Fabric Of Time Diminished Royal....
Crosswords0 min ago
Why does God hide away in secret ?
80 Answers
In the bible it repeatedly reports what God said but it's always in a loose unproven way. He supposedly talks to prophets privately, so the people for whom it is intended never actually hear it. e.g. Moses on top of a mountain
Sometimes he even uses a proxy to pass on a message e.g. Archangel Gabriel .
He supposedly talks to the prophets through dreams and visions but the prophets themselves all describe him differently.
In the Quaran he talked to Muhammad many times in a cave again when the prophet was alone.
Why the secrecy ?
If God wants us to believe in him and to hear his messages why not just tell us direct. Is that so difficult for a God who created the Universe.
Sometimes he even uses a proxy to pass on a message e.g. Archangel Gabriel .
He supposedly talks to the prophets through dreams and visions but the prophets themselves all describe him differently.
In the Quaran he talked to Muhammad many times in a cave again when the prophet was alone.
Why the secrecy ?
If God wants us to believe in him and to hear his messages why not just tell us direct. Is that so difficult for a God who created the Universe.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As far as I am aware it hasn't yet been done successfully. However, since we as a species are in our scientific infancy, I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. Would you?
If you would then I think you're seriously underestimating our scientific ingenuity. Look at some of the things that were 'impossible' just a few years ago – cloning, organ transplants, synthetic organ growth, inoculations, IVF, etc. The list is almost endless. None of these modern 'miracles' has come about because of god. They have been arrived at despite religion, not because of it.
It may be 'impossible' to create life from basic chemical compounds at this moment in our history but it would be a foolish man indeed who would wager that it will forever be beyond our capability.
If you would then I think you're seriously underestimating our scientific ingenuity. Look at some of the things that were 'impossible' just a few years ago – cloning, organ transplants, synthetic organ growth, inoculations, IVF, etc. The list is almost endless. None of these modern 'miracles' has come about because of god. They have been arrived at despite religion, not because of it.
It may be 'impossible' to create life from basic chemical compounds at this moment in our history but it would be a foolish man indeed who would wager that it will forever be beyond our capability.
argorstran
OK Modeller , Wildwood , lets put the boot on the other foot so to speak .
Show me an experiment where a lifeform , (any lifeform , even the simplest single celled organism ) has generated itself
21:56 Sat 06th Oct 2012
Life, like consciousness, intelligence and reason are emergent qualities, conceived within the conditions which facilitate their manifestation . . . no less the last of these than the first.
OK Modeller , Wildwood , lets put the boot on the other foot so to speak .
Show me an experiment where a lifeform , (any lifeform , even the simplest single celled organism ) has generated itself
21:56 Sat 06th Oct 2012
Life, like consciousness, intelligence and reason are emergent qualities, conceived within the conditions which facilitate their manifestation . . . no less the last of these than the first.
Wildwood they had to use existing living matter to do it . The headline (typical journalistic distortion surprise surprise) should have read "Scientists implant artificial DNA into an existing living cell ".
They implanted artificial DNA (which they copied almost exactly from real DNA) then implanted it INTO AN EXISTING SINGLE CELL . It could not have been done without the existing single cell They did not create life from non - living substances .
Wildwood we are both in the same boat here . I can't show you an experiment which proves the existence of God and you can't show me an experiment where life has generated itself .
Over to you wildwood .
They implanted artificial DNA (which they copied almost exactly from real DNA) then implanted it INTO AN EXISTING SINGLE CELL . It could not have been done without the existing single cell They did not create life from non - living substances .
Wildwood we are both in the same boat here . I can't show you an experiment which proves the existence of God and you can't show me an experiment where life has generated itself .
Over to you wildwood .
argor : May I point out, it is not up to an atheist to prove there isn't a god . That would be like proving nothing is nothing. You can prove nothing because there is an absense of something .
If you are not in a empty room , that's fact , I don't have to prove where you are to prove the room is empty.
What you are saying the room isn't empty , God is there, . Well prove it.
If you are not in a empty room , that's fact , I don't have to prove where you are to prove the room is empty.
What you are saying the room isn't empty , God is there, . Well prove it.
On the matter of a lifeform , you are missing the point , even if no lifeform has generated itself that does not prove the existance of God .
However I would further point out life goes back much further than your single cell organism which biologically is quite sophisticated.
The buiding blocks of your cell are the organic compounds amino acids and they can be produced .
However I would further point out life goes back much further than your single cell organism which biologically is quite sophisticated.
The buiding blocks of your cell are the organic compounds amino acids and they can be produced .
The major difference there being that we can at least actually be sure that life exists, where as there is nothing beyond assertion that God exists.
