If God exists, why does He hide from us?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, he may not be hiding, anymore than were hiding from bacteria. If God exists, he might just be too big and expansive for us to percieve directly.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIj0oW-tTF4&playnext=1&list=PL2077F970C63838E6[/youtube]

My computer's built-in dictionary says your definition of faith is wrong, but it has given incorrect definitions before. I'm too lazy to go get my Merriam-Webster's ATM, but it's a moot point anyway since even if we were to use your definition of faith it would be inaccurate to say Theists believe in God on faith since as I already explained earlier in this thread that evidence of God does exist.

You misunderstand my argument. Not only senses are fallible, but also memory. You have know way to know for certain that those scientific experiments went the way you remember them. Also, under your definition of faith, how would senses being fallible make faith more dangerous? I agree that the "do we really exist" argument gets silly at one point. My goal was not to attempt to discredit science or to go on a solipsist rant, but rather to point out that the assertion that nothing outside the physical universe exists is also rather silly because a) we don't truly know 100% that the universe we perceive is real and b) the assertion that nothing outside the physical universe exists is based solely on faith by your definition of the word.

And regardless of wether or not God exists as an actual being or only as a concept, not believing in him would destroy neither the being nor the concept.

No. That is just the point. There is NO evidence that any sort of god exists.

Okay. Maybe you don't like my definition of the word faith. Let's use some other word or phrase. "f*****g stupid thinking" might be an acceptable one.

The argument that "we cannot be certain that our memory of an experiment is accurate" is a useless argument. Turn it around on yourself. With that logic, you have no more likelihood than me of knowing your understanding of the universe is accurate. At that point we end up at the same point we started at. At least I have some kind of evidence on my side. You can always say "how can you be certain what you see is accurate." But unless you can show why what you see is accurate, the argument destroys your claims just as much as it would destroy mine.

A point I keep trying to make and some people seem remarkably unable to comprehend is that the only things we can know is that which we have evidence for. Anything else is just speculation. If you can show why this claim is erroneous, then do so.

Yes, there is evidence. Scientific evidence is not the only kind of evidence.

If you think insulting me and swearing strengthens your argument you are mistaken.

You have again missed my point. I wasn't saying you shouldn't trust your own memories. I'm saying that most things require some degree of faith.

The only evidence you have that God doesn't are claims that God doesn't exist made by you and others which are based purely on assumption. You can keep claiming you have evidence on your side, but the fact is you have even less evidence than I do.

Last edited by Tensu on 17 Apr 2013, 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If you mean philosophical arguments for God are evidence, think again. Many atheists can come up with alternatives to God for every argument you make for him.

I am repeating the same statement over and over and people are completely ignoring it. Let me repeat it yet again.

I am not saying I have evidence that god doesn't exist. Do you understand that? Read the sentence again. Now here is the other part of the argument. I have not seen compelling evidence that there is a god. Now re-read that sentence and try to understand it.

In your last post you wrote "The only evidence you have that God doesn't [exist] are claims that God doesn't exist made by you and others which are based purely on assumption". (I added the word "exist" to your sentence for clarity because that seems to be what you meant - please correct me if I'm wrong.). Look through what I have posted here. Where will you find a claim by me that "god does not exist?" That's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that I do not believe in any god or gods because I have not seen evidence that shows there is a god. I have not seen evidence that even hints that there might be a god. I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. I'm not making any claim about the universe at all.

And that's why I get a little bit annoyed and occasionally make snarky comments. Over and over, people keep thinking when I say "I have not seen evidence for a god" that I am actually saying "I have evidence that there is no god." These are two radically different claims.

If you are incapable of understanding a very simple sentence like "I have not seen evidence for a god" how can you assume you understand what you've read or heard that has convinced you that there is a god?

Another possibility (and I am inclined to believe this is actually what is going on) is that you are attempting a straw man argument by rephrasing my claim that "there is no compelling evidence of a god" to "there is evidence against god" because it is an easier position to argue against. But if you have to resort to this sort of manipulation of the argument rather than presenting solid logical claims then I don't see where it is possible to have a reasonable discussion on the issue.

You say there are other kinds of evidence other than scientific evidence. What is that evidence?

