What if God is intentionally hiding?

[DetlefK]

Imagine the world to be like a PC-game:
You are the omniscient, omnipotent player controlling the lives of creatures inferior to you.
They live and act according to their whims and predetermined behavior.
If they stray from the path you have determined, you manipulate their reality.
They don't realize that you have manipulated their reality.
They don't realize the changes themselves.
They just realize the world as is.
They don't realize the existence of the player.
That's why they keep sticking to the one and only way of living.


Imagine a more advanced PC-game:
What if those tiny creatures were able to realize those changes in reality?
They would be able to see the difference between past and present.
They would react by changing their behavior to a mixture between a normal life and an adaption to the existence of changes.


Imagine humans:
What if humans were able to deduce, beyond doubt, the existence of the player/God?
Taking the human nature into account, would they keep on living the lives that God has preordained for them?
Or would they abandon the "natural" way and instead focus their lives on understanding/dissecting God in philosophic/psychological/scientific ways?
Is it that far off, that some people would rebel against this almighty ruler, just because he merely exists?




If God knew, that the humans would sabotage his project and intentions once they knew of his existence, wouldn't it be better for him to stay the hell out of sight?

[graham4anything]

1. God threw us a lifeboat, and the lifeboat's name is Barack Obama

after realizing His mistake years earlier with Mittens.

when one is drowning, the choice is grab the lifeboat or drown.

[2on2u]

2. ....

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

39. What would have happened had Arthur spoken the sacred word to God?

The word feared by all

The word kept by the sacred knights

What if Arthur had spoken the word - "Ni!" ?

[2on2u]

41. Rapture I imagine.. n/t

[longship]

3. How could you tell the difference?

I mean the difference between a hiding God and a non-existent God.

William of Okham slices off the hiding one. It is an unessential entity. So why even posit such a thing.

If you are going to consider that, you may as well take another step and just say that God doesn't give a shit:

Or, go all the way with Okham and say that the extent to which there is no physical evidence for God, one can only conclude that it doesn't exist.

But I still like Carlin's humorous answer.

[HereSince1628]

4. Yep

[cleanhippie]

13. Yes. Spot on!

[Warren Stupidity]

16. or go with Lucretius, the gods, if they exist are indifferent and impotent.

it is a non-issue.

[SarahM32]

21. Ya gotta love Carlin. He's right on. That concept of God IS bullshit.

However, because the concept of an Almighty Superman in the sky who promised an eternal reward in heaven for good behavior and threatens everlasting punishment in hell for disobedience IS bullshit, it does not mean that God does not exist.

It's just that God is not what most religious people think it is. (See The Nature of God.)

The God I know is not controlling but has ensured that we have free will.

The God I know does not mete out extreme punishment, but is merciful, understanding and forgiving, like any good parent, even though in one sense he/she does have his/her a way of chastising us when we do wrong and are offensive.

However, it is not imposed. It's the natural law of reciprocity and cause and effect, action and reaction. It's when we experience the karmic consequences of our words and actions, or "reap what we sow." Because what goes around comes around.

Granted, the texts of the Abrahamic religions contain a lot of patriarchal nonsense. There's no question about that. But we have to consider how long ago they were written, and how much humanity has learned since then.

Also, as it says in an article titled Why the "Religious Right" Is Wrong, it is helpful to observe how Liberals and Conservative interpret Christianity differently.

Conservative Christians focus on the patriarchal aspects and love to quote all the things based on the idea that "I am the Way, and the Truth," even though they don't understand what Jesus meant by that. Instead, they sum up Jesus’ message as "Obey me or you're going to suffer in hell for eternity." It's an authoritarian, patriarchal approach.

Liberal progressive Christians, on the other hand, focus on the matriarchal aspects that are around the Golden Rule, and around peace, love, freedom, compassion, charity, forgiveness, and pacifism, acknowledging the idea that it will be the humble, gentle, peaceful and meek who shall inherit the earth.

Those two approaches inevitably produce the situation we have now, with proud and militant Conservative Christians trying to impose and enforce their beliefs, while Liberal Christians usually do not retaliate but instead tend to turn the other cheek

.

In other words, people interpret the Bible as they so inclined, and truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
.

[longship]

24. Hi Sarah. A reasoned argument.

It is one that I do not go along with, but I understand it and have no problems with people attesting to such a thing.

As an atheist, I do not demand that others not believe like me. I will leave that tactic to certain religionists.

