God is "dead"

[Syne]

The OP assumes a nonexistent god, which cannot be personal.

And cite your source on that supposed "99% of all the religious theists on the planet...presupposed a personal God". According to a Pew survey, only 60% believe in a personal god - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

The word God or god by it's very definition and use in the English language defines a person. God is ALWAYS a who and not just a what. A person who is alive, has a male gender (as opposed to goddess), is moral, is conscious and sapient, intends and purposes, is capable of feelings like love, wrath,etc., is deserving of worship and service, and has supernatural powers. So anyone who uses the word God is axiomatically ascribing personhood to something, even if they insist God is just a force or metaphysical principle. Otherwise, why use the word God at all to describe it? A mere nonconscious force, much like dark energy or gravity, would best be called just that--a force. To ascribe to it properties and traits of godhood is to automatically invest it with personal qualities and consciousness and purposive agency. Hence when I say 99% of theists believe in God as a person, I mean just that: that they either believe in God as an objective and discrete person, or that they are intentionally personifying some impersonal agent, force, principle, energy, substance, etc. with the traits of God. Meanwhile, let's see what Wiki says about theism and theists in general:

I will give you the definition of personal god once more, and then I will expect you to cite a reference if you wish to refute it. Otherwise you are just being evasive and playing at semantics (conflating "personhood" with "personal relationship").

A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an "impersonal force", such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god​

It does not matter that the term defines a person. What makes it a personal god is whether or not it can be related to as one. The personhood of god is not equivalent to a personal god. Granted a personal relationship requires personhood, but the reverse is not true, as there are vastly more people you have no relationship with than those you do.

You still have not shown where your 99% comes from, other than your ass. I even showed you statistic that directly refute your 99% as actually being only 60%. And your wiki quote did nothing but illustrate that you have conflated "personhood" with "personal relationship".

God is seen everywhere, all the time, according to most theists. Very few people assert the actual existence of "leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, etc.", so those are red-herrings. The scientific method, which is supposedly your criteria for "evidence", both cannot prove a negative and generally cannot offer proof at all.

If God can be seen at all, he should be able to be seen by and pointed out to everyone who can see. And if God is seen everywhere all the time, then he should be describable with qualities that are distinct and characteristic of his godhood. Do you see God everywhere? What does God look like? And how is his appearance everywhere distinguishable from the everywhere he is appearing in? And more to the point, how is his appearance not a violation of freewill as you claim it would be?

Again, your criteria for evidence does not apply, according to the scientific method itself. And you are playing semantics.

see
1. perceive with the eyes; discern visually.
2. discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand.
Why should you insist on the primary meaning of "sees"? Maybe you know that allowing all commonly used definitions makes your argument weak. A god's omnipresence tends to be evident in interactions rather than isolated objects or inferred through isolated objects.

A god's appearance need only have some uncertainty to allow free will.

I never said "freewill entail being able to not believe existing things exist". I specifically said that the unmistakable cannot be denied by the sane. Free will can only be expressed where choice exists.

You said God unmistakeably appearing to all humans would violate their freewill. Freewill to choose what? What choice is violated by his appearing to us? The freewill to not believe he exists, just as I said.

Where do you imagine I have disagreed with that?

An omnipresent god exists in everything, and it is in everything that theists may see god.

Oh so God is INSIDE everything, lurking beyond its surfaces like a genie inside a lamp? That actually would make him pretty hard to see. I wonder how theists distinguish everything from the God who is existing in it? Surely an existent being like a God has some sort of existence separate from each and every thing. What are the properties and traits that distinguish God from everything? And if God wasn't in something, would we be able to tell the difference?

Addressed above: "evident in interactions rather than isolated objects or inferred through isolated objects".

free·dom
1. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.​

Your additions of "accurate knowledge and experience" are arbitrary restraints. Nowhere does the definition of freedom include any qualification of knowledge. Seems you have conflated "freedom" with something like "informed consent".

Freedom implicitly entails sufficient knowledge to make a choice. Without that knowledge their is no free choice. That this has to even be spelt out to you doesn't really surprise me though..

