So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[Thyme]

A pretty good song too!

Lol, I just Youtubed the song and it’s much better when read!

Not necessarily. But we are physical beings, not just intellectual ones, and we respond better when our other senses are engaged. Human touch makes a difference. It’s like the difference between hearing the words “I love you” and getting a hug.

But aren’t prayers meant to be fully spiritual?

 

[ddarko]

I think the people who preached the faith sincerely believed it. I also think that they were mistaken.

The best treatment of the tired old “no one would die for a lie” question is this blog post: http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-martyrs.html

It’s on the long side, but it’s an excellent treatment of the issue.

haha, its a damn long stretch. You have to keep in mind that this was not one person. This was a large group of people.

Maybe you have not studied psychology that much but even in cults, once the leader dies, the cult whittles away. This is how psychology works. What this article says is a stretch at best and whats ironic is you are willing to “stretch” for an explanation. I think you should question yourself as to what your motive is first

Ah, equivocation, perhaps my favorite logical fallacy.

No, when I say “stories,” I mean “anecdotal accounts that are conveyed in narrative form,” as opposed to measurements and data that any independent observer can collect. Nice try, though.

I love it when people try to identify fallacies when there aren’t really any

When I meant everything is a story, I thought you would have been mentally capable of grasping the deeper meaning of what I said. Stories have data, measurements, independent versions… what is your point ? Any historical event is a story. Some have data, some have independent versions. They can never be observed by YOUR independent observers because it already happened. Does that make it any less false? Also, every thing IS a story. You come up with an abstract concept to describe things even in sciences. Take gravity, its a nice story. Its a story that fits together with other stories. But it does not make it any less real. If anything, you are the one thats making an incorrect generalization that stories are FALSE.

While its quiet nice that you have a favourite fallacy, it does help to know where it applies for you to properly call it out. Sorry to say this but this isn’t one

Well, if it was sky writing from a plane, obviously that has a natural explanation, but let’s assume that you mean that the stars re-align themselves (in ways that gravity cannot account for) to spell out that message (why in English, I wonder? Why not Latin?).

It would be undeniable proof that some intelligent force has the ability to manipulate the stars. It would still be an open question whether that force was your particular god (I’m sure every religion on earth would immediately say, “See? We’re right!”).

Aaah AntiTheist, what does it mean to say, gravity can’t account for? Relativity and certain quantum phenomenon are not accountable by classical theory of gravity. Is that a miracle lol? Don’t be naive. I also noticed you mentioned to someone else the following

"I’ve given many examples in threads of ways that you could demonstrate the supernatural. A good example would be this: if Catholic peasants all over the world started to have “revelations” of the exact place and time of the next earthquake to occur, with precise figures of damage and casualties, and an advanced knowledge of the exact measure on the seismic scale…that would be just about the most impressive demonstration ever."

I can tell you that this would prove nothing. well…maybe if you are an atheist who lacks imagination. I can come up with a million explanations. Here’s one as an example ; It could be someone from the future who time travelled backwards and told the story (Ironically, I am sure any atheist would buy this over a God given miracle any day haha). Or I could simply say its an unexplained event that Science will do once it discovers a link between human cognition and environment. The point is that without faith, you cannot move forward. Even a miracle is just another ordinary event.

However, whats darn ironic here is that you are willing to put a faith on lots of things implicitly. You believe that what you see is real. What you hear is real. That you can reason properly. That reason it-self makes sense. That the universe it-self is not a random chaotic mess but a system that can be intelligible through sciences. Deep down you are full of faith but you just fail to recognize it. You’ve just taken it all for granted.

So AntiTheist, with all honesty, you have got this all backwards if you still believe that a MIRACLE is going to convince you. You always need faith to believe. Even reason can only take you so far. The leap is yours to take. God just cannot convince you any more than he has. Miracles can be seen for what they are when you get to know God first. In-fact, you will realize how everything is a miracle. To give a “sign” is useless but its the most popular excuse atheist would love to hide behind.

So I hope you find your way, there is nothing else more I could say

God Bless

 

[AntiTheist]

Very neat. Choose something you wish to deny, then explain why there is nothing you would accept as proof of its existence. Talk about dealing with a stacked deck.

No. I said that stories aren’t sufficient to demonstrate the supernatural.

