07-12-2022, 10:34 PM
(07-12-2022, 05:49 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I greatly appreciate responses that are informative, nuanced and well-stated. It make these types of discussion much easier to have and maintain, in my opinion.
I've never found these definitions to be particularly useful, as I believe there is only one undeniable proof. Therefore, all other proofs would necessarily fall into the deniable category.
Instead, when I speak of proof, what I'm referring to is that which can is available to, and able to withstand scientific rigor; be identified, observed, investigated, analyzed, evaluated, tested and concluded to be the best and most accurate explanation.
When I ask someone for proof that God is real, I'm asking for evidence that could meet that criteria -- meaning that in necessarily manifest in the natural world and is subject to natural methodologies. If the evidence falls outside that scope, I'm not sure what it even means to call it evidence, as it's simply conjecture based on that which can't be currently accessed or investigated; of no use in terms of real-world utility.
Falling into the category of deniable proof isn't the problem. The problem is the level of the claim itself; an all-powerful entity that created everything and has the power to affect our existence for eternity, and who can occupy a realm outside of know space and time.
It seems to me that proving that claim would first require that we prove the supernatural exists, and then we have a meaningful way to access and investigate it. Until that becomes possible, proving God is impossible, in my opinion.
I share your sentiment regarding these types of debates.
As for your response.
I think we're essentially saying the same thing here, albeit in a different manner. As the argument currently stands, you and I both have common ground in claiming that God is impossible to prove, if I'm understanding your argument correctly. The difference however seems to be that you believe that God cannot be scientifically proven. This might seem strange, but I both agree and disagree with your assessment.
I feel it's difficult to say whether or not God can be proven scientifically. I think this not because a conclusion needs to be made as to whether it is true or not, but because it is both true and false at the same time. Now I do understand by saying that, it seems like it contradicts my previous point that only God can prove himself, but I don't consider these two statements to be contradictory.
The funny thing about science is that science paired with time is what has created many of the things that we have discovered today. As humanity has progressed with technological advancement, so also has the discoveries of science. So it begs the question, has God not been discovered because it's a fact that science will never find him? Or, is there a grand assumption being made here and 100....1000.....10,000 years from now God will be "discovered" by science and we are simply living in the wrong era?
Now, as to my point about the "contradiction". Lets say we live in the year 7022 and technology is vastly more advanced than where we are right now. Science becomes so advanced that it somehow discovers a "supernatural" force. You're so astonished by this scientific discovery, that it causes you to believe in God.
The truth is, that scientific discovery actually wouldn't prove anything to anyone other than you and people who value the scientific evidence in exactly the same way you do. This is because, as I alluded to in my previous post, everyone has differing standards of "proof". So, whenever someone asks for God to be scientifically proven, they're really asking for someone to meet their standard of scientific proof, because there is no universal standard by which the existence of God can be tested, so your belief is completely up to how you view scientific evidence as an individual and what that "discovery" would personally mean to you.
We would still be within the realm of deniable proof even if God was "scientifically" discovered, because again, what does that mean? How do you scientifically prove God if there isn't a standard to even prove beings like God exist, let alone "supernatural" forces. As an athiest would argue against a Christian, (and I'm not saying this to be snarky, just making a point), how would you know that what you scientifically discovered isn't Vishnu? Or Krishna? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? That's the problem in asking for scientific "proof".
My point ultimately being, God would still have to reveal himself to make his existence a complete and utter fact without question. No scientific discovery can prove that in the realm of undeniability. Any attempts to do so would either meet alternate explanations or be questioned on validity.
Imagine you don't know who I am. Actually, you don't have to imagine that because it's a fact that you don't know who I am. It's also a fact that you won't ever know who I am unless I personally show you who I am. You could of course gather enough information to find out where I'm responding to you from, but you would never actually know who is actually typing this message to you right now. Even if you found out where I live, what car I drive or where I work, you could never prove that I am the person that actually typed this message. This is very much the same with God. No matter what we "discover" concerning God, it will always be faith until he actually reveals himself.
That's why I don't believe my statements to be contradictory. You of course never claimed they were, as you haven't responded yet, but I figured I should explain my position in that regard since I appeared to be making two contesting points.
Quote:I find it a little too curious that a God that's capable of revealing himself to everyone chooses not to. It seems he would know what would be 100% effective on each individual; as to leave no doubt of his existence. Yet, he decides for other methods that seem all too human in terms of nature. I find the issue of divine hiddenness is a huge problem for a God that wants everyone to know and believe in him.
