If God exists, why does He hide from us?

Post Reply New Topic

What branch of science or what set of scientific findings am I discarding as scientism? As far as I can tell the only thing I'm discarding are personal tautologies that are every bit as tenuous from a raw scientific perspective as what I'm suggesting.

On the bright side you at least let everyone know right off the top that your quite religiously orthodox in your materialism, and being you hold it in transparent honesty I simply salute your faithfulness.

Again, I have to ask, aren't you just pejoratively referring to an argument that does not uncritically accept magical thinking as "scientism" while embracing arguments that support your world view? You are mis-directing the argument. There is not one branch or science or set of findings that you are discarding. What you seem to be discarding is the very concept of science itself. If I'm wrong, point it out.

What are the "personal tautologies" you are referring to? I don't see any in my arguments and I don't think you will find tautologies in most scientific thinking.

I don't know if you were responding to Ruveyn or me, but I'd like to make a point here...

I find it amusing how some people who believe strongly in a religion will still use the term "religiously" to denigrate a point of view.

In other words God? A drunken wino found in an alley? I found him!! hes a drunken wino with a beird!! Thats why Jesus made water into wine!! !

No, scientism by definition would be magical thinking. It attepts to hammer down anything a person says that doesn't get along with reductive materialism, which is another metaphysical claim that science is nowhere near proving - ie. it 'feels' a certain way, feeling and actuality aren't necessarily the same thing.


That's not an answer, which particular part of physics, chemistry, or biology proves that there is no such thing as nonphysical sentience?

The bolded seems to denote the way you've boxed definitions in more than anything. I have no idea what 'discarding science' means. If what I'm suggesting that something is real that science doesn't have a handle on yet - I wouldn't call that discarding science, to the extent that you would (if you are) would tell us that you've made an arbitrary conclusion that if science hasn't proven yet among peer reviews that its magic or it doesn't exist, and will exist and will stop being magic once science somehow - by some unknown force - drags it in from the aethers or some astral realm to make it real via peer review. It's like saying that other galaxies and 13.7 billion years of development after the big bang didn't exist until the right scientists created it into being by peer-reviewing it.


To the highlighted - I wouldn't, there's a difference between science however and reductive materialism. The later is a metaphysical assertion that people jump to on their own.

Aren't you guys all multiple personalities in my head? I thought I was talking to myself or a toaster....or a bottle of antacid or something..... (goes back to trying to chew his own arm off).

It just gets fun to point out to those who use the term of 'religiosity' as the standard for stupidity, benightedness, and churlishness that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

According to the standard model, everything in the universe is made from a few dozen types of elementary particles. No such thing as 'Nonphysical sentience' ever enters the equation (the notion is your invention). Is the standard model 'reductive materialism'?


Both string theory and loop quantum gravity are not confirmed but I don't think anyone jumping up and down screaming about magick, unicorns, and fairy dust.


You went a lot further. Remember you did all those 'connect the dots' (and shown to be inconsistent)? Even you admitted it is not science.

What you're telling me here is that because we've found a periodic table, then smaller pieces that protons, neutrons, and electrons are made of, and then smaller still such as quarks and even further components down that these particles are literally the whole of everything. The disagreement isn't over the continual evisceration of matter to smaller and smaller particles and whether that's there in truth, but rather the argument is over what it ultimately means. Those contending that these smaller and smaller particles are 'all there is' then do a lot of very ludite machine-breaking when they hear of anything that doesn't fit their mold of reality (such as mind manipulating matter or seemingly acausal correlation in events) - thus they have to force a bunch of things that do in fact happen into not happening or being the product of what they think of as mass psychopathy by a lot of flimsy excuses about the character of the people experiencing them. I think they're just making it way harder than it needs to be - ie. the physical universe is a heirarchy of smaller and smaller particles built upon each other but, those particles are only a small piece, one system of many. When people rather obsessive-compulsively put blinders on and set the definition that matter as they currently understand it (2013) is all that there is - that's a philosophical claim, not a scientific one, and sadly it's a philosophical claim that doesn't seem to do particularly well in terms of critical thinking, ie. its more of a reaction.


