Why do God/s "hide" from disbelievers?

[Spirit of Light]

I'm all ears.

I can not tell you what you need to look for. The search within can only be done by you

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.

Is it worth either of our time for me to ask how you came to assume that "mystical" experiences necessarily come from God?

Your judgmental opinion is duly noted.

Your pride in irrationality is noted as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can not tell you what you need to look for. The search within can only be done by you

So you got nothing then, I guess.

Good talk.

I'll back out now, having made the point I wanted to make.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think it is because he expects us to take the first step toward him in faith. It is brilliant, really.

By people thinking the roles are reversed, that the Creator of the universe is required to reveal himself to you, unbelievers set themselves up as god’s.

If a child hasn't seen his mother before, she'd have to reveal herself to her child for that child to choose whether or not to even accept he has a mother. One can, at the most, have faith they have a biological mother but belief doesn't make it so. No matter how much we think and experience, the logic is she has to show herself to Know she exist not believe she does.

Falling in love with a personal perception of a mother's love is different than when that same mother hugs the child and says I love you with that love.

That's why people (rather) say they will soon see Christ after death. If knowledge isn't necessary, why does one need Christ in the afterlife if one doesn't need him in person in this life?

 

[Windwalker]

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

You mean to say, God must be physical, in order to have existence? Only that which the five senses can register has objective existence?

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

I believe in the reality of God. But I do not believe God exists independently and external to the world. Anthropomorphizing the Divine, imagining things in concrete-literal terms is a device of the mind which is relying on conceptualizations in the absence of experience. Once experience occurs, what the mind had imagined about God previously, tends to become a bit more porous and less with hard sharp defining lines like that.

Experiences of "God" are not about confirming one's concepts of God, proving the mind's previous ideas about God as an "entity", a finite creature separate from other creatures roaming about somewhere like an elusive Bigfoot. But they are certainly evidence that something objectively real is going on, even if the idea of discovering Bigfoot God will be an impossible task, since it's looking for something that doesn't exist.

God does not exist as a separate entity, like a human person can be understood as. But God can be thought of that way, as a device of the mind using dualist concepts as a bridge, or a mental device to try to approach the nondual. Dualistic language falls apart, creates conceptual contradictions, paradoxes, when trying to use that to speak of the nondual in literal, bounded, defining terms.

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

That all experiences are registering in the brain, does not mean that what one experiences originates in the brain. Saying, it's all just in your head, would not be a useful understanding. As for religious experiences, I would not classify them as "emotional states". Emotional states are quite secondary, if they are even excited at all in a religious experience.

What to me better describes it is a perceptual shift. It is more a condition, a shift in the mode of operation, a shift in how things are held, emotional states included. You can see you have emotions, and they may be this or that, but you see them more as a function of the body, as opposed to anything you identify with, or which define the experience. So neither characterization, that they are a brain function (only in your head), or an emotional state, adequately addresses these.

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

If happiness is real, then certainly we should be able to find a happiness tree growing happiness fruits somewhere?

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.

Oh, but you're not looking for evidence of God. You're looking for evidence that a mythology, and symbolic language to try to talk about God, is scientifically factual. Isn't that a little like saying, unless science can confirm the idea I have had that the solar system that has the earth at the center, then the sun is not real?

It seems to me, the error is in reading the model as factual, that rather than questioning the use of that model, you question the existence of the sun. Unless God looks like a cosmic entity on some plane of existence apart from us, then God is not real. That doesn't seem to follow well.

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.

Yet, if we get rid of reading religious texts as science manuals, and allow them to be symbolic, metaphoric, poetic expressions of something wholly beyond definitions and conceptualizations, then we do have evidence of what people report commonly, and that which can in fact be measured as registering in the brain, just like any experience can with unique and distinct characteristics, then it's not just imaginary. Again, confirming one's ideas about God, is not the goal.

 

[Wrangler]

As an atheist, I have no evidence that ANY god does "not" exist.

Perhaps this should be a separate thread but I am wondering what your threshold is to accept that God exists?

For most of my life, I thought of myself as a humanist. Then I had a series of experiences. I’ve come to the conclusion that I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

 

[Wrangler]

No matter how much we think and experience, the logic is she has to show herself to Know she exist not believe she does.

