So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[Nan_S]

By the way, God DID write for all to see, not in the sky but on the wall of a palace. The king, who had mocked God right up until the moment he saw God’s hand, suddenly announced he was a true believer. But God saw through the king’s conniving tap dance, and knew the king’s heart was just as selfish and devious as it had always been. So the king paid the price for his unrepentant arrogance.

I wonder, if you who have denied the existence of God were to suddenly face the undeniable proof you require, would it also convince you to humble your hearts and actively seek out God’s direction for life? Or would you still stubbornly hold back and say, “OK I suppose some god of some sort does exist but until I know for sure what he wants of me I’m going to keep doing things my way?”

Daniel Chapter 5

King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his lords, with whom he drank. Under the influence of the wine, he ordered the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar, his father, had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, to be brought in so that the king, his lords, his wives and his entertainers might drink from them… They praised their gods of gold and silver, bronze and iron, wood and stone.

Suddenly, opposite the lampstand, the fingers of a human hand appeared, writing on the plaster of the wall in the king’s palace. When the king saw the wrist and hand that wrote, his face blanched; his thoughts terrified him, his hip joints shook, and his knees knocked.

The king shouted for the enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers to be brought in. “Whoever reads this writing and tells me what it means,” he said to the wise men of Babylon, “shall be clothed in purple, wear a golden collar about his neck, and be third in the government of the kingdom.”

But though all the king’s wise men came in, none of them could either read the writing or tell the king what it meant…

Then Daniel was brought into the presence of the king The king asked him, "Are you the Daniel, the Jewish exile, whom my father, the king, brought from Judah? I have heard that the spirit of God is in you, that you possess brilliant knowledge and extraordinary wisdom…

Daniel answered the king: "You may keep your gifts, or give your presents to someone else; but the writing I will read for you, O king, and tell you what it means.

"The Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar a great kingdom and glorious majesty. Because he made him so great, the nations and peoples of every language dreaded and feared him… But when his heart became proud and his spirit hardened by insolence, he was put down from his royal throne and deprived of his glory… until he learned that the Most High God rules over the kingdom of men and appoints over it whom he will.

"You, his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this; you have rebelled against the Lord of heaven. You had the vessels of his temple brought before you, so that you and your nobles, your wives and your entertainers, might drink wine from them; and you praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, that neither see nor hear nor have intelligence.

"But the God in whose hand is your life breath and the whole course of your life, you did not glorify. By him were the wrist and hand sent, and the writing set down. This is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, TEKEL, and PERES. These words mean:

“MENE, God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it;
TEKEL, you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting;
PERES, your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and Persians.”

Then by order of Belshazzar they clothed Daniel in purple, with a gold collar about his neck, and proclaimed him third in the government of the kingdom. The same night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was slain. And Darius the Mede succeeded to the kingdom.

 

[AntiTheist]

That’s not what I said, nor what I meant.

My apologies, then.

My point was that a world with indisputable evidence of God is a world without any possibility of LOVING God.

I disagree. I think that a necessary precondition of loving a being is being reasonably sure that the being exists. We have to know that there is a god before we can decide whether this being is worthy of love, worship, and respect.

What they don’t understand is that it is the very fact of existence itself, which is the proof of God. That there are sunsets is proof of God. The elements that cause there to be sunsets were all created by God. The vibrations of sound in the air that result in music are all caused by things that God created. It was God who created the air, and it was God who decreed that vibrations carried through the air make sounds.

You’re begging the question: what makes you think that a god created all of those things?

There is not sufficient evidence to think that a disembodied intelligence exists that made all of those things.

 

[abucs]

I think the problem is that atheists think that the natural world exists by itself, without help from God. They then expect God to manifest Himself in some way outside of nature.

What they don’t understand is that it is the very fact of existence itself, which is the proof of God. That there are sunsets is proof of God. The elements that cause there to be sunsets were all created by God. The vibrations of sound in the air that result in music are all caused by things that God created. It was God who created the air, and it was God who decreed that vibrations carried through the air make sounds.

