Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[variant]

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?

For it to be a test of the veracity of their beliefs we would have to establish that they were in position to know the truth in the first place and that the event persecuting them actually happened as told.

Your rhetoric is incomprehensible. Sorry.

I presented some evidence to some other people and they didn't understand or believe me either, that should convince you somehow.

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

You act as if people always know when they are mistaken.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

(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?

My point was that God is apparent and detectable, but some choose to close their eyes to Him so that they will feel justified in saying He is not apparent to them.

 

[variant]

My point was that God is apparent and detectable, but some choose to close their eyes to Him so that they will feel justified in saying He is not apparent to them.

It's odd for you to tell me about other peoples stubbornness when presented with evidence when you claim that you could just state your evidence plainly.

What should I look for to show me that God exists that would not appear that way if God did not?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It's odd for you to tell me about other peoples stubbornness when presented with evidence when you claim that you could just state your evidence plainly.

What should I look for to show me that God exists that would not appear that way if God did not?

I choose to speak the truth to you. It is up to you to accept it or reject it. I would spend hours upon hours talking with you about evidence for Christianity if I was persuaded you were sincerely seeking truth.

But to be honest, I do not believe you are, so I won't.

If I am wrong, then God will reveal this to me as I seek to do His will. You may however send me a private message whenever you are so inclined to do so.

With love.

 

[variant]

I choose to speak the truth to you. It is up to you to accept it or reject it. I would spend hours upon hours talking with you about evidence for Christianity if I was persuaded you were sincerely seeking truth.

But to be honest, I do not believe you are, so I won't.

If I am wrong, then God will reveal this to me as I seek to do His will. You may however send me a private message whenever you are so inclined to do so.

With love.

Ah the usual religious cop out.

Poisoning the well fallacy for extra credit.

A treat to be savored like caramel and brandy.

I asked for one singular thing, not a review of the evidence.

I get slightly less than that 0 things.... How very sad yet predictable.

 

[WoundedDeep]

For it to be a test of the veracity of their beliefs we would have to establish that they were in position to know the truth in the first place and that the event persecuting them actually happened as told.

And what do you consider as adequate position for someone to know the truth? How are you going to prove that the events of persecution did not happen as told?

I presented some evidence to some other people and they didn't understand or believe me either, that should convince you somehow.

Why should someone else's response to some evidence dictate my response to it? Anyone who is keen to know the truth will study and test the evidence, independent of how others responded to it.

You act as if people always know when they are mistaken.

Regardless of whether they were mistaken, no one will die for something that they know without a doubt is a lie. Even those who were mistaken died for something because they perceive at least parts of it to be true. Is the logic too hard to grasp?

 

[essentialsaltes]

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.

Variant said: "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 mentioned that Sumayah was persecuted and even killed for Islam.

Persecution can support most religions, because most religions have been persecuted.

You goalpost has been met. But then you respond... [to variant]

"And I already stated clearly persecution in itself is not the litmus test of veracity of beliefs"

So is persecution a litmus test or not? If it isn't, why did you ask us to provide examples? If it is, why do you ignore our examples?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Variant said: "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 mentioned that Sumayah was persecuted and even killed for Islam.

Persecution can support most religions, because most religions have been persecuted.

You goalpost has been met. But then you respond... [to variant]

"And I already stated clearly persecution in itself is not the litmus test of veracity of beliefs"

So is persecution a litmus test or not? If it isn't, why did you ask us to provide examples? If it is, why do you ignore our examples?

First of all, I defined "support" as validating a view or belief. In other words proving the 100% truthfulness of that view or belief. Nowhere did I state that events of persecution alone is enough to prove whether something is 100% true. So, please stop saying I'm using persecution to support anything. I am not.

Second, the persecution argument is logical because no one with a sane mind dies willingly for a lie, unless that person is deluded or deceived. It is my belief that any package of 100% lies will not bring martyrdom because lies by itself are easy to spot. Therefore a set of beliefs can only result in martyrdom if it contains some elements of truth.

Third, therefore my point is simple: persecution is not the litmus test to 100% truthfulness but it IS indicative that a belief might be at least partly true for people to be willing to value it more than life.

Do I need to make myself any clearer?

 

[variant]

And what do you consider as adequate position for someone to know the truth?

For us to "know" the truth of an extraordinary event that happened 2000 years ago?

First hand witness, multiple, preferably cross checked with those not invested in the event.

For an event today I expect some direct evidence.

How are you going to prove that the events of persecution did not happen as told?

Why would I need to prove that? Are you expecting me prove a negative?

Why should someone else's response to some evidence dictate my response to it? Anyone who is keen to know the truth will study and test the evidence, independent of how others responded to it.

Good point, now you get it.

Perhaps I should argue in reverse all the time.

