How God could fail to convey His message?

[ken]

I have answered it. The answer to that is very simple and easy to understand. Just some people do not know how to find the solution.

The only thing you said in reply to the answer was, "I don't understand what you are trying to say here." You did not ask any clarifying questions nor shown any interest in it. So, now saying, "you simply cannot answer my question...", is totally incorrect. If you were really interested, then you would have shown some sort of inquisitiveness by questioning Me further. You have not done so, so I have not bothered to explain further.

I also asked you to provide some sort of sign that you are open, which you are not doing.

I don't remember where you answer the question related to too many religions.

I do not now remember the exact question related to too many religions where I already answered.

Two things here:
1. What is the specific question you want answered?
2. Do you believe that there could be a sufficient answer to your specific question?

If no to number 2 question, then do not provide the specific question in number 1.
If yes to number 2 question, then do ask the specific question that you want answered in number 1, again.

So what is your definition of God? I hope this question does not annoy you since I defined God but you didn't.

When did you define God, and what was that definition?

Why would think that question would supposedly "annoy" Me?

God for sake of discussion in this thread is the creator who is omnipotent and omniscient. What is your definition?

I will go along with your definition as long as you stick with that definition.

Another person using the word 'reality' like they KNOW what it is.

There is no another systematic method rather than science for studding the reality. Do you know a better method?

Yes I do, but that is really of no significance because you believe that there is no other method than the one you proposed.

You have completely forgotten to add that "God doesn't make itself evident," 'to you'.

Have you not heard what others are saying to you. Obviously, God has made Itself evident to them. Thus, it is 'you' that supposedly God does not make Itself evident to. Maybe you should be explaining to us why God does not make Itself evident to you.

What could the possible reasons be? Ah that is right, you believe there is no God. If there is no God, why the continual absolutely stupid questions about a non such thing?

By the way I have NEVER evaded your question. AGAIN I already answered it. You are unable to understand My answer, as you already admitted. But do not feel too bad. No other person is yet to understand what I am saying regards this little and simple issue. If you are really interested in understanding My answer, THEN ask some questions. Or, do you expect Me to totally know and understand what it is that you do NOT, yet, understand?

Well, it seems that we have to start first to find God before God make itself evident to us.

That was certainly not necessarily the case for me.

I am also not sure why you would make such a stupid assumption like this, or an assumption of anything for that matter, before you know the truth.

Why would a person who believes there is no God start first to find God?

Doing that is the very first mistake any sane person could make.

Answer Me this, do you believe God exists?

But how I can start anything when there are over 4000 religion. I cannot possibly study and practice all.

You can actually start something, that is by just remaining fully and completely open, just like the exact same way that you were in the beginning. It would not matter if there was one religion or over 4000 billion religions, looking for any religion to study and practice for guidance is just about the most ridiculous thing you any person could do. Remember believing in science is also a religion.

So who's fault it is if I cannot find God? God's fault.

Are you answering your own question here?

Again are you looking for some Thing that you believe does not actually exist?

If so, then who would really be a fault for not finding a non-existent thing?

After 12 pages of this thread has it come down to the fact that you, yourself, have all along been trying to blame a non-existent thing for you not being able to find the non-existent It?

Has your trolling actually landed you a pretty big fish, i.e., the Truth?

God is the creator, isn't It?

You are the one who defined God as the creator. So, is God the creator or not?

Do not ask Me if God is the creator. I will accept and agree with your definition.

I need that It shows me that how It could create.

Why do you need this?

By the way how "God" could and actually does create is really extremely very easy to explain. But, I can only show how I create to those people who are open enough to an idea that is completely new to them.

Science is a method for finding truth based on what we observe. It is under progress and revision always. That how do we learn about truth. God however knows truth so it should be simple for God to explain things to us.

It is very simple and easy for Me to explain things to you, BUT, only if you are open enough to accepting it. If, however, if you believe and assume that you already know the truth, then it is very hard to explain things to you.

[Arising_uk]

Do you really think you know how things work?

Many things, yes.

Um. I guess you have books (i do to + a sage).

Except I can show you a book.

[attofishpi]

Lets put things back into context.

When one knows how things work why bother complicating things with metaphysical entities like a 'God'?

Do you really think you know how things work?

Many things, yes.

But not much in relation to the true nature of matter and reality?

Funny how things become more reasonable within context.

Although don't you have two such entities, 'God' and this 'Sage'?

Um. I guess you have books (i do to + a sage).

Except I can show you a book.

And i can advise you what the sage has informed me.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no evidence probably because there is none although I have to allow for the possibility however small that there could be some

Ah. Fair enough. Well, when you say "I have no evidence," we have no reason to doubt you. It's plausibly true. When you say that you regard as "small" the chance that there could be any, we have more reason to doubt: for how could you know that, given that you admit to having no contact with the evidence?

But when you say "There is none," you are stating a thing we have no reason to suppose you could know. It cannot be believed, given the access to information that any particular human being is likely to have. Moreover, even one counter case, one phenomenon that was an evidence for God, would make your statement flatly untrue.

Apatheism by its very definition only pertains to God not to tigers and so one cannot be apathetic about them

Well, one COULD be, if one wanted to, I suppose. But what is more dangerous: ignoring a tiger or ignoring God? And given that the question of HIs existence is yet to be settled, as we have seen above that you do not have certainty or reason to have certainty about this...

I also like the way you casually inserted the word fact in there as if what you were actually alluding to was one

Unintentional. But I'll own it.

