The Great Coffee Pot Doesn’t Care if You Believe in Him.

First of all, if I never answered the phone, never came to visit, moved, and did all sorts of other things to hide myself from them, why should I expect them to acknowledge my existence.

Further, we aren't talking about acknowledging the existence of a thing, we are talking about believing in it. Acknowledging existence infers that there is some recognizable existence to acknowledge. On top of that, we aren't talking about friends. If they are friends, we have obviously met before, and if you had met and they were friends, if they deny your existence it would only be a way of shunning you. Now, if I were to father a child and leave, change my name, phone number and have plastic surgery in order that my son couldn't find me, why should I expect to be believed in?

Well you didn't actually answer my question.

All of the questions you responded with are loaded with assumptions that I think any Christian would disagree with. The biblical picture is that it is we who did the leaving, and God, far from hiding, made himself known in Jesus.

'Believe' in the biblical sense means to trust, which is a relational word.

At any rate, by your reasoning, the child you abandon (hypothetically!) would be irrational to be upset by you ignoring his/her existence.

If you rented out a house, and the tenants decided to ignore or deny your existence, do you think you'd be ok with that?

People say that to justify their belief, but if God were so visible, why has every test that has been devised to prove the existence of God, based on things God is supposed to actually do, fails to do any better than what would be expected if God didn't exist?

I can think of one actual test that was supposedly done (which rested on a false premise), and I can think of another popular, but equally flawed internet argument. Even so – what makes you think science (and I'm assuming you mean a *scientific* test) who's scope is limited to the material universe can even do a test for something outside that scope? Science is great at what it does, but it doesn't have the monopoly on knowledge as some like to claim.
So if you demand that God be 'visible' within your pre-defined parameters, and are not open to other forms of knowledge and revelation, then that explains pretty well why you don't see it but billions of others have done and continue to do. (of course, that number doesn't make it true, but it does indicate that it's not so clear as you seem to think)
At any rate.. that's all a tangent, and suffice it say that you don't think God has revealed himself, and I think he has…

You seem to be mixing up denial with belief. I can lie and say that my son doesn't exist all day long, but that doesn't mean I don't believe he exists.

Yes, perhaps I am somewhat. Though it could very well be (and sadly is probably the case at times) that people aren't just lying, but actively believe and deny the existence of their children – e.g. “This child isn't mind” .

But I also think, as I said, that you're doing a little bit of equivocating and misunderstanding what 'belief' in God is (i.e. relational trust, not mere acknowledgement of existence).

But image Mr Jones, a veteran. One day he receives a letter from someone, a woman who he had a fling with while on a tour of duty, and she tells him he has a son. Now if Mr Jones discards the letter with disbelief, would you argue that it is irrational for that child to feel any kind of emotion about such a response?

Or imagine the tenant situation, slightly different – Bob comes across and empty house, and moves in. A little while later he receives a letter from someone who claims to own the house and is asking for a rental payment. Bob has never met this person, and he found the house empty, so he disbelieves that such a landlord exists – this is just a hoax to scam money from him, he thinks. Now do you think the Landlord should be unconcerned by this?

So yes, a coffee pot cares not what you believe about it, but relational beings do care whether you believe what is true or not. (and the hypothetical assumes God's existence as true, else he couldn't care about our beliefs)
I know some atheists like to point out the distinction between believing there is no God (“There are no gods”) and just lacking belief in God (“I don't believe in any gods”) – but it seems to be from all you've written that you don't just lack belief in God, but you claim there is no God, am I right? And in that case, it is a denial of existence.

<blockuote>

Science is great at what it does, but it doesn't have the monopoly on knowledge as some like to claim.

That is an assertion that can't be backed up. What knowledge can be shown to have come from belief in the supernatural?

Well no – the assertion that science is the only valid means to knowledge is the one that can't be backed up. History, literature, art, theology, philosophy – all valid means of searching to knowledge. (“belief in the supernatural” is not a 'means' any more than 'belief in only material' is a means)

Of course there are those, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about actual belief.

How is that not 'actual' belief?

Again, not even close to the same.

How so? We have one person not believing in the existence of another.

Now, it is also possible that the mother never told the father, and in that case, if it were me, I would not be upset at my father for not believing I existed, I would be mad at my mother for not telling him.

Maybe so (we could change the analogy to remove the mother) but that doesn't mean someone else may not be at least a little annoyed, and that such a reaction is irrational.

Similarly, God should not be angry with people for not believing in him, he should be angry with himself for not letting people know he existed.

That just begs the question as I already pointed out earlier.