Completely untrue. A basic understanding of biology (and logic) reveals the fact that everyone must have a mother and father - even if one never met either.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Completely untrue. A basic understanding of biology (and logic) reveals the fact that everyone must have a mother and father - even if one never met either.

This is a "common sense" fallacy. Doesn't work with god.

The point is the child is genuinely ignorant of anything but his own feelings towards a person. Feelings aren't always true. Even experiences can be illusions. But if the source of those feelings "met" the one experiencing it, his experience would be confirmed.

 

[blü 2]

You mean to say, God must be physical, in order to have existence? Only that which the five senses can register has objective existence?

Well, the five senses as supplemented by what our instruments can tell us ─ but yes, that's what 'objective existence' means.

I believe in the reality of God.

I define "real" as existing in the world external to the self, which is the same thing as "nature", the same thing as "the realm of the physical sciences". Things that are real have "objective existence".

How do you define 'real'?

But I do not believe God exists independently and external to the world. Anthropomorphizing the Divine, imagining things in concrete-literal terms is a device of the mind which is relying on conceptualizations in the absence of experience. Once experience occurs, what the mind had imagined about God previously, tends to become a bit more porous and less with hard sharp defining lines like that.

How is that different to God existing only as something conceptual / imagined in individual brains?

Experiences of "God" are not about confirming one's concepts of God, proving the mind's previous ideas about God as an "entity", a finite creature separate from other creatures roaming about somewhere like an elusive Bigfoot.

God-as-emotional-experience fits perfectly with only-conceptual/imaginary, no?

But they are certainly evidence that something objectively real is going on, even if the idea of discovering Bigfoot God will be an impossible task, since it's looking for something that doesn't exist.

Since we find supernatural beings in the lore and culture of all human societies, it seems reasonable to think that we've evolved to think in particular ways that encourage us to devise such beings ─ like our curiosity, our discomfort when we don't have an explanation to questions about nature, society, luck, birth, death ─ and to benefit from such ideas because they enhance tribal identity, solidarity and cooperative action (along with eg having a common language, culture / customs, stories and heroes).

And the result is not a single vision of a god or gods, as we'd expect if some real being was or beings were involved, but a huge variety, whose nature, functions, importance, are equally various.

God does not exist as a separate entity, like a human person can be understood as.

Then God can only exist as something purely conceptual / imaginary, no?

But God can be thought of that way, as a device of the mind using dualist concepts as a bridge, or a mental device to try to approach the nondual. Dualistic language falls apart, creates conceptual contradictions, paradoxes, when trying to use that to speak of the nondual in literal, bounded, defining terms.

I don't understand. What do you mean by 'dual' and 'nondual' here?

Oh, but you're not looking for evidence of God. You're looking for evidence that a mythology, and symbolic language to try to talk about God, is scientifically factual.

No. To be real, God must exist independently in the external world, reality. Otherwise the only thing God can be is purely conceptual / imaginary. That's what 'real' means.

Isn't that a little like saying, unless science can confirm the idea I have had that the solar system that has the earth at the center, then the sun is not real?

No, the sun will remain real. It's the accurate description of its relation to the earth (which is also real) that would be missing.

Yet, if we get rid of reading religious texts as science manuals, and allow them to be symbolic, metaphoric, poetic expressions of something wholly beyond definitions and conceptualizations, then we do have evidence of what people report commonly, and that which can in fact be measured as registering in the brain, just like any experience can with unique and distinct characteristics, then it's not just imaginary.

On the contrary, dreams will satisfy your definition. (And all over the world, folklore is full of dreamlore.)

Again, confirming one's ideas about God, is not the goal.

I arrived at the question by realizing I didn't know what I was talking about when I used the word 'god' ─ and then that no one else did either. (So I was an igtheist before I'd even heard of that word.)

 

[Wrangler]

This is a "common sense" fallacy. Doesn't work with god.

The point is the child is genuinely ignorant of anything but his own feelings towards a person.

Again wrong. Biological fact is NOT a "common sense" fallacy. It has nothing to do with feelings. That is atheists domain.

 

[Bird123]

Indeed, H sap sap has evolved to perceive the external world in particular ways, with names, categories, abstractions from those, and so on.

