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

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
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.
[/quote]
Much like fruit flies and a wide variety of creatures, cats lack the ability to consider “self.” Cats don’t believe, they react. As you are no doubt aware, humanity is more than suited for mental exploration and the fact that we’ve yet to discover and document every quirk, nook, and cranny of the physical universe in no way implies that we’d be unable to understand anything particular if a certain super being saw fit to give the odd lecture at the local community college.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
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]
Indeed, you and a million lab techs can breed drosophilidae… but that’s a pretty far cry from omnipotence, don’t you think? You’re not really creating anything at all. You don’t happen to hold a belief that God ordered some pre-cultured humans off the Godernet to populate the earth, do you?

Anyways, let us not forget that the Big G supposedly created us in His image. We have reason, logic, and the (probably overdeveloped) capacity for abstract thought. Logically speaking, it really doesn’t seem like there is any coherent concept that ought to be beyond humanity given a sufficiently patient teacher and a whole lot of diagrams. You can’t talk to fruit flies because they don’t have language. Really, they don’t think at all. God doesn’t get off so easy with humanity.

142

[QUOTE=Rockrz]
HE has made Himself known… :smack:
[/quote]

Not that I’m really expecting much of anything but… cite?

143

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Not that I’m really expecting much of anything but… cite?
[/QUOTE]
Well, how about rainbows, puppies, daisies, pretty clouds, and happy babies.

Oh, and Charles Manson.

144

I don’t think it’s a matter of cannot at all. My question is why assume that giving us immediate and clear knowledge that God exists is the better option? It’s a question of purpose not ability.

So, the question “Why doesn’t God just show us that he is and explain the rules more clearly?” is a valid question but I don’t consider it a strong indicator that God must not exist.

IMHO it’s tied up in the issue of free will and the fact that clear knowledge that God exists surely doesn’t guarantee better choices by humanity. Perhaps the experience and the struggle to seek God and choose our direction is all as important as belief.

145

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Much like fruit flies and a wide variety of creatures, cats lack the ability to consider “self.”
[/QUOTE]

Not that I’m really expecting much of anything but… cite?

I couldn’t resist

Oh come on. If I explained how a TV or cell phones work to someone who lived 1000 years ago how might they react? Would they say “ok,…makes sense to me”

Considering some of the areas quantum physics is just beginning to explore and how little we understand about our own consciousness it’s not hard to imagine that there are possibilities beyond our comprehension. In fact I think a history of man’s progress serves as a great example and cite.

So, while"there are things beyond our comprehension " may not be a satisfying response it is not an unrealistic one.

146

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Well, how about rainbows, puppies, daisies, pretty clouds, and happy babies.

Oh, and Charles Manson.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah but…I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now and realize I really don’t know clouds at all. Neither does Joni.

147

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

Maybe the question is, “Whose choice was that?”

148

[QUOTE=lekatt]
God know how to love all, humans have a long way to go.
[/QUOTE]
Hang on a moment; if humans cannot love all, cannot even understand how to do it, then how can we recognise it in others? Surely being able to understand all-loving is a requisite for recognising it. By your own argument it is impossible for us to know whether God is all-loving or not. And by your argument you can’t even know we have a long way to go, because logically either we do in which case you would be incapable of judgement, or we don’t in which case we would be likely to recognise it but you’re in the wrong. Either way, your opinion is invalidated by your own argument.

149

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Maybe the question is, “Whose choice was that?”
[/QUOTE]
Not in those cases. The argument was that there are human shortcomings, not human choices.

150

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
Not in those cases. The argument was that there are human shortcomings, not human choices.
[/QUOTE]

Not the way I read it. I understand you reading it that way but I read it as humans don’t know how to love all because they haven’t made that a priority, not because of a design flaw. A design flaw would indicate they simply can’t. Nobody said that.

151

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Much like fruit flies and a wide variety of creatures, cats lack the ability to consider “self.”
[/quote]
Not that I’m really expecting much of anything but… cite?

I couldn’t resist
[/quote]
Cheeky! Good thing I have a Standard Rejoinder™: The burden of proof is all yours, pal. Please offer any evidence you desire in the interest of demonstrating that cats (or fruit flies, if you prefer) have meaningful self-awareness or the ability to abstract. Do cats consider the myriad properties of “catness” and compare themselves to other cats? Other animals? Are cats conscientious?

