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).

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #145

Now you are just going around in circles. How or why should either account for themselves? What is it you are getting at? What is the point?

Something which accounts for itself needs no outside agency to account for it.

HOW does something account for itself?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to brunumb in post #145

Now you are just going around in circles. How or why should either account for themselves? What is it you are getting at? What is the point?

Something which accounts for itself needs no outside agency to account for it.

HOW does something account for itself?

By not being contingent upon anything else.

So how does material existence account for itself?

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #145

Now you are just going around in circles. How or why should either account for themselves? What is it you are getting at? What is the point?

Something which accounts for itself needs no outside agency to account for it.

HOW does something account for itself?

By not being contingent upon anything else.

So how does material existence account for itself?

I don't see why material existence is contingent upon anything else. Do you?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to brunumb in post #153

I don't see why material existence is contingent upon anything else. Do you?

In post #77 I offered my argument for its not being contingent upon itself.

[brunumb]

Perhaps it does more easily than the material.

And how will we establish the difficulty of either?

As I've submitted elsewhere,

Whenever you set out to account for the existence of the material with nothing but the material itself to draw upon, your explanation is going to be the very thing you're trying to explain. That makes the argument circular.

From there I propose that the only way out of an infinite reduction is to assume the existence of something to account for all of what's observed. That we don't know its full nature doesn't really matter. It's like the case with Dark Energy; we don't have to fully understand it to be able to conclude that it's there.

I don't see any need to account for material existence. It exists. It has always (whatever always may mean) existed in some form. What's the problem? Theists say the same thing about God. They then give this God attributes that it has never demonstrated in order to make it somehow different from material existence. Special pleading?

[TRANSPONDER]

Perhaps it does more easily than the material.

And how will we establish the difficulty of either?

As I've submitted elsewhere,

Whenever you set out to account for the existence of the material with nothing but the material itself to draw upon, your explanation is going to be the very thing you're trying to explain. That makes the argument circular.

From there I propose that the only way out of an infinite reduction is to assume the existence of something to account for all of what's observed. That we don't know its full nature doesn't really matter. It's like the case with Dark Energy; we don't have to fully understand it to be able to conclude that it's there.

I don't see any need to account for material existence. It exists. It has always (whatever always may mean) existed in some form. What's the problem? Theists say the same thing about God. They then give this God attributes that it has never demonstrated in order to make it somehow different from material existence. Special pleading?

So, it seems that Athetotheist is arguing that 'where God is' - or how do we get to belief in God is through posing "Who made everything,then?" by way of 'How does material existence account for itself?" Which frames it to sound like a circular argument, which actually it isn't, is answered by making making any other possibility impossible. But 'Everything is inexplicable without an intelligent creator' - which is what the First Cause argument is, doesn't get you to God - it only gets you to A god. But I suppose that is the the pill in the bacon: Once you make a Creator credible, then you show the Bible to be a better account of that Creator than any other Holy Book.

But never mind;as you say the material existence accounts for itself by being there and First Cause in (on either evidence or logic) not the first choice for cosmic origins, no matter how the believers would like it to be.

I've answered that an intelligent creator has one more logical entity to explain than something from nothing, as often as Athettotheist has asked how material existence accounts for itself

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to brunumb in post #155

I don't see any need to account for material existence. It exists. It has always (whatever always may mean) existed in some form. What's the problem? Theists say the same thing about God. They then give this God attributes that it has never demonstrated in order to make it somehow different from material existence. Special pleading?

If infinite regression isn't a problem for material existence, it shouldn't be a problem for God. And even if simply stating that the material cosmos has always existed weren't a naked assertion without proof, which it is, the source of its eternal existence is left unaccounted for. In other words----even if it has always existed, why has it ever existed?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #156

I've answered that an intelligent creator has one more logical entity to explain than something from nothing, as often as Athettotheist has asked how material existence accounts for itself

And I've pointed out that Occam's principle tells us not to multiply beyond necessity, and you haven't shown a creative principle to be unnecessary.

[brunumb]

If infinite regression isn't a problem for material existence, it shouldn't be a problem for God. And even if simply stating that the material cosmos has always existed weren't a naked assertion without proof, which it is, the source of its eternal existence is left unaccounted for. In other words----even if it has always existed, why has it ever existed?

Why has it ever existed? Don't know. don't care. As far as I am concerned no god has been shown as necessary for material existence. Material existence is observed while God is not. That's enough for me. I still can't see any point in this notion of "accounting for itself". But then I'm not the sharpest tack in the box.

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #156

I've answered that an intelligent creator has one more logical entity to explain than something from nothing, as often as Athettotheist has asked how material existence accounts for itself

And I've pointed out that Occam's principle tells us not to multiply beyond necessity, and you haven't shown a creative principle to be unnecessary.

Material existence posits one less entity than God, so it is surely to be preferred to any explanation that posits a god.