Again, you seem to be arbitrarily conflating something like "informed choice" with "freedom". Until you can cite a definition to support this, it seems you are only making up your own definitions to suit your argument.

You cannot even be bothered to check that 99% you keep pulling out of your ass. I have already shown that to be 60%, so your claim of understanding God is dubious right off the bat.

To deify anything is to personify it because God for the theist is by definition a person. There's simply no way around this fact.

one-in-four – including about half of Jews and Hindus – see God as an impersonal force. - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf​

An impersonal force that is invested with the godlike qualities of intent, sapience, agency, choice, benevolence, etc.

And? This only distinguishes between personhood and personal relationship (i.e. the defining characteristic of a personal god).

Generalizing god is not obfuscation. It is simply accounting for more than just Abrahamic notions. If you wish to refute Christianity then you should say so, but no one else is necessarily obligated to restrict their arguments so (unless you start a new thread).

The OP assumed a personal God by asking why HE doesn't show himself to us. If you want to inject some new impersonal definition of God, then I suggest you start a new thread. That's not what this one is about.

Again, you are conflating personhood with personal relationship.

Your qualification of "viable" choice does not change the fact that any sane person does not have any choice as to whether a chair exists. Who said any choice was "violated"? Just because a specific choice does not exist does not mean free will is absent, only that it cannot be expressed/exercised in that case.

You said God appearing to us would violate our free choice. Then you started talking about chairs. Why don't you try again and explain why God appearing to us violates free choice.

Strawman, as I never said "violated", I said "removing the free will to choose". The lack of choice does not "violate" free will. Why don't you quit conflating terms?

I never made any claim about "the vast majority". And now you seem to be hedging your bets by saying "the act of faith" alone is serving god (which is typically held in contrast to "works"). A cherry-picked verse that ignores doctrines is useless.

Then what ARE you claiming? Or is this just the typical backpeddling we see from you when backed into a corner?

I am claiming exactly what I said in my opening post in this thread. Go read it again, and note where I did not say anything "violated" free will.​

 

[Syne]

Wellwisher, you need to make a clear response to a post or the OP. Otherwise your posts could be considered off-topic spamming. Warning noted in this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ot-dead-quot&p=3142026&viewfull=1#post3142026

 

[Magical Realist]

It does not matter that the term defines a person. What makes it a personal god is whether or not it can be related to as one. The personhood of god is not equivalent to a personal god. Granted a personal relationship requires personhood, but the reverse is not true, as there are vastly more people you have no relationship with than those you do

LOL! So NOW we are going to redefine "personal God" as NOT just a person but as a God we can have a personal relationship with? Well hell, that still describes 99% of all theists don't it? Why have a belief about a God person if you have no intention of having some relationship to that person? In any case it's clear at this point you have no more legitimate points to make and so again are just reduced to pathetic semantical bullshit and evasive redefinitions of your own statements. Don't waste my time anymore.

 

[Syne]

LOL! So NOW we are going to redefine "personal God" as NOT just a person but as a God we can have a personal relationship with? Well hell, that still describes 99% of all theists don't it? Why have a belief about a God person if you have no intention of having some relationship to that person? In any case it's clear at this point you have no more legitimate points to make and so again are just reduced to pathetic semantical bullshit and evasive redefinitions of your own statements. Don't waste my time anymore.

That is the definition of a personal god, which I have given you repeatedly (and you have not refuted in any way). And you are still repeating the 99% figure you pulled out of your ass without any support whatsoever. A god could have intentions (which are anthropomorphic) for its creation without ever interacting with it in a personal way. So your conflation of personhood with personal relationship is based on a false dilemma.

It is clearly better that you quit engaging valid points you cannot refute.

 

[Magical Realist]

That is the definition of a personal god, which I have given you repeatedly (and you have not refuted in any way). And you are still repeating the 99% figure you pulled out of your ass without any support whatsoever. A god could have intentions (which are anthropomorphic) for its creation without ever interacting with it in a personal way. So your conflation of personhood with personal relationship is based on a false dilemma.

The definition said nothing about a personal relationship. That was your own insertion. It said: "A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an "impersonal force", such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being".

