Why is god hiding?

[Neo-Scholastic]

There's a big difference between making a mistake and telling a lie. I didn't read the posts as carefully as I should have and went off half cocked. Even still I find it hard to understand the difference between assuming there is a natural but as yet unknown cause and never accepting something as evidence of God. But I never tried to decieve anyone. Unless you can prove that someone means to decieve others by knowingly misrepresenting the facts, then calling people liars is baseless slander.

Well, if you made a mistake then fine, I apologize. That said, I did point out your error in the thread you initially made it, on the same day you made it. From my perspective, the issue was settled.

As to your contention, what we had suggested doing- giving any supposed evidence of god a thorough investigation- is exactly what we would want done to evidence for any other claim. The whole idea behind science is to never just go with assumptions about the nature of things; any conclusions we draw would be tentative and subject to change via other evidence. We might find signs that point to god, but not enough, from what had been suggested, to unreservedly accept that conclusion.

This isn't an inconsistency, or an unfair privileging of naturalistic explanations; it's just treating god-evidence the same way we would treat the regular kind.

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?

[Mudhammam]

The next question is this how long will you hold out for a natural explanation? 50 years...100?

I'm pretty sure you guys got like 1,000 years... and produced the Dark Ages.
We're like 400 years removed from Copernicus. By my calculations, you owe us another 600 years.

[Foxaèr]

I can feel God and see His actions, what I wonder is why can't you?

GC

No, you cannot feel god or see his actions. What you are doing is applying the term god to something you cannot take even a few seconds of rational thought to realize is easily explained as something natural rather than supernatural.

[FifthElement]

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?

Are you actually claiming here that if you feel something that then it must be real, and if it's real for you than it must be real for everyone ?

[Esquilax]

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.

[Bob Kelso]

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,

Really GC? I don't think much of you but even I thought you were better than the "wind" argument.

Here's a website for your consideration; Weather Wiz Kids

I think that should be on your level, it gives you some useful information on how wind and weather is measured.

well I can feel God and see His actions, what I wonder is why can't you?

GC

If you've seen god performing actions please feel free to take a snapshot next time, that would be all that damnable "evidence" we keep asking for GC.

Sarcasm aside, how do you know you aren't feeling what you want to and seeing false patterns?

[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

[Mudhammam]

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.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

OMG GC! YOU = LOL!
YOU = :ROFLOL:

[Godscreated]

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?

If god was as easy to detect as the wind, everyone would acknowledge that god exists.

If god was as easy to detect as black holes, or neutrinos, or dark matter, many would doubt, but there would be basis for debate.

God isn't even as easy to detect as dark matter. Why does anyone believe that he exists?

(Can we finally put that silly "you can't see the wind" argument to rest?)

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