Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[WoundedDeep]

I am not 'comparing religions'. I am simply showing you that your argument can be used to support other religions. And since all religions cannot be correct, your argument is faulty.

My argument is limited to rebutting whatever argument that is presented, nothing more. It is meant as an appeal to common sense and reason to let people reassess the validity of their preconceived ideas about Christianity.

You're saying that Christianity does not adopt beliefs from Judaism? Is this comedy hour?

When I say adopt, I mean taking bits and pieces and not the entire thing. Christianity did not adopt any beliefs, it took the entire writings of OT and integrated them in because the NT and OT complement and agree with each other. NT is rather an extension and confirmation of OT, so in effect they are one set of beliefs and not a mixture.

 

[variant]

My argument is limited to rebutting whatever argument that is presented, nothing more. It is meant as an appeal to common sense and reason to let people think about their preconceived ideas about Christianity.

You can not simply limit the situations where your methods for establishing general principles of truth apply.

If the same basic argument can support two fundamentally divergent truths the argument is incorrect.

 

[variant]

To answer the OP, God isn't apparent and is stubbornly resistant to analysis because the ideas that define it either aren't very good or don't point to a real thing.

God would only need a single distinguishing characteristic to be detected and analyzed, but definitions of God lack those.

 

[WoundedDeep]

You can not simply limit the situations where your methods for establishing general principles of truth apply.

If the same basic argument can support two fundamentally divergent truths the argument is incorrect.

Arguments, in the first place, are not meant to support any single belief and can never achieve that purpose. I am using arguments to challenge people's preconceived ideas about a belief, rather than attempting to support that belief.

 

[Davian]

No one is willing to die for something they know for a fact is a lie.

I am not establishing any fact, all I am doing is to get you to think and investigate for yourself why anyone will hang onto their beliefs and even die for it if they know they merely invented myths. Why would the disciples who ate and slept with Jesus Christ and could see if His miracles are real or not continue preaching about Him to their deaths if they know what they preach is false?

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

 

[juvenissun]

I am not 'comparing religions'. I am simply showing you that your argument can be used to support other religions. And since all religions cannot be correct, your argument is faulty.

All religions could (do) have something in common. So her argument could still be valid.

 

[WoundedDeep]

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

Unfortunately, none of your analysis above is verified. In fact, they are verified as false by historical facts. Let's not go in continuous loops.

 

[juvenissun]

You can not simply limit the situations where your methods for establishing general principles of truth apply.

If the same basic argument can support two fundamentally divergent truths the argument is incorrect.

All (more than two) religions are fundamentally similar. They diverge beyond the fundamental idea.

 

[Smidlee]

My argument is limited to rebutting whatever argument that is presented, nothing more. It is meant as an appeal to common sense and reason to let people reassess the validity of their preconceived ideas about Christianity.

No one would willingly die with a cause they know for a fact is a lie. Given this fact the more "truth" a deception uses the more powerful it becomes to deceive others to sacrifice for that cause. ( Ex: it's harder to get people sacrifice for atheism than even for Islam)
As Jesus put it a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A little poison poison the whole plate of otherwise perfectly good food.

That's said the farther an ideology is from the truth the less likely it would fool people to sacrifice for that cause including their lives.

The Truth would be the most powerful effect on people's lives.

 

[WoundedDeep]

No one would willingly die with a cause they know for a fact is a lie. Given this fact the more "truth" a deception uses the more powerful it becomes to deceive others to sacrifice for that cause. ( Ex: it's harder to get people sacrifice for atheism than even for Islam)
As Jesus put it a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A little poison poison the whole plate of otherwise perfectly good food.

That's said the farther an ideology is from the truth the less likely it would fool people to sacrifice for that cause including their lives.

The Truth would be the most powerful effect on people's lives.

Excellent point. People will only die for something because either it is wholly true or because it is partly true. The more truth there is, the more willing their martyrdom. Truth is so precious to the heart and soul it makes people ready to sacrifice everything to even understand one bit of it.

But many people die for half-truths because they fail to test their beliefs deep enough to discover the falsehood mixed with the truth. That is why people commit mass suicides over their beliefs or start genocides in the name of some deity they worship. One fundamental element of truth is that everything that is done is to be done in love and righteousness. Those who hold the absolute truth will exercise both love and righteousness (defined by moral conscience) and thus anyone who fails to do so do not know absolute truth.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

To answer the OP, God isn't apparent and is stubbornly resistant to analysis because the ideas that define it either aren't very good or don't point to a real thing.

