Why Does God Hide Himself?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1945848' date='Aug 10 2009, 11:08 PM']I said no such thing and there are numerous theists whose intellectual powers I have praised here. Men like Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the present Pope, Kurt Godel et cetera. I said there were no sound arguments for the existence of God.[/quote]

Don't know why you would praise them. After all if there is no sound argument for the existence of a god, then anyone that must believe in such a thing is majorly mistaken.

I'm also pointing out that there is no sound argument for the lack of a god.

[quote]If you have one please post it. If not then we should agree that there are not valid arguments for any of the monotheisms.[/quote]

You've already rejected all the major ones as not sound even though you have no sound argument against a god so I'm not sure what the point of bringing up an argument would bring.


----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/coldplay/track/the+scientist"]Coldplay - The Scientist[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Hassan]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1945859' date='Aug 10 2009, 11:20 PM']Don't know why you would praise them. After all if there is no sound argument for the existence of a god, then anyone that must believe in such a thing is majorly mistaken.[/quote]

My assertions would only imply that they were mistaken if they believed there was a sound argument for the existence of a God. Nasr follows gnosticism and the Shia Islamic Sufi belief that religious faith comes through a sort of inner illumination. Godel was working on an ontological argument for God's existence when he died but I know of no argument which he asserted was sound. While the Pope is bound by Vatican I he has made no definitive assertion that any particular argument is sound that I am aware of.

[quote]I'm also pointing out that there is no sound argument for the lack of a god.[/quote]

Nor Shiva.



[quote]You've already rejected all the major ones as not sound even though you have no sound argument against a god so I'm not sure what the point of bringing up an argument would bring.[/quote]

Do you have one or not?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1945870' date='Aug 10 2009, 11:28 PM']My assertions would only imply that they were mistaken if they believed there was a sound argument for the existence of a God.[/quote]

"Sound argument" being one that could be proven in court I presume?

[quote]Nasr follows gnosticism and the Shia Islamic Sufi belief that religious faith comes through a sort of inner illumination. Godel was working on an ontological argument for God's existence when he died but I know of no argument which he asserted was sound. While the Pope is bound by Vatican I he has made no definitive assertion that any particular argument is sound that I am aware of.[/quote]

Bound by Vatican I in what way?

Godel believed if the universe was rationally constructed, then there was some sort of god.



[quote]...Do you have one or not?[/quote]

Do you have on?

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/led+zeppelin/track/misty+mountain+hop"]Led Zeppelin - Misty Mountain Hop[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Hassan]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1945900' date='Aug 10 2009, 10:44 PM']"Sound argument" being one that could be proven in court I presume?[/quote]

A valid argument with factually correct premises.



[quote]Bound by Vatican I in what way?[/quote]

In rejecting Fideism.

[quote]Godel believed if the universe was rationally constructed, then there was some sort of god.[/quote]

If that's just a belief it has nothing to do with my point. If you have a link to what he proposed as a sound argument for the soundness of this belief I'll look at it.





[quote]Do you have on?[/quote]


No. I've never claimed any such argument existed or that one would be possible.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1945912' date='Aug 10 2009, 11:50 PM']...No. I've never claimed any such argument existed or that one would be possible.[/quote]

So your in the middle of nowhere asking me for a sound argument that you have already rejected?


----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/hinder/track/better+than+me"]Hinder - Better Than Me[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Hassan]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1945926' date='Aug 10 2009, 11:58 PM']So your in the middle of nowhere asking me for a sound argument that you have already rejected?


----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/hinder/track/better+than+me"]Hinder - Better Than Me[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url][/quote]


What?

[eagle_eye222001]

You don't have a sound argument for or against a god, right?

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/flyleaf/track/fully+alive"]Flyleaf - Fully Alive[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Hassan]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1945934' date='Aug 10 2009, 11:03 PM']You don't have a sound argument for or against a god, right?

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/flyleaf/track/fully+alive"]Flyleaf - Fully Alive[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url][/quote]


That is correct.

I don't see how that helps you. It puts God in the same boat as unicorns and Shiva.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1945829' date='Aug 11 2009, 01:44 AM']Not a parallel example.[/quote]

What's wrong with it? I think it's a good analogue. Although it might be technically possible for everyone to do certain action, it can be impossible for some to actually do it because their mind will not allow them to go through with it. Walking off a cliff is an obvious example and I thought faith would be obvious as well.


[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1945829' date='Aug 11 2009, 01:44 AM']Which is why you look at the arguments for why you should trust something as opposed to just blindly choosing to do so.[/quote]

I was replying to LousvilleFan who was saying that the way to get convinced of God's existence is to pray. And what I was trying to say was that that's like a chicken and an egg problem. You'll need to pray for God to reveal himself, but you can't pray untill God reveals himself. Some people can't do the leap of faith and trust, which is why it's unfair for God to demand it.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Semalsia

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1945770' date='Aug 10 2009, 10:00 PM']Are you saying then that prayer is the only way to gain evidence or knowledge of God's existence? Does that not require a leap of faith also? And what if you don't pray?

How is it fair that in order to be saved God demands some people to do something which they are not able to do?[/quote]

I said "especially in prayer," not "only in prayer."

