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

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
to clarify, when I said “I never claimed any such thing” i was referring to this
[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
It must be neat to actually understand why it’s Good for innocents to suffer and die horribly.
[/quote]

[/quote]
While I’m perfectly willing to admit my phrasing was intentionally inflammatory, I stand by the sentiment. To clarify, I didn’t mean to imply that you viewed human suffering as “good” or that you claimed personal knowledge of why God might view things in that way. I was reacting to this:
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Using the parental analogy again, we don’t expect the same of our infant, toddler, 7 year old, adolescent, etc. etc. We don’t share the same rules and information with all of the, not because we’re trying to hide things from them but because we know they aren’t ready for it.
[/quote]
I view statements of this sort to indicate that, while God has a good explanation for everything, we as humans just aren’t “ready” to hear those explanations. As I’ve indicated elsewhere in this thread, I find this view somewhat silly. I threw out the whole “suffering” thing as an example of something that I feel really can’t possibly have a good explanation and, being the little spitfire that I am, injected the sarcastic portion while wallowing in the depths of my frustration. Once again w/o the sarcasm then:

Allowing for the possibility of a “Three O” God, I feel that there can be no reasonable and morally sound explanation for much of the suffering endured by humanity. Further, I feel that religious objections to my position which hold that, much like a child, I simply don’t have the wherewithal to understand God’s divine reasoning are fundamentally disingenuous and seek only to stifle the question.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t agree. Could you explain in more detail?
[/quote]
I’m not sure how to explain it further. I defined communication as a meaningful “transmission or exchange of information” and stated (perhaps in a roundabout way) that I don’t think what normally passes for “communication with God” (prayer) conforms to my standard. Of course, you could argue that a one-way transmission of information is still transmission, but that seems to put prayer on about the same footing as shouting down a hole in the ground.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
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.
[/quote]
This remains a sticking point for me. Elsewhere in this thread I happened to describe communication with God as “indescribably abstract.” If you can parse neither the original transmission nor the response into anything you can comprehend it just doesn’t seem like you’re going to get much out of the conversation. Though the mechanisms by which communication occurs have evolved impressively over time, the standard for determining the worth of a communication protocol has not: if information can travel from point A to B and back reliably you’ve got a potential winner. Otherwise, not so much.

122

Well, I think the question boils down to some possibilities:

  1. God listens to us, and provides answers (in abstract form)
  2. God listens to us, but only answers if we cannot determine what to do
  3. God listens to us, but never answers
  4. God listens sometimes, and sometimes answers
  5. God doesn’t listen, and never answers
    It is a difficult question, and achallenge to believers. Mother Theresa expressed such doubts, so even the most saintly of us have to acept that God (for what ever reasons of his own) prefers to remain in his current mode, which is to rarely answer explicitly. We are told (in the Bible) not to expect direct communication from the Allmighty. My question: why are there NO modern prophets? Are we sufficintly advanced NOT to need them?
    All in all, a difficult topic.
123

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Once again w/o the sarcasm then:

Allowing for the possibility of a “Three O” God, I feel that there can be no reasonable and morally sound explanation for much of the suffering endured by humanity. Further, I feel that religious objections to my position which hold that, much like a child, I simply don’t have the wherewithal to understand God’s divine reasoning are fundamentally disingenuous and seek only to stifle the question.
[/QUOTE]
I hesitate to answer because whenever I share my thoughts on this it seems like I’m being incredibly callous and unsympathetic, but here goes.
Just my thoughts on the subject and not presented as complete answers.
First, I don’t find that answer disingenuous. It is true that there are lots of things we don’t understand and don’t have answers for. I understand the perennial question about why is there so much suffering and the skepticism that springs from it, however, while your conclusion might be that no benevolent God would allow it that is not the only reasonable conclusion.
Much of the suffering on earth is created by our own choices. In the movie Oh God, John Denver asks God why he allows so much to be wrong, so much hurt and suffering, and God asks “Why do you allow it?” Consider Buddha’s quest to find the source of all suffering. If there was none would he have any reason to question and seek?

There is also a lot of suffering that is not caused by man such as natural disasters and illness. Why do these things exist? Well, if we truly believe we are eternal spiritual beings then physical death cannot be viewed as a horrible tragedy can it? We are simply shedding our temporary physical forms and moving to another phase of life. Then the question is not one of death but of the suffering itself. I remember someone talking about the death of an infant. How could that infants illness and death accomplish anything toward it’s spiritual growth? The experience of that infants illness and death isn’t the infants alone is it? Others are involved and are compelled to deal with internal issues and questions in the face of the experience.

