Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

[Immanuel Can]

Morgan Freeman did show up, he's pretty tangible.

And yet, I am pretty sure you get the point.

You accused God of "failing" you, by not "showing up." What did you expect Him to do for you? Nothing, you say. You didn't expect Him to "show up" in any particular regard. So He hasn't "failed" you at all. How does that make sense? It doesn't, obviously.

But I think I get it: I see what's really happening here. Either you realize now your expectation of God was unreasonable and irrational (or perhaps it was so vague that you couldn't even now say what it would be, you just didn't want to entertain any thoughts about God existing) -- or else you DO know what you were expecting and why, but don't feel you want to say, because it's too personal.

Which it is, only you know. And I promised not to pry.

However, one thing's very clear: I can see that you're trying very, very hard not to think about it, or to give a straight answer. And you don't owe me one. But you do owe yourself one. Is what you expected of God, that thing in which he "failed" you, a thing you ought to have had reason to expect? And if it's not, then God has not "failed" you at all.

[Atla]

Morgan Freeman did show up, he's pretty tangible.

And yet, I am pretty sure you get the point.

You accused God of "failing" you, by not "showing up." What did you expect Him to do for you? Nothing, you say. You didn't expect Him to "show up" in any particular regard. So He hasn't "failed" you at all. How does that make sense? It doesn't, obviously.

But I think I get it: I see what's really happening here. Either you realize now your expectation of God was unreasonable and irrational (or perhaps it was so vague that you couldn't even now say what it would be, you just didn't want to entertain any thoughts about God existing) -- or else you DO know what you were expecting and why, but don't feel you want to say, because it's too personal.

Which it is, only you know. And I promised not to pry.

However, one thing's very clear: I can see that you're trying very, very hard not to think about it, or to give a straight answer. And you don't owe me one. But you do owe yourself one. Is what you expected of God, that thing in which he "failed" you, a thing you ought to have had reason to expect? And if it's not, then God has not "failed" you at all.

As I said, God failed to show up (= didn't show up) in any way or form. Morgan Freeman did show up.
All the psychological drama coming from your misunderstanding of the word "fail" is your projection. God didn't fail ME in particular.

[Immanuel Can]

God didn't fail ME in particular.

Well, "failed" was your word. If you only meant "didn't," then you should probably have said "didn't." But there was no "failure" if there was nothing expected.

As for "showing up," (again, your words) the fact that God has not yet "shown up" in your windscreen is not at all rationally problematic. He may yet do so. But in any case, other people claim he's "shown up" for them, and unless you have some reason to think God is obligated to deal with everybody in the same way and in the same time, then again this "failure" is no kind of "failure" at all...

And it's then no reason to disbelieve in God. There are many things you and I have not yet experienced. That does not mean we will not. And it does not mean that others' experience of them are illusory. It only means something very trivial indeed: that at this point in your life, you have not happened to have met God yet. And that's no justification for any resentment.

[Atla]

God didn't fail ME in particular.

Well, "failed" was your word. If you only meant "didn't," then you should probably have said "didn't." But there was no "failure" if there was nothing expected.

As for "showing up," (again, your words) the fact that God has not yet "shown up" in your windscreen is not at all rationally problematic. He may yet do so. But in any case, other people claim he's "shown up" for them, and unless you have some reason to think God is obligated to deal with everybody in the same way and in the same time, then again this "failure" is no kind of "failure" at all...

And it's then no reason to disbelieve in God. There are many things you and I have not yet experienced. That does not mean we will not. And it does not mean that others' experience of them are illusory. It only means something very trivial indeed: that at this point in your life, you have not happened to have met God yet. And that's no justification for any resentment.

Actually it's a pretty good reason to disbelieve God. He's omnipotent, he could just appear to us if he wanted.

And how do you know that Allah isn't the boss of your God, you just haven't met him yet? Same logic, no reason to disbelieve Allah the God of Gods.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually it's a pretty good reason to disbelieve God. He's omnipotent, he could just appear to us if he wanted.

So, your supposition would have to be that God would have some obvious (or "pretty good") reason you know (because it gives you "good reason") to "want" to "show up," at this particular juncture in your life, and that his "failure" to do so was thus indicative of His inability or non-existence?

