Why doesn't God reveal himself in a logical, evidence-based manner?

[GA777]

I never said he doesnt want love
When you have a good faith,you'll love him.And when you love him, you have faith in him.

 

[elman]

I never said he doesnt want love
When you have a good faith,you'll love him.And when you love him, you have faith in him.

Obviously there can be faith without loving action. I think the Pharasees were examples of this. I think the modern day suicide bombers are also. I agree good faith will always include love for others.

 

[GA777]

That aint a true faith then.

 

[elman]

That aint a true faith then.

It may be a true faith in MOhammad.

 

[GA777]

I'm talking about God,there's a big difference.

anyways we're going off topic now because of useless things,lets not get it deserted or closed like many others.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Why doesn't God reveal himself in a logical, evidence-based manner?


I don't know. And recently, I've been wondering why also. Why does god not appear for us like he did thousands of years ago in the time of the bible. Why no amazing miricales now. Why did he let our species die from simple things like childbirth, infections and wisdom teeth for hundreds of thousands of years before finally deciding enough was enough in the middle east where people could barely read or write thousands of years ago!?

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

It seems the only thing you have ignored are points that you are not able to defeat or even rightfully challenge. That correction made, and If you do not have any further questions on this topic, then know i look forward to your next thread!!!

Feel free to entertain the delusions that you have "corrected" anything. The fact remains that the only thing I have ignored are deliberate lies that you can't post links (shame on you... if you had enough decency to feel shame) and points in response to fictitious straw men arguments which are the only things your textbook defense has taught you to counter, but given the level of ignorance you display, I hardly expect you to wake up from your delusion any time soon.

It is not any more “logical” to believe the universe came about or that life would start from chemicals without an intelligent designer then with an intelligent designer.

That's essentially a matter of opinion. Even if it were true, the opposite argument would be equally accurate, and it is not any more "logical" to believe the universe came about or that life would start from chemicals with an intelligent designer than without an intelligent designer. As I've mentioned, your argument is an argument from incredulity. Once other equally plausible explanations are proposed, your argument falls apart.

You have to have “faith” in something to explanation the reality in front of you. So is it more likely that an intelligent designer made it happen or random luck caused it? How lucky would you have to be?

I don't see the need to explain the universe using luck or an intelligent designer. When you see a puddle of water, do you need to draw upon the argument of luck or an intelligent designer to explain the shape of the puddle of water?

As far as Thomas and Saul of Tarsus go: the doubting of Thomas of today can have his doubts resolved with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Assurance of God’s mercy is not needed to receive God’s mercy, just a strong desire for mercy.

That's your personal speculation, and something that the Bible is silent upon. All we know for sure is that Thomas himself stated "except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe". And he didn't, not until he got what he asked for.

Saul of Tarsus is a unique individual, but Jesus/God did not remove Saul’s free will and make the moral decision to become a Christian. Saul could have reasoned he had heat stroke, fell off his horse, stared at the sun to long, had a bad dream, and Christ had not come to him. This conclusion would have helped him keep his prestigious position, kept him from being a murder in his own mind, retained the respect he had for the Jewish leadership, and maintained is pride and self esteem. Saul had quite time to reflect on all this and all he did know about Christ, while he was fasting and blind. Saul was wise, knowledgeable and smart, so he could think this through and draw the most “logical” conclusion. Saul over time might have draw this same conclusion without the Damascus road experience.

Exactly! The story of Saul proves two things. One, God showing himself doesn't remove our free will. Two, God showing himself can and will cause some people to believe, as was the case with Thomas and Saul. Why doesn't God show himself? What harm will it do? What good will it not do?

As I have said before “there is evidence” if you choose to accept the evidence. What evidence is there that there is not a God? I am not talking about “knowing for certain” anything other than you have a problem and will accept help.

If you're really a chemist, bling, I'm sure you know that such a weak argument is nowhere near enough. If you claim to have evidence, you must be able to demonstrate it and show us the hard proof, instead of simply saying that we need to "choose to accept" the evidence.

If you believe you are the random result of matter and energy in an infinite universe, how humbling is that as compared to being the thought out designed creation of an infinitely wise and powerful God

Exactly! So why does God not show himself, so that we may be humbled?

You seem to be saying it is more humbling to know there is the Christian God, then it would be to not know, but have not proved that concept?

I am saying that true knowledge, in all its forms, is inherently humbling, regardless of whether it's scientific or religious knowledge. Humility may be found among the ignorant as well, but it cannot not be found among the truly knowledgeable. I assumed that this concept was obvious enough that I would not need to prove it.

