HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
That would make this thread a cunning double-bluff and would certainly win God some respect from this atheist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"If God Could Just Show Himself..."
- Thread starter Samantha Rinne
- Start date
Audie
Veteran Member
That would make this thread a cunning double-bluff and would certainly win God some respect from this atheist.
I am already impressed with gods double bluff, and
cannot but respect a god who can so completely
disguise his presence, making it look as if some
sort of "static electricity" involving "clouds" is
responsible for lightning.
You seem to be angry at atheists for living without religion or a god belief, and for refusing to believe based on insufficient evidence. I've tried both, and found living outside of religion more meaningful and satisfying - obviously, or I would have returned to a religious life.
Secular humanism is an intelligent and compassionate ideology based on the application of reason and empathy to evidence. It has given the world two huge gifts: science, and the modern, liberal democratic state with limited government and guaranteed personal liberties. These two things have transformed the world, turning subjects into autonomous citizens with longer lives that are also healthier, easier, and more comfortable.
One of secular humanism's bedrock principles is rational skepticism, or the insistence that nothing be believed without empiric support, and then, only to the degree that the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence justifies, and always tentatively, that is, with the willingness to modify belief as new evidence dictates.
This is among the best ideas that mankind has ever had, transforming alchemy into chemistry, astrology into astronomy, and creationism into evolutionary science, that is, transforming them from sterile avenues of inquiry into modern sciences that allow us to predict and at times control outcomes.
I also admire the rational ethics of secular humanism, in which a community chooses goals for itself based on empathetic reciprocity, or the Golden Rule. Humanists choose a community which is free, safe, tolerant, just, and facilitates economic opportunity as well as self-development (education, personal integrity). To accomplish those goals, rules are devised, tested, and tweaked where necessary to facilitate achieving the desired society.
This has been an excellent choice for me. I came out of Christianity, which was a dark ideology, one that taught that we were all goners (it's always the end times), we might end up being tortured for eternity, we are born spiritually diseased (sinners) and need a cure, that the world is a bad place (worldly is a derogatory term) and fit for apocalyptic destruction, one's own flesh and mind are enemies, demons are trying to destroy us, we are being constantly watched and judged. I left all of that in the church.
The change to secular humanism restored hope for the world and mankind, and ended the bondage of hell theology. Submission and belief without sufficient evidence were no longer the highest virtues. They were replaced by autonomy and reason applied to evidence. When a cute little doe-eyed girl dies of leukemia sometime later today (and one will somewhere), I now have the comfort of knowing that it was just rotten luck, and not something caused by or allowed to happen by an unseen overlord, which was always disturbing.
Humanism celebrates humanity rather than see it as weak and sick. I have no interest in returning to that world.
The truth is, that our universe is exactly what we would expect from a godless universe running itself automatical and naturalistically according to blind physical forces. Here is a pretty potent argument for the absence of an interventionalist god in our universe, such as the kind that sends messages or does miracles. I call it the restricted choice argument.
It argues, for example, that in a universe ruled by an omnipotent, omnisicient god, there might be a holy book so impressive that no man could have written it, or not, but in a godless universe, there would only be flawed books written by people, which is what we see. There is nothing in any existing holy book that couldn't have been written by a human being.
A universe created by a god might or might not have had regular physical laws, but a godless universe would require them, which, once again, is what we find..
A universe with a god might have that god manifest directly or not, but in a godless universe, there can be no such manifestations. This is why you started this thread - anger or frustration over others' unwillingness to believe what you believe.
A universe with a god might have had all life appear in its present form or had it evolve, but a godless universe needs naturalistic methods like biological evolution. And of course, yet again, that's what we find.
In a universe with an interventionalist god that answers prayer and performs miracles, we might or might not see amputees restored to normal, but in a godless universe, the amputated limb never reappears. Check. That's our universe as well.
This god always that you believe in always chooses exactly the same choice that would be imposed on a godless universe.
That's exactly what we expect if there is no interventionalist god, like what we see with every other of these alleged choices.
The world is full of these kinds of situations - if an interventionalist god existed, things might be A or B, but in a godless universe, it could only be B, and it's It's always B.That's why it's called restricted choice.