I would agree with this. Einstein once said that there are two ways to view miracles. One is as if there are no miracles and the other is as if everything is a miracle. I would also add that the Catholic position is that God not just created nature and then walked away but that He underpins that nature from moment to moment.

I would not have become Christian if i didn’t think there was sufficient evidence for this. For me, the study of physics supports this rather than (what i consider) is the cut down version of a ‘nature is all philosophy’. I respect the people who have this philosophy. i just think they are scientifically misguided.

This should not get people angry. It is simply what i consider to be true. We should accept that people see things differently and we both think the other is misinformed/unenlightened.

Unfortunately, matters regarding the very essense of nature and its connection to science cannot simply be discussed and an adversarial forum such as the internet doesn’t lend itself to fair study and appraisal.

There is not sufficient evidence to think that a disembodied intelligence exists that made all of those things.

If you think so AntiTheist, then i accept that for you, this is a true description of where your thoughts are.

 

[AntiTheist]

I would not have become Christian if i didn’t think there was sufficient evidence for this. For me, the study of physics supports this rather than (what i consider) is the cut down version of a ‘nature is all philosophy’. I respect the people who have this philosophy. i just think they are scientifically misguided.

Ok. What about physics suggests that a disembodied intelligence exists?

For example, I agree that the universe runs on physical laws (“laws” here are descriptive laws…they were created by us to describe the way that matter naturally acts). What exactly about this inidicates that a disembodied intelligence exists?

 

[fhansen]

Ok. What about physics suggests that a disembodied intelligence exists?

For example, I agree that the universe runs on physical laws (“laws” here are descriptive laws…they were created by us to describe the way that matter naturally acts). What exactly about this inidicates that a disembodied intelligence exists?

Intelligence precedes order in our own experience.

 

[AntiTheist]

Intelligence precedes order in our own experience.

Indeed, things created by humans are the product of intelligence…ours. We’re not talking about things created by humans here, though – we’re talking about things that occur naturally, the natural way that stuff behaves.

For example, mass bends space-time, creating a force of attraction that we call gravity. The greater the mass, the greater the force it creates. There’s absolutely nothing about this natural force that requires a supernatural intelligence setting it up or directing it: it’s just the way that stuff works.

You can’t logically say, “Stuff behaves in X way; therefore, a supernatural intelligence made it so.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I disagree. I think that a necessary precondition of loving a being is being reasonably sure that the being exists. We have to know that there is a god before we can decide whether this being is worthy of love, worship, and respect.

You mean the whole “problem of evil” is utterly worthless as an atheistic argument, then? If you cannot make any judgments about a thing until you know it exists, then you cannot say that God – if He exists – is unjust.

Suppose I knew that a lovely woman a) existed, b) cared for me, and c) had complete and total control over my eternal happiness. Would I ever be able to love her? Could I ever truly sacrifice anything for a person who I *knew *was simply in the business of rewarding me? I could not.

Doubt is a precondition of love. Especially in situations where one person has all the power…

 

[fhansen]

Indeed, things created by humans are the product of intelligence…ours. We’re not talking about things created by humans here, though – we’re talking about things that occur naturally, the natural way that stuff behaves.

For example, mass bends space-time, creating a force of attraction that we call gravity. The greater the mass, the greater the force it creates. There’s absolutely nothing about this natural force that requires a supernatural intelligence setting it up or directing it: it’s just the way that stuff works.

You can’t logically say, “Stuff behaves in X way; therefore, a supernatural intelligence made it so.”

Yes, you could say so. The term “natural” is just one we apply to everything we observe around us-it’s simply the way things are in the environment we find ourselves in. But just because we didn’t create it doesn’t mean it doesn’t point to the existence of a creator. I think we miss the forest for the trees. I’d suggest that the very reasoning abilities we possess that enable us to make sense out of the world around us, to recognize order in the universe,. to grasp the laws of physics, points to the existence of reason on a grand scale.

