The hiddenness of God

[bluehillside Retd.]

Grace,

God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..

Thank you for that statement of personal faith. Can you think of any reason for anyone else to think you're right about any of it?

[SweetPea]

God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..

Agreed. Notice how now we accept all the advertising for gambling on tv and programmes encouraging gambling such as 'Deal or No Deal'. Shopping 24/7; fast-food restaurants advocating poor nutrition; all leading folk away from good-living, it's in our faces.

[Stranger]

Agreed. Notice how now we accept all the advertising for gambling on tv and programmes encouraging gambling such as 'Deal or No Deal'. Shopping 24/7; fast-food restaurants advocating poor nutrition; all leading folk away from good-living, it's in our faces.

So why is god (if it exists) so feeble that it can't get its (very important, so we're told) message through anyway?

[Maeght]

I don't believe that there is an orbiting teapot and I see no reason to take the idea seriously, so "we don't know either way" doesn't (to my mind) express the situation adequately - even though I can't falsify the idea.

You don't believe it but cannot say it doesn't exist - that is the point.

The same goes for gods. I also object to the singular phrase "God doesn't exist" because it implies that we have only one alternative to no gods, which also isn't the case.

Is saying God doesn't exist the default position in your view?

[floo]

Agreed. Notice how now we accept all the advertising for gambling on tv and programmes encouraging gambling such as 'Deal or No Deal'. Shopping 24/7; fast-food restaurants advocating poor nutrition; all leading folk away from good-living, it's in our faces.

I ignore advertising of any sort.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

You don't believe it but cannot say it doesn't exist - that is the point.

He knows that.

Is saying God doesn't exist the default position in your view?

You’re not getting it still. There’s a difference between the strict epistemic statement, “categorically X doesn’t exist” and the practical working statement, “we have no choice but to proceed on the basis that X doesn’t exist, at least until we’re given a cogent reason to think otherwise”.

For practical purposes a-teapotists work on the basis that the orbiting teapot does not exist (pending evidence to the contrary) but cannot say categorically that it doesn’t. Same thing for a-theists and "God".

Russell’s teapot incidentally just illustrates the fallacy of “but you can’t disprove it” having anything to say to a claim’s truth value. Vlad is fond of the “but you can’t disprove it” line for example as if that makes a point of some kind, but denies it when it’s explained to him that he’s attempting the negative proof fallacy.

[Stranger]

You don't believe it but cannot say it doesn't exist - that is the point.

Indeed.

Is saying God doesn't exist the default position in your view?

Saying that I don't believe in any gods (or orbiting teapots) is my default position. Making no gods (or orbiting teapots) the default belief.

I don't even recognise a single concept called 'God'.

[Grace of God]

Agreed. Notice how now we accept all the advertising for gambling on tv and programmes encouraging gambling such as 'Deal or No Deal'. Shopping 24/7; fast-food restaurants advocating poor nutrition; all leading folk away from good-living, it's in our faces.

it is clear to see, media force feeds us all sorts of rubbish..

[Maeght]

Maeght,

He knows that.

I'm sure he can answer for himself thanks.

You’re not getting it still. There’s a difference between the strict epistemic statement, “categorically X doesn’t exist” and the practical working statement, “we have no choice but to proceed on the basis that X doesn’t, at least until we’re given a cogent reason to think otherwise”.

For practical purposes we work on the basis that the orbiting teapot does not exist (pending evidence to the contrary) but we cannot say categorically that it doesn’t.

Russell’s teapot incidentally just illustrates the fallacy of “but you can’t disprove it” having anything to say to a claim’s truth value. Vlad is fond of the “but you can’t disprove it” line for example as if that makes a point of some kind, but denies it when it’s explained to him that he’s attempting the negative proof fallacy.

You're not getting what I'm asking based on that.

[Grace of God]

Grace,

Thank you for that statement of personal faith. Can you think of any reason for anyone else to think you're right about any of it?

yep, when is the last time you saw God in any of the adverts for Christmas, Easter or anything else, when was the last time schools had morning prayers or sang hymns, when is the last time the God of the bible was taught as anything but fairy tale...

