Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #416]

I'll give you the "sufficient evidence," @Ray the atheist, that convinced me at the age of 16 that God exists and is involved in his universe.

When I heard for the first time as a teenager that Jesus came to live, die, and rise again in order to rescue me from life's emptiness, I began to search the Bible, from which people made that claim. I found that Jesus fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies that were made several centuries before he lived, which was impressive. His miracles were also impressive.

However, it really came down to the claim that he actually rose bodily from death to permanent life. If we are to accept the truth about a historical event, there have to credible eyewitnesses. The Bible says that there were such witnesses, over 500 of them, who saw Jesus alive from the dead after they knew that he had died. And those same witnesses held onto their testimonies in the face of persecution from three different groups who threatened and gave them suffering and death.

You can't get better eyewitnesses of history than those people.

Therefore, if God is powerful enough to raise Jesus from the dead permanently, as those people said he was, then that same God was certainly powerful enough to create the universe and do all the other miracles reported in the Bible. Thus, God convinced me that he is real and that he could turn me into a believer.

That change in my life has remained and grown for the remaining 67 years of my life, as I have read and studied the Bible, which is both true history and teaching from God.

[POI]

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #421]

With all due respect, if your bar is really set this low, in regard to both 1) prophetic claims as well as 2) 'eyewitness' attestation to claimed extraordinary events, then you would have trouble not believing many other competitive claims as well. Which begs a follow up question... Do you believe all extraordinary claims, based upon sketchy 'evidence', or just the ones from the Bible?

[SiNcE_1985]

Unproven assertion.

Nope. We agree that naturalism is not made up and actually exists.

1. Naturalism actually exists.

2. Therefore, naturalism has always existed.

That is literally your rationale.

You're using illogical reasoning, all for the sake of escaping the "G" word.

1) The unproven assertion is that something beyond "naturalism" exists, (i.e.) the invisible "naturalism" creating deity.

The universe (STEM) began to exist.

Whatever gave it it's beginning, could not itself be a product of STEM.

This is deductive reasoning... you just don't like the direction the argument takes us...which is a personal problem, for you.

2) The unproven assertion is also that this invisible naturalism creating deity also answers prayer.

No.

An invisible supernatural creating deity..and the Christian one, at that.

Based on a combination of..

1. Evidence that Christianity is true.

2. Personal testimony.

I'm asking, "where's god?" Let's not beat around the bush...

1) Are you or are you not ultimately claiming that 'god' created 'naturalism'?

Naturalism is an worldview which, by definition, is incompatible with supernaturalism.

They are literally opposite ends of the spectrum.

Not sure how God could create naturalism.

2) Are you or are you not ultimately claiming that 'god' answers your prayers?

I am.

1a) If your answer is 'no' to question 1), then we no longer need to address all the poor apologetics you brought forth, regarding the 'KCA', teleological, etc... And if your answer is 'yes', then referring to 'science' gets us nowhere from someone who flat out rejects much of it. Which leads us to question 2).

I don't follow.

Seems like your entire assessment is based upon a faulty question in 1...and everything began to unravel from there.

2a) If your answer is 'no' to question 2), then we no longer need to address this blank assertion either. If your answer is 'yes', then please facilitate my easy request.

Otherwise, you have no business attending this exchange in the first place.

Wait a minute, you are an unbeliever. You don't believe in God, so to ask the question "where is God", is a loaded, irrelevant question.

So, the question shouldn't be asked in the first place.

It's like asking "Where is my car", when you don't have a car.

It's nonsense.

Since your memory escapes you here, allow me to refresh it... If I lived in a place where millions and billions, (including some of my own family and friends), actually believed in leprechauns to the point of regular worship, frequently bringing them up in conversation, referencing a "book of ordinances and rules" asserting to have been guided by leprechaun(s), etc.; then I'd prolly create an anonymous thread, asking about the where-abouts of leprechauns, in a (debating leprechauns) forum arena. Not only would I do so to avoid discourse with my family and friends, but I would be quite fascinated to know exactly why they all believe such preposterous things -- without insulting the actual people I know and love in person.

Nonsense.

I'm a believer, and no one is hardly ever mentioning the subject of religion.

It's not something that people are talking about at work, on the bus stop, or at the club.

In fact, I'm the one who engage people on the subject of religion...not the other way around.

Which means that, if I didn't initiate such conversations, then those convos would never be had.

Even with family.

Religion isn't something that people are just casually out there discussing as they go about their daily lives, with others.