I don't know what you think you're going to prove with this claim anyway nor do I think you're going to be honest about it either.
If someone cites Miller-Urey, you'll simply claim, "Ah, but amino acids aren't life" despite the fact that the experiment ultimately produced more amino acids than occur naturally on Earth. You'll gloss over the fact that this experiment is strong evidence in favour of a particular hypothesis of the origin of life. If you know what you're talking about, you might concede that point but remark that if proteins are needed for life, and DNA is needed to create proteins, then DNA couldn't exist. Then I could direct you to the most up to date thinking on the concept known as "RNA world", and you would cite a difficulty with that. We might discuss Thioesters and the origin of life as an alternative theory.
The reality is that no matter how much proof you were shown, unless someone were able to invent a time machine and show you the exact moment at which abiogenesis occurred, you will dismiss it, yet that does not change the fact that it is a credible theory as to the origin of life.
Are you able to show a even a fraction of such credible evidence for your proposed deity?
I don't know what you think you're going to prove with this claim anyway nor do I think you're going to be honest about it either.
If someone cites Miller-Urey, you'll simply claim, "Ah, but amino acids aren't life" despite the fact that the experiment ultimately produced more amino acids than occur naturally on Earth. You'll gloss over the fact that this experiment is strong evidence in favour of a particular hypothesis of the origin of life. If you know what you're talking about, you might concede that point but remark that if proteins are needed for life, and DNA is needed to create proteins, then DNA couldn't exist. Then I could direct you to the most up to date thinking on the concept known as "RNA world", and you would cite a difficulty with that. We might discuss Thioesters and the origin of life as an alternative theory.
The reality is that no matter how much proof you were shown, unless someone were able to invent a time machine and show you the exact moment at which abiogenesis occurred, you will dismiss it, yet that does not change the fact that it is a credible theory as to the origin of life.
Are you able to show a even a fraction of such credible evidence for your proposed deity?
//Why Does God Hide Away In Secret?//
Because he has no clothes.
I mean, where would God get clothes from? The idea of a divine creator going shopping is clearly ludicrous.
But the idea do God showing himself to mankind, and he's standing there in the nude is also a bit slapstick. Nobody would take him (sorry, "Him") seriously.
So ... he (sorry, "He") hides.
Because he has no clothes.
I mean, where would God get clothes from? The idea of a divine creator going shopping is clearly ludicrous.
But the idea do God showing himself to mankind, and he's standing there in the nude is also a bit slapstick. Nobody would take him (sorry, "Him") seriously.
So ... he (sorry, "He") hides.
The leading hypothesis for abiogenesis is a chemical reaction that occurs in a rock called Olivine. Cracks in this rock at the bottom of the ocean allow seawater to permeate. The seawater reacts with the rock producing vents of reaction products called "white smokers". Myriads of tiny mineral capsules built up around the vent where reactions proceed.
The central step in the reaction is exactly the same chemical reaction that is fundamental to the production in all known life forms on Earth. It was so unexpected that main stream biology dismissed the idea for about two decades until clear evidence was produced.
Proponents believe that the formation of a cellular membrane was the step that allowed simple replicating structures to escape the capsules and live freely in the wider environment. These went on to become life as we know it.
The meaning of life depends on one's definition of life. Some would say it is about self replication. Here the boundary between life and mineral is extremely blurred.
Crystals have always self replicated. It is fundamental to their nature. The steps to ever more complex crystals are incremental. Life is really nothing more than an incredibly complex crystal.
The central step in the reaction is exactly the same chemical reaction that is fundamental to the production in all known life forms on Earth. It was so unexpected that main stream biology dismissed the idea for about two decades until clear evidence was produced.
Proponents believe that the formation of a cellular membrane was the step that allowed simple replicating structures to escape the capsules and live freely in the wider environment. These went on to become life as we know it.
The meaning of life depends on one's definition of life. Some would say it is about self replication. Here the boundary between life and mineral is extremely blurred.
Crystals have always self replicated. It is fundamental to their nature. The steps to ever more complex crystals are incremental. Life is really nothing more than an incredibly complex crystal.
Beso thank you for that very interesting response .
WaldoMcFroog you have very impressively demonstrated your much greater knowledge of science than me but you have not shown me an experiment where life is able to generate itself .
A general observation about R+S , if you are a believer who makes a good point you are immediately confronted with repeated demands for "where's the proof....where's the proof.... where's the proof.." from several people , a gang even.
Yet when you hit them with the same tactic "Where's the proof..." they don't like it. They don't like it one bit . They're the ones who start demanding the proof but when you ask them for some it's "....well I don't have to give any proof "
Well I'm sorry but if you demand proof from others then you should be able to give proof yourselves .
