If there were a God, don't you think he would've made him or her self known by now?

Great Debates
101

Valteron, that’s a very interesting analogy/theory.

However, it only works if you can equate the situation thus. (Human knowledge : God) as (cat brain : human).

I challenge that, because I believe that once intelligence has evolved to a certain degree (like about ours), understanding the world around us is possible, given enough research, time and accumulated resources. You might say we are approaching God’s knowledge (and some say we are even “playing God”). As evidence of that, compare total human knowledge in the 21st Century to that of the, say, First Century. Next compare feline (or any other animal’s) knowledge for those two time periods.

My point is that it is likely that mankind would understand if only God were to try to explain it. Not so with your cats. We are capable of learning and understanding philosophy, chemistry, physics and astronomy; they are not.

But I like your theory anyway. :slight_smile:

102

I am surprised, Valteron. Mostly because the argument against that position is commonplace here in GD - it implies a less than omnipotent god. If you could protect your cats from disease without the trauma of vet visits I’m sure you would. What’s God’s excuse?

103

But we aren’t just talking superior, we’re talking omnipotent. You don’t speak your cat’s “language”, but god should be capable of perfect communication with any being, after all he created us, the cats, and everything else.

To say that god simply cannot give us the knowledge that he at least exists and is in some measure of control after saying that he had the power and knowledge to create the universe and everything in it just doesn’t pass the basic sniff test.

So if an omnipotent god exists, he is keeping a low profile on purpose.

104

It’s an interesting thought but there are several problems with the conclusion and the reasoning leading up to it.

None of your actions cause lasting harm to the cats and any of those actions which could be perceived by a cat as “harmful” in the short-term are rooted in your benevolence and will ultimately benefit the cat. The cat may not understand (and probably doesn’t enjoy) what the vet is doing but ultimately the cat will be healthier. The cat might get lonely while you’re at work (I rather doubt it given my experiences with cats) but, as you say, benefits indirectly from your income.

Let’s say that one day you’re doing the laundry when you notice that your cat has somehow inexplicably ended up inside the dryer with your socks. What would you do? Would you shrug indifferently and wander off to watch TV, leaving the cat to it’s fate? Maybe the cat has the wherewithal to devise a way to escape the spinning dryer and maybe it doesn’t. You, on the other hand, could open the dryer door with essentially no effort to deliver the poor thing from its misery. If you did decide to leave the cat in the dryer and go about your business so the cat could learn valuable life lessons, I’d be inclined to say you’re not much of a pet owner. And I certainly wouldn’t use you as an objective moral standard for “How to properly care for cats.”

Indeed, a bond of mutual affection can “bridge the gap”, emotionally speaking, between two beings otherwise incapable of communication. The problem with you analogy here is that you’ve listed some exceedingly straight-forward and tangible examples of love. The cat knows you and sees you. It feels your finger scratching its ear. It watches you fill the food bowl. It enjoys the warmth of your body in bed. It has every reason to love you.

Here’s how we change the analogy to make it work better: You own a cat, but it doesn’t live with you. In fact, it’s never seen you. The cat is on it’s own for food and shelter. If it gets sick, it will recover on its own or die. Every once in a while, someone happens upon the cat and says**, “Your owner loves you very much and hopes you’re doing OK. He’s got some big plans for you and hopes you can figure out what they are. Good luck with all that.”

**Just for the sake of the analogy, assume this person speaks cat.

105

And another thing…
The idea that God is incapable of expressing Himself in a way that we can comprehend seems just a little, well, silly. Cats can’t understand us because they’re incapable of reason and abstract thought. I’d buy that I’m not God’s equal when it comes to puzzling things out, but the basic logical building blocks are there. Given sufficient time, you’d think God could work something out with flow charts, logical proofs, etc. My experience has been that people who find themselves unable to explain a concept don’t tend to understand that concept particularly well. Maybe God needs to review his notes and start working with PowerPoint?

106

I agree. I’m not saying it’s logical or effective. That’s just what the reason for a belief in god is, it seems to me. Human nature and science often don’t overlap. I could just as well give a reason why I think people read the “National Enquirer.” The fact that these people are dupes doesn’t mean that there isn’t another explanation for their interest in this publication. (I’m not equating the two things, though.)

