Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[WoundedDeep]

The authors who wrote about Jesus miracles were born decades (at best)after Jesus died, they never met Jesus, all we have is heresay.

Then you probably need to know that even records of verbal testimonies at that time are very reliable because Jews are very diligent in ensuring that records of verbal testimonies are accurate. The Gospels are written records of what the disciples of Jesus themselves testified (esp. Gospel of Matthew and John) by people who are close to them or to their followers and that is why all four agree with one another and substantiate one another.

Something tells me you do not understand the scientific sense of the word law.

I might have been unclear, but I know what I am talking about. The fact that the universe has a set of commands/laws that define how it works show that an intelligent Being is behind its creation. A computer program which functions on commands needs to be designed by a programmer, so does the universe which has its own set of commands.

Genesis is just one of hundreds of different creation stories created by men who attempted to understand how life started.
Genesis isnt generally considered myth because Christianity is currently the favorite religion.

On the contrary, Genesis is written by a single man called Moses (who is historically verifiable) and it is the first written record of events that happened since the time of Adam and includes surface information that God created the sun, moon and stars and Earth itself. Events in there, for instance the Flood, is historically verifiable and is confirmed in myths of other cultures.

Thanks for informing me, obviously only a believer can be his/her own god.

Anyone who relies on himself for wisdom and rejects God's wisdom/reject His existence is a god to himself, therefore it is not restricted to theists.

How exactly did god teach you to interpret the bible?

God taught me by inspiration of thought and subsequent confirmation of the understanding in other parts of the Bible. When I first wanted to understand the Bible I determined to myself to know absolutely nothing. There was no preconceived ideas or hypothesis on my part, I read it like a complete beginner. If I don't understand what a verse say, I pray about it and leave it alone to wait for God to show me. Then sometimes when I talk to non believers about my faith (like how I started believing and what happened in my life to make me believe) and then they ask me an additional question that I also prayed about, inspiration comes to me that answers exactly what I prayed about and I was reminded of other verses in the Bible that confirm the inspiration. (Verses I might not even have read or remembered) Then I shared that understanding with whoever asked me the question.

There are sometimes more than one confirmation of the inspiration I received and thus I'm convinced without a doubt it is from God. When I was finally allowed to go to church after years of isolation, I could see the understanding given to me resonated with what most churches today define as essential doctrines. In fact, I could understand deeper things written in the Bible that most churches don't teach actively today.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You neglected that there was one miracle no one could do: resurrection from physical death. When Jesus died those who believed in Him at that time were all in hiding and in great terror, what finally emboldened them to preach Jesus was the fact that He overcame physical death and proved everything He said He would do.

Accounts of resurrection are not unique to Christianity either. There are numerous reports of individuals who purportedly overcame death in other religious traditions as well.

Does it matter what you call it? The basis for defining something as law in science is that it is there to define how something functions. If calling it law is confusing, then call it protocol or whatever you want.

Even for protocols, you need a person to set it or define it and put it to work. Much like a computer program, you need a programmer for commands to be written. The fact that there are protocols/commands in the form of gravity and laws of physics to define how the universe works show that there is an intelligent Being behind the creation.

Yes it does matter because you are clearly confusing the scientific sense of the word with the legal sense. In the latter, laws are mandated by human beings who implement them through legislation and enforce them through the justice system; in the former, laws are descriptions of some phenomena. What you are doing is an example of equivocation.

Do you mean creation in 7 days, or something else? This is what I call the pride of human wisdom. If you believe that science somehow can give a complete understanding of the universe, you are pretty much going to be disappointed.

As opposed to the pride of believing that the entirety of the cosmos was created solely for human beings?

Science doesn't need a complete understanding of the universe in order to refute the chronology presented in Genesis.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then you probably need to know that even records of verbal testimonies at that time are very reliable because Jews are very diligent in ensuring that records of verbal testimonies are accurate. The Gospels are written records of what the disciples of Jesus themselves testified (esp. Gospel of Matthew and John) by people who are close to them or to their followers and that is why all four agree with one another and substantiate one another.

