Why does God seem silent?

[AntiTheist]

Great job in this thread, Mersenne. It’s interesting to see the believers not only proudly declaring that faith is belief without evidence, but admitting that their beliefs are childish and indeed the kind of thing that rational people wouldn’t accept without help (or proof) from a superhuman entity in the form of personal revelation (incidentally making nonsense out of the argument that god doesn’t reveal himself so as to preserve “free will”).

Let’s go back to the thread title. There’s an interesting contradiction that has emerged from this thread, and I don’t want to lose it. On the one hand, it’s been argued that god won’t reveal himself so as to preserve human free will; on the other hand, it’s been argued that god indeed has revealed himself in the lives of individuals or in personal revelation to individuals – though, of course, only in ways that require a significant amount of creative interpretation.

It’s been argued that god wants people to choose to believe in him, and it’s also been argued that faith is a “gift” from a supernatural entity.

Here’s the question: if this god character reveals himself to certain people, why wouldn’t he reveal himself to everyone? Why wouldn’t he reveal himself in uncertain terms to Richard Dawkins in the same exact way he supposedly revealed himself to Saul on the road to Damascus? Saul was only murdering Christians – Dawkins is actually leading people to damnation, which I assume is far worse. So why not give him a conversion experience?

Why not broadcast a message to everyone on earth in the language that each person primarily understands informing them of his existence? Surely he can do this – so why does he choose not to?

Final Note: Just for the record, Occam’s razor is a general rule of thumb – it’s not some absolute law of logic. All Occam’s razor is is a statement that generally speaking, if all else is equal, the postulation that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one, or at the very least the most convenient to accept for the precise reason that it is parsimonious.

 

[Luke_K]

Let’s go back to the thread title. There’s an interesting contradiction that has emerged from this thread, and I don’t want to lose it. On the one hand, it’s been argued that god won’t reveal himself so as to preserve human free will; on the other hand, it’s been argued that god indeed has revealed himself in the lives of individuals or in personal revelation to individuals – though, of course, only in ways that require a significant amount of creative interpretation.

Like I said, if God revealed himself completely to us we would still have free will- nothing can take that away once God has granted it. It’s just that we would only have one chance to choose God, like the angels did, who were created with perfect knowledge of God. Humanity is all about second chances, repentance, redemption, etc. When we die, our inclination or repulsion towards God becomes permanent, because that is when he fully reveals himself to us, and us to ourselves.

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

It’s been argued that god wants people to choose to believe in him, and it’s also been argued that faith is a “gift” from a supernatural entity.

Faith, like all virtues, is indeed a gift/grace. How we respond to that gift is our free will. But to say that we choose to be faithful out of our own power is polytheism.

Here’s the question: if this god character reveals himself to certain people, why wouldn’t he reveal himself to everyone? Why wouldn’t he reveal himself in uncertain terms to Richard Dawkins in the same exact way he supposedly revealed himself to Saul on the road to Damascus? Saul was only murdering Christians – Dawkins is actually leading people to damnation, which I assume is far worse. So why not give him a conversion experience?

Each individual is unique. The same “calling experience” from God isn’t going to work for everyone. How do you know that God hasn’t extended the offer to Dawkins and that he just dismissed it? Faith enters through the soul, not the senses. If you don’t learn early on in the spiritual journey that faith must persevere through difficulties and without physical miracles, then there’s no point in going any further.

Why not broadcast a message to everyone on earth in the language that each person primarily understands informing them of his existence? Surely he can do this – so why does he choose not to?

Jesus Christ spoke to thousands of people. Many still rejected him. You reject him. What you propose would accomplish nothing more than missionaries who preach Jesus’ story to others already does. I imagine that if God did do what you describe, atheists would be dumbstruck for a short while, then when reflecting on it later would cast if off as a mass hypnosis or some psychological phenomenon, like has been done with Fatima.

Again, faith comes through the soul, not the senses.

 

[atman]

Semantics nonsense. If God can be his own reason then the universe can be it’s own reason. You haven’t escaped the problem you’ve created, you’ve just covered it up with a bunch of illogical feel good statements that you try to imply are hard to understand because they’re deep. But “not not be” is not deep, it’s just nonsense.