The argument is similar to concluding that a coin is loaded if it flips to tails every time. With a fair coin, the result could have been heads or tails, but with the loaded coin, only tails comes up. After awhile, say 100 flips, or 10,000, all tails, it is safe to assume that the coin is loaded even if there is a minute possibility that the coin is a fair coin.
That's about where I am with the god issue.
I find this argument compelling. I also find that it strains credulity to suggest that a god exists that can affect our world, who wants to communicate His desires to us, who wants to be known, loved, worshiped, and obeyed, but nevertheless always chooses to imitate the nonexistent god by doing what would happen if there were no gods.
"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense" - Edward Abbey
Secular humanism is an intelligent and compassionate ideology based on the application of reason and empathy to evidence. It has given the world two huge gifts: science, and the modern, liberal democratic state with limited government and guaranteed personal liberties. These two things have transformed the world, turning subjects into autonomous citizens with longer lives that are also healthier, easier, and more comfortable.
One of secular humanism's bedrock principles is rational skepticism, or the insistence that nothing be believed without empiric support, and then, only to the degree that the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence justifies, and always tentatively, that is, with the willingness to modify belief as new evidence dictates.
This is among the best ideas that mankind has ever had, transforming alchemy into chemistry, astrology into astronomy, and creationism into evolutionary science, that is, transforming them from sterile avenues of inquiry into modern sciences that allow us to predict and at times control outcomes.
I also admire the rational ethics of secular humanism, in which a community chooses goals for itself based on empathetic reciprocity, or the Golden Rule. Humanists choose a community which is free, safe, tolerant, just, and facilitates economic opportunity as well as self-development (education, personal integrity). To accomplish those goals, rules are devised, tested, and tweaked where necessary to facilitate achieving the desired society.
This has been an excellent choice for me. I came out of Christianity, which was a dark ideology, one that taught that we were all goners (it's always the end times), we might end up being tortured for eternity, we are born spiritually diseased (sinners) and need a cure, that the world is a bad place (worldly is a derogatory term) and fit for apocalyptic destruction, one's own flesh and mind are enemies, demons are trying to destroy us, we are being constantly watched and judged. I left all of that in the church.
The change to secular humanism restored hope for the world and mankind, and ended the bondage of hell theology. Submission and belief without sufficient evidence were no longer the highest virtues. They were replaced by autonomy and reason applied to evidence. When a cute little doe-eyed girl dies of leukemia sometime later today (and one will somewhere), I now have the comfort of knowing that it was just rotten luck, and not something caused by or allowed to happen by an unseen overlord, which was always disturbing.
Humanism celebrates humanity rather than see it as weak and sick. I have no interest in returning to that world.
The truth is, that our universe is exactly what we would expect from a godless universe running itself automatical and naturalistically according to blind physical forces. Here is a pretty potent argument for the absence of an interventionalist god in our universe, such as the kind that sends messages or does miracles. I call it the restricted choice argument.
It argues, for example, that in a universe ruled by an omnipotent, omnisicient god, there might be a holy book so impressive that no man could have written it, or not, but in a godless universe, there would only be flawed books written by people, which is what we see. There is nothing in any existing holy book that couldn't have been written by a human being.
A universe created by a god might or might not have had regular physical laws, but a godless universe would require them, which, once again, is what we find..
A universe with a god might have that god manifest directly or not, but in a godless universe, there can be no such manifestations. This is why you started this thread - anger or frustration over others' unwillingness to believe what you believe.
A universe with a god might have had all life appear in its present form or had it evolve, but a godless universe needs naturalistic methods like biological evolution. And of course, yet again, that's what we find.
In a universe with an interventionalist god that answers prayer and performs miracles, we might or might not see amputees restored to normal, but in a godless universe, the amputated limb never reappears. Check. That's our universe as well.
This god always that you believe in always chooses exactly the same choice that would be imposed on a godless universe.
That's exactly what we expect if there is no interventionalist god, like what we see with every other of these alleged choices.
The world is full of these kinds of situations - if an interventionalist god existed, things might be A or B, but in a godless universe, it could only be B, and it's It's always B.That's why it's called restricted choice.
The argument is similar to concluding that a coin is loaded if it flips to tails every time. With a fair coin, the result could have been heads or tails, but with the loaded coin, only tails comes up. After awhile, say 100 flips, or 10,000, all tails, it is safe to assume that the coin is loaded even if there is a minute possibility that the coin is a fair coin.
