'Seeking' God

[Justtristo]

Lucent, there is a naturalistic explanation for the observation which the writer made in Romans

since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse Romans 1:19-20 HCSB

That explanation is that theory of mind humans have often goes into override, leading to humans concluding there must be some kind of agent in natural phenomenon. Philosopher Daniel Dennett describes this phenomenon as the Intentional Stance. Robert Wright in his book The Evolution of God* argues quite well how this phenomenon lead to the invention of elemental spirits, puppeteers, organic spirits, ancestral spirits, and gods.

*The Evolution of God has both good and bad aspects to it, however the good aspects alone made it a must read book for anyone.

[Ace Otana]

Typical...

"I dun know waer it aul come from and wernt tught much in shcool so my gawd musta dun it!".

That's one argument I've seen way too many times. Surely they should know by now that it's a really weak and pathetic argument. Just because you don't know jack shit about anything don't mean some god done it. Sheesh.

[The Grand Nudger]

If your argument regarding "hiddenness" were based in reality it would have weight Lucent, but it isn't, so it does not (you're arguing FOR hiddeness in another thread currently are you not? So that we might be able to exercise our "free will").

My wife, being an intelligent person, recognizes many things about christianity that we as atheists recognize. Rather than engage in complete lunacy in private and in public she's obviously decided that it's her faith that's important, not some fantasy whereby she as a human being can know the mind, will, history, and attributes of a creator god. It's very easy for me to respect this sort of stance and the (in my estimation) greater amount of faith it requires to continue to identify as a christian from this standpoint. To you, it seems, there MUST be evidence, it MUST be demonstrably true. So what am I dealing with between you and Salty Lucent, two fair weather christians who need signs and evidence criticizing a christian who takes the entire thing on faith?

People can tell fanciful stories about events or beings that otherwise actually do exist. The stories themselves don't have to be factual for the event to have happened, or the being to have lived. The thing that grinds me about this entire conversation is that this has apparently never crossed either of your minds. Your stories HAVE to be correct, your faith rests on them, hers does not. GJ there, making my wife sounds pious. I'm sure she appreciates.

(just pulled my wife in to be sure I had given her mind a fair shake. I have. Our tiny discussion on the matter led to a comment I have to add to all of this. I'm not here to shit on faith. I'm here to shit on claims to knowledge about that faith which cannot stand scrutiny at any level. Faith seems like such a dirty word to the type of christian who demands evidence. I can never get over that. "Godwillsit" or "Goddidit" is not an adequate defense for anything, right or wrong. It is not an adequate explanation for anything, right or wrong. You have no idea what god wills or did, regardless of what you believe about your holy books. This has been explained to both of you at length.)

[fr0d0]

(I'm here to shit on claims to knowledge about that faith which cannot stand scrutiny at any level. Faith seems like such a dirty word to the type of christian who demands evidence. I can never get over that. "Godwillsit" or "Goddidit" is not an adequate defense for anything, right or wrong. It is not an adequate explanation for anything, right or wrong.

Ok I'm going to have to watch for Christians who demand evidence. I notice you demand evidence of Christians for the same, so that seems confusing???

You have no idea what god wills or did, regardless of what you believe about your holy books. This has been explained to both of you at length.)

What we can know from our holy book, is that the God we define must fulfil the criteria set. We believe, through head knowledge and gut instinct that these definitions play out perfectly, which then leads us to say that we can know this about God. It's the tip of the iceberg: it certainly isn't full knowledge. What it never is, is connected to your first point.

[Captain Scarlet]

I can indeed answer the problem of the hiddenness of God: He isn't hidden. The existence of God is actually extremely obvious, especially from the design standpoint. The truth of that is displayed in the Creation itself. The incomplete and unworkable explanations science offers does not explain away design. For the specific problem of the hiddenness of Jesus Christ, there are two things to say:

Lovely, I'm glad for you he isn't hidden. But merely asserting he isn't when you cannot come up with any evidence or proofs that lead inexorably to that conclusion. If god isn't hidden why are you only able to infer his existence from apparent design in the universe to which there are better more parsimonious natural explanations. The design argument was refuted brilliantly by Hume in the 18th century, since then it's been reheated only with the fine tuning argument; which apart from being an argument for a lack of design is just woeful in it's desperation and formulation. Yield up a design argument if you are confident that this addresses the problem.