No, I was not giving “feel good statements.” There is a definite meaning to what I said, even if I expressed it poorly. I’ll give it another shot.

God is the one being one cannot say “if” about. He is not contingent. This is not true of the universe. God is pure actuality without potentiality. The universe, conversely, has plenty of potentiality being reduced to actuality. The universe cannot be its own purpose because its parts are being moved constantly towards some actuality. God, however, has no potential to be moved out of into act, because He is pure act.

Which violates basic reasoning, particularly Occum’s razor. Do we need to go over the invisible crime framing hamsters again? Subatomic physics may not “make sense” but they’re actually the simplest explanation we have available. Trying to explain subatomic physics without our current theories is way more complex.

I am not trying to make a point in a vacuum. When given two possible explanations by authorities, I generally tend towards the more nuanced and complicated answer. That’s all.

Majority certainly does not merit truth, but the arguments have been long sense torn to shreds, including first cause and contingency, which go away simply by uttering the phrase “special pleading”

You don’t undo any argument by uttering “special pleading,” by which I suppose you mean us theists making an exception to a premise such as “all that is is caused by something else that is.” Sane theologians, however, do not have such premises. They have premises like “whatever comes into existence derives its existence from some cause.” Since God is that which does not come into existence, your argument does not hold.

AntiTheist: A Catholic would reply that God does manifest Himself to all people by way of natural reason, which is moved by Him. As to why He does not make a supernatural appearance to Richard Dawkins, I suspect it has to do with a fundamental difference between Saul and Dawkins: the former would believe a miracle if he saw it, the latter would not. This, however, is sheer speculation and does not account for the whole of the issue. If you were to ask why God does not force Dawkins into believing in Him by manipulating Dawkins’ mind, then I would feel safe in replying that such an act would deprive us of free will. Even miraculous revelation requires free acceptance.

Do you guys just sign up on this forum to abuse Christians, by the way? Seems sort of petty to me.

 

[AntiTheist]

Like I said, if God revealed himself completely to us we would still have free will- nothing can take that away once God has granted it. It’s just that we would only have one chance to choose God, like the angels did, who were created with perfect knowledge of God. Humanity is all about second chances, repentance, redemption, etc.

I’m not following. If god revealed himself to everyone on earth right now, I would have the rest of my life to decide whether to worship him or not. I could start worshipping him and then reject him and then later in life repent and worship him again. Or the other way around. It would be exactly the same as now, except with one key difference: everyone would know that we’re dealing with an entity that actually exists, and we could talk about reasons for worshipping and not worshipping this being. It would change the stakes of the whole debate.

How do you know that God hasn’t extended the offer to Dawkins and that he just dismissed it?

No, I’m not talking about a warm fuzzy feeling in your stomach that you could interpret as god.

I’m talking about god announcing to the entire earth, in no uncertain terms, that he exists. He could announce it to every person in the language primarily understood by each person, and he could even provide a brief window of opportunity for each person to ask a question or two that could later be confirmed by checking against the physical world, just to make sure that we know it’s not a mass delusion or something like that.

If that happened, it would not only be front page news and the defining event of this or any other era – it would make it literally impossible to be an atheist.

Why wouldn’t this god character do something like that? As you yourself admit, it wouldn’t take away anybody’s free will, and as I pointed out, it would radically raise the stakes of the debate.

If you were a supernatural being with unlimited power – and thus capable of doing something like that – why wouldn’t you do something like that, assuming that you actually want everyone to believe in you?

The most sensible explanation is that this god character doesn’t do it because there is no god.

 

[atman]

I’m not following. If god revealed himself to everyone on earth right now, I would have the rest of my life to decide whether to worship him or not. I could start worshipping him and then reject him and then later in life repent and worship him again. Or the other way around. It would be exactly the same as now, except with one key difference: everyone would know that we’re dealing with an entity that actually exists, and we could talk about reasons for worshipping and not worshipping this being. It would change the stakes of the whole debate.

No, I’m not talking about a warm fuzzy feeling in your stomach that you could interpret as god.

