Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[bhsmte]

Nevertheless, it puts forth the fact that the various workings of this universe requires a source, and believers call this source an intelligent, invisible God.

If you want to believe that on faith, knock yourself out. If you want to show others it is indeed true, support it with objective evidence.

 

[variant]

Nevertheless, it puts forth the fact that the various workings of this universe requires a source, and believers call this source an intelligent, invisible God.

You can call your ignorance of how the universe ultimately works whatever you like.

It doesn't answer the question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you claim that gravity or laws of gravity don't act upon the universe because they are descriptions of how the universe works? Are there any statements more nonsensical?

Herein comes the depravity of mind common upon poor men who engage in stubborn disbelief.

You are being rude. And you are wrong. This website might clarify it for you:

Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why.

 

[WoundedDeep]

You are being rude. And you are wrong. This website might clarify it for you:

I mean no offense, merely that your faulty reasoning is beyond me. When we talk about laws of gravity we mean gravity itself, we aren't talking about descriptions, you should know that full well. Your reasoning is seriously flawed in that sense.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I mean no offense, merely that your faulty reasoning is beyond me. When we talk about laws of gravity we mean gravity itself, we aren't talking about descriptions, you should know that full well. Your reasoning is seriously flawed in that sense.

I just showed you why you are wrong. I'm at a loss as to why you still think that it's my reasoning that is faulty.

 

[WoundedDeep]

If you want to believe that on faith, knock yourself out. If you want to show others it is indeed true, support it with objective evidence.

It is not faith, it is a logical extension of what we already observe in our own worlds. Its beyond me people can't see that.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I just showed you why you are wrong. I'm at a loss as to why you still think that it's my reasoning that is faulty.

You didn't, what you showed was an explanation of a totally different point which was not the point of discussion. We are talking about the origin of gravity, how it came about etc. I am almost out of words in trying to explain our discussion points. Sigh

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You didn't, what you showed was an explanation of a totally different point which was not the point of discussion. We are talking about the origin of gravity, how it came about etc. I am almost out of words in trying to explain our discussion points. Sigh

If you are saying that gravity, for example, is in need of an explanation, then I agree. What makes you think that Goddidit offers a satisfying explanation for it?

 

[WoundedDeep]

If you are saying that gravity, for example, is in need of an explanation, then I agree. What makes you think that Goddidit offers a satisfying explanation for it?

Because for something inanimate like gravity to exist, you need an external agent. Just like you need a programmer for computer programs to exist. I gave you this analogy from the beginning, not sure why you couldn't understand.

 

[talquin]

We have thousands if not millions of verifiable instances of people making up stories.
We have zero verifiable instances of supernatural events occurring.

Therefore, it is more likely the explanation is that at least part of the story of the guards, the rock or Jesus is made up that that supernatural forces were at play.

You did not answer my question, what proof do you have that the supernatural resurrection is a made up story? I can safely bet you probably don't.

I don't have any proof. The burden of proof is upon you, as you're the one who is positing that a resurrection occurred. If it can be proven that it did occur, there is no burden of proof upon me to show it was a made up story.

As it can't be proven to have occurred, the most likely explanation is that it is a made up story. Imagine if I told you I have an apple and that this apple has supernatural powers in which things move. I send you a video showing things which are moving along with a photo of the apple. What is the more likely explanation - that the apple has supernatural powers or that humans caused the objects to move?

While you may be right that supernatural things are harder to verify, yet there is neither verifiable evidence that Jesus was not resurrected. Is it so hard to find a body if you witnessed Jesus' death and are convinced He didn't resurrect? Wouldn't religious leaders be searching high and low for Jesus' body if they have evidence that He did not resurrect? Yet, no one who witnessed His death can disprove His resurrection, what then are your chances as someone living 2000 years later to disprove the supernatural resurrection? Slim to none. Either accept that the resurrection did happen as a supernatural event, or continue to speculate that it didn't without any possibility of verifying your speculation. All is your choice.

As I said earlier, the burden of proof is not upon me to disprove the resurrection. The burden of proof is upon you to show the resurrection did occur. And you haven't met that burden.

Quoting scripture or reciting ancient historical accounts isn't going to meet your burden of proof. You'll need to show through Occam's Razor how it is more likely that the resurrection stories are the result of a true resurrection occurrence than that they were made up by humans.