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Oh come on. If I explained how a TV or cell phones work to someone who lived 1000 years ago how might they react? Would they say “ok,…makes sense to me”
[/quote]
Oh come on yourself. Please, give me an example of anything currently known to man that cannot be broken down into ever simpler constituent parts. Once the building blocks are small enough, anyone can pick them up. Sure, you couldn’t walk up to someone 1000 years ago and say, “Cell phones work because they’ve got a PCB with a microprocessor that can transmit data via TD-SCDMA. Get it?” But you can start at the very beginning (or somewhere in the middle) and work your way up. It’s not like every technological advancement ever in history was simultaneously discovered by everyone who used it. Someone figured out something neat and passed the information along.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
In fact I think a history of man’s progress serves as a great example and cite.
[/quote]
Cite for what? That we don’t understand things we don’t understand yet? As I mentioned earlier, the fact that we’ve yet to discover and document every quirk, nook, and cranny of the physical universe in no way implies that we’d be unable to understand anything in particular in the future-- particularly if a someone much more experienced was helping.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So, while"there are things beyond our comprehension " may not be a satisfying response it is not an unrealistic one.
[/quote]
Ah, the old “switcheroo.” See, where science and technology are concerned, there are things which are currently “beyond our comprehension.” Matter of fact, I’ll be darned if I know how a warp drive actually works. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t understand if I had the schematics and relevant equations. However, I’m not asking God for a 5G phone that uses subspace to get me free long distance anywhere inside this solar system. No, I was talking about something everyone can understand and chat about right now: Suffering, objective morality, and God’s rationale for burying a newborn in a mudslide. Is it your position then that there is some sort of “hyper morality” that explains the goodness of such a thing? Perhaps my morals are simply too much for God to bear?

152

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Hang on a moment; if humans cannot love all, cannot even understand how to do it, then how can we recognise it in others? Surely being able to understand all-loving is a requisite for recognising it. By your own argument it is impossible for us to know whether God is all-loving or not. And by your argument you can’t even know we have a long way to go, because logically either we do in which case you would be incapable of judgement, or we don’t in which case we would be likely to recognise it but you’re in the wrong. Either way, your opinion is invalidated by your own argument.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t have to know how to play golf yo want to know how and believe that playing golf is a very desirable thing.

I don’t think your argument here holds up.

153

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You don’t have to know how to play golf yo want to know how and believe that playing golf is a very desirable thing.
[/quote]
Yes, you do.

Imagine I take Bob, who knows nothing about golf, to a golf course. He sees lots of people having fun whacking balls around and putting them into holes, and he turns to me and says “Hey, i’d like to learn that!”

Now; what does Bob mean when he says “that”?

  • To whack balls around, and then into holes? That’s what he’s seeing.
  • To play the game of golf, score a 2 under par, and back to the 19th hole afterwards? But he doesn’t know any of those things. In fact, if I let Bob off to go and do it himself, he might even want to get a high score.

What he wants, i’d assume, is a mix of the first and then an amount of uncertainty, not the second. In order to want to play golf, he has to know about golf to want it. It may turn out that, once learning all the rules, he doesn’t end up liking it after all; the initial things he liked end up outweighed by the things he doesn’t. Of course, he could find he enjoys it anyway. But regardless, what he initially wanted and what he ended up getting are not the same thing.

Likewise, the concept of unconditional/omni-/all/prime love, or whatever type someone chooses, is certainly initially appealing on the face of it. From what we know of it, we can say “Yes, i’d like to learn that, please!”. But if we do not know it - if, as** lekatt** says, we are very far from it - what we will end up with is very likely to be different from what it initially appears to be on the surface. Similarily, if we are so very far from it we won’t be able to recognise true golf, true love if we see it. After all, baseball is also hitting a ball around. Tennis is also hitting a ball around. How can we recognise what is golf from these things if we have a poor concept of it? You might say the important main point stays the same, but to go back to Bob again, how can we be truly sure that getting ourselves a high score is the rules of the game? We can’t, unless we know it.

154

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I don’t think it’s a matter of cannot at all.
[/quote]
Well sure, that was my point. I was responding to the idea that god would not be able to convince us that he existed. My point is that if an omnipotent being wants us to know he exits, he can do it. If he doesn’t do it, it’s not because he can’t, but because he won’t.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
My question is why assume that giving us immediate and clear knowledge that God exists is the better option? It’s a question of purpose not ability.

So, the question “Why doesn’t God just show us that he is and explain the rules more clearly?” is a valid question but I don’t consider it a strong indicator that God must not exist.
[/quote]
I think it’s an indicator. How strong an indicator is going to be subjective, obviously.

