Why Would God Hide?

[orangebox21]

I would prefer literal proofs, yes, but only because I've exhausted looking at the Abrahamic religions through the "metaphorical" eyes, and even Sikhism, Buddhism, and Taoism, for instance. In the end, it comes down to three types of metaphorical proof: prophecies, holy texts, and mystical experiences. Since I never had mystical experiences, it came down to prophecies that were all too vague to be useful and holy texts that laid on appeals to authority from multiple different self-proclaimed prophets or authors, that seemed, to me, to have little basis in fact (for instance, the claim in the Bible that 500 witnesses saw Jesus rise based on hearsay).

Given that all historical accounts are by definition hearsay, why would you accept the hearsay of some historical accounts but not others?

I think that I am a very logically and scientifically oriented person now, after coming from a Catholic faith where I had to accept a LOT of appeals to authority or "mysteries of faith," so I for instance think that the laws of physics as we understand them are valid across the universe because of multiple different and independent observations confirming this to be true. I haven't seen the same with religion- usually adherents one of one religion make some claims using internal logic and claims of infallibility that are easily malleable in case an escape hatch is needed.

You've asserted the following argument:
1. Things that are universal are true.
2. The laws of physics are universal
3. Religions are not universal
.:/ God is not true

I agree with you that the laws of science are universal (that they are consistent throughout time and space) and that makes them trustworthy. I also agree that there is no universal religion and therefore religion is not universal. Two things to consider here:

First, the argument as written is not valid. If we assume premises 1,2, and 3 are true and the conclusion is false, we have a situation where all premises are true and the conclusion is false (an invalid argument). This happens because it equivocates 'religion' and 'God'. You've argued that religion is not universal to conclude that God is not true. There are two ways to make a valid argument here. First, you could change your conclusion to argue that religion is not true. Or you could change premise #3 to read 'God is not universal.' If you were to somehow prove that 'God' was not universal (that His being is not consistent throughout time and space) then you could logically argue that God is not true.

Secondly, there is an error in your deduction from the observation that: because there are different religions making contradictory claims about God they are not universal and therefore not true. I agree that as a whole, the sum total of all the claims of every religion ever is not universal and therefore not true. This does not however necessitate that no single religion's claim couldn't be true and all the other false. Given you are scientifically minded let me offer an analogy to clarify.

Let's assume two things: First, religion is a theory (explanation) of God, and second time exists. Your logic asserts that multiple religions are evidence that God is not true. In other words, multiple theories of God invalidate the truth of God. Is this good logic? Well, there is the A-series theory of time and the B-series theory of time. If we apply this logic we would have to conclude that because there are multiple theories of time, it [time] is not true. Certainly we wouldn't come to this conclusion. In fact when faced with competing, and even contradictory theories we generally believe one to be true and one to be false even if we're unsure which is which.

Basically, I'm trying to make an appeal that you evaluate your definition of hearsay, that you don't apply a criticism to religion that you wouldn't apply to any other area of your belief system, and that you consider the logic of your argument.

[StealthySkeptic]

An historical account, depending on a lot of different factors, can be considered hearsay if for instance it is a.) not a primary source and b.) the only account that claims that this an event happened. For supernatural claims, such as an itinerant Jewish rabbi rising bodily from the dead, the standard for secular historians is much stricter since that violates the laws of physics- and outside the written Bible and people's belief that it is infallible there is no evidence for the resurrection. We also do not have the accounts of these supposed eyewitnesses, and even then eyewitness testimony is often unreliable by itself in courts of law, especially when it describes physically impossible events.

As a contrast, the inhabitants of Constantinople, the then capital of the Byzantine Empire, claimed that a lunar eclipse would bring about the doom of the city. We can establish for a fact that people claimed to have seen an eclipse on May 22nd, 1453, that there was an eclipse at that point due to the position of the moon, Earth, and sun at that point, and that the city fell to the Ottoman Turks on May 29th, 1453 but we obviously can't establish that this was based on the prophecy or prediction without an almost impossible to find larger amount of evidence.