'Screaming about magick, unicorns, and fairy dust' is something people seem to need to throw around as a way of screaming 'I can't understand a word your saying!'. Its also synonymous perhaps with 'My imagination is so dulled that my mind can't handle anything I can't put under a microscope!'.

The 'magick' pejorative seems to just crystallize the notion that there are a lot of people out there who don't seem to come cognitively equipped to think outside the box in any way, shape, or form. I can't say its even a reductive materialist thing necessarily because its the same ontological restraint pattern that had people burning or drowning people as witches for doing science so many years ago. Its a belief that 'the box' that present culture has decided on is all there is. The word 'circumspect' becomes completely and utterly alien - enough so that in this present age they'd call it 'magick'.

This was in response to my saying that I have no idea what 'discarding science' means. Am I right in understanding that your definition of discarding science is 'connecting the dots'?

I'm sorry but I can't even fathom that definition. To me connecting the dots would be me claiming that there's no such thing as subatomic particles, or even atoms, and that everything is made of some sort of divine paste. Discarding science would be me claiming that disease is caused by miasma and that anything else is a lie. Discarding science would be me stating that the universe isn't billions of light years across or nearly 14 billion years old and then saying that anything said to that extend is some kind of Satanic conspiracy to make believers not believe. Those three claims would fall in the category of 'discarding science', or at least my understanding of what those two words laced together should mean based on their inherent meanings in the English language. If I've made no clarification I'll do so - I subscribe to none of the above.

Like it or not that IS science. A Scientific hypothesis must be unambiguous, in particular falsifiable. That is why physics is so heavy in mathematics. Throwing up a bunch of mystical terms (as so many new age materials do) is not going to make 'new science'.

Take a look at Maarten Boudry's PhD thesis (freely available online) and see what you are disagreeing with.

You're asking me to defend a claim I never made.

This trail of conversation came from me talking to another person about science vs. scientism. I have no debate with science. There's a big difference between people taking science for what it's able to determine vs. taking it beyond its conclusions as a positive proof of atheism and reductive materialism. When reductive materialists invoke 'magic, unicorns, and fairy dust' they're being incredibly 'feely'; x 'feels' like y is not a scientific statement.

What's even worse is when the going definition of pseudoscience has become 'results do not support reductive materialism', ie. its completely invincible to even the best experiment design, controls, and even peer review. That's where the collective sphere of what we'd call science under most conditions, or want to optimistically call science, has become religiously dogmatized.

It is probably good to identify which God. You likely are not referring to Jesus because it is written in God's word...

(Matthew 4:10) “Jesus said to him: ‘Go away, Satan! For it is written, “It is Jehovah [“the Lord,” King James Version (circa 1611; as printed in 1942) and others] your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.”’” (Jesus was obviously not saying that he, himself, was to be worshiped.)

(John 8:54) “Jesus answered [the Jews]: ‘If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God.’” (The Hebrew Scriptures clearly identify Jehovah as the God that the Jews professed to worship. Jesus said, not that he himself was Jehovah, but that Jehovah was his Father. Jesus here made it very clear that he and his Father were distinct individuals.)

(Psalms 110:1) “The utterance of Jehovah to my [David’s] Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’” (At Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus explained that he himself was David’s “Lord,” referred to in this psalm. So Jesus is not Jehovah but is the one to whom Jehovah’s words were here directed.)

(Philippians 2:9-11) “For this very reason also God exalted him [Jesus Christ] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. [The Catholic Challoner-Douay Version (circa 1750; as printed in 1941) reads: “ . . . every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.” The Holy Bible (1954; as printed in 1956) by Ronald A. Knox and The New Testament (1941; printed in 1947) read similarly, but a footnote in The Holy Bible acknowledges: “ . . . the Greek is perhaps more naturally rendered ‘to the glory,’” and The New American Bible, Saint Joseph Edition (1970) and The Jerusalem Bible (1966) by Alexander Jones render it that way.]” (Notice that Jesus Christ is here shown to be different from God the Father and subject to Him.)

So based on the scriptures we've established that the God you refer to is not Jesus. It is most definitely not Satan even though he is called "god" in God's word.

(2 Corinthians 4:3,4) If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

(1 John 5:19) We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one.

