Also, it seems to me the conversation has shifted from God showing Himself by providing incontrovertible evidence of His existence, to Him making some sort of literal, physically perceptible appearance. With very little effort, almost anyone could sit down and make out a list of a couple dozen ways God could manifest Himself through action, in such a way that almost everybody would acknowledge His existence.

Of course, I guess that would bring us back to the ‘free will diminishes proportionately with the amount of knowledge you have’ argument. There really doesn’t seem to be anywhere else to go here.

1b) If nobody can see the face of God and live, why didn’t people die when they saw Jesus’ face? Is it possible for God to shield His face in such a way as to not kill us when He shows up? If so, why doesn’t He just do that?

2) Isn’t it self-contradictory to claim both that God cannot show up without violating our free will, and that He already has shown up without violating our free will?

3) I notice that you seem to be having a hard time approaching the subject of what happened to Saul’s free will on the road to Damascus. You reply to my questions, but your answers veer away from providing us with any information about the effect on human free will in cases where God allegedly does show up. Let me ask you directly: would you be willing to consider the possibility that C. S. Lewis, in making up the free will argument, was actually proposing an idea that is not really consistent with Acts 9?

1) If ignorance of the truth is not a prerequisite for free will, why can’t God show up so that we can know the truth about whether or not He even exists?

Because you can’t exactly reject Him then can you? If God shows up, Pascal’s wager becomes very real doesn’t it? Surely you’ve read the stories about a rich and powerful man who goes out in disguise so that he might find someone who loves and enjoys his company for who he is, not for his wealth and power. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that God wants the same, and so has disguised Himself.
You also seem to forget that the Bible says, “nobody can see the face of God and live” so He probably doesn’t show up to keep from killing us.

2) If God can become Incarnate as a prophetic teacher and miracle worker without violating our free will, why doesn’t He?

Well I believe He already has. So what… your complaint is that He hasn’t shown up today?

3) Saying that Saul was already a believer tells us nothing about what happened to his free will when he allegedly saw God. Do believers not have free will? If they do have free will, why is that free will not violated when God shows up? If it is not violated when God shows up in real life, why is it that God does not show up in real life even for believers?

Why didn’t the men on the road (presumably believers) see God? Why did Moses see Him but not Aaron? The general rule of the Bible seems to be that God’s appearances are rare and to few people. Not to mention, generally to people that have Destinies[tm]. Thus it would seem quite logical that God refrains from direct interaction, except in exceptional circumstances (ones that apparently have only the solution of His appearance).
Also keep in mind that these exceptions are almost always to people that have already chosen Him. It no more violates a believer’s free will than a wedding violates the lovers’ desires.

2) If God can become Incarnate as a prophetic teacher and miracle worker without violating our free will, why doesn’t He?

3) Saying that Saul was already a believer tells us nothing about what happened to his free will when he allegedly saw God. Do believers not have free will? If they do have free will, why is that free will not violated when God shows up? If it is not violated when God shows up in real life, why is it that God does not show up in real life even for believers?

God can’t make square circles, because the concept is meaningless.

Actually, that was exactly my point. (I think, if I understand you correctly) Omnipotence can’t do anything intrinsically impossible because such things are meaningless. So you are in agreement with me then that this is at least one thing omnipotence can’t do?

The problem with defining free will in a way that makes ignorance of the truth a prerequisite…

Which is exactly why I didn’t define free will that way. You apparently do and I disagree, which is why I’m trying to back up and go over basics to dissolve you of these errors.

Depends on whether or not Jesus counts as God. As I recall, the Pharisees were fairly reluctant to worship and obey him.

Well Jesus gets into a whole new case about “God in disguise” doesn’t it? Seems we should first settle the question of “God’s unquestionable appearance” before we move on to God in disguise or not.

I would be very curious to hear your account of what happened to the free will of Saul of Tarsus as he journeyed along the road to Damascus.