You seem to be ignoring my twice-stated point that belief is not mere mental acknowledgement of existence, but is bound up in relational trust – and that is where the issue is. If it had nothing to do with relationship or trust, then you'd have a point that they shouldn't care, but as soon as relationship and trust enters the equation, caring is not irrational.

So, I don't feel I am being logically inconsistent when I say that I believe God doesn't exist, any more than you are when you say the sock stealing coffee pot doesn't exist.

No, that's fine – I'm happy to believe that the sock stealing coffee pot doesn't exist. And if you're happy to state that you believe God doesn't exist, that's fine too… I jut know some who aren't comfortable with such a faith statement, and wouldn't go that far. I suppose it's the subtle difference between an atheist and an anti-theist…

As always though, I leave open the possibility that I may be wrong, but I see no reason to believe I am at this point. This is something that theists will rarely admit to though. They act like they never doubt their belief.

I'm guessing that may be another cultural thing – because in the evangelical circles I am familiar with, that's not the case – no one denies ever having doubts.
I too leave open the possibility that I'm wrong, I just, like you, see no reason to think that I am

I actually doubted my belief more when I believed than I do now that I don't.

Not really important – but that doesn't make sense. How can you doubt your belief if you don't have belief?

We have evidence that science gets us to truths. We can all get in a car and take a ride. We can all get on a plane and fly. We are using the truth of science when we are discussing this by using a computer.

I'm not denying that science is a valid means to knowledge – but that doesn't mean it's the *only* valid means to knowledge – and that science does what it does is not evidence that only what it does is valid.
The very assertion that only science is valid knowledge is not a scientific statement, but a statement about science and is thus self-refuting.

You didn't answer the question. What truth has religion been demonstrated conclusively to give us?

Religion is a practice – Theology is the discipline.
And you're begging the question – you're asking me to give *scientific* evidence, assuming that is the only valid kind of evidence.
And who said it needed to be 'conclusive'? Asking the same question of philosophy or literature or art just shows that the question is flawed.
Even further – even if it were the case that we had no answer yet, that's no reason to claim that the methodology that asks and explores such questions is invalid.

Okay, you're still trying to equate things that aren't equal. A child being upset that his father made a choice to not see him is not equal to non-belief.

It is if the father doesn't believe the child exists – perhaps he thinks it's a ploy to get money, or maybe he just really believes it is impossible – that is more than just a choice not to see him.

what rational person could be upset if another person had no reason to believe they existed?

Loaded question again.

Now that isn't even a proper analogy

No, you're amnesia analogy isn't a proper one, as it takes responsibility out of the equation – which is something mine has. Further, you've jumped from saying 'caring' to 'punishing' – in fact you've admit that the father would be rational to be upset – to care – that his son didn't believe in his existence. Even if you want to make that jump – to suggest that punishment is merely for a lack of belief is a serious misunderstanding. (Though ignorance is no excuse in any western legal system, actually)

And once again, you've ignored my point about it not only believing in existence.

I know that when you think of these things, it is easy to try and put them into a perspective that makes sense to you as a human being, but that is because you already believe it, so when it comes to your mind, you explain it in the way that you think it is working. They are not the same thing though, and there are many things, if you examine them thoroughly, make no sense whatsoever about what God is said to want or do.

Please don't patronise me or make assumptions about how I think or what I already believe (unless you asking in such a way as to clarify).

Belief is not a choice. Belief just happens.

Then you're clearly not talking about the same kind of belief as the bible – why are you ignoring my point about relational trust??

And at any rate, that's clearly wrong. If I say to you – my teapot steals socks, you can choose to either believe that or not – it is your choice. Even more mundanely, if I tell you have a new teapot, you can choose to believe me or not – your choice. Yes, based on information, but a choice no less.

I have. I have made it as obvious as I can that your descriptions don't work when it comes to God.

Wait – you have what? 'My descriptions'? Do you mean my (the biblical) definition of belief?

Relational trust. As long as you keep ignoring my point you will be tilting at windmills. It's not just about existence as you insist.

If God were so hurt because people don't believe in him, he has the power to fix it. So, either he isn't bothered by it, or he doesn't exist.

Well 'fixing' it is pretty much what the Christian gospel is all about…
(you seem to have a particular love of false dichotomies ;p )

Okay, if belief is a choice, do me a favor and try, just for a minute, to not believe your mother exists. Try to believe in the great coffee pot (not a teapot. Get it right. ) You won't be able to do it. Not without knowing you are lying to yourself. If you can do either of those things, you are more talented than anyone I have ever met. If you can't, it rather conclusively proves that you can't just choose what you believe.

