If Jesus was God, why wasn't He more obvious?

[1over137]

Or wont. One of the few real binary questions.

There is a joke: there are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

[1over137]

Here is what I wrote about 2 weeks ago:

Special Friend

You gave me a great friend
Whom I was reached by
Saved from my end
Brought to the sky

I struggled like a fish
But could not resist drawing
There was this higher wish
To surrender calling

I am glad You gave me John
Such an honor indeed
Someone I could rely on
When in struggle, in need.

Sometimes I was very bold
Or honest to the pain
Patience was his secret gold
Not given in vain

So, thank You for your special gift
Which I cherish to this day
He is there to give me a lift
On my crossings, on my way.

[Audie]

"Philip"]

Audie, apparently, although you say you are very influenced by science, you also believe in miracles. Let's back up about 10 billions years before any arguments about how life evolved life on earth:

For clarity, is that about how, or whether?

There was NOTHING in existence

I do not think this is neither what the BBT suggests, nor is a reasonable idea.
Something was "pre' existing. I put "pre' that way, because nobody can say what time is.

Do you believe a universe began by itself, with great order and precise laws INSTANTLY guiding it?

I believe there is a mystery there, probably as far beyond human capacity to discuss in a meaningful way as the origin of catfood is for cats, should they discuss such things.

Whatever happened, you would have to say it was miraculous

If I have to say that, then I will say every single thing, material or otherwise in existence is miraculous, which kinds dilutes the word to meaninglessness.

. Great precision and unfathomable order and universe-building elements came out of dumb, random chance - caused by WHAT? You see, this alone should make one consider that God exists

Im far from immune to considering all manner of things. Have you, tho, given serious consideration to the idea that no such thing does exist? Or that, if there is such an incredible mind, that its not much chance its the one some people thought was so concerned about their foreskins?

And not to be tiresome with an old argument, to move the "miracle' back a notch to something even bigger and more marvellous than the universe that somehow came into existence...I know, God was always there. And so on.

Of course it makes it occur to me that there could be a mind in back of it all.
But say I do somehow come to actually know that. What does a person do with that knowledge, what is a suitable response to it? Carve rocks? Sing? Attempt communication with it? Im not being snarky here, I really cannot think of a single thing I could do as a suitable response to this knowledge. People have made a lot of guesses and assertions as to 'who' this god is, but they just dont have any credibility with me.

But if you believe there is no God, then this is where your science necessarily leads you - to the inexplicable miraculous (sorry, I can't think of a better term!).

[/quote]



Some things are not yet explained. The human race, and for sure science, are in their infancy. Check back in 100,000 years, or 20 million. People may have figured out all manner of things.

And other things will probably remain inexplicable.

I guess it is an either / or; God, or something else.

The explanation / belief that primitive tribes came up with around the world is, you think, the most likely?

[Byblos]

Or wont. One of the few real binary questions.

There is a joke: there are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Now that's hilarious

[Audie]

Or wont. One of the few real binary questions.

There is a joke: there are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Now that's hilarious

Something to agree on!

[Byblos]

Or wont. One of the few real binary questions.

There is a joke: there are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Now that's hilarious

Something to agree on!

[Philip]

Philip: There was NOTHING in existence

Audie: I do not think this is neither what the BBT suggests, nor is a reasonable idea. Something was "pre' existing. I put "pre' that way, because nobody can say what time is.

So you agree "something" had to be pre-existing. But do you see, that is because you realize that everything we know of had to have some source for its origins - and thus the "something that was pre-existing." Now, do you not also see what the implication of your belief is - that whatever was pre-existing HAD to have had a source for ITS origins, and that it couldn't have merely created itself?

Scientists generally agree that the Big Bang, rather than a mere explosion, was the beginning of space, time, matter and energy - whereas these did not previously exist. And there is a TON of scientific evidence for this. So you say you have faith in science, and so do you believe this or not. Where these things did not exist, suddenly they did - with an extraordinary burst of heat and energy, guided by sophisticated and complex physical, thermal, gravitational, and chemical laws that were there from the very beginning. This is precisely why it wasn't a random, chaotic thing, but one with direction, guidance and adherence to incredibly complex and necessarily interactive laws, from the very beginning. And this sophistication powerfully suggests some great intelligence behind it.

