Personal relationship with God

[Resha Caner]

1) this is a thread about a persona relationship claim

I understand.

3) does God want for people to believe he exists?

Yes. Jeremiah 9:23-24

4) does God want individual people like myself to believe?

Yes. 1 Timothy 2:4

2) does God know each individual and what it would take for them to believe?
5) since he knows what would convince me, why wouldn't he?

Question #2 is actually two questions, and #5 assumes the answer to the second half of #2 is yes. The answer to the first half is yes, he knows everyone. Psalm 33:13-15

But maybe it's not possible to convince everyone God exists.

 

[devolved]

But maybe it's not possible to convince everyone God exists.

You don't think that it possible for God himself to convince everyone that it exists? Why would you think that belief in God would be a reasonable expectation then?

 

[Resha Caner]

You don't think that it possible for God himself to convince everyone that it exists? Why would you think that belief in God would be a reasonable expectation then?

I wouldn't phrase it as a declarative ("Not everyone can be convinced!"), but as an agnostic position ("I don't know if everyone can be convinced."). And it's just my thought; I'm not promoting it as God's position. Neither do I see it as something static in time - that people are born inconvincible. Rather, it's a hardening over time.

 

[devolved]

I wouldn't phrase it as a declarative ("Not everyone can be convinced!"), but as an agnostic position ("I don't know if everyone can be convinced."). And it's just my thought; I'm not promoting it as God's position. Neither do I see it as something static in time - that people are born inconvincible. Rather, it's a hardening over time.

Ok. Thank you for clarification on the first part.

Hence, let's frame it in a less certain and more of a hypothetical manner of a loose analogy of what you seem to be implying.

Let's say that a huge percentage of people would gradually go blind over time (which actually does happen). Would it be reasonable to expect these people to see signs on the street? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to modify our general expectations in scope of ability of these people, and shift from vision to auditory clues or touch?

You seemed to answer all of the prior questions in the affirmative. God wants to us to believe that he exists. Such desire seemed to be phrased in terms of general expectation for every human being when it comes to some moral standards.

YET, he doesn't seem to be willing to take the extra step to modify his revelation to what any given person is able to believe. Hence, you invite me to talk about Baptism with a Lutheran pastor when it likely not going to resolve the issue at all.

So, we have a couple options .

1) Ether people are wrong about God's expectations, and God doesn't really care about whether we believe or not (you ruled that one out)

2) Or God expects and wants us to believe based on the evidence that not able to convince us (Which I'd like to discuss as to how that works)

3) Or it's seemingly a projection of people who believe certain things and attribute it to some supernatural agency to derive certain meaning for what they are doing, hence the evidence revolves around those things and not in any conclusive evidence that would convince us.

4) I didn't want to be biased, so I'd like to inject a possibility that would work for you - there may be some unknown reason as to why such expectation is the case.

Hence, I wouldn't be quite like Fuminous in that regard. Given my history, I'd probably take a lot softer approach. I think we can continually deny everything and anything to the point of hard solipsism, but that's not the general mode of my personal discussion. If I ask a Christian God to demonstrate its existence, and all of a sudden I get the "Moses burning bush" experience. I'd think it generate enough dissonance in my worldview in order for me to investigate and pursue it further, and take religious claims a bit less dismissively. In the very least from a position that "It happened to me too".

But, that's not the case. What we get instead is an educational and indoctrination experience that goes about anchoring our emotional states with some ritualistic observance, and it's a rather bizarre way to come to know someone personally.

For example, if I have never met my father, and I get a note:

"Drive up at 12:00 am sharp in the middle of the cemetery. Make sure that you wear nothing but speedos. Cut off the head of the chicken, and smear its blood all over you... and then you will meet me. I know it sounds weird, but all of those things have a lesson for you to learn about my love. But, most importantly, you will then meet me, your father!"

Why would I take the above with anything else than a skeptical approach? Can I be blamed for ignoring the message and not doing those things? If someone does care to show me that they exist, and they'd like to have a relationship, I think that the prerequisite rituals seem excessive, especially if these rituals are not performed in context of a culture we can relate to, and thus it becomes a rather bizarre and questionable endeavor.

But, let's say that I was curious enough to drive up to the cemetery at 12am. Would the fact that I wasn't wearing speedos and smearing chicken all over my body translated as "lack of faith"? And would the fact that I didn't wear the "brand-name" speedos, and took it a more generic understanding of the word "speedos" matter to my father as opposed to my willingness to drive up and meet?

