Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?

Jar, you are starting to sound like a pantheist!To wit: That is why I always let spirituality superced my logic, instead of the other way around!

You might, but you'd be wrong.I do believe in the Biblical God, but I also realize that what we can comprehend is but a caricature, a sub-set of the real thing.Please remember, the Bible is but a poorly drawn map, much faded and many times copied, and the Map is not the Territory.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar So the god you are referencing to in you view is one that defies explanation for the reason that any attempt to concieve and define god limits the properties of this actual god?

If I am correctly understanding what your saying (remember I'm old and slow so if I'm wrong, just bear with me and I'll try again) that not it exactly.Let me try a different tack and see if this makes any more sense.Let's define green.There are several paths I could take. I could start with white light and then selectively filter out wavelengths until I got what I wanted.Or I could start with pigments and combine the pigments until I got what I wanted.Using either method I could get something that could be projected onto a wall or painted onto a canvas. You could then compare the two, one the result of subtracting colors, one the result of adding colors and we couold even get a large percentage of people to agree that they were the same color.Others might wander out into the fields and find leaves that when held up against the two samples were recognizably the same.But have we defined GREEN?Not exactly. What we find is that some people look at the leaves they found and they are not exactly the same as the samples. But they are GREEN. One observer notes that yet another observer is wearing pants that are GREEN, yet a far different hue. Someone brushes against the table holding the projector and the GREEN changes slightly, still GREEN but no longer the same as the painted green.Then people notice that the feel of each sample changes based on the underlying substructure, the same green on canvass looks subtly different than when painted on boardstock or plaster.Even a child quickly learns that terms like GREEN can be a specific, "Point at the Green Grass?" or but a subset of a much larger set, things that are green.How many different greens are there? Are they all GREEN?You said: We cannot limit the properties of GOD. We are though limited by language, knowledge and capabilities from being able to define GOD. We just don't know enough, have a language suited for the task or have the capabilitites to even recognize all the attributes of GOD.Right now the best we can do when we reach such limits is to say, "I just don't know the answer yet." Perhaps someday we will be able to do so but not at our current level of understanding, capabilities or within the constraints of any known language (including math).

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar This is closer to what I meant. Our language is limited and whatever description we use would fall short of the proper desription of the qualities that encompass god..

Then yes, I pretty much agree with that statement.It is we who are limited.That does not mean we will always be so limited, just as one day we will understand the relationship between gravity and the other forces, and branes and abiogenesis and many things we have not even considered yet.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar Ah but is that not the rub? The troubles of life are resident with those who are certain.Only the young know everything .I concede that we are limited though I take the stance to the side that IMO the universe is a state of rule by interaction not by control of a deity.I mentioned this to Phatboy earlier that you and he remind me of the author Martin Gardiner.I remembered an ariticle in skeptical inquirer at this site. Page not found | Skeptical InquirerPhatboy strikes me as a believer who believes as Gardiner does for a comfort.You strike me as one who has thought long on the subject and tossed the ideas over enough to seperate thew chaff from the wheat.
Please read the article and let me know what you think.This message has been edited by sidelined, Fri, 2005-05-20 07:10 PM

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

quote:

---

Like I said before, if one were to look at nature couldn't one conclude that it is very orderly to the point of being mathematically precise?

---

Not by LOOKING at nature.

quote:

---

Similarly, if one were to look at nature couldn't one conclude that things apparently work in triune:

---

I guess you have a different idea of visible nature than I do. I've never seen these in nature: Sine, Cosine & TangeantI see nature working in pairs. Life/Death, male/female, light/dark, etc.I also see nature working in large groups: herds, schools of fish, flocks, trees full of seeds, etc.I don't see nature working in threes.

quote:

---

Are these not all qualities, characteristics, and intentions which are very consistent with the Judeo-Christian concept of God?

---

But none of the things you listed are visible in nature.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