As I recall, Saul was already a believer in God, in fact, he thought he was doing God’s work. So considering he was already devout, what’s the problem with his misconceptions being corrected? I thought we were talking about God appearing to atheists, not the choir.

As I recall, God has usually shown up to those who already believe in Him. Can you cite an example where He does not?

I would be very curious to hear your account of what happened to the free will of Saul of Tarsus as he journeyed along the road to Damascus.

“Thus, why wouldn’t we find this all the way TO the top?”

within the context of an ascending hierarchy of naturally based substances, i.e. atoms, cells…whatever. Perhaps you meant to say something like ‘why shouldn’t some similar process be going on in the supernatural realm?’…something like that. But even seen as an analogy, your example doesn’t work. A cell isn’t an organ, an organ isn’t a man, etc. Thus, your tri-god winds up being a god of three parts, none of which are in and of themselves God. Now, if you’re saying that Jesus is a piece of God, that the Holy Spirit is a piece of God, and that Jehovah is a piece of God, you might have something. Of course, your description would be deemed heretical, but hey! Whatever floats your boat.

As for the supposed ‘square/circle’ dilemma…it’s an empty one, I’m afraid. In this case, ‘square’ and ‘circle’ are simply contradictory definitions of a geometric shape. It’s like saying ‘my fist is opened/my fist is closed’. This is no philosophical conundrum, it’s just a definitional absurdity. God can’t make square circles, because the concept is meaningless.

Perhaps your expectations for finding reason here were too high, in your own estimation. Such is life. I have found that, when dealing with theistic ‘explanations’ for the inexplicable, my expectations are usually right on the money. Lucky me!

Is the Bible correct when it claims that God has appeared numerous times in OT and NT history, and been treated with disrespect and disobedience by those who saw Him?

As I recall, God has usually shown up to those who already believe in Him. Can you cite an example where He does not?

You seem to be confusing desires with options. Free will is generally seen as not what I want to do, but what I can do. Think of a car sitting at an intersection. Now the driver may be perfectly willing and ready to turn right, but he/she has the option of turning left. What I was attempting to convey, is that God appearance would the equivalent of dropping a big “detour” roadblock on the left, so then the driver can only turn right.

If He showed up, we’re all in agreement then that you and all other atheists would have no option but to worship Him right?

Is the Bible correct when it claims that God has appeared numerous times in OT and NT history, and been treated with disrespect and disobedience by those who saw Him?

This isn’t a metaphor. Neither is it an analogy. It’s a straightforward example…cell to organ, organ to man, man to organization…and you suggest that this scenario extends upwards, through a hierarchy, ‘all the way to the top’…i.e. God. That’s pantheism, notwithstanding your snarky denial. Of course, I guess you can still fall back on your disclaimer ‘That’s at least part of the answer’…right?

Right, because I missed the part where I said organizations make up a planet. Let me highlight the relevant portion.
“The higher up we go through the hierarchy, the greater differences and distinctions we find.”
First, true or false? Are organs more different from each other than protons and electrons? Are planets more different from each other than a man’s organs to other organs?
Again, what did I say?
“That God’s “parts” are even more distinct, but still make up a whole?”
Funny, I don’t find any reference in there what His parts are, or any implication into what they are. Just that as a man’s, cell’s, atoms, etc parts, are distinct from each others yet make up a whole, so is God’s parts distinct yet make a whole.
Yeah… I’m still not seeing where I said: “Hey, notice how as we go ‘up’, the parts from the prior level make up the next?”
Oh wait, I DIDN’T say that.
I said: “The further up we go, the greater distinctions become.”

Apparently I had too high of an expectation for reason on here.

Square circles? Simply a semantics problem. The word ‘circle’ means something, as does the word ’square’. God could make a circle into a square merely by re-labeling it, or by physically changing the circle into the shape that we now call ’square’. You could do the same thing. Presto Change-o! You’re God!

Funny, I could swear that if God changed a circle’s shape, it would no longer be a circle, thus not a “square circle” – or that changing a label somehow changes what it is – I hope you didn’t try and get through math with that.
Oh well. My mistake.

