|
Author
|
Topic: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? Part II
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
Message 66 of 171 (250525)
10-10-2005 5:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 64 by Legend
10-10-2005 5:33 PM
|
|
Re: The Purple Candle
No wonder it takes so long for me to get to sleep at night with God (good inclination), Satan (evil inclination), and Jiminy Cricket (Conscience) in my head all vying for my attention! To many personifications. 
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 64 by Legend, posted 10-10-2005 5:33 PM | | Legend has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Not Literal Communication
quote:
Why do you all even care what I think if you already know the answers?
Because it is difficult to understand your point without knowing what you think. Now I understand. I disagree, but I understand.
quote:
Now take this passage and note that the lamb (Christ) was slain from the beginning of the world. Certainly, if Abel (who is considered a pre-figuring of Christ) still speaks to us even though he is dead, then I'd say the Lamb, who is considered Christ (who was slain from the beginning and yet is alive) speaks to us eternally.
This is not literal communication. The story of Cain and Abel is meant to teach and therefore would "speak" through the ages, but not literally and not to everyone or every timeframe simultaneously. The actual teachings of Jesus could "speak" through the ages, but not literally and not to everyone or every timeframe simultaneously. The prefiguring concept is tradition and IMO, not Biblical.
quote:
Psalms...Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge. ...
The Psalms are songs or poems. Again these passages are not speaking of literal communication. The sky does not speak human language.
quote:
Are they held responsible for this knowledge?
What knowledge do you feel Paul is talking about? IMO, he talking about the knowledge that the Jewish God is real and the other Gods are not.
quote:
In short, he's revealing himself omni-presently -- and he's talking to everyone who ever existed, exists, or ever will exist -- right now at this moment as we speak.
These passages speak of nature or that which is created as examples of God's divine power and eternal quality, not literal communication over several timeframes at once. Nature may be there for all generations to see, but only year by year. I always found it fascinating that Christianity, in general, views nature as God's example of his eternal power and divine nature and yet they strive to overpower or conquer it. Take care
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Impasse Again
As usual we have reached a discussion impasse. Mainly because you seem to have difficulty separating the discussion from what you think of my beliefs or lack there of.
quote:
Question 1) Do you understand what I'm saying purpledawn?
Whether you believe it or not, I do understand what you are saying, you just seem to have difficulty continuing the discussion with me when alternate thoughts are presented.
quote:
Question 2} If raw evidence of his existence does not guarantee belief in him, then why on earth would he, an apparently all-loving God, chose to make things all the more difficult by hiding from those he loves?
I've already told you I can't answer WHY, but that the teaching is out there and I showed you that the teachings are out there. It is not my teaching. Personally, I think the teaching is an excuse for why there is no scientific evidence for the Christian God. Mystery keeps preachers in business.
quote:
It should have said, "It could also mean that God's grace is sufficient to carry you through whatever doubts you might have."
Thank you for correcting your typo.
quote:
Question 3) How can this God you've presented here be reconciled with a loving God who is aware of everything and apparently desires all people to be saved and come to a knoweldge of the truth?
Sounds like a question that crashfrog has asked. I haven't presented any God. The God presented in the Christian Bible is all there is for this discussion.
quote:
Question 4) Why would God want to hide this information from Abraham?
I feel the Lord's question was a rhetorical question.
quote:
Question 5) Why is God hiding here -- and who is he protecting by doing so?
God "hiding his face" is different than concealing evidence of himself. Hiding his face is like punishment. It is roughly like giving someone the silent treatment.
quote:
Question 6) Why is God hiding others?
Because he wants to. I don't see how this has anything to do with the topic.
quote:
Question 7) Again, why is God hiding here?
Silent treatment again.
quote:
The questions I've asked you were specifically asked so as to get you thinking about the assumptions your making in stating that it's reasobale for an all-loving God to hide himself in order to generate faith in himself.
And what you keep missing is that I haven't claimed that it is reasonable for any god to hide himself in order to generate faith. I've said those teachings are presented by Jews and Christians and showed you examples.
quote:
I think in the back of your mind you've always felt that religion was invented by man -- and that God only existed in the mind. If I'm correct, then I can assure that the candle will not light.
So faith (belief without proof) is necessary before proof or evidence is provided.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Impasse Again
quote:
Lack of faith indicates lack of trusting the God who is already revealed on the most basic level through nature, a God who's nature and message is self-evident in the very things he has created.