I don't know if I can separate the chaff from the wheat although that is certainly what we need to do. I have thought long and hard about religion, GOD and mankind though. Okay. IMHO if GOD exists, all he would want either of us to do is to keep looking, keep searching, keep learning. You and I are both looking for the same things. In fact, it's likely that the only differences might be you saying "Oh, that's what happened!" while I would say, "Oh, that's how GOD did it."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, I'll just quote some Scripture to make it simple. I'll also try to limit the words as well. Faith, could you please explain this passage in Scripture, because, in my view anyway, this totally contradicts your statement, "The scriptures are the only source of knowledge of the specific character of the Judeo-Christian God, His attributes, His character, His personality, His intentions."It seems to me that this passage is clearly saying that, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."Nowhere does the writer of these passages qualify this ability to "clearly see" God only with reference to the Scriptures. In other words, although the Scriptures point out that God be "understood from what has been made", it never says that you need the Scriptures to see this evidence.Another example of this can be seen in the Psalms: Again, the Scriptures themselves testify to that fact that the heavens (which were created by God) testifies to God's existence. But nowhere do these passages say that one requires the Scriptures to see this or understand it.Are these passages not talking about the Christian God? Do the Scriptures not describe God with the analogy of light?As Pat Robertson notes, light can be divided into three primary colors; yet light is one. Light can be divided into three primary colors; yet light is one. A prism will reveal the individual colors separately that are unique yet unified.I generally do not agree with Pat Robertson on some of the finer issues of Christian theology (and there are some issues where we would be in sharp disagreement), yet perhaps it could be agreed that the Scriptures are like the spiritual prism that renders the triune nature of God more cearly.Or maybe nature itself, as designed by God, reveals this exact same fact when light passes through water and naturally reveals the individual colors separately that are unique yet unified -- provided one is paying careful attention.How many other world religions have concluded that God is light but have failed to see the triune nature of the primary colors of light?Likewise, why does the apostle Paul use an analogy of planting a seed to derive a "word picture" for the resurrected bodies of believers -- especially if nature cannot reveal anything specific about Christian doctrines? For that matter, many Christians have noted that the Resurrection of Christ did not happen around Springtime by "accident". Many believe that God specifically chose Springtime for Christ's raising from the dead because it was evident in nature itself that life returns after a period of death and decay.In other words, Springtime itself testifies to the Ressurection -- and God may have even specifically designed the cycles of the seasons to convey this universal message that is so central to the Gospels. The fact that Legend is unwilling to ackowledge this doesn't surprise me. But the fact that you're arguing against this does surprise me quite a bit.One thing in particluar that caught my attention was the following: Well yes, I think he probably knew the Scriptures quite well. But this misses the point I think. If he was able to derive an epiphany about God in the overwhelming greatness of the blossoming of a tree in the Springtime, it was because the Holy Spirt was at work in his heart.In other words, he didn't "figure it out" by pure reasoning -- he was led by the Holy Spirit to do so -- just like ANYONE ELSE who can see analogies of the Christian God in nature.Legend's arguments persistently lean in the direction of requesting evidence in nature that points to God -- which misses the point, because all I'm trying to determine is whether God was willing to allow proof of his existence (not whether the evidence itself is valid or not).Coming back to the point, despite claims to the contrary, nature does actually provide an anology for the covenant relationships that God uses with man. In one case, God actually uses the man/nature analogy to display this.For example: Within this analogy, the writer (who is speaking by the Holy Spirit) clearly displays an anology of the ingrafted branches as being represetntative of God's covenant relationship with the Jews and the Gentiles.Certainly, it seems to me anyway, that this would be something that would be an example of God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - which has been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.Would it not? Yes, actually I am. Though I don't necessarilly agree with all things within his publications, I find many of his publications very insightful and thought-provoking. I've read about some of his encounters, yes. They're quite fascinating.One of his readings in particular that I found very interesting was his research into Teilhard.But I digress.Note: there's been many edits to this message, mostly typographical but some for the purpose of clarifying certain issues.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-21-2005 08:45 AM

That's basically my thoughts on the matter too.