An omnipotent being creates us, loves us, and wants us to learn, grow, and become better people according to its principals. However it leaves no clear indication of what those principals are, what paths to learning we should follow, what indicators of growth we should look for, what constitutes right or wrong ways, etc. It doesn’t even leave clear evidence it exists at all.

Would clear evidence that the being existed help us to think that following those hazy principals might be good idea? I think the answer is obviously yes. The fact that this isn’t the case is one more piece of evidence.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
IMHO it’s tied up in the issue of free will
[/quote]
Again, I don’t see the connection with free will. An omnipotent being could take away free will and make us believe in all its principals, but could also just give knowledge of its existence.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
and the fact that clear knowledge that God exists surely doesn’t guarantee better choices by humanity. Perhaps the experience and the struggle to seek God and choose our direction is all as important as belief.
[/QUOTE]
Surely? I think it’s obvious from the posts in this thread that it isn’t sure at all.

155

[QUOTE=recessiveMeme]
Cheeky! Good thing I have a Standard Rejoinder™: The burden of proof is all yours, pal. Please offer any evidence you desire in the interest of demonstrating that cats (or fruit flies, if you prefer) have meaningful self-awareness or the ability to abstract. Do cats consider the myriad properties of “catness” and compare themselves to other cats? Other animals? Are cats conscientious?
[/QUOTE]
Not by SDMB rules as I understand them. Since you made the statement as fact it is up to you to provide the cite that it is true. In much the same way your quote that I used was employed to the other poster.

Of course that’s how it worked. And people built on the discoveries and ideas of their predecessors. It’s a gradual process and takes time to go from a few people discussing some ideas to something commonly understood. Your assertion only works if the average person can comprehend all that God has to teach them. There’s no realistic basis for that assumption. Instead history shows that humans need a very gradual process of questioning, exploring, developing ideas and eventually bringing the fruits of our efforts to the masses. Looking at that process it is very easy to believe that there is much left to discover and what may be common knowledge in the future may be beyond our comprehension now.
Even if I simplified and said waves containing pictures and sounds fly through the air to be collected in a box so we can see and hear it, the average person 1000 years ago would think I’m insane rather than comprehend and think it reasonable

That’s right. That fact by itself does not imply that. The actual history of discovery throughout the ages clearly does.

And an unspecified amount of time, and the desire to understand.
First you’d have to believe that warp drive was even possible to even want to try and understand how it works. That may be possible given our current state , but go back a few hundred years and it was truly beyond the comprehension of most people. It’s not hard to believe that there are things beyond our comprehension now because we haven’t taken enough steps in the step by step process to do so.

What seems very obvious to me is that we {the average world citizen} don’t really understand that much about suffering, what causes it, and how to move more people to care about it and take action, or we would be doing a lot more about it. So, my observation is that while we can chat about it, not everyone can understand it, although there are obviously plenty of opinions.

and no, that is not my position so your snide remark is lost on me.

156

I’m pretty sure He has manifested himself, in the form of a second coming, in the year 1000, as he promised.

But nobody noticed, so there were no more books written about it.

157

When the hell did “convincing evidence of the existence of a god” turn into “everything a god knows”? An all-knowing god would know what it would take to convince me of his/her/its existence without my losing free will, and an omnipotent god would be able to do it with both hands(tentacles, antennae, what have you) tied behind his/her/its back while reciting the Illuminatus! in the original Klingon from memory while balancing a John Deere tractor on his/her/its nose(noses, snout, trunk, what have you) in the blink of an eye. The fact that we get all our information about dieties third, fourth and fifth hand(if we’re lucky) only shows me that god(gods, goddesses, aliens from another planet with powers far beyond those of mortal men, what have you) mistake the parlor game “telephone” as an effective means of communication.

158

[QUOTE=RJKUgly]
Well sure, that was my point. I was responding to the idea that god would not be able to convince us that he existed. My point is that if an omnipotent being wants us to know he exits, he can do it. If he doesn’t do it, it’s not because he can’t, but because he won’t.
[/QUOTE]

IMO the question is why doesn’t he? There is no omnipotent benevolent god is one possible option. I just don’t think it’s as obvious or clear or even as logical as it is often presented here.