No, they don't. They disagree on the precise details of who witnessed the empty tomb, who stood by the doorway, who spoke to whom, and so on.

I might have been unclear, but I know what I am talking about. The fact that the universe has a set of commands/laws that define how it works show that an intelligent Being is behind its creation. A computer program which functions on commands needs to be designed by a programmer, so does the universe which has its own set of commands.

You are equivocating on the word "law."

On the contrary, Genesis is written by a single man called Moses (who is historically verifiable) and it is the first written record of events that happened since the time of Adam and includes surface information that God created the sun, moon and stars and Earth itself. Events in there, for instance the Flood, is historically verifiable and is confirmed in myths of other cultures.

Confirmed by myths? Is that your highest standard for evidence? That an event is partly corroborated by parallel mythologies?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Accounts of resurrection are not unique to Christianity either. There are numerous reports of individuals who purportedly overcame death in other religious traditions as well.

What individuals? If you are talking about mythical gods you are comparing apples with oranges, because myths are myths and are not part of history. Resurrection of Jesus Christ involved a historical person and is verifiable, not so with myths. Resurrection stories involving these mythical gods are exactly what it is: myths.

Yes it does matter because you are clearly confusing the scientific sense of the word with the legal sense. In the latter, laws are mandated by human beings who implement them through legislation and enforce them through the justice system; in the former, laws are descriptions of some phenomena. What you are doing is an example of equivocation.

Yes my terminology is not clear and I apologise for that. But my point is clear: that the universe works in a certain way because an intelligent Being designed it to work that way, much like how a programmer writes specific commands to define how a computer program works.

As opposed to the pride of believing that the entirety of the cosmos was created solely for human beings?

Science doesn't need a complete understanding of the universe in order to refute the chronology presented in Genesis.

I'm not sure who told you that the entirety of cosmos was created solely for human beings and I see no point in debating about it. But as a believer I am convinced that the universe is created by God to function in a certain way to demonstrate His power and glory. Mankind is uniquely created to reflect God's image and to represent Him in governing His creation. Nothing egostical about that because any government or kingdom requires authority and God has instituted His own system of authority for His Kingdom.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What individuals? If you are talking about mythical gods you are comparing apples with oranges, because myths are myths and are not part of history.

Unless they happen to corroborate the Biblical account, right?

Resurrection of Jesus Christ involved a historical person and is verifiable, not so with myths. Resurrection stories involving these mythical gods are exactly what it is: myths.

It's as verifiable as any other mythological resurrection.

Yes my terminology is not clear and I apologise for that. But my point is clear: that the universe works in a certain way because an intelligent Being designed it to work that way, much like how a programmer writes specific commands to define how a computer program works.

How do you know that?

I'm not sure who told you that the entirety of cosmos was created solely for human beings and I see no point in debating about it. But as a believer I am convinced that the universe is created by God to function in a certain way to demonstrate His power and glory. Mankind is uniquely created to reflect God's image and to represent Him in governing His creation. Nothing egostical about that because any government or kingdom requires authority and God has instituted His own system of authority for His Kingdom.

Yep, nothing prideful there.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Unless they happen to corroborate the Biblical account, right?

You didn't understand the reason I talked about myths in my reply to the other person. Myths are never evidences of history and I didn't mean to use them as evidence.

It's as verifiable as any other mythological resurrection.

Its verifiable as history because it happened to an actual person in history and is confirmed both by actual testimonies as well as proof of an empty tomb but myths are imaginations of the futile mind or the actual twisting of facts, there is a big difference between the two.

How do you know that?

Because it is common sense? To say the universe works in a certain way by randomness is no different from saying a computer program can determine its own commands, its nothing less than absurdity.

Yep, nothing prideful there.

You don't have to be sarcastic. If you define governance in any form as pride, then what do you make of human authority or governments?