I’m talking about god announcing to the entire earth, in no uncertain terms, that he exists. He could announce it to every person in the language primarily understood by each person, and he could even provide a brief window of opportunity for each person to ask a question or two that could later be confirmed by checking against the physical world, just to make sure that we know it’s not a mass delusion or something like that.

If that happened, it would not only be front page news and the defining event of this or any other era – it would make it literally impossible to be an atheist.

Why wouldn’t this god character do something like that? As you yourself admit, it wouldn’t take away anybody’s free will, and as I pointed out, it would radically raise the stakes of the debate.

If you were a supernatural being with unlimited power – and thus capable of doing something like that – why wouldn’t you do something like that, assuming that you actually want everyone to believe in you?

The most sensible explanation is that this god character doesn’t do it because there is no god.

AntiTheist, plenty of people see things and then disbelieve them. They can be dismissed as illusions, or psychosis, or faulty memory, but the seen can be disbelieved. You behave as if this were not so, yet not everyone accepts that revealed to them. Luke K was talking about a definite revelation that could be dismissed out of refusal to know the truth.

Also, Catholics believe God reveals Himself to us all using our natural reason!! We may abuse it to reject this, but our reason is still “wired for God.”

You would like for God to force everybody to believe in Him. To do this He would need to impose knowledge on minds unwilling to know. This would defy free will.

 

[Luke_K]

I’m not following. If god revealed himself to everyone on earth right now, I would have the rest of my life to decide whether to worship him or not. I could start worshipping him and then reject him and then later in life repent and worship him again. Or the other way around. It would be exactly the same as now, except with one key difference: everyone would know that we’re dealing with an entity that actually exists, and we could talk about reasons for worshipping and not worshipping this being. It would change the stakes of the whole debate.

I must warn that I’m exercising personal interpretation here a bit, but what I’m trying to get across is that if God gave us perfect knowledge and perfect faculties to understand who He is and what He means to us, there can be no going back once you make a decision about him. How could you change your mind if you already knew everything there is to know about the decision and had the perfect capability to make the decision without bias or coercion? This is what happens to us when we die. At that point we either hate God with our entire being or love him with our entire being.

The more we know, the higher the stakes:

“That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” Luke 12:47-48

Ultimately, God has given each of us sufficient knowledge in our intellect (or in other words, created us in His image) in order to make any act of will one that is freely chosen and with consequences. The only reason forgiveness and conversion are possible is because of Jesus’ unifying incarnation of God and man.

If God does not reveal himself more to us, it may be because it would only drive us further away from him. An analogy is a pretty girl that comes on too strong. At least for me, if a random girl came up to me and told me she loved me and tried making out with me, even if she and I would actually work really well together, I would be put off by it. I wouldn’t be ready for that kind of commitment right away.

Taking this analogy one step further, if this pretty girl told me everything about herself- all her annoying tendencies, her gross body quirks, her weird family- I would be put off even further. I wouldn’t have grown in a relationship with her enough to understand that she is still worth loving even when she’s less than desirable to my tastes.

Of course, as with any analogy, this one has limitations. God is perfect, unlike this girl. God is also my only source of happiness and the sole goal of my existence, and this girl isn’t.

But, like this girl should have done, God reveals Himself to us gradually in order to make us ready for certain truths about him. No one who begins their relationship with God is ready to understand how much the slightest sin hurts Him, how much we must submit ourselves to Him in order to be happy, or how far we are from where He wants us to be.

The first step is to learn humility. God revealing himself to us in the fashion you propose is pointless unless we have humility first, because humility is required in order to love God- to approach him in the fashion required of us. Unless you accept the kingdom of God like a child, you will spend the rest of your life outside the gates, wondering why or how anyone can believe.

 

[Mersenne]

I don’t think you have my cause-effect relationship sorted through. Because Christianity causes people to be more charitable, we have a larger base of charitable organisations than any secular agency can claim.

You’re confusing propositional logic with cause and effect. I’m asking you to show how you get from your facts

“Catholics have more charitable organizations than any secular agency”

to the conclusion

“Catholics are more charitable”

all you’ve proven so far is that Catholicism is large. Your logic is like saying “Christianity has more men then any other religion, therefore Christianity causes people to be male”

Ah, then we mean very different things by the word “charity.” When I use the word, I am referring to love, a will of the good directed towards the beloved. Since eternal happiness is the highest conceivable good of man, to love a man would seem to entail a will of his eternal happiness.

