The silence of God

[leroy]

The silence of God>

If God excists, why doesn't he makes his existence more obvious?


in this thread (http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15117&start=120) Grumpy Santa made this statement,

Grumpy Santa wrote:

Not a very impressive god. You'd think that it would be powerful enough to provide evidence so incontrovertible that someone would have no choice but to accept it. It should be smart enough to know what that would be for any individual, shouldn't it?

But given that I found the comment irrelevant to the original topic so I decided to simply open a new topic to deal with this objection.


So...


If God excists, why doesn't he makes his existence more obvious?



This argument has at least 3 hidden assumptions

1 that there is on clear and indisputable empirical evidence for the existence of God,

2 God being all power, could have made his existence more obvious

3 God, would will to make his existence more obvious.



Assumption 1 granted, even though I would argue that there are some arguments for the existence of God, it is obviously true that the evidence is not as robust as it could possible be,

Assumption 2 granted, God can make his existence more obvious, he can knock your door and preform a few miracles in front of your eyes, or he could re arrange stars in order for the to spell "hey members form the league of reason, I am God and I exist"

Assumption 3 Not granted. there is no evidence nor reason to believe that more evidence would result in more followers. At this point I could simply stop right there and wait for the "atheist" to meat their burden proof and show that if God would have made his existence more obviously true there would be more followers. After all this is an atheist objection so they are the ones who have to carry the burden proof.


But I can do better than just shifting the burden proof.........we know that at 99% of the worlds population believes in some kind of God so whatever God is doing, he is doing a good job.


Out of the minority of atheist that exist, many (probably most atheist) openly admit that no amount of evidence will ever convince them, in this forum I have been told many times that naturalistic explanations are always (by default) better than any God did it explanation So even if God knocks their door and perform miracles in front of their own eyes, they would conclude that something inexplicable (but naturalistic) happened.

And out of the atheist that would grant the existence of God, they openly admit that they would not follow him anyway,


In addition to this, we know from the bible that miracles are an excellent tool to attract enemies and promote rejection to God, unbelievers tend to get even more angry when they witness clear evidence for God, for example the mayority of Jews hated Jesus, this is why he was crucified.


In short, we have good reasons to think that more evidence would not convert most atheist, and we have good reasons to think that more evidence could cause more rejection.


I would say that the evidence for the existence of God is sufficient to convince anyone with an open mind and an open hart, if we start with the assumption that there is a 50% probability for the existence of God, and you look at the evidence for and against God, from that 50% assumption, the balance would move in favor of the existence of God. ........

but just to be clear, this topic is not about the evidence for God, it is about the silence of God argument. any comment unrelated to this statement would be ignored


If God excists, why doesn't he makes his existence more obvious?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Assumption 3 Not granted. there is no evidence nor reason to believe that more evidence would result in more followers. At this point I could simply stop right there and wait for the "atheist" to meat their burden proof and show that if God would have made his existence more obviously true there would be more followers. After all this is an atheist objection so they are the ones who have to carry the burden proof.

But I can do better than just shifting the burden proof.........we know that at 99% of the worlds population believes in some kind of God so whatever God is doing, he is doing a good job.

Two things:
1. Google translate. Please use it because you're doing a terrible job of writing your brainless ideas.

2. Your assumption #3 has two glaring flaws. The flaws are ridiculously obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than the 0 second god is said to exist in.
So try something different: take the time to think and see if you can spot them on your own rather than wait for someone else to spot them for you.
Google is your friend there too.
"The silence of god" is not a new argument, it has existed for centuries although its called something else.
Educate yourself.

 

[leroy]

Assumption 3 Not granted. there is no evidence nor reason to believe that more evidence would result in more followers. At this point I could simply stop right there and wait for the "atheist" to meat their burden proof and show that if God would have made his existence more obviously true there would be more followers. After all this is an atheist objection so they are the ones who have to carry the burden proof.

But I can do better than just shifting the burden proof.........we know that at 99% of the worlds population believes in some kind of God so whatever God is doing, he is doing a good job.

Two things:
1. Google translate. Please use it because you're doing a terrible job of writing your brainless ideas.

2. Your assumption #3 has two glaring flaws. The flaws are ridiculously obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than the 0 second god is said to exist in.
So try something different: take the time to think and see if you can spot them on your own rather than wait for someone else to spot them for you.
Google is your friend there too.
"The silence of god" is not a new argument, it has existed for centuries although its called something else.
Educate yourself.

yes, assumption 3 has flaws, that is the point.............