[Maeght]

Indeed.

Saying that I don't believe in any gods (or orbiting teapots) is my default position. Making no gods (or orbiting teapots) the default belief.

I don't even recognise a single concept called 'God'.

People on here have stated that the default position is that God doesn't exist. They have not suggested it is their position but the position. Do you think that is right?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Grace,

it is clear to see, media force feeds us all sorts of rubbish.

That may be true, but what does it have to do with your earlier claim about "God"?

[Grace of God]

I ignore advertising of any sort.

you think you do and I am not saying that to be offensive, advertising does more to us than we know..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

You're not getting what I'm asking based on that.

Yes I am - try reading it again. Proceeding on the basis that there are no gods is where rational enquiry inevitably leads. That's the "default" for anyone who follows the reasoning. It's also the case though that there's not rational basis for a default, "there definitively are no gods (or leprechauns)".

[Maeght]

Maeght,

Yes I am - try reading it again. Proceeding on the basis that there are no gods is where rational enquiry inevitably leads. That's the "default" for anyone who follows the reasoning. It's also the case though that there's not rational basis for a default, "there definitively are no gods (or leprechauns)".

So is 'God doesn't exist' the default position?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Grace,

yep, when is the last time you saw God in any of the adverts for Christmas, Easter or anything else, when was the last time schools had morning prayers or sang hymns, when is the last time the God of the bible was taught as anything but fairy tale...

Actually I see lots of intrusions by “God” stories into secular life, but your assertion was that, “God is hidden by…” etc. Did you actually mean something like, “the narratives about the god in which I believe get less coverage than they used to in advertising etc”?

[BeRational]

People on here have stated that the default position is that God doesn't exist. They have not suggested it is their position but the position. Do you think that is right?

I should clarify that the default belief position is that gods do not exist. This is the default belief position for everything not just gods.
You move from the default belief position when the evidence shows other wise.

[torridon]

God is hidden by life, consumerism, wrong living, science to a degree, attitude, money, anything that keeps our focus on us and our needs..

That is painting god rather as if it were a state of human mind, a facet of human perception and perspective.  If we remove humans would God then cease to be hidden ?  Was god evident in the Triassic ?

[floo]

you think you do and I am not saying that to be offensive, advertising does more to us than we know..

Not for us, if a thing is heavily advertised we ignore it. Before we make any major purchase we consult, 'WHICH'. Our children had to hope, when they were kids, that nothing on their wish lists had been advertised on TV, because they certainly wouldn't be having it if that had been the case.

[BeRational]

Not for us, if a thing is heavily advertised we ignore it. Before we make any major purchase we consult, 'WHICH'. Our children had to hope, when they were kids, that nothing on their wish lists had been advertised on TV, because they certainly wouldn't be having it if that had been the case.

You have to be careful because this means that you are affected by advertising.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

So is 'God doesn't exist' the default position?

No, it's a default position. It's the default for the only way pragmatically to proceed on a reasoned basis - ie, as if god(s) do not exist.

What it cannot be though is the default strict epistemic statement, "god(s) definitively do not exist" because there's no way to exclude an unknown unknown that could demonstrate otherwise.

[floo]

You have to be careful because this means that you are affected by advertising.

In a negative not a positive way, which is good.

[BeRational]

In a negative not a positive way, which is good.

Perhaps, but the thing being advertised might be the best option, and you do not choose it for the wrong reason.

Advertising brings it to your attention, your investigations inform you whether it us a good buy.

Simply not buying it because it was advertised removes the rational reasoning of its merits, if it has any.

[Stranger]

People on here have stated that the default position is that God doesn't exist.

I still don't recognise 'God' as a single concept.

However, the default belief about the existence of anything is that it doesn't exist - including (as I said before) things we now know exist (have strong evidence for), like atoms, electromagnetic radiation, and Higgs bosons.

[SusanDoris]

you think you do and I am not saying that to be offensive, advertising does more to us than we know..

One of the little bonuses about blindness is that I don't see adverts, on the internet or on TV - well, I dn't turn on TV!