Why do God/s "hide" from disbelievers?

[Thief]

I think if you have no interest in understanding God, God leave you alone.

hmmmm.....not sure about drawing the line that close to the toes.....
so to speak

many deny there is a God
in return....God will do likewise

for those who do not understand.....clarity awaits
and when the light of God is seen
some will say......oh good
others will be ashamed.....that what they have become can be seen

the light might cause a fellow to wear a hooded robe......

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not believe God hides, i just believe non believers cant see Gods signs in this world

Can you think of anything else - anything that actually exists - that's undetectable unless you already believe in it?

I think if you have no interest in understanding God, God leave you alone.

From my perspective, God is also leaving you - and every other God-believer - alone, as far as I can tell.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wrote God/Gods so my questions could fit all believers in a God.

OK.

Let me ask you a question entirely comparable to:

Why does it seems like God or Gods hide from disbelievers but atleast in some way are recognised by or shown to believers?

Ready?

Why does it seem like the obvious superiority of Red and White wine is hidden from beer drinkers but at least in some way is recognized by or shown to oenophiles?​

I am honestly interested in your answer.

* I wrote "Red and White" so the question could fit most if not all wine lovers.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As it turns out, defining what is "real" and "exists" is neither simple nor straightforward.

I understand all the nuances here, like the idea that someone's brain can be producing images for them and they alone, while no one else can see them. We tend not to think of those types of people as having the most healthy states of mind, however. Hallucinations, for example, tend to be a sign that someone is currently experiencing an altered perception of reality of some kind. Whether that be something physiological, some brain condition or due to drugs, etc. We get a clear picture (through massive quantities of evidence) of what constitutes a relatively stable view/perception of reality. We come to know what we can rely on (and what we cannot) when it comes to sharing our perceptions with those around us. We come to know what things that present themselves to us can also be presented to others without ourselves breaking the lines of what constitutes "healthy perception" by our peers. It just so happens that theists who claim the existence of their god(s) (when those gods are supernatural, or other-worldly in nature - I'm NOT talking about people who call "trees" "gods", they can share a "tree" with me all they want, and what I will inform them of is that I will simply continue to call it a "tree" until they can demonstrate the aspects of the tree that should make me attribute another moniker to it, or call it something other than its common name) flout this idea and these hallmarks of experience in favor of romantic fantasies.

"fake" or "false" or "incorrect" rather than understanding it represents a cultural difference

This informs me very well and simply that I needn't, at all, accept as "gods" what you deem to be "gods." Exactly in the same way as I don't need observe the "Day of the Dead" or "Yom Kippur" if I choose not to, because it isn't part of my culture. Which, in turn, is exactly the same as deciding that I do not want to collect stamps, because that hobby doesn't interest me. That stamp collector may be the most excited person on Earth when it comes to stamps - but they are making a mistake in trying to drum up an involved conversation with me about stamp collecting, because I don't care. At best I will humor them, and at minimum I will find the quickest exit I possibly can from the situation, and at worst I will ask them to please stop discussing it with me, because I don't care. Should that person take offense to any of those social cues? My attempts to let them know I am not interested?

Again, the crux of all this is that the gods do not

hide per se (though one could say they hide in plain sight) - a person's preconceptions about reality and their preconceptions about gods will make someone more or less aware. Deification is attributive - a title placed upon something - so it really becomes a seek and ye shall find sort of thing.

In the end, it stands to reason that some things can be shared between us as easily as taking a breath. Some other things take a little more convincing, like producing a articular measurement after proving (via evidence) that the instrument used to take the measurement behaves as intended. And still other things simply cannot be shared except by those who are already pre-disposed to also believe in the existence of such things. You see the progression there? There is a caliber to these claims. Claims of "gods" falling in the last, and being the very most weak among them. Easily denied, and all too difficult to convince a denier. In my opinion, all of the things we make the largest and most important parts of our lives should have good, solid support from reality. When they don't for someone, I feel that I must intrinsically distrust that person's judgment and decision-making. But that last is just a "cultural difference" of mine though, right? So it should probably be impervious to criticism. Hahahaha...

 

[Windwalker]

Yet if God has objective existence, is not just conceptual / imaginary, then there must be such a test.

What is your objective test for happiness?

 

[Thief]

Can you think of anything else - anything that actually exists - that's undetectable

dark energy
dark matter

and God was God of the Darkness
before He created light

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

dark energy
dark matter

Both are detectable indirectly.

