Why doesn't God make himself obvious to us all?

[ding]

Reason and experience were not put into question.

The problem with the jack-a-napes here is that they never infer anything from anything. That's nihilism and that is an intellectual dead end. It doesn't take any intelligence to reject everything.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let's try another analogy.

I like to play the card game Spades. I hate playing Hearts.

Each of them have different rules.

Now, imagine the inside of the box has one set of rules, and the outside of the box has a completely different set of rules.

How are you going to know what's outside the box by studying what's inside the box?

Doesn't matter. The rules for inside the box existed before the box. And it is those rules which informs us that rather than mind being a late outgrowth, mind has always existed as the source or matrix of physical stuff.

How do you know the rules inside the box existed before the box?

Yes, the rules inside the box are the rules which inform us about what is inside the box.

However you're trying to make out these same rules rule the outside of the box. But you don't know.

This is a rather large problem for you, seeing as you're trying to tell me that you can see what's outside the box by studying what's inside the box when you clearly can't.

Because the box (i.e. space and time) was created under rules (i.e. quantum mechanics and conservation).

Everything which exists or is capable of existing was literally a potentiality before space and time were created because the rules existed before space and time were created.

Outside of the box all we can say is that rules were in place and the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. This I know as God.

So how can I know about things outside of the box by studying things inside of the box? Reason and experience. We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

So you're basically telling me that you believe that the rules outside the box are the same as inside the box.

Key word being "believe" because you cannot possibly know.

Your logic for this is "Reason and experience"

So, I'm going to ask what your experience of outside the box is.

Your whole logic is that somehow you know something that you can't possibly know. Which makes me think that everything you're saying is just "belief", or "make belief" as it should be called.

I don't believe you understood what I wrote. If you did you would not have asked what my experience was outside of the box. In fact, in the post you responded to exactly what we can know of outside the box.

1. The laws were already in place. (through science)
2. The only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. (through logic)

We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

Science routinely uses proxies. In fact, many measurements in science are indirect measurements using proxies. So what I am describing to you is not only logical but uses our own experiences as proxies. Something we have excellent knowledge of.

I certainly "know" more than you do because you make no effort to know, right?

I thought we'd been through this already.

You don't know if the rules are the same outside the box as they are inside the box.

That's why I asked this question. I understand what you're saying, and I know what you're saying is wrong.

Fine, you claim to know what's outside the box. Which is ridiculous.

I doubt there's much point in talking any more seeing as you've decided you know what you can't possibly know. We're just going around in circles here.

 

[ding]

Doesn't matter. The rules for inside the box existed before the box. And it is those rules which informs us that rather than mind being a late outgrowth, mind has always existed as the source or matrix of physical stuff.

How do you know the rules inside the box existed before the box?

Yes, the rules inside the box are the rules which inform us about what is inside the box.

However you're trying to make out these same rules rule the outside of the box. But you don't know.

This is a rather large problem for you, seeing as you're trying to tell me that you can see what's outside the box by studying what's inside the box when you clearly can't.

Because the box (i.e. space and time) was created under rules (i.e. quantum mechanics and conservation).

Everything which exists or is capable of existing was literally a potentiality before space and time were created because the rules existed before space and time were created.

Outside of the box all we can say is that rules were in place and the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. This I know as God.

So how can I know about things outside of the box by studying things inside of the box? Reason and experience. We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

So you're basically telling me that you believe that the rules outside the box are the same as inside the box.

Key word being "believe" because you cannot possibly know.

Your logic for this is "Reason and experience"

So, I'm going to ask what your experience of outside the box is.

Your whole logic is that somehow you know something that you can't possibly know. Which makes me think that everything you're saying is just "belief", or "make belief" as it should be called.

I don't believe you understood what I wrote. If you did you would not have asked what my experience was outside of the box. In fact, in the post you responded to exactly what we can know of outside the box.