So do you agree with what mainstream scientists say happened or not? I find that the basics of it, certainly considering the vast amount of analysis, corroborating evidences and data, and on so many parameters, to be quite compelling. But let's, just for the sake of argument, say scientists are correct - that all of those elements, complexity and sophisticated laws suddenly and instantly came into existence, where before they did not exist. Can't you see how it could have, in no way, been random chance? The order, the precision, the vastness, the complexity - these are not things that "just happen." Somewhere, somehow, there has to be intelligence behind what came into existence. This is in no way an event that took or even had enormous amounts of time to develop. Randomness does not produce mind-boggling interactive complexity and order.

Philip: Do you believe a universe began by itself, with great order and precise laws INSTANTLY guiding it?

Audie: I believe there is a mystery there, probably as far beyond human capacity to discuss in a meaningful way as the origin of catfood is for cats, should they discuss such things.

IF you think that there was always something existing - actually, ANYTHING that simply has always exists without needing a cause - then why can't God exist? Oh, but you at least concede that His existence is a remote (?) probability.

Philip: Whatever happened, you would have to say it was miraculous.

Audie: If I have to say that, then I will say every single thing, material or otherwise in existence is miraculous, which kinds dilutes the word to meaninglessness.

To me, that shows you are afraid to call the obvious, obvious, as you try to trivialize something so awesome and incredible by merely dismissing it. Again, let's say there was NOTHING and then there was, very suddenly, all of the massiveness, heat and energy that had countless characteristics of sophistication - if you believe this could ever happen by itself, unplanned and random, then do you not comprehend it is even a far greater miracle than if God created it. So if you don't believe God is behind all of this instant sophistication and guiding laws, you must have great faith in randomness - truly, more faith than I could ever have.

Philip: Great precision and unfathomable order and universe-building elements came out of dumb, random chance - caused by WHAT? You see, this alone should make one consider that God exists.

Audie: I'm far from immune to considering all manner of things. Have you, tho, given serious consideration to the idea that no such thing does exist? Or that, if there is such an incredible mind, that its not much chance its the one some people thought was so concerned about their foreskins?

Aha, but here you're getting ahead of yourself - IF there is a God, you don't get to define Him or His characteristics - WHATEVER they might be or how strange them might seem (to us). And you have to understand, many of the OT instructions within the context of their immediate and surrounding cultures and ancient man's practices. God sought to create understandings within the context of what THEY were ALREADY familiar with (ancient practices, etc), and what THEY would and could understand. IF He were dealing with modern humans, I'm sure He would have instructed in many different ways.

Audie: Of course it makes it occur to me that there could be a mind in back of it all.

Good.

Audie: But say I do somehow come to actually know that. What does a person do with that knowledge, what is a suitable response to it? Carve rocks? Sing? Attempt communication with it? (Bingo!)

Audie: I'm not being snarky here, I really cannot think of a single thing I could do as a suitable response to this knowledge.

A start would be realizing that nothing comes from nothing, that all physical things have an originating cause - even if unseen and unknown. IF you are at least open to the mere POSSIBILITY that there is an intelligence behind the universe's beginning and its sophistication, then I'd say you are not an atheist. The fact that you've stated, "Of course it makes it occur to me that there could be a mind in back of it all," tells me you are more of an agnostic. The design analysis and evidences alone - if you really want to be open-minded, undoubtedly prove there is some intelligence that planned and built this universe and world.

Once you realize that the universe has a source that is intelligent and stands outside of its laws, then it would be a matter of narrowing down the various evidences, to see if that intelligence might have tried to communicate with us, to have made us aware of it (Him).

Start here: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html And here: http://godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

[Jac3510]

Of course it makes it occur to me that there could be a mind in back of it all.
But say I do somehow come to actually know that. What does a person do with that knowledge, what is a suitable response to it? Carve rocks? Sing? Attempt communication with it? Im not being snarky here, I really cannot think of a single thing I could do as a suitable response to this knowledge. People have made a lot of guesses and assertions as to 'who' this god is, but they just dont have any credibility with me.

