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

[ding]

I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.

Yes, you can. But you can't learn what is outside the box.

You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.

I have and disagree with your uniformed opinion.

How can I study what's outside the box?

Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.

Only because paintings are real and so are painters and we can compare their works... You're assuming that your invisible friend is real. Nobody has proven that. Yet.

Creation is real and exists and can be examined just like a painting.

Unlike you I did not start from an assumption. I examined the data and followed where it led.

 

[Taz]

"So please don't waste our time with childish arguments like whose God or how many Gods. Fair enough?"

You forgot you wrote this?

How exactly are those arguments of logic?

Do you think you will find evidence for the existence of God in writings?

The logical argument for God starts with what he created and what we can observe from that.

Imagine you're in a box. You have no way of knowing what is on the outside of the box. You can't see, you can't hear, you can't touch the outside of the box.

Then you say "I know everything, I know what is on the outside of the box".

What are the chances you're lying? About 34234324432234234234%

Let's say I found something you made but I didn't know you made it. Could I study It? Could I learn things from it?

If you are looking for signs of God I suggest you start studying what he made.

If you are looking to confirm your bias I suggest you keep doing what you are doing.

You're starting with a conclusion, that an invisible being that wants us to study a book for secrets meanings made everything. You can study what was made, but you can't conclude that it was made by such a being. There's no connection.

I am starting with the only evidence we have and evaluating it.

And how does that lead you to an invisible being who wants us to study the hidden meanings of a book?

 

[Taz]

Like you are trying to figure out who God is before you figure out who God is but in your case you are trying to use who God is to prove he doesn't exist.

Does that sounds as dumb to you when you read it back as it does to everyone else?

 

[ding]

I can study the box. I can study what is in the box. And I can study how the box and what is in the box evolved. And through this process I can learn a great deal.

Yes, you can. But you can't learn what is outside the box.

You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.

I have and disagree with your uniformed opinion.

How can I study what's outside the box?

Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.

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.

 

[Taz]

Yes, you can. But you can't learn what is outside the box.

You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.

I have and disagree with your uniformed opinion.

How can I study what's outside the box?

Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.

Only because paintings are real and so are painters and we can compare their works... You're assuming that your invisible friend is real. Nobody has proven that. Yet.

Creation is real and exists and can be examined just like a painting.

Unlike you I did not start from an assumption. I examined the data and followed where it led.

It led to an invisible being who wants us to study a book?

 

[ding]

Like you are trying to figure out who God is before you figure out who God is but in your case you are trying to use who God is to prove he doesn't exist.

Does that sounds as dumb to you when you read it back as it does to everyone else?

It sounds dumb that you dismiss what you don't understand.

 

[ding]

You won't be able to conclude that until you have made an earnest attempt at studying it.

I have and disagree with your uniformed opinion.

How can I study what's outside the box?

Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.

Only because paintings are real and so are painters and we can compare their works... You're assuming that your invisible friend is real. Nobody has proven that. Yet.

Creation is real and exists and can be examined just like a painting.

Unlike you I did not start from an assumption. I examined the data and followed where it led.

It led to an invisible being who wants us to study a book?

No. Not study a book. Seek him.

 

[there4eyeM]

This 'question' comes up repeatedly, with the same exchanges of lack of understanding.
Therefore, one allows one's self to restate what one has previously stated.
If 'God' exists as 'God' would have to be, then all and everything is from 'God' and, indeed, is 'God.
Human perceptions function by contrasts. Without a contrast, a 'not this', there can be no 'this'.
Therefor, if 'God' is all and everything, there is no 'not God'. 'God' would, thus, by definition be impossible to see. 'God' would be invisible.
On the other hand, if 'God' does not exist, of course 'God' cannot be seen.

 

[ding]

This 'question' comes up repeatedly, with the same exchanges of lack of understanding.
Therefore, one allows one's self to restate what one has previously stated.
If 'God' exists as 'God' would have to be, then all and everything is form 'God' and, indeed, is 'God.
Human perceptions function by contrasts. With a contrast, a 'not this', there can be no 'this'.
Therefor, if 'God' is all and everything, there is no 'not God'. 'God' would, thus, by definition be impossible to see. 'God' would be invisible.
On the other hand, if 'God' does not exist, of course 'God' cannot be seen.

That sounds vaguely Pantheistic. The painter cannot be the painting.

