Why you can't find God

[The Valkyrie]

TL;DR, so I’ll just reply to the title:

I can’t find God for the same reason I can’t find Bigfoot, goblins, chem trails, chupacabras, pixies, reptilian aliens, angels, fire-breathing dragons, ogres, centaurs and guac that doesn’t disgust me.

Things that don’t exist are notable for how how hard they are to find.

Boru

They're all hiding?

[MilesAbbott81]

Aint yer daddy, son.

And I've argued with you plenty enough before to know how stubborn and foolish you can be. Maybe you've forgotten.

Well..if your silly god has deliberately blinded people then it would seem silly for you to call them foolish for only seeing what god has magically ordained they see.

But back to deceitful hearts.  Do you believe that's true..not just of Them™..or of atheists..but true, in general?  Is it true of you?  Can you give an example from your own life, your own heart?

Actually, I need to correct something I said here. God hasn't blinded you atheists to His existence. He's just given you over to openly denying it so you make fools of yourselves to those of us who haven't been given over to something so ridiculous (not to say we're any better, just punished differently). You all know damned well that there is a God but you're so adamantly opposed to taking responsibility for your sins that you've become the rough equivalent of a child plugging his ears with his fingers and jabbering nonsense to avoid hearing the voices calling you to account.

One can only do that for so long.

[MilesAbbott81]

Challenge accepted.  Your silly god exists, and is a garbage fire that no decent human being would ever bow to.  Can you think of anything that your deceitful human heart might have done that lead you to believe otherwise?

I just explained this in my previous response, but you framing it this way provides an opportunity for me to illustrate something.

You see God as a "garbage fire" unworthy of worship because you presume to understand reality. In your arrogance, you see things as only explainable a certain way, like how could a good God allow a child to die of cancer? You think it's just cut and dry, and don't pause to consider that maybe there is a valid reason this is happening, a purpose that provides a benefit that you can't see from your limited perspective.

It's hubris, TGN. You think everything is obvious, when you're dealing with a being Who literally doesn't even have a beginning, Who is so far beyond your intelligence and nature and perspective that you may as well not even qualify as an ant. And you presume to have all the answers! It's amazing, really. You'll realize it someday.

[zebo-the-fat]

Once more... if your god made everything, where was he before he made it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Correct, I see god as a garbage fire. Hey, maybe I'm also arrogant. So, what's the score? God is a garbage fire..and I'm arrogant. Like father like son..I suppose.

I think very little is obvious, which is why I don't entertain the obviously wrong in consideration.

Can you think of any moment in your life where your (allegedly) christian heart may have deceived you. Maybe..even...recently? You introduced this idea, I'd like to explore it.

[Angrboda]

This is what's known as an ad hoc argument, and it is basically synonymous with making up excuses to fit your desired conclusion.  Such arguments are also considered fallacious and invalid.

You're going to have to explain how that is what I've done, because I don't see it. And given how you've completely ignored the extreme problems with your previous posts, I don't think it's out of the question to demand that before I engage you any further.

Even if wrong, my analysis of your prior post is a direct response to its argument and therefore not conceivably a form of ignoring it, so you simply prove yourself to be a bit of a liar. Well, if you insist that I explain it to you....

Atheism having no purpose fails to demonstrate any reason why it would be less in need of excuses than any other subject with attendant apologia. And it doesn't follow that if atheism has no purpose other than to discount theism that it therefore cannot be a locus of truth and knowledge. Furthermore it's simply not true. Atheism serves the same purpose as theism, namely that of fulfilling people's need to understand the universe around them and what their being in it means to them. Since the reason you give for atheism not needing any excuses is a non sequitur then it is by definition an unreasonable objection.

Science isn't a philosophy. It isn't necessary for things to be a philosophy in order for them to attract defendants whose defenses are nothing more than excuses, so it doesn't follow that science not being a philosophy is the reason it doesn't promote excuses and it most certainly doesn't follow that it is not a locus of truth and knowledge because philosophies aren't the only bearers of truth and knowledge. So, this, too, is a non sequitur and therefore unreasonable.