And His potential ability to do all things ("omnipotence") means that He must do things in the way you expect, and in your timing? And He hasn't, so he's "failed," and is obviously not really "ominipotent"?

And that all looks like "pretty good reasoning" to you?

Okay. I hardly know what to say to that.

[Atla]

...

If he wants to be believed, then he should show up. Just like the other thousands of gods.

Whether he's deceptive or has some secret noble plan, it doesn't really matter, he hasn't shown up so there's no reason to believe that he's real.

[Immanuel Can]

If he wants to be believed, then he should show up. Just like the other thousands of gods.

Okay, now you've said how he "failed" to "show up," at least in vague terms. You feel that, at this point in your life, He should already have made some sort of physical appearance to you personally, and since He has not, He must not exist?

Is that right?

[Atla]

If he wants to be believed, then he should show up. Just like the other thousands of gods.

Okay, now you've said how he "failed" to "show up," at least in vague terms. You feel that, at this point in your life, He should already have made some sort of physical appearance to you personally, and since He has not, He must not exist?

Is that right?

No. Not me personally, but to humanity in general.

Now if I may ask one thing myself too:

Do you think that a sociopath lacking normal human empathy can go to heaven, if he does all the correct, beneficial things? Or will the omniscient God still see this as a decades long game the sociopath has played?

[Immanuel Can]

No. Not me personally, but to humanity in general.

Well, humanity in general is about 92% Theistic, in one form or another. So it seems that the majority of "humanity" have not felt "failed" in the way you feel you may have been "failed." That doesn't, of course, make them right: but it means that the reason you offer isn't actually very good. "Humanity in general" is not feeling "failed," apparently. Perhaps you are imagining something on their behalf that they are actually not experiencing.

Now if I may ask one thing myself too:

Do you think that a sociopath lacking normal human empathy can go to heaven, if he does all the correct, beneficial things? Or will the omniscient God still see this as a decades long game the sociopath has played?

Certainly you may ask.

What do you think? I'll tell you a true story.

There was a man who hated Christians. He helped people beat them to death with stones. Then he got government permission, and took his show on the road. He tracked Christians down, forced them to blaspheme, threw them in jail, beat them, and probably killed quite a few more. The Christians became so terrified of him that they referred to him as "THE man who is persecuting us." He went tearing around in a blind rage, doing any kind of violence he possibly could to everyone who loved God. In terror, they scattered across the civilized world, in order to avoid this person. He was the Hitler of the early Church.

In the very middle of his raging career, God reached out and stopped him. He absolutely forgave him, and then changed him into the apostle Paul. He became the greatest early pillar of the developing Christian church.

Should God have done that?

[seeds]

Well, here's my question about that, and I mean it without a drop of cynicism. What "sign" was lacking? In other words, what kind of event were you looking for, that you did not see? What was missing?

Anything. Surely an omnipotent God would be able to reveal himself?

Perhaps there is a reason for why God hides Himslef.

Right you are, bahman.

And in my own explorations as to what that “reason” might be, I have come to the conclusion that if God did not hide himself from us,...

(and by extension, hide our ultimate purpose and destiny from us)

...it could possibly result in the ending of all human life on earth.

As is witnessed in this thread, one of the chief complaints made by atheists/materialists is in regards to why God doesn’t reveal himself. Yet they never seem to consider (extrapolate) the possible (negative) consequences if he did.
_______

[Atla]

Well, humanity in general is about 92% Theistic, in one form or another. So it seems that the majority of "humanity" have not felt "failed" in the way you feel you may have been "failed." That doesn't, of course, make them right: but it means that the reason you offer isn't actually very good. "Humanity in general" is not feeling "failed," apparently. Perhaps you are imagining something on their behalf that they are actually not experiencing.

And none of that 92% could point to a god actually revealing itself. Or globally agree which god is the real one.

[Atla]

Well, here's my question about that, and I mean it without a drop of cynicism. What "sign" was lacking? In other words, what kind of event were you looking for, that you did not see? What was missing?

Anything. Surely an omnipotent God would be able to reveal himself?

