God is "dead"

[hansda]

I am a simple minded person,
If God is alive, let him shows up himself.
Like my father, I can see him and touch him.

If GOD appears infront of you, will you be able to see him, feel him, touch him like your father?

Can God do that?
Of course he can, he is omnipotent.

If GOD is omnipotent, how he can die?

 

[Yazata]

You are not an Aspie, are you?

How is Asperger's syndrome relevant to the 'hiddenness of God' question?

The reason I ask is because Aspies, and other autistic-spectrum disorders, are know to have deficits in theory of mind ("the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.").

Or at least that's a theory. I don't think that science knows precisely what's happening in the brains of people with various sorts of psychiatric illness.. Unfortunately, psychiatry is still in a position analogous to when Galenic medicine used to bleed people to adjust their "humors". Advancement beyond that point was dependent on advances in biochemistry and physiology. Similarly, advances in psychiatry are going to be dependent on advances in neuroscience that have yet to happen.

Returning to the subject of this thread, how is the ability to read, model and react to other people's psychological states relevant to the 'hiddenness of God' question? And what justifies the implicit suggestion that those who disagree with you might likely suffer from psychiatric illness? That just looks like an insult to me.

 

[Magical Realist]

From the point of view of a theist, the problem appears more difficult. If God exists, and if God could easily produce objective and unambiguous evidence of himself, then why doesn't he? There have been no end of proposed theological explanations for that one, speculating into God's hypothetical motives.

One might say that the whole system of religion, with it's convoluted theology and tired old excuses, is just one elaborate rationalization for why an omnipotent god never appears to anybody in a world that appears to happen exactly as if there is no God. Imagine a priest telling a native: "There's this supreme magical being and he loves you and will protect you and grant you immortality if you obey his commands." Logically enough the native asks: "Then where is he?" The priest stammers: "Uh..uh..well, see he can only be seen by those who have faith in him, or he has to hide from us to protect our free will, or he's all around you, like the air, or he DID appear a long time ago according to the Bible as a man called Jesus, or he's in heaven, an invisible realm in sky, etc." Religion then as the endless tortured rationalization for why God is conspicuously missing from our universe, our sensory experience, and our entire recorded history. 1001 reasons for why God never appears anywhere to anybody in any objective form whatsoever and doesn't even appear to influence events in any way.

 

[wynn]

How is Asperger's syndrome relevant to the 'hiddenness of God' question?

Having difficulties in communication is relevant for most, if not all questions anyway.
Whether those difficulties are due to deafness, blindness, not understanding the language in which the other person is speaking, being under the influence of intoxicants, exhaustion, or psychological deficiency.

Returning to the subject of this thread, how is the ability to read, model and react to other people's psychological states relevant to the 'hiddenness of God' question?

In a similar way that the ability to read, model and react to other people's psychological states is relevant in most other things in life, from eating to working to bungee jumping to sleeping.

A crucial factor of maturing, growing up is to be able to read, model and react to other people's psychological states, and to develop a measure of self-sufficiency, self-reliance, autonomy in regard to these.

One cannot drive a car or work, not even eat without developing a measure of such autonomy. Of course, we get some training in some areas of life (such as driving a car, some kinds of work, personal hygience etc.), which makes them easier. But, notably, getting a training in theism appears to be much more rare, and requires more effort on all parties involved.

And what justifies the implicit suggestion that those who disagree with you might likely suffer from psychiatric illness? That just looks like an insult to me.

Speaking of suggestions: How about when atheists suggest that those who disagree with them not just might likely, but very likely suffer from psychiatric illness? So much for insults.

 

[Magical Realist]

How about when atheists suggest that those who disagree with them not just might likely, but very likely suffer from psychiatric illness?

People who have delusions are necessarily mentally ill? Not in the general sense of delusion as simply a false belief. Religion, bigotry, racism, conspiracy theories, homophobia--all examples of delusional states that don't necessarily entail psychiatric illness.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

People who have delusions are necessarily mentally ill? Not in the general sense of delusion as simply a false belief. Religion, bigotry, racism, conspiracy theories, homophobia--all examples of delusional states that don't necessarily entail psychiatric illness.

Magical Realist, would self-induced and continually practiced/exhibited ignorance "entail psychiatric illness"?

 

[(Q)]

God is dead, he is fictitious, fake!

God is alive and living on Mt. Olympus. Where do you think lightning comes from, a massive electrostatic discharge between the electrically charged regions within clouds? Who would ever believe that nonsense?