Of course you can't make such a decision in a vacuum! I've met my mother, so the choice to believe she exists and is who she says she is is not difficult.
The crux of the issue is that you allege that God has made no effort to be known, and I and many others disagree.
Indeed, my analogy of receiving a letter is apt, because you have heard the message about God (or else you couldn't even make such a website – any talk of not knowing is for you purely hypothetical). So having 'received the letter' you're in the same position as the guy in my analogy to either accept and belief what it says, or disbelieve and reject what it says.

in order for your analogies to work, you have to know that God exists in the first place, but refuse to interact with him.

No, you just need to be told, you don't have to know.

Your “relational trust” issue has been dealt with right after you brought it up. If you don't think I addressed it, maybe I didn't understand what you mean, but I did address it as I saw it.

Then please, remind me, for I have not seen it. You are consistently talking about belief as acknowledgement of existence, and thus confused as to why God cares about that – but the kind of belief that relates to God is more – it is relational and about trusting.

You are speaking of things like refusing to accept people you already believe exist. This is not the same thing. If that is what you mean by “relational trust” then you miss the point.

No, my analogy involved a son who he didn't already believe existed. Even if I concede that it's not strictly a choice (though I think there is still responsibility) I don't see that the child is irrational to be emotional about the guys disbelief at the reality of his existence.

Now my point about relational trust is simply that belief according to the bible isn't just believing in existence – one can believe God exists and still not 'believe' in him as the bible means it – it means trusting God and relating to him in trust. So your argument that he gets upset because people don't believe he exists is not the whole picture.

When atheists speak of belief in God, we aren't speaking of believing in as in trusting in God.

Of course.. but the issue what kind of unbelief is God concerned about in the bible – and my point is that that belief involves more than belief in existence, but of trust.

Does God worry that people that don't believe in his existence don't trust him?

Trust. The bible makes that, I would think, abundantly clear. (of course, if you don't believe in existence then by default you don't trust either).

Now, I have never heard anyone distinguish between the different types of belief before.

Really? With respect – for someone who has an agenda to argue against Christianity, you don't seem very fluent in it's teachings.. Read John to see what he means by 'believe'.

I think the verse that says “a fool says in his heart, there is no God.” is where we get the idea that God isn't just worried about people trusting him, but worried about belief in his existence.

.

I think the whole Psalm is talking about people not 'turning to God' which is indicative of trust and following. At any rate – as I said, if you don't 'believe' (in the atheist sense of the word) then you won't trust either. You can 'believe' (in the atheist sense) and still not trust or follow, and that's still an issue. (also interesting to note that atheism isn't exactly 'new'!)

No two people believe the same

Not so.

so to expect me to know every different permutation of what is believed is insane

No, I expect you to do the scholarly, intellectually honest thing and deal with real, mainstream beliefs.

I go with what the majority of people I deal with argue, and what you are talking about is not the same.

Unfortunately, I can just as easily counter your argument from personal experience here and say that the majority of people I deal with (being a Christian who reads fairly widely across denominational lines) do not make many of the arguments you say Christians make. Further, I can point to the historical and contemporary creeds, confessions and doctrinal statements of both major churches, leaders, denominations and inter-denominational movements and groups to back up my claims. But this all sounds like it's in the wrong thread!

In fact, if you watch atheists debating Christians enough, you will see that the claim that atheists get sent to hell is never refuted.

Who said it was?

Do people that don't believe in the existence of God, and thereby don't trust in him by default, go to hell? If that is the case, the distinction is superfluous, and it still demands why God would require belief in existence.

You missed my point that disbelieving existence by default means distrust as well.

You don't get it. You can't define mainstream when it comes to Evangelicals. There is no real mainstream. You can try to dispute that, but since mainstream is a rather subjective qualifier when it comes to this area, nobody is qualified to say. It's not like Catholics, where they have a centralized and organized group of teachings. You don't seem to care though. You want to impose your particular idea of what mainstream is.

Rubbish.
http://www.nae.net/
http://www.eauk.org/index.cfm

In other words, the core of the OP was to show that the only reason it would matter if someone believed in something is if that something didn't exist.

Your point was also about whether God should care whether believe in his existence or not – I pointed out that according to the bible (and mainstream evangelical belief – as opposed to mainstream-Godlesson's-chatroom-belief) his concern is more with lack of trust (faith) which is inherent in non-belief, but not exclusive to non-belief in existence. And in case you forgot that you made this point:

I am extremely curious why a God that wants everyone to believe in him so badly that he will torture people forever merely for not finding any convincing evidence of his existence.

So far from being excrement, my argument is valid to a point that you seem rather more inclined to forget making.

