"Why Doesn't God Reveal Its Existence?" and other FAQ

[Delta4Embassy]

Inspired by a discussion with some local kids the other day about the existence (or non-existence) of God, my mind's been chewing over the question ever since. My current thinking os two-fold:

"First, if we had incontrovertible evidence God existed, something sufficient that even Richard Dawkins and disciples would have to agree, "Yep, that's God all right." would we then worship GOd because we chose to, or because we feared the consequences if we didn't? Isn't it better to be worshipped by choice instead of compulsion?

Secondly, proof of God doesn't translate into faith in God. The Jews freed from slavery in Egypt had such proof. God was giving them mana daily and presumedly water, and other things to keep them alive as they crossed open-desert en route to the Promised Land. But despite this evidence they could all agree upon that God existed, they demanded more. More food, more water, and of course endless "Are we there yet?" So while they had proof God existed, it didn't then mean they also had faith.

So perhaps the dilemna we have today with nothing concrete to set our backs against is by design. God knows that if She proved Her existence ('He' or 'Her' is just as accurate as 'It') we'd either submit to Her Law out of fear, or, if out of love we'd eventually seek more from Her. Whereas by concealing Her existence and leaving it up to faith we make a choice to believe and obey or disbelieve. But faith seems to be preferred in any event. But isn't as likely to come about with solid evidence.

We KNOW the government exists. But rather than simply being content with roads and bridges (such as they are heh) and having the lights go on, and food in our stores and bellies, we invariably seek more from it. More tax breaks, more freedom, etc.. Whereas if government were uncertain, and whether the next food shipment to stores for us to buy wasn't a certainty, maybe we'd be content with whatever we had at a given moment rather than striving for more.

"I want more power Scotty!"

"I can't werk meeruhkles Cap'n!"

Just occured to me.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Another FAQ is the one there's no logical reasoning to help us out with, "Is there an afterlife?"

In all my years of religious study, the best answer I've come up with to this one is this:

"I don't know. I've never died before."

Inspired by a Star Trek:TNG episode where Mr. Data's McGuyvering something together to save everybody's life, someone asks him,

"Is this gonna work?"

To which Mr. Data responds after stopping what he's doing and thinking about it a moment,

"I don't know. I've never done this before."

 

[Chuckt]

God already proved His existence. He died for mankind. He wrote to us through the scriptures, He answers believers and we pray to Him.

 

[BillyP]

God already proved His existence. He died for mankind. He wrote to us through the scriptures, He answers believers and we pray to Him.

God is dead? Who knew?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

God already proved His existence. He died for mankind. He wrote to us through the scriptures, He answers believers and we pray to Him.

Try proving that witrh logic and reason. Can claim anything we like, but without being able to explain it it only benefits people who already agree with you.

Even Mother Theresa had her atheistic moments.

 

[Steven_R]

God already proved His existence. He died for mankind. He wrote to us through the scriptures, He answers believers and we pray to Him.

God is dead? Who knew?

Well Nietzsche had a few things to say on the matter...but so did the Kids In The Hall!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BuZamufWAs]Kids In The Hall - God Is Dead - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

I've always wondered why God picks and chooses who He reveals Himself too. Why was I blessed and others not, or perhaps many of those that He has revealed Himself too, are just too engrossed in the world, and it's enjoyments, to want to follow God's Word, and do His will.

Delta, if you live long enough, you will make a great preacher, if you number in the 144K.

 

[Mr. H.]

If something such as "God" does exist, and considering the proliferation of Religion on this planet... why is the world such a murderous shithole?

 

[Chuckt]

God already proved His existence. He died for mankind. He wrote to us through the scriptures, He answers believers and we pray to Him.

Try proving that witrh logic and reason. Can claim anything we like, but without being able to explain it it only benefits people who already agree with you.

Even Mother Theresa had her atheistic moments.

I exist. I don't hang around your house so I have the same basis of existence as God.
I can even go on a journey and you won't see me.
Not being visible doesn't prove I don't exist.

 

[Vandalshandle]

God exists. Hundreds of people saw Jesus's image on a Lays potato chip which sold on EBay for $325.