1. The laws were already in place. (through science)
2. The only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. (through logic)

We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

Science routinely uses proxies. In fact, many measurements in science are indirect measurements using proxies. So what I am describing to you is not only logical but uses our own experiences as proxies. Something we have excellent knowledge of.

I certainly "know" more than you do because you make no effort to know, right?

I thought we'd been through this already.

You don't know if the rules are the same outside the box as they are inside the box.

That's why I asked this question. I understand what you're saying, and I know what you're saying is wrong.

Fine, you claim to know what's outside the box. Which is ridiculous.

I doubt there's much point in talking any more seeing as you've decided you know what you can't possibly know. We're just going around in circles here.

I'm not going around in circles. You are. You can't say what things are, only what they aren't. I am describing what they are.

There is zero doubt that laws of nature existed before space and time. Why? Because space and time were created according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that everything which has unfolded since that time unfolded according to those laws; physical, organic and moral.

There is zero doubt that there must be a first cause. Why? Because the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging.

There is zero doubt that we can study what has been created.

There is zero doubt that we can use our own experiences as creators as a proxy for what created space and time.

There is zero doubt that our creations are the realization of our intention.

There is zero doubt that we create things for a purpose.

There is zero doubt that our creations are created in steps.

There is zero doubt that the more complex our creations the more steps and intelligence required to create them.

There is zero doubt the purpose of our creations cannot be known until the creation is practically complete.

There is zero doubt that the purpose of our creation can be deduced from the creation itself.

So we have tons of analytical tools at our disposal to analyze what was created. And when we do this we find some very interesting things about the universe that should give anyone pause for reflection.

Except of course for people like yourself who are intellectually dead.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How do you know the rules inside the box existed before the box?

Yes, the rules inside the box are the rules which inform us about what is inside the box.

However you're trying to make out these same rules rule the outside of the box. But you don't know.

This is a rather large problem for you, seeing as you're trying to tell me that you can see what's outside the box by studying what's inside the box when you clearly can't.

Because the box (i.e. space and time) was created under rules (i.e. quantum mechanics and conservation).

Everything which exists or is capable of existing was literally a potentiality before space and time were created because the rules existed before space and time were created.

Outside of the box all we can say is that rules were in place and the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. This I know as God.

So how can I know about things outside of the box by studying things inside of the box? Reason and experience. We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

So you're basically telling me that you believe that the rules outside the box are the same as inside the box.

Key word being "believe" because you cannot possibly know.

Your logic for this is "Reason and experience"

So, I'm going to ask what your experience of outside the box is.

Your whole logic is that somehow you know something that you can't possibly know. Which makes me think that everything you're saying is just "belief", or "make belief" as it should be called.

I don't believe you understood what I wrote. If you did you would not have asked what my experience was outside of the box. In fact, in the post you responded to exactly what we can know of outside the box.

1. The laws were already in place. (through science)
2. The only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. (through logic)

We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

Science routinely uses proxies. In fact, many measurements in science are indirect measurements using proxies. So what I am describing to you is not only logical but uses our own experiences as proxies. Something we have excellent knowledge of.

I certainly "know" more than you do because you make no effort to know, right?

I thought we'd been through this already.

You don't know if the rules are the same outside the box as they are inside the box.

That's why I asked this question. I understand what you're saying, and I know what you're saying is wrong.

Fine, you claim to know what's outside the box. Which is ridiculous.

I doubt there's much point in talking any more seeing as you've decided you know what you can't possibly know. We're just going around in circles here.

I'm not going around in circles. You are. You can't say what things are, only what they aren't. I am describing what they are.

There is zero doubt that laws of nature existed before space and time. Why? Because space and time were created according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that everything which has unfolded since that time unfolded according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that there must be a first cause. Why? Because the only solution to the first cause is something which eternal and unchanging.

There is zero doubt that we can study what has been created.

There is zero doubt that we can use our own experiences as creators as a proxy for what created space and time.

There is zero doubt that our creations are the realization of our intention.

There is zero doubt that we create things for a purpose.

There is zero doubt that our creations are created in steps.

