'Seeking' God

[lucent]

Lovely, I'm glad for you he isn't hidden. But merely asserting he isn't when you cannot come up with any evidence or proofs that lead inexorably to that conclusion. If god isn't hidden why are you only able to infer his existence from apparent design in the universe to which there are better more parsimonious natural explanations. The design argument was refuted brilliantly by Hume in the 18th century, since then it's been reheated only with the fine tuning argument; which apart from being an argument for a lack of design is just woeful in it's desperation and formulation. Yield up a design argument if you are confident that this addresses the problem.

The Universe clearly has the appearance of design. The whole theory of evolution is based upon the idea that nature, in an undirected process, designed all the life we see today. The DNA is a code which can be seen as a plan, or blueprint for a creature. You can't debunk design; the Universe was either designed by an intelligent cause or it designed itself. The question is what is the better explanation.

The idea that the Universe just created and designed itself out of nothing is a metaphysical idea, and one which violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. There is no explanation for origins, either cosmic or life origins. There is no naturalistic process which can account for DNA. These aren't gaps, they're grand canyons. You can't just waltz in and say you've replaced God when you have failed to answer *all* of the fundemental questions. "We're working on it" is not an answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzNVSDVnV...re=related

Good for Jesus! but I'm not sure how this makes Jesus available to all acts of cognition and answers the problem of divine hiddenness.

He is the logos and everything in this Universe was created by Him and through Him. You cannot know anything true without the logos. This was showing you why you think God is hidden, because without Him you are blind to truth.

How do I know? I use reason to grasp reality around me. In doing so I have yet to find any reason to suggest that the xtian god exists, and that given his divine attributes and theology he should try to make himself known to mankind to 'save' us. He is not present in the natural sciences despite the fact we can see reality at an incredibly small, mid and large scale. There is no empirical evidence. There is no logical proof that stands up to scrutiny. He is said to reside in a realm which we could never find and even if we could that same god is invisible and incorporeal and essence only. We can scan the universe and our own planet and we pick up nothing, no moral radiation, no divine electromagnetism, no godly quantum tunneling, no jesus thermodynamics, no holy ghost evolution, nothing at all. Any scientific experiments on the effects of the supernatural have led to a failure to demonstrate it. The concept of his being is defined only by the projection of secondary attributes, and has no identified primary attribute. I have never had a personal experience (which I am grateful for by the way) and have never had reason to seek one, especially as there is no reason to believe at all. I have never seen an apparition of a dead Jew (again with some relief). For this and so many other reasons god is hidden to me and I do not accept that the truth comes from 'within', so I shan't be looking there either. Don't take my word for it read Mother Theresa's own words in her letters to the Catholic Church. Personally I couldn't stand the woman, but her letters are very sad and painful as she admits she feels nothing and god is hidden to her despite her honest attempts. Now what are we to make of this. The church would say either that person x is not trying hard enough or that their suffering (in trying to find a god and failing) is good because in mimics the suffering of Christ. Just how credulous do you have to be to accept such nonsense? You have an answer to the problem of hiddenness, bring on the evidence!

Pure supposition and conjecture. You're arguing from ignorance here. You've admitted you have never looked and so what exactly could you possibly know about the subject? This is something that amazes me about atheists who claim to have dominion on logic. You count all of the ways that Christ cannot be found against His existence, and never try the one way He can be found because you say there is no evidence. There is no way to get that evidence except from Christ directly, end of story. Personally, I think there are plenty of good reasons to believe in Jesus just from the evidence we do have, but as far as direct evidence of Gods existence, only God can give that to you. What you've failed to do is simply ask God for the truth. If you were to get on your knees and pray to Jesus "Jesus, if you're God, I want to know. Please show me the truth", He would reveal it to you.

[fr0d0]

I can point to very thorough research that I haven't seen successfully challenged. I'm completely open to those ideas being incorrect. Is that wrong?? And whilst we struggle to validate all of those points, our individual experiences all corroborate each others regarding the actual belief stance we all take.

You don't call anything into question. You refuse to address it, instead blindly asserting your own myth.

That's where we are here: A mythical belief that we can understand everything using science.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd settle with understanding claims to the material with science, since that can be handled quite nicely. Including any claims where the "supernatural" is said to have interfered or otherwise come into contact with the "regular nature?". Too much to ask?

(such as would be the case with miracles, including the miracle of heaven, souls etc)

I'd settle with understanding claims to the supernatural referenced by what we can demonstrate. This is what leads us to classify things as myth, mythical, or mythological. Without any evidence in support of your position (not arguing against others positions) why should yours be afforded any merit, respect, or reverence? Further, why should yours be offered something over the next guys? You ask why science comes to any conclusion that it does (tentative as it is) and they pony up with their evidence. You can criticize it all you like, if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny then fuck it. Are you going to sit here and make the argument that faith in a christian god (and specifically faith in a certain interpretation of the many christian gods)and the scientific method have anything in common, anything at all beyond the superficial? I hope not.

