Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[JoeyKnothead]

I disagree i think there are many objective laws to justice (like liberty and equality), just as there are many objective laws to logic.

The funny thing is here you are rationalizing that laws are subjective...

Please present just one objective law of justice, and let's watch it be shown subjective.

In doing so, when you logically induce such an idea, you are claiming an objective truth, i.e. "laws are subjective" is an objective claim... It is self refuting.

I'm challenging your claim of there being an objective law of justice.

Just one. That's all I ask.

Liberty

Prison.

Got any more?

[Shem Yoshi]

I disagree i think there are many objective laws to justice (like liberty and equality), just as there are many objective laws to logic.

The funny thing is here you are rationalizing that laws are subjective...

Please present just one objective law of justice, and let's watch it be shown subjective.

In doing so, when you logically induce such an idea, you are claiming an objective truth, i.e. "laws are subjective" is an objective claim... It is self refuting.

I'm challenging your claim of there being an objective law of justice.

Just one. That's all I ask.

Liberty

Prison.

Got any more?

I do have to say, your subjective laws of logic might make sense of that, but to the rest of the world it isnt going so well.

[Shem Yoshi]

Debating itself suggests objective truths. It would be pointless, and it would be self refuting, to debate if there is only subjective truths. Proving someone wrong, like showing something objectively, would refute subjectivism. Even by you saying "let's watch it be shown subjective", you are trying to show universally that something is subjective, it would be an objective claim.

[brunumb]

Certainly a profound question, 'why is there anything rather then nothing?"... I suppose there ought to be a purpose for existence, rather then no purpose at all, for our universe seems to be in order and with laws. That might suggest the universe having purpose rather then having no purpose and existing in some kind of chaotic purposeless void.

Have a look at a few episodes of "How the Universe Works", particularly the ones dealing with black holes, neutron stars, quasars and the like, then reconsider the notions of order and purpose. Why should existence require a purpose? It just seems to give some people a security blanket to hang onto, but I see it as sheer hubris to think that this vast universe was somehow made for us.

Is it even possible to deny purpose? All "ought's" would be illusory. Even the structure of life and of the universe would seem to be for nothing. Our society functions with the understanding of purpose. And even when you say purpose is subjective, you are claiming objectively that purpose is subjective.

What is your understanding of the purpose of us, the world and the entire universe?

[JoeyKnothead]

I disagree i think there are many objective laws to justice (like liberty and equality), just as there are many objective laws to logic.

The funny thing is here you are rationalizing that laws are subjective...

Please present just one objective law of justice, and let's watch it be shown subjective.

In doing so, when you logically induce such an idea, you are claiming an objective truth, i.e. "laws are subjective" is an objective claim... It is self refuting.

I'm challenging your claim of there being an objective law of justice.

Just one. That's all I ask.

Liberty

Prison.

Got any more?

I do have to say, your subjective laws of logic might make sense of that, but to the rest of the world it isnt going so well.

All I can do is present the data, I can't make ya learn from it.

If "liberty" were as objective as you say, folks wouldn't be at risk of losing it through the justice system.

Keep that God filter on all ya want, it still won't change that fact.

[JoeyKnothead]

Debating itself suggests objective truths. It would be pointless, and it would be self refuting, to debate if there is only subjective truths. Proving someone wrong, like showing something objectively, would refute subjectivism. Even by you saying "let's watch it be shown subjective", you are trying to show universally that something is subjective, it would be an objective claim.

Fuss all ya want, your declaration that liberty is an objective notion will only ever be shown to be your subjective opinion.

[Shem Yoshi]

I disagree i think there are many objective laws to justice (like liberty and equality), just as there are many objective laws to logic.

The funny thing is here you are rationalizing that laws are subjective...

Please present just one objective law of justice, and let's watch it be shown subjective.

In doing so, when you logically induce such an idea, you are claiming an objective truth, i.e. "laws are subjective" is an objective claim... It is self refuting.

I'm challenging your claim of there being an objective law of justice.

Just one. That's all I ask.

Liberty

Prison.

Got any more?

I do have to say, your subjective laws of logic might make sense of that, but to the rest of the world it isnt going so well.

All I can do is present the data, I can't make ya learn from it.

If "liberty" were as objective as you say, folks wouldn't be at risk of losing it through the justice system.

Keep that God filter on all ya want, it still won't change that fact.

By that logic, if motion in an physical ball is objective, then if a ball is not in motion shows that motion is subjective. But that isnt the case, ball can move objectively, and be still objective.

Liberty is an objective law, and if you break that law you can be thrown in prison objectively. That would be the point of it having to be objective.

In fact the idea that someone can be served justice, and go to prison, suggest a objective justice system. If it was subjective anyone could do anything they want, and they could just say "I wanted to do it". You cant really break a law and go to prison if law is subjective.

[Shem Yoshi]

Debating itself suggests objective truths. It would be pointless, and it would be self refuting, to debate if there is only subjective truths. Proving someone wrong, like showing something objectively, would refute subjectivism. Even by you saying "let's watch it be shown subjective", you are trying to show universally that something is subjective, it would be an objective claim.

Fuss all ya want, your declaration that liberty is an objective notion will only ever be shown to be your subjective opinion.

It is to bad you just ignore this post. Logically if truth is subjective, things dont make sense and there is a lot of contradiction and self refuting nonsense.

[Shem Yoshi]

Certainly a profound question, 'why is there anything rather then nothing?"... I suppose there ought to be a purpose for existence, rather then no purpose at all, for our universe seems to be in order and with laws. That might suggest the universe having purpose rather then having no purpose and existing in some kind of chaotic purposeless void.

Have a look at a few episodes of "How the Universe Works", particularly the ones dealing with black holes, neutron stars, quasars and the like, then reconsider the notions of order and purpose. Why should existence require a purpose? It just seems to give some people a security blanket to hang onto, but I see it as sheer hubris to think that this vast universe was somehow made for us.

Is it even possible to deny purpose? All "ought's" would be illusory. Even the structure of life and of the universe would seem to be for nothing. Our society functions with the understanding of purpose. And even when you say purpose is subjective, you are claiming objectively that purpose is subjective.

What is your understanding of the purpose of us, the world and the entire universe?

I suppose any ought would go here... "you ought to treat others with respect", "you ought to respect elders", "you ought to wake up and maintain your life", etc...

As for the physical world and universe goes, I suppose if you apply the laws of physics you get ought's. If this asteroid hits this planet it ought to move it. Or earth ought to sustain life. etc...

[JoeyKnothead]

By that logic, if motion in an physical ball is objective, then if a ball is not in motion shows that motion is subjective. But that isnt the case, ball can move objectively, and be still objective.

Liberty is an objective law, and if you break that law you can be thrown in prison objectively. That would be the point of it having to be objective.

In fact the idea that someone can be served justice, and go to prison, suggest a objective justice system. If it was subjective anyone could do anything they want, and they could just say "I wanted to do it". You cant really break a law and go to prison if law is subjective.

In many cases conviction only requires "beyond a doubt" to inprisonate someone.

Then there's the subjective nature of the laws that lead to that conviction.

Justice is based on laws created and prosecuted by humans, using subjective ideas of good and bad.

This is what's so insidious about theist "laws", they think their subjective opinion of good and bad - coming from a god who exists in their mind only - are the only laws that matter.

inprisonate