 

[BreezeWood]

what is confusing are organized religions that claim a knowledge they are not able to verify, more so than the question of Gods existence which is irrelevant and will be answered to everyone at their passing.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If something such as "God" does exist, and considering the proliferation of Religion on this planet... why is the world such a murderous shithole?

God gave Satan dominion over this planet. He is Lord of this World.

But Satan cannot just randomly destroy people with his power, they have to Invite Him In First!

And it looks to me like a lot of people already have.

 

[Chuckt]

what is confusing are organized religions that claim a knowledge they are not able to verify, more so than the question of Gods existence which is irrelevant and will be answered to everyone at their passing.

There is archaeological evidence.
There is manuscript evidence.
There are different kids of evidence.

Maybe the evidence doesn't equal proof to you but it is rational and can be decided on.
We know Him and beyond my acknowledging Him, He was silent in my life for many years leading me to question Him but He is not silent so I don't question Him anymore.
Some people are acknowledging demons in the religions they follow because the demon's game is to get back at God for sentencing them to hell and man's game is to do the same because they don't like God.

 

[Vandalshandle]

what is confusing are organized religions that claim a knowledge they are not able to verify, more so than the question of Gods existence which is irrelevant and will be answered to everyone at their passing.

There is archaeological evidence.
There is manuscript evidence.
There are different kids of evidence.

Maybe the evidence doesn't equal proof to you but it is rational and can be decided on.
We know Him and beyond my acknowledging Him, He was silent in my life for many years leading me to question Him but He is not silent so I don't question Him anymore.
Some people are acknowledging demons in the religions they follow because the demon's game is to get back at God for sentencing them to hell and man's game is to do the same because they don't like God.

The Book of Mormon, perhaps? Or maybe you are talking about that book by Ron L Hubbard, '"Dyanetics", or whatever....

 

[PratchettFan]

Inspired by a discussion with some local kids the other day about the existence (or non-existence) of God, my mind's been chewing over the question ever since. My current thinking os two-fold:

"First, if we had incontrovertible evidence God existed, something sufficient that even Richard Dawkins and disciples would have to agree, "Yep, that's God all right." would we then worship GOd because we chose to, or because we feared the consequences if we didn't? Isn't it better to be worshipped by choice instead of compulsion?

Secondly, proof of God doesn't translate into faith in God. The Jews freed from slavery in Egypt had such proof. God was giving them mana daily and presumedly water, and other things to keep them alive as they crossed open-desert en route to the Promised Land. But despite this evidence they could all agree upon that God existed, they demanded more. More food, more water, and of course endless "Are we there yet?" So while they had proof God existed, it didn't then mean they also had faith.

So perhaps the dilemna we have today with nothing concrete to set our backs against is by design. God knows that if She proved Her existence ('He' or 'Her' is just as accurate as 'It') we'd either submit to Her Law out of fear, or, if out of love we'd eventually seek more from Her. Whereas by concealing Her existence and leaving it up to faith we make a choice to believe and obey or disbelieve. But faith seems to be preferred in any event. But isn't as likely to come about with solid evidence.

We KNOW the government exists. But rather than simply being content with roads and bridges (such as they are heh) and having the lights go on, and food in our stores and bellies, we invariably seek more from it. More tax breaks, more freedom, etc.. Whereas if government were uncertain, and whether the next food shipment to stores for us to buy wasn't a certainty, maybe we'd be content with whatever we had at a given moment rather than striving for more.

"I want more power Scotty!"

"I can't werk meeruhkles Cap'n!"

Just occured to me.

It really all comes down to the simple fact that we don't know. That is not a happy state in general for human beings so most of us decide we do know. Some decide they know god exists, other decide they know god does not exist. Both are equally invalid/valid beliefs. The only rational stand is neutrality. To be honest, I don't think I've actually met a neutral yet - though I have met many who claimed to be.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Inspired by a discussion with some local kids the other day about the existence (or non-existence) of God, my mind's been chewing over the question ever since. My current thinking os two-fold:

"First, if we had incontrovertible evidence God existed, something sufficient that even Richard Dawkins and disciples would have to agree, "Yep, that's God all right." would we then worship GOd because we chose to, or because we feared the consequences if we didn't? Isn't it better to be worshipped by choice instead of compulsion?

