So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

But we don’t know any of those things.

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

I suspect that you can love imaginary things. If I was told I had a long-lost brother, who was battling cancer, I could send “him” gifts and money, and express love to “him”. Then, when I knew it was a scam, I could recant. But the love was real.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

This is your teleological view, then, I take it? But don’t you wonder where such a biological imperative would come from?

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

It points to purpose, and purpose requires an explanation. When people first discovered magnetism, they likely said that the metal stuck to the magnet “because it wants to”. But *why *does it “want” to? Any claim of purpose requires an explanation.

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.

Good luck, my Vulcan friend!

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.

I honor you for sharing openly how you feel in this way, in a somewhat hostile environment. But I do question whether you have any real objectivity, or whether I have any real objectivity. We choose our positions for certain extralogical reasons, and only then start being logical. It’s depressing, but true.

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

I’ve heard of tests that work, often called “fleeces” (see Gideon). However, I guarantee that such a test, if publicized, will be little more than a “human vanity show”, and God is not, in Gandalf’s words, a “conjurer or worker of cheap tricks”. A small request for a “private” miracle will do, without any attitude or hostility. My friend, a former atheist who lives in Michigan, asked God to show him the Northern Lights if He was real. That night, He looked up and saw them. (This is NOT a common occurrence in Southeast Michigan.) I don’t think it’s a bad thing to test God in that sort of way.

 

[AntiTheist]

I suspect that you can love imaginary things. If I was told I had a long-lost brother, who was battling cancer, I could send “him” gifts and money, and express love to “him”. Then, when I knew it was a scam, I could recant. But the love was real.

I guess kids can love their imaginary friends or characters in their story books because…you know, they’re kids and all, and kids do silly things like that.

But I couldn’t actually love something that I didn’t think existed. Even in the example you suggest above, you don’t just get up one day and decide that you have a long-lost brother. Someone – presumably family members, whose stories could be checked out in various ways – would have to tell you about it, and presumably there’s an address you’re sending your gifts to and there’s letters you’d expect to receive back from this long-lost brother, so there would have to be some evidentiary basis for thinking that this long-lost brother exists.

But more to the point, I wouldn’t say that I “love” – in any meaningful sense of the word “love” – a family member whose existence I just learned of, to whom I send gifts and receive nothing back.

In this example, learning of a family member’s existence and establishing contact with him…contact in which I am provided with good evidence that he exists…is absolutely necessary to beginning to love him. It is a necessary first step, and there is no guarantee that I will actually love the guy when I get to know him.

If there were a long-lost brother who was part of a family myth…an old aunt told stories about him, maybe, but there’s no other evidence of him at all and there is no way to locate him or contact him in any way…I submit that it would be impossible to love him because you can’t even be sure that he’s real.

 

[tonyrey]

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

False. How many times will you distort the meaning of my statements? The term “purpose” is often applied to non-intelligent activity, e.g. the purpose of sexual activity is procreation.

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.

Obviously a random process can yield a seemingly “designed” result but it is significant that the example you give is not only static but it occurs** within the context of an orderly system**.

There is no intelligence 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.

Your analogy fails miserably because your simple, static examples of order which serve no useful purpose are vastly different from the immensely complex, dynamic systems of living organisms which fulfil many functions. Try again!

 

[AntiTheist]

My friend, a former atheist who lives in Michigan, asked God to show him the Northern Lights if He was real. That night, He looked up and saw them. (This is NOT a common occurrence in Southeast Michigan.) I don’t think it’s a bad thing to test God in that sort of way.

Unfortunately for you, anecdotes of coincidence aren’t evidence.

How about having a group of people pray for the Northern Lights to appear in Southeast Michigan at a number of specific times and specific dates and specific locations (randomly generated so that they cannot correspond to data that tells us when it’s likely to appear)? Have some control groups in different areas pray to different gods or to no gods at all. Better yet: have the prayer group ask for the Nothern Lights in a specific location and time where we know – based on observational data – that it is just about impossible for the Northern Lights to appear there at that time.

