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]

If infinite regression isn't a problem for material existence, it shouldn't be a problem for God.

Nothing's a problem for various proposed, yet unproven magical entities. Any difficulty lies with the nonbeliever.

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?

Wow. The god guy fusses about "naked assertion without proof".

Lomfpoc

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to brunumb in post #159

As far as I am concerned no god has been shown as necessary for material existence. Material existence is observed while God is not.

Since material existence is observed, it definitely needs accounting for. So what is necessary for it? Occam's principle assumes that nature never does more than is necessary, so we can also assume that nature would never do less than is necessary. So what would make material existence necessary?

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

Is it? For years scientists have puzzled over what makes the famous sliding stones of Death Valley carve easily observed paths through the topsoil of the desert floor (a recent theory involves wind pushing the rocks over the ground through melting frost). But what if someone were to posit that the sliding stones of Death Valley simply move themselves, because that posits "one less entity" than an outside force like wind? That conclusion would certainly be more economical, but would it be sufficient? Remember, it isn't just about not multiplying----it's about not multiplying beyond necessity.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #159

As far as I am concerned no god has been shown as necessary for material existence. Material existence is observed while God is not.

Since material existence is observed, it definitely needs accounting for. So what is necessary for it? Occam's principle assumes that nature never does more than is necessary, so we can also assume that nature would never do less than is necessary. So what would make material existence necessary?

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

Is it? For years scientists have puzzled over what makes the famous sliding stones of Death Valley carve easily observed paths through the topsoil of the desert floor (a recent theory involves wind pushing the rocks over the ground through melting frost). But what if someone were to posit that the sliding stones of Death Valley simply move themselves, because that posits "one less entity" than an outside force like wind? That conclusion would certainly be more economical, but would it be sufficient? Remember, it isn't just about not multiplying----it's about not multiplying beyond necessity.

That's a clever argument but fallacious and for the usual reason - it overlooks the material default. That is, with the origin of Cosmic Stuff as with sliding stones, Abiogenesis, consciousness, morality, Foo - fighters or the mystery of the Marie Celeste, Natural rather than supernatural explanations - even if we don't know what they are yet - are the default, not gods, ghosts or invisible sliding - stone gnomes. And in fact, when the explanation is found (as I believe is the case with the sliding stones and indeed the Marie Celeste) the natural/material explanation turned out to be the right one. In fact we ought to begin to understand that opting for a magic explanation (which I know is terribly tempting even with baffling conjuring tricks) is to be resisted on principle. Opting for a god, ghost or visiting UFO pilots ought on scientific and even logical grounds to be invalid.

"Definition of the supernatural": 'That which is logically and rationally excluded as an explanation'.

[JoeyKnothead]

Since material existence is observed, it definitely needs accounting for. So what is necessary for it?

Material existence can be accounted for because there it sits, being all existy. When we don't know the why, there's no need to propose a "who" behind it.

Occam's principle assumes that nature never does more than is necessary, ...

Then Occam's wrong. In nature we can observe vestigial limbs in whales and snakes. Heck, we even observe girls with big ol' hooters far beyond the dining capacity of any one child.

...so we can also assume that nature would never do less than is necessary. So what would make material existence necessary?

Now we're getting into subjective values for what's necessary. Even still, we can look at them girls who're incapable of becoming pregnant.

...
For years scientists have puzzled over what makes the famous sliding stones of Death Valley carve easily observed paths through the topsoil of the desert floor (a recent theory involves wind pushing the rocks over the ground through melting frost).
...
But what if someone were to posit that the sliding stones of Death Valley simply move themselves, because that posits "one less entity" than an outside force like wind? That conclusion would certainly be more economical, but would it be sufficient? Remember, it isn't just about not multiplying----it's about not multiplying beyond necessity.

My position here is that we observe the universe. There's an apparent expansion, but we don't exactly know the nature of from where comes that expansion. Did the universe always exist, then started binge eating? Or did it come into existence before sitting down at the dinner table? We may never know.

Then we have theists who propose a god's involvement, a god's "creating the universe", but that skips over the possibility of the universe always existing, then declaring the god has always existed, in order to explain "how the universe came to be".

It's a goofy argument for various reasons, but that whole "creation" angle doesn't comport to our observations. We observe the universe, we observe expansion. Anything more'n that and we're speculating.

[Yozavad]

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).