Secondly, proof of God doesn't translate into faith in God. The Jews freed from slavery in Egypt had such proof. God was giving them mana daily and presumedly water, and other things to keep them alive as they crossed open-desert en route to the Promised Land. But despite this evidence they could all agree upon that God existed, they demanded more. More food, more water, and of course endless "Are we there yet?" So while they had proof God existed, it didn't then mean they also had faith.

So perhaps the dilemna we have today with nothing concrete to set our backs against is by design. God knows that if She proved Her existence ('He' or 'Her' is just as accurate as 'It') we'd either submit to Her Law out of fear, or, if out of love we'd eventually seek more from Her. Whereas by concealing Her existence and leaving it up to faith we make a choice to believe and obey or disbelieve. But faith seems to be preferred in any event. But isn't as likely to come about with solid evidence.

We KNOW the government exists. But rather than simply being content with roads and bridges (such as they are heh) and having the lights go on, and food in our stores and bellies, we invariably seek more from it. More tax breaks, more freedom, etc.. Whereas if government were uncertain, and whether the next food shipment to stores for us to buy wasn't a certainty, maybe we'd be content with whatever we had at a given moment rather than striving for more.

"I want more power Scotty!"

"I can't werk meeruhkles Cap'n!"

Just occured to me.

It really all comes down to the simple fact that we don't know. That is not a happy state in general for human beings so most of us decide we do know. Some decide they know god exists, other decide they know god does not exist. Both are equally invalid/valid beliefs. The only rational stand is neutrality. To be honest, I don't think I've actually met a neutral yet - though I have met many who claimed to be.

Wouldn't say I'm neutral so much as the questions can be argued convincingly either way, for or against. And depending on my mood I do so. When upset over some news item, most recently the carjacking that ran down 3 kids doing fundraising for their church, I find I'm more on the 'God doesn't exist' side of the fence. When I've calmed down, as I am today, I find myself more on the fence as opposed to down on either side of it. And sometimes, when I experience something unusual I get on the other side believing, or at least trying to believe God does in fact exist.

I'd say it's important to seperate out religion from God. There's all kinds of falsehoods in every religion ever conceived, but none of that speaks directly to anything about God as Man (and Woman) wrote every bit of it. So basing any belief, or disbelief about God because of a given religion is foolish.Rather I try to think about God from the point of view independent of religion altogether.

Might be difficult, if not impossible to use science to prove or disprove God, but I think we can use reason to at least come up with some better arguements for God than "It says so in this book." Well of course it does, what else is it gonna say?" Be like argueing in favor of Harry Potter existing because it says so in the books.

 

[Steven_R]

what is confusing are organized religions that claim a knowledge they are not able to verify, more so than the question of Gods existence which is irrelevant and will be answered to everyone at their passing.

There is archaeological evidence.
There is manuscript evidence.
There are different kids of evidence.

Maybe the evidence doesn't equal proof to you but it is rational and can be decided on.
We know Him and beyond my acknowledging Him, He was silent in my life for many years leading me to question Him but He is not silent so I don't question Him anymore.
Some people are acknowledging demons in the religions they follow because the demon's game is to get back at God for sentencing them to hell and man's game is to do the same because they don't like God.

Ten thousand years from now there will be archaeological evidence that there was a president named Barack Obama.
Ten thousand years from now there will also be manuscript evidence that once Barack Obama teamed up with Spiderman. (Amazing Spiderman #583)

So if you're an archaeologist in the year 12014, do you think the people of 2014 really believed in the tale of a mere mortal named Peter Parker being turned into a demi-god and then granting his ascent to a minor king? After all, they'll have the evidence of our beliefs.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

what is confusing are organized religions that claim a knowledge they are not able to verify, more so than the question of Gods existence which is irrelevant and will be answered to everyone at their passing.

There is archaeological evidence.
There is manuscript evidence.
There are different kids of evidence.

Maybe the evidence doesn't equal proof to you but it is rational and can be decided on.
We know Him and beyond my acknowledging Him, He was silent in my life for many years leading me to question Him but He is not silent so I don't question Him anymore.
Some people are acknowledging demons in the religions they follow because the demon's game is to get back at God for sentencing them to hell and man's game is to do the same because they don't like God.