Regardless of whether they were mistaken, no one will die for something that they know without a doubt is a lie. Even those who were mistaken died for something because they perceive at least parts of it to be true. Is the logic too hard to grasp?

You wouldn't die for your beliefs? Do you really think no one would?

Do you really think no one has ever died for mistaken beliefs?

 

[WoundedDeep]

For us to "know" the truth of an extraordinary event that happened 2000 years ago?

First hand witness, multiple, preferably cross checked with those not invested in the event.

Do you consider Jesus' disciples as first hand witness? If so 4 of their testimonies are written down already in the Bible.

Cross reference to records of the Roman Empire in His time and you will know that both Jesus' crucifixion and His empty tomb (due to His bodily resurrection) are true events. You will also find in their records that Christian persecution is instituted as part of Roman law since the time Christianity is preached.

Need I say more?

Why would I need to prove that? Are you expecting me prove a negative?

Because if you cannot prove something as false you have no basis for calling it false.

You wouldn't die for your beliefs? Do you really think no one would?

Do you really think no one has ever died for mistaken beliefs?

I will die for my beliefs, in the very same way the early church did.

Sadly, you didn't understand the logic behind what I'm saying. Think through it again.

 

[madaz]

Do you consider Jesus' disciples as first hand witness? If so 4 of their testimonies are written down already in the Bible.

How on earth do you consider, testimonies written by unknown authors, born at least a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, first hand?

There are NO first hand testimonies!

All the stories we have about jesus were apparently passed on verbally through the generations before anyone actually started recording them.

The perfect recipe for creating a legend.

 

[variant]

Do you consider Jesus' disciples as first hand witness? If so 4 of their testimonies are written down already in the Bible.

Matthew and John are the gospels attributed to disciples. It would be hard to say if those two actually wrote the books though.

Cross reference to records of the Roman Empire in His time and you will know that both Jesus' crucifixion and His empty tomb (due to His bodily resurrection) are true events. You will also find in their records that Christian persecution is instituted as part of Roman law since the time Christianity is preached.

Need I say more?

This is not true. We do not have contemporary non Christian sources for those events.

Closest are Josephus writing in 93-94 AD and Tacidus AD 116.

Which at best give us the impression that Jesus lived and was crucified.

Because if you cannot prove something as false you have no basis for calling it false.

That's not how it works. People making claims support them, or else I've got to belong to about 50 religions instead of just one.

For instance I will find it difficult to both believe the moon landing happened as presented and simultaneously that it was faked.

Here again your argument leads to two opposed conclusions.

I will die for my beliefs, in the very same way the early church did.

Demonstrating the point I just made.

Sadly, you didn't understand the logic behind what I'm saying. Think through it again.

Hard to understand a point that agrees with mine yet draws the opposite conclusion.

 

[WoundedDeep]

How on earth do you consider, testimonies written by unknown authors, born at least a couple of generations after the death of Jesus, first hand?

There are NO first hand testimonies!

All the stories we have about jesus were apparently passed on verbally through the generations before anyone actually started recording them.

The perfect recipe for creating a legend.

A couple of generations after the death of Jesus? How did you arrive at that conclusion and who told you that absurd falsehood?

Evidences (if you carefully look for them) all indicate that the four Gospels were written only decades after Jesus' death, and they were written based on oral testimonies directly from Jesus' disciples (including His 12 apostles) who no doubt lived on after Jesus' ascension. One of the Gospels was based on oral testimony of apostle John, who did not die until around the time of 80-120 AD.

What proof do you have then that they were written couple of generations? 30, 40 or 50 years certainly isn't "couple of generations"!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

No, I don't agree that they are "appointed" by someone.

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.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the notion that it was all created for him to govern is prideful.

 

[essentialsaltes]

First of all, I defined "support" as validating a view or belief. In other words proving the 100% truthfulness of that view or belief. Nowhere did I state that events of persecution alone is enough to prove whether something is 100% true. So, please stop saying I'm using persecution to support anything. I am not.

Way back when, you wrote:

"Christian persecution and death in the Roman Empire is a historical event, you can even find it written on Wikipedia, so why is it so hard to accept? Again, it proves the point that Christian testimonies are rejected not based on facts, but on prejudices. "

So it certainly seems to me that you were using persecution to support something.

But as soon as Islamic testimonies are presented, suddenly you claim that you were not making any claims at all. So why were you talking about persecution. Just to exercise your fingers?

therefore my point is simple: persecution is not the litmus test to 100% truthfulness but it IS indicative that a belief might be at least partly true for people to be willing to value it more than life.

Yes, and therefore (according to you) the persecution of Sumayah is indicative that Islam might be at least partly true. And yet you reject it. Is this not due to prejudice? (just as you accuse others of doing?)