Say if you were the first astronaut to step foot on the moon and, as you were strolling along the shores of the sea of tranquility, you happened upon an ordinary doghouse, complete with a shingle roof and little mutt paws painted on the sides. Would your first thought be, huh, that’s an interesting natural formation? Or would you recognize the handiwork of a designer who put wood, nails, and paint together in such an orderly fashion as to create a structure with a specific purpose? You’d probably think, how in the **** did that get here? How much more complex are the laws of physics-the order we observe in the universe? How much more complex-in terms of order- is DNA?

 

[R_Daneel]

What is the reference point? If you’ve never been hungry, what good is food?

It sustains you. If you have never been hungry, of course you do not perceive it as “good”. Suppose we would all be like the plants, and the sunshine would be of sustenance. The concept of “good” in realation to the sunshine would never occur us. But that is again the difference between “absolute” and “relative” good. If you really believe that the cessation of discomfort or illness is preferable to ongoing comfort and health, then you should “seek” out the discomfort and sickness. But I don’t think you do. Don’t be guilty of preaching water, while drinking wine. That would be hypocrisy.

When did *that *belief become justified?

That is not a belief, it is a fact. Different people have a different “cutting point” (of course this is not a mathematical point, rather an interval), above which they accept something, below it, they reject.

And Marlowe’s Faustus wished to be “resolved of all ambiguities”. It’s an ambiguous world, my friend. Sorry.

Yes, it is. The question is why this particular ambiguity is “there”?

And why is that? Couldn’t I be deluded in thinking that everyone else says they saw the same thing? Certainly, there are madmen who think they are Obama, and think that everyone else agrees with them too!

Yes, there are delusional people. But that is not much of an argument. We do not talk about the clinically insane here.

(I reserve comment on whether Obama himself is one.)

“It is MR. President, honky!” - says a very appropriate bumper-sticker.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I’ve enjoyed all your answers so far! Thanks for the conversation!

The main things I’ve picked up so far, concerning why GOD doesn’t “write in the sky” are:

1. He does, to an extent. Creation points to the Creator.
2. Why He doesn’t make it so obvious is because we need to be the ones to ask God. He’s not going to force Himself on us. He wants us to have faith and trust in him.
3. Because no matter what God did to show himself, there’d still be skeptics.

…
There are many posts, and I’m sure there’s a lot more points everyone’s made, but these are the main answers I got.

Now I will play the devil’s advocate and give some objections to these:

To #1: While I understand the concept of natural revelation, by which all persons can know God exists via reason alone, this doesn’t work well for the atheist. Believers can sit back and see creation as a confirmation of their belief in God. But creation itself doesn’t prove God’s existence.

#2: Like some people have brought up, knowledge of God doesn’t diminish free will. The angels knew God, but some rejected Him.

#3: Well, yeah, this seems to be the experience with miracles. There are many approved (by the Church) miracles out there that one can go see—the Eucharistic miracles, Lourdes, read up on Fatima, etc. But many try to get around these things (I’ve yet to see an explanation for the Eucharistic miracles, or how 50,000 people saw the sun dance at Fatima)

BUT–I have to say, I think God could do something to show his existence.

Plus, many atheists DO WANT to believe.

Feel free anyone to comment on this.

 

[Thyme]

Sorry, I know that you have rounded up this thread already, but I think that people have forgotten to say that God HAS revealed himself since Bible times… even in the sky.

The first instance that comes to mind is the Miracle of the Sun. This was a blatant sign:

Three children claimed to have had apparitions from the Virgin Mary. This caused a lot of commotion.

They said that one day, at 1:30pm, there would be a miracle so that everyone would believe.

70,000 people gathered for this miracle (many unbelievers also, hoping that they could prove them wrong) and at 1:30, the rain stopped, the crowd were able to stare at the sun, the sun began to move, then hurl towards the earth. People thought that it was going to be the end of the world.

An atheist reporter put this miracle down to a natural phenomenon (can’t remember the exact word used) and so did other atheist newspapers. Yet, they did not acknowledge that this “natural phenomenon” happened exactly when the children said it would.

The children were also given three prophesies, such as WWII.