Come on now: if you’re a god, and you’re in the business of revealing yourself to some select people through the awesome power of random coincidences, what exactly is the difference between making the Northern Lights appear before Joe Blow when he asks for confirmation for himself and making them appear whenever the Southeast Michigan prayer group asks for such confirmation for the world to see?

If I’m a god, and I want people to know I exist – and apparently I do, since I make the Northern Lights appear for Joe Blow – then I would grant such signs to the prayer group that’s going to scientifically test and publish their results.

Why on earth wouldn’t this god do that?

[Question: if someone did this experiment, and the Northern Lights showed up in a location where a control group was praying to Hindu gods, would you convert? Why or why not?]

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Unfortunately for you, anecdotes of coincidence aren’t evidence.

How about having a group of people pray for the Northern Lights to appear in Southeast Michigan at a number of specific times and specific dates and specific locations (randomly generated so that they cannot correspond to data that tells us when it’s likely to appear)? Have some control groups in different areas pray to different gods or to no gods at all. Better yet: have the prayer group ask for the Nothern Lights in a specific location and time where we know – based on observational data – that it is just about impossible for the Northern Lights to appear there at that time.

Come on now: if you’re a god, and you’re in the business of revealing yourself to some select people through the awesome power of random coincidences, what exactly is the difference between making the Northern Lights appear before Joe Blow when he asks for confirmation for himself and making them appear whenever the Southeast Michigan prayer group asks for such confirmation for the world to see?

If I’m a god, and I want people to know I exist – and apparently I do, since I make the Northern Lights appear for Joe Blow – then I would grant such signs to the prayer group that’s going to scientifically test and publish their results.

Why on earth wouldn’t this god do that?

[Question: if someone did this experiment, and the Northern Lights showed up in a location where a control group was praying to Hindu gods, would you convert? Why or why not?]

See my post above… God did this time and time again with the Jews. It wasnt working. Now his methods are different. If a person cannot accept that, then I sympathize, but God works how and when HE wills, not on our schedule.

If people ran your test and it worked, that would not be the end of it. It would escalate to asking for more and more things, until people were unable to do anything on their own (think welfare). That does not sound to me like the way God intends us to live our lives working out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

FSC

 

[AntiTheist]

.
Once upon a time, there was a puddle who woke up and said to himself, “What a perfect hole I’m in here in the ground. This hole fits me so perfectly that it must have been designed just for me, and I thus consider myself to be special and chosen.”

The problem for tony’s argument is that we have discovered how simple self-replicating molecules can naturally give rise to complex diversity, given time and the pressures of natural selection.

It’s a selection-driven process – which is why organisms produced by the process are well-adapted to their environments – but it’s not directed by intelligence.

 

[AntiTheist]

See my post above… God did this time and time again with the Jews.

Argument from ancient mythology.

God works how and when HE wills, not on our schedule.

Well, then he appears to work in a way that makes him indistinguishable from nothingness: he works by a handful of curious coincidences and warm fuzzy feelings in the pit of the stomach.

There’s no observable difference between a universe with this god and a universe without him.

If people ran your test and it worked, that would not be the end of it. It would escalate to asking for more and more things, until people were unable to do anything on their own (think welfare).

I don’t agree. If people could demonstrate that a god exists, and if this being really had commands for us – commands that he could, for example, write in the sky – then people wouldn’t be in a position to call any shots.

 

[nickybr38]

God hasn’t written in the sky (except… you know, the fact that the sky exists… that’s kind of writing right there) but He did send His own personal messenger and at first I think it’s easy to see the reaction to that messenger was pretty powerful but with time the message got lost and the farther we get from the time when Christ came the easier it is for people to say it’s just a story, just a myth.

Now, what do the scriptures tell us? Do not put the Lord your God to the test. That’s what the scriptures tell us. He shouldn’t have to write in the sky for us to believe in Him. Our existance should be enough.