In the scriptures of Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape. In the Pentateuch, for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and happiness), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person."

Every theist who believes in God as a person IS relating to him as a person instead of as an impersonal force. Relating to something AS SOMETHING simply means understanding it as such and doesn't necessarily mean you are having a personal relationship with it. IE. Saying "I can relate to all children as persons" means I understand them as persons, NOT that I have a personal relationship with all children. The definition is thus precisely of a personal God as one who is understood as a person. You are hereby refuted.

 

[Syne]

That is the definition of a personal god, which I have given you repeatedly (and you have not refuted in any way). And you are still repeating the 99% figure you pulled out of your ass without any support whatsoever. A god could have intentions (which are anthropomorphic) for its creation without ever interacting with it in a personal way. So your conflation of personhood with personal relationship is based on a false dilemma.

The definition said nothing about a personal relationship. That was your own insertion. It said: "A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an "impersonal force", such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being".

In the scriptures of Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape. In the Pentateuch, for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and happiness), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person."

A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an "impersonal force", such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

re·late
: to show or make a connection between (two or more things)

re·la·tion·ship
: the way in which two or more people, groups, countries, etc., talk to, behave toward, and deal with each other
: the way in which two or more people or things are connected
​

Hence a personal god is one a person can connect to or have a relationship with.

...for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets...

Personal relationships with God may be described in the same ways as human relationships - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god​

So the definition definitely does say it is a personal relationship ("can be related to") and this is further reinforced in the later text with the exact word "relationship". Your attentional bias is working over-time. Any further denying this is just intellectual dishonesty, and will be treated as such.

Every theist who believes in God as a person IS relating to him as a person instead of as an impersonal force. Relating to something AS SOMETHING simply means understanding it as such and doesn't necessarily mean you are having a personal relationship with it. IE. Saying "I can relate to all children as persons" means I understand them as persons, NOT that I have a personal relationship with all children. The definition is thus precisely of a personal God as one who is understood as a person. You are hereby refuted.

I have already refuted this "every theist" nonsense with statistics showing it to only be 60%. And apparently you are using this definition of relate:

: to understand and like or have sympathy for someone or something​

But that ignores why it is called a "personal" god.

per·son·al
1. of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else.
2. of or concerning one's private life, relationships, and emotions rather than matters connected with one's public or professional career.​

"Personal" cannot be applied to a generality such as "all children", as it is "belonging to a particular person" and denote relationships. But here is the theist view:

What Does "Personal" Mean?

We say something is personal when it involves relationship—particularly a binding, transactional, or socially acknowledged relationship. Furthermore, if something involves the actual presence of or interaction with another individual, then it is deemed personal. In this way, a personal relationship is not possible with an inanimate object, an intangible force, or an abstract idea.

For a thing to be personal, it must be particular and knowable. A teakettle is not personal; neither is a meteor shower nor “higher education.”

We may also describe something as personal if it involves our private life, our most intimate thoughts, or our emotions—something that touches us at a deep level. This definition is in play when we respond to a particularly probing question with the deflecting phrase, “That’s personal.” - http://www.exploregod.com/is-god-a-personal-god​

This is the view held by that 60% (not some made up 99%) of theists who believe in a personal god, and this is primarily Christians. About half of all Jews and Muslims believe in a personal relationship with a god, while none of them typically attribute to god actual anthropomorphic characteristics.

God is non-physical, non-corporeal, and eternal. A corollary belief is that God is utterly unlike man, and can in no way be considered anthropomorphic, as stated in Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith. All statements in the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic literature which use anthropomorphism are held to be linguistic conceits or metaphors, as it would otherwise have been impossible to talk about God at all. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism#The_nature_of_God

In Islam, God is beyond all comprehension or equal and does not resemble any of his creations in any way. Thus, Muslims are not iconodules and are not expected to visualize God. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptions_of_God#Islam​

 

[Dazz]

You are - at least in one direction, where you posit that your dismissal of another's claim is valid, while another's dismissal of your claim in invalid.

