Why won't God convince atheists?

[Hatuey]

Many atheists are so for valid and defendable reasons. Why would a punishing deity choose not to make himself known to reasonable people who do not believe he exists?

A decent god would know how to convince decent people to believe and care for him as he cared for those decent people.

What sort of god doesn't care to convince sensible people that he exists?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 602 by rbarton]

How is "created intellect" not a reference to a creator....who....created.....intellect?

If I say "this Chevy model car," am I not referencing the Chevrolet corporation?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 593 by OnceConvinced]

To all atheists or self proclaimed agnostics this may concern, quoting Pope John Paul II "Your questions would only be legitimate, if man, with his created intellect and within the limits of his own subjectivity, could overcome the entire distance that separates creation from the Creator, the contingent and not necessary being from the Necessary Being."
p. 38 from ' Crossing the threshold of hope'

Really? Let's look at the questions I asked that weren't rhetorical:

How can you know this?
Can you read their minds?
Is this simply your opinion?
Do you not think that your God would be able to convince even the hardest of skeptics?
Or is your God that impotent?
So do you wish to retract the previous claim then?
What on earth are you talking about?
Why would any atheist expect any kind of reward?
Which atheists are these?
why would anyone want faith?

How are these not legitimate questions?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 593 by OnceConvinced]

To all atheists or self proclaimed agnostics this may concern, quoting Pope John Paul II "Your questions would only be legitimate, if man, with his created intellect and within the limits of his own subjectivity, could overcome the entire distance that separates creation from the Creator, the contingent and not necessary being from the Necessary Being."
p. 38 from ' Crossing the threshold of hope'

I will try to clarify partly for you all that are so hasty to respond. Pope John Paul II is explaining why it is so difficult for man to believe in something that is so far above himself. 'Created intellect' is not a reference to the Creator, but the current state of the limitations of our knowledge.

The limitations of our knowledge are not static, or fixed. Nor is it some kind of axiom, in that there is a point beyond which no human mind could comprehend. Each generation manages to produce some incredible minds, and these individuals push the limits of our knowledge further and further outward.

To say there is a fixed limit beyond which the human mind cannot comprehend needs to be supported with some kind of evidence. The problem is, it can't be, it is one of those things can can neither be falsified or proven. Therefore, it can't be presented as 'truth', as 'truth' is, by definition, proven.

I'm not denying that we have difficulty grasping what is (yet) beyond what we know. But that is not an axiomatic state of affairs, as it seems John Paul II is saying.

This is the kind of pseudophilosophy that theists use to explain why God drowning the Earth was not an act of evil. All you have to do is call up 'hey, remember, our knowledge is limited!' In fact, I see this little maneuver as a way human evil can manifest itself, with dogged adherence to dogma and all the consequences of that be damned. At least, you've obeyed your god; whatever has happened because of it is not your responsibility or problem.

[rbarton]

[Replying to post 602 by rbarton]

How is "created intellect" not a reference to a creator....who....created.....intellect?

If I say "this Chevy model car," am I not referencing the Chevrolet corporation?

We obviously aren't going to advance this discussion. That's too bad. For the some of you that think, indeed we are smart enough to 'reason' God, think about the average person only 150years ago trying to 'reason' the internet. You all understand that if God is real he created the universe, everything in it, and all the 'potential' there in. It is estimated that our kind at this point in time may grasp 5% of what may be all knowledge that we are capable of. So, philosophy, based on scientific truth could be the best path to God. Do you believe that there is alien life? pretty much same school of thought.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 602 by rbarton]

How is "created intellect" not a reference to a creator....who....created.....intellect?

If I say "this Chevy model car," am I not referencing the Chevrolet corporation?

We obviously aren't going to advance this discussion. That's too bad. For the some of you that think, indeed we are smart enough to 'reason' God, think about the average person only 150years ago trying to 'reason' the internet. You all understand that if God is real he created the universe, everything in it, and all the 'potential' there in. It is estimated that our kind at this point in time may grasp 5% of what may be all knowledge that we are capable of. So, philosophy, based on scientific truth could be the best path to God. Do you believe that there is alien life? pretty much same school of thought.

It's not an unreasonable 'leap' considering we made up our gods in the first place. Gods being human-made explains whatever needs explaining without the need to bring in things like the supernatural, or what is otherwise impossible to prove.

As a theist, God is real and the rest of your point proceeds from there, and includes a real God at every turn. I personally don't regard gods as real things, and observe the fact that much of what we've attributed to gods has natural explanations. This tells me there's no reason to expect there to be some 'ceiling' past which human knowledge stops and God's knowledge begins. At least until gods can be shown to be actual beings that do 'god' things as claimed.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 609 by rbarton]

I sure don't want to "reason" a god that doesn't want me to "reason" him!

