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).

[POI]

[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?

You didn't address my point. You listed the '500' as a specific point of evidence. But this is complete hearsay. And based upon this rationale, you would believe all sorts of things in which you likely instead reject in reality. Why does the claim (within the Bible) get a free pass?

1) What exactly makes you believe that the 'Bible' is anything beyond the works of men alone? So far, you've stated 1) eyewitness and 2) prophecy. And I've already discredited the 'eyewitnesses' rationale. Shall we move on to 'prophecy' now?

2) The term 'historical evidence' is a term used with a very broad brush. When applying the historical method, the Bible lands at the very out-edges of this metaphorical very broad brush.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #431]

The Bible rings true because it reports more than once Jesus' resurrection with many historical eyewitnesses' stories that they were willing to suffer and die to maintain, and many of them suffered persecution for suffering and death, while never giving up their claims, @POI.

It is also very authentic since it reports the weaknesses and sins of the ancestors, whereas no ancient histories did such an unacceptable thing in the eyes of the people. Thus, it was written by prophets and apostles and people who knew them with God's influence, because only he would dare to criticize the ancestors by exposing their sins and crimes against his will.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #431]

The Bible rings true because it reports more than once Jesus' resurrection with many historical eyewitnesses' stories

The (4) Gospel accounts do not even claim to have been written by eyewitnesses. For example, "Luke" explicitly states in his introduction -- (Luke 1:1-4), that he is not an eyewitness, but rather a researcher compiling stories passed down by "eyewitnesses and servants of the word". "Mark" - (the shortest Gospel), contains no claim of authorship or eyewitness testimony at all.

In "Matthew", the text itself contains no claim that it was written by the disciple Matthew. Scholars note that the author frequently relies on earlier written sources, (like "Mark"), rather than personal memory.

And in John, this Gospel implies its content stems from "the disciple whom Jesus loved" -- (John 21:24). However, scholars debate whether or not this indicates a direct first-person account or a community preserving the testimony of an influential figure? Thus, at 'best', you do not have 'many' accounts at all.

that they were willing to suffer and die to maintain, and many of them suffered persecution for suffering and death, while never giving up their claims, @POI.

The Bible (itself), which is the claim(s) in question, even only records the deaths of a few disciples; leaving the rest historically uncertain. While ancient church traditions provide detailed and brutal accounts for all of them—such as crucifixion or being flayed alive—historians generally classify many of these as legendary rather than verified fact. Further, even if some were tortured, how do you know they did not recant as soon as they were 'obtained for 'torture'?

It is also very authentic since it reports the weaknesses and sins of the ancestors, whereas no ancient histories did such an unacceptable thing in the eyes of the people.

The entire 'Jesus' storyline immediately falls apart if Jesus does not have 'sin' to later die for.

Thus, it was written by prophets and apostles and people who knew them with God's influence,

Being that we have we no idea who actually wrote the Gospels, your statement here can be ignored.

because only he would dare to criticize the ancestors by exposing their sins and crimes against his will.

See above.

[SiNcE_1985]

And the poor rubberstamping continues. I say 'naturalism' is all that exists dude.

I know what you say.

I can say 2+2=75.

Anyone can say anything.

But does what you say purport to reality?

And the fact of the matter is, you've been saying a lot of untrue things.

Either you're saying things that are completely inaccurate, or you're saying things that are completely fallacious.

So, I take what you say, with a grain of salt.

We have countless examples of naturalism 'creating' more naturalism.

Do we have countless examples of...

1. Universes coming into existence from a state of nothingness.

2. Life coming from non-living material.

3. Order deriving from chaos.

4. Infinite sets being traversed in reality.

No, we don't.

On naturalism, we would have had to accomplished all four, and there is no evidence that either have occured.

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.

Again, if not A (naturalism), then B (supernaturalism).

The universe began to exist, and with that beginning came A.

Therefore, B wins by default.

So, the winner by default (B), is my demonstration of one example of supernaturalism.

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

Weak sauce.

See above.

You've got nothing.

Weak sauce.

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

I never said that it could, did I?

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

Both.

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?

Hey, you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

Jesus is the living water (John 7:37).

And I've been trying to lead you to the water.

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

It ain't avoidance.

Jesus is our guy, within this Christian stuff.

Even when we pray, we pray in his name.

So, if that sounds too religiousy for you, then that's all the more reason why Christianity just ain't for you...and all the more reason for you to continue living your Christ-less life.

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

Been there, done that.

You have a fine-tuned universe, which began to exist from nothing.

That should be enough to convince any reasonable person.

