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 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.

I know...but, just because it seems to you impossible doesn't mean it is impossible.

[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.

I know...but, just because it seems to you impossible doesn't mean it is impossible.

You sounded like a preacher there for a minute.

[JoeyKnothead]

[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.

Because you keep bolting away from it.

We observe the universe. If we're to put a causality to it, that doesn't immediately present a sentient entity as the cause. In proposing a sentient entity, it's equally fair to ask what brought it about, regardless of the protestations of those who wish to ignore the implications of that question.

It seems the theist wants to declare (without confirmation) that the universe must have somehow come into existence, while ignoring that requirement for their unconfirmed, sentient entity.

In this matter then, the best we can do, the most we can say, is that the universe might well have always existed, regardless of its now apparent expansion. This solution fits the theist's "always existed" claim, as well as the observations we do see. It just removes the preposterous, unconfirmed, unevidenced proposition of some eternally existing, universe creating powerful, sentient entity.

There'd be no need to keep "circling back" to this argument if we could ever convince our theist friends of the gooficity of their argument here.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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.

I know...but, just because it seems to you impossible doesn't mean it is impossible.

You sounded like a preacher there for a minute.

Probably because Theist apologists use the 'You can't be sure' apologetic to try to keep Godclaims afloat when they are pretty much sunk.

But in science, this is not 'preaching'.It is recognising that unknowns are not evidence either way and we should be wary of declaring anything 'impossible',whether or not it is trying to skew the argument to work for theism. In respect of which you sound pretty preacherlike yourself in trying to make a case out of material existence giving rise to itself, which is just the pre - emptive 'nothing can come from nothing'.

Of course it's a fair point and you may be right, but just now it is not enough to make a case for theism, even irreligious theism.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #183

We observe the universe. If we're to put a causality to it, that doesn't immediately present a sentient entity as the cause. In proposing a sentient entity, it's equally fair to ask what brought it about, regardless of the protestations of those who wish to ignore the implications of that question.

Equally fair perhaps, but applying causality to a creator doesn't exempt material existence from the application.

The very fact that we can observe the universe means that we can ask concrete questions about its source, and the universe itself doesn't supply all the answers. Something which might be there not causing itself could lead one to conclude that it might not be there. But something which is there not causing itself raises more interesting questions.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #184

It is recognising that unknowns are not evidence either way and we should be wary of declaring anything 'impossible',whether or not it is trying to skew the argument to work for theism. In respect of which you sound pretty preacherlike yourself in trying to make a case out of material existence giving rise to itself, which is just the pre - emptive 'nothing can come from nothing'.

Can you demonstrate how something can come from nothing? Logically, that pre-empts itself.

Of course it's a fair point and you may be right, but just now it is not enough to make a case for theism, even irreligious theism.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I approach it as a process of elimination to remove what can't be in order to uncover what is.

There's another part to Occam's principle which is sometimes overlooked. The principle tells us that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be correct. Between the material universe and a nonmaterial creative principle, all things would not be equal. And since material existence doesn't logically account for itself, then speculating on a creative principle beyond material existence is not speculating beyond necessity.

As for such a principle being sentient, as I've also mentioned elsewhere, I have my own experiential reasons for drawing that conclusion which I don't claim to be able to prove; I can only recommend that others exercise prudence in drawing conclusions on what is and isn't possible.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #184

It is recognising that unknowns are not evidence either way and we should be wary of declaring anything 'impossible',whether or not it is trying to skew the argument to work for theism. In respect of which you sound pretty preacherlike yourself in trying to make a case out of material existence giving rise to itself, which is just the pre - emptive 'nothing can come from nothing'.

Can you demonstrate how something can come from nothing? Logically, that pre-empts itself.

Of course it's a fair point and you may be right, but just now it is not enough to make a case for theism, even irreligious theism.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I approach it as a process of elimination to remove what can't be in order to uncover what is.

There's another part to Occam's principle which is sometimes overlooked. The principle tells us that all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be correct. Between the material universe and a nonmaterial creative principle, all things would not be equal. And since material existence doesn't logically account for itself, then speculating on a creative principle beyond material existence is not speculating beyond necessity.

As for such a principle being sentient, as I've also mentioned elsewhere, I have my own experiential reasons for drawing that conclusion which I don't claim to be able to prove; I can only recommend that others exercise prudence in drawing conclusions on what is and isn't possible.

No, I can't demonstrate how something can come from nothing. Neither can I see how a complex intelligent being can exist without origin, so While i can't explain where matter came from, i don't hear an explanation of where a intelligent creator came from, so 'We don't know', and that is the reason first cause, fails, not because science can explain where matter came from.

You've missed Occam's razor (which the Holmes Dictum appears to derive from, as you appear to have noted) as relating to the parameters. The simplest explanation that explains all the facts.The problem is where we don't know all the facts. Where we do (within all reason, as in the dragon in the garage simile), we can talk of Facts. With Cosmic origins, we don't so much have the facts as the problem, and neither side really has an explanation. 'God is eternal' is a faithclaim rather than an explanation. So while I'm not saying that theism has no case, there, it fails in insisting that theism has to be the truth because materialism can't explain material origins.

If I may say so, if this is the main or basic reason you are a theist, you are pinning that belief on a vary poor rationale.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #187

With Cosmic origins, we don't so much have the facts as the problem, and neither side really has an explanation. 'God is eternal' is a faithclaim rather than an explanation.

If neither side has an explanation, then materialism is also a faith claim rather than an explanation.

If I may say so, if this is the main or basic reason you are a theist, you are pinning that belief on a vary poor rationale.

You may say so, but you've already admitted that you have nothing better.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #91]

How do you distinguish a god experience (vs) a self experience?

If you have to ask, then you can be sure it is not God.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #91]

How do you distinguish a god experience (vs) a self experience?

If you have to ask, then you can be sure it is not God.

Not so fast. We have countless people who claim to have 'god experiences'. However, many lay claim to a god, which is not yours. Is the 'god experience' only a true 'god experience', if you feel it came from the god you believe in?