But there are no authenticated sightings of God in that world. God appears to exist only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains, no?
But if it has objective existence, then the camera, video or other suitable detector / recorder, will have something to tell us about what's out there. Have you any videos of God to show us?
This question of the definition of "truth" keeps coming up. I favor the correspondence view ─ truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. Is that what you mean by "truth" above? If so, what is the statement, exactly?

your quote:But there are no authenticated sightings of God in that world. God appears to exist only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains, no?

My Answer: Do you really think no one has had two way contact with God? Authenticated is your word. Since it has never ever been about Believing or following, what purpose would it be to work at getting others to believe or follow? In reality, each must Discover and Authenticate for themselves.

Ponder this: The great distances in the universe exist so that one has to acquired a certain amount of knowledge before one is capable to span the great distances. When one has acquired that capability one has acquired the wisdom not to interfere upon arriving at a newly Discovered world.

Let's look at an action of God. Knowledge is not given. It must be Discovered. Wisdom is acquired on the journey to Discover knowledge.

Free choice is a big part of God's system. Until one has acquired a certain amount of Understanding, what has God really have to say to one? Further, would not a visit from God intimidate those choices? Intimidation is one of the petty things mankind holds so dear. God is not going to do it.

God has very High Intelligence. God is working on multiple levels with multiple views. I would say that without a certain amount of Understanding, most would just be confused by the experience. What purpose would that serve? Not much.

your quote: But if it has objective existence, then the camera, video or other suitable detector / recorder, will have something to tell us about what's out there. Have you any videos of God to show us?

My Answer: In this time-based causal universe, God's actions can be seen. I mentioned one in that knowledge is not given it must be Discovered. Can one see God in videos? Actions define who one actually is. Once again the observer is deciding and defining it all. God hides nothing. I see God Everywhere. I see this world is not a mess. It is a Masterpiece!! Do I see more than you? Is there something you are missing? Acquiring knowledge brings Understanding which widens the view and suddenly one can see.

Understanding must come first before that two way action with God will accomplish anything.

your quote:This question of the definition of "truth" keeps coming up. I favor the correspondence view ─ truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. Is that what you mean by "truth" above? If so, what is the statement, exactly?

My Answer: You might not understand this but Math is the Truth.

There was a time when science said the Truth is that the smallest part of an element is the atom. New knowledge was Discovered which revealed that statement was not Truth but merely a Belief.

Truth must always be questioned. Real Truth will never change. Even long held beliefs must be questioned because Discovery ,which reveals Truth, can show what one believes to be the Truth is not.

Math. Everything about God and everything about Truth will add up in the end when one has acquired understanding.

All the secrets of the universe and all the Real Truth stares us all in the face. It waits to be Discovered. God hides nothing.

Each must decide for themselves what is truth, what is good, what is evil, and how things should be defined. This is too important to allow others to do it for you. In doing this, one is learning through free will.

We are all Living our lessons. When one completes those Math lessons, one will know Real Truth.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Again wrong. Biological fact is NOT a "common sense" fallacy. It has nothing to do with feelings. That is atheists domain.

You missed my point. Whether god exists or not is irrelevant.

Completely untrue. A basic understanding of biology (and logic) reveals the fact that everyone must have a mother and father - even if one never met either.

I'm speaking from a child's ignorance of not knowing he has a parent he has not met. Meaning, the only people he knows is the ones who took care of him but not his biological mother or father. Therefore, any love that he has and experiences is a reflection of what he learned about love based on relationship with others, his experiences, and feelings. When his parent actually shows up, he can reassess whether his feelings and experiences correspond to what his parent "actually" looks like, acts, and treats him; he can't know these things by having faith.

A parent should reveal him or herself to their child if the latter has never met the parent before. That bond of revealing by seen, experience, and faith becomes stronger.

Why "shouldn't" god show himself?

How does god revealing himself change anything for the believer?

 

[Wrangler]

You missed my point. Whether god exists or not is irrelevant.

You are confusing understanding with rejecting. I reject your point!

Reality is the logical starting point of analysis, not epistemology. To wit:

I'm speaking from a child's ignorance of not knowing he has a parent he has not met.

Again, I reject the premise of your point. Reality is not determined by the ignorance of a child or anyone else.

