspiring fear, terror even.
Which frankly makes much more sense given the nature of reality, especially
back then.

We talk about the wrath of god, god is described as jealous, pantheons of gods
were described as being warring and woe betide the poor mortal that got caught
between them.

At no point in history have all people been monotheists, many have been and still
are polytheists. Some religions have no god/s.

So under no possible valid reading of reality is FCA.1 actually true.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Humans have a natural tendency to superstition.

And people can overplay the superstition card too.
It puzzles me that some people cannot believe that 2,000 years ago some people could be pragmatic and skeptical.

Case in point: Jesus told the crowd that they certainly knew how to discern what tomorrows weather would be like by scientifically examining the sky.

" And He said also to the crowds, When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say that a shower is coming, and so it happens.

And when you see a south wind blowing, you say that there will be scorching heat; and it happens.

Hypocrits, you know how to discern the face of the earth and of the sky. How is it then that you do not know how to discern this time? " (Luke 12:54-56)

The way some of you skeptics talk you would think Jesus would have said that they know the gods would do this or that or bring in this kind of weather as opposed to something else. Jesus affirms that the people of that day had observational skills to scientifically predict weather.

They didn't just say "The gods will make it rain" the way new atheists want to believe everybody then was overly superstitious.

When Mary was pregnant with a baby before Joseph had married her or had relations with her, he didn't chalk it up to the gods. He had enough common sense to know how such things happen quite unsuperstitiously.

This kind of overplaying the accusation of ancient people being superstitious comes from keeping yourself away from reading what the New Testament actually says.

That makes it easy to wave everything off as people of old being superstitious.

Originally posted by KellyJay
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.

I note that you didn't really address what I said and just reposted basically the same thing. Never mind. So you think "God has made Himself clearly seen" to you personally and the fact that countless millions of others ~ in all sincerity ~ do not, is of no importance to you. You yourself are home and dry ~ and you believe those who are different from you may well burn in eternal torture. What would you say to the suggestion that yours is an utterly self-centred creed?

Originally posted by sonship
When Mary was pregnant with a baby before Joseph had married her or had relations with her, he didn't chalk it up to the gods. He had enough common sense to know how such things happen quite unsuperstitiously.

There is no convincing reason to think that Jesus was not conceived in the conventional way.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
"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."

And what is that?

Originally posted by Pudgenik
And what is that?

That is how your post came off to me. You essentially ignored everything LJ said and just talked about whatever popped into your head.

Originally posted by sonship

Humans have a natural tendency to superstition.

And people can overplay the superstition card too.
It puzzles me that some people cannot believe that 2,000 years ago some people could be pragmatic and skeptical.

Case in point: Jesus told the crowd that they certainly knew how to discern what tomorrows weather would be like by scien ...[text shortened]... tually says.

That makes it easy to wave everything off as people of old being superstitious.

Joseph could not have had intercourse with Mary, ever. The Laws of Moses would forbid it, it would be called adultery.

In the scripture it states that Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit stated "who am I that the mother of my Lord should come visit me." See even the Holy Spirit recognized that Mary was more than just a concubine of God. She is the mother.

Originally posted by FMF
There is no convincing reason to think that Jesus was not conceived in the conventional way.

This is not the conventional way:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

(Matthew 1:18 NKJV)

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

(Matthew 1:19-25 NKJV)

Originally posted by Pudgenik
Joseph could not have had intercourse with Mary, ever. The Laws of Moses would forbid it, it would be called adultery.

Could you expand on that and is it "Pudgenik thinking" or mainstream?