Both are inferences that are required to make sense of our observations. What observations need us to infer God?

 

[Thief]

What observations need us to infer God?

look around you

it's called the creation.....alias.....reality
Cause and effect

you know the Artist by the creation

but hey.......it's indirect

infer what you will
and be prepared to say it again...............to His Face

 

[Windwalker]

Can you think of anything else - anything that actually exists - that's undetectable unless you already believe in it?

Countless things. How many times have you heard people exclaim, "I can't believe I didn't see/recognize it, when it was right before my eyes the whole time"? We are unaware of a great many things all the time, simply because we are distracted by something else that has our attention fixated upon it.

Ever stop to look up and see a beautiful sunset, when you've been walking for the past 20 minutes staring down at that ground thinking about such and such, only to be suddenly blown away by how unobservant you've been to not see what was there the whole time you were distracting yourself from? This is not a mystery. It's commonplace.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Both are detectable indirectly.

As is God.

Both are inferences that are required to make sense of our observations. What observations need us to infer God?

Behaviors of believers and change their belief affects in them.

 

[Windwalker]

I understand all the nuances here, like the idea that someone's brain can be producing images for them and they alone, while no one else can see them.

I don't believe that is what they were saying about reality. People collectively see reality with relatively stable points of view, that can vary considerably between other collective groups. They use a shared lens or filter through which they collectively interpret reality.

That lens is not "reality" itself, but a filter of reality. There are many different types of lens people look through, and if everyone looks through a red-tinted lens, everyone will agree all of reality is red-hued. For those who use green lenses, they collectively agree all of reality is green-hued. And so forth.

We tend not to think of those types of people as having the most healthy states of mind, however. Hallucinations, for example, tend to be a sign that someone is currently experiencing an altered perception of reality of some kind.

But when you have more than one all agreeing on what is being seen with one another, that means they are not having an individual aberration, or a brain fart. There is something greater at work going on.

Whether that be something physiological, some brain condition or due to drugs, etc. We get a clear picture (through massive quantities of evidence) of what constitutes a relatively stable view/perception of reality.

Mythic views of reality, reality controlled by gods and such, is a stable perception of reality. It was the norm for thousands of years and served as collective lens through which human societies both thrived and functioned well. If something has proved its value to provide a cohesive framework that serves humanity, is it something we should look upon today as simply "wrongheaded" or foolishness?

Was that view the same as the scientific view of reality? No. But is the scientific view of reality, absolute truth either? Or is it another perception of something it simply tries to approximate through its symbols, in the same way the mythic structures of consciousness did?

We come to know what we can rely on (and what we cannot) when it comes to sharing our perceptions with those around us.

The exact same thing can be said of those living in pre-scientific cultures. If you don't speak within those common terms and understandings of reality, you'll be viewed as nuts. A modern scientist speaking of black holes to an ancient person, would be viewed as "woo woo" by them.

In the end, it stands to reason that some things can be shared between us as easily as taking a breath.

Only if you share a common language and symbolic framework of reality through which you interpret and translate experience. It's not so easy when you don't share a similar structure.

In my opinion, all of the things we make the largest and most important parts of our lives should have good, solid support from reality. When they don't for someone, I feel that I must intrinsically distrust that person's judgment and decision-making. But that last is just a "cultural difference" of mine though, right? So it should probably be impervious to criticism. Hahahaha...

Yet they can and do say the exact same thing in reverse, wondering why you aren't in touch with reality that they see and share as truth collectively. You are doing the same thing they do.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That lens is not "reality" itself, but a filter of reality. There are many different types of lens people look through, and if everyone looks through a red-tinted lens, everyone will agree all of reality is red-hued. For those who use green lenses, they collectively agree all of reality is green-hued. And so forth.

Unfortunately for this idea, there simply are things that no one can reasonably deny or call "red" when it is demonstrably "green." For example, take gravitational pull. Do any of us get to change our "lens" on gravity such that what we experience is different from what others experience? When I go to use the (estimated) value for gravity on Earth to estimate where a ball might be after 5 seconds of falling, can someone else use a different value and make as accurate a prediction as I can? No. No they couldn't.

