Why won't God just appear and end this debate?

[achilles12604]

This quesiton has been posed in various ways on this forum since I arrived. Welshboy is the most recent to ask so I am making it a thread. I hope it isn't one already.

Here is my own ideas about why God choses not to directly appear and cause everyone to believe in him.

If God does exist then he is a force of unimaginable power and magisty.

Human's, especially those who reject the supernatural, have a tendency to think they know everything about everything around them. This grants them the ability to reject God. They can freely reject God and any ideas of God because they feel safe doing so.

Now lets say God did appear or do something which would make his existence undeniable to a reasonable person. Now this same person could easily feel compelled to obey and follow God out of nothing but fear of him.

This is not what Christian theology teaches. God wants people to WANT to come to him. Just as every human wants someone to want them, so to with God. It isn't a NEED per se, but then it isn't a NEED for people either. But is certainly does allow the person to experience many things that they otherwise would have never been able to feel.

Question: Is my logic consistent? Have I created and logical fallacies in this line of reasoning?

[McCulloch]

Well I have learned to use the Webster's New World/ Roget's A-Z Thesaurus, 1997 edition.
skeptic, n.- Syn. doubter, UNBELIEVER, cynic, questioner, infidel, heathen, freethinker, atheist, deist, agnostic, heretic, disbeliever, Pyrrhonist, pagan, anti-Christian, dissenter, latitudinarian, misbeliever, rationalist, profaner, materialist, positivist, nihilist, somatist, scoffer, apostate, blasphemer; see also cynic.
Like I said earlier, they are synonymous.

You really should learn the difference between a thesaurus and a dictionary. Words in a thesaurus are not exact synonyms. For instance a dissenter is quite different from a materialist or a nihilist.

Like the thesaurus points out, unbeliever and skeptic have similar meanings. Unbelievers are people who do not believe in a particular idea. I am an unbeliever with respect to the Bible. You are an unbeliever with respect to the Qu'ran. A skeptic is one who will not believe something unless there is sufficient evidence to warrant such belief. A skeptic may very well be an unbeliever with respect to the Bible but a believer in logical analysis.

What I find interesting is the group of opinions and worldviews that are synonymous.

Yes, it is interesting that most people who are skeptics, insisting on evidence for belief, end up being unbelievers in the Bible. I wonder why?

If you will notice, it is a grouping of worldviews, at odds with, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The historically verifiable God who appeared, (empirically).

Jesus' human existence is not historically verifiable. It is historically probable. His being God is not historically verifiable nor probable.

As for me I not only have the record (Bible), but have the Holy Spirit Himself witnessing with my spirit that I am a son of God, and I was made that by Jesus Christ, the historical figure, who lives, whom I enjoy daily fellowship with, presently.

That may be enough to convince you. But that is not enough evidence to convince any rational person. The Bible is a collection of writings. You have provided no reason that is should be accepted as inspired by the Creator God. As to what does or does not witness to your spirit, only you can know. We only have your word on that.

How would you characterize a document, that old and that large, written by that many people, carefully, accurately, documented and handed down generation to generation, through a myriad of geography, cultures, times, and peoples and still be 99.5% accurate to the autograph? And, not be accepted by the overwhelming majority of scholars. The thing was copied by hand by thousands of different scribes until 1455 A.D. Do you think critical review of the text has just gone on recently? It has been critically reviewed for thousands of years. Still standing, inerrantly I might add!

Just because existing copies are amazingly accurate to the originals, does not mean that the originals were correct in their content. Can you show that an overwhelming majority of scholars believe that the Bible is truth?

did you know Tolkien was a Christian believer and friend of C.S. Lewis?

Neither were Biblical literalists.

[pepo1]

Athiest = "I don't know"
Christian = "God must have done it" (Christians won't accept "I don't know")

Atheism takes a firmer stance than "I don't know". Atheists say "No evidence so I don't believe". Trouble is they ignore the evidence that does exist. Take miracles for example. Medjugorje, centre of controversy that it is, has had three investigative teams including renowned scientists study the phenomena and basically threw their hands in the air, handing it back to the church to follow their procedure for supernatural events. Medjugorje is still going on today and its frequency of apparitions (daily) make it real easy for science to study. Atheists simply refuse to give these any credence whatsoever. It's way more than "I don't know", my friend.

Now lets say God did appear or do something which would make his existence undeniable to a reasonable person. Now this same person could easily feel compelled to obey and follow God out of nothing but fear of him.

Why should he? Because you want Him to?

[pepo1]

If your answer is yes and no, then God has just violated their free will to reject him.

People have free will to reject God, but it doesn't follow that this free will exempts them from punishment due to them for wrongful use of their free will. God can smite a city like Sodom, but that isn't God saying "I'm taking away your free will to sin". It could be saying a number of other things such as "In exercising your free will in the manner you continue to choose, your presence on this earth is not a good example for the rest of my loved ones, so you're outta her"

[WelshBoy]

Trouble is they ignore the evidence that does exist.

It is incredibly poor evidence since it cannot predict future events.

Let's take the example of Medjugorje shall we? And in with it we'll lump Lourdes, Guadalupe and Fatima. Each of these shrines was founded on the basis of a vision of Mary, and each is in a deeply Roman Catholic country. Lourdes was founded based on the vision of a sickly 14 year old, Fatima founded based on the visions of three peasant children aged six, eight and nine. In Medjugorje six children and teenagers were 'visited', the oldest of which was 17 at the time. As for Guadalupe, the vision is said to have occured to a peasant in the 1500s.