If it makes no difference if someone doesn't trust in God and also doesn't believe in him, as compared to someone not trusting, but believing in him, it is still a stupid, arbitrary thing to punish someone for.

rebellion is rebellion.

You get to go to hell for not trusting in the great coffee pot. It doesn't matter if you didn't believe in the coffee pot so that you could trust in it, it only matters that you didn't put your trust in something you didn't believe in. This makes sense to you huh?

If someone sends you a letter saying they are a city official giving you a new house (for whatever reason, it makes no difference to the analogy) – does make a difference if you disbeleive it's from the council and throw it in the bin, to if you believe it is from the council but they're lying, so you throw it in the bin? Either way, you don't trust them and take up the offer of the new house – the outcome is the same.

You cannot rebel against things you don't believe in, unless you are insane.

You can certainly disobey.

But none of what you said would justify punishment for not believing someone that didn't even care enough to make their existence known.

Once again, I, and many others disagree with the assumption you make about not caring enough to make their existence known.

Try justifying punishment for disbelief all you want, it is unwarranted, especially from a being that is supposedly all good and all forgiving.

Punishment is for sin – for disobedience, for breaking God's laws. Even if you don't believe him, that doesn't mean you haven't broken his laws, any more than ignorance is a sufficient defence in a court of law. Plus, you've missed a few attributes – good, forgiving and just. If God ignores disobedience he is neither just nor good.
You should read The difficult doctrine of the love of God – I realise Don Carson is not some internet wackjob, but a leading New Testament theologian, so he probably doesn't have the right credentials for you to pay any attention to him, but he does deal very well with common misunderstanding of what it means for God to be love.

You can disobey things that don’t exist? When a person doesn’t believe something exists, anything that imaginary thing commands doesn’t exist either.

No – you could be wrong in your disbelief – you can disbelieve in something that still exists. So when a person doesn’t believe something exists, anything that things commands will also be disbelieved – not necessarily non-existent.

Needless to say, your God behaves exactly like one would expect if there was no God.

Needless to say, I disagree, and I’m far from alone, nor in the company of only simpletons, in doing so.

You can disobey things that don't exist? When a person doesn't believe something exists, anything that imaginary thing commands doesn't exist either.

Disbelieving something's existence doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. You could be wrong in disbelieving.

“I don't believe a valid government exists”, and “I don't trust the government” don't go down well as a means of criminal defence.

You don't seem to see that for billions of people, God's existence is as obvious as the government.

I get it – you think it's rational to believe God doesn't exist, I, and many others (let's see you debate Flew..) think it's rational to believe God exists. Great. Round we go…

Well, for those billions, let them burn in hell.

That doesn't even make sense.

As for debating Flew, his reason for believing is argument from ignorance, god of the gaps too.

No, arguments about first causes are not god-of-the-gaps… they are questions beyond the scope of science, strictly speaking. It is a question not of what science can't yet explain, but explaining why science explains. As Lennox shows with his 'Aunt Matilda's Cake' analogy – science can tell us the chemical construction of the cake, the ingredients etc. but no amount of scientific testing of the cake can tell us the purpose for which it was made – one must ask Aunt Matilda for that.

Of course it makes sense. Only people that believe in it should be expected to go to hell.

Weren't you just arguing a moment ago that it's the other way around?

Nothing about an argument for a first cause necessitates an intelligent being unless you argue god of the gaps.

Not so.

Either you are not following the conversation or you aren't understanding what I am saying.

You were arguing that it's naughty of God to punish people for not believing him, now you're saying that the only people who should be punished by him are those who believe in him? If I'm not understanding you, it's because you're not being clear.

I would not call anything God unless it was at least intelligent. Nothing about an argument for a first cause necessitates an intelligent being unless you argue god of the gaps.

It's not a God of the gaps argument to argue for an intelligence behind the universe. It's asking a purpose and cause question, not a question of how the universe itself works.
Figuring out how a combustion engine doesn't mean that Mr Ford as a designer is a man-of-the-gaps argument. (and in case you're tempted to assume that this is the kind of argument often labelled as ID, it's not.. that term has been hi-jacked by anti-evolutionary proponents, and that is not what I'm arguing. please be clear on that.)
In fact, my short answer was partially intended to indicate that I don't have a huge desire to go down this path of the converstaion.

I never heard about this “great coffee pot” May I know where can I see this?

I don't write this stuff for the people determined to believe in it. I write it for those who are questioning it. Letting people know that there are others out there that think like they do is helpful to them, and I do it for those people.

I don't write this stuff for the people determined to believe in it. I write it for those who are questioning it. Letting people know that there are others out there that think like they do is helpful to them, and I do it for those people.