I’d like to hear some other reasons why people believe in a God without any concrete proof or his/her existence, rather than why they shouldn’t believe in a God. It’s been going on for a long time.

As for the Bible, that was a long time ago. Most of those folks aren’t alive today, if they ever were.

107

:confused:

How is one supposed to have a personal relationship with something one does not believe in? By saying that near-death experiencers “were” atheists, you imply that they are no longer such. Therefore, their “personal relationship” began when they began believing. This, of course, puts aside all the evidence that such “experiences” originate within the human mind, not from some omnipotent deity who decided to reveal himself when it was just about too late.

As far as “god doesn’t seem to care whether you believe in him or not”: if that’s his attitude, he can go jump in the lake for all I care.

Here’s where my atheism stems from: in Genesis, Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden for partaking from the “tree of knowledge”. Not the “tree of sin”, not the “tree of evil”, but the "tree of knowledge ". The lesson being taught here is that seeking knowledge the supreme deity does not approve of will lead to my eternal damnation. Not only do I refuse to believe in such a totalitarian, egomaniacal entity; if one did exist, I would refuse to follow it.

And if you follow the Bible, just about every time god has “made himself known”, people have died in large numbers. The Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.–it seems the only time your precious lord reveals himself is when he’s pissed off. And the Apocalypse looks like a real doozy! I ask you, how can you subjugate yourself to such a vindictive creature? Oh, I forgot, he’s only vindictive to those who won’t subjugate themselves to his will.

Ya know what? If he wants me, he knows where to find me.

108

Oh dear. I could indicate your number to a designated person 100% of the time. But I’m not God. Set your standards higher than a simple magic trick.

I think my meeting Zeldar on a BBS 22 years ago after having my pathway cross his so many times is evidence that my concept of God was and is too small.

Having about eight friends resurface in my life after forty-five years apart has revitalized my life. It happened almost overnight and depended on one chance meeting at a water fountain a year ago. I have no trouble at all seeing evidence of the Spirit of God at work in each of these people. They are so creative! I see evidence of God in works of art, don’t you?

I marvel constantly at the cosmos that can contain a brazillian stars. Why should God have to play pong with it to add more evidence? Aren’t fractals enough? I want to marvel! I want the mystery! Any God that I could comprehend would be too easily set aside.

109

want2know, there are people who believe in God who do not believe in the literal interpretation of some of the stories that you mentioned. They do not believe that everyone except Christians are going to hell. They believe that the book of Revelation is written in code and they believe that God is about love, not vindictiveness.

Christians – even within the same churches – don’t all believe the same thing. Many also find value in the teachings of other religious faiths.

110

Love what you say about cats. I have been an animal rescurer for most of my life, especially cats. They can reason and are very intelligent. I had one cat that learned to open doors by turning the door knob. They respond to love, they know when someone loves them. I have walked into a strange place where they was a cat and picked that cat up and petted it. The owner would be amazed that the cat let me pick it up. They know.

111

Maybe I need to explain it better. In near death experiences (classic) the individual goes clinically dead for a while and then is brought back to life, sometimes by doctors and sometimes by the spirit world. When you die you will go into the presence of God. Being in the presence of God it is very hard not to believe. There are other things that happen and then you become alive again. Atheist become believers, so do agnostics like myself. Sometimes it happens under other circumstances. Now remember I said the “classic” NDE. There are many kinds of spiritual experiences and millions of people have had them. Yes, I know the atheists don’t believe the experiences are real until they have had one.

112

You’ve missed the point. As you mention, you are not God. You are a corporeal being capable of “communication” in all (or most) standard formats. The point of my “magic trick” and the paragraph in which it is presented is to demonstrate why I feel that “communication” with God isn’t possible. Having defined communication as a “transmission or exchange of information” I offered a scenario in which a person and God could communicate in the interests of transmitting a simple piece of information-- a number.

I don’t know anything about this. Sounds like coincidence to me. How do you feel about synchronicity? I think it’s nonsense, personally.

Sometimes I see beauty, passion, and humanity. Other times I just see humanity. I don’t see God. Do you see evidence of God in human atrocities? I happen to think that creative works of sublime beauty and horrifying depravity come from the same place. Only the way they’re reflected is different.