You might also consider timelessness as opposed to the way we measure time. People may suffer for years and as long as we are attached to the time concept it seems horrible but why? You’ve heard the phrase “no pain, no gain” to working out. In exercise you must be willing to endure some pain to reach the goal. Would you be willing to endure some sacrifice and suffering for the sake of those you love? How much? Would you endure a day of suffering to ensure their safety and joy for a lifetime? How much is eternity worth?

Believe me I know how cavalier that sounds and I don’t mean that we should welcome suffering or dismiss it as unimportant. The process of working to alleviate suffering is how we grow. I’m just trying to suggest some alternate perspectives.
Suffering exists and we have to choose the best way to deal with it. The inner journey is a valid way.

Based on who’s experience? If God already knows everything about us then a two way exchange isn’t necessary. The point as I see it is for us to become more aware through that communion. That’s where willingness comes in.

Who says it’s not comprehended, or isn’t even now in the ongoing process of understanding and comprehension. You seem to be saying it should be much easier if God truly cares? I’m saying that it’s possible that
it isn’t just about getting into heaven and thinking why did a benevolent God make it so hard to do, the sadist? The process, and the experience of personal transformation that gets us there may be just as important as what we traditionally think of as the ultimate reward.

124

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
Well, I think the question boils down to some possibilities:

  1. God listens to us, and provides answers (in abstract form)
  2. God listens to us, but only answers if we cannot determine what to do
  3. God listens to us, but never answers
  4. God listens sometimes, and sometimes answers
  5. God doesn’t listen, and never answers
    It is a difficult question, and achallenge to believers. Mother Theresa expressed such doubts, so even the most saintly of us have to acept that God (for what ever reasons of his own) prefers to remain in his current mode, which is to rarely answer explicitly. We are told (in the Bible) not to expect direct communication from the Allmighty. My question: why are there NO modern prophets? Are we sufficintly advanced NOT to need them?
    All in all, a difficult topic.
    [/QUOTE]

There are groups that believe in modern day prophets.

125

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
There are groups that believe in modern day prophets.
[/QUOTE]

There are groups that believe the Earth is hollow and filled with dinosaurs, too. As far as you are concerned, have there been any modern-day prophets in the Christian religion as you know it to be, say within the last 200 years? If not, why do you believe not?

126

[QUOTE=Valteron]
I think you should sit down and have some smelling salts ready. I am about to DEFEND belief in God.

I realize that argument by anaology is frowned upon by the rules of logic, but analogies can have some validity in giving us new views or approaches to a problem.

Some theists almost seem to be saying that God is unable to effectively make himself known NOT because he is not omnipotent but because our understanding is so limited compared to that of an omniscient being.

It has been pointed out that if God appeared in the sky or something, millions would still say that it was a trick, or the work of the devil, etc.

Even if God appeared right next to my computer this second, how would I know, in a world of Pixel animation and holograms, that it is really real?

This might also apply to the problem of suffering. The answer might be that there is an explanation, but WE are too limited in brain power to understand.

Consider this analogy. I am, (grant me this for the sake of argument :smiley: ) much more intelligent and knowledgeable than my cats. At least a couple of times a year, I grab them, put them in cages, and take them to a man in a white coat who probes them, sticks needles in them and does all manner of indignities to their feline person. And not only do I allow this to happen, but I hold them down while this horrible man, who smells of DOGS!, does this to them.

Now, try as I might, I will never be able to explain to my cats how vaccination and veterinary medicine work. In fact, they cannot even understand human language except for a few words like “Din-din!”.

I frequently leave them all alone in our condo and go off to work. They do not like to be left alone. But if I do not go off to work, I will not have the money to pay for the nice furniture they claw, the food I give them, etc. I must have money in my bank account to do this. Would anyone like to suggest a way I can explain this series of causes-and-effects to a feline mind?

So is it impossible to bridge the communications gap created by the differences in my intelligence and the intelligence of a cat? No, because there is one channel of communication. It is love. I love them and no matter what cynics say, I am convinced that they love me. Their desire to be in the same room, to get up and sleep on the end of my bed, their greeting me at the door, their desire to be touched, etc., is, I am convinced, a form of love.

Conclusion: It is possible that when two beings are separated by a large gap in intelligence, there may be cases where the superior being must do or allow things that appear pointlessly cruel, but that are in fact justified. It is simply that the being of inferior intelligence may not be able to understand the explanation.

But love, whatever it is, is a medium of communication that can still bridge the communications gap.