People who are brainwashed or deluded do not know they are brainwashed or deluded. If you are deluded into thinking that everything around you is real and that humans you interact with are real, but you are actually in the matrix, you wouldn't know it. And as said before, we have zero verifiable occurrences of the supernatural. Therefore, the more likely explanation is that these people were deluded than that they actually witnessed miracles of a supernatural power.

Yes brainwashed people do not know, but outsiders can tell by mere observation of their thoughts and actions. If Christians are but a group of brainwashed people, please explain why there is a need to persecute and even kill them? What is the justification for killing a group of brainwashed citizens who neither commit murder nor threaten the welfare of other people? Clearly those who persecuted and killed them didn't think they were brainwashed by some myths or they would just subject them to re-education. In fact, Christians in the early church days are marked distinctly by modest living and gentleness, and other than preaching a message that made no sense to most, there was no indication of any delusion or irrational behavior characteristic of brainwashed individuals. Again, where is the proof that they are brainwashed? There is none.

When one believes mythical figures to be real, the more likely explanation is that the believers have been scammed, conned, deceived, brainwashed or are deluded than that the mythical figures are real. How do we know this? Because there are thousands if not millions of verifiable documented accounts of people being scammed, conned, deceived, brainwashed or are deluded while there are zero verifiable documented accounts of mythical figures actually existing.

As mentioned earlier, deluded people don't know they're deluded. Therefore, the more likely explanation is that these followers were deluded than that it was some kind of supernatural force.

The marks of a deluded person is to be examined by an outsider. Again, similar question: what is the reason for murdering and persecuting a group of deluded people who tell myths and do no harm to their fellow men? Myths can never threaten, but the truth when told, can seem threatening to people who are exposed as guilty. Christians are persecuted and killed for the truth they tell.

Killed by whom? The terrorists who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Do you not think those people were deluded?

What experiences of Jesus could currently living people have? What is the reason we haven't had any verifiable accounts of people experiencing Jesus in scientific journals?

That He is who He claimed to be. Some people believe in Him because He delivered them from depression, others because they were miraculously saved from a fatal accident and saw Jesus. Accounts of these things are all over the net, the only thing is that common media and secular journals see no profit in showing these accounts and therefore leave them out. Why not google it yourself and see if those accounts of meeting Jesus is verifiable?

By that line of reasoning, if I claimed to be God, then I would be God.

Once again, what is more likely - that the miracles really occurred or that these stories of miracles are made up? We have millions of accounts of verifiable occurrences of people making up stories, while we have zero accounts of verifiable occurrences of people performing miracles.

 

[bhsmte]

It is not faith, it is a logical extension of what we already observe in our own worlds. Its beyond me people can't see that.

I have yet to see you support you're claim with any objective evidence, but only deny well evidenced science that goes against you're personally held belief.

I understand you are trying desperately to protect you're belief and obviously want to convince yourself it is more than just faith, but you have failed to support you're claim with any evidence or logic.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I have yet to see you support you're claim with any objective evidence, but only deny well evidenced science that goes against you're personally held belief.

I understand you are trying desperately to protect you're belief and obviously want to convince yourself it is more than just faith, but you have failed to support you're claim with any evidence or logic.

I know full well what I'm saying, and I've used logic and common sense all this while. Science, if used without prejudice, only supports the fact that a predictable universe required a Creator. It is those who have preconceived ideas that use and collect flawed evidence and fall into the error of confirmation bias.

I do not need to protect or defend something I know to be true. The truth speaks for itself, and it is understandable by those who humble themselves and look at the workings of the universe objectively.

 

[bhsmte]

I know full well what I'm saying, and I've used logic and common sense all this while. Science, if used without prejudice, only supports the fact a predictable universe required a Creator. It is those who have preconceived ideas that use and collect flawed evidence and fall into the error of confirmation bias.

I do not need to protect or defend something I know to be true. The truth speaks for itself, and it is understandable by those who humble themselves and look at the workings of the universe objectively.

Then, support you're claim, with objective evidence.

If you can't, then you believe what you do on faith. By the way, nothing wrong with believing something on faith, but for some, faith does not appear to be good enough.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Then, support you're claim, with objective evidence.