But I am curious about whether you would call yourself a deist? That is, God made the universe and lets it run on its own. From your post, I'd gather not. Do you call yourself a Christian?

Just respectful curiosity.

BTW, I call myself an atheist because I see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god(s). That could change if evidence were provided sufficient enough. Certainly it would have to be physical evidence, not anecdotal. But the evidence would also have to be compelling. I do not call myself an agnostic because most people would take that as I am wishy-washy about this, which I am not. I think it is highly unlikely that there are god(s). Also atheist makes a political statement with which I fervently agree.

[SarahM32]

30. Thanks. As for me ...

Since you asked, I really don't like to label myself. But I identify with Deists and Freemasons, as most of the Founding Fathers did, because I am aware of the existence of God, or the Deity, but the God I know is not an idol or a person ... not some "Almighty Superman" in the sky.

My experience and education enables me to see that the God of Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad is the same God, also known by Hindus as Brahman, by Buddhists as the Supreme Consciousness, and by other religions by other names. It's all the same Deity, witnessed or realized or experienced by many enlightened people throughout history.

[Nihil]

61. I like your brief outline ...

... and, as far as it goes, it's how I feel on the subject too.

> Since you asked, I really don't like to label myself. But I identify with Deists and Freemasons,
> as most of the Founding Fathers did, because I am aware of the existence of God, or the Deity,
> but the God I know is not an idol or a person ... not some "Almighty Superman" in the sky.
>
> My experience and education enables me to see that the God of Abraham, Jesus and
> Muhammad is the same God, also known by Hindus as Brahman, by Buddhists as the
> Supreme Consciousness, and by other religions by other names. It's all the same Deity,
> witnessed or realized or experienced by many enlightened people throughout history.

[rug]

5. Then it wouldn't be God.

[DetlefK]

11. Would you care to elaborate?

[rug]

15. No, other than to say you're projecting attributes.

[longship]

25. Well, rug, couldn't it be the deist god?

Just asking. Seems to fit.

God winds up the clockwork and sits back.

[rug]

26. Not if it's hiding.

I understand the deist god to be aloof, apart, and uninvolved directly. Hiding suggests deceit, deception and mischief. There are few alive who believe in Loki.

[longship]

27. Aha! It's the intention! I got it.

I am no theologian. Always much to learn.
Thx.

[bowens43]

6. He's hiding with Sanata Clause and the unicorns..... nt

[part man all 86]

7. God the Father is not hiding he is letting mankind rule the earth as man sees fit.

If man wants oppressive government, or democratic rule or gay marriage or to help one another or create beautiful artwork or pollute the land so be it. This is the age of man's dominion. Father knows what we are capable of doing, by letting us have free rein He is teaching us that humans are able to do anything we desire, constructive or destructive.

[mr blur]

8. That's just a cop-out.

Either he's completely useless or he doesn't exist.

[cbayer]

18. He has spoken and He has not stuttered.

[LTX]

42. Or our time-frames are skewed to the immediate. n/t

[DetlefK]

10. But there's the risk, we could accidently kill us during that lesson.

What's the difference between an indifferent parent and an absent parent? The result is the same.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. so at some time in the past your gods acted in the real world? Just not now?

[LTX]

43. Yes and no.

It depends on how you view science, and god.

[skepticscott]

44. That seems to be the case with many religious traditions

Way back when, gods (allegedly) did things openly that were much more obviously godlike. Nowadays, not so much. Convenient, that...

[Marrah_G]

9. Apparently he is always hiding

Unless someone wins an award or sporting event!

[cbayer]

12. Interesting question. If there is a god or gods, has s/he made a purposeful

decision to not be apparent or to become apparent only rarely and only to some.

Or is s/he also just a player in the game of something even further evolved?

[rrneck]

14. People hide for a reason...

If anyone wants to hide from me my first inclination is to leave them alone.

[SarahM32]

19. What if the nature of God defies description and is unfathomable? (And, about the "hidden" aspect)

There is a reason why Moses wrote that God "is not a man, nor a son of man," and why God is referred to so often in the Hebrew Torah and Tankh as "the Light."

Human beings who have actually "witnessed" or seen or experienced what God really is are at a loss to describe it, because it is indescribable and unfathomable. But the authors of the religious texts in the Judeo-Christian traditions often referred to God as "He" or "Father" for lack of a better way to describe God.

Solomon is one who spoke of Wisdom as the "spotless mirror of God" and he assigned female gender to "Her" (Wisdom). And that is consistent with Kabbalistic Jewish terminology in which Wisdom is the female aspect and Understanding the male.