Here's a google definition of the word "evidence"


Maybe you've got a better definition. My feeling is that if you have evidence that supports a claim then you can move forward with a logical argument. But for evidence to BE evidence, it must be testable. It can't be hearsay. It can't be a belief. It must be something that can be examined and tested and analyzed. All evidence is scientific in that the scientific process can be applied to it.

I am not claiming "I have evidence on my side." What I am claiming is that there is no evidence for a god. You are the one making the claim that there is evidence for a god. If you make that claim, you have to present the evidence. When you do not present the evidence I can only conclude that there you have provided no evidence for a god; the exact claim I have been making over and over and people keep ignoring and re-wording into a claim that they feel they can argue against.

On the issue of "most things require some degree of faith." I have to disagree. I have posted this before (perhaps even in this thread) but it seems useful to repeat it.

First of all, these are my specific definitions. The "faith" definition is pretty much straight out of any dictionary. The "trust" one is a bit more specific to how I use the word.

Faith is a belief in a thing without the requirement of proof.

Trust is a belief in a thing for which you do not have direct proof but have access to a chain of evidence whereby you could, if necessary, establish the truth of a specific proposition.

I trust that atoms exist as conventionally assumed because there is a consensus opinion converging to that specific conclusion and if I wanted to do the work, I could repeat the work others have done to reach that conclusion.

Of course you can always say "how do you know that the world isn't an illusion invented in this moment? You have to have faith that the universe exists as we understand it to exist." That's a fair enough claim, but all it effectively does is stop any discussion in its tracks. It doesn't prove an argument, it just takes the position that no argument or evidence can ever be stated to be conclusively valid. In the end it does more damage to your own claims than it does to mine because you are making a positive claim that something exists while I am simply claiming we don't have enough information to make that claim.

If you have evidence to support your claim, great. Show it. If you have solid evidence then I'll back you up. But if you can't show any evidence, why are we even having this discussion?

I'm not saying that you have to find things like reports of miracles dating from prehistoric times to the present or philosophical argument for the existence of God compelling. I am claiming you have to admit those things exist. I have already given some examples of such things earlier in the thread, before you came in.

I will admit that I confused your claim that you had some kind of evidence on your side to mean that you believed you had evidence that God didn't exist because you were not being clear what you where claiming to have evidence of. What were you claiming to have evidence of? That your memory is infallible?

When you first posted in this thread you claimed that faith was inherently bad. I countered this by saying that most things require some degree of faith. You tried to create a distinction between faith and trust and I pointed out that such a distinction is irrelevant because under your definition if would not be accurate to describe one's belief in God as faith, thus if you were to continue to argue that belief in God is inherently bad because of the lack of 100% certainty you would have to argue against your concept of trust and not your concept of faith. Since you have admitted that my claim that you have to accept that the universe exists on faith is fair enough, you have conceded that I was right and faith/trust/whatever is not inherently bad, Thus belief in God is not inherently bad for the reason of requiring faith/trust/whatever.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMUDXO4xkW8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8[/youtube]

God doesn't need to make himself visible; the knowledge that he exists is enough for me

He's essentially just in peoples' own heads I'd say but he is still fulfilling a need in people and it's possible to
see signs of him if you believe in him

It's all down to the individual and what works for them

...are you saying God is the placebo effect?

You mean belief.

Knowledge is justified, true belief.

The knowledge that god exists is NOT justified by any principle, either empirical or a prior. Hence the question of "true" is up in the air until such evidence materializes that resolves the question.

Like many others you confuse your devout and strongly held beliefs with knowledge and reason.

ruveyn

I'm saying that it's possibly to know that God doesn't exist as a physical entity but at the same time believe in his existence
as a conceptual entity

it's not stricly a placebo effect as he's having an actual effect on my thinking and how I live my life

I have my own knowledge set in my head and I adhere to that rather than your knowledge set or anyone else's

however you want to define your knowledge set, mine is 'things that I know'
- these things don't need scientific testing or testing in court of law, or to be argued over on a discussion board before
I believe them

I know them and they are useful to me

If a way of being works for you you tend to stick with it

People who believe they are Napoleon of Jesus Christ could make the same statement you just did.

How do you distinguish your beliefs from insanity?

ruveyn