That's about where I am with the god issue.
I find this argument compelling. I also find that it strains credulity to suggest that a god exists that can affect our world, who wants to communicate His desires to us, who wants to be known, loved, worshiped, and obeyed, but nevertheless always chooses to imitate the nonexistent god by doing what would happen if there were no gods.
"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense" - Edward Abbey
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Sufficiently evidenced, then yes I would. "Worship" is an entirely different matter, of course... and no... I woudn't do that. It would take some serious investment on the part of the God to get me to go all the way to worshiping it. I'm not even sure I could get there. I simply see no reason.
You have a very strange conception of nonbelief. I don't "want to" see God. Not in the slightest. I am one of those who, not only do I see absolutely no good reasons to believe, I'd actually rather God didn't exist at all. As in - if He did end up being proved to exist, I would honestly find myself quite disappointed. The universe would no longer be the place I thought it was, and I would have so many more questions and unsatisfied ideas than I do now. Right now I don't have to question "why" certain things happen that may be of some detriment to myself or others. With a God in place pulling all the strings... well, the questions become myriad, and any forthcoming answers would never be adequate.
And what's wrong with a little venting? You didn't really state this - only assumed that it would be somehow incorrect to do so. Can God not hack it? Can't stand up to the criticism? Can't answer a few questions? What a weakling. Fix yourself up God... sounds like you need some pointers on how to maintain fortitude in the face of scrutiny.
And you think this joke works FOR religious beliefs? Seriously? To me this displays exactly what is wrong with theistic thinking many times. Many think there is some "safety net" out there - so they sometimes don't maintain due diligence in order to make sure things get done. Like parents not taking their kids to the doctor because "God will handle it" if they pray hard enough. It also displays the HUGE disconnect between your belief in God and what you feel stands in for evidence of God. You want to claim a helicopter showing up is evidence for God. Do you even hear yourself?
...there's helicopters... you know, the usual stuff.
Last edited:
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Of course God is scared to duel.
First off, being in Heaven all the time, he's probably a huge hikikomori. And and then there the various dueling weapons. Swords, knives, guns, clubs. What if he hurt you?
This is totally not a joke thread I wrote at 3am btw. Totally not.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Makukov and sCherbak make a compelling case that mathematical patterns involving multiples of 37 appear in our genetic coding as a result of something other than natural selection. Besides me, this message of "037" embedded in our genetic code invented by our genetic code's Creator has been conveyed to Vladimir shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov , Natasa Misic, Artem Novozhilov, , Eugene Koonin, Chris Davis, and Craig Paardekooper.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You could patent that and peddle it as a self help course. Set for life!
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
The credit for finding the message of "037" embedded in our genetic code invented by our genetic code's Creator goes to Vladimir sCherbak. He's a mathematical genius who failed to win a Nobel Prize for his discovery of an intelligently designed informational signal embedded in our genetic code, because this discovery is not as worthy as a discovery that be expected to lead scientists on a path towards a medical breakthrough or a more technologically advanced invention.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vladimir_Shcherbak
Last edited:
Part of making a proper case for God is answering the question "how do you know the things you're attributing to God were actually from God and not from something else?" If you can't do this, it really isn't the atheist's problem.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
"Then I would believe." Right?
Well, no. You wouldn't. And that's because anyone who wants God to pop into view and play the magic trick game, probably doesn't actually understand why they would want to see God in the first place. In fact, some of them would either vent for several hours about everything God has done wrong, or try to kill Him.
In other words, you are challenging God. You are telling him to show up at 3 am or 5 pm (or the twelfth of never) and duel with you.
There's an old joke. It goes something like this. A man is caught in a flood, and he prays "please God, come save me." A boat comes along, and he's like "No thanks, I'm waiting for God to save me." A helicopter comes along, and the same deal. He dies, and he's like "God, why didn't you save me?" Yeah ummm, you rejected the helicopter and the boat.