Hypotheses have not been brought up for pear review either, since they have been shoot down for not explaining the exceptions everyone of them have. There are huge huddles that some of which we do not even know yet that chemicals must overcome to form life. Chemicals do not “evolve” since they do not reproduce. I am not talking about biological reactions, but non living substances.

bling, why on earth would a scientist bring a hypothesis up for peer-review?! It seems that you're quite keen on the whole peer-review business; do you realize that not a single model of an intelligent designer has survived peer-review?

Besides, I have never said that chemicals reproduce. I think you'll need some time to put aside the misconceptions that have been taught to you about evolution before this part of the discussion becomes useful. Chemicals reproducing themselves is not what abiogenesis and the theory of evolution claims. Chemicals not reproducing doesn't mean nothing else does. Chemicals not "directly" reproducing themselves doesn't mean they cannot do so via indirect means like autocatalysis.

 

[paul becke]

paul, I'd be greatly interested to see a brief description of this testing, your physics equations on how to extend the constancy of light speed to prove the existence of God, who were the ones to have peer-reviewed these equations, and how did they do it. Thanks in advance.

It's all in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, parts of which were checked out and peer-reviewed over quite an extended period of time. However, I don't believe the absolute speed of light would have been problematic, though I'm not a physicist. What I have adverted to is set out in plain language in the passage I quoted from the physics website. It's self-explanatory if you can picture it. I have posted this on scientific blogs and in the Guardian, and no-one has challenged it, because it is plainly incontrovertible.

On the face of it, it's easy to imagine that any contention of mine, as a non-scientist, was likely to be simply dismissed as not worth responding to. But understanding this, is not essentially a matter of science, but of logic, of understanding simple concepts expressed in plain English. In fact, there was a poster on a Guardian thread who had performed pioneering work on satellite-navigation at NASA, and had studied at UCL under several Nobel laureates and other distinguished scientists (including Feynman) in various scientific fields, with whom he had been on personal, even friendly terms.

And he sided with me quite animatedly, when I pointed out the existence in physics of paradoxes, intrinsically unfathomable, because simply imponderable. They are repugnant to reason. Period. In other words, scientists have no more chance of understanding them than Christians have, of understanding paradoxes of the faith, such as the mysteries of the nature of Most Holy Trinity and the nature of Jesus as simultaneously true God and true man. But the big corporations have a vested interest in having people believe that the truths of science are all-encompassing and infallible.

They now fund research departments at Ivy League universities, and see that the scientists research, "find" and publish what they, the corporations, want to sell to the public, and away from what the research scientists would, themselves, choose to pursue given the chance.

It's basically a totalitarian ethos. Noam Chomsky calls it, "manufacturing consent". This UCL man said that when the corporate and governmental suits were not around, all those top dogs often discussed and were in agreement about the nature of paradoxes, and that, (as I said) they had to be simply accepted, and then used as kind of staging posts, from which to venture forth on further investigations, again using the perfectly straightforward logic used to arrive at the paradox in question, until meeting another imponderable paradox/mystery; and so building up their picture of the universe or subatomic matter or whatever. Christian theologians do just the same. If what they are dealing in, is magic, then so is physics, especially at the quantum level.

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

It's all in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, parts of which were checked out and peer-reviewed over quite an extended period of time. However, I don't believe the absolute speed of light would have been problematic, though I'm not a physicist. What I have adverted to is set out in plain language in the passage I quoted from the physics website. It's self-explanatory if you can picture it. I have posted this on scientific blogs and in the Guardian, and no-one has challenged it, because it is plainly incontrovertible.

paul, how exactly does relativity prove God? That was the question. I might as well be saying that the fact that water boils at 100 degrees proves purple unicorns on Saturn.

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

Christian theologians do just the same. If what they are dealing in, is magic, then so is physics, especially at the quantum level.

I just read this snippet, and I have to say I agree completely. It's why I have such a great love for modern physics; that things can turn out to be completely unintuitive yet based entirely on rigorous logic and mathematics. It's also where I see a great difference with magic and religion. Physics presents completely unintuitive, mind-boggling, but truth-based answers, while religion seeks simplistic, intuitive, and utterly unsubstantiated explanations that are justified simply by them "feeling right".

 

[Phred]

It's all in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, parts of which were checked out and peer-reviewed over quite an extended period of time. However, I don't believe the absolute speed of light would have been problematic, though I'm not a physicist. What I have adverted to is set out in plain language in the passage I quoted from the physics website. It's self-explanatory if you can picture it. I have posted this on scientific blogs and in the Guardian, and no-one has challenged it, because it is plainly incontrovertible.