(Luke 4:5-8) So he [Satan] brought him [Jesus] up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time; and the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it. You, therefore, if you do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

So from the scriptures we've established that the God you refer to cannot be Satan. So that leaves only one God who is called "Almighty" 41 times in his word. The name of the almighty God you refer to is found in Psalms 83:18 in most bibles. Even older copies of the King James from prior decades show this name.

The following comes from the Bay Psalms Book, published in America in 1620, when the American colonies were still under British control.
[img][800:767]http://www.kxmode.com/jw/Bay-Psalms-Book---Psalms-83-18.jpg[/img]



Translation: "That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth."

So now that we've established from God's word which god you're referring to the question then becomes "Why does Jehovah God hide from us?"

Consider these questions:

- Is it not true that much disease is a result of man’s own poor living habits and his spoiling of the environment for himself and others?
- Are not the wars fought by humans a major cause of human suffering?
- Is it not also true that, while millions suffer from lack of food, there is more than enough in other lands, so that one of the underlying problems is human greed?
- Do all these things give evidence, not that there is no God, but that humans are sadly misusing their God-given abilities and the earth itself?

Usually there is a underlining reason for asking such questions. Perhaps it is related to seeing the pain and suffering of people daily and in the world at large. Perhaps what you really want to know is "If Jehovah God cares about us why does he allow suffering, pain and even death?"

Does Jehovah care about us? Yes, he does! How? Well let's consider the evidence found in God's own words.

The Bible tells us that Jehovah God gave man a perfect start in a wonderful paradise.

(Genesis 1:27) And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.
(Genesis 2:8) Further, Jehovah God planted a garden in E′den, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.
(Deuteronomy 32:4) The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he.

Human's continued enjoyment of God’s favor, however, depended on obedience to their Maker.

(Genesis 2:16, 17) And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.”

If humans were obedient, they would continue to enjoy perfect human life — no sickness, no suffering, no death. The Creator would provide humans with needed guidance and would use His power to safeguard humanity against any calamity. But humans rejected God’s guidance. Instead they chose a course of self-rule under Satan's control. In trying to do something for which humans were never designed, humanity has brought calamity upon themselves.

(Jeremiah 10:23) I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.
(Ecclesiastes 8:9) All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury.
(Romans 5:12) That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.

Yet, over the centuries God has never hide himself from his creation. He has been patiently seeking out those who, because of love for him and his ways, are willing to serve him. He sets before them the opportunity to enjoy all the blessings of which they have been deprived because of humanity's imperfections and misrule.

(Revelation 21:3-5) “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.”

The provision God made by means of his Son to redeem humans from sin and death is marvelous evidence of God’s great love for mankind.

(John 3:16) “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

God has also set an appointed time when he will destroy those who ruin the earth. He will cause lovers of righteousness to enjoy life in harmony with his own original purpose.

(Revelation 11:18) But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
(Psalm 37:10, 11) And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.

More information can be found at JW.org

I dont know how to answer this in presumed circumstantial issues surrounding the core of trust debate and jurisdiction in our society and how we handle democracy and religious discontent.

I could bless you with quotes or sample you with belief in yourself that only the holy mother can bring forth her blessing on those she admires and believes in. you see, in order for someone to feel gods presence or movement you must think of something solitary if not freeing you're mind totally of the void which exists within us .
when you really need god or someone close to you, they will be there, in your time of need.
miriacles can and do happen, if you can focus yourself entirely on one major aspect of your life rather than many and whichever qst you may have, you can hear the answer, if you're truly prepared to listen to the advice you're being given. one patron saint i can call upon would be joan of arc.

That is the thesis of Boudry - science IS useful in studying the 'supernatural' and DID prove god, spirits and ghosts (at least some form of them) does not exist.


It doesn't take science to tell apart a honest scientific theory and nonsense.

In fact there are many examples of 'supernatural power' tested and found to be frauds and simple tricks.


Given the standard model supports 'reductive materialism', how is such belief 'religiously dogma'?

I'll take the above as a souvenir. These are 'beliefs' and by the nature of beliefs I don't debate them with people.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP-B-z1hKUk[/youtube]