Any reasonable person should be a deist, at worse.

Close enough.

Close enough, yet far from the truth.

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.

If you don't find the evidence persuasive, there is nothing more I can do for you.

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.

Um, no.

Accept: All Biblical claims.

Reject: Certain Biblical exegesis', of others.

See the difference?

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

Basically, what you're saying is..

"If I believed X exists, then I would believe in X."

No stuff, Sherlock.

, and apply countless amounts of mental gymnastics to have it all somehow 'make sense'?

Yeah, kinda like how you had to make the whole virtual particles thing make sense, when it made absolutely none.

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'.

If you are preparing to run a marathon, and I am tasked to assist you, so that you're ready to do so...

I can run with you, but I can't run it for you.

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.

You believe in abiogenesis, despite it not being peer reviewed.

And I anxiously await your response, which will be any variant of..

"I never said I believe in abiogenesis".

"I don't know if abiogenesis is true".

"I have no opinion on whether abiogenesis is true".

I predict your response will be something like any of those 3, and I already have my response to it..locked and loaded.

And if you know me well, you may be even able to predict my response.

It still requires a pivot.

Damned if we do: I'll make adjustments to my religious beliefs, according to my persuasion of the scientific evidence.

Damned if we don't: I refuse to make adjustments to my religious beliefs, according to the scientific evidence.

Life just isn't fair.

Tsk tsk.

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.'

Well, let's look at the bright side...since evolution is false, this is all hypothetical...and is a bridge that we'll never have to cross.

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.

Newsflash: I watched the video..from when you first presented it.

Not only did I watch the clip, but I watched the entire debate when it was first released, years ago.

I just didn't remember particulars about the fine-tuning segment, that YOU mentioned...which is why I asked for the time stamp.

So, all of that yapping you've been doing about me not watching it, is based on that one false premise.

And I explained why I refuse to oblige you on the 5 points tip.

But I will refer you to Craig's rebuttal, since you don't seem to be able to understand what "no" means.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

If you trust your mother, and she told you that your father wants you take the dog to the vet this afternoon..would you say..

"Sorry, mother, but that is hearsay. I need to ask pops myself to see if he actually said that".

No, you wouldn't. You would accept her testimony because it came from a reliable source...her.

It's amazing how unbelievers applies these wild standards when it comes to Bible stuff, but when it comes to other, non-Biblical stuff...how quickly it goes alllll out the window.

By this standard, you would have to believe all sorts of stuff that we instead likely both reject as nonsense.

Yeah, and you'll also have to reject most of the information you receive on a daily basis...because not all of it comes DIRECTLY from the FIRSTHAND source.

[SiNcE_1985]

[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?

You didn't address my point. You listed the '500' as a specific point of evidence. But this is complete hearsay. And based upon this rationale, you would believe all sorts of things in which you likely instead reject in reality. Why does the claim (within the Bible) get a free pass?

The Bible gets a free pass for the same reason that the hearsay you've accepted from anyone in your life got a free pass.

If it's good for them, it's good for the Bible.

Now, if you don't view the hearsay as trustworthy information, that's another story.

But it sounds like you're rejecting it based on the mere fact of it being hearsay, alone.

Which is, of course, the taxicab fallacy.

A fallacy that you know all too well.

[SiNcE_1985]

The (4) Gospel accounts do not even claim to have been written by eyewitnesses. For example, "Luke" explicitly states in his introduction -- (Luke 1:1-4), that he is not an eyewitness, but rather a researcher compiling stories passed down by "eyewitnesses and servants of the word".

Right.

That's what good researchers do...since he was not an eyewitness himself, he investigated the story from various accounts of those who were eyewitnesses.

Isn't that good journalism?

And what does Luke 1:1-4 presuppose?

1. Pre-existing stories of Jesus were already in circulation.

2. There were eyewitnesses, who witnessed something related to Jesus.

That is good, modest journalism...which would be accepted and praised in the usual journalistic world.. .but when Luke does the same thing, it is somehow held against him.

"Mark" - (the shortest Gospel), contains no claim of authorship or eyewitness testimony at all.

Church tradition states that Mark was a friend of the Apostle Peter, who was an eyewitness.

In "Matthew", the text itself contains no claim that it was written by the disciple Matthew. Scholars note that the author frequently relies on earlier written sources, (like "Mark"), rather than personal memory.

Church tradition states that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel Matthew.

And in John, this Gospel implies its content stems from "the disciple whom Jesus loved" -- (John 21:24). However, scholars debate whether or not this indicates a direct first-person account or a community preserving the testimony of an influential figure? Thus, at 'best', you do not have 'many' accounts at all.

