In all sincerity, why doesn't God simply say, "Hi"?

[riesie]

I think it would force me to ignore the obvious fact that evolution happens without any evidence of an intelligent designer being involved.

What definition of evolution do you hold by the way?

 

[xianghua]

I'm not aware of any.
I don't think it's possible to create a watch made only from wood.

I'ld love to be shown wrong on that one though. A 100% wooden watch sounds like something I'ld like to see. .

here something very close (although its a sun watch):

Sun watch stock photo. Image of clock, shade, science - 44200870

 

[KCfromNC]

What definition of evolution do you hold by the way?

The ones actual scientists do when talking about actual science - see e.g. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02 for a basic intro.

 

[Uber Genius]

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭19‬ ESV)

Is God looking for people to believe he exists? Or people who will trust in him and do his hard work here for a few decades as disciples?

People willing to be disciples if they got evidence seem to get evidence.

That is not an argument but an observation about an infinite person's motives by a very finite person.

There is plenty of evidence but also plenty of things Christians expect out of their relationship with God that goes unfulfilled for lifetime. But that seems true of all of our knowledge and desires. It is a rare day that the atheist has all their knowledge and desires fulfilled. It may be the transcendent visionary nature of our soul that craves things that are eternal and yet hidden in this earthly life.

 

[riesie]

The ones actual scientists do when talking about actual science - see e.g. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_02 for a basic intro.

Real scientists do not agree on a lot of things when they are talking about real science. So this is not a very strong answer.

Do you i.e. think micro-evolution is proof for macro-evolution?

The change over time theory in your basic intro for example is a weak argument an can not be used as proof for macro-evolution whatsoever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

here something very close (although its a sun watch):

Sun watch stock photo. Image of clock, shade, science - 44200870

Myeah....
I'm talking about an actual watch. Not a stick in the ground with a circle drawn around it. That's a time-telling contraption, sure. But not exactly what people generally mean when they use the word "watch".

 

[DogmaHunter]

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (‭James‬ ‭2‬:‭19‬ ESV)

Is God looking for people to believe he exists? Or people who will trust in him and do his hard work here for a few decades as disciples?

How do you "trust" in someone without believing that that someone actually exists?
Seems like you can't have one without the other.

People willing to be disciples if they got evidence seem to get evidence.

Except the ones that don't.

There is plenty of evidence but also plenty of things Christians expect out of their relationship with God that goes unfulfilled for lifetime. But that seems true of all of our knowledge and desires. It is a rare day that the atheist has all their knowledge and desires fulfilled.

1. desires are irrelevant when trying to find out what is actually true
2. when there are things that aren't known, I just call them unknown, instead of making stuff up or "just believing" things.

It may be the transcendent visionary nature of our soul that craves things that are eternal and yet hidden in this earthly life.

It doesn't matter what we "crave" for, when it comes to finding out what is actually true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Real scientists do not agree on a lot of things when they are talking about real science.

Off course. That's because there is plenty we don't know. Disagreement is what drives progress.

There is also a lot that scientists DO agree on. Like evolution being a very real process.

Do you i.e. think micro-evolution is proof for macro-evolution?

Only creationists seem to think that there is a difference.
In reality, biologists don't see these as 2 different processes.

The change over time theory in your basic intro for example is a weak argument an can not be used as proof for macro-evolution whatsoever.

1+1+1+1+1+.....+1+1+1 = big number.

 

[KCfromNC]

Real scientists do not agree on a lot of things when they are talking about real science. So this is not a very strong answer.

That's pretty vague. Which ones disagree with the definition I linked to?

Do you i.e. think micro-evolution is proof for macro-evolution?

No, science doesn't prove anything. It is about building models based on past observations to generate predictions about future ones.

The change over time theory in your basic intro for example is a weak argument an can not be used as proof for macro-evolution whatsoever.

Doesn't need to be. The evidence for macro-evolution is overwhelming. That's why basically all scientists accept that it best explains how reality works.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not?
Because it doesn't support your case?

No because it is a category error.

Not what I meant.
I meant that you were rather quick to discard all the "personal experiences" from all religious believers that follow a religion that is vastly different then yours. Islam and christianity share the same abrahamic roots. They are the same "family" of religions.

No, I took a long time to discard all "personal experiences" from other religions. They may have the same roots but one needs to understand that connections to determine from where they arise.