“This is a concept we see throughout reality. Different organelles, make up a cell. Different cells, make up an organ. Many different organs, make up a man. Many different men, make an organization. The higher up we go through the hierarchy, the greater differences and distinctions we find. (I’m sure we can agree that there’s more difference between a heart and brain than between a proton and neutron no?) Thus, why wouldn’t we find this all the way to the top? That God’s “parts” are even more distinct, but still make up a whole? That’s at least the start of the answer.”

This isn’t a metaphor. Neither is it an analogy. It’s a straightforward example…cell to organ, organ to man, man to organization…and you suggest that this scenario extends upwards, through a hierarchy, ‘all the way to the top’…i.e. God. That’s pantheism, notwithstanding your snarky denial. Of course, I guess you can still fall back on your disclaimer ‘That’s at least part of the answer’…right?

Which would make your god the sum total of the universe…that’s pantheism, and happens to be one of the heresies Christians have fallen into whenever they actually try to define the Trinity beyond a vague notion.

Funny, I don’t recall saying anything of the sort. It would seem that if we are to have a discussion, you could do me the courtesy of actually talking to me, instead of a figment of your imagination.

A person may be made of single cells, but I would hardly consider each of the cells as the specific individual.

Well I certainly wouldn’t either. That’s why I didn’t stop my metaphor there. It would seem that you need to continue it as well. Or at least, reread what I wrote.

God has already denied us free will. …Clearly, if we are assuming God is omnipotent and designed the universe, he designed it to deny us some possibilities, and thus some choices.

Yes, but there is a lot He has granted us as well (such as… the ability to kill each other). But you are distorting our talk from a discussion of free will in the sense that God gives us to accept or reject Him, vs the free will to do whatever we damn well please. I think even you can see that those are 2 different discussions.

2. God has already denied us free will. I cannot fly without mechanical assistance. I cannot breathe underwater. I cannot have god-like powers to manipulate the universe directly with my mind. Clearly, if we are assuming God is omnipotent and designed the universe, he designed it to deny us some possibilities, and thus some choices.

On the other hand, if there’s really a possibility of somebody going to hell because the ‘good news’ somehow passes him by during this life, then God turns out to be rather a lame messenger boy, limited by what amounts to being a Heavenly pony express to get His message out, thus bringing into question His omnipotence. Or conversely, He’s chosen this method for whatever reasons, realizing its limitations, which then brings into question His supposed values of justice, mercy, etc.

Ugh! This straining at convoluted facets of what’s supposedly a clear-cut message shows just what a mess Christian doctrine has become…er, always was, I mean. The main point of the essay heading up this thread is to demonstrate that, if the Christian God REALLY existed, He could wipe away all this confusion with ONE appearance, and maybe some further explanation that actually made SENSE. Why would the Creator of the Universe veil His ostensibly VERY important message behind the scribblings of an ancient, superstitious people, and never, ever offer an UPDATE??? Is God THAT opposed to common sense? He’s got us building a computer using instructions etched into a rock by FRED FLINTSTONE, for god’s(sic) sake!

Which would make your god the sum total of the universe…that’s pantheism, and happens to be one of the heresies Christians have fallen into whenever they actually try to define the Trinity beyond a vague notion. And throwing in the word ‘distinct’ as a disclaimer doesn’t help your case…all the distinctions you cite still exist in the natural world. In other words, everything is ultimately made of the same ‘stuff’; in a sense, everything is just atoms (or as far down as you choose to go) moving around in different patterns. Not so with God.

Now, you might try to argue that God is ‘supernatural stuff’ divided into three parts. But that brings up another host of problems, such as how Jesus could have been ‘fully God, and fully Man’, or how The Father or the Holy Spirit interact with Man…again, these have been addressed over the centuries, and any conclusions taken too far have been branded as heresies again. Of course, the Trinity was originally posited as an answer to certain contradictory ideas about the nature of God. It’s sort of like reconciling three different accounts of what the color of the sky is…let’s say blue, purple, and yellow…by labeling it the blue/purple/yellow sky. However, we can all look at the sky for ourselves, but God seems to have no reality beyond the stories that ancient mankind told about Him, so we’re left with this mishmash of nonsense.