Ten thousand years from now there will be archaeological evidence that there was a president named Barack Obama.
Ten thousand years from now there will also be manuscript evidence that once Barack Obama teamed up with Spiderman. (Amazing Spiderman #583)

So if you're an archaeologist in the year 12014, do you think the people of 2014 really believed in the tale of a mere mortal named Peter Parker being turned into a demi-god and then granting his ascent to a minor king? After all, they'll have the evidence of our beliefs.

Unless they make a clay tablet verison of Spiderman, I'm sorry but no there wont be manuscript evidence of it. Paper dissolves quickly, cd/dvd in just a few hundred years. Ironically, the best long-term storage medium is clay tablets. Papyrus is okay but without perfect storage it dissolves and fragments as is seen with religious texts. Overall, clay's best. Or whatever ink the Aboriginies used in their cave paintings which are tens of thousands of years old.

 

[PratchettFan]

Inspired by a discussion with some local kids the other day about the existence (or non-existence) of God, my mind's been chewing over the question ever since. My current thinking os two-fold:

"First, if we had incontrovertible evidence God existed, something sufficient that even Richard Dawkins and disciples would have to agree, "Yep, that's God all right." would we then worship GOd because we chose to, or because we feared the consequences if we didn't? Isn't it better to be worshipped by choice instead of compulsion?

Secondly, proof of God doesn't translate into faith in God. The Jews freed from slavery in Egypt had such proof. God was giving them mana daily and presumedly water, and other things to keep them alive as they crossed open-desert en route to the Promised Land. But despite this evidence they could all agree upon that God existed, they demanded more. More food, more water, and of course endless "Are we there yet?" So while they had proof God existed, it didn't then mean they also had faith.

So perhaps the dilemna we have today with nothing concrete to set our backs against is by design. God knows that if She proved Her existence ('He' or 'Her' is just as accurate as 'It') we'd either submit to Her Law out of fear, or, if out of love we'd eventually seek more from Her. Whereas by concealing Her existence and leaving it up to faith we make a choice to believe and obey or disbelieve. But faith seems to be preferred in any event. But isn't as likely to come about with solid evidence.

We KNOW the government exists. But rather than simply being content with roads and bridges (such as they are heh) and having the lights go on, and food in our stores and bellies, we invariably seek more from it. More tax breaks, more freedom, etc.. Whereas if government were uncertain, and whether the next food shipment to stores for us to buy wasn't a certainty, maybe we'd be content with whatever we had at a given moment rather than striving for more.

"I want more power Scotty!"

"I can't werk meeruhkles Cap'n!"

Just occured to me.

It really all comes down to the simple fact that we don't know. That is not a happy state in general for human beings so most of us decide we do know. Some decide they know god exists, other decide they know god does not exist. Both are equally invalid/valid beliefs. The only rational stand is neutrality. To be honest, I don't think I've actually met a neutral yet - though I have met many who claimed to be.

Wouldn't say I'm neutral so much as the questions can be argued convincingly either way, for or against. And depending on my mood I do so. When upset over some news item, most recently the carjacking that ran down 3 kids doing fundraising for their church, I find I'm more on the 'God doesn't exist' side of the fence. When I've calmed down, as I am today, I find myself more on the fence as opposed to down on either side of it. And sometimes, when I experience something unusual I get on the other side believing, or at least trying to believe God does in fact exist.

I'd say it's important to seperate out religion from God. There's all kinds of falsehoods in every religion ever conceived, but none of that speaks directly to anything about God as Man (and Woman) wrote every bit of it. So basing any belief, or disbelief about God because of a given religion is foolish.Rather I try to think about God from the point of view independent of religion altogether.

Might be difficult, if not impossible to use science to prove or disprove God, but I think we can use reason to at least come up with some better arguements for God than "It says so in this book." Well of course it does, what else is it gonna say?" Be like argueing in favor of Harry Potter existing because it says so in the books.

In the absence of evidence any guess is as good as another. Any reason for a guess is as good as another. Where people run into problems, IMO, is when they insist their guess is the only guess allowed. I don't think it is relevant whether there is a God, but it is certainly relevant that people are believers, one way or another. I believe this would be a better world if people could just come to grips with that part of our nature. I also don't believe it will happen.

 

[MaxGrit]

Logical Fallacy: petitio principii

Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.