Are these REALLY reliable accounts taken from children (in all but one case) from deeply catholic countries? Can you see why atheists are skeptical? As for the scientific studies, they have not concluded that Mary appears to these people. They have shown that the 'visionaries' are convinced of what they are seeing. Each study urges caution, and the first was organised by catholic scientists, so no conflicting interests there? COME ON.

[achilles12604]

Trouble is they ignore the evidence that does exist.

It is incredibly poor evidence since it cannot predict future events.

Let's take the example of Medjugorje shall we? And in with it we'll lump Lourdes, Guadalupe and Fatima. Each of these shrines was founded on the basis of a vision of Mary, and each is in a deeply Roman Catholic country. Lourdes was founded based on the vision of a sickly 14 year old, Fatima founded based on the visions of three peasant children aged six, eight and nine. In Medjugorje six children and teenagers were 'visited', the oldest of which was 17 at the time. As for Guadalupe, the vision is said to have occurred to a peasant in the 1500s.

Are these REALLY reliable accounts taken from children (in all but one case) from deeply catholic countries? Can you see why atheists are skeptical? As for the scientific studies, they have not concluded that Mary appears to these people. They have shown that the 'visionaries' are convinced of what they are seeing. Each study urges caution, and the first was organised by catholic scientists, so no conflicting interests there? COME ON.

This is a fairly extreme example however.

Taking something more moderate, like even the existence of Jesus. Right now I am discussing Earl Dogherty's Jesus puzzle with dthomas. The opinion is that Paul didn't actually think Jesus was a real person. Now I presented 4 excerpts from Paul's letters which clearly state or refer to a human, earthly Jesus. But I doubt I am going to make any headway.

So you see there are examples when good evidence is offered about a subject, and it is also rejected out of hand. While Pepo1's comment may be generalized greatly, it isn't necessarily incorrect.

[pepo1]

As for the scientific studies, they have not concluded that Mary appears to these people. They have shown that the 'visionaries' are convinced of what they are seeing. Each study urges caution, and the first was organised by catholic scientists, so no conflicting interests there? COME ON.

I never said that the scientific studies proved the existence of Mary in these apparitions. I simply said that science could provide no alternative natural explanation for what the visionaries experience daily. If a visionary is experience Alpha brain waves while fully alert, science reaches for the too hard button. If you put 90 decibels in a visionary's ear without them flinching, your brow furrows, etc, etc. Of course each study urges caution and so does the church. No arguments there. My point is that there is compelling evidence for a supernatural occurrence, but atheists don't want a bar of it unless it 100% proven. These same atheists rely on an infantile science with theories that are being revised on a regular basis, i.e. very little is proven.

[WelshBoy]

atheists rely on an infantile science with theories that are being revised on a regular basis, i.e. very little is proven.

Ah so you're of the 'science is child's-play' camp of christian thought are you? Which infantile science are you referring to? Remember it is science that has allowed you to read this on your computer. The same scientific principles have led to the development of drugs which you no doubt have used. Indeed theories ARE revised, this is the great thing about science - however you make the mistake of thinking a revision undermines the theory. It doesn't, indeed the purpose of revision is to STRENGTHEN the theory.

I never said that the scientific studies proved the existence of Mary in these apparitions. I simply said that science could provide no alternative natural explanation for what the visionaries experience daily.

Indeed, but you were implying the invocation of God of the Gaps. Forgive me if I misunderstood you.

[WelshBoy]

Achilles,

Granted. Though pepo tarnished ALL atheists with his/her brush as you pointed out. You would agree (and have agreed) that Christians and atheists alike don't consider all evidence - the global flood for example. We have to stand as bastions of reason

[pepo1]

Remember it is science that has allowed you to read this on your computer. .

That's a fairly tired atheist faux-pas assuming we all should bow to science for giving us bad eyes, headaches and light wallets from regular payments to Bill Gates for software upgrades when a pen and paper served the world just fine for centuries. Let's get some perspective about science. Science is merely the discovery channel for God, not the big God denier certain people might hope.

[achilles12604]

Remember it is science that has allowed you to read this on your computer. .

That's a fairly tired atheist faux-pas assuming we all should bow to science for giving us bad eyes, headaches and light wallets from regular payments to Bill Gates for software upgrades when a pen and paper served the world just fine for centuries. Let's get some perspective about science. Science is merely the discovery channel for God, not the big God denier certain people might hope.

I agree to a point. (I think)

Science and theology, are mutually exclusive on many points. For example it is impossibe for God's DNA or whatever to be tested scientifically. Science can not measure God.

therefore, science can not directly prove nor disprove God in any way. At best science can give us indications one way or the other. As Welsh Pointed out, if you are in the belief of God of Gaps, then your mentality is whenever Science is unable to comment or make a conclusion about something, God must have been involved.

This thinking is flawed however. Take evolution for example. If evolution is not accurate, then there must have been another method for the beginning of life. This could include God. However if evolution is accurate then the God of Gaps mentality is forced to chose between what science has shown to be accurate, and their mentalities.

But this doesn't have to be. After all God did create us with a brain to use. Unfortunately in many cases, religious minded people forget this and tend to close off their brain in lieu of emotions and "heart" decisions.

If God does exist, then he is the creator. If we are able to determine what method was employed for the spread of life, then God could have easily planned it to be that way.

This argument is non-falsible and therefore useless for convincing someone, but it is much more accurate and useful than rejecting science outright.