But this is the same old rabbit hole. Assuming you’re Christian, how do you know your God had anything to do with any of it? Faith, right? Someone upthread remarked on the novelty of Christianity taking one of its biggest failings (no support) and transforming it into a great strength (faith). I tend to agree.

You don’t want a God that you can comprehend? That’s great because He’s right here in this thread. Enjoy.

113

There is nothing wrong with God’s ability to express Himself. You are wrong about cats also. They do reason and learn like we do, I take it you have never owned a cat for any period of time. Cats and everything else in this world respond to love, even plants. When the time comes God will get in touch with you, of course, you could get in touch with Him first.

114

I guess I misunderstood then. Wasn’t it you who pointed out that people could believe in God and still have free will. Still be free to not follow the holy rules?

That being true doesn’t that establish the premise I just stated? Perhaps I need to qualify it by saying “wouldn’t necessarily speak to the issues that plague humanity”

115

Sarcasm noted and ignored. FTR I never claimed any such thing.

116

Other than the fact that a whole lot of people don’t seem to be able to hear Him. Incidentally, if you’re going to respond with a permutation of everyone’s favorite cop-out (“You’re just not trying hard enough”), I’m going to preemptively call BS on that right now, save a hamster, and encourage you to read the numerous and compelling posts on the matter upthread from this one.

I don’t want this thread to devolve into a discussion of whether or not cats think, but I’d be interested to read any published research on cats “reasoning” beyond the level of conditioned response.

I’ve owned a number of dogs and I’ll offer that they do the “conditioned response shuffle” quite a bit better than the average cat. I’ve loved them and have just as much fun anthropomorphizing them as anyone, but that’s about as far as it goes. True, they’re remarkably skilled at detecting a wide range nonverbal queues, recognizing patterns, and responding appropriately, but it isn’t the same sort of reasoning you and I do. When the dog sees me put on a certain pair of shoes and a certain coat at a particular time of day, he often correctly surmises that it’s time for a walk and goes to wait by the door. He doesn’t know what a jacket is or why I need to put it on, he just knows, “Hey, there’s that thing! I better go wait over here!” This is no small feat, but I’m rather certain both you and I operate at a slightly higher level. Do you think the cat understands what the can opener is and what it does? Do you suppose the cat has ever considered which grade of meat it is eating or where the can came from? Or does it just come running when it hears the dinner bell ring?

117

Then I’ve misread you. When you said this:

I (apparently erroneously) ascribed a few views to you:[ul][li]That “most believers” feel that God is “available” for “communication”[]That a lack of “willing[ness]” on the part of the individual could be considered a hindrance in the pursuit of any such “communication”[]That a lot of people who find God somewhat reticent might simply be willfully refusing God[/ul]I apologize for the error. Please clarify your meaning. Let’s go again without any overt sarcasm:[/li]On the first point I disagree because, in my opinion, the standard for meaningful communication is not satisfied. On the second point, I agree with you in that willingness to communicate (or a lack thereof) on the part of everyone involved is certainly a valid consideration. On the third point, I disagree if only because it’s just so easy to say, “You can’t do seemingly impossible thing X because you just don’t want to.”

But honestly, I’m not here to put words in your mouth. I don’t think you’re a bad person for enjoying a personal relationship with your God and I don’t want to deprive you of that relationship. I’m just a guy who likes to think about things and discuss them with people on the internet and I occasionally become snippy. I’d appreciate it if you’d correct my interpretations of the supplied quote.

118

I’m prone to the occasional sarcasm myself but it doesn’t usually move the conversation forward. When posters on either side of the debate get sarcastic and dismissive that usually means they’ve stopped listening and the conversation is over. I sincerely appreciate your effort to shift direction.

to clarify, when I said “I never claimed any such thing” i was referring to this

so putting that behind us,

[QUOTE]
Then I’ve misread you. When you said this:I (apparently erroneously) ascribed a few views to you:[ul][li]That “most believers” feel that God is “available” for “communication”[]That a lack of “willing[ness]” on the part of the individual could be considered a hindrance in the pursuit of any such “communication”[]That a lot of people who find God somewhat reticent might simply be willfully refusing God[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

I sure don’t claim to have all the answers and I have nothing against people who for their own reasons, are atheists. I know some fabulous ones and have a great respect for some here on the boards. Healthy skepticism is a good thing and beliefs should be challenged and examined. I just don’t find the atheist arguments I’ve heard here {several times in several threads} any more compelling or necessarily logical than some of the arguments from believers.