 

[ding]

This 'question' comes up repeatedly, with the same exchanges of lack of understanding.
Therefore, one allows one's self to restate what one has previously stated.
If 'God' exists as 'God' would have to be, then all and everything is form 'God' and, indeed, is 'God.
Human perceptions function by contrasts. With a contrast, a 'not this', there can be no 'this'.
Therefor, if 'God' is all and everything, there is no 'not God'. 'God' would, thus, by definition be impossible to see. 'God' would be invisible.
On the other hand, if 'God' does not exist, of course 'God' cannot be seen.

I believe God can be known but not seen through logic as God is logic. He created a logical universe after all.

Trying to imagine the eternal and unchanging is nearly impossible for man to comprehend. I think of God more in terms of a verb than a noun. Now if you say that God is all things and mean to say God is logic, God is love, God is truth, God is existence than I am right there with you because those things are eternal and unchanging.

 

[Taz]

How can I study what's outside the box?

Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.

Only because paintings are real and so are painters and we can compare their works... You're assuming that your invisible friend is real. Nobody has proven that. Yet.

Creation is real and exists and can be examined just like a painting.

Unlike you I did not start from an assumption. I examined the data and followed where it led.

It led to an invisible being who wants us to study a book?

No. Not study a book. Seek him.

So I can find your god without ever opening a bible?

 

[there4eyeM]

This 'question' comes up repeatedly, with the same exchanges of lack of understanding.
Therefore, one allows one's self to restate what one has previously stated.
If 'God' exists as 'God' would have to be, then all and everything is form 'God' and, indeed, is 'God.
Human perceptions function by contrasts. With a contrast, a 'not this', there can be no 'this'.
Therefor, if 'God' is all and everything, there is no 'not God'. 'God' would, thus, by definition be impossible to see. 'God' would be invisible.
On the other hand, if 'God' does not exist, of course 'God' cannot be seen.

I believe God can be known but not seen through logic as God is logic. He created a logical universe after all.

Trying to imagine the eternal and unchanging is nearly impossible for man to comprehend. I think of God more in terms of a verb than a noun. Now if you say that God is all things and mean to say God is logic, God is love, God is truth, God is existence than I am right there with you because those things are eternal and unchanging.

We can safely say that the only admissible confirmation of 'God' is by personal revelation. All other is hearsay. Reading books or hearing a preacher is secondary witnessing. As such a revelation would be entirely, utterly personal and intimate, it could never be transmitted to another in any way more than approximately.
'Yahweh' derives from a verb. It is not really a noun, a name. In this, the religion said to be of Abraham has something very right.
'God' would obviously have to be beyond definition. All words define, limit. How could humans limit 'God'? Even saying "god is great" limits the subject of the sentence.

 

[there4eyeM]

Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.

Only because paintings are real and so are painters and we can compare their works... You're assuming that your invisible friend is real. Nobody has proven that. Yet.

Creation is real and exists and can be examined just like a painting.

Unlike you I did not start from an assumption. I examined the data and followed where it led.

It led to an invisible being who wants us to study a book?

No. Not study a book. Seek him.

So I can find your god without ever opening a bible?

'God' would only be perceptible by some extraordinary experience. All other information about 'God' is necessarily second hand.
If 'God' is not knowable without books, 'God' is unknowable.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This 'question' comes up repeatedly, with the same exchanges of lack of understanding.
Therefore, one allows one's self to restate what one has previously stated.
If 'God' exists as 'God' would have to be, then all and everything is form 'God' and, indeed, is 'God.
Human perceptions function by contrasts. With a contrast, a 'not this', there can be no 'this'.
Therefor, if 'God' is all and everything, there is no 'not God'. 'God' would, thus, by definition be impossible to see. 'God' would be invisible.
On the other hand, if 'God' does not exist, of course 'God' cannot be seen.

I believe God can be known but not seen through logic as God is logic. He created a logical universe after all.

Trying to imagine the eternal and unchanging is nearly impossible for man to comprehend. I think of God more in terms of a verb than a noun. Now if you say that God is all things and mean to say God is logic, God is love, God is truth, God is existence than I am right there with you because those things are eternal and unchanging.

This fails as yet another appeal to authority fallacy and appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That one might ‘believe’ in a ‘god’ is subjective and proves nothing.

And theists’ propensity for anthropomorphism renders their argument that ‘god’ is omnipotent devoid of merit.

