Atheism, Evidence and the God-of-the-Gaps

[Randy Carson]

Why not? He did it at Fatima in 1917. There are photographs of the event online.

Is there one in particular that strikes you as clear evidence of the hand of god in action?

It would be better to read a good book on Fatima...then all of the photos will be more meaningful.

Isolated incidents like this are also confusing.  Why does god cause the sky to go a bit nuts on one afternoon so many years ago and then go back to even more obscure stuff like scuff marks on appliances or clouds shaped like angels or miracles that are indistinguishable from coincidence?

I'm not too big on Grilled Cheezus personally, but my opinion on Fatima is that "an extraordinary message from God requires an extraordinary confirmation from God."

It is not what He wants, I agree. But the fact that many may be lost does not prove that He has not implemented the best solution. All that we're really hearing here is YOUR preference that none be lost and your assignment of guilt to God for the fact that many might be.

Yes, but don't you find that dissatisfying?  God's plans don't seem very well thought-out, but maybe he's got some aces up his sleeve?  And he thinks the best option is to see how many of us can stumble into the truth, instead of laying everything out clearly for us?

It's the stumbling part I disagree with. I think God knows exactly when to play his cards with each one of us personally.

If literally true, then all we can say about that is that they desired to be like God. And after they gained the knowledge of good and evil they were "impressed" by God enough to hide from him in fear because they knew they had done wrong.

But god did not make enough of an impression on them to make them even think twice about breaking the one rule he'd given them.  Did the devil really understand god's nature if he thought that he could be "like" god without repercussion?  Or did he know and prefer death to continuing to be a minion?  How did such a simple challenge ("god's a liar, the fruit is good") get Eve to go against god's command?  Was she somehow unable to differentiate between the creator of all things and a talking serpent?

The scriptures say that Adam walked with God in the garden. They were friends. What did Eve think she had to fear at that point? God had never been angry with her before. As for death, no, that came later...God banished them from the Garden so that they would not eat of the tree of life and live forever...so "preferring death" was not actually on the table, yet.

With perfect knowledge, the angels chose freely to reject God's plan for the salvation of men through Jesus Christ. That rejection is simply an act of the will. Why does this suggest that God is not impressive? There are many examples in our own day of rulers of countries who have great wealth and power...but some men (rightly) refuse to serve them. With the might of the English monarchy behind him, Henry VIII could not convince Thomas More to betray his own beliefs. etc, etc.

See above.  We aren't referring to a human king with limited technology and culture.  This is the almighty god and creator of the universe.  Do you feel that if you were able to spend your life in his presence, you would reject him freely as an act of will?  Imagine it, being an angel in heaven and able to directly witness the magnificence of god and his great wisdom and power.  How long would it take for you to decide "meh, I'll take my chances with an earth woman"?

The fall of the angels does not make sense.

Or me might accept that "the unparalleled intellect in all of reality and a designer without equal" knows just how much we can handle without being coerced into acknowledging his existence.

I don't get why people believe that it's somehow a bad thing for god to show us unambiguously that he is there.  I have seen no reasoning that makes sense.  Given his history as recounted in the Bible and given what's at stake, it seems utterly indefensible to think that this is a good idea, much less the best option available.

The late Christopher Hitchens once stated that even if God existed he would not worship him because such a being would, in his mind, differ little from an earthly dictator. If God constantly watched over us from the sky like a towering Goliath, this might only reinforce the attitude held by people like Hitchens that God has put us in a police state.

[Randy Carson]

Now, what's the fuzz about that? What am I supposed to look at to get the presence of god? Not to mention that there was something going on at the same time, just a stretch to the Northeast, that would have made divine intervention a little more credible.

It's the year 1917 after all and the middle of a peaceful nowhere seems like a curious choice to make an appearance. But I guess, HE works in mysterious ways, isn't it?

Why did thousands of people show up on the same day in the middle of nowhere in a pouring rain?

How were they and the ground itself all dried instantly?

Why are they all simultaneously looking into the sky?

[rexbeccarox]

I don't know, Randy; Why were they staring up at the sky?

[Randy Carson]

If you stare at the sun too long, it will appear to 'zig-zag'. This is caused by involuntary eye movements as your 'lizard-brain' is trying to save you from going blind from staring at the sun too long. When you have involuntary eye movements like that, the perception is that it's the object you're looking at that is moving, rather than your eyes.

The pretty colors right after clouds parting sounds like an atmospheric effect. The rest sounds like crowd-effect religious hysteria.

Either that or it was an alien ship. Of course, people many miles away saw it, too, and they were not part of the crowd. But don't let those facts bother you. It could not possibly have been a supernatural event caused by God because you don't believe in supernatural events or God, right?

Folks, this one post proves the presuppositions of atheists as well as I could ever hope to do myself.

This need to "explain away" any and all evidence is why I have said previously that it is not possible to give evidence for God's existence.

[Randy Carson]

I can give you a dozen reasons to believe that the NT is historically reliable. 

LOL, and here I'd have settled for just one...........so, if you can do that...then why haven't you been doing that?

Um...I have a whole thread on that topic...

[Esquilax]

Folks, this one post proves the presuppositions of atheists as well as I could ever hope to do myself.

What, other than the fact that Mr A doesn't believe your claim, are you basing this accusation of presupposition on?

[Randy Carson]

Well, the glossary in the back of the Catechism of the Catholic Church sez:

GOD: The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed Himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation.

How's that for starters?

The only part that actually comes close to meaning anything, and that's "creator of all that is".  Other than that, it's just word salad.

Weird. I understood every word. But I've made my point in the OP and I'm abandoning this thread in order to pursue others.

Lock it if you like. I'm done.

(Hitler and Nietzsche will have to wait...that's not what this thread was about.)

[Exian]

Hey guys. I'm new here, so sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but I'm looking for a good thread to discuss and challenge my presupposition of leprechaun and unicorn non-existence.

[rexbeccarox]

The only part that actually comes close to meaning anything, and that's "creator of all that is".  Other than that, it's just word salad.

Weird. I understood every word. But I've made my point in the OP and I'm abandoning this thread in order to pursue others.

Lock it if you like. I'm done.

(Hitler and Nietzsche will have to wait...that's not what this thread was about.)

Oh, no.  I understood every word; putting them together is the problem.

We don't lock threads at members' whims, Randy.

[rexbeccarox]

I don't know, Randy; Why were they staring up at the sky?

Why can't you answer this?  It's definitely related to your OP; or is it that you don't want to answer because you know what the response will be?  You've just come full-circle back to what you're arguing against... but I think you realize that, and that's why you've abandoned thread.