 

[WoundedDeep]

No, they don't. They disagree on the precise details of who witnessed the empty tomb, who stood by the doorway, who spoke to whom, and so on.

How many times did you read the Bible for you to conclude that they don't agree? If you did not carefully study it with a humble mind and determined that there are contradictions upon superficial glances, then I can say you make the very same mistakes most do when they have preconceived ideas about what they read.

Like I said they not only agree but substantiate one another by adding additional details that are not in other accounts. Don't forget the substantiation part when you talk about perceived contradictions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Its verifiable as history because it happened to an actual person in history and is confirmed both by actual testimonies as well as proof of an empty tomb but myths are imaginations of the futile mind or the actual twisting of facts, there is a big difference between the two.

As I see it, you are claiming that one myth is an exception.

Because it is common sense? To say the universe works in a certain way by randomness is no different from saying a computer program can determine its own commands, its nothing less than absurdity.

Who said anything about randomness?

You don't have to be sarcastic. If you define governance in any form as pride, then what do you make of human authority or governments?

I don't define governance as a form of pride, but declaring that human beings have been appointed a special role that includes lordship over all of creation doesn't strike me as "humble".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Its verifiable as history because it happened to an actual person in history

as recorded in the Bible

and is confirmed both by actual testimonies

as recorded in the Bible

as well as proof of an empty tomb

as recorded in the Bible

Saying the resurrection (as recorded in the Bible) is verified by the Bible, is circular.


The reincarnation of Helgi Hjörvarðssonar (as recorded in the poem, Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar) is verified by the evidence of his reincarnation as Helgi Hundingsbane (as recorded in the poem Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar).

All hail Odin, the All-Father!

 

[WoundedDeep]

As I see it, you are claiming that one myth is an exception.

Like I said myths are either twisting of actual facts or futile imaginations. They are nowhere near historical facts and cannot be used to prove history.

Who said anything about randomness

So you agree that laws of gravity and physics are appointed by Someone and doesn't come out by themselves?

I don't define governance as a form of pride, but declaring that human beings have been appointed a special role that includes lordship over all of creation doesn't strike me as "humble".

Not true at all. Any governance appointed by someone higher up is not a prideful governance. Man did not appoint himself to govern creation, but God did. That is not prideful governance.

 

[WoundedDeep]

as recorded in the Bible



as recorded in the Bible



as recorded in the Bible

Saying the resurrection (as recorded in the Bible) is verified by the Bible, is circular.


The reincarnation of Helgi Hjörvarðssonar (as recorded in the poem, Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar) is verified by the evidence of his reincarnation as Helgi Hundingsbane (as recorded in the poem Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar).

All hail Odin, the All-Father!

Who said Jesus was only recorded in the Bible? The Bible gives the truest and most complete record of His works and sayings but He is recorded as an actual person crucified in the history of Roman Empire.

Besides all history are records of testimonies passed down either verbally or written or both. While people are ready to accept historical testimonies of most elements of human civilization, they reject the history about Jesus and testimonies about Him. It is clear therefore people discount the person of Christ not because of facts, but because of an ingrained prejudice.

 

[talquin]

How do you know this?

How do you know that the human named Jesus was actually a god?

Just how does a man claiming to be God actually make him God?

By everything Jesus has done from the time of His ministry to His death and resurrection. He did not just claim to be God, but He verified it by His deeds of driving out of demons and healing people of sickness etc and later on His bodily resurrection. Even those who falsely accuse Him of blasphemy acknowledged that He had done miracles that no one in His time could do and that His tomb was empty despite Roman guards watching over it.[/quote]
How do you know that the accounts of the Bible are accurate?

Are you not aware that throughout history, mankind has had a fascination with making up stories? Some of these stories become accepted as true when they aren't really true.

How do you know this?

What attributes are you talking about? And how do you know these things are evidence of a god?