Concerning this specific subject, I didn’t mean to make it sound like communicating with God is as casually available and as easy as calling a friend. The lack of willingness on our part , the noise of our own illusions, are static on the lines and it is up to us to clear them. I don’t think all people are consciously willfully refusing although that occurs.
My kids heard what I had to say, sometimes they really listened and sometimes they didn’t, but it was the experience itself and the consequences of their actions that really taught them to choose properly. It is their experiences that changes them on the inside. Their emotional and mental make up changes with experiences and they grow into maturity. I don’t remember them ever wanting to surrender their ability to choose and saying, “Hey Dad, just tell me all the right choices to make and I’ll make them”
I told my child, don’t touch the stove it’s hot and my child trusted me and knew that hot in this case wasn’t a good thing to touch, but he never really understood what I was talking about until he touched the stove. Then the decision not to touch the stove wasn’t just following instructions, it was an internalized personal choice.

I don’t agree. Could you explain in more detail?

And willingness has a lot to do with what constitutes meaningful communication doesn’t it? Have you ever talked with someone who is not really trying to listen and comprehend?

I’m sorry I presented it that way. That’s not it. Communication with God goes much further than an exchange of sounds that we comprehend as words. Look at the things that were considered impossible generations ago and now are everyday occurrences. They were realized by imagination, dedication, determination, belief and effort. It was and is a process.

I’ve experienced enough to know that belief or non belief in God is not an indicator of the quality of the person or the details of their charecter. There are giants and jackasses on both sides of the equation.

I hope what I’ve said helps you to understand the point I’ve tried to make.

119

I apologize for the delayed response. I missed a couple of your posts. Perhaps you’ve lost interest but out of respect for all of your posts I’ve enjoyed I didn’t want to ignore them.

I don’t agree that God gives us no reason. Aren’t humans prone to want to know, to understand? Aren’t the problems of humankind and the desire to solve them enough reason to explore the possibility? I think “seek and you shall find” is quite simply a fact about our nature but the details are more complicated than the phrase.

I know you do and one of these threads I want to explore that. I also think free will may be just part of the illusion , but since it’s the illusion we’re in I use the term in communication.
I don’t think belief in God eliminates free will either. What seemed to be hinted at here was that a benevolent God would logically do that and that doing that would only make things better. I don’t think that’s necessarily benevolent or an obvious conclusion if you take a look at human nature.

I don’t believe in salvation as a system of punishment and reward. I believe in consequences for our choices and the label of “religious” prefacing beliefs has nothing to do with it. Believing correctly isn’t random luck. Our belief system is built from experiences and our interpretations of those experiences.

No our toddlers don’t know what we tell them. They have a rudimentary grasp of the basics. It takes active experience for them to begin to truly understand. Our goal with our own kids is not simple obedience in order to satisfy ourselves. It is the interaction with them and sharing in their growth that creates a relationship. The goal is for them to grow into our peers as responsible adults, not for them to just obey and never truly understand.

For believers God has shown us he exists in the form of Jesus and others.

You may consider that a piss poor method. Fair enough, but that’s just an opinion rather than a compelling argument.

The only point I’m trying to make here is that what is being presented as as a strong, obvious, and logical argument, isn’t all that when truly examined.

120

What I specifically meant was when it comes to your opinion that God used the worst possible way, it amounts to an opinion that is largely a matter of perspective.
How do we judge the effectiveness of that event? How do we judge the how long it should take for the life of Jesus and others to make things all better? How do we truly weigh the effectiveness of great spiritual figures and how their lives have affected others.

You seem to be assuming that God making his existence clear would be the obvious better choice. I suppose if the only purpose was, “I want everyone to believe that I am” that makes sense. I don’t believe it is which is why the argument doesn’t seem compelling to me.