Stick with this thought and don't deviate. I am talking about the Christian God from here on. We are to trust God because of what he has already revealed through nature which he created and what he has created reveals his nature. Please describe the nature of the Christian God and what has the natural world revealed that supports that description?
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Impasse Again
quote:
purpledawn writes: Please describe the nature of the Christian God and what has the natural world revealed that supports that description?
I've already gone through and talked about these things in the previous thread.
Actually you haven't. You avoided it there also. This statement to Legend in Message 102 of the other thread sums up your responses concerning nature:
Mr. Nihilo writes: 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). Although the tense has changed from the OP (is willing to was willing). The OT covers the past, but it doesn't explain today. The full statement by Crashfrog in Message 49 of the thread that sparked you to start this one, speaks of testing revelation and you told him to use the scientific method.
crashfrog writes: How can revelation be accessible to the scientific method? How would you tell the difference between genuine lies and a revelation from a God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? There is no way. There's simply no way to test for revelation; there's no possible way to distinguish between genuine revelation and a sufficiently compelling lie. The big problem with both of these threads is that you are arguing about a Judeo-Christian teaching that you apparently had never heard before.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes: Actually, I've never heard anyone who beleives in the Judeo-Christian God claim that "God is determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence." crashfrog writes: The claim is that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated, because to do so would eliminate the need for faith. In Message 39 I said: Now whether the evangelists or apologist who have preached that God conceals himself to generate faith are Biblically supported, I don't know. Didn't think about it at the time. But crashfrog is right in that those teachings are out there. If you feel that those teachings are incorrect then correct their error reasonably. IOW, if you want to argue that their teachings are incorrect or not Biblically supported, then approach it from that direction. All you've actually said in all your copious verbage is that you feel God provides (present tense) ample proof or evidence of his existence to all people but you don't wish to share that proof because you don't wish to discuss its validity. How can you show that their teachings are false or inaccurate if we are not allowed to discuss the validity of your evidence against theirs? Also crashfrog said scientifically substantiated, which is different than voices in your head or feelings from nature. I don't think you are claiming ample scientifcally substantiated proof, are you? You have shown that the Bible speaks of God's physical exploits, but those are all in the past. The teachings, IMO, have been generated in an effort to answer these types of questions: Why doesn't God show himself today as he did in the Bible? Why doesn't God make himself known physically today? Why doesn't God allow scientist to verify his existence? How do the Catholics answer those questions?
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Impasse Again
Unfortunately what you wrote to Ben and Legend does not address my post. None of those comparisons deal with why you disagree with the Christian teaching that today God does not allow proof or evidence of his existence to generate faith (belief wihout proof). You've already made it clear that you do not want to discuss whether God actually does provide proof or evidence that can be scientifically substantiated today. So are you arguing against the teaching or whether the teaching actually exists?
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Impasse Again
quote:
As far as I can determine, this teaching is not in the Scriptures
On this one point we agree. The scriptures do not seem to support the idea that God conceals himself from scientific methods of confirmation for the purpose of generating faith (belief without proof) in Himself. However, I still do not agree that God allows his existence to be scientifically substantiated by mankind in the present day. If he did we wouldn't be having this discussion. I agree that the scriptures describe past episodes of objective observation, I agree that many religions have similar thoughts concerning God, but that doesn't speak for today. Today we are only presented with personal revelations, which are not open to objective observation and not necessarily provided to all people. Since you feel this thread i only on theory a speculation, there really isn't any more to discuss. Shalom
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Impasse Again
quote:
purpledawn writes: However, I still do not agree that God allows his existence to be scientifically substantiated by mankind in the present day. Why would it be different in our modern day?
Because it is different today. And I stated in the first thread and the beginning of this one, that until we get into a dealing with real evidence, there is no more discussion.
quote:
purpledawn writes: Since you feel this thread is only on theory and speculation, there really isn't any more to discuss. I thought I had made that clear from the beginning purpledawn.
I don't feel that you did.
quote:
If you wish to move this debate into the arena of validating evidence, then let's continue it here.
Been waiting!
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Present Day
The ball is in your court. You feel that God does allow scientifically substantiated evidence of his existence today. What is that evidence and how has science substantiated it as evidence of a divine being?
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Present Day
I do not understand the question. The Judeo-Christian what?
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Present Day
In Message 103 I stated: I agree that the scriptures describe past episodes of objective observation, I agree that many religions have similar thoughts concerning God, but that doesn't speak for today.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Present Day
This is why our discussions run amuck. The assumption for this thread is that God EXISTS. You are supposed to be showing me that he allows his existence to be scientifically substantiated today. I'm not part of other cultures. I am part of a culture that has scientific methods. How is God allowing his existence be substantiated by those methods to my culture?
quote:
How did they figure this out?