If you disagree, then why don’t you believe in ghosts and leprechauns and the loch ness monster and all sorts of things that we have only anecdotal evidence for?

Regarding authorship of the Gospels, the Biblical ‘scholars’ you mention are only one of several schools of thought – these represent the most extreme of the denialists, and who most likely start from the presumption – or the with the desire – to discredit Christianity and the Church.

Do some research. Most Christian scholars freely admit that the Gospels are anonymous works.

It’s interesting, I never hear these ‘scholars’ question the existence of Mohammed or Buddha.

I have actually read that the literal existence of these figures is in question, and I’m not sure of the exact evidence for them, so I’ll remain neutral on the question.

Tell me, Mr I’m-So-Clever Antitheist, did Mohammed really exist?

I haven’t a clue, as I’m not familiar with the evidence for his existence.

Please offer the same opinion on Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, and/or Julius Caesar.

Socrates is such a great example! I freely admit that we have no sufficient evidence that Socrates existed. But it doesn’t matter. With Socrates, it’s not the fact that he existed that’s important (his purported deeds) – it’s the ideas that are attributed to him that are important. I’m fine with granting that “Socrates” said those things attributed to him as a matter of convention; it’s unimportant whether there “really” was a Socrates or whether Plato made him up.

With Jesus, the case is the opposite: it’s the fact that he existed that’s so important to Christians, and so we need to make sure that such a person – who did miraculous things, apparently – really did exist.

Now, like I said, I have no problem with the idea that a person existed upon whom the legends were based, but if you seriously think that stories written down from oral tradition are sufficient to demonstrate that a guy worked magic, then you have another think coming.

Oh, and Caesar existed beyond question. We have documents in his own handwriting, things written about him by his contemporaries, proclamations he issued…it would be utterly stupid to question the existence of someone for whom so much contemporary evidence exists.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

There’s two schools of thought here

1. Jesus already existed as human flesh and walked the earth. He already performed many miracles, and yet not everyone was converted. If Jesus was not able to convert the entirety of humanity 2000 years ago, what makes you think God manifesting in the physical world again will change the hearts of everyone today?
2. God wants a true loving relationship with us. If we writes in the sky or starts walking around as a 100-foot tall giant, or bigger, then we will be forced to believe in him by fear, not by love. That is not the relationship God wants to have with us.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think more to the point is: No amount of evidence can demonstrate the supernatural to someone with an *a priori * rejection of the possibility of the supernatural. That rejection is a metaphysical position, not an empirical one.

Can anyone find a priori stands in catholic theology?

 

[AntiTheist]

To any human being, the immaterial things have always been the most important and most valued, whether it is love, courage, honor, liberty, or happiness.

Yes. And those things are concepts. No one claims that “courage” is some ghostly being floating around that exists outside of people’s minds. But people do claim that god is an actual thing that exists outside of people’s minds…unless of course your claim is that your god is just an idea in your head, like courage, in which case I completely agree with you.

So, since you claim that your god is a being that exists outside of people’s heads, and since “to exist outside of people’s heads” means to manifest in a detectable way – otherwise, the claimed being would be indistinguishable from “nothings” – then there should be measurable evidence of your god.

Why, AT, are you so passionate about your atheism, unless it is because you believe it to be true? That passion alone establishes that you do not advocate materialism or scepticism for its own sake, but because you believe that Truth is an abstract value worthy of your attention.

Yes. I indeed have values – and values exist in people’s minds.

I think the truth is important, and I would prefer to hold beliefs that are true over beliefs that are comforting. “The preference to hold true beliefs over comforting beliefs” isn’t a ghostly being that exists outside of my head – it’s a concept that exists in my head and in the heads of other people.

If you claim that your god is something more than a concept that exists in your head, let’s see some evidence for it.

And spare me the placebo-effect prayer study. How about a double-blind study where the people being prayed for (and their doctors) don’t know which patients are being prayed for and which ones are not?

So much for Mr Jefferson’s derision for immaterial things.

Please read carefully. He’s talking about beings, not concepts in your heads. Again, if your god is just a concept, then I’m in total agreement with you.

And by the way, isn’t that the same Thomas Jefferson who once announced that there are no stones in the sky, therefore stones cannot fall from the sky, as the credulous stories of unlearned peasants asserted?

