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).

[Mae von H]

Since most of the major scientific achievements in the 19th and 18th centuries were accomplished by Christians, not to mention the establishment of republics ending tyrannies, and all but one of ivy league schools in America were started by Christians, it’s rather impossible to accept that they all lost grip on reality. Seems more like those who accuse believers of this lost grip on that reality.

I’ve watched a few debates and the overwhelming impression was that the believers are far and away sharper mentally than the atheists. I’ve seen that elsewhere too. The atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish. We are forbidden from using name calling, they aren’t and it shows.

Here we go again. Christians are the bestest ever while atheists are immoral scumbags. Nothing of any merit. One of the reasons I decided not to waste time in useless exchanges like this. Have a nice day.

Here we go again…take what a believer says and exaggerate and twist it all out of proportion misrepresenting it on purpose.

[TRANSPONDER]

Since most of the major scientific achievements in the 19th and 18th centuries were accomplished by Christians, not to mention the establishment of republics ending tyrannies, and all but one of ivy league schools in America were started by Christians, it’s rather impossible to accept that they all lost grip on reality. Seems more like those who accuse believers of this lost grip on that reality.

I’ve watched a few debates and the overwhelming impression was that the believers are far and away sharper mentally than the atheists. I’ve seen that elsewhere too. The atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish. We are forbidden from using name calling, they aren’t and it shows.

Here we go again. Christians are the bestest ever while atheists are immoral scumbags. Nothing of any merit. One of the reasons I decided not to waste time in useless exchanges like this. Have a nice day.

Here we go again…take what a believer says and exaggerate and twist it all out of proportion misrepresenting it on purpose.

Good Lord, you don't think what you had to say about atheists wasn't pretty insulting? "atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish. We are forbidden from using name calling, they aren’t and it shows" I guess that you can slander and insult and you don't realise it because you think it's right. While atheists (Bible critics) talk about the flawed thinking and bad apologetics of the Bible believers and that is taken as a personal insult. I imagine the descriptiver term 'Genesis literalist' or 'cafeteria Christian' is to be taken as abusive. It isn't - it describes what is going on. But accusing atheists of having no moral code...I know why believers think that must happen if you lose Godfaith, but it is actually very insulting.

[Mae von H]

Since most of the major scientific achievements in the 19th and 18th centuries were accomplished by Christians, not to mention the establishment of republics ending tyrannies, and all but one of ivy league schools in America were started by Christians, it’s rather impossible to accept that they all lost grip on reality. Seems more like those who accuse believers of this lost grip on that reality.

I’ve watched a few debates and the overwhelming impression was that the believers are far and away sharper mentally than the atheists. I’ve seen that elsewhere too. The atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish. We are forbidden from using name calling, they aren’t and it shows.

Here we go again. Christians are the bestest ever while atheists are immoral scumbags. Nothing of any merit. One of the reasons I decided not to waste time in useless exchanges like this. Have a nice day.

Here we go again…take what a believer says and exaggerate and twist it all out of proportion misrepresenting it on purpose.

Good Lord, you don't think what you had to say about atheists wasn't pretty insulting? "atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish. We are forbidden from using name calling, they aren’t and it shows" I guess that you can slander and insult and you don't realise it because you think it's right.

Pointing out insults isn’t insulting. And this was regarding debates. You want examples?

While atheists (Bible critics) talk about the flawed thinking and bad apologetics of the Bible believers and that is taken as a personal insult.

That’s not an insult.

I imagine the descriptiver term 'Genesis literalist' or 'cafeteria Christian' is to be taken as abusive. It isn't - it describes what is going on. But accusing atheists of having no moral code...I know why believers think that must happen if you lose Godfaith, but it is actually very insulting.

I didn’t say they had no moral code. I didn’t imply it. You twisted and misrepresented what I said. I said they don’t believe in a Moral Law Giver which isn’t the same. You are being dishonest in changing what I said to become something I didn’t say. This you do without a twinge of conscience, I assume. That’s because you don’t think there’s a Moral Law Giver recording your changes so you’re free to do that.

