Why do God/s "hide" from disbelievers?

[blü 2]

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?

That will make sense only if God is a real being, as distinct from a wholly conceptual / imaginary being. To be real, God has to exist in the world external to the self, in nature. That's what 'real' means.

Yet no one seems to think God is real. Instead [he]'s spiritual, or supernatural, or immaterial. But no test can distinguish the spiritual, the supernatural, the immaterial, from the imaginary. If [he] was thought of as real, [he]'d be able to be physically present, not simply present as some individual's concept of [him].

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.

We can't yet travel around our solar system, let alone interstellar space (with all due respect to Star Trek). If you're not referring to a real Newly Discovered World, then aren't you necessarily asserting an imaginary one?

Let's look at an action of God.

I've never been able to discover what real thing is intended to be denoted by the word "God". God has no definition appropriate to a real being, as far as I can find.

If God is not real, is not out there in the world external to the self, then [he] can only exist as a concept / thing imagined in one's own head, no?

Can one see God in videos?

Not so far. We're not talking about traces of God, physical phenomena attributed to God. We're talking about the entity God, who can exist EITHER out there in reality OR only as a concept / thing imagined by an individual brain. I'm not aware of any credible third option.

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

So, you say, if it's a mathematical expression then it is true by virtue of being such? "I came here by car" can never be true because it's not mathematical?

That doesn't seem to work.

Truth must always be questioned. Real Truth will never change.

If we use my definition, that a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects objective reality, then "real truth" will indeed change. It was once true that the world was flat, and that the sun and stars went round it. It was once true that light propagates in the lumeniferous ether; and that the earth's crust is uniform and undivided; and that the Higgs boson is only a hypothetical particle. Now those statements are no longer true. Truth is retrospective, but it's never absolute. If you think truth can be absolute, please give me an example of an absolute truth, because I've never seen one.

 

[Wrangler]

I did it on purpose so I wouldn't loose my point.

AS IF you are not able to read what you wrote. ;-)

You're making this emotionally heated (in your wording) when there was no argument to begin with.

Those were not my words at all. Emotional is your game. This is not emotionally heated for me at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

The topic was emotions can't be trusted, so god revealing himself would confirm or validate those emotions to where knowledge becomes interrelated with experience and feelings. Anyone can "believe in" god; many people have "experienced" mystical feelings and personal coincidences they perceive as from god (myself included). However, our feelings aren't facts. It makes sense to ask why god doesn't reveal itself to believers and nonbelievers alike.

My questions are....

Why wouldn't god reveal himself?
Would believers relationship with god be the same if he did reveal himself?

In other words, why would god find a reason to hide if, like many parents, to build a firm relationship is not only to believe you love your parent or god but to actually be in their parent's literal embrace and knowledge of it as well.

If you're christian, how do you explain this... and if there are biblical references, can you explain it in your own words based on what you believe?

If you don't want to focus on the topic and argue back and forth about who said what, why, and how, I'm not interested. I like discussion.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

AS IF you are not able to read what you wrote. ;-)



Those were not my words at all. Emotional is your game. This is not emotionally heated for me at all.

Refer to post #123

 

[Wrangler]

The topic was emotions can't be trusted

It seems you are obsessed with emotions. This thread is NOT about emotions even though you are trying to make it so.

Reality is independent of how you feel. I want to share this with you and I pray you deeply reflect on it.

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)

 

[Wrangler]

If you don't want to focus on the topic ... I'm not interested

OK then. There you have it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It seems you are obsessed with emotions. This thread is NOT about emotions even though you are trying to make it so.

Reality is independent of how you feel. I want to share this with you and I pray you deeply reflect on it.

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)

Since the heart is deceitful, how can a believer and nonbeliever know god without him revealing himself?

If god revealed himself, does that change the relationship he has with god?

-
You'd have to go back to my original comment in why I mentioned emotions (faith, feelings, and such) alone isn't as strong as having the source of these things-faith, love, whatever-reveal himself.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So you got nothing then, I guess.

Good talk.

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

You always make the point YOU want to get forth. As long you can push off the believer so your message get through you are satisfied. And you dont stop pushing until Your agenda is finish.

Sorry for my honesty.