 

[Magical Realist]

If GOD appears infront of you, will you be able to see him

Seems to me you just answered your own question...

 

[lightgigantic]

People who have delusions are necessarily mentally ill? Not in the general sense of delusion as simply a false belief. Religion, bigotry, racism, conspiracy theories, homophobia--all examples of delusional states that don't necessarily entail psychiatric illness.

The problem with your argument is that the very reasons you give for categorizing religion as a delusion are also present in your bigoted persecution of the religiou.

 

[Syne]

The empirical analyses of the social sciences do allow us to make objective determinations of how and why the erroneous mystical notions of religion originated, were socially incorporated and remain persistent today.

Social scientists will commonly combine quantitative and qualitative approaches as part of a multi-strategy design. Questionnaires, field-based data collection, archival database information and laboratory-based data collections are some of the measurement techniques used. It is noted the importance of measurement and analysis, focusing on the (difficult to achieve) goal of objective research or statistical hypothesis testing. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science#Methodology​

But if you have objective empirical evidence for "how and why the... notions of religion originated, were socially incorporated and remain persistent today", please cite them. Support your assertions.

 

[Syne]

Objectively? No. But then religion falls within the purview of the social-sciences, which necessarily rely on subjective, self-reported data. Only actual evidence for or against can speak for some belief, and in the lack of evidence either way, there is no objective criteria whereby to determine the falsity of a belief.

Religion isn't content to regard itself as a mere subjective relativist social phenomenon. It makes certain absolute scientifically-testable claims about the nature of the physical world, the past, and the origin of living species. Its claims of miracles, supernatural intervention, divine creationism, and the existence of a soul all fall within the domain of science to be examined and tested. It used to claim that the mentally ill were possessed by devils. Disproven. It used to claim that the sun revolved around the earth. Disproven. It used to claim that God created all creatures out of dust 6000 years ago. Disproven. It used to claim people could be healed from disease by pouring oil on their heads and praying for them. Disproven. To the extent that religion makes ANY claim about objective reality, it IS subject to the criteria of science to validate itself. This it cannot do because simply put, it is a system of delusions and mythical narratives left over from a now extinct culture.

Hasty generalization, as you are using the claims of people like YECs as if they are generally held by all theists/religious. You need to cite who currently claims "miracles, supernatural intervention, divine creationism, and the existence of a soul all fall within the domain of science to be examined and tested", and how this is relevant to theism/religion in general. Otherwise these arguments are just as lazy as a theist condemning all atheists because Pol Pot was one.

And what some "use to claim" is irrelevant, as even science has made claims that have been both widely held and later disproven, like aether. Or are pseudo-scientists justified in criticizing current science just because widely accepted theories have been proven wrong in the past?

You are not an Aspie, are you? The reason I ask is because Aspies, and other autistic-spectrum disorders, are know to have deficits in theory of mind ("the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.").

Reported for being an asshole prick..(note my acute awareness of your hostile mental state in posting that.)

[Warning: This is your last warning for name-calling, per "Behaviour that may get you banned - Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling." - http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=22]

It was an honest question. Are you willing to allow me to infer an answer from your lack of response?

I watch the news a lot. Every time I have certain facts confirmed for me by the journalists. I am after watching the news broadcast in total belief of the points being made without doing anything for myself to accept it. We call this learning.

This explains a lot.

For those who are more deeply embedded in the theistic tradition(s), especially those that ascribe "omni-" attributes to their deities, the question does arise of why God (hypothetically) chooses not to reveal himself unambiguously, choosing instead to remain hidden.

Already answered in this thread.

 

[Syne]

For instance, when Syne asked you this question...

You respond with...


So...Magical Realist, not only do you respond with an inane "Report" of an imaginary offense - you can not even do that without puerile name calling.
Then you go so far as to claim the "God like ability" to possess an "acute awareness" of someones "hostile mental state" merely by reading a few printed words.
Magical Realist, I find that to be a dubious and self-delusional ability that you claim to possess, simply by the proven inability of your claimed "acute awareness" to comprehend the difference between a question and a statement.

Magical Realist, if I am not on your "ignore list" (how many pages long is it, may I ask?) - I fully expect you to "Report" me for some "acute(ly) aware" imaginary reason that you deem offensive.
Will you be able to do that, Magical Realist, without also proffering childish name calling?

DMOE, please do not comment on the posting violations of others. This could be construed as trolling. Please keep your replies on-topic and allow the Moderators to address any violations. Thank you.