To be merciful, maybe you don’t understand the difference between having a moral code and knowing there’s a Moral Law Giver. The former is an internal regulation of behavior that every man had and most keep. There are, however, for the atheist, no repercussions if one violates that. Doesn’t mean they don’t have a code, just means violations aren’t necessarily a problem. For those who know there’s a Law Giver, violations are a problem.

[brunumb]

To be merciful, maybe you don’t understand the difference between having a moral code and knowing there’s a Moral Law Giver. The former is an internal regulation of behavior that every man had and most keep. There are, however, for the atheist, no repercussions if one violates that. Doesn’t mean they don’t have a code, just means violations aren’t necessarily a problem. For those who know there’s a Law Giver, violations are a problem.

The implication is loud and clear. I'm sure everyone knows exactly what you are saying even if you can't be totally upfront about it.

The atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish.

[Mae von H]

To be merciful, maybe you don’t understand the difference between having a moral code and knowing there’s a Moral Law Giver. The former is an internal regulation of behavior that every man had and most keep. There are, however, for the atheist, no repercussions if one violates that. Doesn’t mean they don’t have a code, just means violations aren’t necessarily a problem. For those who know there’s a Law Giver, violations are a problem.

The implication is loud and clear. I'm sure everyone knows exactly what you are saying even if you can't be totally upfront about it.

You clearly don’t understand and I’m sure few atheists do. Claiming this but demonstrating you don’t understand is weak.

The atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish.

Beauty! That’s exactly what the link you posted proudly says of itself demonstrating the point I made. See? You don’t understand the difference between having no moral code (never says it implied that) and disbelieving in a Moral Law Giver (one can be proudly wicked.)

[POI]

disbelieving in a Moral Law Giver

If a "moral law giver" exists, why do we not inherently agree on many of these "moral laws"? --> (i.e.) abortion, euthanasia, gay sex, and slavery?

Is it because:

A) He does not give the same 'moral law' to all?
B) He tries, but evil blocks some of it for some of us, which is weird, because then we would not all still universally agree that murder is wrong?
C) Your given response is imaginary in reality, and we induce our own moral codes, (which is why many differ from person to person to the suggested topics in red above)?

[Mae von H]

disbelieving in a Moral Law Giver

If a "moral law giver" exists, why do we not inherently agree on many of these "moral laws"? --> (i.e.) abortion, euthanasia, gay sex, and slavery?

Is it because:

A) He does not give the same 'moral law' to all?
B) He tries, but evil blocks some of it for some of us, which is weird, because then we would not all still universally agree that murder is wrong?
C) Your given response is imaginary in reality, and we induce our own moral codes, (which is why many differ from person to person to the suggested topics in red above)?

Excellent question. I have been pondering these matters and am glad to exchange ideas with you on this. The evaluation of where there is Moral Law Giver or a Moral Law internally in each man seems to be evaluated on the success of that law in decisions we make AND the success of us agreeing on the details. It is assumed that if there is an internal moral law, we all agree on it.

Now this evaluation, as I have presented previously, is not a requirement in other matters of learning. We have no problem accepting that different doctors will have different approaches as to the right treatment. We do not think that because there are different views, there is no treatment possible. We have conferences to discuss many matters not because we think there is no answer, but because we do not trust the understanding of one individual over all others but think truth or the right way is more likely to be found when many offer their view. So that we do not agree on there being a moral compass ought not to mean there is none. It is a standard found no where is intellectual pursuits.

However, that being said, the fact there we understand what a moral compass is or would be, shows that there is an internal standard. This is revealed in how we defend moral positions. We do not say, „it is what I like as a moral standard and you do what you like as a moral standard.“ When we perceive a moral wrong has been done, we cry „it is WRONG!“ which shows that we think there exists a wrong that the other people ought to admit is there. If there was no moral compass, we would only have personal preferences. The animal kingdom only has personal preferences, like eating instead of being eaten.

An example, the events in the Middle East October 7th last year. People are generally on one side or another but BOTH SIDES claim moral ground for their position and endeavor to prove it. Those who favor the Palestinians claim they have even wronged. Those who favor the Israelies claim they have been wronged. No one merely says they are taking the sides of one of them because they simply chose them same as they choose which team to root for in a game. Both sides claim moral grounds that all people ought to acknowledge. I mean there are thousands of people protesting solely on the grounds that the Palestinians were wronged. They don‘t say they merely prefer that side. This is evidence of a moral code we all know and appeal to at times. It is not personal preference.