Except off course, for all the hindu's alive today that claim personal experiences with the divine, as well as the many many writings from for example ancient greece and rome where they express similar experiences.

I think the problem here lies in what you are conceptualizing as "personal experiences"

Half my family is muslim or from muslim background. I think I know a thing or two about islam.
To say that muslims don't claim personal experiences with the divine, is beyond ridiculous.

Islam claims that Allah is unknowable. If the religion itself makes that claim, how do you claim differently?

I'm talking about all religious people. You can't all be right. Yet, you're all very convinced of your own religious beliefs, which you all motivate with the same kind of (bad) evidence.
There is no argument you can give, that the religious of other religions can't also give. Just by substituting words like "god" and "jesus" with their own divinities.

No, they can't all be right and obviously aren't. Anyone from any religion can substitute words or even use the Bible as their foundation but truth is truth and it is up to everyone to determine it.

Except for the many writings they left behind.

Example?

To demand faith, is to demand exactly that.

No, in fact, it does not. Faith can not be found without knowing God first.

 

[riesie]

Off course. That's because there is plenty we don't know. Disagreement is what drives progress.

There is also a lot that scientists DO agree on. Like evolution being a very real process.



Only creationists seem to think that there is a difference.
In reality, biologists don't see these as 2 different processes.



1+1+1+1+1+.....+1+1+1 = big number.

I never said evolution is not a real process. The fact that a beak of a bird gets bigger or smaller due to circumstances over time can never be proof for a beak being there in the first place. And indeed because there's still a lot of 'we don't know ' we still do not know the Darwinistic view of macro-evolution correct. There still are no, regardless of evolution, things popping in to resistance out of nothing. This is a major flaw in your theory of evolution.

 

[KCfromNC]

I never said evolution is not a real process. The fact that a beak of a bird gets bigger or smaller due to circumstances over time can never be proof for a beak being there in the first place. And indeed because there's still a lot of 'we don't know ' we still do not know the Darwinistic view of macro-evolution correct.

Pretty sure we know it is incorrect - science has moved on a bit in the last 150+ years. Plus you still seem to be confused on the idea that science proves things rather than the reality that it produces useful, well tested working models.

There still are no, regardless of evolution, things popping in to resistance out of nothing. This is a major flaw in your theory of evolution.

Magical poofing into existence is the creationist version of things. Not sure why the fact that it didn't happen says anything about the theory of evolution.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It is correct to say that there is no evidence for fully formed biological orgainisms magically poofing into existence.

...which is what creationists believe, not scientists, so it's very amusing when they bring this point up.

 

[xianghua]

Myeah....
I'm talking about an actual watch. Not a stick in the ground with a circle drawn around it. That's a time-telling contraption, sure. But not exactly what people generally mean when they use the word "watch".

so if you will find such a watch with a self replicating system. will you agree that this kind of watch will be evidence for design rather then evolution?

 

[Liza B.]

It's been many moons since I've been here, but I'm back in part for nostalgic reasons and, in part, to maybe help others along the way as they have helped me. I'm still seeking truth wherever it may lie so all commentary is welcome!

To the point. If the Christian God is a personal, loving, all-powerful being who has - according to the Bible - created the universe with all its complexities, miracles, and wonders then surely this God understands and can communicate the simplicities of the English language. Yet, no one on Earth - aside from the Biblical perspective - has heard His voice?

Simply put, why can't God simply say, "Hi" to us?

I'm going to apologize in advance if someone in this thread has quoted this passage from C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity"--I haven't time to read the entire thread! Basically, when God "invades"--when the author says "hi" and walks onto the stage, the play is over. Just know what happens on that day!

“God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere openly and directly in our world quite realise what it will be like when He does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author walks on to the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: but what is the good of saying you are on His side then, when you see the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else - something it never entered your head to conceive - comes crashing in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that none of us will have any choice left? For this time it will God without disguise; something so overwhelming that it will strike either irresistible love or irresistible horror into every creature. It will be too late then to choose your side. There is no use saying you choose to lie down when it has become impossible to stand up. That will not be the time for choosing; it will be the time when we discover which side we really have chosen, whether we realised it before or not. Now, today, this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last for ever. We must take it or leave it.”

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if you will find such a watch with a self replicating system.