Square circles? Simply a semantics problem. The word ‘circle’ means something, as does the word ‘square’. God could make a circle into a square merely by re-labeling it, or by physically changing the circle into the shape that we now call ‘square’. You could do the same thing. Presto Change-o! You’re God!

No. Acknowledging that something exists and worshiping it are two entirely separate concepts. The Bible is full of examples of people who spoke with/witnessed a manifestation of God (presumably knowing that he existed) and yet still disobeyed and/or chose to worship other gods.

“Free will is generally seen as not what I want to do, but what I can do. ”

If you hand me a pack of cigarettes without a warning, I can choose to smoke them or not. If you hand me a pack of cigarettes and the knowledge of what they can do to me, I can choose to smoke them or not. Knowledge does not limit free will; it informs it.

Do you really think that knowing the truth about something makes people less free?

Sure, square circles are easy. Try this one for a real test of omnipotence: Does God have the power, in this creation, to be three distinct persons, each of whom is God, without being three Gods?

I would say that’s easier than the square circle.
How so?
Well… what are atoms made up of?
What separates bacteria from other single celled organisms?
What separates man, from those single cells?
What separates a family from a man?

This is a concept we see throughout reality. Different organelles, make up a cell. Different cells, make up an organ. Many different organs, make up a man. Many different men, make an organization. The higher up we go through the hierarchy, the greater differences and distinctions we find. (I’m sure we can agree that there’s more difference between a heart and brain than between a proton and neutron no?) Thus, why wouldn’t we find this all the way to the top? That God’s “parts” are even more distinct, but still make up a whole? That’s at least the start of the answer.

Then perhaps you would like to clarify exactly why you think that giving an atheist accurate information about God would make him less free?

Ok, let’s back up a sec. My “I didn’t say that” was in specific response to:
“with his claim that atheist conversions violate free will”
Which with your phrasing implies that any atheist conversion violates free will.

Now we can back up with the next paradigm disagreement.

This could hardly be a violation of the atheist’s free will, since he freely wanted to know the truth.

You seem to be confusing desires with options. Free will is generally seen as not what I want to do, but what I can do. Think of a car sitting at an intersection. Now the driver may be perfectly willing and ready to turn right, but he/she has the option of turning left. What I was attempting to convey, is that God appearance would the equivalent of dropping a big “detour” roadblock on the left, so then the driver can only turn right.

If He showed up, we’re all in agreement then that you and all other atheists would have no option but to worship Him right?

We have to pretty much agree on this before any further discussion is possible. Now we can argue over whether it’s a Good thing for God to leave us that option or not. Whether He should leave us that option or not, but first we have to have an understanding that “Free Will” is “the option to say No.” Thus, my statement (meant to add a wink onto it , that obviously, if He was to show up, you’d have no option of saying No would you? Now shall we go on to omnipotence?

For example: In the 1950s, there was very little public information disseminated about the health hazards of smoking.

Today, there is a great deal of such information. And yes, a lot fewer people smoke today because of it. But plenty of people still smoke DESPITE the evidence that it’s harmful. That’s what free will is all *about*.

And, as usual, this defense contradicts core Christian doctrines; they’re the folks who say us atheists “suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” after all. If that’s the case, then you would expect the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF ATHEISTS even if the evidence for God were overwhelming.

Another thing we should clarify before any dialog is remotely possible.

If god is omnipotent, then he could have created a universe with no suffering and free-will. That he did not points to either A) evil intent on his part or B) that he is not omnipotent after all.

Now this basically delves into 2 questions about omnipotence. The answers to which, must generally be agreed upon by both parties before any discussion of God can proceed.