 

[MarsCydonia]

yes, assumption 3 has flaws, that is the point.............

I forgot about your poor reading comprehension and its true I could have expressed myself better for someone that as an inadequate ability so I'll clarify:
It's not assumption #3 that has flaws, it's how you think its false.
2 glaring flaws.

As I said, your "argument" is not new, you're simply regurgitating something that philosophers and theologians have tackled for more than a century. Like every other time you regurgitate something, you simply make it both more incomprehensible and moronic.

So try again after educating yourself and when you do, use google translate.

 

[thenexttodie]

Assumption 3 Not granted. there is no evidence nor reason to believe that more evidence would result in more followers.

True

Out of the minority of atheist that exist, many (probably most atheist) openly admit that no amount of evidence will ever convince them,

Also true. That's something Atheists, even here on this forum, will try to hide. There is no evidence that will convince them. This kind of behavior, of course, was predicted and explained in the Bible.

The behavior of people who hate God is very predictable actually.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Also true. That's something Atheists, even here on this forum, will try to hide. There is no evidence that will convince them. This kind of behavior, of course, was predicted and explained in the Bible.

The behavior of people who hate God is very predictable actually.

Well, its unsurprising that the other christian troll and slavery apologists would share Leroy's moronic objections but you went further into how moronic.

"There's no evidence that will convince Jim that Voldemort exists, he really hates that guy!" :lol:

 

[leroy]

As I said, your "argument" is not new, you're simply regurgitating something that philosophers and theologians have tackled for more than a century. Like every other time you regurgitate something, you simply make it both more incomprehensible and moronic.
.

I read my post once again, and I notice that nowhere in the post did I say that it is a new argument,

 

[leroy]

Also true. That's something Atheists, even here on this forum, will try to hide. There is no evidence that will convince them. This kind of behavior, of course, was predicted and explained in the Bible.

The behavior of people who hate God is very predictable actually.

wrong, at least in my experience they usually don't try to hide it, .............they would admit that even if they witness a miracle with their own eyes they would still assume that it has a naturalistic explanation

 

[MarsCydonia]

I read my post once again, and I notice that nowhere in the post did I say that it is a new argument,

I read my post once again and I noticed that nowhere in thr post did I say that this was the point.

In typical Leroy fashion, you missed the point completely.

You had multiple tries to educate yourself on the argument Leroy, you failed every single time. That speaks volume.

 

[leroy]

I read my post once again, and I notice that nowhere in the post did I say that it is a new argument,

I read my post once again and I noticed that nowhere in thr post did I say that this was the point.

In typical Leroy fashion, you missed the point completely.

You had multiple tries to educate yourself on the argument Leroy, you failed every single time. That speaks volume.

so you simply pointed out the fact that the argument is not new, simply because you didn't have anything better to do, you where not trying to make a relevant point, right?

 

[australopithecus]

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[MarsCydonia]

so you simply pointed out the fact that the argument is not new, simply because you didn't have anything better to do, you where not trying to make a relevant point, right?

Just when we all think you could not possibly be more dense, you still manage to surprise by how incredibly more moronic you can become.

So to resume the order of events:
1. I point out that your rejection of your of your 3rd "assumption" had glaring flaws, that this argument is not new and that you should educate yourself about it to see if you spot the flaws.
2. I point out you should try educating yourself, again because you failed to educate yourself.
3. I point out you still have failed to educate yourself.
4. You ask what was the point and I have to point out the above because you still haven't educated yourself and were too stupid to spot a point repeated 3 times.

Really Leroy, you do impress.

 

[australopithecus]

Can we reign in the insults? Cheers.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

So here's how I see it. If this God character existed and actually has the powers and knowledge many ascribe to it, then you would think it would be capable of knowing exactly what evidence each and every person would require in order to accept its existence. Knowing that, it would be a relatively simple task for this God to provide that evidence, demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that it exists, while still leaving us with the free will to live how we see fit. It would certainly simplify things, wouldn't it? There would be only one religion and everyone would know the God of that religion existed, plus there would likely be a more clearly defined set of rules to live by as well as actual knowledge of the consequences of breaking those rules.

Right now religion controls people in part with the scary mythology of hell and eternal torment. An involved and demonstrable God would take away the myths and you'd have facts alone. Do this, this or this, bad things. Do that, that or that, good things. Hey, it's even possible then that religious texts would be able to keep up with modern times and these God-rules would alter to actually go against things like slavery, genocide, and rape. Or, maybe, slavery, genocide, and rape would still be OK...