The only argument an atheist would have against this is that it was a build up of coincidences. There are many miracles such as these. They do convert millions (such as Our Lady of Guadalupe converting six-million Aztecs within six years), but stubborn atheists will continue to put these events down to pure coincidence.

There are even more personal signs from God, such as when my mother was going to have a lung collapsed after she had tried all the medical treatment. As a last resort, her parish paid for her to visit Lourdes. As soon as she returned, home, her TB has gone- there was no trace, no scars, no bacteria etc… The doctor was amazed and said that he couldn’t work out what had happened. My mum told him she visited Lourdes, but he remained bewildered.

 

[tonyrey]

While I understand the concept of natural revelation, by which all persons can know God exists via reason alone, this doesn’t work well for the atheist. Believers can sit back and see creation as a confirmation of their belief in God. But creation itself doesn’t prove God’s existence.

There is plenty of evidence of Design in the universe. It is an incomparably more adequate, economical, coherent and fertile explanation of the richness, value and beauty of life than the aimless meanderings of blind, purposeless processes. The wonders of nature far exceed the achievements of science which themselves demonstrate the superior power of the conscious, rational, autonomous mind over inanimate matter.

Like some people have brought up, knowledge of God doesn’t diminish free will. The angels knew God, but some rejected Him.

We don’t know to what extent they knew God…

Well, yeah, this seems to be the experience with miracles. There are many approved (by the Church) miracles out there that one can go see—the Eucharistic miracles, Lourdes, read up on Fatima, etc. But many try to get around these things (I’ve yet to see an explanation for the Eucharistic miracles, or how 50,000 people saw the sun dance at Fatima)

They try but don’t succeed…

I have to say, I think God could do something to show his existence.

God has written clearly in the sky! Science can explain how it occurs but not its beauty…

Plus, many atheists DO WANT to believe.

How can we judge what a person really wants to believe? It’s not just a question of belief in God but of the implications…

 

[tonyrey]

There are even more personal signs from God, such as when my mother was going to have a lung collapsed after she had tried all the medical treatment. As a last resort, her parish paid for her to visit Lourdes. As soon as she returned, home, her TB has gone- there was no trace, no scars, no bacteria etc… The doctor was amazed and said that he couldn’t work out what had happened. My mum told him she visited Lourdes, but he remained bewildered.

Many thanks for sharing your experience. Who said miracles don’t occur?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It sustains you. If you have never been hungry, of course you do not perceive it as “good”. Suppose we would all be like the plants, and the sunshine would be of sustenance. The concept of “good” in realation to the sunshine would never occur us. But that is again the difference between “absolute” and “relative” good. If you really believe that the cessation of discomfort or illness is preferable to ongoing comfort and health, then you should “seek” out the discomfort and sickness. But I don’t think you do. Don’t be guilty of preaching water, while drinking wine. That would be hypocrisy.

Why should I want to be sustained? That is to say, what is your criterion for “good” things? Is it things that lead to pleasure? The satisfaction of desire? The provision of sustenance?

I agree that there is an objective good for a person, however, whether or not they desire that good. But I agree to that because I believe in a human nature created by God, in which human fulfillment is possible. Do you believe in human nature? Do you believe that following one’s nature leads to fulfillment?

Sorry if this brings us off topic. But, of course, one’s opinion about the good life will affect how one deals with any proposed evidence of God’s existence. We’re not emotionless minds, after all.

Yes, it is. The question is why this particular ambiguity is “there”?

Precisely. In this way, questions about God are just like questions about science. We see a problem in our calculations, and wonder why things wouldn’t turn out how we expected. Then we investigate. It is to be expected that we will come up with theories before we are able to verify them. And, once we verify them to our satisfaction, others still won’t be convinced. But if you never form any theories to explain the phenomena, and just chalk it up to chance, you don’t have anything to test.

Yes, there are delusional people. But that is not much of an argument. We do not talk about the clinically insane here.

Yes, we do. What do you think theology is? Last time I checked the DSM, thinking you are God is a sign that you are clinically insane. Well, God think He is God. Therefore, by our diagnostic handbook, God is clinically insane.

