Will God ever intervene in a large, direct, videotapable way?

[Steve_Wright]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**Well, Steve Wright, I’m afraid that’s a cop out. So, God created the world, with natural laws, and people to work things out for themselves. Congradulations, you’re a deist. The problem be that if your observation of God is based on observation of the physical universe, you come up a little short. If you can find a holy scripture that backs up the assertion that God doesn’t mess with physical reality given provocation, by all means submit it. Of course, you will then have to prove its veracity. **

What constitutes holy scripture? Am I restricted just to the Bible? I don’t believe the Bible contains a complete description of the nature of God… actually, I believe that, if it did, it would be incomprehensible to mortal man (and, since it was written by and for mortal man, that doesn’t seem to me to be too likely.)

In fact… how do you (or I, for that matter) know that I’m not producing holy scripture myself, even as I type? After all, I’m as much God’s creation and instrument as the next bloke, just as likely (or not) to be inspired by His Holy Spirit, He has chosen less worthy vessels to reveal Himself (though don’t press me for examples of that). This may be the Gospel according to Steve; whatever it is, its authenticity is scarcely in doubt.

As for physical evidence… what, the whole of the universe isn’t enough? It’s all God’s work, it’s all miraculous, everywhere you walk is holy ground, all that background microwave radiation is just the echo of the original “Fiat Lux”…

OK, I’ll stop being facetious. I’m quite happy to concede that my belief in God is not logical or scientific; there is no test I can think of that would distinguish (on an absolute, evidentiary basis) between the universe as I see it (God-created) and the universe as - I presume - you see it (the product of natural processes). Nonetheless, I continue to believe in God. It’s not a belief founded in logic, it’s partly intuitive, partly based on subjective experiences (which I doubt I could describe in any way that would be meaningful to you - no disrespect is intended here, just a recognition that you and I are, fundamentally, different people, and what means something to me won’t evoke the same reaction in you.)

So, given that my belief is not arrived at through logic, it follows that you’re not going to argue me out of it that way… nor will I be able to come up with a logical argument that satisfies you. Well, we can agree to differ. And we can, at least, continue to discuss our differences, and consider what, logically, proceeds from the premises we’ve chosen to adopt. We are both human beings, we can communicate. Increased understanding is a good thing, and I hope this glimpse into the murky world of a believer’s thought processes helps you.

[Siege]

Look, if you believe the Torah/Pentatuch/Old Testament, wholesale miracles didn’t have that much long term effect anyway. People who had seen the Red Sea parted convinced not long after that God had deserted them. Mana was given as a response to human grumbling.

To take something utterly trivial, last night I realized the reason I haven’t been feeling well is because I’ve got a cold. I asked God to send me a good night’s sleep, but this devout Christian didn’t get one, despite taking a couple of Benadryl as back up. In my book, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t care about me; it means I’ve got a cold.

Respectfully (and tiredly!)
CJ

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Steve Wright *

God doesn’t have to screw around with the laws of nature. He made them in the first place, they work just the way He wants them to.

Human wickedness, though it undoubtedly grieves Him, is not something He will intervene to prevent; to do so would be to violate the free will that He Himself gave us. (Thinkers of much higher calibre than myself have generally agreed that God is not big on self-contradiction).

So are you saying that God set the universe in motion, so to speak, and then simply lets it continue without interfering in any way? That would seem to belie the teachings of most religions. Not that you aren’t allowed to disagree with the rest of the Christians in the world - I just want to make sure that’s really what you’re saying.

As for what’s called physical evil - natural disasters and the like - well, these things can be avoided or prevented if we come to a better understanding of God and His Creation. (Including, of course, the natural laws governing that Creation. I think it’s part of my Christian duty to have faith and practice the scientific method.)

That makes sense, except that the part about God seems superfluous. I agree that we can gain some control over our environment by understanding its properties, but that can be done with or without belief in God. How does the God-belief help us control our environment?

[Steve_Wright]

I don’t think God ever interferes, but He may well intervene… the point is, though, that, since He’s given us free will, so that we can freely choose to believe in Him (or not), He will not intervene in ways which would compel belief. God answers prayers in a manner consistent with the natural laws of the universe. (Note 1. I say “will not intervene”, rather than “cannot intervene”; God can do anything, He’s omnipotent, it’s in His job description. 2. God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is “No.”)

“How does the God-belief help us control our environment?” I’m not sure that it does… more the other way about; studying God’s creation helps us (within our limits) to understand God. Though, I suppose, science originated out of religious thought - the desire to find the truth and the meaning of our existence is the basis of both. (And, despite what some fundamentalists will try and tell you, science and religion are not incompatible.) But, since God does not reveal compelling evidence of His existence, you can study nature as long and hard as you like, without any requirement to believe in God.

[robertliguori]

Steve Wright’s a deist, too. If God wants people to believe in him without proof, and thus does not answer prayer in a way distinguishable from the machinations of a cold, uncaring universe or let any sign of His presence be detected, how is He different than the absence of God?

[Steve_Wright]

Well, as I said in an earlier reply, I can (to a small extent) subjectively and intuitively feel the presence of God, through prayer, worship and meditation (or just when He wants to reveal Himself). But, as I said, none of that constitutes objective, logical, scientific proof of His existence. That isn’t forthcoming, and I have no reason to expect it ever will be, so long as the material world endures.

