Maybe God doesn't want to be found via the scientific method

[ManTimeForgot]

Here is secular America's "Bible".
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

One thing about this "Bible" is that it makes us feel very safe. We only have to believe in what we can taste, touch, smell, etc. The problem is our ears can only detect soundwaves within 20 Hz to 15 000 Hz. Our eyes can only detect wavelength of 380–750 nanometers. Even scenthounds can detect smell one- to ten-million times more acutely than a human. Would it be so hard for the big guy to remain undetected from senses such as these?

Certainly, our sensory faculties are almost certainly primitive on a cosmic scale. I mean we lack the capability of sensing alternate universes or the emission of virtual photons. The problem with this argument is that it stems from ignorance. Even if we had telepathy, sensitivity to virtual particles, could see into the temporal dimension, and could look into alternate realities we would still be left with the question of: "What if the senses we have is not enough to find X?"


Just because we might be limited in some way is no reason to suppose specific existence of something outside our ability to detect. Otherwise the question might as well read: "Is it any surprise we can't detect "invisible plushy unicorns" with our obviously inferior sensory faculties?"

Is it likely that there are things outside our ability to detect currently? The answer to that is that the probability that there things beyond our ability to currently detect is so high as to approach metaphysical certitude (99.9999999999999999%). But since we don't actually have any evidence of what those things might be the probability of any specific thing's existence outside of our ability to detect approaches metaphysical impossibility (.00000000000000001%).


Example: Take some random planet in the andromeda galaxy. Now lets assume that there is actually life on this planet. Now with these assumptions comes some evidence (we do know some things which are likely to be true about the andromeda galaxy; and life as we would recognize it has to have some features to it that would allow us to detect it). But for sake of argument let us say that we lacked any evidence at all (We knew nothing about the elemental composition of the galaxy and life didn't have any rules we knew about).

If we were to try to guess what "life" would look like on this planet, then the chances that one of us was right would approach zero. Life is a product of its environment. Planetary matter gets energy from its core and from the nearby star. What orbits do the planet(s) have? There are just so many influences that just about anything we could conceive of could possibly be right.


And that is precisely the problem. When anything is possible you know precisely nothing. Something is defined but what it is not, by what it cannot do. Why posit the existence of something that can do anything you say it can and is invisible in every way except when it wants to talk with "faithful" individuals?

MTF

 

[-Peacemaker-]

As others have said if God is spirit it seems improbable that we can find him through a method designed to measure things in the material world. Does that mean we stop looking for God however? Do we insist on limiting what we acknowledge as real to simply the material world?

 

[Landerage]

Two questions...

1. Which concept of "God" are we talking about?
2. Why is "God" intentionally hiding?

I don't think it's adequate to use the term "hiding". It's more why he leads us with no physical trace towards him. What's the point of having faith if we already know that God is there. And he is very visible to those who have a great faith, but "seems" to be hiding for those who don't beleive in him.

 

[Landerage]

Certainly, our sensory faculties are almost certainly primitive on a cosmic scale. I mean we lack the capability of sensing alternate universes or the emission of virtual photons. The problem with this argument is that it stems from ignorance. Even if we had telepathy, sensitivity to virtual particles, could see into the temporal dimension, and could look into alternate realities we would still be left with the question of: "What if the senses we have is not enough to find X?"


Just because we might be limited in some way is no reason to suppose specific existence of something outside our ability to detect. Otherwise the question might as well read: "Is it any surprise we can't detect "invisible plushy unicorns" with our obviously inferior sensory faculties?"

Is it likely that there are things outside our ability to detect currently? The answer to that is that the probability that there things beyond our ability to currently detect is so high as to approach metaphysical certitude (99.9999999999999999%). But since we don't actually have any evidence of what those things might be the probability of any specific thing's existence outside of our ability to detect approaches metaphysical impossibility (.00000000000000001%).


Example: Take some random planet in the andromeda galaxy. Now lets assume that there is actually life on this planet. Now with these assumptions comes some evidence (we do know some things which are likely to be true about the andromeda galaxy; and life as we would recognize it has to have some features to it that would allow us to detect it). But for sake of argument let us say that we lacked any evidence at all (We knew nothing about the elemental composition of the galaxy and life didn't have any rules we knew about).

If we were to try to guess what "life" would look like on this planet, then the chances that one of us was right would approach zero. Life is a product of its environment. Planetary matter gets energy from its core and from the nearby star. What orbits do the planet(s) have? There are just so many influences that just about anything we could conceive of could possibly be right.


And that is precisely the problem. When anything is possible you know precisely nothing. Something is defined but what it is not, by what it cannot do. Why posit the existence of something that can do anything you say it can and is invisible in every way except when it wants to talk with "faithful" individuals?

MTF

It's true everything is possible, but God did send prophets and holy books to let those who wants to get close to him, know that he is there. The wisdom behind the greateness of the universe, and how hard is it for humans to increase knowledge, is to show what God is capable of.
Since anything is possible in this world and humans have no certitude over nothing, why reject the wisdom of this earth and what it teaches us? Or following what human's personal opinions and point of view seems a better option ?