 

[Bird123]

That will make sense only if God is a real being, as distinct from a wholly conceptual / imaginary being. To be real, God has to exist in the world external to the self, in nature. That's what 'real' means.

Yet no one seems to think God is real. Instead [he]'s spiritual, or supernatural, or immaterial. But no test can distinguish the spiritual, the supernatural, the immaterial, from the imaginary. If [he] was thought of as real, [he]'d be able to be physically present, not simply present as some individual's concept of [him].
We can't yet travel around our solar system, let alone interstellar space (with all due respect to Star Trek). If you're not referring to a real Newly Discovered World, then aren't you necessarily asserting an imaginary one?
I've never been able to discover what real thing is intended to be denoted by the word "God". God has no definition appropriate to a real being, as far as I can find.

If God is not real, is not out there in the world external to the self, then [he] can only exist as a concept / thing imagined in one's own head, no?
Not so far. We're not talking about traces of God, physical phenomena attributed to God. We're talking about the entity God, who can exist EITHER out there in reality OR only as a concept / thing imagined by an individual brain. I'm not aware of any credible third option.
So, you say, if it's a mathematical expression then it is true by virtue of being such? "I came here by car" can never be true because it's not mathematical?

That doesn't seem to work.
If we use my definition, that a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects objective reality, then "real truth" will indeed change. It was once true that the world was flat, and that the sun and stars went round it. It was once true that light propagates in the lumeniferous ether; and that the earth's crust is uniform and undivided; and that the Higgs boson is only a hypothetical particle. Now those statements are no longer true. Truth is retrospective, but it's never absolute. If you think truth can be absolute, please give me an example of an absolute truth, because I've never seen one.

The first thing that God pointed out to me is that mankind has such a narrow view. I cry that. You seem to be a perfect example.

In order to Discover anything, one must venture beyond the box into undiscovered country. If one is unwilling to do that, it makes it hard. So often a need, an excuse or a challenge or adversity is needed to get the ball rolling for us all. Can't stay ignoring possibilities forever.

If you ever thought that the world is flat has been truth, I'm afraid there is a long way to go. You must not confuse beliefs with truth as so many do.

Is this physical world so palatable to you that to can not see anything else. Sure, this physical world supplies an almost unlimited amount of sensory input, however are you unable to see anything else??

OK, find a quiet, dark, comfortable room away from all the sensory input. Close your eyes and focus inward. Say to yourself: It's me. That is who you really are. There is nothing physical about it.

OK, For argument's sake, you changed. You studied God's actions to the point you really understood God and everything at least in basics. God decides to visit you, but you think it could all be your imagination. Little do you realize until you are in the visit that you do not have the capabilities even using your imagination.

Perhaps, it's time you stopped limiting yourself from the possibilities. There is so much waiting for us all to Discover.

If you really think driving your car somewhere can't be placed totally in mathematical terms, you are kidding yourself. The rabbit hole spans much further than you could ever imagine.

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

 

[blü 2]

The first thing that God pointed out to me is that mankind has such a narrow view. I cry that. You seem to be a perfect example.

Interesting ─ you were actually in the presence of God, you say? Did you take a video or some photos?

Or was it all in your mind?

In order to Discover anything, one must venture beyond the box into undiscovered country.

But if God is real, that country must be out there in nature. That's the only place real things are found.

If one is unwilling to do that, it makes it hard. So often a need, an excuse or a challenge or adversity is needed to get the ball rolling for us all. Can't stay ignoring possibilities forever.

Then please tell me first, what real (not-imaginary) thing does the word God denote, such that if we find a real candidate we can determine whether it's God or not?

If you ever thought that the world is flat has been truth, I'm afraid there is a long way to go.

I know it was truth. In the bible the flat earth is immovably fixed in the center of creation and the sun and stars go round it, the sky ('firmament') is a hard dome you can walk on, and the stars are affixed to it such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. (If you disagree, first check these >details<.) Since this was the general cosmology of the times and places where the bible was written, it was true as far as the writers were concerned. The spherical earth idea is found in ancient Greece, and was demonstrated by Eratosthenes early in the 2nd century BCE, but didn't become a respectable idea till some centuries into the 2nd millennium CE.

You must not confuse beliefs with truth as so many do.

You must not confuse truth with absolute truth, since outside of this sentence there is no absolute truth. Truth is retrospective, but never absolute.