Even if God did write in the sky it wouldn’t make a difference in this world. People would explain it away. Even if He sent a lightning bolt to drive a man to his knees men still would not believe. They would find ways to explain his survival away. Even if God Himself visited man (which, um, He did) men would not believe.

No amount of evidence will turn a hardened heart. The Holy Spirit speaks to those who are ready to listen. Remember that line? Don’t throw pearls to the swine? The Holy Spirit doesn’t share wisdom with those who aren’t ready to hear.

That’s just my opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

But more to the point, I wouldn’t say that I “love” – in any meaningful sense of the word “love” – a family member whose existence I just learned of, to whom I send gifts and receive nothing back.

Suppose you receive many gifts - in fact all that you value and treasure more than anything else in life - you would be perverse not to be overcome with gratitude and appreciation of the kindness and thoughtfulness of your benefactor even though you don’t know him… or would you just take it all for granted and turn your attention to other things without bothering to investigate any further?

 

[davidv]

Argument from ancient mythology.

So you claim. Where is your evidence of it untruthfulness?

Well, then he appears to work in a way that makes him indistinguishable from nothingness: he works by a handful of curious coincidences and warm fuzzy feelings in the pit of the stomach.

There’s no observable difference between a universe with this god and a universe without him.

I don’t agree. If people could demonstrate that a god exists, and if this being really had commands for us – commands that he could, for example, write in the sky – then people wouldn’t be in a position to call any shots.

Your statement above (mythology = falsehood) is a direct answer to the question posed in the OP. For those convinced of their position, no sign would move them.

 

[fhansen]

Unfortunately for you, anecdotes of coincidence aren’t evidence.

How about having a group of people pray for the Northern Lights to appear in Southeast Michigan at a number of specific times and specific dates and specific locations (randomly generated so that they cannot correspond to data that tells us when it’s likely to appear)? Have some control groups in different areas pray to different gods or to no gods at all. Better yet: have the prayer group ask for the Nothern Lights in a specific location and time where we know – based on observational data – that it is just about impossible for the Northern Lights to appear there at that time.

Come on now: if you’re a god, and you’re in the business of revealing yourself to some select people through the awesome power of random coincidences, what exactly is the difference between making the Northern Lights appear before Joe Blow when he asks for confirmation for himself and making them appear whenever the Southeast Michigan prayer group asks for such confirmation for the world to see?

If I’m a god, and I want people to know I exist – and apparently I do, since I make the Northern Lights appear for Joe Blow – then I would grant such signs to the prayer group that’s going to scientifically test and publish their results.

Why on earth wouldn’t this god do that?

[Question: if someone did this experiment, and the Northern Lights showed up in a location where a control group was praying to Hindu gods, would you convert? Why or why not?]

Your criteria might be a little off. What if you’re a god who expects people to believe on their own but are willing to help their faith along if they ask-if they exercise a little sincerity of faith to begin with? God, we’re told, and many have experienced this, sort of responds to humility, whether we think that’s proper or not.

 

[latin_rite]

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

More importantly. How come ice cream and nuts go so well together? I mean one comes from a cow, another from a tree. They are worlds apart. Yet put them together and they taste great. Or why is it, i absolutely love the smell of popcorn and doughnuts. Yet can’t stand the taste of either?

 

[Thyme]

Sorry, but I would like to ask atheists what they think of the Miracle of the Sun. About it being put down to some natural phenomenon by atheist reporters. I suppose it was just a coincidence that the childrens’ “lie” actually happened at the exact time and date they said it would?

 

[tonyrey]

Your analogy fails miserably because your simple

 

[buffalo]

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.

Patterns are not the same as language or symbols.

 

[buffalo]

Once upon a time, there was a puddle who woke up and said to himself, “What a perfect hole I’m in here in the ground. This hole fits me so perfectly that it must have been designed just for me, and I thus consider myself to be special and chosen.”

