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).

[POI]

If you were tasked with trying to explain what the experience of seeing colors was like to a person born blind, how would you go about doing so?

I know that I could not. I would have to give them sight.

I see this response as a false analogy. You are assuming I possess are large deficit (i.e.) I do not have the ability to "see". If I do not have the ability to see, then I could never see colors in the physical world.

In this case, I assume you and I possess all the same faculties. Do you possess some faculty, in which I do not? (i.e.)

1. What large deficit do I have here, in which you possess for 'experiencing' or 'seeing' God? "faith", other? (Before answering, see question 2.)

2. (from the OP) - Why did God decide to reveal Himself to you, and not me? As stated prior, in our exchange, I used to have a lot of faith.

[William]

Wheres God?

Never mind that! I have enough on my plate looking for Wally!

Wait...what...

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to POI in post #190]

It is not like God shows favoritism. Anyone of any faith and even atheists can experience God. When an atheist experiences God, he ends up believing.

How the person interprets God is up to them. They will most likely interpret it via their cultures religion, unless of course Jesus visits them like he did Paul.

So basically the answer is, "you'll know when you know?"

If you were tasked with trying to explain what the experience of seeing colors was like to a person born blind, how would you go about doing so?

I know that I could not. I would have to give them sight.

So, if a god could give that blind man his sight...

[brunumb]

Wheres God?

Never mind that! I have enough on my plate looking for Wally!

Wait...what...

Oh Dear. Oh Dear. How are we to determine which is the OTJ*?

* One True Joey

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

How would you respond to this video that would suggest there are no "i use to be a Christian"

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

How would you respond to this video that would suggest there are no "i use to be a Christian"

I find the clip reinforces my hypothesis that religious belief is a sort of placeholder for that which we don't understand.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

How would you respond to this video that would suggest there are no "i use to be a Christian"

One cannot really rationalize with a presuppositionalist anyways. This is exactly what Sye Ten Bruggencate is... "Presupps" merely presuppose GOD is the foundation for their reasoning, no matter what. And the question then becomes, why? Is it merely due to the argument from ignorance alone, or, any other fallacious type of reasoning? Further, if you read what I have written elsewhere, it was still a process which ultimately took me decades. I didn't just wake up one day and say, "nah, it's not likely."

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

How would you respond to this video that would suggest there are no "i use to be a Christian"

One cannot really rationalize with a presuppositionalist anyways. This is exactly what Sye Ten Bruggencate is... "Presupps" merely presuppose GOD is the foundation for their reasoning, no matter what. And the question then becomes, why? Is it merely due to the argument from ignorance alone, or, any other fallacious type of reasoning? Further, if you read what I have written elsewhere, it was still a process which ultimately took me decades. I didn't just wake up one day and say, "nah, it's not likely."

The answer to "Why?" can be "because i have faith"... In fact I am ultimately convinced that faith has to be part of our beliefs... Even if you were given undeniable evidence of God, you could still not believe it, or later rationalize out of it... You could always ask for more evidence... Even if some piece of evidence is satisfied, you could just demand for more evidence after that, and that piece gets satisfied and you could demand more.. Ultimately without faith, how can you even know something that is all knowing? You will never have the all knowing knowledge of God... You could just ask for more and more and more, but ultimately faith needs to be part of that belief. Somewhere you would need to have faith, no matter how much evidence you have..

You didnt really answer the question Sye posed... You just attacked his style of debate, like an ad hominem...

How is it that a person can be an unbeliever if they were a believer (which is by faith)? (1 John 2:19)

[brunumb]

Even if you were given undeniable evidence of God, you could still not believe it, or later rationalize out of it... You could always ask for more evidence... Even if some piece of evidence is satisfied, you could just demand for more evidence after that, and that piece gets satisfied and you could demand more.

That makes no sense to me. If one is given "undeniable evidence of God" then that would mean that the existence of God is irrefutably established and it would make no sense to not believe in God or require more more evidence. If the latter is the case then one must conclude that the initial evidence was not in fact conclusive. This is what we have at present and why the fall back position for believers is invariably faith.

[Shem Yoshi]

Even if you were given undeniable evidence of God, you could still not believe it, or later rationalize out of it... You could always ask for more evidence... Even if some piece of evidence is satisfied, you could just demand for more evidence after that, and that piece gets satisfied and you could demand more.

That makes no sense to me. If one is given "undeniable evidence of God" then that would mean that the existence of God is irrefutably established and it would make no sense to not believe in God or require more more evidence. If the latter is the case then one must conclude that the initial evidence was not in fact conclusive. This is what we have at present and why the fall back position for believers is invariably faith.

perhaps it was a poor choice of words to say "undeniable evidence", never the less the amount of evidence is irrelevant, faith is needed and is the foundation of the belief...

I mean you criticized believers for believing on faith, but skepticism has shown that we can doubt existence itself, and that there is no reason to believe in inducing any kinds of conclusions to anything.

At some point belief in God has to be established in faith (as well as everything else).