As for your comparison of multiple different theories of religion with multiple different theories of time (or other scientific theories)- consider that scientific theories can be tested directly. For instance, we know that time is part of a four-dimensional space in conjunction with the three dimensions we can see thanks to Einstein's theory of general relativity (I can barely wrap my head around the basics lol). If someone were to challenge the evidence for this, they would be able to test Einstein's theories using the scientific method and propose their own evidence.

Religious claims, due to the fact that God (or Vishnu, or what have you) uses a series of philosophical escape hatches such as "being outside of time and space" to become conveniently invisible to all instruments and out of the reach of scientific inquiry are unfalsifiable (which really means untestable), therefore the evidence presented for religion has to come in the form of prophecies, revelation, or holy books that are somehow free from error. My opinion is that all of these things can be easily explained as coming from subjective human interpretation of (and attempt to explain) the world around us, in the same way that lightning was the wrath of Zeus way back when. Since according to Occam's razor the simplest explanations for a claim are the best ones in the absence of contravening evidence, it makes sense for me to say "I need a LOT more proof, buddy."

[The Valkyrie]

Got to exist to hide.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The answer to the "Hiding" question is the same as the answer to the "Knocking" post.

Moses knew God face to face, and even he blew it when he had to step out in faith, and speak to the Rock ( he blew it by smacking the rock ( a type of Christ) like he did before, when he was supposed to speak to it).

It is nearly like a game- and it is ALWAYS our move.
The blinders come off (or should I say- the revelation increases) as we play the game.
I hate to use the word- "Game" but another parallel escapes me.

Yes, He does "Hide" and we, like little kids playing "Hide and Seek" are supposed to seek.
Maybe that is why "Child- likeness" is commended.

A god that makes redemption more and not less difficult is a god who by dint of his own actions would doom more earnest seekers to hell.

Such a god is unworthy of praise or worship.

[Esquilax]

The answer to the "Hiding" question is the same as the answer to the "Knocking" post.

Moses knew God face to face, and even he blew it when he had to step out in faith, and speak to the Rock ( he blew it by smacking the rock ( a type of Christ) like he did before, when he was supposed to speak to it).

It is nearly like a game- and it is ALWAYS our move.
The blinders come off (or should I say- the revelation increases) as we play the game.
I hate to use the word- "Game" but another parallel escapes me.

Yes, He does "Hide" and we, like little kids playing "Hide and Seek" are supposed to seek.
Maybe that is why "Child- likeness" is commended.

That seems really passive aggressive and needless. Frankly, it comes off as you retrofitting a presupposition into known reality, rather than seeing if your premises work if they proceed logically within the world we inhabit.

Don't go conclusion first, for once.

[StealthySkeptic]

Hear hear to you both.

[Cyberman]

I will freely admit there are parts of the bible that I agree with. I just don't worship the guy due to the difference in opinions, and the existence of things that are either factually wrong or contradict each other.

I would modify this, if I may, in that if there are parts of the bible with which I agree, I don't agree with them simply because they are in the bible.

[naimless]

Maybe he was just tired of all the Americans.

Fuck knows I am.

There should be a "hide from Americunt" button.

They take shit too seriously.

If there is a god he edit: no, she is a prankster god.

[Cyberman]

Basically, I'm trying to make an appeal that you evaluate your definition of hearsay, that you don't apply a criticism to religion that you wouldn't apply to any other area of your belief system, and that you consider the logic of your argument.

It's known as ECREE. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary must be the evidence supporting it. We wouldn't accept the same standard of evidence for the name of the third slave to the left of the pharoah, for instance, as we would for claims that that slave rose from the dead and roamed Egypt prophesying the events of the New Testament.

[Chad32]

I will freely admit there are parts of the bible that I agree with. I just don't worship the guy due to the difference in opinions, and the existence of things that are either factually wrong or contradict each other.

I would modify this, if I may, in that if there are parts of the bible with which I agree, I don't agree with them simply because they are in the bible.

Nah, just because a clock is broken, doesn't mean you should deny that it's right twice a day. It's a pile of crap, but even crap can be useful as fertilizer.