God would only need a single distinguishing characteristic to be detected and analyzed, but definitions of God lack those.

God was not apparent to most of the Pharisees and Sadducees even though He walked among them, lived among them, and performed miracles among them.

 

[variant]

God was not apparent to most of the Pharisees and Sadducees even though He walked among them, lived among them, and performed miracles among them.

(the first line is sarcastic)

Yeah, and derision to everyone that doesn't agree with me, they are curiously lesser beings and incompetent in my world view.

But whatever eh?

Does it make sense to you to use things people don't believe as an example to the very same people that don't believe it?

Or are you just talking at me rather than to me?

 

[variant]

Arguments, in the first place, are not meant to support any single belief and can never achieve that purpose. I am using arguments to challenge people's preconceived ideas about a belief, rather than attempting to support that belief.

It doesn't matter what your purpose is, if your argument supports two fundamentally different views and is thus a bad argument.

 

[variant]

All (more than two) religions are fundamentally similar. They diverge beyond the fundamental idea.

They are certainly similar in that people were willing to die for each of many different beliefs.

They are also similar in that this tells us nothing about the veracity of those beliefs.

 

[WoundedDeep]

It doesn't matter what your purpose is, if your argument supports two fundamentally different views and is thus a bad argument.

Then please show me how an argument about persecution can aptly support two different views or doctrines. And when I say support, I mean actually validating the views or doctrines.

 

[WoundedDeep]

(the first line is sarcastic)

Yeah, and derision to everyone that doesn't agree with me, they are curiously lesser beings and incompetent in my world view.

But whatever eh?

Does it make sense to you to use things people don't believe as an example to the very same people that don't believe it?

Or are you just talking at me rather than to me?

I believe there is a complete misunderstanding about what was said. He was not trying to use an example to prove something, but rather that for people who live in denial and stubborn unbelief, no amount of evidences would convince them to believe. (I think)

 

[WoundedDeep]

They are certainly similar in that people were willing to die for each of many different beliefs.

They are also similar in that this tells us nothing about the veracity of those beliefs.

No they are similar in that they all contain truth in their doctrines and agree in that area of truth.

Their similarities therefore tell us for any belief to affect people enough to cause them to be willing to die for it, there must be either partial or complete truth to it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Assuming a god exists, it has chosen to remain invisible. Just how does it better serve this god's agenda to have a world in which he doesn't manifest himself in reality? A world in which an existent god which doesn't manifest itself in reality is indistinguishable from a non-existent god?

Furthermore, why would a god set up a system in which our salvation is dependent upon believing something to exist on insufficient evidence?

If God in his natural spirit form were to expose or manifest his full self to us, we would die, we would be burned up, without Jesus.

This is why we have Jesus, he was God incarnate sent to us so we could see God in man form, "He who has seen me has seen the Father also...

God did make himself visible, in Jesus...

Some, like myself have had "sufficient evidence" to believe in God, or at the very least the supernatural, or evidence of another realm, another world existing beside this one

 

[variant]

Then please show me how an argument about persecution can aptly support two different views or doctrines. And when I say support, I mean actually validating the views or doctrines.

Any number of religious have been persecuted and did not relent in their belief, it does not enhance the veracity of any belief, in fact a persecution complex tends to get people to believe more.

I believe there is a complete misunderstanding about what was said. He was not trying to use an example to prove something, but rather that for people who live in denial and stubborn unbelief, no amount of evidences would convince them to believe. (I think)

When you tell people stories about others that did not believe when presented evidence it matters not one lick to a person who hasn't been presented similar evidence.

Still feel I am misunderstanding?

No they are similar in that they all contain truth in their doctrines and agree in that area of truth.

Their similarities therefore tell us for any belief to affect people enough to cause them to be willing to die for it, there must be either partial or complete truth to it.

Rubbish. All that peoples willingness to die for their beliefs tells us is that they value those beliefs more than their life.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Any number of religious have been persecuted and did not relent in their belief, it does not enhance the veracity of any belief, in fact a persecution complex tends to get people to believe more.

And I already stated clearly persecution in itself is not the litmus test of veracity of beliefs, and that my argument is a challenge to other people's beliefs rather than a form of validation. So what is the point of your argument?

When you tell people stories about others that did not believe when presented evidence it matters not one lick to a person who hasn't been presented similar evidence.

Still feel I am misunderstanding?

Your rhetoric is incomprehensible. Sorry.

Rubbish. All that peoples willingness to die for their beliefs tells us is that they value those beliefs more than their life.

Why would anyone value a lie more than their life if they are sane in their minds?