If you start from false premises, you will arrive at false conclusions, obviously, no matter who you are. It doesn’t discredit his correct observation that beings who do not manifest in any way are indistinguishable from nothing.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Can anyone find a priori stands in catholic theology?

It’s probably just that I’m fuzzy this morning, but I don’t get the question. Can you rephrase it?

Thanks!

 

[ddarko]

Yes. And those things are concepts. No one claims that “courage” is some ghostly being floating around that exists outside of people’s minds. But people do claim that god is an actual thing that exists outside of people’s minds…unless of course your claim is that your god is just an idea in your head, like courage, in which case I completely agree with you.

So, since you claim that your god is a being that exists outside of people’s heads, and since “to exist outside of people’s heads” means to manifest in a detectable way – otherwise, the claimed being would be indistinguishable from “nothings” – then there should be measurable evidence of your god.

Dear dear AntiTheist,

What is this illogical nonsense?

From your standard, how do you know anything is real? How do you know that “measurable quantifiable” things are real? How do you know that things that you detect from your senses are real? You might be suffering from a psychological disease. It might all be “just an idea in your head”.

Really, is this the road you want to go down? I think you just want to use double standards. One for religion and for everything else. Be consistent will ya

Yes. I indeed have values – and values exist in people’s minds.

I think the truth is important, and I would prefer to hold beliefs that are true over beliefs that are comforting. “The preference to hold true beliefs over comforting beliefs” isn’t a ghostly being that exists outside of my head – it’s a concept that exists in my head and in the heads of other people.

lol yes I would love to hold beliefs that ARE TRUE and logically consistent. However, yours are NOT. You want to believe in detectable things are real, reason is real, logic is real, there is something TRUE while condemning peoples belief in a God just because its on faith. Nice going

If you claim that your god is something more than a concept that exists in your head, let’s see some evidence for it.

And spare me the placebo-effect prayer study. How about a double-blind study where the people being prayed for (and their doctors) don’t know which patients are being prayed for and which ones are not?

Please read carefully. He’s talking about beings, not concepts in your heads. Again, if your god is just a concept, then I’m in total agreement with you.

If you start from false premises, you will arrive at false conclusions, obviously, no matter who you are. It doesn’t discredit his correct observation that beings who do not manifest in any way are indistinguishable from nothing.

Evidence is the logical and ontological necessity. Without God, there is no TRUTH.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

And spare me the placebo-effect prayer study. How about a double-blind study where the people being prayed for (and their doctors) don’t know which patients are being prayed for and which ones are not?.

Ok this was so funny I thought it deserved a separate post lol.

What on earth does this double-blind study prove? Even if it works with a 100% miracle rate, it doesn’t still prove a God exists. Someone with a vibrant imagination can hypothesize that there might be physical effects of prayer. It might be in the sound. It might be in the thoughts. And then just investigate on it. The term for such process is called academia btw.

So NO. Get this in to your head. No miracle can prove to you that God exists. Either you have already accepted him by faith seeing that it is reasonable or no physical evidence is going to help you. This is the biggest blunder of the 20th century: over reliance on empirical knowledge.

God Bless

 

[thegreypiper]

AT-- Are you really suggesting that the nebulous thing, with no objective existence outside of a human skull, called ‘intelligence’, has no way of revealing itself and its action on outside reality?

 

[StrawberryJam]

It’s probably just that I’m fuzzy this morning, but I don’t get the question. Can you rephrase it?

Thanks!

Not at all, I was beyond fuzzy when posting.

And, I am working up the nerve to start a thread on the topic. I have to dig a bit deeper to be able to express the thoughts.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If you do, please make sure you drop me a PM or something so I don’t miss it.

Thanks!

 

[AntiTheist]

From your standard, how do you know anything is real?

The word “real” means “conforming to the world, so far as I am able to detect by means of evidence.”

Things that I experience are real. Even if my senses are picking up an illusion of a sandwhich, for example, I am seeing a real illusion. If it weren’t a real illusion, I wouldn’t be experiencing it.

Now, in my investigations, I can try to determine whether or not the sandwhich exists outside of my head. The only way I can do this is to rely on evidence from the world outside of my head.

If, for example, no one else I spoke to could see the sandwhich, I’d have good grounds for thinking I might be mistaken (unless they’re all playing a joke on me, which is a possibility).

It’s no use objecting, “But you may be in the Matrix, and this whole world could be in your head!” because even if that’s true, there’s no way I could ever discover that, making it utterly irrelevant.