If you never mention religion to anyone (as you go about your daily life), then more than likely, you won't be engaging in such conversations.

No one is beating you over the head with a Bible, or shoving verses down your throat.

You don't believe in it, yet you feel this compulsive need to continually ask these probing questions about very nuanced particulars of the religion.

Just let it go, man.

You see Venom, there is no skin off my back to ask you why you believe in imaginary things. No offense, but I have no clue who you are in person. And if we were friends in real life, I likely would never bring up this topic at all, out of basic respect for your 'beliefs'. Got it?

Bruh, no one would get offended if you kindly, respectfully, ask them questions about their religion.

So stop it.

And speaking of imaginary things; multiverses, abiogenesis, macroevolution, MUCF's.

Those are things naturalists believe in, to name a few..and you have the audacity to call what religious folks believe in, imaginary

Man, please.

More excuses to avoid the OBVIOUS, in that you are talking to yourself in prayer. If you truly believe god answers prayer, you would have jumped at the chance to pray and convert me. Actions speak louder than words Venom. You WON'T do it because, deep down, you know prayer is talking to yourself, and nothing more.

Again, if God doesn't exist...why would you ask me to pray to a God that doesn't exist, on YOUR behalf?

Absurd.

You added 'babble' to more than just biology Venom.

It depends on the claim.

When peer review points away from the assertions made by the ancient book you revere, you call it babble. And since you are misrepresenting what peer review is, then to discuss virtually any science at all with you is basically a non-starter.

Um, no.

If I saw evidence for macroevolution, I would adjust my interpretation of the Genesis creation account..in fact, that has already been done by theistic evolutionists.

The problem is..there is no evidence for it...with or without God.

You truly are a bad "rubberstamper" Venom. You just keep demonstrating this over and over and over again. Correction:

1. you asked me for a timestamp
2. I did you one better, and offered an 8-minute clip
3. you stated you watched it
4. to prove that you actually watched it, I simply asked that you list the (5) points so that I can believe you
5. and here we are, many moons later.

And my response was for you to prove you have an understanding of those 5 points, by articulating those points in OUR debate.

After all, our conversation shifted to fine-tuning, which is why you offered the clip in the first place.

So, since you've yet to do so, I'm accusing you of appealing to authority, basically, "Because Sean Carroll said so; end of discussion".

See, unlike you, I don't need to post a clip of Craig presenting the KCA and challenging you to deal with it...because I am capable of presenting and defending the argument myself, which I have done and will continue to do.

Yet again, the debater, in the clip, sums up parallel points I would make about the lunacy of the teleological argument. Rather than type a text-wall, in which few or none would read, it's easier to watch an 8-minute clip. If you have specific objections to his points, citing them would be offering rebuttal to (my) points as well. Kapeesh?

Then, have those folks who wouldn't read the text-wall, to watch the 8 minute clip.

It's not my job to respond to the points another debater made, because I'm not debating the other person, I'm debating YOU.

And if you want to use those 5 points of Carroll in our debate, go ahead and I'll respond.

But I'm not gonna just respond to those 5 points directly....which would be like me asking you to respond to Craig's rebuttal of those points.

As a matter of fact, that's a good idea.

How about you respond to Craig's rebuttal of those 5 points?

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #421]

With all due respect, if your bar is really set this low, in regard to both 1) prophetic claims as well as 2) 'eyewitness' attestation to claimed extraordinary events, then you would have trouble not believing many other competitive claims as well. Which begs a follow up question... Do you believe all extraordinary claims, based upon sketchy 'evidence', or just the ones from the Bible?

Again...

Multiverses, abiogenesis, macroevolution, MUCF.

Those are some extraordinary claims from naturalists.

Do you disbelieve only Biblical extraordinary claims, or are such disbeliefs extended towards naturalistic claims as well?

[POI]

1. Naturalism actually exists.

Right. And anything beyond 'naturalism' is imaginary unless you can actually demonstrate otherwise.

Whatever gave it it's beginning, could not itself be a product of STEM.

Perpetual circles.... Even IF this were true, "whatever gave it it's beginning" also could not possess a mind which creates.

This is deductive reasoning... you just don't like the direction the argument takes us...which is a personal problem, for you.

Nah, it's actually the opposite; unless you worship a mindless non-creator.

No. An invisible supernatural creating deity..and the Christian one, at that. Based on a combination of..