I child who does not know if he has parents needs to be educated in biology and logic. The question of this thread, 'Why do God/s "hide" from disbelievers' presupposes the existence of God. It is as relevant as anything is. Indeed, more so.

 

[Wrangler]

A parent should reveal him or herself to their child if the latter has never met the parent before.

That's your morality. Again, morality is not the beginning of analysis; reality is.

Why "shouldn't" god show himself?

The twisted 'not' in your question implies should - compliance with your moral standards - is the default that one has to argue against AND convince you. This puts you in the position to judge God - to be a god to God, which of course, you are not.

However, there is a reason. There is an answer to your question. The Bible clearly states it is to humble (humiliate) the wise (wise in their own mind). A basic problem you have is that you are making an argument to someone who has experience.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are confusing understanding with rejecting. I reject your point!

Reality is the logical starting point of analysis, not epistemology. To wit:



Again, I reject the premise of your point. Reality is not determined by the ignorance of a child or anyone else.

I child who does not know if he has parents needs to be educated in biology and logic. The question of this thread, 'Why do God/s "hide" from disbelievers' presupposes the existence of God. It is as relevant as anything is. Indeed, more so.

You're back tracking.

I think it is because he expects us to take the first step toward him in faith. It is brilliant, really.

By people thinking the roles are reversed, that the Creator of the universe is required to reveal himself to you, unbelievers set themselves up as god’s.

My original point was in order for feelings and experiences to be real (not illusions and not lies) there needs to be some union or correspondence with the source of those feelings (assuming, for sake of discussion, that all experiences and feelings have spiritual sources (i.e. creator)). Revealing the source (or parent) of the feelings of love (a child may have) unites both creator and creation together and a stronger bond and "knowledge" of one's religion rather than an experience and feeling thereof. In this point of view, god (a parent) revealing itself to people (believer and non-believer alike) would be beneficial for both parties especially if the parent wants to form a relationship with their child.

I'm not sure how unbelievers can set themselves up as gods for asking that a god reveal itself... but my question is, what is wrong with god revealing himself?

Does it not become god anymore?

Would people loose faith?

Would a child who sees his parent for the first time be disappointed that the experience and feelings he had were not congruent with who and what is parent actually is?

(Cognitive dissonance between knowledge and faith)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Take out the child/parent analogy since you're using literalism for a point that's spiritual in nature.

That's your morality. Again, morality is not the beginning of analysis; reality is.

A person's religion is their morals so what you believe about god being creator and all of that is your morality but not reality as is. It works both ways.

The twisted 'not' in your question implies should - compliance with your moral standards - is the default that one has to argue against AND convince you. This puts you in the position to judge God - to be a god to God, which of course, you are not.

You-you-you...

You're making this personal. It never started out to be personal.

However, there is a reason. There is an answer to your question. The Bible clearly states it is to humble (humiliate) the wise (wise in their own mind).

A basic problem you have is that you are making an argument to someone who has experience.

"However, there is a reason. There is an answer to your question. The Bible clearly states it is to humble (humiliate) the wise (wise in their own mind)."

This is a simple answer. I can continue to ask what you mean by this if you don't take the conversation personally.

(By the way-we both have experiences....since I'm not making this personal, I'd just focus on why god can't reveal himself. It's a straight forward question with no atheistic language involved)

 

[Wrangler]

You're back tracking.

Back tracking is EXACTLY what you are doing by restating your point over and over again. I am re-establishing the scope of the discussion.

My original point was in order for feelings and experiences to be real

Right. And my original point was feelings of a person is beside the point of this thread.

 

[Wrangler]

You-you-you...

You're making this personal. It never started out to be personal.

Here is where you are lying to yourself. The entire reason you are bringing up emotions IS to make it personal. Emotions are personal. Biological facts and logic are impersonal.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Back tracking is EXACTLY what you are doing by restating your point over and over again. I am re-establishing the scope of the discussion.

I did it on purpose so I wouldn't loose my point. You're making this emotionally heated (in your wording) when there was no argument to begin with.

 

[Wrangler]

By the way-we both have experiences....

LOL. You really missed my point. I have experiences with God. You merely have an atheistic argument for why he does not exist.

since I'm not making this personal, I'd just focus on why god can't reveal himself.

There you go again. It is not a matter of God's ability and I already answered this question.