Why is god hiding?

[Chas]

This one is for the theists.

What makes you believe He is hiding, is it because you haven't seen Him, you've never seen the wind, do you doubt it's existence, I don't think you do. You believe in the wind because you can feel it and see it's actions, well I can feel God and see His actions, what I wonder is why can't you?

GC

Because you are imagining it and I am not.

[Godscreated]

The reason you guys don't like the wind argument is because it makes sense and you just can stand it. Your biggest hate for the wind argument is you can only make stupid remarks about it, you have no way of dismissing it.

GC

Do you know the difference between analogy and argument? And in both regards, you clearly failed because no one is convinced.

Convincing you is not my job, only presenting the possibility for you.

GC

[Rampant.A.I.]

The reason you guys don't like the wind argument is because it makes sense and you just can stand it. Your biggest hate for the wind argument is you can only make stupid remarks about it, you have no way of dismissing it.

GC

This has got to be the funniest thing I've read here all week

[Chas]

The reason you guys don't like the wind argument is because it makes sense and you just can stand it. Your biggest hate for the wind argument is you can only make stupid remarks about it, you have no way of dismissing it.

GC

You seem to get more ignorant all the time.

The wind argument fails utterly because we can actually measure the wind. Multiple people will have the same measurement of the air moving, the effects of the air moving are observable by independent observers, and so on.

It is the difference between objective evidence and subjective experience.

[Tonus]

God is easy to detect once you know He's there,

But that's true of any type of confirmation bias.

[pocaracas]

The reason you guys don't like the wind argument is because it makes sense and you just can stand it. Your biggest hate for the wind argument is you can only make stupid remarks about it, you have no way of dismissing it.

GC

hmmm...so.... how is the wind a good analogy for a spirit?
Wind is air in motion.
Air occupies a certain volume, you can compress it, for example, take a syringe, with no needle, covert the hole where you'd mount the needle with your finger.... press on the plunger and feel the pressure air exerts there.
Air is a gas, it may be invisible and odorless (if not contaminated) and tasteless, but you can hear it moving (sometimes - ever wondered where the term "wind instrument" comes from?) you can feel it touching you.

How is this a good analogy for a spirit, a god, or whatever you want it to be an analogy of?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The next question is this how long will you hold out for a natural explanation? 50 years...100? If you say until all natural possibilities are exhausted that's the same as never being willing to acknowledge the supernatural. Natural theories seems unlimited to the point of saying space aliens or time travels are responsible for the inexplicable. What if any limits do you place on your bias toward naturalism?

I'm going to say this one thing, and then stop: A lack of evidence for any other explanation does not mean that your preferred one is true.

What you posited in your example was an observation- this cell has the word "Jesus" written on its cell wall- but that observation wouldn't testify to a cause. I suggested some experiments that one could to do determine more about that observation, but given the situation you described, and absent any kind of definitive answer from those tests, what you'd be left with is an inconclusive result, not an answer of god. If evidence for god shows up- positive evidence, not circumstantial stuff, as the examples for these kinds of questions always seems to be- then of course I'll accept it, but I'm not going to pretend an inconclusive result isn't just to appease anyone else's need for god to be involved, nor their sneaking suspicions that I'd just never accept any evidence ever if I don't come to their desired conclusion.

I'm not going to be cajoled into accepting a conclusion on insufficient evidence, and that also goes for the naturalistic explanations, by the way. To say "this cell wall says Jesus, we have no evidence of naturalistic or divine explanations, and therefore it must be god because it says Jesus," would be an argument from ignorance. The only honest answer I could give that would be consistent with what I hold to be true about evidence would be to admit it: this is an inconclusive load of data. Here's what we know about it; it doesn't definitively point to either a divine or a naturalistic explanation.

And then I'd leave it at that, all the while leaving the possibility of a divine explanation as open there as I do for any other thing. But you can't just keep adding zeroes and come to one; without positive evidence for a thing, you can't just shrug and say it must have been god. That's a different answer to never, ever accepting the possibility of it being god, though.

Sorry. I just don't buy how you rationalize you negative bias. Give me one real example of evidence you would accept?

[Mudhammam]

God is easy to detect once you know He's there, just like many things unseen once you recognize their actions they are easy to detect, so no I'm keeping the wind argument alive.

GC

Hold on, let me run that statement through my bullshit filtering machine so that I can hear it in my language.

Beep-boop-boop-beep-boop

010000000000111000000100001111010100

Hold on, just another sec.

Beep-boop-beep-beep-beep.

Ah-hah, you go.

God is easy to detect once you repeat that statement enough times to yourself that you actually start to believe it, even if you really have no idea what the hell anyone means by "God" other than the typical anthropomorphic characteristics that other people have attributed to him. It's just like many things unseen once you recognize their actions they are easy to detect, such as forest sprites and wind faeries, so no I'm going to continue to remain ignorant to the actual world I live in and I'll keep the wind argument alive for future opportunities that I may have to make a complete idiot of myself.

GC

[Esquilax]

Sorry. I just don't buy how you rationalize you negative bias. Give me one real example of evidence you would accept?

An actual, personal experience of the kind so many christians claim to have had would do it for me, probably. And to be clear, until the end of my teens I could probably have been called a deist, or at least not outright an atheist, and there were even points at which I had prayed in my youth; here's a young man in literally the perfect position to be shown the light just the way we so often get told happens, and yet... nothing.

Now, as I said, a lack of evidence isn't evidence for god, which is why I'm still an agnostic atheist open to all possibilities, I'm just saying that there was a great opportunity in my life for the sort of personal relationship that I get told about so often, and it didn't happen.

I'm sure I'll get a ton of excuses and rationalizations for that, now: I didn't pray hard enough, I wasn't sincere, god's ways are mysterious, he clearly has another plan for you, all the classics. But I'd like to point out ahead of time that the first two involve insights into the state of my mind before I knew any of you, so none of you are in a position to say, and the last ones are just unverifiable. It's great if you guys want to believe that, but it should be clear that my worldview requires something stronger.

I don't think GC's wind argument is at all convincing, but if the comparison was at all valid, I would be a believer; if god were as present as the wind in my life, then sure. And Chad, your Jesus cell example would definitely be a step in that direction for me personally, but a first step doesn't complete the journey to church, you know?

I'm just asking for positive evidence, the same as I would do for any other thing. Otherwise, why not just keep an open mind and not oversell the case for things just to reach a more comfortable conclusion? I long ago became comfortable with temporary ignorance, so I'm not going to overreach in search of answers that might be fallacious.

[Chas]

God is easy to detect once you know He's there, just like many things unseen once you recognize their actions they are easy to detect, so no I'm keeping the wind argument alive.

GC

Hold on, let me run that statement through my bullshit filtering machine so that I can hear it in my language.

Beep-boop-boop-beep-boop

010000000000111000000100001111010100

Hold on, just another sec.

Beep-boop-beep-beep-beep.

Ah-hah, you go.

God is easy to detect once you repeat that statement enough times to yourself that you actually start to believe it, even if you really have no idea what the hell anyone means by "God" other than the typical anthropomorphic characteristics that other people have attributed to him. It's just like many things unseen once you recognize their actions they are easy to detect, such as forest sprites and wind faeries, so no I'm going to continue to remain ignorant to the actual world I live in and I'll keep the wind argument alive for future opportunities that I may have to make a complete idiot of myself.

GC

While your response did make me chuckle, it is against the rules to misattribute quotes. Just sayin'.