There is zero doubt that the more complex our creations the more steps and intelligence required to create them.

There is zero doubt the purpose of creation cannot be known until the creation is practically complete.

There is zero doubt that the purpose of our creation can be deduced from the creation itself.

So we have tons of analytical tools at our disposal to analyze what was created. And when we do this we find some very interesting things about the universe that should give anyone pause for reflection.

Except of course for people like yourself who are intellectually dead.

No, I can't say what things are.

Why?

Because I don't know about 99.999999% of what exists.

You think you know everything, but you don't know 99.999999% of what exists.

That's the difference here.

You make shit up.

You say, for example "everything created", no, not everything created. Everything that has been created that you can see has been created according to certain rules, maybe. But you don't know what was created outside of the box.

 

[ding]

Because the box (i.e. space and time) was created under rules (i.e. quantum mechanics and conservation).

Everything which exists or is capable of existing was literally a potentiality before space and time were created because the rules existed before space and time were created.

Outside of the box all we can say is that rules were in place and the only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. This I know as God.

So how can I know about things outside of the box by studying things inside of the box? Reason and experience. We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

So you're basically telling me that you believe that the rules outside the box are the same as inside the box.

Key word being "believe" because you cannot possibly know.

Your logic for this is "Reason and experience"

So, I'm going to ask what your experience of outside the box is.

Your whole logic is that somehow you know something that you can't possibly know. Which makes me think that everything you're saying is just "belief", or "make belief" as it should be called.

I don't believe you understood what I wrote. If you did you would not have asked what my experience was outside of the box. In fact, in the post you responded to exactly what we can know of outside the box.

1. The laws were already in place. (through science)
2. The only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. (through logic)

We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

Science routinely uses proxies. In fact, many measurements in science are indirect measurements using proxies. So what I am describing to you is not only logical but uses our own experiences as proxies. Something we have excellent knowledge of.

I certainly "know" more than you do because you make no effort to know, right?

I thought we'd been through this already.

You don't know if the rules are the same outside the box as they are inside the box.

That's why I asked this question. I understand what you're saying, and I know what you're saying is wrong.

Fine, you claim to know what's outside the box. Which is ridiculous.

I doubt there's much point in talking any more seeing as you've decided you know what you can't possibly know. We're just going around in circles here.

I'm not going around in circles. You are. You can't say what things are, only what they aren't. I am describing what they are.

There is zero doubt that laws of nature existed before space and time. Why? Because space and time were created according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that everything which has unfolded since that time unfolded according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that there must be a first cause. Why? Because the only solution to the first cause is something which eternal and unchanging.

There is zero doubt that we can study what has been created.

There is zero doubt that we can use our own experiences as creators as a proxy for what created space and time.

There is zero doubt that our creations are the realization of our intention.

There is zero doubt that we create things for a purpose.

There is zero doubt that our creations are created in steps.

There is zero doubt that the more complex our creations the more steps and intelligence required to create them.

There is zero doubt the purpose of creation cannot be known until the creation is practically complete.

There is zero doubt that the purpose of our creation can be deduced from the creation itself.

So we have tons of analytical tools at our disposal to analyze what was created. And when we do this we find some very interesting things about the universe that should give anyone pause for reflection.

Except of course for people like yourself who are intellectually dead.

No, I can't say what things are.

Why?

Because I don't know about 99.999999% of what exists.

You think you know everything, but you don't know 99.999999% of what exists.

That's the difference here.

You make shit up.

You say, for example "everything created", no, not everything created. Everything that has been created that you can see has been created according to certain rules, maybe. But you don't know what was created outside of the box.

You can analyze what you know. Based on your argument no one should ever analyze anything unless they know everything?

I don't claim to know everything. Just the things I know. And the things we know should give you pause for reflection.

I have not made anything up.

We know that space and time had a beginning.

We know that that beginning followed rules.

We know that rules are the domain of intelligence.

We know that since that time matter and energy has only changed form.

We know that those changes followed rules.