If we are searching for hypocrites, biased by prejudice, they will be the ones who accept one story, but not another. Hypocrites are not those who reject both. Why do you accept one story, but not another?

 

[madaz]

A couple of generations after the death of Jesus? How did you arrive at that conclusion and who told you that absurd falsehood?

Evidences (if you carefully look for them) all indicate that the four Gospels were written only decades after Jesus' death, and they were written based on oral testimonies directly from Jesus' disciples (including His 12 apostles) who no doubt lived on after Jesus' ascension. One of the Gospels was based on oral testimony of apostle John, who did not die until around the time of 80-120 AD.

What proof do you have then that they were written couple of generations? 30, 40 or 50 years certainly isn't "couple of generations"!

120CE is generations after 30CE.

You do realise that people didn't live very long lives back then don't you?

Regardless, if it was 2,3 or more generations after the supposed events, how do you consider them first hand?

I'd almost certainly dismiss such extraordinary stories from first hand witnesses. But second...third....fourth by authors unknown?

You would have to be stupid, gullible or both!

 

[WoundedDeep]

Way back when, you wrote:

"Christian persecution and death in the Roman Empire is a historical event, you can even find it written on Wikipedia, so why is it so hard to accept? Again, it proves the point that Christian testimonies are rejected not based on facts, but on prejudices. "

So it certainly seems to me that you were using persecution to support something.

Yes, I am using the rejection of the existence of Christian persecution to prove the point that people are prejudiced against Christianity, nothing more. I don't know how you could link it to validating a belief system. Its a big leap of logic.

Yes, and therefore (according to you) the persecution of Sumayah is indicative that Islam might be at least partly true. And yet you reject it. Is this not due to prejudice? (just as you accuse others of doing?)

Yes, because Islam borrowed many parts of its beliefs from the Old and New Testament, two branches of the same belief system which is true. Since I know that, why will I seek the truth from Islam when the source of truth is from the OT and NT?

If we are searching for hypocrites, biased by prejudice, they will be the ones who accept one story, but not another. Hypocrites are not those who reject both. Why do you accept one story, but not another?

Hypocrisy and prejudice are two entirely different attitudes. I cannot see the logic behind you linking them together. And what has accepting one story and rejecting another got to do with hypocrisy?

A prejudiced person is one who only regards whatever belief he already holds as true and ignores all evidences that speak otherwise.

 

[WoundedDeep]

120CE is generations after 30CE.

You do realise that people didn't live very long lives back then don't you?

Regardless, if it was 2,3 or more generations after the supposed events, how do you consider them first hand?

I'd almost certainly dismiss such extraordinary stories from first hand witnesses. But second...third....fourth by authors unknown?

You would have to be stupid, gullible or both!

The earliest Gospel is written only 30 years after AD30, how is that "many generations"? Furthermore, since Jesus' apostle John lived well till AD89-AD120, can he not testify to the accuracy of the Gospels since they were finished by AD70? In fact, John is the information source for Gospel of John. Is it not clear that John's testimony is in fact first hand witness?

 

[WoundedDeep]

No, I don't agree that they are "appointed" by someone.

So you believe computer programs set their own commands to define how they work? If that is your conclusion I have nothing else to say.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that the notion that it was all created for him to govern is prideful.

I cannot understand the logic or the reasoning behind your statement.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Matthew and John are the gospels attributed to disciples. It would be hard to say if those two actually wrote the books though.

Does it matter? The fact is the 4 Gospels are consistently similar and for oral accounts to have the level of similarities demonstrated by the 4 Gospels show that they are reliable and carefully recorded.

This is not true. We do not have contemporary non Christian sources for those events.

Closest are Josephus writing in 93-94 AD and Tacidus AD 116.

Which at best give us the impression that Jesus lived and was crucified.

What is not true? Like you said there are non-Christian records that show Jesus really existed and was in fact crucified. Christian persecution is also documented as history, I can quote you the source if you want. As for what Jesus actually taught, non-Christian sources cannot validate because Jesus was seldom a public teacher and most of what He said was said to His apostles and disciples.

That's not how it works. People making claims support them, or else I've got to belong to about 50 religions instead of just one.

All I'm saying is if you want to say something is a fake, make sure you have evidence to prove it fake.

Demonstrating the point I just made.

Your point that people die for mistaken beliefs? Yet you fail to realize that you are talking about an entirely different point from me.

Hard to understand a point that agrees with mine yet draws the opposite conclusion.

Because you are talking about the fact that people die for mistaken beliefs, but I am talking about the fact that people only consider true beliefs worthy of martyrdom. Its even harder for me to understand why you don't seem to realize that you are trying to prove an entirely different point from me. We aren't even talking about the same point in the first place.