Now, as to your question at the beginning. That there is a discussion on those matters you address in particular above on moral, not merely convenient or financial or other grounds, demonstrates clearly that there is a moral compass. If there were not, there would be no discussion on moral grounds. Do you see what I mean? If I say slavery is wrong, that is me making a moral statement not personal preference and I except you and others to agree. It is morally wrong and I am appealing to the moral compass in you. That is the same for all of the matters. Now we can agree that some matters are not moral, but personal preference. Does not mean there is no moral code. Just means that particular item is not a moral one. Some vegans appeal to a moral code regarding animals. Most do not think it is a moral matter but a personal preference. But the vegans are showing that a moral code exists. They do not say, „ we like animals so do not eat them, please“ as that will just get a response, „well we like to eat meat and so do not recognize your preferences as binding on our meal choices.“

Do you see what I mean?

[Mae von H]

Since most of the major scientific achievements in the 19th and 18th centuries were accomplished by Christians, not to mention the establishment of republics ending tyrannies, and all but one of ivy league schools in America were started by Christians, it’s rather impossible to accept that they all lost grip on reality. Seems more like those who accuse believers of this lost grip on that reality.

I’ve watched a few debates and the overwhelming impression was that the believers are far and away sharper mentally than the atheists. I’ve seen that elsewhere too. The atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish. We are forbidden from using name calling, they aren’t and it shows.

Here we go again. Christians are the bestest ever while atheists are immoral scumbags. Nothing of any merit. One of the reasons I decided not to waste time in useless exchanges like this. Have a nice day.

Here we go again…take what a believer says and exaggerate and twist it all out of proportion misrepresenting it on purpose.

Good Lord, you don't think what you had to say about atheists wasn't pretty insulting? "atheists have the sole advantage that since they disbelieve in a Moral Law Giver, they can be as low and insulting as an attack as they wish. We are forbidden from using name calling, they aren’t and it shows" I guess that you can slander and insult and you don't realise it because you think it's right. While atheists (Bible critics) talk about the flawed thinking and bad apologetics of the Bible believers and that is taken as a personal insult. I imagine the descriptiver term 'Genesis literalist' or 'cafeteria Christian' is to be taken as abusive. It isn't - it describes what is going on. But accusing atheists of having no moral code...I know why believers think that must happen if you lose Godfaith, but it is actually very insulting.

This is actually rather puzzling as there is more than one atheist here who is debating whether there is a moral code at all. If they do not think there is a moral code, why is it insulting that they are accused of not believing there is a Moral Law Giver? It follows logically. And this is directed at a group, not an individual. You direct your insults to the individuals you’re exchanging post with. There is a difference. It is no secret that the two groups generally do not have a good opinion of the other group, but individual exchanges can still be respectful and civil, although this is more rare than it used to be in our culture where political figures have no problems personally attacking their opponents as people.

And no, that is not where the insults at us are levied. The name calling, while forbidden, occurs nevertheless. Saying it is forbidden and therefore never occurs, is really very naive. I will just say this, I rarely answer your posts because they are too demeaning to the person you are interacting with. But there are atheists who are not so. They posses the ability to communicate without using insulting adjectives and expressions. I consider them intellectually superior and are naturally more pleasant to exchange with. The necessity of the demeaning terminology being ignored is much less or not necessary. That is not true with too many of your posts. I doubt you see this though, although you are sensitive when you perceive a slight against you.

[The Nice Centurion]

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).

Your problem seems clear to me.

Since you started with the false premise that the christian god gave you a promise, you have trapped yourself within the disatvantageful settings of the Mangler Fallacy!

Do better next time.

[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).

Your problem seems clear to me.

Seems the problem is as clear as mud to you

Since you started with the false premise that the christian god gave you a promise, you have trapped yourself within the disatvantageful settings of the Mangler Fallacy!

None of the provided six premises state that "God gave me a promise". Here they are again:

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)

In P6), you can reference the following Bible passages below. In the provided passage below, you would have to argue that my specific request to receive communication from him, which was ignored for 3 decades, was unreasonable:

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! (Matthew 7)