I am still an atheist, but if there is one theist argument that seems plausible, it is that one.
[/QUOTE]

The analogy seems not to fit a Being who created the cat, knew the cat did not understand it,but expected the cat to understand. If the cat through love trusted the master, then did not become better but suffered more, it would not be the fault of the cat to lose trust. wouldn’t you, if you could, give the cat understanding?

If a being creates another being the creator is responsible for it’s creation, if it is flawed in any way it is the fault of the creator not the created.

A human parent cannot know for certain what effect its teachings can have on its offspring, the parent did not create the child,but a Supreme all knowing being should know. And it would seem unfair to hide from a child then expect the child to follow its rules when the child just has to depend on some other child to tell what the supreme being wants, when neither child knows for certain.

Monavis

127

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
There are groups that believe the Earth is hollow and filled with dinosaurs, too. As far as you are concerned, have there been any modern-day prophets in the Christian religion as you know it to be, say within the last 200 years? If not, why do you believe not?
[/QUOTE]

Well, I thought you were aware that I am not a Christian. My take on the whole prophet thing is non traditional and frankly I’m not sure what to make of it. I think Joseph Smith was a charlatan but I’d still be interested in knowing where the material for the Book of Mormon came from. It has some interesting ideas in it.

The Bahai believe that Bahá’u’lláh is the modern day messenger from God similar to Jesus. They believe God does send different messengers in different ages to help clarify and expand on previous teachings. He came out of what is now Iran in the mid 1800s. I don’t care about labels of prophet or teacher, or God’s messenger. I’m interested in what the teachings are and his are very positive, clear and untainted by multiple translations passed down over centuries.
In the same way I believe an individuals belief’s expand and grow it makes sense to me that mankind would reflect this same principle as a whole. It’s a slow process and there are enough bad things to maintain a healthy skepticism but I do think over the generations progress is being made.

128

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Really? What about those of us somehow getting by without faith? Are we living a lie? I’m laboring under the impression that I rather enjoy my life. Perhaps I’m wrong?..
[/QUOTE]

No I don’t believe you are living a lie, perhaps those of who have faith do so because we cannot function as you do? I don’t know. I live to believe that perhaps your curiosity is another form, a form of faith. I hope you enjoy your life, I didn’t mean to imply that you do not or should not.

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]

The issue of what it would actually mean to “know all the answers” aside, this raises an interesting point. If total knowledge somehow negates the necessity of existence, what am I to infer with regard to the existence of an ostensibly omniscient God?
[/QUOTE]

Good point, I wish I had the answers, obviously I don’t. I believe one day I will.

129

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Well, I thought you were aware that I am not a Christian. My take on the whole prophet thing is non traditional and frankly I’m not sure what to make of it. I think Joseph Smith was a charlatan but I’d still be interested in knowing where the material for the Book of Mormon came from. It has some interesting ideas in it.
[/quote]
I know that you profess not to be a Christian. I am asking if you know of any prophets that have popped up in Christianity as you generally understand it to be, and if not, why do you think not. In the Old Testament prophets popped up whenever things got tough or confusing-you would think that it couldn’t get any more confusing than it is today.

In the religious world labels matter. A prophet is usually someone who foretells the future, a teacher is someone who gives knowledge, and God’s messenger is someone who is delivering a message from God and can be a prophet and/or teacher or neither.

I hope so.

130

[QUOTE=Alien Love Child]
Good point, I wish I had the answers, obviously I don’t. I believe one day I will.
[/QUOTE]

Is it better to actively seek out the answers, or to wait for them to be given to you?

131

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I know that you profess not to be a Christian. I am asking if you know of any prophets that have popped up in Christianity as you generally understand it to be, and if not, why do you think not. In the Old Testament prophets popped up whenever things got tough or confusing-you would think that it couldn’t get any more confusing than it is today.
[/QUOTE]
I think prophets, messengers, and teachers are not sent to any one religion. Jesus message was to everyone, he just happened to be born a Jew. It’s also likely that a messenger will be rejected at first by the major religious leaders around them since their message threatens their influence and position. Jesus was rejected by the Jews. Mohamed’s message was initially rejected by the polytheistic tribes around him. Bahá’u’lláh was persecuted and imprisoned by the Muslims in Iran. It takes centuries for the message to spread and people being what they are their is often disagreement and factions split off.

The things I appreciate about the Bahai are spoken of here

and

and

Sounds fairly progressive doesn’t it? Imagine it being written in the mid 1800s. Getting Christianity to recognize someone like Bahá’u’lláh as God’s messenger will prove to be quite a chore although not impossible.

We do need labels for the sake of communication. I just don’t want to let the labels get in the way and they often do. It’s a pet peeve of mine.