And that's just an extreme example. Certain qualia is experienced differently by different individuals. For example, my hands happen to be extremely heat resistant. To the point that I can deal with holding hot plates and rinsing dishes in scalding water, and even don't suffer burns at temperatures another people's skin would burn when exposed to. However - NONE of that changes the ACTUAL temperature of any given object either one of us might come in contact with, and we can literally verify what that temperature is with instrumentation. THAT'S exactly the kind of "sharing" I am talking about. Not when one person says "this plate is hot" and I say, "Oh, don't worry about it, I can take it." That difference is understood, but DOES NOT change the fundamental reality of how hot the plate actually is.

And what I am saying is that all I really care about is how hot the plate actually is. If someone is trying to talk me into something related to their God, then ALL I care about is whether or not that God actually exists. I care about not one other thing. I want to know whether or not it is safe to ignore their ideas and continue as I will. And in my experience, it is always safe to do so. The only time it wouldn't be is if some nutters were in control of the governing forces of my locale and made it a theocracy. And even then, I could easily know in my own mind that I don't need to believe their utter CRAP, even if I outwardly pretended to be one of the zealots myself. This, alone, makes all this garbage COMPLETELY different than something like gravity, or the heat of an object, etc. It is entirely subjective. Entirely so, without a single speck of objectivity attached to it. It is of your mind... and yet you are loathe to admit it. Why is that? When I eat a particular flavor of ice cream and state that I like it, and you eat the same and say that you don't like it, do I try to convince you that you are wrong? Or do I start to talk about how your "filter of reality" must be different than my own? No. That would be ridiculous. You can have your tastes, and I can have mine. It is an area known to be entirely subjective - with judgments subject to the person doing the judging. I'm not going to try and convince you of the reality of the "good taste" of the ice cream when I understand you don't like it. I'm going to believe that you don't like it and understand it is a difference between us. That's where I am saying any belief in God sits. You like to believe in God... but the reality of it is not on the table for discussion. It is for you, and you alone.

 

[Windwalker]

Unfortunately for this idea, there simply are things that no one can reasonably deny or call "red" when it is demonstrably "green." For example, take gravitational pull.

Of course there are stable systems in nature everyone, regardless of their language recognize as real. How they understand what that is however, is not the same, nor absolute. There is the mythic understanding of gravity, and there is the magic understanding, and there is the scientific understanding, etc.

But as a note of caution, just because you can identify stable systems like physics, that in no way translates into all the rest of reality being reduced down to an understanding of physics only. That's a perceptual absolutism; 'the scientific view of reality is the only truth'. And when you do that, you shut the door on understanding. It's doing the same thing as saying, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it for me".

Do any of us get to change our "lens" on gravity such that what we experience is different from what others experience? When I go to use the (estimated) value for gravity on Earth to estimate where a ball might be after 5 seconds of falling, can someone else use a different value and make as accurate a prediction as I can? No. No they couldn't.

There's really not much need for that. But is life and understanding reality as basic as gravity or the orbits of the planets? I heard someone musing, "Science can tell me with precise detail where a moon of Jupiter will be 1000 years from now, but they can't tell me where my dog will be 10 minutes from now." Reality is far more complex and nuanced and subtle than the orbits of moons and the speeds which objects fall on earth.

And that's just an extreme example. Certain qualia is experienced differently by different individuals. For example, my hands happen to be extremely heat resistant. To the point that I can deal with holding hot plates and rinsing dishes in scalding water, and even don't suffer burns at temperatures another people's skin would burn when exposed to. However - NONE of that changes the ACTUAL temperature of any given object either one of us might come in contact with, and we can literally verify what that temperature is with instrumentation. THAT'S exactly the kind of "sharing" I am talking about. Not when one person says "this plate is hot" and I say, "Oh, don't worry about it, I can take it." That difference is understood, but DOES NOT change the fundamental reality of how hot the plate actually is.

Again, you are looking at the world through the scientific lens of reality. Yes, of course there are truths found within it, to be certain. But we aren't talking about skin sensitivity to heat, or muscle strengths, and really elementary, basic things like that. Just because the tools of science can be used to examine these, does not translate into it being the right tool to understand what reality for those who live in the world. That understanding of reality, is like saying, "only what I can physically touch is real." Do you believe that is true?

Humans develop languages to try to talk about the experience of being, the experience of existence, the experience of others and the outside world, and the experience of themselves. These are all subjective realities. And the language of science, talking about gravity and and skin responses, does not begin to approach any of that. It's like try to use a calculator to express your love with, or to answer questions like "Why do I exist". While that may be satisfying to a rare few, most humans don't experience life like that, and the calculator answer is seen as insufficient as Noah's magical ark story is to the scientist looking to understand speciation.