When I talk about reality, I’m talking about the world that our senses reveal, whether or not it’s “real” or “The Matrix,” which is an irrelevant and undiscoverable question.

Armed with this basic framework, I am capable of evaluating claims in terms of likelihood, based on the amount of evidence available for them.

Different claims are going to require different evidence. If my claim is, “I feel happy,” then the only evidence necessary is my observation about my emotional state, since it is a claim about the world inside my head.

If my claim is, “There is a conspiracy against me,” then I cannot use my paranoid feelings of persecution as evidence for this claim, since it is a claim about the world outside of my head.

See how that works? Simple.

How do you know that “measurable quantifiable” things are real? How do you know that things that you detect from your senses are real? You might be suffering from a psychological disease. It might all be “just an idea in your head”.

When I talk about “reality,” I’m talking about the world that is revealed by my senses. Whether the world is “really real” or the Matrix is irrevelant. Stop watching movies and wake up already.

Really, is this the road you want to go down? I think you just want to use double standards. One for religion and for everything else. Be consistent will ya

I’m quite consistent – I would implore you to be consistent and subject the extraordinary claims of religion to the same standard of evidence that you would hold any extraordinary claim to.

You want to believe in detectable things are real, reason is real, logic is real, there is something TRUE while condemning peoples belief in a God just because its on faith. Nice going

You, like most Matrix-mongers, have confused “faith” with rational assumptions.

I don’t take it on “faith” that the world is real and not the Matrix. When I use the word “real,” I’m discussing the world that my senses reveal, and I don’t care whether it’s the Matrix or not (which is something that I could never know anyway, making it irrelevant).

I don’t take it on “faith” that logic is real because we have good evidence that the application of logic has demonstrable effects on the world.

Seriously, now. You’re all mixed up and confused, and you think that bad Keanu Reeves movies mean that everybody is operating on faith and so every ridiculous idea is on equal footing with actual knowledge.

Are you sure that this is the road that you wish to go down?

 

[AntiTheist]

haha, its a damn long stretch. You have to keep in mind that this was not one person. This was a large group of people.

Well, presumably you are talking about people who could have potentially been eye-witnesses of a supposed resurrection who then were threatened with death if they did not recant their belief in a resurrection, who did not recant, and who were put to death instead.

This has to be a very small and select group of people. I’m not sure how many people we’re talking about here – in fact, I’m not sure if there is any contemporary evidence that any person who claimed to be an eye-witness to the resurrection was also put to death for not recounting his or her beliefs.

But even if we had good evidence that there really were a handful of people who fell into that category, I’d still think it more likely that those people were mistaken or deluded.

Now, if you just mean that there were a lot of Christian martyrs in history, then sure – but there have been martyrs in a lot of faiths. That someone is willing to die for a belief doesn’t tell you whether or not the belief was true – it just tells you that the person believes it strongly.

Stories have data, measurements, independent versions… what is your point ?

That there are different types of evidence. Anecdotal evidence is one kind of evidence. Scientific data is another. Artifacts and archeological finds are another kind of evidence. Etc, and so on.

My contention is that no amount of anecdotal evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural.

If you’re content to call all evidence “stories” and consider them all valid for all claims, then I’m afraid you’re going to get very few people to agree with you.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

The word “real” means “conforming to the world, so far as I am able to detect by means of evidence.”

Things that I experience are real. Even if my senses are picking up an illusion of a sandwhich, for example, I am seeing a real illusion. If it weren’t a real illusion, I wouldn’t be experiencing it.

Now, in my investigations, I can try to determine whether or not the sandwhich exists outside of my head. The only way I can do this is to rely on evidence from the world outside of my head.

If, for example, no one else I spoke to could see the sandwhich, I’d have good grounds for thinking I might be mistaken (unless they’re all playing a joke on me, which is a possibility).

It’s no use objecting, “But you may be in the Matrix, and this whole world could be in your head!” because even if that’s true, there’s no way I could ever discover that, making it utterly irrelevant.

When I talk about reality, I’m talking about the world that our senses reveal, whether or not it’s “real” or “The Matrix,” which is an irrelevant and undiscoverable question.

Armed with this basic framework, I am capable of evaluating claims in terms of likelihood, based on the amount of evidence available for them.