So, the question remains, why not convince people in a way that they can be convinced individually?

 

[devolved]

Just a side note. English isn't my first language. As I'm re-reading things that I type out in haste, I can see how it can factor into discussion. In my native language there's no "a" or "the" as a determiner, and punctuation rules are quite a bit different. I know it's not an excuse, but I do my best . Perhaps not my best, but the best I can do in the short amount of time I get to do this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're studying me. Interesting.

Yes and no; I'm interested in what it takes to establish a particular belief - the evidence, the context, etc. You made a claim of particular interest, so I'm curious to know what it was that convinced you, and since a claim of physicality implies physical interaction, I thought the description might be literally more substantial than usual.

... The venue doesn't seem conducive to explaining in full why I'm convinced God exists.

I understand that, I was interested in what convinced you not of God's existence, but specifically God's physicality.

But I'll let it go now.

... I'm not sure what you mean by "independently verifiable", but how persistent would it have to be?

Persistent enough to have others independently confirm that they perceive the inexplicable physical phenomenon too.

Footnote: As engineering undergraduates who had to take physics classes, my fellow students and I had good reason to believe physics majors and psychedelic drugs were constant companions. YMMV.

In the circles I moved in as an undergraduate, psychedelics were pretty rare - unlike cannabis...

 

[Resha Caner]

So, the question remains, why not convince people in a way that they can be convinced individually?

I'm not sure what you want to be convinced of. It often seems to me people want to be convinced of a god that doesn't exist, not the one that does.

Suppose Alan brought Bob a Javan Rhinocerous and said, "Look! I found a unicorn!"
Bob says, "No, that's not a unicorn, it's a rhinocerous."
Alan: It has one horn. It's a unicorn.
Bob: No. Unicorns have two toes, a beard, and look like a horse. It's not a unicorn. It's a rhinocerous.
Alan: Well, actually, the ancient relative (the Elasmothererium) did look like a horse. It's a unicorn.
Bob: No. Still missing the proper number of toes and the beard.
Alan: That was only mentioned in some myths. Not all descriptions of the unicorn stipulated two toes and a beard.
Bob: It's not a unicorn.

This is just a semantic argument. There are many proper scientific names that contain mythical terms (such as the genus Draco - which means "dragon"). So what is Bob actually objecting to? I've had conversations like this that end with the other person refusing to discuss the matter any further. All they will do is repeat short, dogmatic statements like Bob does.

This is only one of the thousand roadblocks I've encountered, so I can't give you a singular answer.

Just a side note. English isn't my first language. As I'm re-reading things that I type out in haste, I can see how it can factor into discussion. In my native language there's no "a" or "the" as a determiner, and punctuation rules are quite a bit different. I know it's not an excuse, but I do my best . Perhaps not my best, but the best I can do in the short amount of time I get to do this.

There is no need to apologize. You're doing fine.

Yes and no; I'm interested in what it takes to establish a particular belief - the evidence, the context, etc. You made a claim of particular interest, so I'm curious to know what it was that convinced you, and since a claim of physicality implies physical interaction, I thought the description might be literally more substantial than usual.

I could give you very specific physical details, but I'm not convinced it would make a difference.

I often encounter a dismissive attitude toward what we could maybe call a "religious recipe". I don't understand that. When someone shares the recipe for their favorite cake, people don't scoff: Pffft! That's not what made it taste like chocolate. It was just an internal mental state that made you think that was chocolate cake (and there are studies that indicate people can be fooled about what they're eating). The truth is that it's both. Chocolate does exist, and people can be fooled.

Sacraments involve both a material element and a scriptural element. For the Eucharist that is wine/bread and 1 Corinthians 11:17ff. Those are both external stimuli and their combination is unique. Is it not possible then, that this unique external stimuli creates a unique mental state? In answering that question, don't jump too far ahead. The question is a very tiny baby step. I'm not implying God is only a mental state, etc. I'm not even implying it will have the same result for everyone. I'm only asking if you could accept this unique external stimuli can create a unique mental state.

Persistent enough to have others independently confirm that they perceive the inexplicable physical phenomenon too.

Well, others do say God can be physical, so I think there's more to it than that.

 

[devolved]

I'm not sure what you want to be convinced of. It often seems to me people want to be convinced of a god that doesn't exist, not the one that does.