Likely no one has challenged you because you are incomprehensible.

On the face of it, it's easy to imagine that any contention of mine, as a non-scientist, was likely to be simply dismissed as not worth responding to. But understanding this, is not essentially a matter of science, but of logic, of understanding simple concepts expressed in plain English. In fact, there was a poster on a Guardian thread who had performed pioneering work on satellite-navigation at NASA, and had studied at UCL under several Nobel laureates and other distinguished scientists (including Feynman) in various scientific fields, with whom he had been on personal, even friendly terms.

Logic and science generally agree. But please, go on and show us all how God is proven by Einstein.

And he sided with me quite animatedly, when I pointed out the existence in physics of paradoxes, intrinsically unfathomable, because simply imponderable. They are repugnant to reason. Period. In other words, scientists have no more chance of understanding them than Christians have, of understanding paradoxes of the faith, such as the mysteries of the nature of Most Holy Trinity and the nature of Jesus as simultaneously true God and true man. But the big corporations have a vested interest in having people believe that the truths of science are all-encompassing and infallible.

A paradox in nature and a paradox in theology are two entirely different things. In our universe there is such a thing as entanglement. Two particles that share information across distances. No connection exists between them yet, the information has been "transmitted" instantaneously. How? Particles pop in and out of existence. The vast "vacuum" of space is proving to be not so very empty. Yet, these things that are against our nature to accept are not at all like the concepts of one god really being three. Nor do they help prove the existence of gods. Nor does this have a thing to do with "big corporations". Wow... you really do love to tangle your metaphors, dontcha?

They now fund research departments at Ivy League universities, and see that the scientists research, "find" and publish what they, the corporations, want to sell to the public, and away from what the research scientists would, themselves, choose to pursue given the chance.

Which is why science is peer-reviewed. Not everything that gets published in the media is reliable.

It's basically a totalitarian ethos. Noam Chomsky calls it, "manufacturing consent". This UCL man said that when the corporate and governmental suits were not around, all those top dogs often discussed and were in agreement about the nature of paradoxes, and that, (as I said) they had to be simply accepted, and then used as kind of staging posts, from which to venture forth on further investigations, again using the perfectly straightforward logic used to arrive at the paradox in question, until meeting another imponderable paradox/mystery; and so building up their picture of the universe or subatomic matter or whatever. Christian theologians do just the same. If what they are dealing in, is magic, then so is physics, especially at the quantum level.

No, not at all. Quantum physics is about the science of the possible. Religion is about the impossible. There's still a line. A particle popping in and out of existence is one thing. Billions of them arranged so that they form a man and appearing out of nowehere... now that's magic.

I notice you ended your little post without proving your god exists. Funny that.

 

[rturner76]

God is everywhere and is everything. He does not exist separate of us we exist inside him. he is not visible to us because he is us he's like the force. He surrounds us and binds us. He is not a creature he is not a being in the sense the we are. He is infinity and we cannot comprehend his magnitude. He has no need to make himself known to us again. When he did, we killed him. He especially does not have anything to prove to an atheist. He is hidden deep inside you you can only find him by looking inward. You can show him to others by showing love. That is the closest we come to seeing him is when we give and receive unconditional love. I would not expect an Atheist to understand these concepts. An Atheist only knows his own will and his own desire. Can you take apart a Rolex watch, throw it in the air, and it come together in perfectly timed swiss movement? How much more complex are the atoms, molecules, protons, and electrons of a human body? Randomly thrown together with the ability to reason, experience compassion. I pity you Atheist. You don't know from whence you came, such confusion, emptiness, must be felt in an animal with no living soul. Though you do not know God, he will bless you for seeking him as you are now. May he bless you atheist.

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

I would not expect an Atheist to understand these concepts.

Unless you were indoctrinated in the womb, you were born an atheist yourself.

Being an atheist has nothing to do with it. As I've already mentioned earlier, it has everything instead to do with the inability of theists to reliably demonstrate the truth of their beliefs.

Can you take apart a Rolex watch, throw it in the air, and it come together in perfectly timed swiss movement? How much more complex are the atoms, molecules, protons, and electrons of a human body? Randomly thrown together with the ability to reason, experience compassion.

I've noticed the strange trend that it's only the theists who claim that the human body was formed randomly, which is a claim that you will never find from credible scientists, scientific papers, or science textbooks. Perhaps you would sound more coherent and less nonsensical if you argued against what science is actually saying, instead of a fairy tale you theists made up yourselves.