 

[Syne]

I don't think that anyone disputes that it's a fact that theists believe in the existence of God. (Leaving aside the question of what they take the word 'God' to mean.) The question that MR was speaking about is whether the word 'God' refers to or names some divine object that has independent reality apart from theists' own subjectivities.

If all theists on Earth ceased to exist tomorrow and all recorded references to 'God' were erased, would God still exist? Or would God disappear along with the subjects who once believed in him? Put another more theological way, did God create us and is our being dependent on him, or did we create God and is whatever fictional being that God has dependent on us?

MR was asking about objective evidence, and I clearly answer "no". That says nothing about any possible independent reality either way. God could be an emergent phenomena which would reemerge after being scoured from Earth, and that still would not be determinant of whether it has an independent reality.

 

[Syne]

You are not an Aspie, are you?

How is Asperger's syndrome relevant to the 'hiddenness of God' question?

If you lack the ability to model the beliefs of others, you will necessarily doubt their self-reported experience and discount anything but objective evidence, which those beliefs do not rely on. So it is quite critically relevant.

The reason I ask is because Aspies, and other autistic-spectrum disorders, are know to have deficits in theory of mind ("the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.").

Or at least that's a theory. I don't think that science knows precisely what's happening in the brains of people with various sorts of psychiatric illness..

There is no special need to know "what's happening in the brains" when behavior, including theory of mind, is objectively observable evidence.

Returning to the subject of this thread, how is the ability to read, model and react to other people's psychological states relevant to the 'hiddenness of God' question?

Answered above.

And what justifies the implicit suggestion that those who disagree with you might likely suffer from psychiatric illness? That just looks like an insult to me.

Not implied, only inferred (look up the difference). Did you miss that it was a question? There is no insult in casting about for an explanation for behavior and asking a simple question to eliminate any guess. A simple "no" would end that line of questioning.

 

[Magical Realist]

Warning: This is your last warning for name-calling, per "Behaviour that may get you banned - Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling."

Insult me again and watch what happens.

 

[Syne]

Insult me again and watch what happens.

What insult? Is that a threat?

Behaviour that may get you banned

• Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling.
• Threats.

I have given you verbal warnings, since I am involved in this thread, but if you are determined to progress to official warnings/infractions, I will oblige.

 

[Magical Realist]

Hasty generalization, as you are using the claims of people like YECs as if they are generally held by all theists/religious. You need to cite who currently claims "miracles, supernatural intervention, divine creationism, and the existence of a soul all fall within the domain of science to be examined and tested", and how this is relevant to theism/religion in general. Otherwise these arguments are just as lazy as a theist condemning all atheists because Pol Pot was one.

LOL! You really should pick up a Bible sometime and read some of the crap that it claims. It would definitely give you more credibility as a self-appointed defender of religion.

 

[Magical Realist]

What insult? Is that a threat?

Behaviour that may get you banned

• Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling.
• Threats.

I have given you verbal warnings, since I am involved in this thread, but if you are determined to progress to official warnings/infractions, I will oblige.

Implying someone has a mental disorder is an insult. Surely you know this, unless you are socially clueless because you never interact with any real people. So like I said, do it again and I will report you again. Being a moderator doesn't exempt you from abiding by the rules of this forum.

 

[Syne]

LOL! You really should pick up a Bible sometime and read some of the crap that it claims. It would definitely give you more credibility as a self-appointed defender of religion.

Not all religious people interpret the Bible as wholly literal (so just another hasty generalization), although it seems you do.

Implying someone has a mental disorder is an insult. Surely you know this, unless you are socially clueless because you never interact with any real people. So like I said, do it again and I will report you again. Being a moderator doesn't exempt you from abiding by the rules of this forum.

I did not imply it, you have merely inferred it. I asked a simple question, which you still have not answered.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

DMOE, please do not comment on the posting violations of others.

Syne, My bad!!

This could be construed as trolling.

Syne, I would not construe your asking me to "...not comment..." or "...allow the Moderators to address any..." as trolling - why would you think that?
Or, was I supposed to "infer" that you meant to state : " "THAT" could be construed as trolling."? If I was supposed to "infer" THAT instead of read "this" - then, My bad!!

Please keep your replies on-topic and allow the Moderators to address any violations. Thank you.

Syne, again, My bad!!

So, to recap : My bad!! / !?!? - possible My bad!! /again, My bad!! - Oh, and Thank you, too.