Is this physical world so palatable to you that to can not see anything else.

I have no trouble with realms of imagination. I grew up on SF and ghost stories and my grandfatherly duties have given me unexpected intimacy with Harry Potter. I also know a little about poetry and Elizabethan drama, and like most folk I read the occasional novel, watch movies or TV programs and a few other things.

Sure, this physical world supplies an almost unlimited amount of sensory input, however are you unable to see anything else?

This is the same point ─ if God is real then God is out there in nature and you can show [him] to me, either directly or using any necessary instrument of physics.

If God exists only as a set of concepts / things imagined in individual brains, then you can't.

And God is so routinely thought of in the latter way that no one I've found has a definition of God appropriate to a non-imaginary being, one with objective existence. My usual example is that there's no objective test that can tell me whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. (If you know the test, grateful to hear it.)

If you really think driving your car somewhere can't be placed totally in mathematical terms, you are kidding yourself. The rabbit hole spans much further than you could ever imagine.

How do you represent "I" and "drove" and "here" in a coherent mathematical manner, and what on earth has the maths to do with whether the statement is true or not?

For example, it's a correct mathematical statement that "ω is the lowest transfinite ordinal", but that's not a statement about reality, simply about a system that's wholly conceptual.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

People that become aware of God's presence have merely had a sneak peak of what's going on behind the curtains. But it's not about what's behind the curtains, it's about what's in front of them that's important. This.

 

[Bird123]

Interesting ─ you were actually in the presence of God, you say? Did you take a video or some photos?

Or was it all in your mind?
But if God is real, that country must be out there in nature. That's the only place real things are found.
Then please tell me first, what real (not-imaginary) thing does the word God denote, such that if we find a real candidate we can determine whether it's God or not?
I know it was truth. In the bible the flat earth is immovably fixed in the center of creation and the sun and stars go round it, the sky ('firmament') is a hard dome you can walk on, and the stars are affixed to it such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth. (If you disagree, first check these >details<.) Since this was the general cosmology of the times and places where the bible was written, it was true as far as the writers were concerned. The spherical earth idea is found in ancient Greece, and was demonstrated by Eratosthenes early in the 2nd century BCE, but didn't become a respectable idea till some centuries into the 2nd millennium CE.
You must not confuse truth with absolute truth, since outside of this sentence there is no absolute truth. Truth is retrospective, but never absolute.
I have no trouble with realms of imagination. I grew up on SF and ghost stories and my grandfatherly duties have given me unexpected intimacy with Harry Potter. I also know a little about poetry and Elizabethan drama, and like most folk I read the occasional novel, watch movies or TV programs and a few other things.
This is the same point ─ if God is real then God is out there in nature and you can show [him] to me, either directly or using any necessary instrument of physics.

If God exists only as a set of concepts / things imagined in individual brains, then you can't.

And God is so routinely thought of in the latter way that no one I've found has a definition of God appropriate to a non-imaginary being, one with objective existence. My usual example is that there's no objective test that can tell me whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. (If you know the test, grateful to hear it.)
How do you represent "I" and "drove" and "here" in a coherent mathematical manner, and what on earth has the maths to do with whether the statement is true or not?

For example, it's a correct mathematical statement that "ω is the lowest transfinite ordinal", but that's not a statement about reality, simply about a system that's wholly conceptual.

Everybody wants to rule the world. If you expect to Discover everything on your terms, you have a long wait because you limit yourself from the knowledge that stares you in the face. If you choose not to discover anything, I am sure you won't.

Religion has corrupted your view. You wait for others to bring beliefs to you so all you have to do is accept or reject them. You define truth as what any person says is truth even if what they say is not truth at all.

You speak of God as Someone who does not exist, yet you are unwilling to Discover the Truth for yourself. How will you know It's God? You already know God whether you know you know or not. You place so much importance on names when names are never used. Everyone already knows who everyone is.

There is intelligence far beyond that of mankind with capabilities far beyond us as well. We are but mere ants. Have you talked with your ants lately?

Is God who religion describes? Of course not, they are just like you. People can try to place God or what exists in their nice little box, however that is not Real Truth. It does no more than reflect yourself.

Your journey has never been up to anyone but you. If you want to Discover God, I pointed the way. This is a journey no one can do for you. It is also one that will take a lifetime because there is always more to Discover.