132

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Is it better to actively seek out the answers, or to wait for them to be given to you?
[/QUOTE]

Actively seek every time. Even if they are given to you it’s right to investigate and question.

133

[QUOTE=diggleblop]
“That’s a odd question coming from a Christian”, you say. But hear me out.

More people have died in the name of God than almost any other reason. Don’t you think that upon seeing this, God could’ve come down by now and stated, “look guys, I’m here, this is what religion you should or shouldn’t follow, now stop killing each other over me. I hate seeing my children kill each other. Peace out…”?

You know, kinda like a “stop fighting or I’ll turn this planet around and go right back to the beginning !”

I mean, how hard could it be, he’s/she’s/it’s God?
[/QUOTE]

I’m an atheist, so take this for whatever it’s worth. But if there were a god, I’d think He is very smart to avoid revealing himself - otherwise, I’d be pressing for him to be tried at The Hague. :smiley: The Old Testament alone is filled with stories of God engaging in hideous acts of genocide - consider Amalek, for example. Of the ten plagues visited upon Egypt. Enslavement of the Jews or no, it’s damn hard to justify deliberate inducement of famine, let alone the murder of all first-born sons. The civilian death toll, had these things actually occurred, would have been shocking beyond belief. An omnipotent deity could easily exert pressure upon the Egyptian government through attacks upon solely military targets - there’s no indication this was even attempted before plagues were unleashed upon the civilian populace.

And these are just the high points - the Old Testament is full of God encouraging his followers to rape, murder and pillage. These are crimes against humanity - they have no statute of limitations, and the fact that laws against them were enacted after they took place makes no difference at all. The Nazis, after all, were tried for crimes they committed before most (though not all) of our modern law against war crimes was enacted.

Now, how we would incarcerate an omnipotent deity is left as an exercise for the reader. :slight_smile: But I’d certainly advocate his incarceration and trial, and I doubt I’d be the only one.

134

[QUOTE=Musicat]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I detect a logical flaw here. You claim that humans are approaching God’s knowledge based on the evidence that human knowledge in the 21st century vastly exceeds that of the First Century. (I’m not entirely sure that 21st Century knowledge is all it’s cracked up to be, but I’ll leave that for another debate.) Yet the mere advancement of human knowledge relative to past human knowledge doesn’t necessarily bring humans significantly closer to God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge may exceed human knowledge by so many orders of magnitude that gathering a few bits of philosophy, chemistry, physics, and astronomy doesn’t really bring us closer to God’s level, just as climbing a mountain doesn’t bring a person closer to the Sun.

Returning to the cat analogy, cats know a great deal about certain things, such as how to hunt mice. For all we know, cats may believe that their knowledge of these things brings them close to the human level of intelligence. If so, that’s only because cats can’t conceive of the realms of knowledge that humans have explored. In a similar fashion, it’s quite plausible that humans can’t conceive of many realms of knowledge that God has explored.

135

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
… In a similar fashion, it’s quite plausible that humans can’t conceive of many realms of knowledge that God has explored.
[/QUOTE]
Well whose design was that?

136

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Well whose design was that?
[/QUOTE]

God know how to love all, humans have a long way to go.

137

[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Please forgive me for asking, but why doesn’t it pass the sniff test? I can breed fruit flies fairly easily, create a home for them, provide food and other necessities, and in every way absolutely dominate the existence of fruit flies. But I cannot communicate with fruit flies at all, much less inform them of specific things. Plainly perfect communication ability is not always a result of omnipotent power.

138

[QUOTE=diggleblop]
If there were a God, don’t you think he would’ve made him or her self known by now?
[/QUOTE]

HE has made Himself known… :smack:

139

[QUOTE=lekatt]
God know how to love all, humans have a long way to go.
[/QUOTE]
And whose design was that?

140

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Please forgive me for asking, but why doesn’t it pass the sniff test? I can breed fruit flies fairly easily, create a home for them, provide food and other necessities, and in every way absolutely dominate the existence of fruit flies. But I cannot communicate with fruit flies at all, much less inform them of specific things. Plainly perfect communication ability is not always a result of omnipotent power.
[/QUOTE]
I’m talking about an omnipotent being, one who can stand outside of time and the universe and who created both. This seems to me to be fundamentally different situation from just having control over the life and existence of some other being.

Unless I’m thinking completely wrong, omnipotent means the ability to do anything. That’s anything. So if there is something an omnipotent being isn’t doing, it’s because he doesn’t want to, not because he can’t. And that would seem to include communicating with us, the ignorant but curious creations.