The truth is, God mostly shows himself in a few ways. I mean, there's dreams, there's the various people God speaks through (too many stories to mention), there's nature (I one time walked away from a church policy I didn't like, and got drenched in a rainstorm), there's symbols (almost too many but one time my sister had me find her some poultry, and I couldn't find the specific kind, and the next day I found an item at the place I worked, a video called Wild Goose Chase), and so on. But we're looking for someone with a sign over them saying "This Is God"? Yeah, nobody would reveal themselves that way even as a normal person (think of how many ppl online use a persona).
So yeah, I have a "poll" below that doesn't allow any denial mode. The only way you will accept God this way is if you've actually decided that really is what you want. As long as you're in "prove yourself worthy, God" mode, you will never accept what you're looking for. The End.
Prove me wrong! I need you to show up right now and convince me that I'm mistaken!
(Nah, I'm messing with you. The first person to respond gets to decide what this thread is about instead. It's 3 am, so have a song)
Was it the atheist Bertrand Russel who said he would tell God, "God, why is it you gave no evidence of your existence?"
Faith does a work in people's lives. Not just a faith there's a God but faith that God can work in your life.
So Abraham went out in faith, leaving all behind, and trusted upon God providence. This made him the man he became.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
nPeace
Veteran Member
That's easily settled by the evidence, from two sources - creation itself, and the Bible.
I'll be back later.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
"Then I would believe." Right?
Well, no. You wouldn't. And that's because anyone who wants God to pop into view and play the magic trick game, probably doesn't actually understand why they would want to see God in the first place. In fact, some of them would either vent for several hours about everything God has done wrong, or try to kill Him.
In other words, you are challenging God. You are telling him to show up at 3 am or 5 pm (or the twelfth of never) and duel with you.
There's an old joke. It goes something like this. A man is caught in a flood, and he prays "please God, come save me." A boat comes along, and he's like "No thanks, I'm waiting for God to save me." A helicopter comes along, and the same deal. He dies, and he's like "God, why didn't you save me?" Yeah ummm, you rejected the helicopter and the boat.
The truth is, God mostly shows himself in a few ways. I mean, there's dreams, there's the various people God speaks through (too many stories to mention), there's nature (I one time walked away from a church policy I didn't like, and got drenched in a rainstorm), there's symbols (almost too many but one time my sister had me find her some poultry, and I couldn't find the specific kind, and the next day I found an item at the place I worked, a video called Wild Goose Chase), and so on. But we're looking for someone with a sign over them saying "This Is God"? Yeah, nobody would reveal themselves that way even as a normal person (think of how many ppl online use a persona).
So yeah, I have a "poll" below that doesn't allow any denial mode. The only way you will accept God this way is if you've actually decided that really is what you want. As long as you're in "prove yourself worthy, God" mode, you will never accept what you're looking for. The End.
Prove me wrong! I need you to show up right now and convince me that I'm mistaken!
(Nah, I'm messing with you. The first person to respond gets to decide what this thread is about instead. It's 3 am, so have a song)
Sorry, but this a truly ridiculous post. That's like me claiming that even if my magical invisible dragon were to reveal himself to you that you would still refuse to believe. Because anyone who wants my magical dragon to pop into view and play the magic trick game, probably doesn't actually understand why they would want to see my magical dragon in the first place. In fact, you'd probably vent for several hours about everything my magical dragon has done wrong, or try to kill Him.
The only way you will accept my magical dragon this way is if you've actually decided that really is what you want. As long as you're in "prove yourself worthy, magical dragon" mode, you will never accept what you're looking for. The End.
Prove me wrong! I need you to show up right now and convince me that I'm mistaken!
McBell
Unbound
My bad.
I thought this was a thread of building up strawmen in order to cut them down..
Seems to me that if an all knowing all powerful being actually wanted people to know it exists would be able to do so.
Since said being has not done so, it means said being either does not want people to know it exists, or does not care if people know it exists.
Thus your whole OP is nothing more than a strawman.
Have fun with that.
McBell
Unbound
So basically, what you are saying, in a nut shell, is that it cannot be distinguished between god doing something and a magic trick?
McBell
Unbound
The God of the gaps keeps getting smaller and smaller.
McBell
Unbound
Blatantly false given all the various denominations all from the same sources.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Even if a powerful entity made itself known, how could you trust that it's not deceiving and misguiding you? Imagine some interdimensional, incorporeal predator that disguises itself as our deities in order to manipulate and control its prey, cultivating and then feeding upon human suffering.
Last edited: