Why Would God Hide?

[snowtracks]

indications are that the atheistic fortress this one has build is starting to crumble. methinks he doth protest too much; truth is truly shaper than any two-edged sword.

You do this every time. You act like the most evasive, dishonest tool, asserting the most ridiculous crap without evidence and then demanding that we debunk every stupid assertion that comes into your head, and then the moment that anyone gets sick of your idiocy and acts even a little bit angry, you crow victory.

But anger doesn't just come from failure, fool. And it doesn't invalidate my point. Answer my damn question, if you can.

i'll get back with you after you get a little r&r.

[Mystical]

*raises hand, Ooh! Ooh! Me me me! I volunteer to give him some R&R, and some B&J and some VJJ..

All of which I guarantee snowtracks knows, nothing about! O.O

[Cyberman]

Can I have some of that action too, please? Pretty please, pretty lady?

[snowtracks]

IF a real god did exist - and it actually met the criteria of religion - then it would NOT have any reason to hide at all.

ANd that is the point -

the statement 'I believe only what I can see' is in itself contradictory since belief is not physical. actually, many things exist that can't be observed. and by the way, just because you are limited by a body doesn't mean God is. the point is 'seeing is believing' is the very limiting, but if that's what you want to go with, that's perfectly fine.

[The Grand Nudger]

many things exist that can't be observed.

Name a single one.

[dyresand]

The Theist's Post

---

The entire question of certainty of proof is determined by the person looking at the proofs. If the person looking at the proofs chooses not to look at certain aspects, then those proofs are no more than mere words to him.

In this sense, if we use an example from the Christian Revelation. Christ said that when He came again, every eye would see him and that He would come down on a cloud. Thus, many who proclaim their membership in the Faith of Christ will deny any proofs which do not physically have a person riding on a cloud coming down from outer space. If, as the Baha'is say, these prophesies are symbolic, not literal, they will scoff and deride and refuse to accept. Likewise, they forget that Christ also said that He would come as a thief in the night, and even the owner of the house would not know He was there.

How, by any literal means, could a person resolve this most obvious and extremely apparent conflict between the two statement. They will either, as is done, accept the former and quitely disregard the latter, or they will attempt to resolve the question through interminable and pointless word-bashing.

The very fact of the material discrepany between the two quotes is itself proof that these must be resoolved symbolically. But if one is expecting a literal fulfillment of the first prophecy, then this discrepancy becomes not a proof, but a hindrance.

And so, what you need to first of all define - what, to you, would consist of the proof that you desire. Is it literal proof, or will you accept symbolic proof? If it is only literal proof, then the chances of success are very slim. But if you will also accept symbolic proof, be aware that you will need to be very aware of the need to steer clear of superstition or other mumbo-jumbo.

Then, the hard part, for your own position has been demonstrated, if I may be blunt, to rejecting absolutely anything that the Baha'is consider proof, of spurning any "mystical" or "Spiritual" or "religious" evidence. Are you thus one of those who expect the literal proof as the Christians who expect Jesus to physically ride a cloud from outer space to earth, or one who is prepared to look honestly at the non-literal proofs.

Working from memory, Baha'u'llah defines the process of search in the Kitab-i-Iqan in what has become known as the Tablet of the Seeker. He provides a key. That the heart mmust be cleansed of every trace of love and hate, lest that love incline him to error, or that hate repell him away from the truth. If you wish to see this in application in the materialist world that you choose to inhabit, thanks to free will instead of compulsion, you wll see this principle being adhered to strictly and rigourously. In scientific research. It is in exactly the same way that one must investigare religious truth. Thus, no proof is rejected, no proof is accepted, untill it has passed through the process of comparing them through the hypothesis that God neither exists or does not exist. Let the evidence then produce the weight of proof, not any materialistic or any religious theories as people espouse. After all, this is your life, and your investigation, your free will, and your determination whether to accept truth regardless any personal inclinations or likes or dislikes. And if you allow the least shred of love or hate to come between you and what is truth, you will decrease your chances of success.

But that's ok. This is not a try once or fail forever process. The opportunity gets offered over and over again until it is clear and evident that your choices are absolutely and utterly irrevokeable. Then, and only then, will you be left alone.

Personal belief statement. Except in the very rare instance, I do not believe that any individual makes a decision that cannot be revoked before death. And this is why I said to you in a much earlier thread that it is always possible that you, at that time, may be a true belever, while I may become in your place the atheist. Can you tell the future?

Yet even after the tide of breath has ceased forever, how do we know who will be dealt with by God's Justice and who will be accorded His Mercy? Is becoming "toast", as you have said in another thread, so clear and ovbious? Not until after that last breath has been finished, and we know whether God deals with us with His Justice or His Mercy.

---

*****

My Response

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).

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.

Apologies if that seemed blunt, but I don't understand why a deity who actually cares about his creations (as in, non-deistic), would operate the way you claim he does (not getting it right with one prophet, but instead having to send one every thousand years), but would not instead make his existence as obvious as the light of the Sun. (Don't try to appeal to "mysterious ways" or "free will" with me- mysterious reasons for somebody doing something for me equals no reason at all). Just because the Sun exists beyond a doubt and no sane person would claim otherwise does not mean that we have no free will.

Basically, I try to keep my thinking consistent, and since I am a skeptic don't allow for metaphors to get in the way when I investigate a scientific claim and proof for such, I take the same approach to everything in life, including religion.

If god is real he is hiding from his fan base and is probably embarrassed by his followers.

[snowtracks]

The Theist's Post

---

The entire question of certainty of proof is determined by the person looking at the proofs. If the person looking at the proofs chooses not to look at certain aspects, then those proofs are no more than mere words to him.

In this sense, if we use an example from the Christian Revelation. Christ said that when He came again, every eye would see him and that He would come down on a cloud. Thus, many who proclaim their membership in the Faith of Christ will deny any proofs which do not physically have a person riding on a cloud coming down from outer space. If, as the Baha'is say, these prophesies are symbolic, not literal, they will scoff and deride and refuse to accept. Likewise, they forget that Christ also said that He would come as a thief in the night, and even the owner of the house would not know He was there.

How, by any literal means, could a person resolve this most obvious and extremely apparent conflict between the two statement. They will either, as is done, accept the former and quitely disregard the latter, or they will attempt to resolve the question through interminable and pointless word-bashing.

The very fact of the material discrepany between the two quotes is itself proof that these must be resoolved symbolically. But if one is expecting a literal fulfillment of the first prophecy, then this discrepancy becomes not a proof, but a hindrance.

And so, what you need to first of all define - what, to you, would consist of the proof that you desire. Is it literal proof, or will you accept symbolic proof? If it is only literal proof, then the chances of success are very slim. But if you will also accept symbolic proof, be aware that you will need to be very aware of the need to steer clear of superstition or other mumbo-jumbo.

Then, the hard part, for your own position has been demonstrated, if I may be blunt, to rejecting absolutely anything that the Baha'is consider proof, of spurning any "mystical" or "Spiritual" or "religious" evidence. Are you thus one of those who expect the literal proof as the Christians who expect Jesus to physically ride a cloud from outer space to earth, or one who is prepared to look honestly at the non-literal proofs.

Working from memory, Baha'u'llah defines the process of search in the Kitab-i-Iqan in what has become known as the Tablet of the Seeker. He provides a key. That the heart mmust be cleansed of every trace of love and hate, lest that love incline him to error, or that hate repell him away from the truth. If you wish to see this in application in the materialist world that you choose to inhabit, thanks to free will instead of compulsion, you wll see this principle being adhered to strictly and rigourously. In scientific research. It is in exactly the same way that one must investigare religious truth. Thus, no proof is rejected, no proof is accepted, untill it has passed through the process of comparing them through the hypothesis that God neither exists or does not exist. Let the evidence then produce the weight of proof, not any materialistic or any religious theories as people espouse. After all, this is your life, and your investigation, your free will, and your determination whether to accept truth regardless any personal inclinations or likes or dislikes. And if you allow the least shred of love or hate to come between you and what is truth, you will decrease your chances of success.

But that's ok. This is not a try once or fail forever process. The opportunity gets offered over and over again until it is clear and evident that your choices are absolutely and utterly irrevokeable. Then, and only then, will you be left alone.

Personal belief statement. Except in the very rare instance, I do not believe that any individual makes a decision that cannot be revoked before death. And this is why I said to you in a much earlier thread that it is always possible that you, at that time, may be a true belever, while I may become in your place the atheist. Can you tell the future?

Yet even after the tide of breath has ceased forever, how do we know who will be dealt with by God's Justice and who will be accorded His Mercy? Is becoming "toast", as you have said in another thread, so clear and ovbious? Not until after that last breath has been finished, and we know whether God deals with us with His Justice or His Mercy.

---

*****

My Response

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).

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.

Apologies if that seemed blunt, but I don't understand why a deity who actually cares about his creations (as in, non-deistic), would operate the way you claim he does (not getting it right with one prophet, but instead having to send one every thousand years), but would not instead make his existence as obvious as the light of the Sun. (Don't try to appeal to "mysterious ways" or "free will" with me- mysterious reasons for somebody doing something for me equals no reason at all). Just because the Sun exists beyond a doubt and no sane person would claim otherwise does not mean that we have no free will.

Basically, I try to keep my thinking consistent, and since I am a skeptic don't allow for metaphors to get in the way when I investigate a scientific claim and proof for such, I take the same approach to everything in life, including religion.

If god is real he is hiding from his fan base and is probably embarrassed by his followers.

if God exist, science would be a study of how He did it. The atheistic naturalist believes the physical cosmos is the ultimate reality, so interpretation of science observations would be that; there isn’t an option using that reasoning for inference to the best explanation.

[little_monkey]

It's clear that only God can prove his own existence. Until he shows up and prove his own existence, which on one else can do that job, then he remains a myth.

[Well Rounded Rectangle]

Because he's good at it.

[Nintentacle]

You're just not looking for him. Is the cop hiding from the felon, or is the felon avoiding the cop?