Clinical insanity, apparently, isn’t a type of real insanity. Kinda like fake gold isn’t a type of gold. Wacky stuff, I tell you.

 

[Nan_S]

So when our atheist friends do see that handwriting in the sky, and admit there may be some kind of god after all, this is the kind of creed prayer we’re likely to be hearing…

gloria.tv/?media=23845

Enjoy.

 

[AntiTheist]

You mean the whole “problem of evil” is utterly worthless as an atheistic argument, then? If you cannot make any judgments about a thing until you know it exists, then you cannot say that God – if He exists – is unjust.

I do consider the “problem of evil” to be an extremely stupid reason to be an atheist. My argument is not that your god is unjust – my argument is that your god does not exist.

Suppose I knew that a lovely woman a) existed, b) cared for me, and c) had complete and total control over my eternal happiness. Would I ever be able to love her?

If you knew that she was doing everything in her power to be kind and good to you, then she would be worthy of your love and behavior that accords with that; if, however, you knew that she was playing bizarre mind games with you and into sending some people to eternal torture (oh, sorry, excuse me – permitting them to choose to send themselves to eternal torture…good enough word game?)…then, for me anyway, I would know that this is not a being that I want to love.

Either way, you have to know that something exists before you can know whether or not you love it.

fhansen:

But just because we didn’t create it doesn’t mean it doesn’t point to the existence of a creator.

And it doesn’t mean that it does point to the existence of a creator. And that’s precisely what we’re discussing here: that a physical universe exists is not sufficient evidence to say that a god made it so.

Say if you were the first astronaut to step foot on the moon and, as you were strolling along the shores of the sea of tranquility, you happened upon an ordinary doghouse

Your analogy is deeply flawed: we know that a doghouse is created by intelligence…we have a lot of good evidence that doghouses only come from intelligent creatures. We don’t see, for example, doghouses springing up out of the ground or evolving from smaller doghouses.

So we can classify doghouses as “designed.” The word “designed” indicates things that do not occur naturally. If you are in fact trying to redefine the word “designed” to mean “everything,” then the word loses all meaning and you would never be able to recognize something as designed because you would have no opposite term to contrast it with.

As I’ve been trying to explain, the laws of physics aren’t designed. They’re our labels for the way stuff behaves. Gravity isn’t actually a proscriptive “law”…it’s descriptive…it describes what matter does. Matter bends space-time and produces a force of attraction. That’s how it works…it isn’t some sort of cosmic decree that matter chooses to obey.

There’s absolutely nothing there that demonstrates the existence of a supernatural intelligence.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why should I want to be sustained? That is to say, what is your criterion for “good” things? Is it things that lead to pleasure? The satisfaction of desire? The provision of sustenance?

Why would you, personally, wish to be sustained? Why would you, personally, prefer pleasure to pain? It is a biological imperative. It is built into all the “living” systems. Of course, humans are able to act against these built-in imperatives, under extreme circumstances. Interesting, that animals cannot.

I agree that there is an objective good for a person, however, whether or not they desire that good. But I agree to that because I believe in a human nature created by God, in which human fulfillment is possible. Do you believe in human nature? Do you believe that following one’s nature leads to fulfillment?

As to your explicit questions, yes, I do. However, that does not point to any kind of god.

Sorry if this brings us off topic. But, of course, one’s opinion about the good life will affect how one deals with any proposed evidence of God’s existence. We’re not emotionless minds, after all.

It is very true that we are not emotionless beings. However that has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting evidence. If the acceptance of some evidence is contingent upon one’s desire to believe, then it is merely wishful thinking, and one’s desire will cloud one’s objectivity. Yes, we are emotional beings, but that emotional “tainting” should be resisted and eliminated, if possible.

Speaking for myself, I would very much like to have a good, loving God “up there”. I would very much like to meet my deceased parents, and tell them how much I love them. I feel frustrated that my lifespan will run out in 20 some years (if I am lucky to survive that long). I would very much like to live until I decide that enough is enough, and die at the time of my own choosing. But that desire does not “taint” my objectivity, and does not allow me to believe what is eminently unbelievable.