That's wouldn't be a watch.
Watches don't self-replicate.

Watches are mechanical devices to tell time. They are not living or self-replicating.

Let's just label these imaginary things you talk about as "X".
Whatever X is, apparantly it can tell time. But it isn't a watch.

My pc and smartphone can tell time as well. But they aren't called a "watch" are they?
Clearly being able to tell time, is not the only criteria for something to be called a "watch".

So whatever X is, it's not a watch.

will you agree that this kind of watch will be evidence for design rather then evolution?

I would require a lot more information then just "it tells time and it self-replicates", to answer that question.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm still seeking truth wherever it may lie so all commentary is welcome!
To the point. If the Christian God is a personal, loving, all-powerful being who has - according to the Bible - created the universe with all its complexities, miracles, and wonders then surely this God understands and can communicate the simplicities of the English language. [2]Yet, no one on Earth - aside from the Biblical perspective - has heard His voice?
Simply put, [1]why can't God simply say, "Hi" to us?

[1] He's not human .

[2] Ask His sheep. They/we hear His Voice. (just like He Says in His Word)

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never said evolution is not a real process. The fact that a beak of a bird gets bigger or smaller due to circumstances over time can never be proof for a beak being there in the first place.

Not following you here...

And indeed because there's still a lot of 'we don't know ' we still do not know the Darwinistic view of macro-evolution correct

Except for all the DNA evidence of common ancestry.
And how it converges with geographic distribution of species, comparative anatomy etc.

There still are no, regardless of evolution, things popping in to resistance out of nothing.

Evolution doesn't say that that should be happening.

This is a major flaw in your theory of evolution.

How is it a flaw that things that are NOT predicted by a scientific theory, are NOT happening in reality either?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No because it is a category error.

How so? The point is about "testimony" and "personal experience", is it not?

Then how is it a category error to point to instances where you don't tactually take "testimony" and "personal experience" seriously enough, to accept their claims as accurate?

No, I took a long time to discard all "personal experiences" from other religions.

So you studied just about all other religions known to mankind? Somehow, I doubt it.

But anyway... So what was it about those "personal experiences" you found not believable as apposed to the "personal experiences" of those who call themselves christian?

And are there also "personal experiences" from christians, pertaining to their christian beliefs, that you don't accept as accurate? I'ld love an example + explanation on that one.

I think the problem here lies in what you are conceptualizing as "personal experiences"

It is an experience that is personal and that can only be shared with other people through anecdote.
What is wrong with that definition?

Islam claims that Allah is unknowable

Christians claim that too, about their deity.

If the religion itself makes that claim, how do you claim differently?

I'm not claiming differently. At no point have I stated that these experiences are claimed to be direct experiences of any particular deity. In fact, I used the word "...with the divine".

When Mohammed told people that the angel Gabreel appeared before him in a cave and started dictating the Quran, I'ld say that that is pretty much a "personal experience with the divine", wouldn't you agree?

No, they can't all be right and obviously aren't. Anyone from any religion can substitute words or even use the Bible as their foundation but truth is truth and it is up to everyone to determine it.

So, how do you propose "everyone" goes about that?
How does one determine what is truth?
How does one distinguish between true and false?

Example?

Have you ever read ancient greek or roman texts?
It talks about gods as if they simply walk among them.

Their mythology even talks about humans going in direct conversation with gods, actively arguing about how the gods should rule over them.

No, in fact, it does not. Faith can not be found without knowing God first.

That makes no sense.
If you know, then you don't need faith.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's been many moons since I've been here, but I'm back in part for nostalgic reasons and, in part, to maybe help others along the way as they have helped me. I'm still seeking truth wherever it may lie so all commentary is welcome!

To the point. If the Christian God is a personal, loving, all-powerful being who has - according to the Bible - created the universe with all its complexities, miracles, and wonders then surely this God understands and can communicate the simplicities of the English language. Yet, no one on Earth - aside from the Biblical perspective - has heard His voice?

Simply put, why can't God simply say, "Hi" to us?

I don't know if you realize, there were these people called prophets who's sole responsibility was to commicate God's word. What we do know about God is by means of what theologians call natural revelation, are God's divine attributes and eternal nature. (Rom. 1:18-22). Direct revelation isn't so simple since we are sinners, if God speaks directly to you your probably going to freak out.