If it turns out, upon analysis, that this Mind behind it all is a Person who has an interest in the way we live, I would think you could do a great deal with it, not the least of which would be trying to get in touch with Him. At a bare minimum, you could follow Aristotle in contemplating Him. And you would probably be wise to assume that, if such a God exists, He is likely to reveal Himself to others. And, as you note, a great many people have made claims regarding what this God has said to them. As such, I would think it would be wise to investigate those claims and see how they stack up against what you find to be true about that God. And then, depending on what you find in that analysis, you would follow the teachings of that religion (if you determined one represented the actual will of God) or merely of your own conscious (if you determined that all religions failed to accurately reflect what you knew to be true about God).

But all that means you would have to start with both His existence and His nature. And that goes back to the philosophical ideas that some of us have invited you to consider . . .

fdit: of course, if no god exists, none of that matters at all. Don't waste your time with either the study or much less the attempt to follow God's will per your religious convictions. But either way, it seems the question is of rather great practical importance.

realedit: And as a hospital chaplain, I can tell you that these questions play a daily role in questions of bioethics. Not the question of God's existence exactly, but the same arguments that necessarily lead to the conclusion that He exists lead to other serious ethical principles. To take but one example, the definition of death is effected, and from there, the classification of who (or, more strictly, what) is a cadaver and who is not. And that has principles on what we can do with these bodies/people. And, further, we are still researching this, but the classical idea of the soul turns out to be correct (which some are starting to argue), then there are some direct implications for how we both define spirituality in a clinical setting and how we approach spiritual assessments (which is, again, a clinical and not religious matter). And THAT is important because of the very well documented correlation between spiritual well being and both physical and mental well being. And beyond that, it is now being argued that spiritual well being is an appropriate clinical outcome to pursue in its own right. Anyway, all of that is directly affected by both the existence of God and more directly the reasoning we employ to get to Him.

Anyway, just some thoughts from a clinical side of things. I can, of course, provide links to and summaries of literally dozens of papers published in peer reviewed healthcare literature in which all of this is rather important. (Part of my job being to read a couple of those papers every week.)

[Philip]

So, Jac, I'm assuming it's safe to say that you and your colleagues never refer to "the dead guy" or the "stiff" in room #6.

Yes, yes, "mature," I know.

[Jac3510]

So, Jac, I'm assuming it's safe to say that you and your colleagues never refer to "the dead guy" or the "stiff" in room #6.

Well . . . certainly never around families . . .

[Audie]

Im wondering what exactly is spiritual, or spiritual well- being.

[Audie]

Philip: There was NOTHING in existence

Audie: I do not think this is neither what the BBT suggests, nor is a reasonable idea. Something was "pre' existing. I put "pre' that way, because nobody can say what time is.

So you agree "something" had to be pre-existing. But do you see, that is because you realize that everything we know of had to have some source for its origins - and thus the "something that was pre-existing." Now, do you not also see what the implication of your belief is - that whatever was pre-existing HAD to have had a source for ITS origins, and that it couldn't have merely created itself?

Do you not see the implication for yours?

Scientists generally agree that the Big Bang, rather than a mere explosion, was the beginning of space, time, matter and energy - whereas these did not previously exist. And there is a TON of scientific evidence for this. So you say you have faith in science, and so do you believe this or not. Where these things did not exist, suddenly they did - with an extraordinary burst of heat and energy, guided by sophisticated and complex physical, thermal, gravitational, and chemical laws that were there from the very beginning. This is precisely why it wasn't a random, chaotic thing, but one with direction, guidance and adherence to incredibly complex and necessarily interactive laws, from the very beginning. And this sophistication powerfully suggests some great intelligence behind it.

The "direction and guidance' is assuming the conclusion or something, but perhaps.
That all gets a bit heady for me, Im pretty satisfied that the properties of water is more than enough to, yes, suggest great intelligence.

So do you agree with what mainstream scientists say happened or not? I find that the basics of it, certainly considering the vast amount of analysis, corroborating evidences and data, and on so many parameters, to be quite compelling. But let's, just for the sake of argument, say scientists are correct - that all of those elements, complexity and sophisticated laws suddenly and instantly came into existence, where before they did not exist. Can't you see how it could have, in no way, been random chance? The order, the precision, the vastness, the complexity - these are not things that "just happen." Somewhere, somehow, there has to be intelligence behind what came into existence. This is in no way an event that took or even had enormous amounts of time to develop. Randomness does not produce mind-boggling interactive complexity and order.