If you have no desire to Discover God, Great. Like I said, the direction of your journey is entirely up to you. On the other hand, thinking you are convincing anyone that God does not exist simply because God doesn't readily fit in the box you provide, simply reveals your limited view.

Most people create boxes just like you. Every box is different. Little do many realize is that Real Truth will not always be an agreeable thing. Any attempt to bend Real Truth simply wanders one away from Real Truth.

Life is about learning and growing. Label your boxes. Define to your will. See where this really gets you. The greatest scientists are the ones who are open to all possibilities rather than limiting themselves to how they want things to be.

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

 

[blü 2]

Everybody wants to rule the world. If you expect to Discover everything on your terms, you have a long wait because you limit yourself from the knowledge that stares you in the face. If you choose not to discover anything, I am sure you won't.

If it stares me in the face, you can point it out to me. If it's only in your head, there may be problems.

Religion has corrupted your view. You wait for others to bring beliefs to you so all you have to do is accept or reject them. You define truth as what any person says is truth even if what they say is not truth at all.

No, as I told you, I define truth as a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

You speak of God as Someone who does not exist

More accurately, exists only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains, with no real counterpart.

you are unwilling to Discover the Truth for yourself. How will you know It's God? You already know God whether you know you know or not. You place so much importance on names when names are never used. Everyone already knows who everyone is.

Not "How will you know it's God?" Rather, "What real thing do you intend to denote when you say 'God'?" And so far there doesn't seem to be one ─ though if there is, please describe it in terms sufficient to identify it.

There is intelligence far beyond that of mankind with capabilities far beyond us as well.

I know of no evidence that supports that claim. What makes you thing it's true?

Is God who religion describes? Of course not, they are just like you. People can try to place God or what exists in their nice little box, however that is not Real Truth. It does no more than reflect yourself.

This is all ducking and weaving. You apparently have no more idea of what real thing "God" is intended to denote than I do. You talk instead of things that can only be conceptual / imaginary.

If you have no desire to Discover God, Great.

You still haven't told me what I'm supposed to be looking for.

Life is about learning and growing. Label your boxes. Define to your will. See where this really gets you. The greatest scientists are the ones who are open to all possibilities rather than limiting themselves to how they want things to be.

But again and again you fail to specify what you mean by "possibilities". Since you plainly don't mean anything with objective existence, I can only assume you mean particular kinds of personal emotional states. If not, what do you mean?

 

[Bird123]

If it stares me in the face, you can point it out to me. If it's only in your head, there may be problems.
No, as I told you, I define truth as a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.
More accurately, exists only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains, with no real counterpart.
Not "How will you know it's God?" Rather, "What real thing do you intend to denote when you say 'God'?" And so far there doesn't seem to be one ─ though if there is, please describe it in terms sufficient to identify it.
I know of no evidence that supports that claim. What makes you thing it's true?
This is all ducking and weaving. You apparently have no more idea of what real thing "God" is intended to denote than I do. You talk instead of things that can only be conceptual / imaginary.
You still haven't told me what I'm supposed to be looking for.
But again and again you fail to specify what you mean by "possibilities". Since you plainly don't mean anything with objective existence, I can only assume you mean particular kinds of personal emotional states. If not, what do you mean?

I have been pointing. If you really desire to know, you are going to have to leave that box. You are going to have to venture into undiscovered country.

Your journey has always been up to you. I copy God. I have placed Truth in your life. What you choose to do with Truth is entirely up to you.

At some point, Truth will become important in one's life. You will be no exception. Have a good journey. You will get on the road after wandering enough.

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

 

[blü 2]

I have been pointing. If you really desire to know, you are going to have to leave that box. You are going to have to venture into undiscovered country.

Please assist me to understand your claims with clear answers to these questions ─

Do you know what thing or entity you intend to denote when you say "God"?

If so, does that thing or entity have objective existence ie exist other than as a concept / thing imagined?

If so, please describe it so I'll know what real thing I'm looking for.

If not, then what are we actually talking about except personal emotional states?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

That would completely depend on the god being claimed. The problem is that this god should be defined in a falsifiable (testable/verifiable) manner. But theists seem either afraid or unable to do that.