And what I am saying is that all I really care about is how hot the plate actually is.

If that's all it takes for you to find truth, meaning, and purpose in the world, then yeah, you have no use for any of the bigger questions of life, which religions attempt to address in their various filters or lenses they use, from magic, to mythic, to rational, to holistic, to mystical or transcendent. You find the materialist, physicalist lens of reality to be sufficient, apparently. But it does beg the question then, why you are on a religious forum which is all about these larger questions, if how hot the plate is is all that matters?

This, alone, makes all this garbage COMPLETELY different than something like gravity, or the heat of an object, etc. It is entirely subjective.

Everything has subjectivity as part of our understanding, including "objectivity". It is inescapable. We are subjective beings in our very nature, and if we try to get rid of that in a quest for objectivity, that action itself has subjectivity as its base. The subjective desire to be objective, is a subjective desire.

But to your point, and mine as well, what your objection as well as mine is, that when someone tries to say that their view of God, or Reality, is absolute, objectively true. That is a true for the mythic-literal view of reality, or the scientific view of reality. I don't believe even science itself ever claims it is the final arbiter of truth on reality. Those who seem to think it is, I see has suffering from a bad hangover from religious literalism.

As a funny story, a friend of mine who like myself became an atheist after our Bible College days, said to me, "I'm so glad I know the truth now!". I said to him half joking, I remember you saying that same thing when you were in class with me. He paused, then responded, "But the difference is, now I really DO have the truth". You see my point? It's treating scientific views, as a replacement for religious authority.

Entirely so, without a single speck of objectivity attached to it. It is of your mind... and yet you are loathe to admit it. Why is that?

Are you asking that to a generic apologist, or to me? This certainly doesn't reflect any way that I think about these things. I see God as Reality, that which is Real, with a capital R. The religious perspective, and the scientific perspective, the magic perspective, etc., are all perspectives on something wholly beyond our abilities to comprehend.

All perspectives are relative. They contain partial truths, not absolute understanding. Anything the mind does, to think or conceptualize anything at all, is not absolute reality. It can't be, because the mind is not the measure of all things. It's just a limited, albeight effective tool at doing certain things. But it's like your right arm, is not the whole body.

When I eat a particular flavor of ice cream and state that I like it, and you eat the same and say that you don't like it, do I try to convince you that you are wrong? Or do I start to talk about how your "filter of reality" must be different than my own?

That would have nothing to do with what I am talking about with filters of reality. I am referring to collective systems of language and symbols that members of a group all use to speak to themselves and each other through. Those structure, those frameworks, are collectively used. And if you don't use those yourself, you will see things differently than those in the group who do.

 

[syo]

There are people who seek, and people who don't seek. The Gods never hide.

 

[MonkeyFire]

God doesn't require omnipotence if he wills to have a one time fight then easily become omnipotent as he had been. If God is LOVE then dis-belief is dangerous to Him, specifically atheism. Thus, he has no reason to intervene in your life unless you do believe. The only thing I am skeptical to is dis-belief so it doesn't hurt our universe further, which is ironic.

Faith in love is fidelity, atheism is the furthest thing from that, so God or LOVE has no reason to intervene in the life of non-believers, specifically atheist.

 

[blü 2]

What is your objective test for happiness?

'Happiness' is the generalized notion of overall contentment with one's life. The normal way to determine how someone is feeling is to ask them. The further test is to see whether you feel the answer is consistent with your observation. The stresses of happier people will tend to appear to be better coped with, while the stresses of unhappy people will tend to appear to be distresses,

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do believers really see God? A lot of people say they believe God exists, but can they say they really see God in life? Does the world look differently to them? Do they see the Divine in others, and all life? Or is it an idea of God they believe in, and the experience of God is other to that?

So, I don't see it as much a question of those who believe in God verses non-believers. Rather its more about anyone being able to see the Divine, or not see the Divine in life, regardless of believing God exists or not.

Why is it than that some can see God and others not? It's simple. The truth is, everyone does see God. They just don't recognize it. They see it as something else.

I think some religions believe they have a monopoly on what god should be insofar they can genuinely judge (genuine or not) if someone else doesn't believe in their god (or does) and divide those that do from those that do not.

In universalist beliefs, it seems the same way. One has a definition of god (the foundation) and everyone else believes in their god just by different name and culture.