I stand by what I said - there is no experiment where life has been able to generate itself .
WaldoMcFroog you have very impressively demonstrated your much greater knowledge of science than me but you have not shown me an experiment where life is able to generate itself .
A general observation about R+S , if you are a believer who makes a good point you are immediately confronted with repeated demands for "where's the proof....where's the proof.... where's the proof.." from several people , a gang even.
Yet when you hit them with the same tactic "Where's the proof..." they don't like it. They don't like it one bit . They're the ones who start demanding the proof but when you ask them for some it's "....well I don't have to give any proof "
Well I'm sorry but if you demand proof from others then you should be able to give proof yourselves .
I stand by what I said - there is no experiment where life has been able to generate itself .
argo
How do we know something exists ? We use our five senses :
Sight, hearing , smell, taste, and touch.
God can not be detected by any of these senses !
There are billions of people in the world who have not detected God using these senses. That is the proof that he /it does not exist.
If you claim that there are other ways then I come back to my question
Why is it a secret ?
How do we know something exists ? We use our five senses :
Sight, hearing , smell, taste, and touch.
God can not be detected by any of these senses !
There are billions of people in the world who have not detected God using these senses. That is the proof that he /it does not exist.
If you claim that there are other ways then I come back to my question
Why is it a secret ?
Modeller your point about not being able to detect God with your five senses is a very good one .
I've mentioned on other questions that I see the existence of life as the main evidence for God - I just cannot see life (and the vast equilibrium system that sustains life on Earth) occurring randomly or by co-incidence . It isn't conclusive proof but it is the basis of my belief .
I've mentioned on other questions that I see the existence of life as the main evidence for God - I just cannot see life (and the vast equilibrium system that sustains life on Earth) occurring randomly or by co-incidence . It isn't conclusive proof but it is the basis of my belief .
I have not shown an experiment where life can be created from non-life because such an experiment has never been done. It may be that we are never able to replicate such an experiment, though my personal suspicion is that we probably will.
You're certainly right to demand proof and evidence and anyone who says they don't have to provide any is a fool of a Took. However, sometimes the correct answer is simply 'I don't know'. This doesn't mean that one can say, "You don't know, ergo God" though!
What has been done are experiments that strongly support the idea that abiogenesis is possible (which is not to say that it definitely happened this way, but that it is certainly not *impossible*). No one, not even the most ardent creationist, would argue that it is impossible to test such hypotheses. It is a relatively simple matter to determine ways in which such an experiment could be designed and how it might be falsified.
There is evidence to support major parts of abiogenesis. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment does not create life, but it does give conclusive evidence that amino-acids, the key building block for life, could have been created in the conditions of an ancient Earth. There are people working on this problem and the wider issue and making progress with it.
The difference between this and your claim for God is that there is *no* convincing evidence that such a being is possible, at all. Nothing we know seems to require the presence of a deity. The best you have is "Well, I believe it to be true" or "It says it's true in a book" and a few (disputed) claims by philosophers. No tangible evidence and no way we know to even attempt to prove the existence of such a being.
You're certainly right to demand proof and evidence and anyone who says they don't have to provide any is a fool of a Took. However, sometimes the correct answer is simply 'I don't know'. This doesn't mean that one can say, "You don't know, ergo God" though!
What has been done are experiments that strongly support the idea that abiogenesis is possible (which is not to say that it definitely happened this way, but that it is certainly not *impossible*). No one, not even the most ardent creationist, would argue that it is impossible to test such hypotheses. It is a relatively simple matter to determine ways in which such an experiment could be designed and how it might be falsified.
There is evidence to support major parts of abiogenesis. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment does not create life, but it does give conclusive evidence that amino-acids, the key building block for life, could have been created in the conditions of an ancient Earth. There are people working on this problem and the wider issue and making progress with it.
The difference between this and your claim for God is that there is *no* convincing evidence that such a being is possible, at all. Nothing we know seems to require the presence of a deity. The best you have is "Well, I believe it to be true" or "It says it's true in a book" and a few (disputed) claims by philosophers. No tangible evidence and no way we know to even attempt to prove the existence of such a being.
I would add to Modller's claim of the five senses (and as anyone that's watched QI will know, there are actually quite a lot more than that; 16 if I recall correctly) that we are not, of course, limited to our own restricted senses. We have machines, for example, that allow us to see far past the narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to us.
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style13 mins ago
Body & Soul15 mins ago
Midweek Punting - Chester's 3 Day...
Other Sports16 mins ago
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
If You Were To Take A Holiday In...
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.