 

[rturner76]

I disagree, I believe it is an Atheist's inability to comprehend the truth of God not the theist's inability to prove the existence of God. An Atheist has only one image of God which would be either Jesus Christ or an old man on a throne in the clouds. God is vastly more infinite than that. i wouldn't even say a being or creature. God is reality. An Atheist want's God to fit into hi or her own idea of what God should be but God is far mor complex than said Atheist can comprehend. That is what as human beings we have the extra ingredient animals do not have. It is called a soul or a spirit. An atheist does not believe they have one and this could be possible, that could explain why they cannot feel the presence of God or comprehend him. Or it may be that the Atheist's soul is "asleep" for lack of a better word

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

I disagree, I believe it is an Atheist's inability to comprehend the truth of God not the theist's inability to prove the existence of God.

I disagree, not because it's my opinion, but I know for a fact that you are wrong. Proof is not subjective. Proof does not depend on vague, unproven variables like "spirit" or "heart" or whatever fancy terms you theists choose to use. Proof is irrefutable logic that cannot be denied. When Einstein proved his theory of relativity or when Max Planck proved quantum mechanics they did not resort to nonsense like "you guys just don't understand!". When Isaac Newton proved his three laws of classical mechanics he demonstrated so irrefutably. When Galileo proved that the earth orbited the sun he had ample evidence to back it up instead of simply accusing detractors of not being able to believe. When Alexander Fleming discovered that penicillin could act as an antibiotic he was able to stand by his claims with real, working proof. When Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of heredity, he had more than a claim, he could demonstrate the truth of his claims right before the eyes of anyone who doubted.

Theists have no such evidence to speak of, only weak attempts to label others as "hard-hearted unbelievers" or some such. If you theists were only doing so out of frustration, then that's pathetic, but as it is many of you are blind and illogical enough to believe that what you speak is truth. And that deserves neither incredulity or scorn, but genuine pity.

 

[rturner76]

I've noticed the strange trend that it's only the theists who claim that the human body was formed randomly, which is a claim that you will never find from credible scientists, scientific papers, or science textbooks. Perhaps you would sound more coherent and less nonsensical if you argued against what science is actually saying, instead of a fairy tale you theists made up yourselves.

I misunderstood. I thought that if science dictated that this phenomenon was part of a design then it would need a designer. Or is it a design without a designer? A plan with no planner? I'm not sure that makes sense I mean using as much logic as a theist is capable of and I know that's not much right?

 

[rturner76]

Thank's for the pity...you see, being able to know compassion is an attribute that will serve you well as a theist ;-) Now I honestly understand why you can't believe in God. You get the operative word in there ......believe. You are correct, and I will not obtain victory if you are looking for proof that I can conjure in a labratory. There is one thing I think is not given enough credit by atheists though and I'll be done cause to the OP I got not much else. The point you guys don't give God enough credit for is if the universe has no creator, how did it get here? And if you can come up with a more logical answer than an all powerful creator you are a smart cookie. I get the answer of I can tell you what it's NOT but say how everything got here if not for a being that is infinite? If you say I don't know but it wasn't God, you loose. It was God or......?

 

[rturner76]

That's what I thought....Goodnite and GOD BLESS

 

[razeontherock]

while religion seeks simplistic, intuitive, and utterly unsubstantiated explanations that are justified simply by them "feeling right".

Sorry but no. Jesus spoke many things that are not at all intuitive, and the bible is full of things that are quite difficult to swallow.

 

[razeontherock]

I disagree, not because it's my opinion, but I know for a fact that you are wrong. Proof is not subjective. Proof does not depend on vague, unproven variables like "spirit" or "heart" or whatever fancy terms you theists choose to use. Proof is irrefutable logic that cannot be denied. When Einstein proved his theory of relativity or when Max Planck proved quantum mechanics they did not resort to nonsense like "you guys just don't understand!". When Isaac Newton proved his three laws of classical mechanics he demonstrated so irrefutably. When Galileo proved that the earth orbited the sun he had ample evidence to back it up instead of simply accusing detractors of not being able to believe. When Alexander Fleming discovered that penicillin could act as an antibiotic he was able to stand by his claims with real, working proof. When Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of heredity, he had more than a claim, he could demonstrate the truth of his claims right before the eyes of anyone who doubted.

Theists have no such evidence to speak of, only weak attempts to label others as "hard-hearted unbelievers" or some such. If you theists were only doing so out of frustration, then that's pathetic, but as it is many of you are blind and illogical enough to believe that what you speak is truth. And that deserves neither incredulity or scorn, but genuine pity.

You are WAY past the line where you should be reported. You might consider editing this post ...