Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

There lies the catch 22
How can we prove God exists without allowing Him to reveal Himself in our lives?

Sounds like begging the question to me, Alan. (In the proper sense of the phrase, which is simply to assume the truth of something yet to be demonstrated).

Which is a fallacy, you know

[Leonard James]

There lies the catch 22
How can we prove God exists without allowing Him to reveal Himself in our lives?

May I remind you that when I firmly believed he existed because he had revealed himself to me, he then ignored my prayers for help.

[torridon]

Not by human intelect alone, but by a combination of human intellect and divine revelation.

But then the alleged 'evidence' for divine revelation confounds the claim that god is good, and therefore available to everyone without fear or favour.  In reality on the ground, many claim divine revelation but certainly not all, and amongst those that do make such claims there is diversity of experience. This is not consistent with an omnibenevolent god, so a better explanation of divine experience is called for.

[Alan Burns]

May I remind you that when I firmly believed he existed because he had revealed himself to me, he then ignored my prayers for help.

So are you implying that your perception that God ignored your prayers is proof of His non-existence?

I have come to realise that God's answers to prayer often come in ways we do not expect.  In particular when He answers by giving us what we need rather than what we want (or what we think we need).

[Shaker]

I have come to realise that God's answers to prayer often come in ways we do not expect.  In particular when He answers by giving us what we need rather than what we want (or what we think we need).

I know that this is question I've asked before; perhaps I might get an answer this time round.

What's your method for being able to tell the difference between your god answering a prayer with what you need (apparently ) and no god and the operation of sheer random chance?

[ippy]

How could you eat your words when Leo has stolen them? You are not a rational thinker. You are the strange fella that keeps his curtains closed, never cuts his lawn, never seen leaving the house and the kiddies blame for their missing cats.

Well Woody I'm taken aback at how much you seem to know about me, but you've got to admit there's nothing better than a bowl of hot Cat soup on these chilly winter days.

ippy

[jeremyp]

There lies the catch 22
How can we prove God exists without allowing Him to reveal Himself in our lives?

He's welcome to reveal himself in my life any time he likes.

[Leonard James]

So are you implying that your perception that God ignored your prayers is proof of His non-existence?

Yes. The Christian God I believed in was a god of love who would always help if you asked him to. The fact that no help came belied his existence.

I have come to realise that God's answers to prayer often come in ways we do not expect.  In particular when He answers by giving us what we need rather than what we want (or what we think we need).

Well since my prayer was to help me maintain my faith in him, why would he think I didn't need help with that?

[Alan Burns]

But then the alleged 'evidence' for divine revelation confounds the claim that god is good, and therefore available to everyone without fear or favour.  In reality on the ground, many claim divine revelation but certainly not all, and amongst those that do make such claims there is diversity of experience. This is not consistent with an omnibenevolent god, so a better explanation of divine experience is called for.

But you are not taking into accout the negative effect of the devil.  Though not directly relevent to my last post, the nature of the devil's ways are illustrated in today's Lent reflection from Bishop Robert Barron:

Lent Day 6
The Allure of Power
Having failed at his first attempt to tempt Jesus in a direct and relatively crude way, the devil plays a subtler game: “The devil took him higher and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant” (Matthew 4:8 ) .

This is the more refined temptation of power. Power is one of the greatest motivating factors in all of human history. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Charlemagne, the Medicis, Charles V, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, and Napoleon—these are all people who have been seduced by the siren song of power.

We notice something very disquieting in the account of this temptation: the devil admits that all the kingdoms of the world have been given to him. He owns and controls them. That is quite a sweeping indictment of the institutions of political power. Isn’t it true that it seems extremely difficult for someone to attain high positions of power and not become corrupt?

It might be useful to recall here the two great names for the devil in the Bible: ho Satanas, which means “the adversary”, and ho diabolos, which means “the liar” or “the deceiver.” Worldly power is based upon accusation, division, and lies. It’s the way that earthly rulers have always done their business. A tremendous temptation for Jesus was to use his Messianic authority to gain worldly power, to become a king. But if he had given in to this, he would not have remained a conduit of the divine grace. He would be as remembered today as, perhaps, one of the governors of Syria or satraps of Babylon.

No, Jesus wanted to be the one through whom the divine love surged into creation, and so he said to Satan, “Scripture has it, ‘You shall do homage to the Lord your God; him alone shall you adore.’”

[Shaker]

But you are not taking into accout the negative effect of the devil.

No he isn't. That's because he isn't a credulous gimp who thinks it's still 1384, Alan.

[Nearly Sane]

No he isn't. That's because he isn't a credulous gimp who thinks it's still 1384, Alan.

This would, of course, be the Devil created by Alan's god, either with full knowledge and intention of existence which would mean all his actions have to happen, or sort of accidentally which means Satan has a chance of winning just like the Boot in Monopoly.