Philosophy being a generic term is also another nonsensical non sequitur. I'm not even sure that "generic term" isn't a bit of malapropism, but I think you meant general term, rather than generic. Regardless, I'll give you a bit of credit in that it may not have been clear what I was referring to by the term philosophy, so I will clarify. Oxford languages dictionary defines philosophy as, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." It's not obvious why you think those defending claims arising from the study of the fundamental nature of things would garner any less apologetics, nor exclude such apologia being populated by excuses, so this is another non sequitur. The term is broad, but clearly relevant to bodies of thought that attract claims, solicit apologia, are unconstrained as to the specific character of its apologia, and most certainly is considered a locus of truth and knowledge. My God, the word 'philosophy' literally means "love of knowledge," the suggestion that it is not relevant to my argument is not only unreasonable, it is absurd.

And the last, whether you're full of excuses, is a bit of a straw man, and therefore a red herring, but in as much as it is indirectly aimed at my argument, it is a form of argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone, and is by its very nature fallacious and invalid. There is nothing reasonable about fallacious objections which don't even address the actual argument, but rather simply exorcise a bit of apparent butthurt. Whether you, personally, are filled with excuses about your Christianity does nothing to address whether religion, generally, is full of excuses. As such, this is a red herring and therefore also unreasonable.

Fallacyinlogic.com defines the ad hoc fallacy as, "a fallacious rhetorical strategy in which a person presents a new explanation – that is unjustified or simply unreasonable – of why their original belief or hypothesis is correct after evidence that contradicts the previous explanation has emerged." Your response, with the possible exception of a charitable interpretation of your complaint about philosophy, fits the definition well.

[Angrboda]

You see God as a "garbage fire" unworthy of worship because you presume to understand reality. ... It's hubris, TGN. ... And you presume to have all the answers! It's amazing, really. You'll realize it someday.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[The Valkyrie]

I thought I'd reply to a thread someone else started here, because I found his post provided opportunity to explain why many people end up at forums like these, searching mostly in vain for answers.
 
Here is his original post:
 

As I go through the process of continually reexamining by beliefs (largely now former beliefs), I remain committed to being open minded and considering all sides of any issue.  Honestly, that what has led to my deconversion - considering sources and facts which were hidden/forbidden/shouted down in my world for decades.  To that end, I find a lot on the atheist/agnostic/none position which I find very intellectually satisfying and honest.  Everyone has their bias, so no one is truly down the middle, but in particular I enjoy reading Shermer, Ehrman, Harris, etc - all the ones you might expect.
 
So my question is - does anyone have suggetions on where to look on the theist side for something honest?  I say that because the sources I am pointed toward by theists tend to feel like sales jobs treading over well-worn arguments (Kalaam, Pascal, gaps, etc) rather than true explorations.  I'm getting suggested folks like WL Craig, Habermas, Strobel, Licona - and I just feel like they are all starting with their desired answer and backfilling.  Are there others that might provide any satisfying thoughts?

 
Now, to break down this post a bit I'll quote snippets, starting here (and while my responses are technically directed at him, they're really directed at anyone like him who comes here):
 
"I remain committed to being open minded and considering all sides of any issue."
 
If this is true, good. But coming to an atheist forum to find a credible “theist” source strongly suggests that you're already barking up the wrong tree. What makes you think an atheist forum is going to have answers? Atheists are fools, as the Scriptures say: "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good." (Psalm 14:1)

What good is any source an atheist suggests to you going to do? Clearly it hasn't worked for them. In fact, they are nearly certain to provide you with materials that will only lead you further astray or waste your time. Now, perhaps you've come hoping to find a credible person here, but that was not the gist I took from your post.
 
 
"Honestly, that what has led to my deconversion - considering sources and facts which were hidden/forbidden/shouted down in my world for decades.  To that end, I find a lot on the atheist/agnostic/none position which I find very intellectually satisfying and honest."
 
I'd be interested to know what sources and facts have been hidden, forbidden, or shouted down that were powerful enough to lead to any kind of "deconversion." That aside, however, I'd like to know how you've determined any of those positions to be honest, because frankly there is no way for anyone to determine the honesty of anyone else apart from personally experienced knowledge.
 
For instance, say there is someone who claims the Earth is 65 billion years old. Someone else asserts that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Both have studied the materials, have actually done the testing, and are even similarly educated. Whom do you believe, without conducting the experiments yourself? How do you know one of them isn't lying or mistaken?
 
