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).

[Sebastyan26]

I'm pretty new here, and I don't know a lot of you, but I will just say what I think about the matter "Where is God?" Many times in my life, I was thinking... is there really a God? I mean, there is so much evil in the world: wars, kids are dying, serial killers, and even the presence of other gods. It's weird because there should be only one. But after some time, I realized this: God wants to test us. Since we have free will, he will not force us to do what we don't want. But if we choose to believe that he truly exists and that he loves us, then he will guide us, and we will be able to live life at its fullest. In other words, God is always there; you just have to accept it.

[POI]

I'm pretty new here, and I don't know a lot of you, but I will just say what I think about the matter "Where is God?" Many times in my life, I was thinking... is there really a God? I mean, there is so much evil in the world: wars, kids are dying, serial killers, and even the presence of other gods. 1) It's weird because there should be only one. But after some time, I realized this: 2) God wants to test us. Since we have free will, he will not force us to do what we don't want. 3) But if we choose to believe that he truly exists and that he loves us, 4) then he will guide us, and we will be able to live life at its fullest. In other words, God is always there; you just have to accept it.

1) Which God then?
2) Wouldn't this God already know of our true character?
3) Beliefs are not chosen
4) How do you know if there is such a God guiding you or not?

[POI]

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.

This response is apples and oranges to my given observation. Yes, getting a second opinion from a doctor is common, and often times even recommended for treatment. But this does not address asking these doctors about the "goodness" and "badness" of the expressed condition, such as cancer. They all agree it is 'bad'. Otherwise, the field of "medicine" would not study treatment regimens to remove it. When I bring up (abortion, euthanasia, gay sex, and slavery), not all humans agree. We all agree cancer is always "bad". Why do we not then all universally agree that the above expressed topics are always "good" or "bad"?

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.

Sure, but to assume there exists some invisible 'law giver' seems silly. Otherwise, the above topics in red would be just as universal as the universal position on cancer.

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.

Does an "objective moral" position, provided by a "moral law giver", even exist for the topics of abortion, euthanasia, gay sex, and slavery? If so, what is this position and why do human intuitions differ so vastly here?

[Mae von H]

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.

This response is apples and oranges to my given observation. Yes, getting a second opinion from a doctor is common, and often times even recommended for treatment. But this does not address asking these doctors about the "goodness" and "badness" of the expressed condition, such as cancer. They all agree it is 'bad'. Otherwise, the field of "medicine" would not study treatment regimens to remove it. When I bring up (abortion, euthanasia, gay sex, and slavery), not all humans agree. We all agree cancer is always "bad". Why do we not then all universally agree that the above expressed topics are always "good" or "bad"?

Untrue. It is exactly the same. This whole forum is full of people expressing their differing opinions on what is right and what is wrong. Chalk full. There is no difference. All doctors assume there is a right treatment. All those who debate right and wrong of actions or policies assume that there is a moral right at all. These are exactly the same. The atheist point is because there are differing opinions, there is no understand or existence of moral right. But this is untrue. That we differ all appealing to what we expect everyone ought to know right from wrong demonstrates that we all know right from wrong. We usually like exceptions regarding our own behaviour which motivates differences in defining right.

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.

Sure, but to assume there exists some invisible 'law giver' seems silly. Otherwise, the above topics in red would be just as universal as the universal position on cancer.

Again, just because there is cancer and just because there are doctors does not mean that all doctors agree on treatment. There is cancer. There is treatment. But there are differing opinions as to how to proceed.

The necessity of a moral law giver is seen in what happens in groups of people who do not believe in a moral law giver. Every man can do as he likes only worrying about getting caught and if, as in California, that possiblity is gone, then all manner of lawlessness is possible with no consequences from society.

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.

Does an "objective moral" position, provided by a "moral law giver", even exist for the topics of abortion, euthanasia, gay sex, and slavery? If so, what is this position and why do human intuitions differ so vastly here?

Yes. I know Him, I know the book of his view on these matters and yes, there is. It is the basis for moral decisions and the lack of abiding by these is seen in history in cultures. It did not go well. But the evidence for this requires looking into history. The Nazis, the best known example, started with euthanasia and we know the outcome. Abortion is showing itself in population decline that will come clear in the next decades. Slavery is on the rise in various forms as the culture no longer acknowledges a Moral Law Giver who will judge their deeds after death.

[POI]

Mae Untrue. It is exactly the same. This whole forum is full of people expressing their differing opinions on what is right and what is wrong. Chalk full. There is no difference. All doctors assume there is a right treatment. All those who debate right and wrong of actions or policies assume that there is a moral right at all. These are exactly the same. The atheist point is because there are differing opinions, there is no understand or existence of moral right. But this is untrue. That we differ all appealing to what we expect everyone ought to know right from wrong demonstrates that we all know right from wrong. We usually like exceptions regarding our own behaviour which motivates differences in defining right.