Suppose Alan brought Bob a Javan Rhinocerous and said, "Look! I found a unicorn!"
Bob says, "No, that's not a unicorn, it's a rhinocerous."
Alan: It has one horn. It's a unicorn.
Bob: No. Unicorns have two toes, a beard, and look like a horse. It's not a unicorn. It's a rhinocerous.
Alan: Well, actually, the ancient relative (the Elasmothererium) did look like a horse. It's a unicorn.
Bob: No. Still missing the proper number of toes and the beard.
Alan: That was only mentioned in some myths. Not all descriptions of the unicorn stipulated two toes and a beard.
Bob: It's not a unicorn.

This is just a semantic argument. There are many proper scientific names that contain mythical terms (such as the genus Draco - which means "dragon"). So what is Bob actually objecting to? I've had conversations like this that end with the other person refusing to discuss the matter any further. All they will do is repeat short, dogmatic statements like Bob does.

This is only one of the thousand roadblocks I've encountered, so I can't give you a singular answer.

You are addressing a question that's not really relevant here, and I'll explain below

I often encounter a dismissive attitude toward what we could maybe call a "religious recipe". I don't understand that. When someone shares the recipe for their favorite cake, people don't scoff: Pffft! That's not what made it taste like chocolate. It was just an internal mental state that made you think that was chocolate cake (and yet there are studies that indicate people can be fooled about what they're eating). The truth is that it's both. Chocolate does exist, and people can be fooled.

If we modify analogy a bit, it would be a bit different:

1) You claim that what makes the cake awesome is the incantation that you recite when preparing it.

2) When we taste the cake that you prepared with the same exact ingredients, we can't tell a difference. To which your reply is that only people who know the incantation can tell a difference. To everyone else it of course would appear as the regular cake.

Hence, the way you frame the difference would be entirely subjective. Let's say someone screams out... "I do taste the difference! This one is better, you are right! It's amazing". To which you reply with "See, see, I told you!".

It doesn't conclusively validate anything to people who can't taste any difference. Do they not taste any difference because they don't want to? I don't really think that would be my case.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I could give you very specific physical details, but I'm not convinced it would make a difference.

It would make a difference in that it would add to my knowledge of the factors of belief, if not my understanding (which might come later).

Is it not possible then, that this unique external stimuli creates a unique mental state?

I suspect that, if perceived sufficiently well, it's almost inevitable. It's how we learn new stuff.

Well, others do say God can be physical, so I think there's more to it than that.

I don't follow; what has that to do with my criteria for superhuman agency?

 

[Resha Caner]

You are addressing a question that's not really relevant here, and I'll explain below.

I realize your issue may differ from the example I gave. As I said, there seem to be thousands of different reasons people aren't convinced, so I doubt I'll be able to provide a solution.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't follow; what has that to do with my criteria for superhuman agency?

I don't understand what you're not following. I thought it was straightforward:

C: What if more than one person were present to witness it: blinding flash of light, calls you by name, asks why you reject him, commands you to believe. Now what is the natural explanation?
F: Unless there was some persistent (independently verifiable) physical evidence that could not be produced by any human means, I'd suspect an elaborate prank ...
C: I'm not sure what you mean by "independently verifiable", but how persistent would it have to be?
F: Persistent enough to have others independently confirm that they perceive the inexplicable physical phenomenon too.
C: Well, others do say God can be physical, so I think there's more to it [your requirements] than that.

 

[devolved]

I realize your issue may differ from the example I gave. As I said, there seem to be thousands of different reasons people aren't convinced, so I doubt I'll be able to provide a solution.

Well, the case of the experience that you are describing, I think only one reason would suffice, and that would be that claimed cause for the experience isn't working in any manner in which we could conclusively differentiate such cause from other explanations that are natural.

I think that would be the similarity of both mine and Fuminous' objection. Hence it's one reason and one reason only in this case. It's very difficult to tell the difference, just like in the example of the "supernatural cake" I gave you.

Hence, I'd lead with the same thing that I would say about the Deist God. If such God isn't distinguishable from any natural occurrence of reality, than it's not really distinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

 

[devolved]

I don't understand what you're not following. I thought it was straightforward:

C: What if more than one person were present to witness it: blinding flash of light, calls you by name, asks why you reject him, commands you to believe. Now what is the natural explanation?
F: Unless there was some persistent (independently verifiable) physical evidence that could not be produced by any human means, I'd suspect an elaborate prank ...
C: I'm not sure what you mean by "independently verifiable", but how persistent would it have to be?
F: Persistent enough to have others independently confirm that they perceive the inexplicable physical phenomenon too.
C: Well, others do say God can be physical, so I think there's more to it [your requirements] than that.