Both logic and ‘god’ are creations of man, the former the consequence man’s intelligence and search for knowledge, the latter the consequence of man’s fear, ignorance, and arrogance.

 

[there4eyeM]

Did someone miss the asterisks?

 

[Flash]

God makes Himself obvious to me when I see His creation because this universe sure as hell didn't create itself out of nothing, did it?

 

[there4eyeM]

God makes Himself obvious to me when I see His creation because this universe sure as hell didn't create itself out of nothing, did it?

If the obvious were such, this question would not be asked.

 

[ding]

Indirectly through the study of what's in the box. The same way you can learn about a painter by studying the painting.

Only because paintings are real and so are painters and we can compare their works... You're assuming that your invisible friend is real. Nobody has proven that. Yet.

Creation is real and exists and can be examined just like a painting.

Unlike you I did not start from an assumption. I examined the data and followed where it led.

It led to an invisible being who wants us to study a book?

No. Not study a book. Seek him.

So I can find your god without ever opening a bible?

Yes.

"Now the position would be quite hopeless but for this. There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. That one thing is Man. We do not merely observe men, we are men. In this case we have, so to speak, inside information; we are in the know. And because of that, we know that men find themselves under a moral law, which they did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try, and which they know they ought to obey. Notice the following point. Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

The position of the question, then, is like this. We want to know whether the universe simply happens to be what it is for no reason or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the observed facts but a reality which makes them, no mere observation of the facts can find it. There is only one case in which we can know whether there is anything more, namely our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way round. If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe—no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions?" C.S. Lewis

 

[ding]

This 'question' comes up repeatedly, with the same exchanges of lack of understanding.
Therefore, one allows one's self to restate what one has previously stated.
If 'God' exists as 'God' would have to be, then all and everything is form 'God' and, indeed, is 'God.
Human perceptions function by contrasts. With a contrast, a 'not this', there can be no 'this'.
Therefor, if 'God' is all and everything, there is no 'not God'. 'God' would, thus, by definition be impossible to see. 'God' would be invisible.
On the other hand, if 'God' does not exist, of course 'God' cannot be seen.

I believe God can be known but not seen through logic as God is logic. He created a logical universe after all.

Trying to imagine the eternal and unchanging is nearly impossible for man to comprehend. I think of God more in terms of a verb than a noun. Now if you say that God is all things and mean to say God is logic, God is love, God is truth, God is existence than I am right there with you because those things are eternal and unchanging.

We can safely say that the only admissible confirmation of 'God' is by personal revelation. All other is hearsay. Reading books or hearing a preacher is secondary witnessing. As such a revelation would be entirely, utterly personal and intimate, it could never be transmitted to another in any way more than approximately.
'Yahweh' derives from a verb. It is not really a noun, a name. In this, the religion said to be of Abraham has something very right.
'God' would obviously have to be beyond definition. All words define, limit. How could humans limit 'God'? Even saying "god is great" limits the subject of the sentence.

I disagree. We can know God exists using reason and experience by studying what he has created.

 

[ding]

This 'question' comes up repeatedly, with the same exchanges of lack of understanding.
Therefore, one allows one's self to restate what one has previously stated.
If 'God' exists as 'God' would have to be, then all and everything is form 'God' and, indeed, is 'God.
Human perceptions function by contrasts. With a contrast, a 'not this', there can be no 'this'.
Therefor, if 'God' is all and everything, there is no 'not God'. 'God' would, thus, by definition be impossible to see. 'God' would be invisible.
On the other hand, if 'God' does not exist, of course 'God' cannot be seen.

I believe God can be known but not seen through logic as God is logic. He created a logical universe after all.

Trying to imagine the eternal and unchanging is nearly impossible for man to comprehend. I think of God more in terms of a verb than a noun. Now if you say that God is all things and mean to say God is logic, God is love, God is truth, God is existence than I am right there with you because those things are eternal and unchanging.

This fails as yet another appeal to authority fallacy and appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That one might ‘believe’ in a ‘god’ is subjective and proves nothing.

And theists’ propensity for anthropomorphism renders their argument that ‘god’ is omnipotent devoid of merit.

Both logic and ‘god’ are creations of man, the former the consequence man’s intelligence and search for knowledge, the latter the consequence of man’s fear, ignorance, and arrogance.

Can you explain exactly how this was an "appeal to authority fallacy and appeal to ignorance fallacy?"

I'd love to see your logic on this. Please make sure to use exactly what I wrote in your explanation.