Lets not get into a discussion of "randomness", and I am satisfied with discussion that its all very marvellous. "there has to be intelligence' is one possible conclusion.

Philip: Do you believe a universe began by itself, with great order and precise laws INSTANTLY guiding it?

Audie: I believe there is a mystery there, probably as far beyond human capacity to discuss in a meaningful way as the origin of catfood is for cats, should they discuss such things.

IF you think that there was always something existing - actually, ANYTHING that simply has always exists without needing a cause - then why can't God exist? Oh, but you at least concede that His existence is a remote (?) probability.

Why indeed, and likewise, why not mass/energy etc? This thing about something even greater and more complex than the universe being needed to pre exist... can you address that?

Philip: Whatever happened, you would have to say it was miraculous.

Audie: If I have to say that, then I will say every single thing, material or otherwise in existence is miraculous, which kinds dilutes the word to meaninglessness.

To me, that shows you are afraid to call the obvious, obvious, as you try to trivialize something so awesome and incredible by merely dismissing it. Again, let's say there was NOTHING and then there was, very suddenly, all of the massiveness, heat and energy that had countless characteristics of sophistication - if you believe this could ever happen by itself, unplanned and random, then do you not comprehend it is even a far greater miracle than if God created it. So if you don't believe God is behind all of this instant sophistication and guiding laws, you must have great faith in randomness - truly, more faith than I could ever have.

Not afraid, no dismissing. And to me, the far greater miracle (that which is greater and more complex than the universe, and can poof it into existence) is the one that takes all the faith. (you are not doing that "belief in evolution takes more faith...' bit are you?)

Philip: Great precision and unfathomable order and universe-building elements came out of dumb, random chance - caused by WHAT? You see, this alone should make one consider that God exists.

Audie: I'm far from immune to considering all manner of things. Have you, tho, given serious consideration to the idea that no such thing does exist? Or that, if there is such an incredible mind, that its not much chance its the one some people thought was so concerned about their foreskins?

Aha, but here you're getting ahead of yourself - IF there is a God, you don't get to define Him or His characteristics

Well, no, that is what the religions do. Or try to.

- WHATEVER they might be or how strange them might seem (to us). And you have to understand, many of the OT instructions within the context of their immediate and surrounding cultures and ancient man's practices. God sought to create understandings within the context of what THEY were ALREADY familiar with (ancient practices, etc), and what THEY would and could understand. IF He were dealing with modern humans, I'm sure He would have instructed in many different ways.

Ok, that is how you perceive it. To me, its just one of countless religions that have had their own take on what a god is about.

Audie: Of course it makes it occur to me that there could be a mind in back of it all.

Good.

Audie: But say I do somehow come to actually know that. What does a person do with that knowledge, what is a suitable response to it? Carve rocks? Sing? Attempt communication with it? (Bingo!)

Audie: I'm not being snarky here, I really cannot think of a single thing I could do as a suitable response to this knowledge.

A start would be realizing that nothing comes from nothing,

That is the appearance of things but its equally a problem for a god being it.

that all physical things have an originating cause - even if unseen and unknown. IF you are at least open to the mere POSSIBILITY that there is an intelligence behind the universe's beginning and its sophistication, then I'd say you are not an atheist

What was that about who gets to define? Im an atheist but Im not stupid. I dont know anyone stupid enough to think there is no possibility of a god.

The fact that you've stated, "Of course it makes it occur to me that there could be a mind in back of it all," tells me you are more of an agnostic. The design analysis and evidences alone - if you really want to be open-minded, undoubtedly prove there is some intelligence that planned and built this universe and world.

Are you open minded about the possibility that there is no god of any sort whatsoever?

Once you realize that the universe has a source that is intelligent and stands outside of its laws, then it would be a matter of narrowing down the various evidences, to see if that intelligence might have tried to communicate with us, to have made us aware of it (Him).

Is this something you have realized, or is this a theoretical about me, as in what I said about if I somehow made this discovery?

Start here: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html And here: http://godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

[Audie]

Of course it makes it occur to me that there could be a mind in back of it all.
But say I do somehow come to actually know that. What does a person do with that knowledge, what is a suitable response to it? Carve rocks? Sing? Attempt communication with it? Im not being snarky here, I really cannot think of a single thing I could do as a suitable response to this knowledge. People have made a lot of guesses and assertions as to 'who' this god is, but they just dont have any credibility with me.