I think my point to the above would stand:

If there is a God, it would absolutely be able to convince Fuminous in some conclusive manner. For God that created everything it wouldn't be a problem. Or, do you think otherwise?

 

[Resha Caner]

Or, do you think otherwise?

I think that no matter what happens, some will find a "natural explanation" for it.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that no matter what happens, some will find a "natural explanation" for it.

And, for others, no matter what evidence is available, they will deny it and contribute it to a God. This God for all the ability they are supposed to have, sure seems lacking when it comes to convincing people (2/3 of the world's population).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...
F: Persistent enough to have others independently confirm that they perceive the inexplicable physical phenomenon too.
C: Well, others do say God can be physical, so I think there's more to it [your requirements] than that.

I need stricter requirements for evidence of God's physical activity because other people think God is physical too? I still don't get it, but never mind.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think that no matter what happens, some will find a "natural explanation" for it.

This is why my criterion is for some persistent phenomenon that can't conceivably be natural or the work of man. It probably wouldn't rule out aliens with advanced technology, but it would be a step closer; God should know what to do...

 

[Resha Caner]

I need stricter requirements for evidence of God's physical activity because other people think God is physical too? I still don't get it, but never mind.

No, that's not what I meant. Paraphrasing, you stated you want to have "others independently confirm the physical phenomenon". OK. No problem. There's many people right here on this forum who will do that. But I doubt you would accept their confirmation.

So, I imagine there is an implicit requirement in the above statement you are not articulating. My guess would be something like, "Frumious wants to select others who will independently confirm the physical phenomenon". If so, how would you select these other people? But I don't think it matters now.

And, for others, no matter what evidence is available, they will deny it and contribute it to a God. This God for all the ability they are supposed to have, sure seems lacking when it comes to convincing people (2/3 of the world's population).

If such God isn't distinguishable from any natural occurrence of reality, than it's not really distinguishable from a God that doesn't exist.

This is why my criterion is for some persistent phenomenon that can't conceivably be natural or the work of man. It probably wouldn't rule out aliens with advanced technology, but it would be a step closer; God should know what to do...

Maybe it's time to repeat an old exercise since this seems to be a "new generation" of skeptics at CF. Maybe you were involved in a previous thread of mine, but I don't recall it. The exercise has 2 questions to it:

1) What is impossible? Note, I'm not asking, "What hasn't happened?" That's a different question. Further, we'll assume current physics. If something requires changing the laws of physics, it's impossible for the purposes of this discussion. I'll speed up the answers by noting every example related to one of the following: Law of Noncontradiction, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and the speed of light (and even that one is somewhat debatable when you start talking about seeing beyond the event horizon). I think that was the list.

2) What identifies an intelligent cause?

 

[quatona]

I think that we are using two different semantic categories here when we say "personal" and "subjectively perceived".

Generally, "personal" carries the idea of specificity. For example, I can say that I personally know Mark Cuban if I and Mark would at least met enough to have an extended conversation in person. Simply because I've met Mark in passe (which I did) wouldn't constitute a personal relationship.

That´s all fine and well - but it´s obviously not what they mean when they say "personal relationship".

 

[bhsmte]

No, that's not what I meant. Paraphrasing, you stated you want to have "others independently confirm the physical phenomenon". OK. No problem. There's many people right here on this forum who will do that. But I doubt you would accept their confirmation.

So, I imagine there is an implicit requirement in the above statement you are not articulating. My guess would be something like, "Frumious wants to select others who will independently confirm the physical phenomenon". If so, how would you select these other people? But I don't think it matters now.





Maybe it's time to repeat an old exercise since this seems to be a "new generation" of skeptics at CF. Maybe you were involved in a previous thread of mine, but I don't recall it. The exercise has 2 questions to it:

1) What is impossible? Note, I'm not asking, "What hasn't happened?" That's a different question. Further, we'll assume current physics. If something requires changing the laws of physics, it's impossible for the purposes of this discussion. I'll speed up the answers by noting every example related to one of the following: Law of Noncontradiction, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and the speed of light (and even that one is somewhat debatable when you start talking about seeing beyond the event horizon). I think that was the list.

2) What identifies an intelligent cause?

I dont see how this addresses the reality that i mentioned.