1. Evidence that Christianity is true.

2. Personal testimony.

1. What evidence?
2. What testimony?

Naturalism is an worldview which, by definition, is incompatible with supernaturalism. They are literally opposite ends of the spectrum. Not sure how God could create naturalism.

Then in your worldview, how did 'naturalism' begin to exist?

I am.

Then get to it and convert me.

I don't follow.

Not surprised.

Wait a minute, you are an unbeliever. You don't believe in God, so to ask the question "where is God", is a loaded, irrelevant question. So, the question shouldn't be asked in the first place. It's like asking "Where is my car", when you don't have a car. It's nonsense.

The only thing here which is nonsense, is your continued avoidance. To apply your metaphor, you think I do have a car. Show it to me and convince/convert me.

Nonsense. I'm a believer, and no one is hardly ever mentioning the subject of religion. It's not something that people are talking about at work, on the bus stop, or at the club. In fact, I'm the one who engage people on the subject of religion...not the other way around. Which means that, if I didn't initiate such conversations, then those convos would never be had. Even with family. Religion isn't something that people are just casually out there discussing as they go about their daily lives, with others. If you never mention religion to anyone (as you go about your daily life), then more than likely, you won't be engaging in such conversations. No one is beating you over the head with a Bible, or shoving verses down your throat. You don't believe in it, yet you feel this compulsive need to continually ask these probing questions about very nuanced particulars of the religion.

I'm glad to hear that your 'circle' is not like mine.

Bruh, no one would get offended if you kindly, respectfully, ask them questions about their religion. So stop it.

Please re-read what I stated.

And speaking of imaginary things; multiverses, abiogenesis, macroevolution, MUCF's. Those are things naturalists believe in, to name a few..and you have the audacity to call what religious folks believe in, imaginary Man, please.

Speaking of imaginary, you forgot the most obvious one, which is the Christian god.

It depends on the claim.

By "depends", you mean any/all science which goes against the claims and assertions made from the Bible. You have added '-babble' to biology, chemistry, geology, cosmology, physics. and likely others. So much handwaving is presented, you do not even need a fan during the summer months to keep others cool.

Um, no. If I saw evidence for macroevolution, I would adjust my interpretation of the Genesis creation account..

At least you admit you would just pivot, or move the goalposts, rather than to just abort from these nonsensical belief(s)

in fact, that has already been done by theistic evolutionists. The problem is..there is no evidence for it...with or without God.

I rest my case. This is one of the reasons discussing peer reviewed science with you is pointless.

And my response was for you to prove you have an understanding of those 5 points, by articulating those points in OUR debate. After all, our conversation shifted to fine-tuning, which is why you offered the clip in the first place. So, since you've yet to do so, I'm accusing you of appealing to authority, basically, "Because Sean Carroll said so; end of discussion". See, unlike you, I don't need to post a clip of Craig presenting the KCA and challenging you to deal with it...because I am capable of presenting and defending the argument myself, which I have done and will continue to do.

And the (5) points are..........?

[SiNcE_1985]

1. Naturalism actually exists.

Right. And anything beyond 'naturalism' is imaginary unless you can actually demonstrate otherwise.

Yeah, notice you ignored my exposure of your blatant non sequitur.

Anyways..

A natural reality which began to exist; an external cause is demonstrated, by default.

Just like you.

You began to exist, which means that by default, there must have been a cause that is external to you, which caused your existence.

Holy crap, this is elementary school logic here, dude.

And the amount of lengths you have to go through to argue against this, is crazy work.

You complain about the lack of evidence for supernaturalism, while at the same time fighting simple, elementary logic...just to hold your position and maintain what your common sense intuition is telling you.

That's wild.

Perpetual circles.... Even IF this were true, "whatever gave it it's beginning"

What do you mean "if"?

There is no "if".

There is no such thing as a self-created entity...because to create, is to exist.

To create, is to presuppose existence..in order to create.

You know this to be true in any other case/situation in life, yet because this scenario takes you down the "G" word path, now all of a sudden it is "Whoaaaa, slow down there, pal."

Taxi cab fallacy.

also could not possess a mind which creates.

Um, no.

It is either A (naturalism) or B (supernaturalism).

If not A, then B.

So, since it isn't A, then it is B.

I understand you don't like the path of B, but that's too bad.

It will take actual sound/valid argumentation to make the path of B invalid...personal feelings and emotions are not allowed here.

I know personal feelings/emotions are what you're used to, but that won't work here.

