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).

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #61

Religion is the practice of carrying on about a magical entity that can't be shown to exist.

Can such an entity be shown not to exist?

Lol

Now we're down to "Ya can't show it ain't! Ya can't show it ain't!"

As I've mentioned elsewhere, cosmic materialism isn't an adequate default position since material existence has no way of accounting for itself.

But a magic man in the sky does?

We observe the universe. That's about the extent of my claims in this regard.

Materialists do a funny thing. When asked how to account for the universe's existence, they'll bend over backwards trying to get a universe from nothing with nothing to cause it. They balk at the idea of a "magical god", so they take the god out of the picture but still try to conjure up a universe with magic.

I understand your point: accounting for where the universe came from. Or rather (since the BB is a hypothesis that seems to be sorta supported by the expanding universe) where the Stuff came from that the BB 'event' was made from (1). And frankly,we don't know and nobody does. at best, since an eternal matter seems counter intuitive and matter popping out of nowhere, the best that I could come up with and some physicists are toying with the same idea, is of a sort of a nothing (which doesn't need creation) which nevertheless has the capacity to produce a very basic 'nothing' which can react with other bits of nothing to act as though they had substance or at least an Effect (energy) is the only suggestion that has any hope of getting around the two basic problems. And since we know that atoms are made of nothing, mostly, and a box of nothing has been shown to contain energy, ,there is some vague and indirect evidence to suggest there might be something in this idea.

And if that sounds like 'magic', then indeterminacy, multiple universes, a holographic universe, Dark matter and a mirror universe where time runs backwards, which sounds as daft as anything I've ever heard a physicist suggest have apparently creditable science (or at least the mathematics of Physicists) behind them.

So theists posit an intelligent Cosmic entity with no better explanation than no origin at all and they twit 'materialists' because they point out that a god has no more going for it and perhaps less that nature dunnit, even after, as I have mentioned before, the materialist only has to account for one problem - matter apparently made of Nothing, but theism has two problems, a being apparently made of Nothing and which is also intelligent. Occam's razor would automatically prefer the hypothesis that has less logical entities to explain.

(1) Aside that the idea now is not an insanely tiny cosmic grenade that contains all the matter of the universe, but the BB 'event'really being an event that happened everywhere, all at once. And I have to admit that I'm fully anticipating that there will be an announcement; "Sorry folks, we had it all wrong. It IS Turtles all the way down..."

[JoeyKnothead]

Materialists do a funny thing. When asked how to account for the universe's existence, they'll bend over backwards trying to get a universe from nothing with nothing to cause it.

Knotheads do a funny thing. When they don't know how the universe came to be, they don't make claims in that regard.

They balk at the idea of a "magical god", so they take the god out of the picture but still try to conjure up a universe with magic.

Knotheads balk at the idea of folks making claims in a debate and not being willing, or able to support em.

For those who still don't understand...

I, Joey of Knothead forest, make no claims regarding how the universe came to be, specifically because it beats the heck out of me how it did.

That said, if the theist could actually prove their magic man in the sky hypothesis, there'd be little need for a debate about it.

[Thomas123]

This debate thread is like a game of paintball.

If I knock on a door some evening and the lights are off, I might assume that that person is not there. If their car is in the driveway, I might start to have doubts about my conclusion. If there is mail sticking out of the mail box then ,my narrative will change again.
Anyway you paint it, i will not be meeting that person today!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #81

And since we know that atoms are made of nothing, mostly, and a box of nothing has been shown to contain energy, ,there is some vague and indirect evidence to suggest there might be something in this idea.

A box which contains energy doesn't contain nothing. "Nothing" would have no energy. Atoms being made mostly of nothing, just calling them "nothing" doesn't work.

And I have to admit that I'm fully anticipating that there will be an announcement; "Sorry folks, we had it all wrong. It IS Turtles all the way down..."

All the way down to what? A material foundation for all material existence? If there isn't any such bedrock foundation, from what does the rest of material existence arise? Infinite reduction doesn't work any better than does infinite regression.

Not to be facetious, but whenever this discussion comes up it reminds me of this:



Edit: I also wanted to add again that Occam's principle doesn't tell us not to multiply causes; it tells us not to multiply causes beyond necessity. When we don't have an adequate explanation, multiplying causes is necessary and doesn't stop being necessary until we have an adequate explanation.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #82

Knotheads balk at the idea of folks making claims in a debate and not being willing, or able to support em.

Here's what I conclude, and here's the process I used to reach my conclusion.....

Oh, yeah? Well, prove it!

Uhh......well, here----see where I'm showing you?----here----is the process I went through to reach......

Prove it!!

Well, I'm trying to present my argument by showing you the steps I went......

PROVE IT!!!

I'm trying to explain to you how I reach my conclusion!!!

..........

So you can't prove it..........

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #82

Knotheads balk at the idea of folks making claims in a debate and not being willing, or able to support em.

Here's what I conclude, and here's the process I used to reach my conclusion.....

Oh, yeah? Well, prove it!

Uhh......well, here----see where I'm showing you?----here----is the process I went through to reach......

Prove it!!

Well, I'm trying to present my argument by showing you the steps I went......

PROVE IT!!!

I'm trying to explain to you how I reach my conclusion!!!

..........

So you can't prove it..........

Here's the process as I see it...

Claimant makes a claim.

I seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant cries I'm being unfair.

I propose that if one doesn't wish for their claims to be challenged in a debate, they watch old Captain Kangaroo reruns instead.

Edit in: For those who think I'm in violation of site rules, or that my methodology is somehow out of bounds, generating a moderator complaint might help. Otherwise, the challenges'll keep coming.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #86

Claimant makes a claim.

I seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant cries I'm being unfair.

Claimant makes a claim.

You seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant directs you to argument made in support of the claim.

You simply claim that the claimant hasn't proven the claim.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #86

Claimant makes a claim.

I seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant cries I'm being unfair.

Claimant makes a claim.

You seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant directs you to argument made in support of the claim.

You simply claim that the claimant hasn't proven the claim.

I think I've been pretty consistent in showing why such fails, but if you have a particular case, I'd be happy to address it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #86

Claimant makes a claim.

I seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant cries I'm being unfair.

Claimant makes a claim.

You seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant directs you to argument made in support of the claim.

You simply claim that the claimant hasn't proven the claim.

I think I've been pretty consistent in showing why such fails, but if you have a particular case, I'd be happy to address it.

------

Knotheads balk at the idea of folks making claims in a debate and not being willing, or able to support em."

I hardly think you can make the case that I haven't presented arguments to support my propositions, and a "magic man in the sky" strawman/appeal to ridicule doesn't invalidate them.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #86

Claimant makes a claim.

I seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant cries I'm being unfair.

Claimant makes a claim.

You seek to determine the validity of that claim.

Claimant directs you to argument made in support of the claim.

You simply claim that the claimant hasn't proven the claim.

I think I've been pretty consistent in showing why such fails, but if you have a particular case, I'd be happy to address it.

------

Knotheads balk at the idea of folks making claims in a debate and not being willing, or able to support em."

I hardly think you can make the case that I haven't presented arguments to support my propositions, and a "magic man in the sky" strawman/appeal to ridicule doesn't invalidate them.

I meant that more generically. I've come to expect you'll support your claims - right or wrong.

I disavow and retract any notion that clumps you in that other clod.