The hiddenness of God

[Anchorman]

So is this god of yours only interested in a particular type of very gullible people who'll believe in a specific old, fantastical story, while rejecting the others and without any actual evidence or reasoning, is it just incompetent, or does it have some form of communication problem?

Nope.
The inevitable John 3:16.
No-one forces anyone to accept - or reject.
The offer remains.

[floo]

Nope.
The inevitable John 3:16.
No-one forces anyone to accept - or reject.
The offer remains.

That verse is an unpleasant LIE. There is nothing loving about the god character. Surely if it felt the world needed saving it would have topped itself, not produced a child to die a terrible death even if he did pop up alive three days later.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

<nothing remotely relevant to my points>


Do you want another go?,

Your points are appeal to ridicule and modernist fallacy.
Yes, there are a classes of Gods that I see cannot fulfil anything what I see as the human predicament. But then there are the God conceptions that just resonate through history and humanity...Platonus' The one, Allah, Yahweh, Tillich's Ground of our being, Rahner's Entelechy. To pretend that these can be wrapped up with Leprechauns is arrant, errant modernist fallacy cobblers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Storm,

Your points are appeal to ridicule and modernist fallacy.
Yes, there are a classes of Gods that I see cannot fulfil anything what I see as the human predicament. But then there are the God conceptions that just resonate through history and humanity...Platonus' The one, Allah, Yahweh, Tillich's Ground of our being, Rahner's Entelechy. To pretend that these can be wrapped up with Leprechauns is arrant, errant modernist fallacy cobblers.

Not if the arguments that lead you to conclude that any of the are real work equally well for leprechauns it's not.

That's the problem you keep running away from remember?

[Stranger]

No-one forces anyone to accept - or reject.
The offer remains.

That cannot possibly be true. I have absolutely no reason to think that this 'offer' is anything but fiction. If it is actually real, it is so well hidden amongst superstition and contradictory 'messages' that it might as well not exist.

Hence, those of us who take a rational and evidence based approach to matters of fact would be being forced to ignore it and those of us who are inclined towards accepting superstition would have to get lucky in just happening to believe the right message.

A god offering people a free, informed choice is just inconsistent with reality.

[ippy]

Nope.
The inevitable John 3:16.
No-one forces anyone to accept - or reject.
The offer remains.

So we only need to assert something anything and because whatever has been asserted it then exists, it's as SIMPLE as that, well I never?

Regards ippy

[Stranger]

Your points are appeal to ridicule and modernist fallacy.

Untrue.

Yes, there are a classes of Gods that I see cannot fulfil anything what I see as the human predicament. But then there are the God conceptions that just resonate through history and humanity...Platonus' The one, Allah, Yahweh, Tillich's Ground of our being, Rahner's Entelechy. To pretend that these can be wrapped up with Leprechauns is arrant, errant modernist fallacy cobblers.

You're just cherry picking mythology in order to pretend it's a message. Even if you insist that all these versions are a message - it's still well hidden - and there is still no objective evidence and no sound reasoning that distinguishes it from all the other mythical beings.

I'll repeat my question: if there is an omnipotent, omniscient god, who has a vitally important message for us, why isn't it as plain as day to everybody?

[jeremyp]

Why can't everyone see, here and feel a gamma ray?

We can, with the right equipment.

[floo]

We can, with the right equipment.

Maybe modern technology will invent a god detector.

[jeremyp]

Maybe modern technology will invent a god detector.

It's always a possibility. The trouble is that the concept of "God" is not well defined, so if a God detector fails to detect God, you can't be sure that it is because God does not exist or if your theory of how to detect God is wrong.

[floo]

It's always a possibility. The trouble is that the concept of "God" is not well defined, so if a God detector fails to detect God, you can't be sure that it is because God does not exist or if your theory of how to detect God is wrong.

Very true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Storm,

Not if the arguments that lead you to conclude that any of the are real work equally well for leprechauns it's not.

That's the problem you keep running away from remember?

Yes it's arguments all the way down with you isn't it and why is the argument the basic ontological unit? Because you've learned to limbo dance in, out, round, over and under 'em and not only that........wearing a top hat too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe modern technology will invent a god detector.

I think the idea is that we are God detectors. It manifests itself first as part of a fight or flight mechanism.

[floo]

I think the idea is that we are God detectors. It manifests itself first as part of a fight or flight mechanism.

How do you work that one out?

[Owlswing]

What's the magic word? Also, a command should not be followed by a question mark.

Now I've seen it all! Someone who believes in the Christian God AND believes in magic!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you work that one out?

Unreasonable fear and loathing or Goddodging.....and sometimes both together.

[floo]

Unreasonable fear and loathing or Goddodging.....and sometimes both together.

Ehhhhhhhhhh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Storm,

Yes it's arguments all the way down with you isn't it and why is the argument the basic ontological unit? Because you've learned to limbo dance in, out, round, over and under 'em and not only that........wearing a top hat too.

[/quote]

I’ve told you before not to attempt words you don’t understand so why do you keep doing it?

It’s arguments because, without them, all we have is white noise. Why is that difficult for you?

[jeremyp]

Now I've seen it all! Someone who believes in the Christian God AND believes in magic!

Jesus is said to have changed water into wine and also walked on it (water, not wine). Now that's magic.

[SteveH]

That verse is an unpleasant LIE. There is nothing loving about the god character. Surely if it felt the world needed saving it would have topped itself, not produced a child to die a terrible death even if he did pop up alive three days later.

You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.

[SusanDoris]

You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.

And you have the nerve to make that spectacular assertion entirely bereft of any evidence, let alone objective evidence.

[Rhiannon]

You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.

Erm...

[Rhiannon]

That verse is an unpleasant LIE. There is nothing loving about the god character. Surely if it felt the world needed saving it would have topped itself, not produced a child to die a terrible death even if he did pop up alive three days later.

No, if we are talking an omni father god the thing to do would be to love and forgive unconditionally. The weird thing is the demand of a blood sacrifice first.

[Anchorman]

So we only need to assert something anything and because whatever has been asserted it then exists, it's as SIMPLE as that, well I never?

Regards ippy

You probaby didn't at that.

[BeRational]

You really can be spectacularly dim at times. Jesus was God incarnate, not an innocent third party.

The default position is that he did not exist, let  alone be a god of any sort.

Unless of course you can demonstrate that he was with something more than fantasy