Perhaps there is a reason for why God hides Himslef.

Right you are, bahman.

And in my own explorations as to what that “reason” might be, I have come to the conclusion that if God did not hide himself from us,...

(and by extension, hide our ultimate purpose and destiny from us)

...it could possibly result in the ending of all human life on earth.

As is witnessed in this thread, one of the chief complaints made by atheists/materialists is in regards to why God doesn’t reveal himself. Yet they never seem to consider (extrapolate) the possible (negative) consequences if he did.
_______

You honestly think we don't consider that option?

[Immanuel Can]

And none of that 92% could point to a god actually revealing itself.

On what data have you ascertained this? Unless you know what their real experience is, you're hardly in a position to judge, I think.

But if even one of them...one single person in any single religious group on the face of the planet, anytime in history...has any genuine experience of God, then Atheism is, by definition, entirely false...both now and always. So an Atheist would have to have a great deal of faith that at no time in history has anybody -- even one person -- had a genuine experience of God.

And they say religion takes faith.

However, it's pretty clear that there are people on this earth who are quite certain God has not "failed" to "show up" in the necessary ways, and I would be among them. But that will not be any good for you, as evidence; what it will take is for you to be open to some experience that might verify the existence of God for you.

But if there is any such experience, you won't say what it is. So it cannot be done. And if that's so, then God has not "failed" you at all.

[Atla]

And none of that 92% could point to a god actually revealing itself.

On what data have you ascertained this? Unless you know what their real experience is, you're hardly in a position to judge, I think.

But if even one of them...one single person in any single religious group on the face of the planet, anytime in history...has any genuine experience of God, then Atheism is, by definition, entirely false...both now and always. So an Atheist would have to have a great deal of faith that at no time in history has anybody -- even one person -- had a genuine experience of God.

And they say religion takes faith.

However, it's pretty clear that there are people on this earth who are quite certain God has not "failed" to "show up" in the necessary ways, and I would be among them. But that will not be any good for you, as evidence; what it will take is for you to be open to some experience that might verify the existence of God for you.

But if there is any such experience, you won't say what it is. So it cannot be done. And if that's so, then God has not "failed" you at all.

Doesn't take much faith when it's just human psychology repeating itself.

Surprise surprise, I did have 'experiences' of God and Jesus and some angels and the devil and the Kingdom of Heaven and so on when I was very young, so what. I've had non-religious experiences far stranger than these too. Merely subjective experiences don't count.

You know very well from the start what I mean by God revealing itself, undoubtedly, to humanity. I'm just curious what you can come up with when defending an indefensible position.

[Immanuel Can]

Doesn't take much faith when it's just human psychology repeating itself.

That's assumptive.

In the extreme, it could be that that all "religious" experience is nothing but a very odd kind of mistake of evolution, a sort of strange delusion manifested somehow in every culture, with some "survival value" we can't identify, but which has suddenly evaporated in the Modern Period. Every religious believer is merely deluded, and every report of religious experience is phony. Meanwhile, the Atheist (4% of the population) could all secretly be right. However, there's no data to show that that's how things are, and a lot of empirical, historical and sociological observation to suggest it's not.

So the assumption is, at best, merely gratuitous. We'd be best to at least be somewhat open to theories that are vastly more probable than that one.

Surprise surprise, I did have 'experiences' of God and Jesus and some angels and the devil and the Kingdom of Heaven and so on when I was very young,

Hmmm. Really?

so what.

If you ever had such an experience, then you certainly can no longer be an Atheist. You would then personally know that such entities existed. That is, assuming you were not on hallucinogens.

Merely subjective experiences don't count.

It depends whose they are. If they are yours, and they are genuine, then they are the very best data you could possibly get. Unless, again, you were on hallucinogens or mentally unbalanced in some way.

You know very well from the start what I mean by God revealing itself, undoubtedly, to humanity.

Did you say "undoubtedly" somewhere? I don't remember you saying that. And I'm not at all sure what you mean. You won't say what you expect of God by way of "showing up."

In point of fact, I would suggest perhaps you don't really know at all what God has revealed to "humanity." You would only know about what He had revealed to you. I can't see how you're equipped to speak for all other people.