Different claims are going to require different evidence. If my claim is, “I feel happy,” then the only evidence necessary is my observation about my emotional state, since it is a claim about the world inside my head.

If my claim is, “There is a conspiracy against me,” then I cannot use my paranoid feelings of persecution as evidence for this claim, since it is a claim about the world outside of my head.

See how that works? Simple.

When I talk about “reality,” I’m talking about the world that is revealed by my senses. Whether the world is “really real” or the Matrix is irrevelant. Stop watching movies and wake up already.

I’m quite consistent – I would implore you to be consistent and subject the extraordinary claims of religion to the same standard of evidence that you would hold any extraordinary claim to.

You, like most Matrix-mongers, have confused “faith” with rational assumptions.

I don’t take it on “faith” that the world is real and not the Matrix. When I use the word “real,” I’m discussing the world that my senses reveal, and I don’t care whether it’s the Matrix or not (which is something that I could never know anyway, making it irrelevant).

I don’t take it on “faith” that logic is real because we have good evidence that the application of logic has demonstrable effects on the world.

Seriously, now. You’re all mixed up and confused, and you think that bad Keanu Reeves movies mean that everybody is operating on faith and so every ridiculous idea is on equal footing with actual knowledge.

Are you sure that this is the road that you wish to go down?

I think… therefore (etc.). Your argument regarding “the world your senses reveal” doesn’t quite work. It is quite relevant, since if it’s not real, there may well be implications for you outside of said illusion, which, if you suspect, or have any reason at all to consider possible, you’d be a fool to ignore absolutely, given the ultimate futility of living assuming the world the senses reveal is all there is, although, thinking about, the world the senses reveal reveals plenty to give you reason to consider ‘the world unseen’ anyway, so…

We also have good evidence that illogic has demonstrable effects on the world! . Anyway, logic can be used in various ways, and the conflict between religion and (your) scientism is largely one of ideological perspective in the application of the same thing.

Logic!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

My contention is that no amount of anecdotal evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural.

Scientifically. Amazing how often that conditional is absent from your arguments… Anecdotal? Again, a misprepresentation of such regular human experience if ever there was one! Scientifically, these things cannot be evaluated as being as being as that which they appear to be, scientifically, being apparently not of a material nature, hence beyond our ability to evaluate scientifically. You have to consider empiricism in it’s less limited (i.e. true) definition to consider phenomena without the dogmatic refusal to consider an explanation outside of our ability to validate according to our own invented methods.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

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?

It’s pretty much in John’s Gospel - full on explanation. If we knew for certain that God existed, we would serve him out of pure, unchallengable self interest, and be denied choice, yet also, denied overt choice, foster Satan-like subversions and hatreds to the detriment of our fellows and reality as a whole.

The only way, then, to decide whether or not to serve God and goodness, is to make God a knowable possibility, but not easily verifiable. Not that, anything, truly, is entirely verifiable ("I think… (etc.)) - such is the nature of reality!

… or something like that…

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Where do you see that in John? Just curious.

 

[AntiTheist]

I think… therefore (etc.). Your argument regarding “the world your senses reveal” doesn’t quite work. It is quite relevant, since if it’s not real, there may well be implications for you outside of said illusion, which, if you suspect, or have any reason at all to consider possible

I don’t have any reason to suspect or consider it possible that there are any other worlds.

If you do, give me some evidence that demonstrates that there is such a world.

When I say that it’s “irrelevant” whether this world is “really real” or “The Matrix,” I mean that an illusion that we cannot discover as an illusion is indistinguishable from a real world in every single way, so there would be no reason to make the unncecessary assumption that it’s the Matrix.

To put it another way, if you claim that there’s some “reality” that we cannot detect, then it’s indistinguishable from nothing at all. But if we can detect it in some way, then we’re right back to talking about evidence again.

Scientifically, these things cannot be evaluated as being as being as that which they appear to be, scientifically, being apparently not of a material nature, hence beyond our ability to evaluate scientifically.

If we can’t detect them, how do you know that they’re actually there?

Say, aren’t you the guy who admitted in a public argument with me that you think that ghosts exist?

I think that tells us everything we need to know…

 

[davidv]

{snip}If we can’t detect them, how do you know that they’re actually there?{snip}

We detect them with something other than science. The scientific method is not sole avenue to knowledge.