The author of The Nature of God offers this definition of God, that it is the Divine Light Energy-Source of our existence, the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Essence of all life and form, the Great Spirit-Parent of all, and the unspeakable, primordial "Word" that is made flesh in us all. He says God is within, above and around us all the time, but only when our "eye is single" may we see or realize the reality of God -- only when we transcend the separate-self ego and see beyond the illusion of duality.

And the author is "hidden," just as God is.

"(God) has made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand has he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver has he hid me; And said unto me, You are my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. And now, says the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength." (Isaiah 49:2-5)

"He [the son of man] that takes refuge in Me shall inherit My holy mountain. And He will say: ‘Draw up, clear the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of My people.’ For thus says the high and Holy One that inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him that is of a contrite and humbled spirit; to revive the spirit of the humble [and meek], and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always angry. For the iniquity of his covetousness was I angry, and struck him. I hid me, and was angry, and he went on willfully in the ways of his heart. (But) I have seen his ways, and will heal him: I will lead him also, and restore comforts unto him and to his mourners. Peace to him that is far off and to him that is near, says the Lord that creates the fruit of the lips; and I will heal him." (Isaiah 57:13-19)

Read Prophecies Re: He Who Fulfills Them.
.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Then you all should stop worrying about His Unfathomableness and get on with life.

[SarahM32]

28. Who's worried about it?

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Concerned, worried, whatever.

If something is unknowable, there is no point in trying to know it.

[SarahM32]

37. But what I said was that a person can know it, even though it's hard to describe.

As I already said:

Human beings who have actually "witnessed" or seen or experienced what God really is are at a loss to describe it, because it is indescribable and unfathomable. But the authors of the religious texts in the Judeo-Christian traditions often referred to God as "He" or "Father" for lack of a better way to describe God.

Solomon is one who spoke of Wisdom as the "spotless mirror of God" and he assigned female gender to "Her" (Wisdom). And that is consistent with Kabbalistic Jewish terminology in which Wisdom is the female aspect and Understanding the male.

The author of The Nature of God offers this definition of God, that it is the Divine Light Energy-Source of our existence, the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Essence of all life and form, the Great Spirit-Parent of all, and the unspeakable, primordial "Word" that is made flesh in us all. He says God is within, above and around us all the time, but only when our "eye is single" may we see or realize the reality of God -- only when we transcend the separate-self ego and see beyond the illusion of duality.

Therefore, a person can know what God is, having witnessed or realized or experience it, but it's very difficult to describe it. That's why the author of the article I cited offers that description.

[longship]

29. If he's unfathomable, why not get over it and call yourself an agnostic?

That's the inevitable end to attempting to assign attributes to god. These discussions terminate with the argument, "Atheists, play your word games, but maybe god is unknowable to man." That's pretty much the agnostic view.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. actually the agnostic view is that the existence of god cannot be known, not that god is unknowable.

"god is unknowable" assumes that there is a god to not be able to know, agnostics are agnostic on the issue of the existence of god.

Claiming that a deity exists that we cannot sense or understand is a useless claim. But clearly it is more defensible than a claim of a deity that acts observably in the world.

[longship]

33. I just don't see a difference between unknowable and nonexistent.

Or, to qualify that, between unknowable and not demonstratable. That sounds like agnostic to me.

If one cannot assign attributes to god, how is that different from something that does not exist?

One can make up attributes, but as soon as one does that you start making conflicting claims. Then, the argument spins up again and you end back at a transcendental, unknowable god again.

Omnipotence, perfectly loving, eternal, omnipresent, etc. All these are meaningless terms if there is no evidence beyond some personal experience, which I might add can be replicated in the laboratory. Human neurology seems to be particularly labile in this area.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Lets make a deal.

Within the confines of the game, what is behind door number 3 is unknowable to the player prior to making her fatefull choice. Door number 4 on the other hand doesn't exist. The player should be concerned about what might be behind door number 3, but worrying about door number 4 is pointless.

His Unfathomableness is the hand waving explanation for the fact that there are no gods acting in reality.

[longship]

38. I like that, Monty Hall!

[SarahM32]

40. Because God is unfathomable, it doesn't mean one cannot see and feel what it is.

As I already said:

Human beings who have actually "witnessed" or seen or experienced what God really is are at a loss to describe it, because it is indescribable and unfathomable. But the authors of the religious texts in the Judeo-Christian traditions often referred to God as "He" or "Father" for lack of a better way to describe God.