Hello POI. At the risk of being presumptuous, I believe everyone has felt isolated from the Numinous. For clarity, I'll use the word Numinous the way Christopher Hitchens often used it (though he didn't capitalize it ) , i.e., that mysterious 'something' (God for some, or a sense of elevated awareness for others) that animates a person beyond the drudgery of the daily grind. At the risk of being even more presumptuous, I assume everyone has felt the dreadful, nihilistic scourge upon them, as eloquently expressed: "Futility of futilities, says the Kohelet. Everything is futile! What's the point of laboring under this sun", Ecclesiastes 1:1,2 my translation. I suggest two ways to find the Numinous. 1) If you're seeking God as the Numinous (would that we all!), extend to Him the same courtesy you grant yourself, i.e., a person with personal faculties, rather then a force governed by some esoteric system. No one views themselves as a force governed by some esoteric system. We acknowledge the essence of our individualism; a self with intellectual and emotional faculties, but we often don't extend this courtesy to others, e.g.,our conduct treats society as just a force governed by some esoteric system not worthy of the individualism we assign ourselves. Its near impossible to be an apathetic troll without that! I must reiterate: If God is treated as an impersonal force governed by some esoteric system (theists and agnostics seem to revel in defining the esoteric system), then God will always evade you. The esoteric system will become a mockery of your misery, and no Numinous will be found! Certainly nothing resembling Christ's invitation can be found in it: " Come to me all who are weary and heavy-laden and I will give you rest". 2) If you're seeking life itself as the Numinous ( would that we all!) then the same principle applies. Treat others; people, as well as animals; the same way you want to be treated. This isn't some drudged up intellectual trickery on my part. Far from it. Such an attitude has often helped me to find the Numinous in my own life. I'll part with this: If you can't find the Numinous in God, then try finding the Numinous in life itself. Often the latter helps spark the former.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #163

"Definition of the supernatural": 'That which is logically and rationally excluded as an explanation'.

Then material existence giving rise to itself would have to be deemed supernatural.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #164

Material existence can be accounted for because there it sits, being all existy.

Material existence being self-evident doesn't make it self-explanatory.

Then Occam's wrong. In nature we can observe vestigial limbs in whales and snakes.

Those features show paths on which evolution has taken those species in various environments.

Or do you not believe in evolution?

Heck, we even observe girls with big ol' hooters far beyond the dining capacity of any one child.

Since human females don't always have just one child at a time, a surplus could be an advantage.

Now we're getting into subjective values for what's necessary. Even still, we can look at them girls who're incapable of becoming pregnant.

That could be an evolutionary population-control mechanism.

Or do you not believe in evolution?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #164

Material existence can be accounted for because there it sits, being all existy.

Material existence being self-evident doesn't make it self-explanatory.

But claiming a god's involved is self-explanatory?

My point here is that where "material existence can't account for itself", at least we can observe material existence. With that in mind, proposing a god's involvement only begs more questions than it answers.

Then Occam's wrong. In nature we can observe vestigial limbs in whales and snakes.

Those features show paths on which evolution has taken those species in various environments.

Or do you not believe in evolution?

I replied in response to your, "Occam's principle assumes that nature never does more than is necessary..."

It shows that nature indeed can do more than "necessary".

That you either don't see the pertinence, or refuse to acknowledge it is a problem you gotta work out for yourself.

Heck, we even observe girls with big ol' hooters far beyond the dining capacity of any one child.

Since human females don't always have just one child at a time, a surplus could be an advantage.

Yet it would be more than necessary in the majority of cases, where only one child is born.

Now we're getting into subjective values for what's necessary. Even still, we can look at them girls who're incapable of becoming pregnant.

That could be an evolutionary population-control mechanism.

Of course. My point is that where you or Occam there fret the un/necessary, it's really just down to one's opinion of what constitutes "necessary".

Or do you not believe in evolution?

Evolution does seem to point to natural processes moreso than some magic guy waving his magic wand and poofing everything into existence.

What I'm getting at throughout this exchange is your implying the universe needs to "account for itself", as you don't require your proposed god should suffer the same demand.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #168

What I'm getting at throughout this exchange is your implying the universe needs to "account for itself", as you don't require your proposed god should suffer the same demand.

What I'm getting at is that it's more plausible for some transcendent principle to "poof" everything into existence than for everything to poof itself into existence, either at a specific moment or from a bottomless bottom up through all time.

[Tcg]

What I'm getting at throughout this exchange is your implying the universe needs to "account for itself", as you don't require your proposed god should suffer the same demand.

What I'm getting at is that it's more plausible for some transcendent principle to "poof" everything into existence than for everything to poof itself into existence, either at a specific moment or from a bottomless bottom up through all time.

Do you believe that your version of God, whatever it may be, is eternal?


Tcg