I can't tell you what evidence would convince me of A, if A is defined so vaguely that it doesn't come with some form of verifiability or testability.

Having said that, if an all-knowing and all-mighty god exists, I bet he knows exactly what to tell or show me to make me believe. An existing all-mighty and all-knowing deity would be able to make me believe in a heartbeat.

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.

That makes no sense since atheism is the lack of religious faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You always make the point YOU want to get forth.

Obviously. Why would I make a point that I don't want to make?

As long you can push off the believer so your message get through you are satisfied. And you dont stop pushing until Your agenda is finish.

I don't back down, if that is what you mean. Sure.

Sorry for my honesty.

Np.
Not really seeing what the complaint is though.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Obviously. Why would I make a point that I don't want to make?



I don't back down, if that is what you mean. Sure.



Np.
Not really seeing what the complaint is though.

Leave believers believe what they want. That you dont believe is ok to believers, but your mocking is not ok.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Leave believers believe what they want.

Huh?

Did I ever force anyone to stop believing?
Have I ever advocated to make religions illegal?

Or do you mean to say that I should stop challenging people's beliefs?
If so, sorry but - no. That is not going to happen.

If that's the case... if you don't like your views being challenged by those who don't believe like you do, then I suggest you stop throwing your beliefs on the table in a discussion forum of which the exact purpose is to debate beliefs expressed by the members.

Instead, I suggest you take your beliefs to another (sub)forum where those who don't believe like you do aren't allowed to post, so you can all and go and agree with each other there.

That's not meant to be rude. It's an honest suggestion.

That you dont believe is ok to believers

I can assure you that for plenty of believers - it really is not okay that there are people (including you) who don't believe as they do...

, but your mocking is not ok.

Where have I mocked people's beliefs?

I admit, I might have mocked some wacky beliefs... like YECs or flat-earthers. But in my defense, that's kind of like meeting an adult who believes in Santa or in stork theory. It's hard to criticize or debate such beliefs without a mocking undertone... I always try, but I tend to slip up, sure.

But other then that... I don't think I mock. I don't think I've ever mocked you, for example. I certainly think you may have misunderstood some of my challenges / questions / points as being mocking, but I can assure you that is not the intention.

I'll apologize if that's how you interpreted it - although I don't feel like I actually owe you an apology for something you misunderstood in the first place. So let's just say I apologize in case I simply wasn't clear enough and the lack of clarity was the cause of the misunderstanding.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Huh?

Did I ever force anyone to stop believing?
Have I ever advocated to make religions illegal?

Or do you mean to say that I should stop challenging people's beliefs?
If so, sorry but - no. That is not going to happen.

If that's the case... if you don't like your views being challenged by those who don't believe like you do, then I suggest you stop throwing your beliefs on the table in a discussion forum of which the exact purpose is to debate beliefs expressed by the members.

Instead, I suggest you take your beliefs to another (sub)forum where those who don't believe like you do aren't allowed to post, so you can all and go and agree with each other there.

That's not meant to be rude. It's an honest suggestion.



I can assure you that for plenty of believers - it really is not okay that there are people (including you) who don't believe as they do...



Where have I mocked people's beliefs?

I admit, I might have mocked some wacky beliefs... like YECs or flat-earthers. But in my defense, that's kind of like meeting an adult who believes in Santa or in stork theory. It's hard to criticize or debate such beliefs without a mocking undertone... I always try, but I tend to slip up, sure.

But other then that... I don't think I mock. I don't think I've ever mocked you, for example. I certainly think you may have misunderstood some of my challenges / questions / points as being mocking, but I can assure you that is not the intention.

I'll apologize if that's how you interpreted it - although I don't feel like I actually owe you an apology for something you misunderstood in the first place. So let's just say I apologize in case I simply wasn't clear enough and the lack of clarity was the cause of the misunderstanding.

Asking questions because you want an honest answer why someone believe what they believe is of course not wrong.

But why challenging someone over and over to get them off track?
Reason i have reacted "negative " toward you from time to time is Because of your way of not taking an answer for what it is.

It seems like when a believer answer why they believe or give answer to a certain question. You do not accept their answer as their understanding of it. You keep pushing for answers they dont have.

Just because we believe in a God, does not mean we can answer every question asked of us. We dont know every single thing within our religion or spiritual path. But we do seek it.