Two common objections are that if God revealed himself in a way that would convince everyone of his existence, it would prevent us to seeking him out as a desire for the relationship, or that very act would violate our free will. However, I find this objection to be inadequate for a couple of reasons:
First; if God is omniscient, then he already knew every instance of belief, nonbelief, the reasons why and what would constitute evidence for every individual. The fact that he created every person knowing what evidence would convince them and chose not to grant them said evidence, would seem to suggest he doesn't actually care about it to the degree the Biblical authors claimed on his behalf.
Second; everyone knowing for a fact that God exists doesn't mean that everyone would choose to follow him, worship him or desire a relationship with him. In the Biblical accounts, Lucifer knew God existed, and still chose to reject him. Lucifer's free will was not violated by the knowledge of God's existence.
I think you bring up some thought provoking objections here. However, I believe there's a few counter points to be made.
In your first objection, you would have to make the assumption that God actually hasn't revealed himself to those who would require that revelation for belief in him. Now of course, you could say that you are a personal example of this and that God has never revealed himself to you, but I have no way of actually knowing that myself because I haven't personally lived your life. The reality here is that we all live within our own circular logic in that regard and can only confirm it for ourselves. You can't prove to me what God has or hasn't revealed to you just as I can't prove to you what God has or hasn't revealed to me.
Secondly, I think the concept of "caring" is a bit more complicated than human beings give it credit for. If someone doesn't call you everyday, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't buy you that new toy that you know will make you happy, they don't care about you. If someone doesn't go out of their way to say hi, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't help you with a debt situation, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't feed you, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't call the cops, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't help you find a job, they don't really care about you. If someone doesn't tell you someone's doing shady things behind your back, they don't really care about you. And so on, and so on.
These are the types of constraints we as a society place upon the concept of "real caring" and we typically consider ourselves to be the author of what "caring" really means. But perhaps we should think a little more about this. Does God really not care about us because he doesn't reveal himself in an undeniable fashion? Well, I would first say even if God revealed himself to us, that doesn't necessarily mean we would get into heaven, depending on what interpretation you believe, so there's that point to make. But lets say one wants to argue from the standpoint that just believing in God will get you into heaven and if God revealed himself to us it would show he really cares about us, but he doesn't reveal himself so he really doesn't care about us.
I must ask, at what point does our personal viewpoint of "caring" no longer make God "God"?
If God revealed himself and we went to heaven but then found out heaven has a bunch of rules you have to follow, otherwise you get thrown out, then some people would just revert back to "God doesn't care about us". My point being, God would essentially have to lose godly authority and abide by the rules of man to show that he "cares" for us. I don't see why God would ever do that. It would basically make him not God anymore, and he would be much more a supernatural entity that simply acts upon the very wishes of his own creation.
What kind of "God" is that? And what happens when people in heaven have differing opinions about things and asks God to act on their behalf to show he cares? A God constantly acting on the whims of man to show how much he cares about them and their desires wouldn't just be an eternal contradiction, but would usher in an eternal age of chaos, because lets be honest..... This isn't just about belief. This is about the concept of the judgement of man and sin as a whole.
Quote:Thanks for sharing your experience, but as I'm sure you anticipated, I have questions.
Did you give equally serious consideration to the alternative that what you felt was simply your brain's interpretation of fear, stress and adrenaline you were experiencing?
Had you had gotten out absent the feeling of being lifted, after calling upon God for assistance, would you still have given God credit?
If someone else calls out to God while drowning and no help comes, what would you conclude about God?
I realize your account is purely anecdotal, but I still think these are important questions whenever I'm presented with such accounts. There questions are meant in any to discount what you experienced, as it's very significant to you. However, I always find it interesting in such instances how or why other reasonable explanations aren't given the same consideration?
You guessed correctly.
If I'm going to be honest, it's hard for me to say it was anything natural. I actually felt by my body stop mid-sink and instantaneously change direction. I just really can't credit that to natural happenings and I instead give the credit to God. I am severely aware of the assumption being made here, but it's one I'm willing to make.
You asked if someone called out to God while drowning and God didn't save them, what would I conclude? Well, nothing really, other than God's will is above mine. What would you conclude?
Hopefully I haven't come off as arrogant in my responses. I have enjoyed the conversation so far and await your response.