POI No Mae. My point is we ALL agree "cancer is always bad". This is my point. However, we do not ALL agree "euthanasia is always bad". "Intuitive senses" about the topic of euthanasia vary quite greatly. If an "intuition senses giver" exists, why the vast disparity for the topics of euthanasia, abortion, gay sex, and slavery? This cuts to the heart of the issue. If a giver gives, then why the heck is he always ~100% successful in giving the universal answer about cancer, that "it's bad"? But, when it comes to topics like I mentioned, he is then very unsuccessful? Here's an idea... Maybe because we do not get our "intuitive senses" from some stated and/or asserted invisible "intuitive senses giver" after all?

[Sebastyan26]

I'm pretty new here, and I don't know a lot of you, but I will just say what I think about the matter "Where is God?" Many times in my life, I was thinking... is there really a God? I mean, there is so much evil in the world: wars, kids are dying, serial killers, and even the presence of other gods. 1) It's weird because there should be only one. But after some time, I realized this: 2) God wants to test us. Since we have free will, he will not force us to do what we don't want. 3) But if we choose to believe that he truly exists and that he loves us, 4) then he will guide us, and we will be able to live life at its fullest. In other words, God is always there; you just have to accept it.

1) Which God then?
2) Wouldn't this God already know of our true character?
3) Beliefs are not chosen
4) How do you know if there is such a God guiding you or not?

Again, this is just my opinion, so I will just answer your question:
1) Jesus Christ
2) Yes, He will, but it's not by His doing that we are like this, but rather our own. He just knows.
3) Yes, they are.
4) Because the Bible says so.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm pretty new here, and I don't know a lot of you, but I will just say what I think about the matter "Where is God?" Many times in my life, I was thinking... is there really a God? I mean, there is so much evil in the world: wars, kids are dying, serial killers, and even the presence of other gods. 1) It's weird because there should be only one. But after some time, I realized this: 2) God wants to test us. Since we have free will, he will not force us to do what we don't want. 3) But if we choose to believe that he truly exists and that he loves us, 4) then he will guide us, and we will be able to live life at its fullest. In other words, God is always there; you just have to accept it.

1) Which God then?
2) Wouldn't this God already know of our true character?
3) Beliefs are not chosen
4) How do you know if there is such a God guiding you or not?

Again, this is just my opinion, so I will just answer your question:
1) Jesus Christ
2) Yes, He will, but it's not by His doing that we are like this, but rather our own. He just knows.
3) Yes, they are.
4) Because the Bible says so.

POI asked the questions I was going to.

I ask,why the Christians god?
You finally answer "Because he Bible says so"

Why should we believe the Bible?

The 'free will' excuse and 'man is to blame' evasion still leaves us with a world and morality that (on evidence) would look that way if there was no god and we have worked out morality for ourselves.

In short, the Morality argument does not validate any particular god, never mind any god at all, and the Bible is not trustworthy.
Finally welcome to the board. Always happy to have new posters here.

[POI]

I'm pretty new here, and I don't know a lot of you, but I will just say what I think about the matter "Where is God?" Many times in my life, I was thinking... is there really a God? I mean, there is so much evil in the world: wars, kids are dying, serial killers, and even the presence of other gods. 1) It's weird because there should be only one. But after some time, I realized this: 2) God wants to test us. Since we have free will, he will not force us to do what we don't want. 3) But if we choose to believe that he truly exists and that he loves us, 4) then he will guide us, and we will be able to live life at its fullest. In other words, God is always there; you just have to accept it.

1) Which God then?
2) Wouldn't this God already know of our true character?
3) Beliefs are not chosen
4) How do you know if there is such a God guiding you or not?

Again, this is just my opinion, so I will just answer your question:
1) Jesus Christ
2) Yes, He will, but it's not by His doing that we are like this, but rather our own. He just knows.
3) Yes, they are.
4) Because the Bible says so.

1)
2) If he already knows your true character, then he does not need to test you.
3) Then chose to believe, for one minute, that you are made of chocolate pudding. I "triple dog" dare you
4) Why should anyone care what the Bible says?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes.'choosing to beleive'is a bit of a blunderbuss.

You cannot choose to believe that you are a hot dog with or without mustard and fried onions. But one can choose to believe evidence. Bias and denial is horribly familiar in Bible apologetics. Slam dunk evidence is denied because the believer does noit want to accept it. Excuses are made up, evasions, misdirections, dismissal and personals are employed so as to avoid the way the evidence really points.

It is a choice whether people opt for Faith or evidence. Some have suggested that one cannot choose that (you can never change anyone's mind) but the fact is that half the atheists we have used to be Christians, but could not go on lying to themselves. Whether having to give into what is evidentially undeniable really is a choice or not is arguable, but it is close enough.