Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[Archaeopteryx]

I mean it sets its own way of functioning. As much as you want to deny, even the thing you show me did not set its own functions. But since you discard your reasoning and common sense, you will not understand.

What are you talking about? I simply pointed out that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems. We don't need to invoke supernatural explanations, like the Snow Flake Fairies, in order to explain the formation of snow flakes. How have I discarded reasoning by not invoking supernatural beings?

 

[wiske]

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!

What is a "Hjörvarðssonar"? No Norse/Icelandic name ends in "sonar"! And why mention someone's "recorded" (?) reincarnation in the context of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Both words begin with 're", but that's about all they have in common.

And wasn't the topic of this thread the invisibility of God? But as so often happens, the infidels resort to the tactic of fatigueing their Christian discussion partners by deviating and digressing almost without limit. Not to speak of the historical revisionism (no martyrdom in Rome) and Biblical "scholarship" à la Bart Ehrman, which I could witness in this thread.

 

[WoundedDeep]

What are you talking about? I simply pointed out that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems. We don't need to invoke supernatural explanations, like the Snow Flake Fairies, in order to explain the formation of snow flakes. How have I discarded reasoning by not invoking supernatural beings?

Yeah, and how do these natural processes come about? Who or what produced those natural processes? Or did they produce themselves? If so, why can't computer commands do the same?

You still don't realize the fallacy of your reasoning? You still don't realize that everything in this world has a source and thus requires a Designer/Creator?

 

[wiske]

Yeah, and how do these natural processes come about? Who or what produced those natural processes? Or did they produce themselves? If so, why can't computer commands do the same?

You still don't realize the fallacy of your reasoning? You still don't realize that everything in this world has a source and thus requires a Designer/Creator?

The existence of Laws of Nature poses a serious threat to the cardhouse of materialism. They (the materialists) would rather deny that such laws exist, than admit that the material world is not 'everything'.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah, and how do these natural processes come about? Who or what produced those natural processes? Or did they produce themselves? If so, why can't computer commands do the same?

You still don't realize the fallacy of your reasoning? You still don't realize that everything in this world has a source and thus requires a Designer/Creator?

What fallacy? As I said, we don't need to invoke Snow Flake fairies to explain the existence of snow flakes. They arise naturally by processes that we can understand. We don't ask who produced the snow flakes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The existence of Laws of Nature poses a serious threat to the cardhouse of materialism. They (the materialists) would rather deny that such laws exist, than admit that the material world is not 'everything'.

What are you talking about? We, assuming you mean atheists here, readily admit that such laws exist.

 

[wiske]

What are you talking about? We, assuming you mean atheists here, readily admit that such laws exist.

That's fine! Where do these Laws reside? In the luggage of particles? In empty space (or space-time)? If not there, how are they material? Are they material?

 

[WoundedDeep]

What fallacy? As I said, we don't need to invoke Snow Flake fairies to explain the existence of snow flakes. They arise naturally by processes that we can understand. We don't ask who produced the snow flakes.

Are you going to dodge my questions again and again? I asked clearly, if snow flakes arises through natural processes, these natural processes arises through what then?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you going to dodge my questions again and again? I asked clearly, if snow flakes arises through natural processes, these natural processes arises through what then?

What do you mean? Your question doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's fine! Where do these Laws reside? In the luggage of particles? In empty space (or space-time)? If not there, how are they material? Are they material?

Laws are descriptions of phenomena. As such, they don't "reside" anywhere.

 

[wiske]

Laws are descriptions of phenomena. As such, they don't "reside" anywhere.

So... are they immaterial?

If laws are merely descriptions (in science books), how can they act upon the Universe? Surely Laws of Nature must be more than descriptions of phenomena. Somehow space/time/matter must "know" how to act.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So... are they immaterial?

If laws are merely descriptions (in science books), how can they act upon the Universe? Surely Laws of Nature must be more than descriptions of phenomena. Somehow space/time/matter must "know" how to act.

They don't "act upon" the universe; they are descriptions of the universe. The misconception seems to be that the laws tell the universe how to behave. Actually, the laws describe how the universe behaves.

 

[wiske]

They don't "act upon" the universe; they are descriptions of the universe. The misconception seems to be that the laws tell the universe how to behave. Actually, the laws describe how the universe behaves.

So, the fundamental forces are acting upon matter the way they do, because a Magical Scientist of Oz has described them, even when that description is wrong? I'd say that more than a description of the Universe is necessary to make it work. How about a Prime Mover?

In answer to the original question of this thread, which didn't receive a lot of attention, namely:

Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

my answer is: God isn't undetectable; there's plenty of evidence of Him in his Creation. God is invisible, because he transcends the material world. God doesn't choose, because He is immutable. That's Theology 100; copious information on this can be found in many places, including on the internet.

 

[variant]

So, the fundamental forces are acting upon matter the way they do, because a Magical Scientist of Oz has described them, even when that description is wrong? I'd say that more than a description of the Universe is necessary to make it work.

The universe works independently of our descriptions of it.

The universe probably works independently of any description of it.

What is "necessary" for a universe to work is unknown.

How about a Prime Mover?

If we posit a prime mover as necessary to make the universe work, we just get to think about what is necessary to make a prime mover work.

 

[WoundedDeep]

They don't "act upon" the universe; they are descriptions of the universe. The misconception seems to be that the laws tell the universe how to behave. Actually, the laws describe how the universe behaves.

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.

 

[variant]

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.

The laws themselves would not be doing the acting but rather the phenomena of gravity.

 

[variant]

The existence of Laws of Nature poses a serious threat to the cardhouse of materialism. They (the materialists) would rather deny that such laws exist, than admit that the material world is not 'everything'.

Are you suggesting that the laws of nature are non-material?

 

[WoundedDeep]

The universe works independently of our descriptions of it.

The question therefore comes, who or what makes the universe work? Programmers make computer programs work, gravity makes matter hold together, it is therefore imperative that something or Someone makes this universe work.

 

[variant]

The question therefore comes, what makes the universe work? Programmers make computer programs work, gravity makes matter hold together, it is therefore imperative that something or Someone makes this universe work.

It's a good question. If I could show how the universe works exhaustively then I could answer it.

The problem here is that an unanswered question doesn't make God apparent.

 

[WoundedDeep]

It's a good question. If I could show how the universe works exhaustively then I could answer it.

The problem here is that an unanswered question doesn't make God apparent.

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.