Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? Part II
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 78 of 171 (251197)
10-12-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-12-2005 3:28 PM


Re: Impasse Again
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.
Evidence depends on interpretation. The same data can be consistent with multiple theories, multiple perspectives. For God to be "self-evident from the very things he has created", it has to be clear that he, and only he could have created them.
Why are there other explanations of the origins of life out there that aren't "self-evidently" false? How can this be resolved with the "self-evident" nature of God that you describe?
I care because what you see as self-evident doesn't feel self-evident to me. If it was self-evident, I would be a believer. I grew up trying to believe. I also grew up romping through the woods.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-12-2005 3:28 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-13-2005 1:51 AM Ben! has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 92 of 171 (251381)
10-13-2005 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-13-2005 1:51 AM


Re: Impasse Again
Mr. Ex,
Thanks for the reply. I'll do my best to answer the questions, but ... generally I don't ask questions if I have an answer to them, so I'm afraid the answers aren't going to be very informative. But first, to ask about your comments (and sorry to add more work to your plate).
Mr. Ex writes:
Ben writes:
he has created", it has to be clear that he, and only he could have created them.
That's not true.
There can be other factors which are obscuring the truth insofar that the evidence essentially blends into the static of the background noise.
Carefully separating the background noise so as to render a more perfect perception reveals the truth of the situation.
I see. I took "self-evident" to mean "accessible without thorough examination", "screaming out to you clearly", or one particular sense of the word "obvious". Your comment makes me realize this was an assumption. I just want to confirm; "self-evident" simply means there's one clear, true answer that can be found. The level of analysis necessary may vary; in this case, we need to "carefully separate the background noise" before the "self-evident" nature becomes clear. I think I understand, but I want to double-check. And if I do understand, thanks for the clarification.
Ben writes:
Why are there other explanations of the origins of life out there that aren't "self-evidently" false?
My take? I have no idea. I don't really know God. I don't have faith in a God. So, the question really doesn't exist for me. I can't really speculate on a God that I don't know. It'd be like speculating why somebody's aunt Jane threw a cake at Uncle Bob at last year's family reunion. I have no idea of the dynamics of the personalities involved, I couldn't make a guess without feeling a good chance of slighting somebody.
If that sounds like a hedge or a dodge... sorry. I ask the question of you because you have a relationship with the God you're talking about. I don't have any answer, the relationship isn't there.
Ben writes:
How can this be resolved with the "self-evident" nature of God that you describe?
Well my intuition for an answer at this had to do with faith--that God wants faith, and this is a way to provide the ambiguity necessary for faith. But I thought you disagreed with that position, which is what precipitated my question.
A new guess about what you might think... maybe the two explanations for the origins of life are actually the same? Or maybe an explanation without God is necessarily incomplete?
Mr. Ex writes:
You've never experienced a mystical feeling about the woods you grew up around?
Honestly, not that I remember at all. The only memories I have of childhood is crying to sleep sometimes when imagining what "heaven" and "infinity" means, and going to church but feeling inadequate because no matter how loud I sang or how much I payed attention in "class" (CCD), I couldn't feel the love or find the faith that the teachers were telling us is there.
I honestly believe I tried, as much as you can expect a kid to try. I even was uncomfortable going through confirmation; even with the level of respect I had for my confirmation teacher, with whom I remain close still. Whatever it is that's supposed to be there inside me simply, I simply don't see.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-13-2005 1:51 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-13-2005 1:06 PM Ben! has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 101 of 171 (251770)
10-14-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-13-2005 1:06 PM