I didn't say there there were other Supreme Gods -- there's only one True God in Three Persons as far I'm concerned. Besides that, I already agreed with Faith that even if other "gods" are mentioned, then they are to be understood as false gods when compared to the Supreme God who alone is self-existent, eternal, and not created.The point of noting henotheism is that there are many ancient religions (which seem to be either a kind of primitive monotheism or else a form of henotheism) where there is a Supreme God who alone is self-existent, eternal, and not created yet surrouned by a pantheon of lesser "created deities" all owing their existence to the Supreme God.Even the angels within the celestial heirarchy of God have lesser functions which some would constitute as quasi-divine even though they all owe their existence to God -- and some angels are fallen and have 'proclaimed themselves' as 'gods'. Exactly. However, these so-called gods may have a "real existence" if they are fallen angels as many Christians note. I don't beleive that Christians "pray" to these entities -- but it does mean that "evidence" of their existence could be discerned from the Scriptures. *sigh*Nevermind. I going to repeat this several times so that you grasp this. Once again, your arguments persistently lean in the direction of requesting evidence in nature that points to God -- which misses the point, because all I'm trying to determine is whether God was willing to allow proof of his existence (not whether the evidence itself is valid or not). Once again, your arguments persistently lean in the direction of requesting evidence in nature that points to God -- which misses the point, because all I'm trying to determine is whether God was willing to allow proof of his existence (not whether the evidence itself is valid or not). Once again, your arguments persistently lean in the direction of requesting evidence in nature that points to God -- which misses the point, because all I'm trying to determine is whether God was willing to allow proof of his existence (not whether the evidence itself is valid or not). Once again, your arguments persistently lean in the direction of requesting evidence in nature that points to God -- which misses the point, because all I'm trying to determine is whether God was willing to allow proof of his existence (not whether the evidence itself is valid or not). Once again, your arguments persistently lean in the direction of requesting evidence in nature that points to God -- which misses the point, because all I'm trying to determine is whether God was willing to allow proof of his existence (not whether the evidence itself is valid or not). Then you're going to be waiting a while.Actually, why don't you take a walk outside today and look around for yourself? Or, maybe you cold spend time with your family or friends and ask them what they think about God.Seriously.When I see two children playing and sharing ice-cream and smiling, I see God -- whether they believe in God or not.When I see a fireman risking his life to save a total stranger, I see God -- whether they believe in God or not.When I see a person taking the time visit an lonely child in an orphanage or an elderly person in a retirement home, I see God -- whether they believe in God or not.When I see two people getting married and trying their hardest to raise children in a crazy, mixed up world, I see God -- whether they believe in God or not.Where do you see God?Edit: corrected spelling.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-21-2005 06:40 AM

quote:

---

Well...you seemed to have dropped the "Pink Parrot" part of Pepe.

---

Us faithful can call him just Pepe. The rest of you heathen still have to use His full name!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

your OP is:

quote:

---

Do you think God is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence -- or do you think that God is determined to allow ample proof or evidence of his existence?

---

I've said that if you apply this question to the Judeo-Christian God, you're forcing the answer to be positive, because (Message 38).. I've also said in Message 42
you counter-argument was summed up in Message 44: So, the question that I've been asking all along is:

quote:

---

Show me evidence -outside the scriptures- that indicates the Christian God is determined to allow proof of his existence.

​

Not evidence of *a* god, but evidence of *the Christian God*.

---

SO far, you've pointed to the existence of a generic sky god that is believed in by different people and is hinted at by looking at creation. This is fine, but doesn't address my point.By quoting scriptures, you're just reinforcing my argument, which is (once more):The answer to your OP can only be positive when applied to the Judeo-Christian God, because you have to analyse the Bible to come to a conclusion and -in doing so- you've already accepted that the Judeo-Christian God has allowed ample evidence of his existence to be provided.P.S There would be a lot more scope if your OP was referring to a generic, benevolent God.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

Once again, your arguments persistently lean in the direction of requesting evidence in nature that points to God -- which misses the point, because all I'm trying to determine is whether God was willing to allow proof of his existence (not whether the evidence itself is valid or not).

---

We are not asking you to prove the evidence is valid (which we really can't do in this forum), but we are asking that you be specific on what the evidence is. All you did was ask questions.

quote:

---

So, if one were to look at nature one couldn't conclude that it is very orderly to the point of being mathematically precise?

---

So if we agree that nature is orderly then you say we can conclude that God's character (who made nature) is also very precise and that is evidence that God left for us.But if I don't agree that nature is orderly, you won't explain how nature is supposedly orderly.Example: Legend and I are looking for shapes in the clouds and I see one and say it looks like a frog. I point out the cloud and Legend can't see the shape of the frog.He says, "How do you see a frog?"I explain to him where I see the legs, the eyes, etc. Legend tilts his head and squints his eyes, but still shakes his head."Nope" he says, "I still don't see a frog."Just because Legend didn't see the shape of a frog doesn't mean that what I saw was wrong, but I could explain to him how I saw a frog.So how or where do you SEE mathematical precision in nature?

quote:

---

Likewise, if one were to look at nature one couldn't conclude that it also allows much bloodshed in order to bring about painful reconcilliations?

---

Again, where do you SEE nature allowing bloodshed in order to bring about painful reconcilliations?Your examples of where you see God shows that you see evidence of God's character within the actions of humanity.

quote:

---

When I see two children playing and sharing ice-cream and smiling, I see God -- whether they believe in God or not.

​

When I see a fireman risking his life to save a total stranger, I see God -- whether they believe in God or not.

​

When I see a person taking the time visit an lonely child in an orphanage or an elderly person in a retirement home, I see God -- whether they believe in God or not.

​

When I see two people getting married and trying their hardest to raise children in a crazy, mixed up world, I see God -- whether they believe in God or not.

---

But how do you SEE evidence of God's character in nature?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France