How about you tell me about seeking god, and the reasons you feel your description of this search (how it should be done, where one should look, what criteria one should apply in the search) is accurate? Did you employ these methods to reach your own conclusion? Can the same methods be used to reach any other conclusion, perhaps a competing one? Can this line of reasoning be used for anything else? Can we get a false positive in using it? What would invalidate this line of reasoning?

[Ace Otana]

A does not prove B without first proving A. I think that is all that needs to be said. Stick to Occam's razer.

[ElDinero]

Already asked if a search can ever be called unsuccessful, Rhythm (and if so, if it's ever God's fault). Never got an answer, amazingly.

[5thHorseman]

'The Universe clearly has the appearance of design. The whole theory of evolution is based upon the idea that nature, in an undirected process, designed all the life we see today. The DNA is a code which can be seen as a plan, or blueprint for a creature. You can't debunk design; the Universe was either designed by an intelligent cause or it designed itself. The question is what is the better explanation.'

How come only theistic retards who know very little about physics see it this way, why not experts, and don't give me that 'they're atheist' shit.

And don't put forward your uneducated guess work as a the best options. Far smarter Christians than you, would laugh at that.

'You can't debunk design'

Are you for real, you can't prove it. Jesus fucking Christ man.

This Christian debunked it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

---

You don't call anything into question. You refuse to address it, instead blindly asserting your own myth.

Not completely sure what you're getting at with myths, if it's evolution, you're wrong. It's got 150 years of evidence and nothing to counter it, and I'm sure your aware, many have tried. Even dem dirty Catholics believe it, CoE apologised posthumously to Darwin. There is no proof whatsoever for ID or God for that matter.

[Phaedra]

This Christian debunked it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

Careful. They'll claim he isn't a Christian. Catholics don't count.

[5thHorseman]

I don't care, I'm done with this thread, Lucent blindly argues with no backup, rejects evidence so why bother.

[lucent]

I'd settle with understanding claims to the material with science, since that can be handled quite nicely. Including any claims where the "supernatural" is said to have interfered or otherwise come into contact with the "regular nature?". Too much to ask?

(such as would be the case with miracles, including the miracle of heaven, souls etc)

We have the life of Jesus Christ, for which there is historical evidence, and to confirm the bible, a great deal of archaelogical evidence.

I'd settle with understanding claims to the supernatural referenced by what we can demonstrate. This is what leads us to classify things as myth, mythical, or mythological. Without any evidence in support of your position (not arguing against others positions) why should yours be afforded any merit, respect, or reverence? Further, why should yours be offered something over the next guys? You ask why science comes to any conclusion that it does (tentative as it is) and they pony up with their evidence. You can criticize it all you like, if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny then fuck it. Are you going to sit here and make the argument that faith in a christian god (and specifically faith in a certain interpretation of the many christian gods)and the scientific method have anything in common, anything at all beyond the superficial? I hope not.

What I am claiming is that science has not staked any real claim to origins, either cosmic origins or the origins of life.

How about you tell me about seeking god, and the reasons you feel your description of this search (how it should be done, where one should look, what criteria one should apply in the search) is accurate? Did you employ these methods to reach your own conclusion? Can the same methods be used to reach any other conclusion, perhaps a competing one? Can this line of reasoning be used for anything else? Can we get a false positive in using it? What would invalidate this line of reasoning?

My suggestion is to ask God for the truth. If you genuinely want to know, He will let you know. If you take that step, a small leap of faith, He will honor it. What I suggest is prayer, bible study and attending church. I know many atheists can barely be bothered to try prayer, but that is my recommendation.

I feel it is accurate because I know God is listening. He will honor a request to know if He is really God. Yes, I did employ these methods. I was tapped on the shoulder, but I did do my own research. I gained a bit of an understanding of scripture before I gave my life to Jesus.

Yes, you could employ these methods and fail. It wholly depends on your level of sincerity. God is seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth. You said you would open fire on God, so who knows if He would honor your request. You could receive any sort of conclusion, including a competing conclusion or a false positive, based on what is in your heart. Satan is going to do whatever he can to deceive you from the truth, and if you're insincere, it's like you'll believe anything other than the truth. You just have to trust God to give you the right answers and lead you in a way you will understand. It could be invalidated if you could prove God didn't exist. There isn't any way to see what God is or isn't going to do, or why. We go by what He prosmised to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hasn't everything you've just said been dealt with at length in this very thread? Ask a loon a question and the answer you get is going to be crazy. Referencing your myth to itself isn't going to end up providing a rational response or evidence at any point Lucent. You're an adult, presumably you're educated, you claim to have done research into this, I shouldn't have to explain why over and over again.

You'll find wodan, but loki is always looking to decieve. It's on you, and if you don't reach wodan thats your bad. There can be no evidence of wodan because that would eliminate your choice in searching, also it would erode free will. That being said, evidence for wodan is all around us. In fact, atheist scientists actively suppress the truth about this. I know all of this because I asked and he honored my request for knowledge. You just have to trust wodan. It could be invalidated if you could prove that he doesn't exist. There really isn't any way to see what he's doing or why. We can only go by what he promised to do.