Were the existence of God a fact then atheism would have been falsified and atheists would have no basis for being one anymore

Atheists have no basis for being what they are. That is true. Atheism is a blowhard creed. It's utterly empty, as its chief proponents are happy to admit, except for a willful refusal to believe there could be a God. It's quite vacuous.

Some ideas of God are more rational than others such as the pantheistic one but those who believe in God think that he is more than just an idea

Oh, certainly. And I don't find Pantheism particularly rational. It sees a "god" or a bit of "the god" under every rock. Moreover, it denies the reality of evil, and that seems empirically incorrect to me.

[Arising_uk]

But not much in relation to the true nature of matter and reality?

What do you mean by the 'true nature'?

And i can advise you what the sage has informed me.

You can and if it sounds like good advice I'll take it.

[surreptitious57]

Atheists have no basis for being what they are. That is true. Atheism is a blowhard creed. It is utterly
empty as its chief proponents are happy to admit except for a willful refusal to believe there could be a God

That wilful refusal would only apply to gnostic atheists not agnostic ones like myself. Furthermore my atheism is
relatively benign. Outside of discussing it on rational or philosophy sites I am hardly conscious of it and it has no
effect upon my life. And I have no problem with what anyone believes as long as it does not impact upon others

[Immanuel Can]

That wilful refusal would only apply to gnostic atheists not agnostic ones like myself.

Absolutely.

Furthermore my atheism is relatively benign.

Wait a minute...in the last sentence you said you were an Agnostic? How are you now an "Atheist"?

Outside of discussing it on rational or philosophy sites I am hardly conscious of it and it has no effect upon my life. And I have no problem with what anyone believes as long as it does not impact upon others

Hmmm...I would consider the wisdom of that position.

[Arising_uk]

Atheists have no basis for being what they are. ...

We'll apart from no-one being able to show their 'God' exists and that currently and over time there appears to have been quite a few of them about?

That is true. Atheism is a blowhard creed. ...

Depends what its blowing about? But Christianity appears to be the hypocrites faith.

It is utterly empty as its chief proponents are happy to admit except for a willful refusal to believe there could be a God

Not willful, just no sign of any 'God' that the theist(when they can be bothered) describes to justify believing in that one.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Lets put things back into context.

When one knows how things work why bother complicating things with metaphysical entities like a 'God'?

Do you really think you know how things work?

Many things, yes.

But not much in relation to the true nature of matter and reality?

Funny how things become more reasonable within context.

Um. I guess you have books (i do to + a sage).

Except I can show you a book.

And i can advise you what the sage has informed me.
So then I can point to a potential schizophrenic. Have you been tested?

[surreptitious57]

Furthermore my atheism is relatively benign

in the last sentence you said you were an Agnostic ? How are you now an Atheist ?

I said agnostic atheist meaning that I do not think God exists but I cannot be certain

Outside of discussing it on rational or philosophy sites I am hardly conscious of it and it has no effect upon my life

And I have no problem with what anyone believes as long as it does not impact upon others

I would consider the wisdom of that position

Which particular wisdom are you referring to here

The wisdom of my atheism having no effect upon my life

Or the wisdom in allowing you the freedom to believe in God

[Hobbes' Choice]

So!! You are a polyagnostic atheist!

Nope, just wondered how dontaskme knows there is just one 'God'?

Its obvious...surely it adheres to occam's razor?

no. That would no no gods at all.

A single God adds complexity, not removes it.

If there has to be god or gods then more answers why there is no coherent massage, and lots of conflict in the world with no clear direction to anything.
One god just does not make any sense to a rational person.

[Immanuel Can]

I said agnostic atheist meaning that I do not think God exists but I cannot be certain

That would be what's called a "strong" or "hard" agnostic. Agnosticism is a spectrum of relative openness and skepticism: Atheism is a flat declaration of refusal to consider.

Which particular wisdom are you referring to here

The wisdom of imagining that ignoring any entity -- tiger or God -- and supposing that will have any effect on whether or not one exists.

[Arising_uk]

Atheism is a flat declaration of refusal to consider.

No it's not, it's normally one of two things, a theist deciding their 'God' does not exist or a declaration after much consideration that there is no evidence to believe in the 'God' or 'Gods' that whatever theist or pantheist have so far described.

The wisdom of imagining that ignoring any entity -- tiger or God -- and supposing that will have any effect on whether or not one exists.

Or the wisdom in knowing how we tell what exists that's worth ignoring, tigers obviously not.

Are you saying that the Christian 'God' is not a pussycat of love? It's an OT 'God'?

[surreptitious57]

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and atheism / theism pertains to faith
Agnostic atheist : does not believe in God but is not absolutely certain
Gnostic atheist : does not believe in God and is absolutely certain
Agnostic theist : does believe in God but is not absolutely certain
Gnostic theist : does believe in God and is absolutely certain

However everyone is ultimately agnostic because no one knows for certain whether or not God exists
So gnostic theists and gnostic atheists are absolutely certain in their belief but not in their knowledge

[thedoc]

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and atheism / theism pertains to faith
Agnostic atheist : does not believe in God but is not absolutely certain
Gnostic atheist : does not believe in God and is absolutely certain
Agnostic theist : does believe in God but is not absolutely certain
Gnostic theist : does believe in God and is absolutely certain

However everyone is ultimately agnostic because no one knows for certain whether or not God exists
So gnostic theists and gnostic atheists are absolutely certain in their belief but not in their knowledge

This is wrong, there are a few of us who have reasonably good evidence that God exists, so these few do know that God exists.