We know that the universe is full of information.

We know that information is the domain of intelligence.

We know that at that beginning all space and matter existed in the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.

We know that at that time the universe was perfectly ordered.

We know that at that time the energy that make up the atoms of every single human being that ever existed or will ever exist was present in that perfectly ordered state.

We know that as space and time evolved that beings that know and create arose and that they arose according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time existed.

We know that the universe became self aware.

We know that consciousness is the most complex thing created by the laws of nature.

We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

We know all these things.

So why is it so hard for you to believe that before space and time existed that intelligence existed?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you're basically telling me that you believe that the rules outside the box are the same as inside the box.

Key word being "believe" because you cannot possibly know.

Your logic for this is "Reason and experience"

So, I'm going to ask what your experience of outside the box is.

Your whole logic is that somehow you know something that you can't possibly know. Which makes me think that everything you're saying is just "belief", or "make belief" as it should be called.

I don't believe you understood what I wrote. If you did you would not have asked what my experience was outside of the box. In fact, in the post you responded to exactly what we can know of outside the box.

1. The laws were already in place. (through science)
2. The only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. (through logic)

We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

Science routinely uses proxies. In fact, many measurements in science are indirect measurements using proxies. So what I am describing to you is not only logical but uses our own experiences as proxies. Something we have excellent knowledge of.

I certainly "know" more than you do because you make no effort to know, right?

I thought we'd been through this already.

You don't know if the rules are the same outside the box as they are inside the box.

That's why I asked this question. I understand what you're saying, and I know what you're saying is wrong.

Fine, you claim to know what's outside the box. Which is ridiculous.

I doubt there's much point in talking any more seeing as you've decided you know what you can't possibly know. We're just going around in circles here.

I'm not going around in circles. You are. You can't say what things are, only what they aren't. I am describing what they are.

There is zero doubt that laws of nature existed before space and time. Why? Because space and time were created according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that everything which has unfolded since that time unfolded according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that there must be a first cause. Why? Because the only solution to the first cause is something which eternal and unchanging.

There is zero doubt that we can study what has been created.

There is zero doubt that we can use our own experiences as creators as a proxy for what created space and time.

There is zero doubt that our creations are the realization of our intention.

There is zero doubt that we create things for a purpose.

There is zero doubt that our creations are created in steps.

There is zero doubt that the more complex our creations the more steps and intelligence required to create them.

There is zero doubt the purpose of creation cannot be known until the creation is practically complete.

There is zero doubt that the purpose of our creation can be deduced from the creation itself.

So we have tons of analytical tools at our disposal to analyze what was created. And when we do this we find some very interesting things about the universe that should give anyone pause for reflection.

Except of course for people like yourself who are intellectually dead.

No, I can't say what things are.

Why?

Because I don't know about 99.999999% of what exists.

You think you know everything, but you don't know 99.999999% of what exists.

That's the difference here.

You make shit up.

You say, for example "everything created", no, not everything created. Everything that has been created that you can see has been created according to certain rules, maybe. But you don't know what was created outside of the box.

You can analyze what you know. Based on your argument no one should ever analyze anything unless they know everything?

I don't claim to know everything. Just the things I know. And the things we know should give you pause for reflection.

I have not made anything up.

We know that space and time had a beginning.

We know that that beginning followed rules.

We know that rules are the domain of intelligence.

We know that since that time matter and energy has only changed form.

We know that those changes followed rules.

We know that the universe is full of information.

We know that information is the domain of intelligence.

We know that at that beginning all space and matter existed in the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.

We know that at that time the universe was perfectly ordered.

We know that at that time the energy that make up the atoms of every single human being that ever existed or will ever exist was present in that perfectly ordered state.

We know that as space and time evolved that beings that know and create arose and that they arose according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time existed.

We know that the universe became self aware.

We know that consciousness is the most complex thing created by the laws of nature.

We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

We know all these things.

So why is it so hard for you to believe that before space and time existed that intelligence existed?