Nah, it's actually the opposite; unless you worship a mindless non-creator.

A mindless non-creator that is not a product of STEM?

1. What evidence?
2. What testimony?

1. The historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. Stuff that has happened in my life, of which I deem beyond mere coincidence (prayers answered in real-time)...and of which I attribute to the Most High.

Then in your worldview, how did 'naturalism' begin to exist?

Bro, it is a worldview. That's like asking how did "communism" begin to exist.

You might as well ask how did atheism begin to exist, since atheism is equivalent to naturalism.

I guess naturalism began to exist when people started becoming atheists.

Then get to it and convert me.

*Points to Jesus*.

That man right there.

Go over to him. Conversion, and salvation is located there.

The only thing here which is nonsense, is your continued avoidance. To apply your metaphor, you think I do have a car. Show it to me and convince/convert me.

If I try to convince you that you have a car waiting for you at the dealership, and I provide you evidence for that to be the case....and you simply don't find the evidence persuasive...then hey, no car for you then, buddy.

I'm glad to hear that your 'circle' is not like mine.

Yeah, because in your circle of family, friends, and strangers...everyone is Bible-thumping evangelists and no matter where you turn, you are confronted with Bible verses and Jesus freaks.

Do I have your situation correct?

Please re-read what I stated.

I did..and I ain't buying it.

You contrived a wild, cockamamie story to justify this strange, compulsive obsession you have with Christianity.

That's all it is.

Speaking of imaginary, you forgot the most obvious one, which is the Christian god.

I didn't forget it. You already had it covered with your assessment.

Well, one imaginary story for another.

No robbery, fair exchange.

By "depends", you mean any/all science which goes against the claims and assertions made from the Bible. You have added '-babble' to biology, chemistry, geology, cosmology, physics. and likely others. So much handwaving is presented, you do not even need a fan during the summer months to keep others cool.

I reject a lot of claims within Christian doctrine as well.

So, if I can reject specific claims regarding my own religion, then certainly specific non-religious claims are not immune to rejection or critique.

Unlike you, who I don't ever recall being on the record for critiquing ANYTHING related to science.

Oh, I forgot...as long as it ain't the G word, it's all good..huh?

You place your faith in man (peers), instead of the man, Christ.

Basically, you follow peer reviewed stuff... RELIGIOUSLY.

Tsk, tsk.

At least you admit you would just pivot, or move the goalposts, rather than to just abort from these nonsensical belief(s)

Because, evolution isn't necessarily incompatible with Christian theism...so there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Now, abiogenesis+evolution is a different story.

I rest my case. This is one of the reasons discussing peer reviewed science with you is pointless.

Again, who are the peers?

And the (5) points are..........?

Craig's rebuttals are my response to ANYTHING Carroll said.

Now, moving along..

[POI]

Yeah, notice you ignored my exposure of your blatant non sequitur.

And the poor rubberstamping continues. I say 'naturalism' is all that exists dude. We have countless examples of naturalism 'creating' more naturalism. Please demonstrate ONE example of (super)naturalism 'creating' naturalism? And to clarify, this is again wordplay, as true creation would instead be (producing existence from true non-existence of any kind). Repurposing 'stuff' does not count as true creation.

Just like you. You began to exist, which means that by default, there must have been a cause that is external to you, which caused your existence. Holy crap, this is elementary school logic here, dude. And the amount of lengths you have to go through to argue against this, is crazy work. You complain about the lack of evidence for supernaturalism, while at the same time fighting simple, elementary logic...just to hold your position and maintain what your common sense intuition is telling you. That's wild.

See my response above. When you decide to shoot yourself in the foot (again), who am I to stop you?

What do you mean "if"? There is no "if". There is no such thing as a self-created entity...because to create, is to exist. To create, is to presuppose existence..in order to create. You know this to be true in any other case/situation in life, yet because this scenario takes you down the "G" word path, now all of a sudden it is "Whoaaaa, slow down there, pal."

See above.

Taxi cab fallacy.

Poor rubberstamp #100, and counting...

Um, no. It is either A (naturalism) or B (supernaturalism). If not A, then B. So, since it isn't A, then it is B. I understand you don't like the path of B, but that's too bad. It will take actual sound/valid argumentation to make the path of B invalid...personal feelings and emotions are not allowed here. I know personal feelings/emotions are what you're used to, but that won't work here.

Venom, please explain how action(s) can take place outside of time?