If you can't, then you believe what you do on faith. By the way, nothing wrong with believing something on faith, but for some, faith does not appear to be good enough.

I already did, with evidences scientifically proven. You aren't listening to them and keep demanding I give you more. That's pretty unreasonable.

 

[bhsmte]

I already did, with evidences scientifically proven. You aren't listening to them and keep demanding I give you more. That's pretty unreasonable.

Please refer me to the post, where you have utilized a scientifically falsifiable test, to determine if design is present.

 

[Davian]

Either I misunderstood you, or you just contradicted yourself.

You have misunderstood me. You may think it is "not fair" that you have to provide "proof" for your statements (note that I do not ask for proof, but for evidence), but *you* are the one making the "truth" claims, not me. If you think that is not fair, it is not me that made you that promise.

You have provided zero evidence for your assertions in the name of "possibilities",

None is required.

while I used historical facts to back up mine (to which you conveniently ignored or denied).

Bible stories are not historical "facts". If you had other references, I did not see any citations for them.

That means you already broke the premise of a fair debate.

I did not.

If you are genuinely interested in fair debate, refrain from using possibilities to refute my arguments.

If there are more parsimonious explanations that undermine your arguments, why should they be withheld from the discussion?

Yet you continuously reject the reality of Christian martyrdom which is not only historical, but also continues to happen in the Middle East in the 21st century. Your statements continue to contradict.

I do not reject them. They still do not, however much you would like them to, establish the veracity of the (claimed) beliefs of the martyrs in question.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Please refer me to the post, where you have utilized a scientifically falsifiable test, to determine if design is present.

That the universe is subjected to gravity is evidence for design. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[bhsmte]

That the universe is subjected to gravity is evidence for design. Why is this so hard to understand?

With evidence like that, you should immediately joint the team of Phd's, that have desperately tried to come up with a falsifiable test for design (or even a definition of design) and have failed.

You would be their hero!

Let us know when you have a falsifiable test for design, that meets scientific guidelines.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I don't have any proof. The burden of proof is upon you, as you're the one who is positing that a resurrection occurred. If it can be proven that it did occur, there is no burden of proof upon me to show it was a made up story.

I mentioned the empty tomb of Jesus at least three times already, that is the proof of resurrection. Read up about it from as many sources as you want, and decide for yourself. I know you will not accept sources I give so I advise that you look for them yourselves. I am already tired of getting into needless arguments about evidences.

As it can't be proven to have occurred, the most likely explanation is that it is a made up story. Imagine if I told you I have an apple and that this apple has supernatural powers in which things move. I send you a video showing things which are moving along with a photo of the apple. What is the more likely explanation - that the apple has supernatural powers or that humans caused the objects to move?

You gave a scenario that exactly proves my points. If an apple requires an agent to make it move, then does not the universe require an agent to make it work, whether the agent is visible or not?

Quoting scripture or reciting ancient historical accounts isn't going to meet your burden of proof. You'll need to show through Occam's Razor how it is more likely that the resurrection stories are the result of a true resurrection occurrence than that they were made up by humans.

Tell me how that is a reasonable demand. I gave you the empty tomb as evidence, now please read up on it yourself.

Killed by whom? The terrorists who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Do you not think those people were deluded?

Do you not see the difference between Christian martyrdom and terrorism? Christians martyrdom is about being victims, but terrorism is about murder.

By that line of reasoning, if I claimed to be God, then I would be God.

Once again, what is more likely - that the miracles really occurred or that these stories of miracles are made up? We have millions of accounts of verifiable occurrences of people making up stories, while we have zero accounts of verifiable occurrences of people performing miracles.

No, claims are always backed up by deeds. Jesus backed up His claims with miracles. I know you are going to start questioning whether the miracles are real, but think for just a second. If the miracles never existed, why did Christianity last for so long?

 

[bhsmte]

I mentioned the empty tomb of Jesus at least three times already, that is the proof of resurrection. Read up about it from as many sources as you want, and decide for yourself. I know you will not accept sources I give so I advise that you look for them yourselves. I am already tired of getting into needless arguments about evidences.

If somewhere in a remote part of the world, if a group of people claimed their dead messiah's body disappeared and that he was resurrected, would you believe them?