Re: Impasse Again
Hi Mr. Ex,
While I appreciate the time and effort you put into your reply, speaking honestly I think most of what you wrote addresses points you figured would be relevant. Thinking back to what you wrote (to purpledawn, I think), I think you said you're trying to antipate. It made your post hard to read for purpledawn, and it did the same thing for me. Or maybe it was Legend. I can't remember. Either way, shorter posts that directly address points and leave room for further clarification if necessary, that works better for me. Just to be up front.
Actually, your summary here is fairly accurate. In a sense I'm saying that when the Judeo-Christian faith is compared to other religions, it is self-evident that the Judeo-Christian is superior to other faiths.
Interesting point. What about all the hub-bub about floods, creation, baramins, etc? Even if with these things it's better, how does it compare to no religion necessary (science)? Seems not favorable to me. But I think this direction is OT, and not necessary to discuss my questions.
In other words, based on the law that is written into the hearts of all people, when one encounters the Judeo-Christian faith, the Holy Spirit should immediately confirm in their heart that they've come across the truth.
Then I'm wondering why this didn't happen to me? I encountered the faith, but I never felt anything like "the Holy sprit confirming in my heart that I've come across true faith." I honestly don't get what I've done "wrong."
When I say that God is self-evident in nature, I'm not necessarilly implying that things which can only be known by revelation are apparent in nature.
I'm saying that the basic attributes of God can be perceived -- such that he is the Creator and that he is involved in the direction of creation.
When I see a bush, I see a bush. When I see a fish, I see a fish. When I climb a tree, I see the things below me and above me. I simply don't see "God" in any of them, let alone more complex things like "creator", "direction", etc. I just see what's in front of me. Nothing more "pops out." Should it?
Emotions can be perceived in nature as well -- and the goodness of self-sacrifice is apparent too (since it increases a species' ability to be fruitful and multiply)
Maybe I'm talking at the wrong level. I'm expecting things to come out based on pure perception. Are you saying that if I sit at home and think about what I've seen, that is when I can see God in everything?
Right now, when I see a leaf, I see a leaf. Maybe I see that the leaf was part of a tree. Nothing really more. I really want to know what you see that I don't see. And I want to know if I can see what you can see and, if so, what it takes for me to get that ability too.
In this sense, there are many minor qualities and intentions of God that can be seen reflecting from his creation itself. As such, as the Romans passage stresses, people are basically without excuse for knowing God and doing his will (forgiving when something goes wrong).
But I don't see creation. I just see "what is." "What is" doesn't scream to me "creation." It's basically silent. I enjoy the silence of nature, that's why I often escape to natural places. It's quiet.
I hope my questions / thoughts don't frustrate you. You see something that I do not see. I can't figure out why. And I think you're telling me I should be able to see it. I want to see what you see. So I want to know why you see it, and why I don't. That's the purpose of my questions.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-13-2005 1:06 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-15-2005 2:18 AM Ben! has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 118 of 171 (253096)
10-19-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
10-15-2005 2:18 AM


Re: Impasse Again
Hi Mr. Ex,
Oops! I must have missed your reply on one of my "busy days." Sorry it took me so long to find it and reply.
Anyway, I think I understand what you're saying. In a "scientific" sense, it seems untestable; God is self-evident in things in the world, but only if God has "quickened" in you. But of course, once you accept God, God will be self-evident in thing in the world; that's part of accepting God, it seems to me. That doesn't mean what you say isn't "right" or isn't valuable; it just means my expectations were wrong. I thought I would be able to see the self-evidence of God while a non-believer.
That's why I was trying to ask about how Judeo-Christian explanations compare to simple naturalistic explanations of the world. You compared Judeo-Christian explanations to explanations given by other religions, but not naturalistic explanations. If naturalistic explanations are as good (or better) than Judeo-Christian explanations, then God isn't self-evident through reflection to those who know naturalistic explanations that suffice in explanation.
That's my summary of "Part I" so far... I hope I gave justice to your position. If so, that clears up how I understand "self-evident"--it means, no other explanation can suffice. Sometimes it "pops out" during simple looking, but you're also talking about reflection after the fact.

As for myself... I didn't have experiences that turned me off from the church. It was purely a lack of belief. I didn't have any "inner feeling" or "quickening." Without that feeling, then the testimony of others who say they have it suffices only so long. Belief doesn't come from someone else's feeling; it comes from one's own. So, I felt I needed to forge ahead on my own path.
Maybe I'll feel something different some day, like you say. In the meantime, I gotta move forward with myself at the controls, and the advice of my friends and aquaintances as my guide.

Here's an interesting, difficult question:
When you see a child on TV that is starving what do you see?
Do you see a child that is caught in the ravages of an uncaring world that is blind to the concerns of the child -- and therefore conclude that it is useless to make a difference?
Or do you see a child that is in dire circumstance and is calling out for help -- and decide to aid them in whatever capacity you can in order to make a difference?
It depends on my frame of mind. I can see both. In fact, I can also see a third option--a child as a material object. Something that is mindless, soulless, empty.
In some sense it's really scary to be able to feel that way. And in another sense, it's very liberating... but isolating too. Not something I really feel comfortable revealing either; I don't like to be judged. But you haven't judged me yet, so I answer your question honestly and without reservation.

To summarize my own feeling or thought... I feel that there are many explanations that can fit this world. I don't feel any need to commit to any of them; I am comfortable with having "no knowledge" of such things. But as such, when I see a leaf, I see a leaf. Man-made things are different, but usually not in a positive sense. Usually when I see man-made things, I see many of our shortcomings. And when I see men (humans), my perception varies as I described above. Sometimes I see a human (material object). Sometimes I see a person.
Except for my family, maybe. I'm not sure about that. But I think when I see my family, I always see people, and I always feel it's important to listen. It was always that way when I saw my brothers; I am learning it for the rest of my family.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-15-2005 2:18 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024