(and, yep, I’m still the same deist I was yesterday…)

[vanilla]

He will.
At the end of the Tribulation, He will return to the mount of Olives and “every eye will see him”.
So…I guess someone will be videotaping.

[Beagle]

Most of the devout Christians I’ve known have felt that they see the active hand of god in every sunrise, every flower, child’s laugh, ray of sunshine, rainbow, etc.

I’m not very religious. I’m irreligious actually, and I have to admit that thoughts like this have crossed my mind. Usually around sunup and sunset I feel some sense of wonder and majesty. Maybe I worship the Sun God.

Does the ontological argument apply to the Sun God? I think so.

I think I mostly agree with Steve Wright on the basic issues. For further deep (or not, it’s pretty funny) insights rent the movie “Oh, God!” (1977) starring John Denver and George Burns.

[AHunter3]

Look, out your windows! Quick, grab your videocam! It’s a big bang! It started just 15 billion years ago. There was nothing, and now all this!

[cmkeller]

http://www.god.org/

Naturally his suffix is .org, since for quite a while, he’s been a non-prophet organization.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by Steve Wright *
**Well, as I said in an earlier reply, I can (to a small extent) subjectively and intuitively feel the presence of God, through prayer, worship and meditation (or just when He wants to reveal Himself). But, as I said, none of that constitutes objective, logical, scientific proof of His existence. That isn’t forthcoming, and I have no reason to expect it ever will be, so long as the material world endures.

(and, yep, I’m still the same deist I was yesterday…) **

But meditiation and prayer have been shown to have a physical effect on brain waves; in fact, IIRC, that’s how Alpha waves were discovered. In the absence of any objective proof, don’t you think it more likely that these subjective feelings you have are due to the physical changes in your brain waves brought about by the act of meditating? In another thread, I linked to this article:
http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/Heretic/insearch.htm

For several years, Persinger has been using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation to induce all sorts of surreal experiences in ordinary people (New Scientist, 19 November 1994, p 29). Through trial and error and a bit of educated guesswork, he’s found that a weak magnetic field–1 microtesla, which is roughly that generated by a computer monitor–rotating anticlockwise in a complex pattern about the temporal lobes will cause four out of five people to feel a spectral presence in the room with them.

In this case, wouldn’t you agree that the subjects’ subjective feelings are NOT evidence of the presence of another being?

I suppose it’s possible that during meditation and/or prayer, the brain waves change in response to the influence of a supernatural entity, but doesn’t Occam’s Razor demand that we accept the simpler explanation, rather than add an unneccesary and unverifiable extra layer?

[Bryan_Ekers]

At this point, the first videotape of God will probably show him whaling on a black man in South Central L.A.

[EasyPhil]

The first video tape will be of an alien from another universe that has the power to reach earth in their lifetime and also have the power to do something spectacular.

[Neurotik]

The ability to travel from one universe to another in its lifetime doesn’t have the power to do something spectacular already?

Man, you are one tough hombre to please.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**Steve Wright’s a deist, too. If God wants people to believe in him without proof, and thus does not answer prayer in a way distinguishable from the machinations of a cold, uncaring universe or let any sign of His presence be detected, how is He different than the absence of God? **

You’re presenting a false dilemma. As I emphasized to you in previous threads, the absence of proof is not the same as the absence of evidence.

[robertliguori]

And JThunder, you’re missing that the evidence isn’t evident. And you can prove a concept false, without going out and searching for every applicable instanciation and comparing them by hand. A triangle cannot have two sides, and an omnipotent omnicient omnibenevolent entitiy cannot permit the existence of unnecessary suffering. Just as the definition of a triangle disproves the existence of a two-sided one, the existence of suffering demonstrates that if God exists, he is what, say, the bible claims he is.
I’d be interested to hear about the evidence you’ve accumulated for God’s existence. If it is, say, videotapable…

[Dryga_Yes]

*Originally posted by cmkeller *
**Naturally his suffix is .org, since for quite a while, he’s been a non-prophet organization. **

::groan::

Why do I laugh so hard at this?

[Absolute]

*Originally posted by Steve Wright *
** God answers prayers in a manner consistent with the natural laws of the universe.
**

The difference between doing that and doing nothing being what, exactly?

[EasyPhil]

*Originally posted by Neurotik *
**The ability to travel from one universe to another in its lifetime doesn’t have the power to do something spectacular already?

Man, you are one tough hombre to please. **

Yeah, now that you mention it, that would be pretty spectacular.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**And JThunder, you’re missing that the evidence isn’t evident. **

Well first of all, I would disagree with that claim… but more importantly, it’s an irrelevant objection.

Remember, we are discussing one very specific statement of yours, namely:

If God wants people to believe in him without proof, and thus does not answer prayer in a way distinguishable from the machinations of a cold, uncaring universe or let any sign of His presence be detected, how is He different than the absence of God?

Your question assumes the absence of any PROOF for God is indistinguishable from the absence of God himself. I’m merely pointing out that this is a false dilemma, since “proof” is not synonymous with evidence. The question of what evidence currently exists, and how compelling it is, is a separate issue altogether.