Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hide and seek champion for the last 2000 years running.

You are claiming to seek?

[ProfessorDavey]

He just asked if I knew of anything capable of explaining that which science could not. what I said would.

Why do you guys have problems with that and yet positively moisten when your Lord and master Hillside guffs on about unknown unknowns?

Clearly if you come up with an alternative we will want to assess the validity of the claim.

In your case the claim appears to be - my invisible friend has special secrets that he will only reveal after we are dead - and even then he will only reveal them to me, not you.

Hardly a very convincing argument Vlad.

[Shaker]

There seems to be a moaning about God not sharing his secrets with everyone. If you have told him to take a permanent hike

... you would have to believe in the existence of such a thing in the first instance.

how could you then share his knowledge.

You'll need to look further into the divine hiddenness argument for the low-down on this. J. L. Schellenberg and Theodore Drange are particularly good.

In terms of complaints about God not sharing his knowledge with everyone, Nature doesn't either since we are gifted differentially.

Certainly been closed-fisted with you, Vladdychops.

[floo]

Alan's grasp of the difference between the two is still very much a work in progress.

One on which we will be working to infinity and well beyond!

[Shaker]

Clearly if you come up with an alternative we will want to assess the validity of the claim.

In your case the claim appears to be - my invisible friend has special secrets that he will only reveal after we are dead - and even then he will only reveal them to me, not you.

Hardly a very convincing argument Vlad.

Call me a cynic but I'm finding it rather thin gruel.

[ProfessorDavey]

He shoots He scores.

To mix the sporting metaphors - he would be timed out for failing to appear at the crease in the required 3 minutes following the fall of a wicket.

In god's case we've be waiting thousands of years for an appearance.

[Rhiannon]

You are claiming to seek?

I think most of us have at one time if other. He's shit hot at this hiding lark though, isn't he.? You'd think he didn't exist or something.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... you would have to believe in the existence of such a thing in the first instance.
You'll need to look further into the divine hiddenness argument for the low-down on this. J. L. Schellenberg and Theodore Drange are particularly good.
Certainly been closed-fisted with you, Vladdychops.

I think you are conflating divine hiddenness with God's knowledge. Now is that not being clever or dishonesty.

Divine hiddenness. What do you mean by that. I'm wondering how there can be a low down for the hiddenness of something as obvious to me of the divine?

[Shaker]

I think you are conflating divine hiddenness with God's knowledge. Now is that not being clever or dishonesty.

Au contrariwise, the discussion had not been about god's knowledge but the manifest refusal of such an entity if it existed to make its existence known - which has absolutely everything to do with the DHA.

Divine hiddenness. What do you mean by that. I'm wondering how there can be a low down for the hiddenness of something as obvious to me of the divine?

Nietzsche observed in his autobiography that the nonexistence of the divine was instinctively obvious to him. Much more recently Stephen Law wrote a rather good piece on the same issue. What does that say about the obviousness of anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Clearly if you come up with an alternative we will want to assess the validity of the claim.

In your case the claim appears to be - my invisible friend has special secrets that he will only reveal after we are dead - and even then he will only reveal them to me, not you.

Hardly a very convincing argument Vlad.

Well lets analyse this, take out the superfluous bit where you play to the gallery vis ''My invisible friend'' and ''special secrets''.

Now Shaker asks how we would know the answers to either how the universe started from nought or it's eternality. I suggest that knowing what God knows would be an answer to that. That is philosophically sound.

Now if we can access God in the way Christianity prescribes he could share that knowledge which is hidden from science with us. That too is philosophically sound since he shares knowledge with Christians of a non scientific nature.

There is nothing I have said then to prevent God sharing his knowledge with anyone. How could there be since God is sovereign.
As it stands God has not shared the secrets or the ability to gain knowledge of before the start of the universe or the eternity in a methodologically material way. That is just the nature of the thing. It is definitional......and all that too is philosophically sound.

Given that then the only thing that stops one receiving knowledge of God and of the things of God might be the rejection of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Au contrariwise, the discussion had not been about god's knowledge but the manifest refusal of such an entity if it existed to make its existence known

That cannot be 'manifest' since many claim to know of his existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Au contrariwise, the discussion had not been about god's knowledge but the manifest refusal of such an entity if it existed to make its existence known - which has absolutely everything to do with the DHA.
Nietzsche observed in his autobiography that the nonexistence of the divine was instinctively obvious to him. Much more recently Stephen Law wrote a rather good piece on the same issue. What does that say about the obviousness of anything?

Er, you cannot claim that God has manifestly refused to make it's existence known?

[Shaker]

Well lets analyse this, take out the superfluous bit where you play to the gallery vis ''My invisible friend'' and ''special secrets''.

Now Shaker asks how we would know the answers to either how the universe started from nought or it's eternality.