[ippy]

But you are not taking into accout the negative effect of the devil.  Though not directly relevent to my last post, the nature of the devil's ways are illustrated in today's Lent reflection from Bishop Robert Barron:

Lent Day 6
The Allure of Power
Having failed at his first attempt to tempt Jesus in a direct and relatively crude way, the devil plays a subtler game: “The devil took him higher and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant” (Matthew 4: .

This is the more refined temptation of power. Power is one of the greatest motivating factors in all of human history. Alexander the Great, Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Charlemagne, the Medicis, Charles V, Henry VIII, Louis XIV, and Napoleon—these are all people who have been seduced by the siren song of power.

We notice something very disquieting in the account of this temptation: the devil admits that all the kingdoms of the world have been given to him. He owns and controls them. That is quite a sweeping indictment of the institutions of political power. Isn’t it true that it seems extremely difficult for someone to attain high positions of power and not become corrupt?

It might be useful to recall here the two great names for the devil in the Bible: ho Satanas, which means “the adversary”, and ho diabolos, which means “the liar” or “the deceiver.” Worldly power is based upon accusation, division, and lies. It’s the way that earthly rulers have always done their business. A tremendous temptation for Jesus was to use his Messianic authority to gain worldly power, to become a king. But if he had given in to this, he would not have remained a conduit of the divine grace. He would be as remembered today as, perhaps, one of the governors of Syria or satraps of Babylon.

No, Jesus wanted to be the one through whom the divine love surged into creation, and so he said to Satan, “Scripture has it, ‘You shall do homage to the Lord your God; him alone shall you adore.’”

Devil Alan? you're well and truly off your trolley, such a stupid idea to have, it's worrisome that there still people like you about.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I notice in that slightly weird list (Marcus Aurelius?) No mention of say Pope Julius 2, or even given the mention of the Medici (generally not that bad, but is it that you can't mention Borgias,maligned in my opinion, but known for Popes), when amongst the Medici were Leo 10, Clement 7, Pius 4, and Leo (legs) 11.

[Enki]

He's welcome to reveal himself in my life any time he likes.

Likewise. So far, zilch.

Ditto, with Alan's 'devil'.

[torridon]

But you are not taking into accout the negative effect of the devil.

So if it is the Devil that is hiding God's revelation from people why did God create the Devil ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I notice in that slightly weird list (Marcus Aurelius?) No mention of say Pope Julius 2, or even given the mention of the Medici (generally not that bad, but is it that you can't mention Borgias,maligned in my opinion, but known for Popes), when amongst the Medici were Leo 10, Clement 7, Pius 4, and Leo (legs) 11.

East Fife 4 Forfar 5

[floo]

It is obvious the Devil is the BIG CHEESE, and the deity is a very weak entity!

[wigginhall]

It is obvious the Devil is the BIG CHEESE, and the deity is a very weak entity!

Well, yes.  There are various arguments along these lines, Stephen Law has made the Evil God Challenge, which is interesting.   How do we know that an evil power does not control the world?

If you say because there is a lot of good, therefore there cannot be an evil god, then you can reverse the argument: there is a lot of bad, therefore there cannot be a good god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_God_Challenge

[Leonard James]

If you say because there is a lot of good, therefore there cannot be an evil god, then you can reverse the argument: there is a lot of bad, therefore there cannot be a good god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_God_Challenge

Or you can take the sensible view that there is no god at all and that humans are just a mixture of good and bad. 

[Alan Burns]

Devil Alan? you're well and truly off your trolley, such a stupid idea to have, it's worrisome that there still people like you about.

ippy

I can assure you, ippy, that there are people much cleverer than I who are aware of the existence of the devil.

[Nearly Sane]

I can assure you, ippy, that there are people much cleverer than I who are aware of the existence of the devil.

And some who think the royal family are lizards

[Shaker]

I can assure you, ippy, that there are people much cleverer than I who are aware of the existence of the devil.

Believe in, not 'aware of.' 'Aware of' would indicate something definitely factual and not merely potentially so, as in a belief. I've never been there but I'm aware of New Zealand because there's such a place to be aware of.

I don't understand why you're still not grasping this after all this time.

[Leonard James]

I can assure you, ippy, that there are people much cleverer than I who are aware of the existence of the devil.

No Alan, they may think they are aware of the "devil", but in reality they are just aware of an evil action and attribute it to the "devil", because religion has conditioned them to believe that the "devil" exists.

[Alan Burns]

Believe in, not 'aware of.' 'Aware of' would indicate something definitely factual and not merely potentially so, as in a belief. I've never been there but I'm aware of New Zealand because there's such a place to be aware of.

I don't understand why you're still not grasping this after all this time.

The existence of the devil is as real to me as the existence of New Zealand is to you.

[Rhiannon]

The existence of the devil is as real to me as the existence of New Zealand is to you.

Which is rather alarming.