The Conversion of St. Paul is the iconic testimony to God revealing himself to the most hard-hearted individuals. I suppose Saul (before he was Paul) prayed as a practicing Jew, but I can't imagine it was pious prayer.

That wouldn't be fair. God works with whatever we can do. "My grace is sufficient for you." (2nd Corinthians 12:9)

Edited August 13, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Hassan]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1938299' date='Aug 1 2009, 08:21 PM']But why? Why do you think that is essentially necessary? That doesn't make sense. Why does the magnitude of a decision inherently change the nature of what it means to make a decision?[/quote]


I shouldn't have said to be free, I should have said for them to be fully culpable for it.



[quote]If you don't believe the world was created ex nihilo, what do you suggest it was created from? What materials were used, and how did they come to be? And how did it happen that the world came into existence at precisely the right moment... to such a degree that if it had been so much as 1/16th of a second off, it would have combusted? How did every species of animal come into being with a similar method of procreation? Why are there not "transitional" species on earth at the moment. How is it that the planet we live on is the only one in our solar system that has the capablility of fostering life forms? Why is it that[/quote]

Hawking has come out with an hypothesis regarding the creation of the universe ex nihilo. Because if it didn't we would not be here. All species are transitional species. Because it's the only one in the solar system that we know of which can support life. Simply because that happens to be the case doesn't mean there must be a reason why.




[quote]But why is that unjust, if he is the creator.[/quote]

So what if he's the creator? Does being the creator of another being give you license to inflict upon them whatever arbitrary, barbaric actions you please?

[quote]We were created, according to Catholic theology, to know God and to love him and to be with him for all eternity. He's given us the freedom to reject him. But if God is what Catholics believe Him to be, namely the creator of all things who is goodness itself, then rejection of him is an extreme injustice... a much more extreme injustice than you could propose that a creator could have caused his creatures... We owe him honor and love because he created us and that's why he created us. If we choose not to cooperate with our very reason for existence than there is no reason why He should be obligated to lessen the consequences. We make an extreme choice to love God, or not to love God. The consequences simply correlate. Why should he be obligated to make the consequences less extreme when the difference between the choice we make is extreme? He is under no obligation to make a middle ground. He owes us nothing. On what grounds would he?[/quote]

On the grounds that we are self aware being with hopes, dreams and aspirations of our own.

Go created us so we could worship him? What sort of narcissism is that?

"Worship me, love me, devote yourself to me fully. If you dare do otherwise I feel free to abandon you for all eternity to the horrors of hell!"

I don't see why such a petty God, if he existed, deserves any veneration.

[quote]All of the suffering in hell is the result of being cut off from God, from love, because He is love, from joy, because he is joy, from life, because he is life. It would be like tearing off your skin. You are meant to have skin... If you tear it off, it is going to be painful, because it's supposed to remain intact.[/quote]



[quote]The punishment is self-inflicted, a direct consequence of tearing your skin off.[/quote]


No it is not. He makes the decision. You say we decide because we choose to fulfill his requirements or not but that doesn't work. He brought us into creation, he created the radical dichotomy of options.

I force you between two stark alternatives. Either you devote yourself totally to me or I kill you. If you choose not to devote yourself totally to me and I kill you I would hardly get away with saying that your death was "self inflicted"

[Hassan]

[quote]In the same way, we are meant to be with God. When we are not, it is going to hurt. It's not that he selects all these arbitrary punishments to inflict on someone just to hurt them for doing something wrong. The quotes from Aquinas and the church fathers only reinforce that. Which ones suggest that God punishes people for the sake of just punishing them?[/quote]

Then why does he punish them? Yes, they greatest punishment of hell is the absence of God but with that come accidental corporal punishment right? What is the point of these punishments if there is no possibility of redemption?







[quote]These punishments are the result of having not fulfilled one's reason for existence. Not something that God goes out of his way to make anyone feel.[/quote]

Did he not determine what the reason for our existence would be and what the consequences for failing to obey his will would be?

[quote]When you look back on any decision, you will naturally reflect on that. It is extreme because it was an extreme choice. Not fulfilling one's reason for existence is extreme, by its very nature. Even in something as simple as an object. If I have a pen, the purpose of my pen is to be able to write with it. If my pen is not able to write, it is useless as a pen. Throwing it out if it doesn't work, and keeping it if it does, are the extreme consequences of fulfilling, or not fulfilling, its purpose of being. I could keep it even if it doesn't work, but there's no purpose.[/quote]

So if God's beloved children don't fulfill what he deems to be the purpose of their existence within the set of time he appoints for them then they are analogous to defective trash? I just read below and see that you don't loke that analogy after all and yet it seems to be pretty sport on with what you are proposing.


God, of his own volition, decided to create me. He then appointed a purpose on my life. I am to love, honor and venerate him with all my heart, mind and soul. He sets out a predetermined period of time (Just how long I am not told) for me to meet these requirements. If I meet his demands I am rewarded with heaven. Where I get to love honor and venerate him for all eternity. If I fail I am banished to hell, a place with an absolute absence of joy, love, happiness, and not to mention the physical punishments, for all of eternity.