The debate is over which John wrote it; John the Apostle (John the Elder?), or John of Patmos?

Internal evidence of the Gospel can lead one to conclude that the information obtained in the gospel, comes from the Apostle John.

[POI]

1. Universes coming into existence from a state of nothingness.

2. Life coming from non-living material.

3. Order deriving from chaos.

4. Infinite sets being traversed in reality.

1. What is "nothingness"?

2. Oh no! The 'A' word again.

3. Dover trial.

4. Therefore, invisible sky carcass?

Again, if not A (naturalism), then B (supernaturalism). The universe began to exist, and with that beginning came A. Therefore, B wins by default. So, the winner by default (B), is my demonstration of one example of supernaturalism.

Until anything beyond naturalism has been demonstrated, all we have is naturalism. Again, we have countless examples of naturalism regenerating more naturalism.

Weak sauce.

More handwaving. All your given examples were ironically nature "creating" more nature.

I never said that it could, did I?

Either way, it's game over for the assertion of mindful creationism.

Both.

Hmm? What 'historical evidence' for a claimed resurrection exists outside the Bible?

Hey, you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. Jesus is the living water (John 7:37). And I've been trying to lead you to the water.

Figures... You opted for option 2).

It ain't avoidance.

It most certainly is, and again, we all know why.

1) You have a fine-tuned universe, 2) which began to exist from nothing. That should be enough to convince any reasonable person. Any reasonable person should be a deist, at worse.

1) Rinse/repeat. Fine-tuned for WHAT?
2) Please demonstrate a "nothing"?

If you don't find the evidence persuasive, there is nothing more I can do for you.

There's plenty you can do Venom. And it's quite easy. But you refuse, and we all know why.

You believe in abiogenesis, despite it not being peer reviewed.

I accept peer reviewed science. You misrepresent what peer reviewed science is.

Well, let's look at the bright side...since evolution is false

Yet another reason discussing peer reviewed science with you is futile.

Newsflash: I watched the video..from when you first presented it.

Not only did I watch the clip, but I watched the entire debate when it was first released, years ago.

I just didn't remember particulars about the fine-tuning segment, that YOU mentioned...which is why I asked for the time stamp.

So, all of that yapping you've been doing about me not watching it, is based on that one false premise.

And I explained why I refuse to oblige you on the 5 points tip.

But I will refer you to Craig's rebuttal, since you don't seem to be able to understand what "no" means.

All white noise... Please watch the video, get yourself up to speed, and list the (5) points, so that we can get crack'n.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #436]

It depends on the claim Venom. If you told me your friend got in a car wreck, I'd likely take you at your word, as I know cars exist and that people have accidents. However, if you had told me that your friend told you that his car flew from point A to point B, I'd likely not believe what your friend told you. Now magnify that claim even more and we can then talk about the hearsay of a flying ghost.

And my point to the other interlocutor was that the Bible is nothing but hearsay, as opposed to his claim that they came directly from hundreds of eyewitnesses.

[SiNcE_1985]

1. What is "nothingness"?

A state of non-being.

2. Oh no! The 'A' word again.

Nothing burger.

3. Dover trial.

Nothing burger.

4. Therefore, invisible sky carcass?

Nothing burger.

Until anything beyond naturalism has been demonstrated, all we have is naturalism.

Nature (STEM) began to exist.

What could give STEM it's existence?

Again, we have countless examples of naturalism regenerating more naturalism.

Nature (STEM) began to exist.

So whatever gave STEM it's beginning, cannot logically be included among those countless examples.

Either way, it's game over for the assertion of mindful creationism.

The usual blank assertion, with no substance whatsoever.

Hmm? What 'historical evidence' for a claimed resurrection exists outside the Bible?

Tacitus' account of a mysterious superstition which arose, surrounding the events of Jesus' death.

The superstition was undoubtedly the resurrection.

The four Gospels, and Paul's letters.

Figures... You opted for option 2).

Jesus is the only option.

1) Rinse/repeat. Fine-tuned for WHAT?

Human life.

2) Please demonstrate a "nothing"?

If your bank account as 0 dollars, how much money do you have?

I accept peer reviewed science. You misrepresent what peer reviewed science is.

Abiogenesis is false. So Creationism is true.

Yet another reason discussing peer reviewed science with you is futile.

Dogs produce dogs.

All white noise... Please watch the video, get yourself up to speed, and list the (5) points, so that we can get crack'n.

I refer you to Dr. Craig's rebuttals of those 5 points.