Hmm. I wouldn't say that, all i am trying to do in this specific case is to counter argument, and doing it, with the little bit of logic and knowledge on the subject i still hold. But that's all.

And the same goes for you then:
If you do not bring a tangible proof of an occurrence, be it transcendent or empirical, we can not deem it factual.
Unless your basic position is that the standard you hold others to, others should not hold you to.
Says you. If others hold you to the same standard you hold them to, they can dismiss your claims just as you dismiss theirs.

Of course, and that's the whole point. Here i am implying that there is no sustainable, efficient proof of god's existence, (some) theists claim that there is no sustainable, efficient proof of god's non-existence as well. I say "No", since, according to almost all the theistic religions, this very world that exists today was created by their respective beings, these beings, being responsible for every aspect of life in this planet/universe, thus, making them all real and true to their respective religion. Christianism was the first one (i think) to uphold monotheism, where Jehovah is the only god existent and real, and the other are nothing but myth and should not be even considered. Personally, I not only consider them, but place the Christian deity on the same degree of these other deities, of being mythical and non existent. Althought i can not bring proof of their existence, i hold to the fact that, if we are going to say that this world is enough proof of god's existence and, by this, god is omnipresent, showing his omnipotence, and being omniscient, there then, we must hold the other deities to the same degree, deeming every other deity which has ever existed, factual as well, this, by Christianism alone, becomes insufferable. And wouldn't make a sense at all.
Still, as Christianism claims itself 'special' somehow, also that it should not be compared to these pagan religions (why not?), implying that these are inferior and showing some disrespect, it gets very hard for a Christian to understand this point of view, as they deem themselves following the true path and worshiping the only god existent. This concept not only shows pride, but also, some disregard for other cultures and philosophies/understandments of other civilizations. But they fail to recognise that this deity of theirs, falls on the same mythical aspect of these other deities they disregard, bring no sustainable evidence of it's own existence (even less if compared to other religions), follows the same path of any religion you care to mention regarding it's propriety of the creation and, falls short on skepticism, and also i'd say, on logics as well.

 

[Magical Realist]

personal god (plural personal gods)

1. "A deity who can be related to or thought of as a person, through an anthropomorphized persona, rather than an impersonal, and faceless, force of nature—an example of a personal god is the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—and a god with whom one cannot have a personal relationship."----http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/personal_god


“I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.”

― Albert Einstein

per·son·al (pûrs-nl)
adj.
6. Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being: belief in a personal God.

per·son·al adjective \ˈpərs-nəl, ˈpər-sə-nəl\

5a : being rational and self-conscious <personal, responsive government is still possible — John Fischer>

b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction <a personal devil>

relate to someone or something

to understand, accept, or feel kinship with someone or something. He relates to people well. I really don't relate to your thinking at all.

 

[Dazz]

why?
It explains precisely the nature of your questions, even if only in an analogous way.

It's a pretty weak analogy after all, and it is already showing it's defficiences.

Which is why an extremely important issue commonly neglected in discussions of reality - namely an analysis of the seer and their environment - needs to also be included in these sorts of discussions

Indeed, but such a discussion transcends this world view and, doing so, goes beyond practical skepticism, all we can refute and argument on, is based on what we have in this world view, since by plain, cold skepticism, there is no such thing as a transcendent world, beyond this scope. By doing so, the transcendent world is totally disregarded and the judgement we apply, is on our experiences within this realm of reality.

More to the point,if you neglect the issue mentioned above, there is absolutely no value in you asking such questions since you have no means to analyze such an answer. IOW regardless if I answer yes or no, you are still left to either accept or reject my answer on faith since you have no functioning further avenue of inquiry to work out if I am being truthful or not.
IOW just like you are left to either accept or reject god from the position of faith, you are also left with no alternative but to accept or reject on faith the answer to this question you ask.
:shrug:

And, any kind of answer on faith is unappliable, as it is too vague and open too much for subjectivity, whether i accept the answer on faith or not, i will not have a thrustable "functioning further avenue of inquiry", as by far as faith goes.