Solomon is one who spoke of Wisdom as the "spotless mirror of God" and he assigned female gender to "Her" (Wisdom). And that is consistent with Kabbalistic Jewish terminology in which Wisdom is the female aspect and Understanding the male.

The author of The Nature of God offers this definition of God, that it is the Divine Light Energy-Source of our existence, the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Essence of all life and form, the Great Spirit-Parent of all, and the unspeakable, primordial "Word" that is made flesh in us all. He says God is within, above and around us all the time, but only when our "eye is single" may we see or realize the reality of God -- only when we transcend the separate-self ego and see beyond the illusion of duality.

Therefore, a person can know what God is, having witnessed or realized or experience it, but it's very difficult to describe it. That's why the author of the article I cited offers that description.

He offers that description because so many religious people have gotten the wrong idea of what God is. That's why so many Christians believe God is an "Almighty Superman" in the sky. But even Moses knew and said that "God is not a man, nor a son of man." And Moses, for lack of a better way of putting it, said "the voice of the Lord came from out of a burning bush (And speaking of the "burning bush," I recommend an article titled The Plant of Renown, which explains what it is, and what Moses really may have been talking about.)

I can tell you from my own experience that it is indeed possible to see God, and when one does, it becomes much easier to see what all the great and wise sages, avatars, buddhas, siddhas, prophets, and mashiachs (messiahs) were talking about.
.
.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Do your gods act in the real world in any way that can be examined?

[skepticscott]

45. Except that you HAVE described "god"

on this very board, on multiple occasions. Guess you just go with whatever level of alleged understanding suits your purpose of the moment, and then morph it into something totally different when that argument is exploded.

And frankly, plenty of people who claim to have seen and experienced "god" are able to describe their "experience", and in general to declare that they absolutely know what god is like, and what he thinks and wants, to the point of feeling justified in forcing those dictates on everyone else. The retreat to the position that "we cannot know the mind of god" is usually just a cowardly convenience in the wake of a tragedy that can't be explained in light of the god they normally tout and claim to understand.

[SarahM32]

47. Look, here's what I said:

There is a reason why Moses wrote that God "is not a man, nor a son of man," and why God is referred to so often in the Hebrew Torah and Tankh as "the Light."

Human beings who have actually "witnessed" or seen or experienced what God really is are at a loss to describe it, because it is indescribable and unfathomable. But the authors of the religious texts in the Judeo-Christian traditions often referred to God as "He" or "Father" for lack of a better way to describe God.

Solomon is one who spoke of Wisdom as the "spotless mirror of God" and he assigned female gender to "Her" (Wisdom). And that is consistent with Kabbalistic Jewish terminology in which Wisdom is the female aspect and Understanding the male.

The author of The Nature of God offers this definition of God, that it is the Divine Light Energy-Source of our existence, the eternal, infinite, omnipresent Essence of all life and form, the Great Spirit-Parent of all, and the unspeakable, primordial "Word" that is made flesh in us all. He says God is within, above and around us all the time, but only when our "eye is single" may we see or realize the reality of God -- only when we transcend the separate-self ego and see beyond the illusion of duality

.

The point is that human beings have tried their best to describe what is indescribably. As I said, many authors of Jewish texts simply called God "the Light." Some ascribe gender and use the term "Him" or "He" or "Father." Some use "Creator," some Divinity. But none of those terms are accurate descriptions. They were used for lack of a better concept.

The author of the article I cited uses more modern terminology to offer a new description to try to explain what the ancient texts were talking about. But it's not a "retreat," as you characterize it.

I am fully aware that many people describe their spiritual experiences and declare that they absolutely know what God is like. Of course, some of them are nuts, but some of them say such things after a "near death" experience or similar out-of-body experience or dream state in which they "see" religious figures. I believe they "see" according to preconceived ideas and expectations.

I am also aware that some people claim they even know what God thinks and wants. But that is their problem, and it's OUR problem when and if they are Theocrats who feel justified in forcing their beliefs on everyone else. We must reject and repudiate such bigots, just as Thomas Jefferson did.
.

[skepticscott]

48. In other words

You claim to know what god is like, to the point of presuming to run down other people's descriptions of god as inaccurate or "nuts". Nice.

[SarahM32]

50. Your definition of "skeptic" is way different that the actual definition.

A true skeptic is a person who questions the validity, authenticity or truth of something purporting to be factual, especially religion or religious tenets.