 

[Otherright]

Here is secular America's "Bible".
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

One thing about this "Bible" is that it makes us feel very safe. We only have to believe in what we can taste, touch, smell, etc. The problem is our ears can only detect soundwaves within 20 Hz to 15 000 Hz. Our eyes can only detect wavelength of 380–750 nanometers. Even scenthounds can detect smell one- to ten-million times more acutely than a human. Would it be so hard for the big guy to remain undetected from senses such as these?

Well, what you have to realize is that God never asked us to believe in him. Jesus asks that. God commands us to obey him. Then he doesn't leave any evidence of his existence.

 

[waitasec]

It's true everything is possible, but God did send prophets and holy books to let those who wants to get close to him, know that he is there. The wisdom behind the greateness of the universe, and how hard is it for humans to increase knowledge, is to show what God is capable of.
Since anything is possible in this world and humans have no certitude over nothing, why reject the wisdom of this earth and what it teaches us? Or following what human's personal opinions and point of view seems a better option ?

why send prophets? the mentality is to believe the prophets at face value.
why? anyone can be misleading or taking people for granted for the purpose of using faith for the "prophets" agenda. if god requires a 3rd party it's because god doesn't exist and the prophet is just a politician who takes the faith of others for his personal gain.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Two questions...

1. Which concept of "God" are we talking about?
2. Why is "God" intentionally hiding?

I don't think it's adequate to use the term "hiding". It's more why he leads us with no physical trace towards him. What's the point of having faith if we already know that God is there. And he is very visible to those who have a great faith, but "seems" to be hiding for those who don't beleive in him.

As to the first question, which God is it we are to have faith in?

 

[Awoon]

The search for god is the search for yourself

 

[Oneatatime]

Here is secular America's "Bible".
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

One thing about this "Bible" is that it makes us feel very safe. We only have to believe in what we can taste, touch, smell, etc. The problem is our ears can only detect soundwaves within 20 Hz to 15 000 Hz. Our eyes can only detect wavelength of 380–750 nanometers. Even scenthounds can detect smell one- to ten-million times more acutely than a human. Would it be so hard for the big guy to remain undetected from senses such as these?

There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin. Suffice to say if you actually believe this is the case then you need to go back to school and learn about how humans have learned to measure things which are beyond the normal range of human senses.

You may also want to consider why the claim that God hasn't been detected is because it doesn't want to be detected isn't a particually convincing arguement.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin. Suffice to say if you actually believe this is the case then you need to go back to school and learn about how humans have learned to measure things which are beyond the normal range of human senses.

You may also want to consider why the claim that God hasn't been detected is because it doesn't want to be detected isn't a particually convincing arguement.

I said he's obviously not interested in being detected on some barometer we've created. I'm raising the issue that it doesn't he's undetectable or we should stop looking

 

[no-body]

Indeed I agree that God cannot be found in the known. But why does that mean we should turn off our brains and blindly follow something unprovable? If it brings you comfort fine, but it is egotistical to assume everyone else needs your version of comfort too.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Is God so small that he is limited to only revealing himself in some scientifically quantifiable way before we trust in him.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Is God so small that he is limited to only revealing himself in some scientifically quantifiable way before we trust in him.

Again I ask, which concept of God are we talking about?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is God so small that he is limited to only revealing himself in some scientifically quantifiable way before we trust in him.

Is God so small that he (she? it?) cares what we miserable humans think about him
(her? it?), & further demands our worship under threat of eternal pain & suffering?

If I were a supreme being, I'd have bigger plans & loftier thoughts. I'd make an entire universe out of bacon.

 

[Landerage]

why send prophets? the mentality is to believe the prophets at face value.
why? anyone can be misleading or taking people for granted for the purpose of using faith for the "prophets" agenda. if god requires a 3rd party it's because god doesn't exist and the prophet is just a politician who takes the faith of others for his personal gain.

The wisdom behind sending prophets, is in fact that in life you need to do the right thing. As long as those prophets were honest, nice and kind and had no reason to lie, that means what they say is true. And as long as a human being knew that, saying no is wrong. Let's say you know someone your whole life, and he never lied and always said the truth, and had great moral values, if one day that person came to you and said that God exists, would you tell him your lying ? Its like taking off the honesty from that man which is wrong. That's why not telling him he's lying is the right thing to do.

 

[Me Myself]

The wisdom behind sending prophets, is in fact that in life you need to do the right thing. As long as those prophets were honest, nice and kind and had no reason to lie, that means what they say is true. And as long as a human being knew that, saying no is wrong. Let's say you know someone your whole life, and he never lied and always said the truth, and had great moral values, if one day that person came to you and said that God exists, would you tell him your lying ? Its like taking off the honesty from that man which is wrong. That's why not telling him he's lying is the right thing to do.

Just because he beleives himself doesn´t mean he is right.

He could be having alucinations. Even if he never had one anyone that have had alucinations must have had a first one.

 

[Skeptisch]

The existence of something is a scientific question, so please post a good argument against this claim.

 

[waitasec]

Is God so small that he is limited to only revealing himself in some scientifically quantifiable way before we trust in him.

is god so small that he's actually interested in what we think?

 

[SPACKlick]

is god so small that he's actually interested in what we think?

Is god so small that he doesn't exist?

 

[Skeptisch]

Is god so small that he doesn't exist?

To many of us this sounds about right, especially if by God we mean a supernatural, omnipotent deity.