Lot’s of people wouldn’t agree with your conclusions here. Some might say that the principles have been given to us and we choose to compromise them to pursue our own desires. Then we suffer by our own choices and cry, “Why ME”

IMO it’s a question of purpose and that’s still a mystery. My kids obviously knew I existed and had a good idea of what I wanted of them, and what the rules were. Yet they still had the desire to discover for themselves, through their own choices and own experiences and if that meant breaking the rules and suffering the consequences thats what happened. They might eventually come around to understanding and seeing the wisdom of my guidance but it took the experience for that to happen. Knowing that, I have a hard time seeing it as obvious that a clear knowledge that God existed, with free will remaining, would really change much.
We can say an omnipotent God could plant within us knowledge of his existence along with comprehension of his rules and why it’s good to follow them, but I think that would defeat that purpose of experience and free will. If the experience of discovery, seeking, and choosing even when in doubt, and then dealing with the consequences, is all part of the experience plan, then things are as they should be and though there are plenty of problems remaining, we are on the path as long as we still seek to know what is true and how to make things better.

I suppose he could Since a huge percentage of the worlds population believe in God already why does anyone think this would be an act of love, or likely make things better? The evidence doesn’t support it.
In order to make it work there are usually other details added about what God could or should do if he existed and really cared about us. Every details creeps closer to compromising free will.

Then we don’t agree. I think the evidence indicates that mere knowledge that God is wouldn’t necessarily change behavior.

159

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Not by SDMB rules as I understand them. Since you made the statement as fact it is up to you to provide the cite that it is true. In much the same way your quote that I used was employed to the other poster.
[/quote]
Oh fine, I’ll withdraw my earlier comments and amend the paragraph like so:
I’ve never seen any information which would lead me to believe that cats, fruit flies have the ability to consider the notion of “self.” Further, I doubt there is any such information. Cats don’t believe, they… blah, blah, blah.

Now you, the attentive reader, are in a position to supply evidence to indicate that every little thing I said about cats and fruit flies is incorrect. Enjoy.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Even if I simplified and said waves containing pictures and sounds fly through the air to be collected in a box so we can see and hear it, the average person 1000 years ago would think I’m insane rather than comprehend and think it reasonable
[/quote]
You are missing the point. Here’s a process: Describe a concept. If the concept is understood, move on to the next one. If the concept is not understood, subdivide it into two simpler parts and describe each in turn. Recurse as needed. I asked you to provide an example of anything currently known to man that cannot be broken down into ever simpler constituent parts following this formula. Do you have anything? And do you know why this whole scheme works even better for God? He already knows everything about you and knows exactly how simple He’s going to have to make things for you get it.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
The actual history of discovery throughout the ages clearly does.
[/quote]
You’re going to have to explain that. Right now it just sounds like “Nuh uh!” If anything, History bears out my point. Really, nothing we currently know has been able remain persistently incomprehensible.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
And an unspecified amount of time, and the desire to understand.
[/quote]
OK, but let us just assume that I really want it. In God I’ve got existence’s most competent teacher. He knows exactly what I’ll ask before I ask it and He knows exactly how to explain it so I’ll understand.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
What seems very obvious to me is that we {the average world citizen} don’t really understand that much about suffering, what causes it, and how to move more people to care about it and take action, or we would be doing a lot more about it. So, my observation is that while we can chat about it, not everyone can understand it, although there are obviously plenty of opinions.
[/quote]
And you’ve lost me. Whatever do you mean when you say that humanity doesn’t understand suffering? I imagine it’s not that hard to grasp when you’re watching a child starve to death.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
and no, that is not my position so your snide remark is lost on me.
[/quote]
You’ve made your point plain and my question is justified. You’ve taken the position that God’s motives are incomprehensible and that we might not even understand the subject matter enough to appreciate an answer or even ask the question. By positing “hyper morality”, I tried to encapsulate into a simple phrase the concept of a more sophisticated moral standard for God to use that, while full of decent explanatory power, is just far beyond the grasp of humanity. Sorry if you don’t like my wording. I feel the very notion is silly and I stand by the point. The bit about “my morals [being] too much for God to bear” is simply a way of pointing-out that I view myself as morally superior to God**. Had I the power and the knowledge, I’d help people out. God chooses to do nothing.

**Obviously, a topic for another thread.

160

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Lot’s of people wouldn’t agree with your conclusions here. Some might say that the principles have been given to us and we choose to compromise them to pursue our own desires. Then we suffer by our own choices and cry, “Why ME”
[/QUOTE]
This would be impressive, except for one tiny detail you left out. Lots of people wouldn’t agree with each other’s conclusions either. They don’t agree on the details, the principles supposedly given us, or what the right choices are. There is no consensus.