Why doesn't God simply destroy the souls who have failed to meet his demands? Why doesn't he simply permit them to exist as they are on earth until they come around? Why doesn't he do any number of the far more humane and merciful options available to him?


[quote]It is technically unreasonable to keep it. (Obviously I'm not suggesting that God "throws out" a soul because it doesn't fulfill it's purpose, because in that case, it is a matter of free will... I'm just trying to point out why it's perfectly reasonable to have extreme ends in this situation, because it too, is a matter of cooperating with one's nature and purpose, which is always a situation of extremes in its very essence... one either fulfills ones' purpose, or does not... it isn't a matter with gray areas, so it wouldn't make sense for the consequences to be any less extreme than the choice itself.)[/quote]



How do you gauge "extreme" or any of these proportional assertions?

[quote]Once again, just a result of being separated from God. Permanent separation will mean permanent pain. That isn't God's fault.[/quote]

Like hell it isn't. Who decided the damned would be excluded from the possibility of redemption? Who decided to make it a high stakes "all or nothing" game? Who forced us to play such a sick game?



[quote]Our bodies and our souls are a composite. They go together, and because of that God ordained that all men should be reunited with their bodies, regardless of eternal consequence. The point I was making about that was simply that corporal punishment is the least punishment of hell. Our bodies, like our souls, were created to glorify God, and we have a choice to correspond with that, or not. And insofar as our bodies have not corresponded, there will be pain. Again, that's a natural consequence, Again, that doesn't mean God is tormenting them. They're tormenting themselves.[/quote]

The damned physically torment themselves? What do they do, flagellate themselves?

I'm sorry, you keep making these assertions about the way God has decided to construct his creation, and then absolve him of responsibility. Saying "oh well, it's not his fault!"

Well who ordained that the soul and the body should be composite?

[Guest]

Whatever you do for the least you did for God.

I think we could see God everyday if we really looked for Him.

What does that verse say ? When did we see you hungry Lord ? When did we see you without shelter ?

( I actually forget what it says I'm not trying to be dramatic or self rigtheous lol )

So anyhow I think you can look God in the eyes, in His human flesh everyday if you wanted to.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

[quote name='Hassan' date='16 August 2009 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1250402171' post='1950302']
Then why does he punish them? Yes, they greatest punishment of hell is the absence of God but with that come accidental corporal punishment right? What is the point of these punishments if there is no possibility of redemption?









Did he not determine what the reason for our existence would be and what the consequences for failing to obey his will would be?



So if God's beloved children don't fulfill what he deems to be the purpose of their existence within the set of time he appoints for them then they are analogous to defective trash? I just read below and see that you don't loke that analogy after all and yet it seems to be pretty sport on with what you are proposing.


God, of his own volition, decided to create me. He then appointed a purpose on my life. I am to love, honor and venerate him with all my heart, mind and soul. He sets out a predetermined period of time (Just how long I am not told) for me to meet these requirements. If I meet his demands I am rewarded with heaven. Where I get to love honor and venerate him for all eternity. If I fail I am banished to hell, a place with an absolute absence of joy, love, happiness, and not to mention the physical punishments, for all of eternity.

Why doesn't God simply destroy the souls who have failed to meet his demands? Why doesn't he simply permit them to exist as they are on earth until they come around? Why doesn't he do any number of the far more humane and merciful options available to him?






How do you gauge "extreme" or any of these proportional assertions?



Like hell it isn't. Who decided the damned would be excluded from the possibility of redemption? Who decided to make it a high stakes "all or nothing" game? Who forced us to play such a sick game?





The damned physically torment themselves? What do they do, flagellate themselves?

I'm sorry, you keep making these assertions about the way God has decided to construct his creation, and then absolve him of responsibility. Saying "oh well, it's not his fault!"

Well who ordained that the soul and the body should be composite?
[/quote]

Peace Hassan. Your arguments are always really on point and if I didn't have such great faith in the goodness of God I would agree with your logic. Because it's reasonable and right now in this life it makes sence. It really does bro. But I know it's not accurate. God is good. God is just. People aren't going to be in hell who don't deserve to be there. While people are going to be in Heaven who don't deserve to be there. It's because of Gods goodness. You really have to reject God to end up in hell. Flat out reject him. It's not trivial. God isn't in this to say " I told ya so" He loves us bro. Peace and Godbless man.

[pat22]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='06 October 2009 - 07:05 AM' timestamp='1254827158' post='1979033']
Peace Hassan. Your arguments are always really on point and if I didn't have such great faith in the goodness of God I would agree with your logic. Because it's reasonable and right now in this life it makes sence. It really does bro. But I know it's not accurate. God is good. God is just. People aren't going to be in hell who don't deserve to be there. While people are going to be in Heaven who don't deserve to be there. It's because of Gods goodness. You really have to reject God to end up in hell. Flat out reject him. It's not trivial. God isn't in this to say " I told ya so" He loves us bro. Peace and Godbless man.
[/quote]
think hassan has some very legitimate arguements. they were good enough that nobody picked this up again for 2 months. and spouting off how good you think god is isn't very helpful

Edited October 6, 2009 by pat22