Ah, then we mean very different things by the word “charity.” When I use the word, I am referring to love, a will of the good directed towards the beloved. Since eternal happiness is the highest conceivable good of man, to love a man would seem to entail a will of his eternal happiness.

Right, when I say charity I mean real charity. When you say charity you mean charity in your imaginary world.

No, I believe ultimately something is “right” or “wrong” because it directs us to God. Since child molestation is contrary to this end as revealed by natural law (which is implanted in us by God), He would never demand child molestation of us. I’d see a doctor, too.

The binding of Isaac directly contradicts that notion. If you wouldn’t molest your kids on god’s command, then you don’t believe in the god of the bible.

a.) Simply because many Catholics do not grasp Catholicism does not invalidate it. Most people who draw do not know the fundamentals of artistic rendering, either.

If someone’s entire worldview revolved around artistic rendering and they believed artistic rendering was the key to eternal life and happiness and the avoidance of eternal pain forever, and they didn’t know the fundamentals of artistic rendering, I would wonder very much about them and the organization that was teaching them this stuff every week.

b.) We can have it both ways on faith vs. knowledge: we have evidence of the authority of the Church and therefore can be certain in our faith to her teachings, though we have not evidence to support any given claim of hers. This is why we lose faith entirely if we cease to believe in a single dogma: faith is dependent upon the recognition of the authority of the Church.

We’re not talking about “any given claim of hers” we’re talking about any basis for her legitimacy at all. You can not go both ways on that.

 

[Mersenne]

The universe cannot be its own purpose because its parts are being moved constantly towards some actuality.

This is not true if you consider all space and time as a whole. And you are again violating Occam’s razor by saying it must be god who is this non-contingent entity. You could just say “some non-contingent entity caused the universe”

I am not trying to make a point in a vacuum. When given two possible explanations by authorities, I generally tend towards the more nuanced and complicated answer. That’s all.

So if presented with

a) terrorists blew up the world trade center

b) Bush blew up the world trade center

c) invisible hamsters blew up the world trade center

you would go with C? And it’s just that kind of reasoning that unfortunately causes too many people to chose B. Religious thinking is unhealthy.

You don’t undo any argument by uttering “special pleading,”

You do if the argument is a really obvious example of special pleading.

by which I suppose you mean us theists making an exception to a premise such as “all that is is caused by something else that is.” Sane theologians, however, do not have such premises. They have premises like “whatever comes into existence derives its existence from some cause.” Since God is that which does not come into existence, your argument does not hold.

Your first example is “the first cause argument” you think only insane people would use it but you just used it in your last post so… And in your second premise you’re pulling out something that’s weird and not really either of the arguments you were talking about, and doesn’t really make any sense as it’s not really established that things come into existence and if they did they would only do so once and you have no basis by which to say things do or do not come into existence. That’s why many philosophers go by cause, but of course, you want to ignore that fact, because I managed to kill that whole argument with two words. If your greatest theologians can’t stand up against 6 year olds asking irritating questions then your religion doesn’t hold much water.

Do you guys just sign up on this forum to abuse Christians, by the way? Seems sort of petty to me.

No. If I felt the need to hurt Catholics I’d just jump behind a couple proxies and spam gory porn or something as some rude people have done in the past. My intention isn’t to hurt anyone, and I don’t think I’ve said anything like “Catholics are all stupid” I certainly don’t believe that. I think belief in Catholicism is irrational, but everyone has a lot of irrational beliefs.

 

[dnar]

When you tally up the followers of other religions, Christianity is a minority. Anyways, how does popularity validate a truth claim? That’s just bad logic.

Faith/belief is assenting to what others have stated. I believe the speed of light is 186,000 miles/hr because many experts, over the years, have proved this claim by experimentation. I could probably perform a quick & dirty home experiment to verify this, but I trust this experts.

In the same way, religious faith, handed down from the experts, and is assented to.

Or not.

Either way, the physical evidence for God seems to be lacking.

Light travels at 186,000 miles/sec, not /hr. I had to point this out, because I couldn’t let this go.