2 Corinthians 4:4
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.Unbelievers are deceived by the devil and blinded from seeing the truth about the gospel. Note, being deceived means you aren't aware you are deceived: ie, the reality you're looking at seems plausible without Jesus in it.

H.C.Anderson; in Fairy tales for children 1837
"One day two swindlers came to the emperor's city. They said that they were weavers, claiming that they knew how to make the finest cloth imaginable. Not only were the colors and the patterns extraordinarily beautiful, but in addition, this material had the amazing property that it was to be invisible to anyone who was incompetent or stupid....."

2nd, He isn't really hidden either. One of His central claims is this:
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Good for Jesus! but I'm not sure how this makes Jesus available to all acts of cognition and answers the problem of divine hiddenness.

Meaning that no matter what you do, you will not find the truth, or God, without
Him. Now you've stated that you have never gone looking for Him, so I would ask how you would know whether God is hidden or not?

How do I know? I use reason to grasp reality around me. In doing so I have yet to find any reason to suggest that the xtian god exists, and that given his divine attributes and theology he should try to make himself known to mankind to 'save' us. He is not present in the natural sciences despite the fact we can see reality at an incredibly small, mid and large scale. There is no empirical evidence. There is no logical proof that stands up to scrutiny. He is said to reside in a realm which we could never find and even if we could that same god is invisible and incorporeal and essence only. We can scan the universe and our own planet and we pick up nothing, no moral radiation, no divine electromagnetism, no godly quantum tunneling, no jesus thermodynamics, no holy ghost evolution, nothing at all. Any scientific experiments on the effects of the supernatural have led to a failure to demonstrate it. The concept of his being is defined only by the projection of secondary attributes, and has no identified primary attribute. I have never had a personal experience (which I am grateful for by the way) and have never had reason to seek one, especially as there is no reason to believe at all. I have never seen an apparition of a dead Jew (again with some relief). For this and so many other reasons god is hidden to me and I do not accept that the truth comes from 'within', so I shan't be looking there either. Don't take my word for it read Mother Theresa's own words in her letters to the Catholic Church. Personally I couldn't stand the woman, but her letters are very sad and painful as she admits she feels nothing and god is hidden to her despite her honest attempts. Now what are we to make of this. The church would say either that person x is not trying hard enough or that their suffering (in trying to find a god and failing) is good because in mimics the suffering of Christ. Just how credulous do you have to be to accept such nonsense? You have an answer to the problem of hiddenness, bring on the evidence!

[The Grand Nudger]

I haven't bought in on your communal delusion Frodo. That the faithful can profess faith in the absence of evidence should be obvious. You know about a myth that cannot be connected to a god in any way for your own or anyone else's faith. That's not full knowledge of god. That's not a fraction of knowledge of god. It is, in fact, no knowledge of god, except by your own slippery definition of knowledge.

[fr0d0]

Well I was under no delusion about that Rhythm But here again you've just broken your own rule you just made in Post #103. YOU are demanding [empirical] evidence from a Christian. A "claim to knowledge about that faith which cannot stand scrutiny at any level." Am I missing something here?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, I haven't bought into your communal delusions. Whatever standards of evidence or claims of evidence or musings on evidence in general any of you have, they have nothing to do with me, and my own. I think you're confusing yourself here to try and make a point Frodo.

These two are believers in the literal and innerrant word Frodo. Both creationists who make claims to the material in every argument they present. They appeal to the literal word as a defense of their claims regarding morality, truth, our knowledge of the world around us, and yes, even intimate insights into our own personal lives. Claims like these would require evidence, for which we have none. Whatever claims you folks make from within the walls of this little god-hut you've erected are your own business. Don't assume that any of them have to hold water with me outside the hut. You have a more pleasant sort of christianity than either of these two as well, doesn't mean your interpretation is any more valid than theirs, or my wife's.

Frodo -when confronted with a difficult question "Love wins"

Lucent -in the same scenario "God is sovereign!"

[fr0d0]

Right I get it Rhythm. You can't accept my belief because there is no material proof of God. You state from that that my belief is invalid. = communal delusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

No material proof for, plenty of material proof against, no working argument. Each respective faith equally as invalid as the next, and each claim to knowledge or evidence equally as delusional as the next. Roger.

Which of you can point to anything with which to criticize each other's interpretations? Consistency of your shared myth? Intended meaning of your shared myth? Literal interpretation of your shared myth? Spiritual buffet treatment of your shared myth? I call the myth itself into question, and every interpretation drawn from it. Every justification for any position said to have originated from it. All of it.