Don't ask these types of questions, since you gave nothing specific and therefore there is no way for me to answer the question. They take the discussion in the wrong direction.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Present Day
quote:
I thought the assumption was that God exists, but that it was debatable whether he could be scientifically substantiated today?
This is another reason our discussions run amuck. You keep changing the view. Assumption 1: God exists! Period My position: God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today. Your position supposedly: God allows ample evidence of his existence today. Whether you feel that this evidence you have can be scientifically substantiated, I don't know. You haven't really made that clear yet.
quote:
Then one has to reasonably ask why this culture "apparently" doesn't see God before one can proceed to the question of whether God can be scientifically substantiated, correct?
Actually I think it would be the other way around. But notice that you are changing again. We are not discussing whether God's existence can be scientifically substantiated or not. I say he does not allow it, you supposedly say he does. From my viewpoint if God wanted his existence to be scientifically substantiated, then it would be.
quote:
But these questions are very important for this discussion -- because they will take us back to God again.
If you feel that the process these other cultures used to discern God is important, then tell how they came to their conclusions and how that relates to your position, don't ask me.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Present Day
You are going backwards. Don't lose the progress we have made.
quote:
Yes, but the question in regards to God's assumed existence has been "Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?" right from the beginning.
Assumption: God Exists. Period. The question is what is being debated, not God's existence. Don't confuse the two.
quote:
Consequently, if you're desiring me to flow down one scientific discipline to prove God exists (and if this is the reason you say I'm "changing the view" in this thread), then you will do well to remember that the fact of evolution relies on the convergence of around 5 different scientific disciplines in order to understand the fullness of its mechanisms -- and even then there is still much more to understand.
I'm not really sure what you are saying here, but remember that you are not trying to prove that God exists.
quote:
No. Your position was that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today -- because -- him doing so would eliminate the need for faith.
My position: God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today. To eliminate the need for faith was a teaching that Crashfrog had brought up and I have already said that I DO NOT feel that it is a valid teaching based on the Bible. Why God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated is an unknown and not part of the debate.
quote:
This question has since been expanded to "What evidence would be considered valid evidence of his existence."
This is another one of those questions that serves no purpose. I can't tell you what would be considered valid evidence since I don't know all the possibilities. But it needs to be SSE of a supreme being.
purpledawn writes: NOTE: From now on when I use the acronym SSE I mean scientifically substantiated evidence. I'm tired of typing it. quote:
Although my own experience has been very personal, I do believe that the evidence for others to believe is also, in my opinion, anthropological, astronomical, biological, historical, geographical, psychological, theological and spiritual.
This SSE is what you need to provide. Which I would suggest one thing at a time if you have several.
quote:
Yes. That is my position -- that God provides ample evidence TODAY.
quote:
purpedawn writes: Whether you feel that this evidence you have can be scientifically substantiated, I don't know. You haven't really made that clear yet. Yes. I do.
quote:
I've already started into this realm with you by introducing you to the initial rejection of the "atomistic" concept of nature -- something that could be readilly grasped even in ancient times -- even if the fullness of this idea was not fully understood at first.
Remember I'm not a scientist. Refer me back to the post that explained this if I didn't answer it.
quote:
The first stage of any scienctific inquiry usually arises from the initial observation which then leads you to test further.
Correct, the dogs were reacting to something we weren't. I can't tell you why I can't see something until you tell me what is there that you supposedly can see that I can't. Then we can work on why I can't see it.
quote:
I'm asking you because I want to know what you think.
Apparently you are missing the point that I can't tell you what I think about a culture I know nothing about.
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Time for Evidence
quote:
You believe that God does not allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today, correct?
Leave the believe part out.
quote:
I say that God does allow his existence to be scientifically substantiated today, correct?
Correct.
quote:
Are we moving toward the direction of providing this supposed evidence or not?
When you are ready.
quote:
If so, I'm currently doing that -- moving toward the direction of providing this supposed evidence.
Supposed?
quote:
Again, many Christians see this as evidence that the Judeo-Christian God has been actively speaking to them in some way.
What is the SSE part of this evidence?
quote:
I'm saying that the important qualities of God can be validated scientifically, but many simply choose to disbelieve.
Then show me those qualities that have been scientifically substantiated and how. This message has been edited by purpledawn, 10-19-2005 05:29 PM
"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
™ Version 4.2