No, that's clearly not my argument.

I'm analyzing the whole thing, however I'm accepting where there are gaps in knowledge and speculating that it COULD be this or it COULD be that.

You on the other hand are saying "here's a gap, I'll fill it with this, because it's convenient for my argument"

5+a=3 means that a=-2, you can make deductions based on what you don't know.

However the topic we're discussing is

5+a*(b/c-d)+e/f*g=7

There so much you don't know, and yet you've decided you know the values of a,b,c,d,e,f and g.

You don't claim to know everything? Yet you've told me that the rules on the outside of the box are the same rules as the rules on the inside of the box.

Like you've played hearts and therefore you know the rules of spades because you've played hearts.

We don't know that time and space had a beginning at all. What people SPECULATE is that time and space WITHIN THE BOX had a potential beginning. What came before the beginning?

Here's one potential scenario. The universe is a bike inner tube. At one point in the inner tube the space to get through is minuscule. All the matter, time, energy etc will have to fit through a space 1 millionth the size of a pin prick.

This is the big bang. We had a big bang and we're headed towards another big bang in the future. Once the next big bang happens, all creatures alive might believe that there was nothing before the big bang, and yet we existed. Potentially.

Yes, we know that INSIDE THE BOX there were rules.

Everything we can possibly think we know is INSIDE THE BOX. And yet you're telling me what is OUTSIDE THE BOX.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Inferring" is at least similar to assuming.

 

[ding]

I don't believe you understood what I wrote. If you did you would not have asked what my experience was outside of the box. In fact, in the post you responded to exactly what we can know of outside the box.

1. The laws were already in place. (through science)
2. The only solution to the first cause is something which is eternal and unchanging. (through logic)

We can use our experiences as creators as a proxy and our reasoning ability to evaluate the indirect evidence of the Creator (i.e. what he created) to learn about him.

Science routinely uses proxies. In fact, many measurements in science are indirect measurements using proxies. So what I am describing to you is not only logical but uses our own experiences as proxies. Something we have excellent knowledge of.

I certainly "know" more than you do because you make no effort to know, right?

I thought we'd been through this already.

You don't know if the rules are the same outside the box as they are inside the box.

That's why I asked this question. I understand what you're saying, and I know what you're saying is wrong.

Fine, you claim to know what's outside the box. Which is ridiculous.

I doubt there's much point in talking any more seeing as you've decided you know what you can't possibly know. We're just going around in circles here.

I'm not going around in circles. You are. You can't say what things are, only what they aren't. I am describing what they are.

There is zero doubt that laws of nature existed before space and time. Why? Because space and time were created according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that everything which has unfolded since that time unfolded according to those laws.

There is zero doubt that there must be a first cause. Why? Because the only solution to the first cause is something which eternal and unchanging.

There is zero doubt that we can study what has been created.

There is zero doubt that we can use our own experiences as creators as a proxy for what created space and time.

There is zero doubt that our creations are the realization of our intention.

There is zero doubt that we create things for a purpose.

There is zero doubt that our creations are created in steps.

There is zero doubt that the more complex our creations the more steps and intelligence required to create them.

There is zero doubt the purpose of creation cannot be known until the creation is practically complete.

There is zero doubt that the purpose of our creation can be deduced from the creation itself.

So we have tons of analytical tools at our disposal to analyze what was created. And when we do this we find some very interesting things about the universe that should give anyone pause for reflection.

Except of course for people like yourself who are intellectually dead.

No, I can't say what things are.

Why?

Because I don't know about 99.999999% of what exists.

You think you know everything, but you don't know 99.999999% of what exists.

That's the difference here.

You make shit up.

You say, for example "everything created", no, not everything created. Everything that has been created that you can see has been created according to certain rules, maybe. But you don't know what was created outside of the box.

You can analyze what you know. Based on your argument no one should ever analyze anything unless they know everything?

I don't claim to know everything. Just the things I know. And the things we know should give you pause for reflection.

I have not made anything up.