That's fine with me, but that's not what you are, and not merely what you do. And you certainly don't do it in an objective, fair-minded, reasonable way. You go out of your way to be snide and misleading, misrepresenting what I say.

Any fair person would understand that when I said some people who claim to know what God is are "nuts," I was obviously talking about the "religious" zealots like Pat Robertson, who has not only claimed he know what and who God is, he has claimed that God "spoke" to him and told him the end of the world would be in the 1980s, that 9/11 was "God's punishment," etc. If that's not nuts, I don't know what is.

I stand by all my posts, because I at least try to be a truthful and honest as I can be.

[Vietnameravet]

54. Okay

Well if God exists and speaks to believers..why do they disagree so much on basics?

[cleanhippie]

20. If god is intentionally hiding from us, then god is a bigger douchebag than we thought.

[SarahM32]

22. It's not a matter of "hiding." It's a matter of us not seeing actual reality.

See my post #19, first. It quotes Isaiah's mention of God being "hid" and the Messiah being "hidden."

But, it's not really that God is "hiding," because we can "see" God within us any time, if and when we transcend ego. But only when our "eye is single" can we "see" God.

As Jesus put it, "the kingdom of heaven comes not with observation in the world." That's because one realizes it within. But it comes as if by accident, fortuitously, as an unexpected gift. No amount of effort or study or prayer can bring it on or make it happen. It happens when one least expects it, through revelation.

In fact, God cannot hide, because God is not a person, and not a specific thing. It is infinite, and omnipresent, the very essence of all life and form -- a light-energy-consciousness.

The so-called "born-again Christians" have no idea of what God is. They believe in an idol. Spiritual rebirth is not a matter of "joining the club" and "professing that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior." That's bunk. God is not a man, nor a son of man, as Moses wrote, and besides God there is no Savior, as Isaiah wrote. And spiritual rebirth is a process that begins when we realize God within.
.
.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

34. What if a giant pink elephant lives on the dark side of the moon?

[DetlefK]

35. Why has he decided to live there, and not on earth, visible to all?

[AlbertCat]

46. What if....

.... ancient humans just anthropomorphized nature.... which is not hiding... because they had no method yet of "figuring it out"... and called it "god(s)"?

What if, because we now have a scientific method that is pretty successful, there's no need to cling to this ancient mistake, and we can explore that nature, which is not hiding, just hard to figure out?

[geckosfeet]

51. What if human beings are intentionally stupid? That makes more sense to me.

[Speck Tater]

52. WE are Gods. WE are playing this video game with each other, and

WE are deliberately hiding our own identity from ourselves to enhance the realism of the game.

Just think how cool it would be to play an MMORPG if you could leave your real identity behind and just BE the character you are playing. It would be so much more immersive that way. And that is exactly why WE play the game called "Reality" the way we do.

Oh, and "the afterlife" is just what we do between games, and "reincarnation" is just "hey dude, let's play another one."

[drokhole]

56. Shiva, I recognize you!

One of my favorite clips from a lecture by Alan Watts:

The Way of Waking Up

This one, too:

[Speck Tater]

57. "Mara, I see you." --the Buddha. (Same concept) nt

[drokhole]

60. Cool, that's a new one to me!

And on a semi-related note, a goodie from G.K. Chesterton:

But now a great thing in the street
Seems any human nod,
Where shift in strange democracy
The million masks of God.

[intaglio]

53. Then by this standard God is a liar and an incompetent

A liar because He/She/It is deliberately misleading the creation. An incompetent because He/She/It cannot create a world that can have informed free will, where the inhabitants can choose multiple non-destructive course because they can see the results of the destructive ones.

You then proceed to make the invalid assumption that humankind will always choose to oppose God if there is a certainty that God exists; this is the fallacy called "Original Sin".

Now you may not be aware but your ideas are very close to those of the infamous internet troll Dennis Markuze known as "Mabus"

[orpupilofnature57]

55. When you hear the shit people pin on God, wouldn't you?

[Alduin]

58. ...

[Thats my opinion]

59. I know there is something to be gained in the debate

by continually ridiculing a notion of God that nobody in any reputable seminary or in any modern theological circle holds. If you want to engage in an intelligent dialogue with modern theologians who have a very different notion of God, that would be helpful. To put up a straw man notion of God and then whack it down may be cute, but it is essentially dishonest--
no matter how you see the game..