That's funny - I don't recall saying anything of the kind about either of those things. Confusing me with someone else, perhaps. Attempting a different argument altogether. On another forum, apparently.

Given that then the only thing that stops one receiving knowledge of God and of the things of God might be the rejection of God.

Not the only thing now is it Vlad? For starters I can think of at least one other cause of not receiving knowledge of a god.

See if you can work out what it is 

[Shaker]

That cannot be 'manifest' since many claim to know of his existence.

And claim is precisely and exactly the right word, isn't it? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And claim is precisely and exactly the right word, isn't it? 

In terms of God/not God it is claims Shaker. How does that help you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's funny - I don't recall saying anything of the kind about either of those things. Confusing me with someone else, perhaps. Attempting a different argument altogether. On another forum, apparently.
Not the only thing now is it Vlad? For starters I can think of at least one other cause of not receiving knowledge of a god.

See if you can work out what it is 

Er you didn't say it . This is a reply to Prof Dave.

[wigginhall]

I think the divine hiddenness arguments weren't just that God is hidden, but that one might expect a 3-omni God, or 4-omni God if you like, to convince those who are receptive.    It's a lot more complicated actually, but this is the main thrust of Schellenberg's book.   It's also called the argument from non-belief, relating to people who are willing to believe, but don't.   

There is a much older tradition of hiddenness as well, going back to Jewish literature - in fact, even 'why hast thou abandoned me?' can be included here.    And then the dark night of the soul, and people like Mother Theresa, who describe their lack of experience of God. 

Nietzsche expressed it pithily: "a god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intentions — could that be a god of goodness?"

[floo]

And claim is precisely and exactly the right word, isn't it? 

Some people even claim fairies exist and have even taken photos of them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596119/Away-fairies-University-lecturer-claims-photographed-real-life-tiny-tinkerbells-flying-air-British-countryside.html   Hmmmmmmmmm!


Are there any photos of god?

[Shaker]

Er you didn't say it . This is a reply to Prof Dave.

Right. So whence the following? "Now Shaker asks how we would know the answers to either how the universe started from nought or it's eternality." (#20261).

Unless we have two Shakers aboard the good ship R & E, this Shaker doesn't recall saying anything remotely resembling that.

[Alan Burns]

OK, so you haven't read the post, or you've no intention of reading it, or you have no intention of understanding it.  Fine. Back to bald assertions for you.

You seem to be accusing me of making a conscious decision not to read your post and simply re assert my own view.  Can you not see the irony in this? 

Your post indicates that your refusal to accept the existence of anything non physical forces you to come up with an imaginary scenario to explain how our apparent freedom to make conscious choices is just an illusion, and our conscious awareness merely spectates upon pre defined series of events.  Yet the thing you are trying to disprove is obvious evidence for the existence of events which must derive from the non physical.

[Shaker]

In terms of God/not God it is claims Shaker. How does that help you?

Because in view of the characteristics and attributes of this entity and what the universe would look like were it true, God is the claim awaiting verification. No-god is the default, the null hypothesis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the divine hiddenness arguments weren't just that God is hidden, but that one might expect a 3-omni God, or 4-omni God if you like, to convince those who are receptive.    It's a lot more complicated actually, but this is the main thrust of Schellenberg's book.   It's also called the argument from non-belief, relating to people who are willing to believe, but don't.   

There is a much older tradition of hiddenness as well, going back to Jewish literature - in fact, even 'why hast thou abandoned me?' can be included here.    And then the dark night of the soul, and people like Mother Theresa, who describe their lack of experience of God. 

Nietzsche expressed it pithily: "a god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intentions — could that be a god of goodness?"

I enjoyed this post and it's fertility for future discussion.

I have found this and think it quite interesting from the point of view of this forum:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/

Schellenberg puts a premium on those who are open to God but don't believe him as evidence for the non existence of God. Why do that? Why favour one group's reaction as evidence over others? That aside we are back to how do you measure openness to God? If there is no such thing as God, whither openness to God?......As I said ''fertile ground for debate''.......beyond this we are also back to that old devil ''claims'' again. This time those claiming to be open to God and claiming non belief.

Finally to what Neitszch teached. What does Neitszche define as Goodness here, specially since he frequently found himself beyond it.

[BeRational]

You are claiming to seek?

Can't find him so far.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because in view of the characteristics and attributes of this entity and what the universe would look like were it true, God is the claim awaiting verification. No-god is the default, the null hypothesis.

No-God is a positive assertion. How are you getting on with justifying it?

[Shaker]

Finally to what Neitszch teached. What does Neitszche define as Goodness here, specially since he frequently found himself beyond it.

Mangling both the English language and Nietzsche's thought - Vlad, you're spoiling us.