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).

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #170

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

Eternal, but not material.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #170

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

Eternal, but not material.

Do you think it "poofed" itself into existence?


Tcg

[brunumb]

[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.

So you only apply Occam when it suits you. OK.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #170

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

Eternal, but not material.

Do you think it "poofed" itself into existence?

No, I posit that it has always existed. And before you compare that to the material universe, remember that I posit the creative principle to be non-material.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to brunumb in post #173

So you only apply Occam when it suits you. OK.

I apply Occam when it applies.

[JoeyKnothead]

[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.

"Plausible" being a subjective term, is the best you'll do.

If we're gonna propose some eternal, sentient entity as bringing existence into it, we're stuck to wonder what brought that entity into existence.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #170

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

Eternal, but not material.

Do you think it "poofed" itself into existence?

No, I posit that it has always existed. And before you compare that to the material universe, remember that I posit the creative principle to be non-material.

So, how do you justify this double standard? And if you ignore that question, what verifiable evidence can you present of this claimed non-material something or other?


Tcg

[Tcg]

[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.

"Plausible" being a subjective term, is the best you'll do.

If we're gonna propose some eternal, sentient entity as bringing existence into it, we're stuck to wonder what brought that entity into existence.

Don't forget, special pleading negates the need to wonder about that given that it is super something or other. Super non-existent? Super imaginary? I don't know, super Teflon? Super unjustifiable? I'm running out of synonyms. Super specialistic? That's it.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #176

If we're gonna propose some eternal, sentient entity as bringing existence into it, we're stuck to wonder what brought that entity into existence.

You keep circling back around to that one, ignoring the causality which clearly applies to material existence.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #178

Don't forget, special pleading negates the need to wonder about that given that it is super something or other. Super non-existent? Super imaginary? I don't know, super Teflon? Super unjustifiable? I'm running out of synonyms. Super specialistic? That's it.

Not nearly as super as material existence giving rise to itself. That would really be super.