We know that space and time had a beginning.

We know that that beginning followed rules.

We know that rules are the domain of intelligence.

We know that since that time matter and energy has only changed form.

We know that those changes followed rules.

We know that the universe is full of information.

We know that information is the domain of intelligence.

We know that at that beginning all space and matter existed in the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom.

We know that at that time the universe was perfectly ordered.

We know that at that time the energy that make up the atoms of every single human being that ever existed or will ever exist was present in that perfectly ordered state.

We know that as space and time evolved that beings that know and create arose and that they arose according to the laws of nature which were in place before space and time existed.

We know that the universe became self aware.

We know that consciousness is the most complex thing created by the laws of nature.

We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

We know all these things.

So why is it so hard for you to believe that before space and time existed that intelligence existed?

No, that's clearly not my argument.

I'm analyzing the whole thing, however I'm accepting where there are gaps in knowledge and speculating that it COULD be this or it COULD be that.

You on the other hand are saying "here's a gap, I'll fill it with this, because it's convenient for my argument"

5+a=3 means that a=-2, you can make deductions based on what you don't know.

However the topic we're discussing is

5+a*(b/c-d)+e/f*g=7

There so much you don't know, and yet you've decided you know the values of a,b,c,d,e,f and g.

You don't claim to know everything? Yet you've told me that the rules on the outside of the box are the same rules as the rules on the inside of the box.

Like you've played hearts and therefore you know the rules of spades because you've played hearts.

We don't know that time and space had a beginning at all. What people SPECULATE is that time and space WITHIN THE BOX had a potential beginning. What came before the beginning?

Here's one potential scenario. The universe is a bike inner tube. At one point in the inner tube the space to get through is minuscule. All the matter, time, energy etc will have to fit through a space 1 millionth the size of a pin prick.

This is the big bang. We had a big bang and we're headed towards another big bang in the future. Once the next big bang happens, all creatures alive might believe that there was nothing before the big bang, and yet we existed. Potentially.

Yes, we know that INSIDE THE BOX there were rules.

Everything we can possibly think we know is INSIDE THE BOX. And yet you're telling me what is OUTSIDE THE BOX.

We absolutely do know that space time had a beginning. The SLoT precludes an infinite universe without thermal equilibrium occurring.

You bike tube analogy is inflation theory and according to inflation theory inflation followed the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation laws meaning that the laws were in place before space and time.

No, we are not headed for another big bang or a big crunch, you are describing a cyclical universe and the SLoT precludes that.

Inflation is not eternal into the past. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction.

And you still have not touched on the cause or the need for a first cause or that the laws of nature existed before space and time or a whole host of other things.

 

[ding]

"Inferring" is at least similar to assuming.

No. It's not.

infer: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning.

assume: suppose to be the case, without proof.

 

[sealybobo]

When I say "obvious" I mean he is in plain site every day. Is it because he wants us to live our lives without knowing for sure that he exists? It would seem so, but why?

Do you believe he showed himself to Moses, Mohammad or Joseph Smith?

So if he never visited, maybe they made him up? Look at the following each of them got. I saw god! Follow me. But first I have to write a book.

We made god up. When you look at the universe we seem special but the more you look the less special we appear.

You’re no better than a dog or bird. You’re smarter but not faster and you can’t fly.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When I say "obvious" I mean he is in plain site every day. Is it because he wants us to live our lives without knowing for sure that he exists? It would seem so, but why?

God Cannot Exist; We Must Take That Away From Pushy Theists

I look like Brad Pitt. But I'm not going to show you any pictures of me, because I want to test your faith. Your faith will decide your fate, so it would be wise for you not to doubt me..

Who do you believe in when you pull onto a bridge with the faith it won't fall before you get across ? When Hymie Goldenscheister says the kid needs 18 vaccines immediately ! You blindly agree ?