Actually you are not alone since its kind of surprising that even socially designated priests and what not sometimes give totally ridiculous or vague definitions of god that are also similarly useless : Eg God is the smile of a baby, god is so big that you can't step far enough back to see him etc etc ...
:shrug:

xD
I had a mentor, he was quite philosophical about this issue in particular...

 

[Syne]

personal god (plural personal gods)

1. "A deity who can be related to or thought of as a person, through an anthropomorphized persona, rather than an impersonal, and faceless, force of nature—an example of a personal god is the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—and a god with whom one cannot have a personal relationship."----http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/personal_god

And?

 

[lightgigantic]

It's a pretty weak analogy after all, and it is already showing it's defficiences.

On the contrary your criticism of it is very weak. The analogy doesn't rely on the sunlight being "omnipresent" in order to function .... and I even explained why it would be absurd to expect it to (or for that matter anything else aside from god).

Your problem here is that you are confusing an analogy for a metaphor.

Indeed, but such a discussion transcends this world view ....

let me say it again:

Which is why an extremely important issue commonly neglected in discussions of reality - namely an analysis of the seer and their environment - needs to also be included in these sorts of discussions

IOW if you continue to neglect this important point, there is no value in your attempt to relegate it to a mere "world view" or any other subtle or gross attempt to minimize it

and, doing so, goes beyond practical skepticism, all we can refute and argument on, is based on what we have in this world view, since by plain, cold skepticism, there is no such thing as a transcendent world, beyond this scope. By doing so, the transcendent world is totally disregarded and the judgement we apply, is on our experiences within this realm of reality.

Actually it is this precise point you are continually failing to address which dictates whether there is a transcendent world, the extent of valid skepticism and our experiences in this realm of reality

And, any kind of answer on faith is unappliable, as it is too vague and open too much for subjectivity, whether i accept the answer on faith or not, i will not have a thrustable "functioning further avenue of inquiry", as by far as faith goes.

hence your statements mentioned in bold above that dictate the thresholds of reality or what can and cannot be tenable are of no value

xD
I had a mentor, he was quite philosophical about this issue in particular...

He may have been quite philosophical but asserting such a thing doesn't solvethe shortcomings of your statements and definitions

 

[Capracus]

An omniscient god could easily make an unmistakable appearance, leaving no doubt within the limits of human understanding.

But the limits of human understanding as they currently exist are insufficient to know and exclude the existence of all contenders.

And an omnipotent god could always imbue humans with any necessarily capacity for understanding.

If one can imagine a god with omni-attributes, then one can imagine innumerable demigods with demi-attributes. One can also imagine that among the capabilities of the demigods would be ability to read and manipulate human thought, thereby determining the perception of reality for any and all human beings. So the necessity for an imagined god to hijack your mind to be able to dictate its proof of existence could just as easily be accomplished by imagined demigods. In either imagined case the thoughts are no longer your own and no longer qualify as an independent validation.

Complete the following sentence:

"If people are free to believe in God and talk about God as if God would really exist,
this for me, Capracus, will have the consequence that ____________________________.

It will contribute to the irrationality that pervades my social existence and thus impede the progress for a better understanding of the human condition and the associated benefits thereof.

and I

a) don't think I can deal with that at all,

b) could probably deal with that only at an enormous cost to my sense of justice and morality,

c) ________________________.

c) As a determinist I accept that irrationality is a necessary component of human evolution and my determined POV is that irrational belief, religious or otherwise will in time be overcome by reason, and I’m resigned to play out my role in that process.

 

[Yazata]

Sure, a theist can define their word 'God' in such a way that any observation of anything whatsoever would supposedly be evidence of existence of the God.

This doesn't automatically mean that this is how definitions of "God" have come about.

How would you say that they came about?

I don't know of any major theistic tradition that suggests that learning of God's existence is to be done on one's own, independently of any theistic tradition.

And if they don't suggest such a learning process, then why insist on it?

Because that's the subject of this thread. It's about God making his existence obvious to everybody.

Surely there is some unspoken desire here at work. I mean a desire on the part of the person who wishes to get to know God all on his or her own terms, independently of any theistic tradition.