If it turns out, upon analysis, that this Mind behind it all is a Person who has an interest in the way we live, I would think you could do a great deal with it, not the least of which would be trying to get in touch with Him

.

Worth a try, for sure.

At a bare minimum, you could follow Aristotle in contemplating Him. And you would probably be wise to assume that, if such a God exists, He is likely to reveal Himself to others. And, as you note, a great many people have made claims regarding what this God has said to them

Not exactly. Not "God" as in bible. God(s) as in all the various religions, involving spirits of all sorts.

As such, I would think it would be wise to investigate those claims and see how they stack up against what you find to be true about that God. And then, depending on what you find in that analysis, you would follow the teachings of that religion (if you determined one represented the actual will of God) or merely of your own conscious (if you determined that all religions failed to accurately reflect what you knew to be true about God).

What I know to be true about a God ... how would I know such things? so far Im assuming that I merely detected it in some odd way.

But all that means you would have to start with both His existence and His nature. And that goes back to the philosophical ideas that some of us have invited you to consider . . .

fdit: of course, if no god exists, none of that matters at all. Don't waste your time with either the study or much less the attempt to follow God's will per your religious convictions. But either way, it seems the question is of rather great practical importance.

It seems to me of no practical importance at all. Something like an ant discovering that there is a New York City. Now what?

realedit: And as a hospital chaplain, I can tell you that these questions play a daily role in questions of bioethics. Not the question of God's existence exactly, but the same arguments that necessarily lead to the conclusion that He exists lead to other serious ethical principles. To take but one example, the definition of death is effected, and from there, the classification of who (or, more strictly, what) is a cadaver and who is not. And that has principles on what we can do with these bodies/people.

Questions about bioethics, about what is life and what is not, "moment" of death if such there is, are of interest to me as to many others, maybe all of us.

And, further, we are still researching this, but the classical idea of the soul turns out to be correct (which some are starting to argue), then there are some direct implications for how we both define spirituality in a clinical setting and how we approach spiritual assessments (which is, again, a clinical and not religious matter).

Demonstrating the reality of a soul has proved to be most elusive. But who knows.
If it is detected, that has the most profound implications.

And THAT is important because of the very well documented correlation between spiritual well being and both physical and mental well being.

Do you feel that such wellbeing is only possible in a Christian context?

Anyway, just some thoughts from a clinical side of things. I can, of course, provide links to and summaries of literally dozens of papers published in peer reviewed healthcare literature in which all of this is rather important. (Part of my job being to read a couple of those papers every week.)

As you might guess, I prefer original sources to any of the predigested material one gets from agenda driven sites, on any side of any issue. Summaries are good. So sure, what do you have?

What topics do these papers deal with? Im satisfied that "spiritual wellbeing" (undefiend) does affect health. I've read on that myself. What other topics did you have in mind?

Thanks for your time, I do appreciate it.

M

[Byblos]

Im wondering what exactly is spiritual, or spiritual well- being.

This illustrates exactly the frustration we've been having trying to communicate with you on such topics Audie (honestly, I'm trying to be as sincere as I possibly can). You ask a great question which necessarily leads into a phylosophical discussion but then you dismiss it because you're not interested in the subject matter.

Without delving into the subject at this juncture (until such time that you decide it is worth it) if you want to know what 'spiritual' is you must start all the way back at the connection between body and mind. And for that I would suggest researching Aristotle's hylomorphism. It is the only philosophical theory that connects body and mind in a way that makes complete sense.

[Audie]

Im wondering what exactly is spiritual, or spiritual well- being.

This illustrates exactly the frustration we've been having trying to communicate with you on such topics Audie (honestly, I'm trying to be as sincere as I possibly can). You ask a great question which necessarily leads into a phylosophical discussion but then you dismiss it because you're not interested in the subject matter.

Without delving into the subject at this juncture (until such time that you decide it is worth it) if you want to know what 'spiritual' is you must start all the way back at the connection between body and mind. And for that I would suggest researching Aristotle's hylomorphism. It is the only philosophical theory that connects body and mind in a way that makes complete sense.

Ok, thanks, I will try to find time to look into that. I appreciate the sincerity.

Im guessing Aristotle was not talking about the Christian God, tho.