1. The historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. Stuff that has happened in my life, of which I deem beyond mere coincidence (prayers answered in real-time)...and of which I attribute to the Most High.

1. Claimed "historical evidence" outside the Bible, or just from the Bible alone?

2. Speaking of prayer, I'm still waiting for a single prayer answered in real time, for which I deem beyond coincidence. Are you going to continue to avoid one of the easiest tasks asked of you, and not only win this debate, but convert me? Or, are you instead going to keep mislabeling, as well as applying worn-out-and-tired-debunked apologetics, and also AVOIDING an easy task which actually holds you accountable for a very extraordinary claim?

*Points to Jesus*. That man right there. Go over to him. Conversion, and salvation is located there.

More apologetic avoidance. Please pray and convert me Venom. Or instead reconcile that prayer is pointless, other than "self-therapy".

If I try to convince you that you have a car waiting for you at the dealership, and I provide you evidence for that to be the case....and you simply don't find the evidence persuasive...then hey, no car for you then, buddy.

In this analogy, I would not believe that cars exist. Demonstrate the existence of god, like you would demonstrate the existence of car(s).

Yeah, because in your circle of family, friends, and strangers...everyone is Bible-thumping evangelists and no matter where you turn, you are confronted with Bible verses and Jesus freaks. Do I have your situation correct?

Close enough.

I did..and I ain't buying it.

That's too bad.

You contrived a wild, cockamamie story to justify this strange, compulsive obsession you have with Christianity.

As you would say, 'opinions'. What I find strange, is that you claim to have a personal relationship with a Jesus. You claim he answers your prayers. You have a fellow, in which you desperately want converted, and this individual asks you, over and over and over again, to convert him, and you REFUSE. And again, I'm pretty sure we all know why. It's because prayer is nothing more than talking to yourself. Sorry buddy.

1) I reject a lot of claims within Christian doctrine as well. So, if I can reject specific claims regarding my own religion, then certainly specific non-religious claims are not immune to rejection or critique. 2) Unlike you, who I don't ever recall being on the record for critiquing ANYTHING related to science.

1) I think this has to be a pre-requisite, as reading the Bible, from cover-to-cover, presents with conflicting claims, which forces the believer's hand in rejecting some of the claim(s) while retaining some of the others. Case/point, I made a thread, a few years ago, asking how one gets "saved"? This is just ONE example of many. However, as I've told you, and others, if I not only thought a postmortem Jesus actually existed, but also thought the existence of (salvation vs. hell) was a real thing, I too might reside in your camp, and apply countless amounts of mental gymnastics to have it all somehow 'make sense'? So please Venom, you apparently have the ability to place me immediately into your camp but you refuse. Which is quite telling, as actions speak much louder than 'words'.

2) I've told you repeatedly, in the past, that 'abiogenesis' is not backed by peer review. And until you actually understand what it means to state peer review, this convo ain't going to be truly productive.

Because, evolution isn't necessarily incompatible with Christian theism...so there is no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

It still requires a pivot. In essence, you would need to completely shift and instead assume that human evolution is a thing and that god just decided when to plop 'souls' into two of these 'ever-evolving-humans', (which will continue to evolve BTW), for which theists will just call this continued evolution as 'post-fall' stuff. It does not really jive, while reading Genesis without a lot of 'rationalization.'

Craig's rebuttals are my response to ANYTHING Carroll said. Now, moving along..

Please now just admit that you really did not watch the clip Venom. Or if you actually "did", you either just skimmed it, or you just saw red the entire time and cannot remember the points. The reason I wanted you to watch it, is because this would likely generate enough content to last for weeks of exchanges (alone), and I did not want us to spend many responses on stuff for which we likely already agree upon within the presented argument(s). Telling me the (5) points lets me you are (up-to-speed) on THE position(s) and you will not instead misrepresent the (5) points in which I too hold.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #422]

No, @POI, I just believe God's claims in his inspired Word, because Jesus' resurrection and the eyewitnesses of it prove his existence and his involvement in history.

[POI]

because Jesus' resurrection and the eyewitnesses of it prove his existence and his involvement in history.

Hearsay is not very good "evidence". The claim to '500' was issued by a fella who was not even there, nor was this claim even vetted in any formal type of way. By this standard, you would have to believe all sorts of stuff that we instead likely both reject as nonsense.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #429]

I believe the "hearsay" in the Bible, @POI, because it is God's inspired Word. It is historical evidence. Why don't you take it as historical?