The thread is about God making his existence obvious to everybody, not just to members of theistic traditions who already believe in the existence of the God in question.

If everyone already belonged to, believed in and had no doubts about whatever the correct theistic tradition supposedly is, then arguably there might not be any further need for God to make himself known. There certainly wouldn't be any need for evangelism, apologetics or missiology. Arguably, there wouldn't even be any need for God, since the tradition would seemingly have taken his place and become his stand-in and surrogate. (That's getting awfully close to how the atheists view the situation.)

 

[Saint]

If God is alive, he has mind to think,
he must be able to show himself to us.
Maybe he can speak to us like speaking to Samuel (read Bible book of Samuel).

 

[Dazz]

On the contrary your criticism of it is very weak. The analogy doesn't rely on the sunlight being "omnipresent" in order to function .... and I even explained why it would be absurd to expect it to (or for that matter anything else aside from god).

And, it doesn't address to the other faculties of the god. But still, talking only about this aspect of the analogy, which is the omnipresence, since, this omni-quality belongs only to a being of ultimate power, it is unappliable to address it to a mundane thing such as sunlight, and, if you intend on doing so, you gotta bring the bearer of the omni-quality down to the mundane level, or elevate the mundane object to the level of the deity. So it is a pretty weak analogy, after all...

let me say it again:

Which is why an extremely important issue commonly neglected in discussions of reality - namely an analysis of the seer and their environment - needs to also be included in these sorts of discussions

IOW if you continue to neglect this important point, there is no value in your attempt to relegate it to a mere "world view" or any other subtle or gross attempt to minimize it

You are not coming back to that "particular subject in a particular environment" kind of reasoning are you? I am not even considering any other "world view" besides this one, i am totally disregarding it and understanding that it does not exist. The "seer and environment" are feeble attempts of argumentation, if we should accept them, we should accept every other situation that is similar, leading to an anarchy of situations to be analysed that over time will become unpractical. Not to say insufferable.

Actually it is this precise point you are continually failing to address which dictates whether there is a transcendent world, the extent of valid skepticism and our experiences in this realm of reality

I am understanding that there is no such thing as a transcendent world, any claim that there is cannot succeed when it falls into valid skepticism, as far as it can go, the claim itself (or the individual acting or claiming) belongs within this realm, and his claim was claimed within the possibilities of our experiences within this realm of reality, the object of the claim goes beyond our scope, and, as far as observed, such claims rely on transcendent projections from our experiences within this realm of reality, this projected object is out of reach and, the only tangible thing we have at our grasp is the claim itself, and that is what we should analyse, not the object.

hence your statements mentioned in bold above that dictate the thresholds of reality or what can and cannot be tenable are of no value

How? Explain this to me.
The only thing i stated is that, by cold skepticism, an answer based on faith is not entirely valid (to say the least), whether i have myself that faith or not.

He may have been quite philosophical but asserting such a thing doesn't solvethe shortcomings of your statements and definitions

Indeed, but i wasn't talking about me, i was talking about him, it was just a detail.

 

[wynn]

How would you say that they came about?

I don't know.

More importantly, I can't think of any good reason why I should be concerned about how they have come about.

I can think of some bad reasons, though - like paranoia and neurotic obsessions. Sure, enough, some forms of paranoia and neuroticism have so much become part of our culture and what we call "civilized" that we don't even see them as problematic in any way. I'm out to show they are problematic, and that they are unnecessary.

Because that's the subject of this thread. It's about God making his existence obvious to everybody.

That doesn't mean we have to go with the tacit assumptions that the OP is making. We can also point out where those tacit assumptions may be problematic, or why or how the way the OP sets out the problem is making the problem bigger than it is or needs to be.

The thread is about God making his existence obvious to everybody, not just to members of theistic traditions who already believe in the existence of the God in question.

If everyone already belonged to, believed in and had no doubts about whatever the correct theistic tradition supposedly is, then arguably there might not be any further need for God to make himself known. There certainly wouldn't be any need for evangelism, apologetics or missiology. Arguably, there wouldn't even be any need for God, since the tradition would seemingly have taken his place and become his stand-in and surrogate. (That's getting awfully close to how the atheists view the situation.)