The problem for tony’s argument is that we have discovered how simple self-replicating molecules can naturally give rise to complex diversity, given time and the pressures of natural selection.

It’s a selection-driven process – which is why organisms produced by the process are well-adapted to their environments – but it’s not directed by intelligence.

Well now I have to jump in -

New findings are showing DNA fights against mutations. DNA attempts to repair the mutations several times. We are beginning to understand that DNA has the abilities built in from the get go.

Indeed it is directed by intelligence. IDvolution is the solution. I have consistently shown the current science behind it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Unfortunately for you, anecdotes of coincidence aren’t evidence.

How about having a group of people pray for the Northern Lights to appear in Southeast Michigan at a number of specific times and specific dates and specific locations (randomly generated so that they cannot correspond to data that tells us when it’s likely to appear)? Have some control groups in different areas pray to different gods or to no gods at all. Better yet: have the prayer group ask for the Nothern Lights in a specific location and time where we know – based on observational data – that it is just about impossible for the Northern Lights to appear there at that time.

Come on now: if you’re a god, and you’re in the business of revealing yourself to some select people through the awesome power of random coincidences, what exactly is the difference between making the Northern Lights appear before Joe Blow when he asks for confirmation for himself and making them appear whenever the Southeast Michigan prayer group asks for such confirmation for the world to see?

If I’m a god, and I want people to know I exist – and apparently I do, since I make the Northern Lights appear for Joe Blow – then I would grant such signs to the prayer group that’s going to scientifically test and publish their results.

Why on earth wouldn’t this god do that?

[Question: if someone did this experiment, and the Northern Lights showed up in a location where a control group was praying to Hindu gods, would you convert? Why or why not?]

Excuse me, but I was having a pleasant conversation with Mr. Daneel. I shared that personal story of my friend because, although I quite well understood that Daneel may not consider it evidence for God, it seemed relevant to our conversation about the individual’s desire for God to show Himself. Since Daneel had shown some openness to be vulnerable, I made myself vulnerable too, and mentioned some of the more personal ways that God *seems *to have an impact on people’s lives.

I consider your response a sneer, although perhaps you intended it more generously. I’m afraid that I know of no rational response to sneers. And you know very well the types of answers I might give to your questions. So pretend like we’ve gone through all that, and come out the other side.

The fact is we have prior commitments to different positions, and we’re letting our commitments determine the evidence – logical and empirical – that we allow into the discussion. I’m willing to admit that. Are you?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I guess kids can love their imaginary friends or characters in their story books because…you know, they’re kids and all, and kids do silly things like that.

But I couldn’t actually love something that I didn’t think existed. Even in the example you suggest above, you don’t just get up one day and decide that you have a long-lost brother. Someone – presumably family members, whose stories could be checked out in various ways – would have to tell you about it, and presumably there’s an address you’re sending your gifts to and there’s letters you’d expect to receive back from this long-lost brother, so there would have to be some evidentiary basis for thinking that this long-lost brother exists.

But more to the point, I wouldn’t say that I “love” – in any meaningful sense of the word “love” – a family member whose existence I just learned of, to whom I send gifts and receive nothing back.

Change the story, then. This brother writes to me daily (although it’s really just a trick, of course), and I have met someone who I was told was him (another trick). It’s not the same person who wrote the letters and whom I met. There is no brother. And yet I love my brother.

I submit that it would be impossible to love him because you can’t even be sure that he’s real.

In one sense, you’re right, in that there would be no “him” to love – but I claim this would be a paradox, not a contradiction. Consider another case: suppose a woman I “had relations with” conceived a child, but I was not altogether sure if a) the child survived, and b) the child was mine. I propose it is still possible for me to care about that child, despite my uncertainty over the child’s very existence.

Heck, on a solipsistic day, I’m uncertain about my daughter’s existence – does it follow that I’ve stopped loving her?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

God, we’re told, and many have experienced this, sort of responds to humility, whether we think that’s proper or not.

Nice.