Precisely. In this way, questions about God are just like questions about science. We see a problem in our calculations, and wonder why things wouldn’t turn out how we expected. Then we investigate. It is to be expected that we will come up with theories before we are able to verify them. And, once we verify them to our satisfaction, others still won’t be convinced. But if you never form any theories to explain the phenomena, and just chalk it up to chance, you don’t have anything to test.

Except, “testing” God is forbidden. Just look at the scathing answers I receive when I propose a “test”.

Yes, we do. What do you think theology is? Last time I checked the DSM, thinking you are God is a sign that you are clinically insane. Well, God think He is God. Therefore, by our diagnostic handbook, God is clinically insane.

Clinical insanity, apparently, isn’t a type of real insanity. Kinda like fake gold isn’t a type of gold. Wacky stuff, I tell you.

To believe that one is “Napoleon” is only a sign of insanity, if you are not Napoleon. No, we are not talking about insane people here. We are talking about quite sane ones, whose desire may taint their objectivity. And we talk about those who actively resist this tainting, even when that tainting would lead to emotional “fulfillment”.

 

[tonyrey]

There’s absolutely nothing there that demonstrates the existence of a supernatural intelligence.

So you don’t believe order which serves definite purposes is more likely to be the product of intelligence than purposeless processes?

 

[R_Daneel]

So you don’t believe order which serves definite purposes is more likely to be the product of intelligence than purposeless processes?

How many times will you bring up this nonsense? Of course if there is a purpose there must be an intelligence behind it. Your error is twofold: you confuse “order” with “design”, and you assert that there is a “purpose” in the universe.

Here is one example that totally random process can yield a seemingly “designed” result. Imagine a huge pool table, with equidistant lines on it. There is a pin, and its length is precisely the distance of the lines. This pin is thrown randomly onto the table. To make sure that the process is truly random, the pin is not just “thrown”, but also spun around. Sometimes the pin will touch, or intersect a line, other times it will not. Count the number of tosses (N), and count the number of times when the pin touches or intersects a like (K). Calculate the number of 2*N/K. The more times the experiment is performed, this ratio will get closer to the value of “pi”. Seems to be amazing that such a random process can lead to something so regular, it leads to the value of “pi”. Yet, this is a completely random, mindless, purposeless process. And the result is a mathematical value.

There is no intelligience involved. And please do not waste my time by mumbling about the design of the experiment. The pool table could be a sandy beach. The lines can be “drawn” by the wind. And the pin could be also wind-blown pine needles.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I hope most of you understood what I mean by that question.

A common objection to the Christian faith is *if God loves us so much, why doesn’t He just tell us he exists? * Why doesn’t he just write in the sky “I exist?”

This is a very serious objection. If God would personally appear to us all, then it would be much easier to believe in him and follow his will.

Some will say that this, in some way, would negate free will.

But the angels knew God existed, and yet they still had a choice to rebel.

So why doesn’t God reveal to us all that he truly exists, and that Christianity is true?

Even though the Apostles suffered much for their faith, they at least had assurance that God exists. They themselves saw the Resurrected body of Jesus! So why can’t we all have this personal experience, that way there wouldn’t be any atheists? I don’t mean to sound grumpy or arrogant when I say this.

I just wish we could all have assurance like they did.

So why doesn’t God just “write in the sky”?

NOTE: This question originally popped up in my mind as an emotional response while watching a Christian vs. Atheist debate (Dinesh D’Souza v. John Loftus to be specific). While I was watching, I just thought to myself: This atheist sounds pretty sincere to me, as I’m sure most are. I felt sad for him and all of the unbelievers out there. We all want to know the truth. Why do you think God doesn’t tell us the truth in the way I described?

God did this for thousands of years with the Jews… Where did that get him? What did they do? Idol worship, turning away from him, falling prey to false gods. The people who saw more of his public miracles than any other fell away, as an entire people, several times.

It seems he has changed his tactics