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 602 by rbarton]

How is "created intellect" not a reference to a creator....who....created.....intellect?

If I say "this Chevy model car," am I not referencing the Chevrolet corporation?

We obviously aren't going to advance this discussion. That's too bad. For the some of you that think, indeed we are smart enough to 'reason' God, think about the average person only 150years ago trying to 'reason' the internet.

So, by this logic, sometime in the future, we will be able to understand god?

You all understand that if God is real he created the universe, everything in it, and all the 'potential' there in. It is estimated that our kind at this point in time may grasp 5% of what may be all knowledge that we are capable of. So, philosophy, based on scientific truth could be the best path to God.

Or, instead of philosophizing and pretending we already know the answers, we could do what has already been showed to work (as you have admitted above): by learning and advancing scientific discoveries and knowledge. Then we really will know and not pretend.

Do you believe that there is alien life? pretty much same school of thought.

I disagree. The fact that life evolved on this planet means that another planet (with the same conditions) may also have evolved some form of life. Evolution has massive amounts of evidence supporting it. Life elsewhere may simply be a matter of probability.

A god prospect has no such supporting evidence, imo.

All the best

[rbarton]

[Replying to post 602 by rbarton]

How is "created intellect" not a reference to a creator....who....created.....intellect?

If I say "this Chevy model car," am I not referencing the Chevrolet corporation?

We obviously aren't going to advance this discussion. That's too bad. For the some of you that think, indeed we are smart enough to 'reason' God, think about the average person only 150years ago trying to 'reason' the internet.

So, by this logic, sometime in the future, we will be able to understand god?

My position does not imply this at all.

You all understand that if God is real he created the universe, everything in it, and all the 'potential' there in. It is estimated that our kind at this point in time may grasp 5% of what may be all knowledge that we are capable of. So, philosophy, based on scientific truth could be the best path to God.

Or, instead of philosophizing and pretending we already know the answers, we could do what has already been showed to work (as you have admitted above): by learning and advancing scientific discoveries and knowledge. Then we really will know and not pretend.
How much do you really know? Do you know everything everyone else knows? or are you pretending?

Do you believe that there is alien life? pretty much same school of thought.

I disagree. The fact that life evolved on this planet means that another planet (with the same conditions) may also have evolved some form of life. Evolution has massive amounts of evidence supporting it. Life elsewhere may simply be a matter of probability.
A matter of probability is never proof! Some, not you, would say God is a matter of probability!

A god prospect has no such supporting evidence, imo.

All the best

[font=Impact][/font]

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 613 by rbarton]


Moderator Intervention
Please use the "Preview" button before posting. This post appears to have no response; everything is in quotes.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 602 by rbarton]

How is "created intellect" not a reference to a creator....who....created.....intellect?

If I say "this Chevy model car," am I not referencing the Chevrolet corporation?

We obviously aren't going to advance this discussion. That's too bad. For the some of you that think, indeed we are smart enough to 'reason' God, think about the average person only 150years ago trying to 'reason' the internet.

So, by this logic, sometime in the future, we will be able to understand god?

My position does not imply this at all.

But your analogy did. You compared people living 150 years ago to understanding the internet. People (except my parents) now create, use and understand the internet.

Perhaps a better analogy is in order?

You all understand that if God is real he created the universe, everything in it, and all the 'potential' there in. It is estimated that our kind at this point in time may grasp 5% of what may be all knowledge that we are capable of. So, philosophy, based on scientific truth could be the best path to God.

Or, instead of philosophizing and pretending we already know the answers, we could do what has already been showed to work (as you have admitted above): by learning and advancing scientific discoveries and knowledge. Then we really will know and not pretend.

How much do you really know?

Is this the beginning of a we really know nothing line of reasoning?

Do you know everything everyone else knows?

No, of course not. I dont pretend to know something I dont know. But I do have access to a lot more information than man did 150 years ago.

or are you pretending?

Pretending? No. I was speaking of man in general terms. I assume you are not denying that man has more knowledge now than 150 years ago. Are you?

Do you believe that there is alien life? pretty much same school of thought.

I disagree. The fact that life evolved on this planet means that another planet (with the same conditions) may also have evolved some form of life. Evolution has massive amounts of evidence supporting it. Life elsewhere may simply be a matter of probability.

A matter of probability is never proof!

You asked about belief, not proof. And if probability does not play into your decision making faculties, then I have to wonder how you make decisions at all.

Some, not you, would say God is a matter of probability!

And that probability (the actual number) is figured out how?