Finding God In The Waves

My own criticisms of the quotes (as presented here - perhaps some are less bad in context).1) Faith can be less than this, so at least is misleading at best. Perhaps saying at least Faith can be would be fair.2) I do not accept that definition of ‘God’ and I very much doubt that I am alone in that.3) As with the comment on Faith, prayer can be far less than this.4) Sin may be used as a synonym for immorality but if you are excluding the religious dimension why call it ‘sin’? What do you do when religion dictates a violation of consent or forces suffering? Was it a sin or a blessing for Mother Theresa to withhold painkillers from patients?5) This is about the only one I can agree with, but even then the unique neurological signature is pretentious at best (why not say memories of us?). Note also that the afterlife is often presented as a case of self-interest which cannot apply if we no longer exist.

It would be helpful if you could tell us what scientific qualifications Mr. McHargue has.

Do the 'five more' definitions include the word 'evidence'?

This is from Mike McHargue's website,"Now, in terms of expertise, I do not hold any degree at all. I didn't go to college at all, so I have no formal education in the sciences or theology. I'm a self-made technologist and business person."

He has the credentials and thus certainly qualifies for mystic.

Oh, they're all writing books. This one did it. Ffs.

You guys love that word, don't you? Sometimes I feel as if though I myself have to represent my own argument rather than pointing to (or cutting & pasting from) other arguments, but what all of you need to understand is that I form my argument from words, phrases, and conceptual ideas. 90% of the time, these words and ideas are borrowed from others and tested within my own mind and heart before becoming adopted (or adapted) as my ideas. To me, my internal feelings, perceptions and intuition are evidence.
OK, here is an example from something I read from an as yet unknown author. Allow me to share:

quote:

---

Why Isn't God More Obvious?

​

Why is it that God does not seem to approach in a much more obvious way? One answer has been that God's existence is not a matter of reality and facts. Isn't it more of a faith position, anyway? Isn't it more about a leap in the dark than an embrace of evidence?

​

I would agree that God isn't "forcefully obvious," but I don't think that this confines God to being a "take-it-or-leave-it" matter of faith. I think it makes more sense to see God as clearly visible, whilst not being forcefully obvious.

​

Did you know that the Bible actually recognizes the validity of this question? First, we see passages that affirm the human perception that God seems hidden. In Job 23:8-9 we read,

​

"But if I go to the east, he is not there; if I go to the west, I do not find him. When he is at work in the north, I do not see him; when he turns to the south, I catch no glimpse of him."

​

Interestingly, there are also many examples of God appearing as if veiled in darkness, whilst still simultaneously offering his presence.(1) For instance we read that, "The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was." Jesus, too, invites people to trust in him and then leaves and hides himself. In John we find the story of a paralytic man who is healed, but then Jesus slips away into the crowd. Luke records that as news about Jesus spread, "he often withdrew to lonely places." Later, Jesus tells the disciples that, "Before long, the world will not see me any more, but you will see me." Interestingly in many of these cases, God provides a clear sense of presence, while at the same time veiling the fullness of that presence.

​

So perhaps an unavoidable part of the Bible's answer to why God seems hidden is because it's true. But why? And what about those times when we need a present God most, when God could offer us real hope in times of suffering?

​

Well, when Jesus resisted the crowd, he concealed his identity until exactly the right moment in time to explicitly disclose it. This was a wise decision as the consequences of more explicit or obvious disclosure led fairly quickly to a successful campaign to have him executed. Could it be that God isn't unavoidably obvious, but clear in a more qualified sense? Crucially, there is also no reason why something of this nature might not require some learning to begin to perceive or see on our part.

​

For example, imagine that I said that it is obvious, but not forcefully so, that you will need your passport to fly internationally. Now, notice carefully that you have to learn this bit of information. It is certainly not like a forcefully obvious brick wall that you cannot avoid. But it would still perhaps be a case of a failure to grasp the obvious if you arrived at the airport with your bags packed but without your passport. It's this second sense (of non-forceful obviousness or avoidable clarity) that the case for God can be confidently approached.

​

But might this idea of God hiding merely provide a clever way for Christians to cling onto God in a scientific and evidence demanding age? This has been argued. Yet Christians do not claim that God doesn't show himself, but rather that God chooses the means of the showing. And hiddenness may well be necessary to bring focus to the way God declares his existence through Jesus Christ. In fact, divine hiding creates the possibility of a more obvious disclosure or uncovering.

​

Atheist Bertrand Russell famously quipped that if he were faced with God when he died, he would demand an explanation for why God made the evidence of his existence so insufficient. We might be tempted to think he was being entirely reasonable. But perhaps the evidence we demand for God is directly related to who we think God is and what we think God's purposes are. Hiddenness would make no sense if God's aim was simply to relate to us as an object of knowledge that offered no real relational connection or friendship. If this was the divine purposethat we would simply acknowledge God's existencethen I am sympathetic to Russell's demand for more evidence.

---

Have you ever thought about writing one? We did have EVC Forum: A Play by our late member Robin Rohan, but thats as close as we collectively got. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : fixed broken link

This is a fabulous example of utter shite, meaningless drivel, dressed up as mystical wisdom. I have, or rather a chapter in a book; an academic book.It was a very painful and long-winded exercise. By the time it was published it was already out of date.

Well, let’s comment on this. If God was clearly visible then he need only point out how this is true.However, all that is said is: Which doesn’t really make any sense at all. If God is hidden then he isn’t clearly obvious and I don’t know what to make of the idea that God declares his existence through Jesus Christ. How? And in what way is it clearly obvious? This also makes no sense. Hiddenness makes no sense if God’s purpose IS a real relational connection or friendship. You don’t make friends by hiding from people!

*
To me, my internal feelings, perceptions and intuition are evidence of Osiris, the god of fertility, agriculture, the afterlife, the dead, resurrection, life, and vegetation in ancient Egyptian religion.
*

You do not get to have your own private set of evidence. Evidence must be evident to everybody.Consider the dead body on the floor and the suspect standing over it with a smoking gun in his hand.The evidence is that the body is dead - no vital signs, etc.If your intuition tells you the suspect is a murderer, that is not evidence.

Religion has come up with some of the most demented and impossibly asinine concepts ever conceived from the depths of human ignorance ... but this one?How fucking stupid can they get?

Thank-you; that tells me what I need to know.

Are you sure? He's written a book you know.

You could have answered my question in one word. Since you did not, I take it that the answer is 'No'. However, to give you a second opportunity, I will re-word my question; what are the 'five more' definitions that the author provides?