Are you going to say "Well, the majority of scientists have concluded..." well, that just isn't a valid argument. The majority of scientists once called heliocentric theory heresy. I understand Galileo spent the rest of his life in prison for advancing it.
 
My point is, who are you to determine what is true or false? By what authority do you operate, other than your own? That of others? Do you refer to and rely upon "the experts”? If history has proven anything, it's that there is no man on earth who can be relied upon. There may be people who have proven themselves correct on occasion, or even often, but who in history has ever been perfectly reliable? Can you provide a single instance?
 
How then, if you can't rely upon yourself for information that you haven’t personally verified, can you rely upon random people on the internet? Talk about barking up the wrong tree!
 
So, what's the solution? God, of course, and by God I mean the Lord Jesus Christ. That sounds like such an inane thing to most people, and probably at least a little sanctimonious. But that's only because people don't believe—if they did, they would be filled with hope and excitement (not that anyone can get there immediately necessarily). It's actually a wonderful thing to have the certainty about things that have baffled mankind since the dawn of existence simply because you know in your bones, from the Lord, truth from falsehood (and by the way, I’m not discounting the usefulness of evidence, which the Lord does provide in many situations, but evidence can be manipulated or even fabricated in service of an agenda).
 
"Everyone has their bias, so no one is truly down the middle, but in particular I enjoy reading Shermer, Ehrman, Harris, etc - all the ones you might expect."
 
I'm not well-read in atheist literature, but I'm familiar with Sam Harris. This is the same man who has justified vile dishonesty in service of his thoroughly wicked political ideals: https://nypost.com/2022/08/21/the-lefts-...rump-bias/
 
From this man's mouth have come forth these words as well: “Where is heaven exactly, given that we have multiple telescopes up there beaming back information?”
 
What pure idiocy! And you listen to this man? Consider how foolish you were to ever lend an ear to someone so completely in darkness, and reconsider more carefully looking to men for information (and know that it was the Lord Who revealed Sam Harris to be a liar and a fool).
 
And perhaps you see a contradiction here. After all, I'm a man offering you counsel, aren't I? A fair point! You can't look to me for answers, either. I may be able to plant a seed, but only God can provide the growth (and truly, I can't even plant a seed except by His grace).
 
Really, the only advice that is worth giving is to look to the Lord Himself and not to any man for answers or salvation. He's the only One Who can provide either.
 
But what about those who claim that they've sought God directly and failed to find Him, through prayer or whatever other means? There is a Scripture that might put that into perspective:
 
"You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions." (James 4:3)
 
Many seek God, but for all kinds of wrong reasons: seeking wealth, power (even through knowledge), security; any kind of selfish end, that's usually why people seek God. But what is God looking for?
 
"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (Psalm 51:17)
 
He wants us to approach him with a broken spirit and contrite heart, because we're sorry for our evil deeds and don't want to continue our lives in sin, without Him. Can you (or any of you) say that you've done this? And remember, you must be sincere to the point of being willing to die, even by crucifixion: “And He said to all, “If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.” (Luke 9:23)
 
Oh, many of you will say "of course"! But how can you be so sure? After all, the Scriptures say this:
 
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

The prophet Jeremiah also wrote "You will seek Me and find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13)
 
So the answer is simple: if you haven't found God, it's because you haven't sought Him with all your heart; it's because you've sought after Him with evil motives. So you wind up in a place like this, where wicked people speak all kinds of evil about the Lord without fear (on both sides, I should add). To all of you I say this: look at everything around you falling apart. If you can't see the widespread evil and imminent destruction of the world as we know it, then you're blind. If you can see it, then you need to fear—and remember Who is in charge.
 
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). Time to get wise.

There's a whole lot of sanctimonious codswallop (not a word I normally use, but my first choice would be as insulting as "atheists are fools", but in stronger language) in that long, painful, post.

I'll dissect it when I wake up more, though the first failings are insulting your target audience and quoting from a contradictory book of myths.

[onlinebiker]

Once more... if your god made everything, where was he before he made it?

Gary Indiana.



It goes a long way towards explaining his shitty mood......

[The Valkyrie]

Once more... if your god made everything, where was he before he made it?

Gary Indiana.



I goes a long way towards explaining his shitty mood......

Well, you name a town Gary, what do you expect?

May as well call it Kevin...