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Also true. That's something Atheists, even here on this forum, will try to hide. There is no evidence that will convince them. This kind of behavior, of course, was predicted and explained in the Bible.

The behavior of people who hate God is very predictable actually.

wrong, at least in my experience they usually don't try to hide it, .............they would admit that even if they witness a miracle with their own eyes they would still assume that it has a naturalistic explanation

Well of course. Everything we know of has a naturalistic explanation so the odds favor one for the unknown as well. Therefore the most logical step is to look for that naturalistic explanation instead of just saying "miracle" and looking no further.

 

[leroy]

So here's how I see it. If this God character existed and actually has the powers and knowledge many ascribe to it, then you would think it would be capable of knowing exactly what evidence each and every person would require in order to accept its existence. Knowing that, it would be a relatively simple task for this God to provide that evidence, demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that it exists, while still leaving us with the free will to live how we see fit. It would certainly simplify things, wouldn't it? There would be only one religion and everyone would know the God of that religion existed, plus there would likely be a more clearly defined set of rules to live by as well as actual knowledge of the consequences of breaking those rules.

Right now religion controls people in part with the scary mythology of hell and eternal torment. An involved and demonstrable God would take away the myths and you'd have facts alone. Do this, this or this, bad things. Do that, that or that, good things. Hey, it's even possible then that religious texts would be able to keep up with modern times and these God-rules would alter to actually go against things like slavery, genocide, and rape. Or, maybe, slavery, genocide, and rape would still be OK...

Yes God could have make his existence more obvious, but why would he do it? God is not interested in having more believers, he is presumably interested in having more individuals that have a loving relationship with him. for example demons believe in God, but they certainly don't have the relationship that God would like to have.


what you have to do is accept your burden and prove that whatever you would call "more evidence" would result in more followers and not just more believers.



just an analogy, if your paranoid and jealous girl friend, accuse you for cheating on her, what would you do.


option 1 you would prove to her that you are not cheating on her, by letting her put you a tracking devisor and a spy cam so that she could now where are you 24 / 7 and make your fidelity as evident possible?

option 2 you would tell her, fuck off, I love you, and I would like to have a relation with you, but you have to stop being so paranoid and trust me. I ll be waiting for you with an open hart, just let me know if you ever decide to trust me and I will receive you with my open hart. ?


hopefully you would pick option 2 , you could make your fidelity more evident, but why would you do it? you want a nice and loving girl fried that trusts you, not someone who is always skeptic about your fidelity.


of course you can always disagree, accept your burden and prove, that if God exist he would have picked option 1,

 

[leroy]

Well of course. Everything we know of has a naturalistic explanation so the odds favor one for the unknown as well. Therefore the most logical step is to look for that naturalistic explanation instead of just saying "miracle" and looking no further.

that is my point,

the problem is not the evidence for God, the problem is the philosophical assumption of naturalism. There is nothing that God could do to convert you, for the same reason there is nothing you can do to convince Ken Ham that the bible is wrong.


If you would have started with the assumption that the existence of God is posible (say a 50% probability) and start looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc. would be convincing enough to grant the existence of God.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes God could have make his existence more obvious, but why would he do it? God is not interested in having more believers, he is presumably interested in having more individuals that have a loving relationship with him. for example demons believe in God, but they certainly don't have the relationship that God would like to have.

I find it amazing that you think you know what a deity wants, while being unable to demonstrate one exists. Why are we assuming a god wants loving relationships with us? You have done nothing to justify this. However, good to know that you also believe in demons.

If you would have started with the assumption that the existence of God is posible (say a 50% probability) and start looking at the evidence from that assumption, arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological, resurrection, etc. would be convincing enough to grant the existence of God.

Funny how one does not have to presume 50% odds for things that are real, such as gravity or the shape of the planets. That should tell you something about this deity you worship and the biases you are caring with you.

 

[Laurens]

God is silent unless you believe. Then you will percieve that his voice is everywhere speaking through every event in your life. Given that he only exists to believers and is silent to everyone else we can conclude that God exists within the imagination and only there.

Theists would do way way better if they accepted this. Trying to argue that God exists in the same way as a person or a tree is folly. Just embrace that he's imaginary and take a position that the imaginary is important somehow. It would be way easier to defend...