Superstitionists Beg the Question by Assuming Animated Agents

It's not a "who" (actually "whom" but I don't expect theists to believe in grammar) that I trust. It's the laws of physics that hold the bridge up. Therefore, the Creator, if necessary, would more likely be a physical force like gravity rather than a personal one. So you cheat from the very beginning.

Your Hymie sounds like a preacher trying to sell a bad idea so he can make a tax-exempt living.

Lo siento maestro. Ingles es mi segundo idioma.

La Puente de Dios Caye, Porque Nada Sostiene Lo

Muerte a todos los hidalgos, incluyendo el hijo de Dios.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When I say "obvious" I mean he is in plain site every day. Is it because he wants us to live our lives without knowing for sure that he exists? It would seem so, but why?

Let's be honest here.

Now if you were God, wouldn't you hide from you?

Petitio Principii

God wouldn't let us believe in Him if He didn't exist.

 

[there4eyeM]

Inferring from what was created? The argument is already corrupted by the assumption of creation.
Inferring and assuming are, indeed, very alike.

 

[deanrd]

When I say "obvious" I mean he is in plain site every day. Is it because he wants us to live our lives without knowing for sure that he exists? It would seem so, but why?

Republicans see God in Donald Trump.

 

[there4eyeM]

If one believes in 'God', then 'God' is, indeed, to be 'seen' in the current President.

 

[BreezeWood]

Inferring from what was created? The argument is already corrupted by the assumption of creation. Inferring and assuming are, indeed, very alike.

.

Inference from reason and experience is not a foundation for trying to convince other than oneself.

Inferring from what was created? The argument is already corrupted by the assumption of creation. Inferring and assuming are, indeed, very alike.

creation exists, there is no inference and is a foundation for its resolution there is not the same for faith that does not proceed to a resultant foundation as most religions, not to be confused - Columbus's faith for land across the void resulted in its resolution by the lands discovery. faith in of itself is meaningless.

metaphysical life exists, its resolution is not faith but fact.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Inferring from what was created? The argument is already corrupted by the assumption of creation.
Inferring and assuming are, indeed, very alike.

The Bullies' Pulpit

Theists, lawyers, politicians, and every other pushy ilk know all the tricks of double talk.

 

[BreezeWood]

If one believes in 'God', then 'God' is, indeed, to be 'seen' in the current President.

what a joke, that guy is a desert religionist nothing could be further distant or less worthy ...

 

[there4eyeM]

If one believes in 'God', then 'God' is, indeed, to be 'seen' in the current President.

what a joke, that guy is a desert religionist nothing could be further distant or less worthy ...

'God' in Trump might not mean what so-called "religionists" might think. Think of 'God' as quantum reality and a human existence as a superposition upon that reality. It's merely one of an infinite possibilities. It is related to reality, but is not 'the' reality except to the 'superpositioner'. So, if we believed in 'God', we would not necessarily see 'God' in Trump.
Notice, nowhere have you been assumed to believe in 'God'.

 

[Yarddog]

God is the king of hide and seek. But with a twist, the dumber you are, the easier is it to find him.

Maybe there is no reason for god to reveal himself to us. Maybe there are just natural laws in place and when you figure that our mortal bodies have to die one day anyway, why is it God's job to make our lives perfect. If Eternity really is forever and this life is just a drop of water in the ocean of time, could it be that the lessons learned, and character built in this life are more important? and maybe some how important going into the next life. If God really did create the universe, isnt asking why god doesnt do this or that to prove himself to us, somwhat like a 2 year old sobbing over the fact that his mommy and daddy wont let him eat icecream every meal? In the limited mind of a two year old it may be very logical to assume there is no good reason he cant eat ice cream for every meal

So god doing nothing proves himself to you.

I never said God does nothing. I'm just saying maybe God isn't obligated to do so. Now some people don't believe, some people are uncertain and maybe spend a lot of their life having a feeling there may be a god and others seem very certain God has proven himself to them, by their life experiences. I really couldn't judge any of those people and call them stupid. Don't be so arrogant as to believe everyone should perceive things in the same way but the fact hat you have made your mind up is wonderful.