I do believe a lot of us have seen or experienced a sense of awe that some people call a spiritual experience. However, not many have (including myself). I don't know why believers don't understand why there are some people that just don't have that experience whether it's not from their god or it's to foreign to even say it is from god, but to say that people see it they just don't know doesn't seem to solve the problem.

Maybe we're asking the wrong questions?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why does it seems like God or Gods hide from disbelievers but atleast in some way are recognised by or shown to believers?

Any thoughts?

I was talking with a (very) religious friend of mine just the other day. We walk and talk around town some days when the weather permits. He was (again) informing me that he believes my disbelief to be Satan working upon me.

I told him that, if anything, I believe Satan would leave me alone entirely. Because I don't believe in Satan, if he were able to attempt to "work" anything on me, I feel it would fail miserably. I'm not going to do something just because I feel some urge or because something is whispering in my ear. I am going to need evidence that the course of action makes sense to undertake, and isn't going to cause anyone else any undue stress or discomfort. And because I do not believe in Satan, even if he were to appear before me, I would not believe I had seen him. There would need to be some ongoing presentation that could also be witnessed by others before I would believe I had actually seen any such being, and then further evidence and verification that is was, indeed "Satan" - and I don't even know what it would take to convince me of that.

And so, if anything, I feel that if Satan exists, then he likely fears people like me. If everyone had my disposition, we would see the utter EXTINCTION of any and all ideas about Satan. He would have ZERO influence or even potential to influence. He could not guide people to act against their principles, he could not appear and strike a deal, he couldn't even appear as some tempting personage - because I immediately suspect and indeed despise anyone who believes that they can win me over to do something through guile alone - I am being dead serious.

Ultimately my point is that, along that train of thought, if God exists (a BIG "if" for me) then I believe he hides himself from me, personally, for the same reason. He fears me. I'm not going to buy into His schtick... even if He somehow proves to me that He exists. The stories of His (or her, or their) behavior are going to need to be discussed, and I am going to need some convincing that He isn't a malevolent, mentally challenged butthead of epic proportions. He's got a reputation, you see... and from my angle it isn't, at all, a good one. If God exists, He likely wants nothing to do with me because I am just too hard a nut to crack. He knows He's already screwed it up way too badly. The bridge is burned. I simply don't need Him in any way.

 

[Windwalker]

'Happiness' is the generalized notion of overall contentment with one's life. The normal way to determine how someone is feeling is to ask them. The further test is to see whether you feel the answer is consistent with your observation. The stresses of happier people will tend to appear to be better coped with, while the stresses of unhappy people will tend to appear to be distresses,

Now in response to your first statement, "Yet if God has objective existence, is not just conceptual / imaginary, then there must be such a test." Okay, so have a way to test the objective reality of a subjective experience. That means we can't just take subjective experience and dismiss it as non-evidentiary. One can measure what is reported in spiritual experiences.

So whatever you want to understand that is, many report these measurable, observable responses, while using the language of "God" and such due, to its transcendental nature. People report similar things. So whatever "God" means to someone, in some fashion or another it's not lacking in objective evidence. It may not be a blood sample, but it certainly is a shock wave, at the least.

Bear in mind, I don't imagine God as a guy in the sky.

 

[blü 2]

Now in response to your first statement, "Yet if God has objective existence, is not just conceptual / imaginary, then there must be such a test." Okay, so have a way to test the objective reality of a subjective experience.

God can't qualify as real, as having objective existence, just by being a subjective experience.

That means we can't just take subjective experience and dismiss it as non-evidentiary. One can measure what is reported in spiritual experiences.

The Psychology Department can take them as examples of religious experiences. However, they'll be no more evidence of an objectively real God than dreams are.

So whatever you want to understand that is, many report these measurable, observable responses, while using the language of "God" and such due, to its transcendental nature.

I'm dealing with the claim that God is real, has objective existence, exists independently in the world external to the self.

If you're not making a such a claim, then should we wish we could talk about religious experiences.

People report similar things.

Yes, a range of emotional states from ecstasy to awe to peace and unity. None of that is evidence of a real being, but all of it is evidence for certain traits of the human brain.

So whatever "God" means to someone, in some fashion or another it's not lacking in objective evidence. It may not be a blood sample, but it certainly is a shock wave, at the least.

If God is real, then a video will be a good start.

It would then raise the question whether the real God in question is a god or not, because, so far as I'm aware, there's no definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could make universes, raise the dead &c would lack.

But first, the video.

Otherwise "god" exists only as a concept or thing imagined in individual brains ─ a notion supported by all the examinable evidence.