After posting my post, I thought you'd probably leave out the part about pride, self-image and all that.

When it comes to talking on the topic of "God," it is possible, in fact, it is common, to put forward a number of premises that are impossible to evidence or verify, and so there exist formidable problems of theology that many people, including academics, have buckled under, and eventually, sought refuge in the conviction that God probably just doesn't exist.

My approach, on the other hand, is to focus on those items in the whole theism-atheism debate that are actually decidable and actionable. I see no reason to entangle oneself in undecidable and inactionable issues. And some personal epistemological items in all this, are decidable and actionable, notably those pertaining to pride, self-image maintainance, and bad faith.

Although I am amazed how come that even people with university degrees, and our Western civilization as such, nevertheless insist in focusing on theological problems in such an unproductive way.

 

[wynn]

Hmm. I wouldn't say that, all i am trying to do in this specific case is to counter argument, and doing it, with the little bit of logic and knowledge on the subject i still hold. But that's all.



Of course, and that's the whole point. Here i am implying that there is no sustainable, efficient proof of god's existence, (some) theists claim that there is no sustainable, efficient proof of god's non-existence as well. I say "No", since, according to almost all the theistic religions, this very world that exists today was created by their respective beings, these beings, being responsible for every aspect of life in this planet/universe, thus, making them all real and true to their respective religion. Christianism was the first one (i think) to uphold monotheism, where Jehovah is the only god existent and real, and the other are nothing but myth and should not be even considered. Personally, I not only consider them, but place the Christian deity on the same degree of these other deities, of being mythical and non existent. Althought i can not bring proof of their existence, i hold to the fact that, if we are going to say that this world is enough proof of god's existence and, by this, god is omnipresent, showing his omnipotence, and being omniscient, there then, we must hold the other deities to the same degree, deeming every other deity which has ever existed, factual as well, this, by Christianism alone, becomes insufferable. And wouldn't make a sense at all.
Still, as Christianism claims itself 'special' somehow, also that it should not be compared to these pagan religions (why not?), implying that these are inferior and showing some disrespect, it gets very hard for a Christian to understand this point of view, as they deem themselves following the true path and worshiping the only god existent. This concept not only shows pride, but also, some disregard for other cultures and philosophies/understandments of other civilizations. But they fail to recognise that this deity of theirs, falls on the same mythical aspect of these other deities they disregard, bring no sustainable evidence of it's own existence (even less if compared to other religions), follows the same path of any religion you care to mention regarding it's propriety of the creation and, falls short on skepticism, and also i'd say, on logics as well.

What problems do you see in the fact that there exist religious diversity and religious elitism/exclusivism?
Can you summarize is some key points?

 

[wynn]

Indeed, but such a discussion transcends this world view and, doing so, goes beyond practical skepticism, all we can refute and argument on, is based on what we have in this world view, since by plain, cold skepticism, there is no such thing as a transcendent world, beyond this scope.


By doing so, the transcendent world is totally disregarded and the judgement we apply, is on our experiences within this realm of reality.

Does employing such skepticism make you happy and give you a sense that you're living a meaningful life?


And if not, what do you see as the cause of your dissatisfaction despite employing skepticism?


Or do you hold that happiness and meaning are outside of your power to do anything about, and that humans simply have no choice but to resign themselves to whatever kind or level of happiness and meaning they currently have?

 

[wynn]

... and as an added detail, due to the influence of the sun's potency (the sunlight), clouds can manifest (due to evaporation) which can obscure the sun from our vision.

Is that implication from the sun-sunshine analogy really somewhere in the scriptures? Ie. that maya manifests because of God's power to "shine" the truth? God radiates truth, and that has the consequence that illusion emerges??

 

[wynn]

It will contribute to the irrationality that pervades my social existence and thus impede the progress for a better understanding of the human condition and the associated benefits thereof.

c) As a determinist I accept that irrationality is a necessary component of human evolution and my determined POV is that irrational belief, religious or otherwise will in time be overcome by reason, and I’m resigned to play out my role in that process.

A determinist? Interesting.