For instance, everything in this universe runs by a set of seen or unseen laws, eg the laws of gravity and physics. No law can exist without a Person who sets them and puts them in place to work - anyone can easily see this as true with a bit of common sense.

How do you know that all physical laws must exist because a person set them and put them into place?

How about the law which cause persons to first come about? Are you saying that persons always existed? If so, how would you know that?

Why should we not believe our fellow men? Wasn't it humans who wrote the Bible?

It is one thing for a man to tell a story, but it is a different thing when men who were born in different generations tell the exact same story. The Bible is so much more reliable than other books because the authors lived in different generations and did not in any way communicate or plan beforehand on the things they are to write about. All of them wrote about real experiences in their own lives with God and their revelations add up to a coherent understanding of God's message to those who also experience God in their lives today.

How do you know the authors lived in different generations?

Even if the authors lived in different generations, why do you not consider it reasonable that they all had similar experiences with respect to the basics of life without a message from some kind of supreme being?

 

[WoundedDeep]

How do you know that the accounts of the Bible are accurate?

Are you not aware that throughout history, mankind has had a fascination with making up stories? Some of these stories become accepted as true when they aren't really true.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are both historically verifiable, crucifixion in the criminal records of then Roman Empire, resurrection by the missing body of Jesus Christ and the empty tomb He once was buried in.

Mankind are capable of creating myths, but will in no way die for something they know is false. Those who walked with Jesus died for their testimony, and many more died believing in the same testimony. This again is verifiable during the immediate decades after Jesus' ascension because Christian persecution is pervasive in the Roman Empire during that period. Why would anyone sane die for a story they made up?

How do you know that all physical laws must exist because a person set them and put them into place?

It is pretty much common sense. Anything that runs on a set of protocols or commands are created by someone who sets them. To say that physical laws existed on their own is like saying modern computer programs started by themselves, its devoid of reasoning to think that way.

How do you know the authors lived in different generations?

Even if the authors lived in different generations, why do you not consider it reasonable that they all had similar experiences with respect to the basics of life without a message from some kind of supreme being?

How do I know? From history of course. Moses lived around the time of 1000++ BC while Daniel lived around 700 BC, both are authors of the Bible and lived hundreds of years apart.

What do you mean by similar experiences? They did receive the same message from God, and they all prophesied about the coming of Jesus which did happen in history centuries after they died. But their prophesies has nothing to do with basics of life.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I take it you haven't read the Gospel and realized that God chose to become one of us and live like us isn't enough even though it was written about. Does God have to come down again for every person who refuses to believe the New Testament authors?

Ah yes! How silly of me to not realize that what was written down centuries ago, surely must have been factually accurate....

There's a lot of fantastic stories about a lot of fantastic people in history who never actually existed or never did the fantastic things attributed to them.

If what you say is true, then your god choose a very inefficient way of communicating with us. There's nothing personal about speaking through some nameless ancient scribes.

 

[talquin]

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are both historically verifiable, crucifixion in the criminal records of then Roman Empire, resurrection by the missing body of Jesus Christ and the empty tomb He once was buried in.

What do you suppose is a more likely explanation when a body goes missing?
1) That it was moved through some physical and/or natural force
2) That it was moved through some supernatural force

Since we have numerous verifiable accounts of things being moved through physical forces and zero accounts of things being moved through supernatural forces, the more likely explanation is that Jesus body was moved through some kind of physical or natural force as opposed to a supernatural force.

Mankind are capable of creating myths, but will in no way die for something they know is false.

Most likely true. But it has been shown that mankind can be brainwashed or deluded into thinking something is true when it isn't true.

Those who walked with Jesus died for their testimony, and many more died believing in the same testimony.

How do you know these accounts are true?

If the accounts are true, how do you know the people in question weren't deluded and/or brainwashed?

This again is verifiable during the immediate decades after Jesus' ascension because Christian persecution is pervasive in the Roman Empire during that period. Why would anyone sane die for a story they made up?

Again, one can be deluded or brainwashed into believing something which isn't true. Do you believe everything everyone tells you?