1) Can omnipotence defeat itself? (example: “Can God make a rock so big He couldn’t lift it?)

2) Can omnipotence do anything intrinsically impossible? (example question: “Can God make a square circle?”)”

I’d be quite happy to grant you whatever answer to the first question you like. The specific qualities of omniscience are mostly irrelevant, IMO.

The second question is easily answered though.

God, being omnipotent and creator of the universe, the First Cause and all that, could have created a universe where a square circle is possible. I’ll repeat myself: That we cannot imagine such a scenario is a failure of /our sense of scale/, nothing else.

If God is truly omnipotent, and is truly the creator of the universe, then the fact that He hasn’t engineered a universe of free-will without suffering (feel free to substitute ‘knowledge of His existence’ in place of suffering, it’s the same question), means that He either isn’t omnibenevolent or He isn’t omnipotent.

Yay! I got attention! =D

You’re quite welcome. Conversations are always more interesting when the two parties disagree.

Grim’s two errors—that free will would be violated by knowing the truth about God and that atheists don’t want to know the truth about God

Wait… where exactly did I state the 2nd thing?

It is an inference on my part. One of my main principles here is that truth is consistent with itself, so I do at times take the liberty of pursuing the consistent implications of what people say as well as the things they explicitly express. If an atheist wanted to know the truth about God, and God revealed Himself to the atheist (convincing him that theism was correct), then the atheist would be receiving what he truly wanted. This could hardly be a violation of the atheist’s free will, since he freely wanted to know the truth. If, therefore, you are going to claim that some violation of free will would occur if an atheist became a theist, it stands to reason that you are referring to a situation in which it is not the atheist’s will to know the truth about God.

I reread through my comment and couldn’t find any claim that I stated that. Which, I will tell you right now, I disagree with.

Then perhaps you would like to clarify exactly why you think that giving an atheist accurate information about God would make him less free?

As far as omnipotence goes, feel free to define it however you like, and I will be glad to discuss it with you on those terms.

Since you’re making the claim, you get to define it. Go ahead.

If god is omnipotent, then he could have created a universe with no suffering and free-will. That he did not points to either A) evil intent on his part or B) that he is not omnipotent after all.

Now this basically delves into 2 questions about omnipotence. The answers to which, must generally be agreed upon by both parties before any discussion of God can proceed.

1) Can omnipotence defeat itself? (example: “Can God make a rock so big He couldn’t lift it?)

2) Can omnipotence do anything intrinsically impossible? (example question: “Can God make a square circle?”)

as Grim did with his claim that atheist conversions violate free will

Which… is not my claim at all. May we start again without the straw man? (in fact, the section of my comment where I talked about “capacity for rejection” would seem to reply to a lot of this)

lol anyway, Mind if I post some clarifications?

Grim’s two errors—that free will would be violated by knowing the truth about God and that atheists don’t want to know the truth about God

Wait… where exactly did I state the 2nd thing?
I reread through my comment and couldn’t find any claim that I stated that. Which, I will tell you right now, I disagree with.

You might say my will was free when it chose which reason to follow. Maybe freedom enters into the decision of whether or not, and how much, to evaluate the reasons for and against an action, and then to select actions based on the evaluation. But any evaluation process, assuming it in turn is not random, has rules that are being followed. To follow rules is to fundamentally give up control of one’s behavior to those rules. And one might as well ask for what reason is a person is following the rules of an evaluation process in the first place.

At the bottom, there are either reasons and rules that determine a person’s will to action, or there are not. And if there is no reason for willing an action, then the action is no different from one committed randomly.

Unfortunately for christians, the attributes of their god will forever prevent them from solving the issue:

If god is omnipotent, then he could have created a universe with no suffering and free-will. That he did not points to either A) evil intent on his part or B) that he is not omnipotent after all.

Note that it does not matter that we as mere humans cannot imagine how such a world would operate, the fact that god is described as ‘omnipotent’ means that it can be done by him.