If I tell you right now I know exactly what you did yesterday, would you believe me?

If I tell you that I own five large islands in the Caribbean, are you automatically going to believe me?

If I tell you that I have 10 fire breathing dragons in my backyard, are you automatically going to believe me?

It is pretty much common sense.

It is common sense to demand evidence proportionate with the claim before accepting a claim as true.

Anything that runs on a set of protocols or commands are created by someone who sets them. To say that physical laws existed on their own is like saying modern computer programs started by themselves, its devoid of reasoning to think that way.

If true, then the same rules apply to whoever or whatever put physical laws into place. Otherwise you're committing the fallacious argument of special pleading.

How do I know? From history of course. Moses lived around the time of 1000++ BC while Daniel lived around 700 BC, both are authors of the Bible and lived hundreds of years apart.

What do you mean by similar experiences? They did receive the same message from God, and they all prophesied about the coming of Jesus which did happen in history centuries after they died. But their prophesies has nothing to do with basics of life.

How specific were their prophecies? Did they provide dates & times? How many people made these prophecies?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

God has provided sufficient evidence for us to trust Him. If anyone persists in rebellion it is because they refuse to trust Him.

I would trust God. I don't trust religion.

I find it highly suspicious that this God whispered into some ancient men's ears and told them to "pass it on." Especially when we are talking about commandments that greatly limit and control people's lives. Not only that but it also plays on some of our deepest fears regarding death and pain.

Highly suspicious from my POV. I'm not buying it until either Jesus or the Creator Himself, manifest themselves to me personally.

It's not a special request. People just aren't trustworthy enough to convince me of such fantastic things like their deities.

 

[Davian]

...

Mankind are capable of creating myths, but will in no way die for something they know is false. Those who walked with Jesus died for their testimony, and many more died believing in the same testimony. This again is verifiable during the immediate decades after Jesus' ascension because Christian persecution is pervasive in the Roman Empire during that period. Why would anyone sane die for a story they made up?
...

- the stories of their deaths are fabrications
- altruism, they died to protect someone else, such as family members

And, that they believed it to be true does not make it true.

“All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.” ― Isaac Asimov

 

[GoldenBoy89]

God is detectable for those who believe and wait for him.

Kinda like Santa Claus, amiright?

 

[juvenissun]

It does not matter whether your attribution of something as "evidence" for a deity is actually evidence and not due to confirmation bias? This strikes me as alarming. If it does not matter, then how can we reason about it honestly?

Why not? I interpret an evidence in 100% honesty. I don't really care how would you interpret it. My faith is not your business, isn't it?

Nevertheless, if you like to argue about it, I can certainly do that with you. And it is not impossible that your argument could change my mind.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I'm not sure what you mean by "outside religion". Name one scientist that's accepted today outside of science.

How about Isaac Newton, Galileo, Da Vinci. These men weren't scientists in the modern sense but their contributions to scientific progress are undeniable.

Where are the prophets outside of any religion confirming the gods of any given religion?

But to your point, about 70% of Americans believe that Jesus was a prophet. He's pretty well accepted.

Many Americans believe in ghosts, aliens in Area 51, the illuminati, and chemtrails.... Not a great barometer for veracity.

Why dismiss the multitudes of eyewitness testimonies that came from the first century?

Probably has to do with the fact that their claims are in complete contradiction to known reality. Ink have a hard time believing modern ghost stories as well.

God is a God who saves sinners. There need to be sinners in order for God to be seen as a savior.

He creates the problem then shows Himself to be the solution. Pretty darn good businessman.

Here we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that you know that God exists but you just very much dislike this idea.

I never quite got this argument.

There's lots of things that are real and I don't like but I can't simply ignore them.

I don't like earthquakes but ignoring them won't make them go away. Your God is much, much easier to ignore because without thinking about it, He never really shows up. Unlike earthquakes which are almost impossible to miss, your god is easily ignored.