Why can we not observe God?

251 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Killens's picture
Why can we not observe God?

What is by definition unobservable? In fact, if it was right in front of your face, you could not see it. What is so powerful that it can stir an entire galaxy like I would use a spoon in a cup of coffee?

A black hole.

The recent reveal of the first "picture" of a supermassive black hole 53 million light years away is truly one of the greatest scientific efforts and breakthroughs in modern times. Yet despite all the obstacles, over a period of ten years and fifty million dollars later, we have this spectacular success and breakthrough.

So if science can achieve such a difficult task, why not the same for god?

According to almost all theistic claims, this god does interact with this known universe. It created it, it grants miracles, it sent it's son down here for 32 years, it has caused disasters, it listens to our prayers, and it punishes unbelievers. And just like black holes, it may not be directly observable, but it's effects on this galaxy are tangible.

Based on a comparison to M87, a god should actually be easier to identify and discover.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Cognostic's picture
@David Killens: A CHRISTIAN

@David Killens: A CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF YOUR POST

"Over a period of ten years of prayer and fifty billion dollars donated to Chuirches around the world we have this spectacular success and breakthrough in theology." We discovered the universe had a beginning. If there is a beginning there is a first cause and that cause is God. We can all stop thinking now.

This god interacts with this known universe. It created it, it grants miracles, it sent it's son down here for a blood sacrifice because blood has magic power. This god has caused disasters, it listens to our prayers, and it punishes unbelievers. and just like black holes, it may is directly observable to those with the right tools for observing and it's effects on this galaxy are tangible.

doG's picture
It made me sick reading that.

It made me sick reading that...

doG's picture
David, stop trying to make

David, stop trying to make sense of something that doesn't exist...it's the same thing theists do...let them look stupid in validation of a god, peace out brotha.

David Killens's picture
Sadly doG, I must agree.

Sadly doG, I must agree. Although theists express a desire to understand and be closer to their deity, the pathetic truth is they are liars and dishonest with even themselves. They have all the validity they need, the feed-good they get in their loins, and the cash that flows into the churches.

I was a fool to believe they live in a rational and honest world.

When you got a good con going, don't mess it up.

doG's picture
Yup...it is truly sad, that a

Yup...it is truly sad, that a majority of our species, worship something that does not exist...and that they all purposefully fail at reason. I am truly surprised that there is not more koolaid catastrophes amongst the majority of stupidity that is the religious.

arakish's picture
Because we all be blind and

Because we all be blind and foolish godless heathens.

Wait a minute...

That is actually a good thing.

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
@arakish: The interesting

@arakish: The interesting thing about magical thinking. When it is real it's fake. But when it is fake, it's real.

doG's picture
I will simplify your

I will simplify your statement fellow chimp...If it's religious, it's delusional.

catholicray's picture
@David Killens

@David Killens

Science does not deal with absolutes. It is hindered this way.

I would suggest God/Reality is that which is true absolutely. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. It wouldn’t make sense that what is true absolutely could fit within the constraints of that which is falsifiable.

That’s the problem with applying the discipline of Science to defining reality. Reality is that which is true universally to every observer. At least that’s the understanding of reality I abide by.

The evidence you’re asking for would not substantiate a universal truth. God, if He does exist would be an absolute truth.

What method would you use in Science to observe such a thing?

David Killens's picture
@catholicray, I never wanted

@catholicray, I never wanted absolutes, just a beginning in identifying and explaining this god. Black holes can be considered absolute truths, because they have so much energy, dominate their respective universes, and their physics are of a completely different nature. But we are starting to explore what they are.

You are dealing in absolutes in order to put up a wall against investigation. Your god may be some absolute entity, but that does not stop it being investigated. As I explained in my OP, this god has left breadcrumbs, signs, something as a starting point in investigating. So we should start following the evidence as a first step.

"What method would you use in Science to observe such a thing?"

I don't know. But if asked, I would not have known how to capture an image of a black hole. There are much smarter and more imaginative people out there who love to grapple with these puzzles. Turn them loose, give them the funding and support to investigate this god thingy.

You do not know until you try, and obviously you do not want this investigated. Don't you want to know if god is true? I do.

catholicray, your excuses are lame.

Sapporo's picture
If god is supposed to exist

If god is supposed to exist everywhere and is all-powerful, it will be detected in any place you look.

catholicray's picture
@Sapporo

@Sapporo

But do you have the proper tool to identify it? For example if it were not for the discipline of science I would have no method of observing a microscopic bacteria while in fact my eyes are technically observing them but not in a way discernible to my brain or conscious or whatever you want to call it.

Cognostic's picture
@catholicray: DETECTED

@catholicray: DETECTED
No one said a frigging thing about being seen. Have you ever had a cold? Have you ever watched fruit go bad? Ever had cheese? Tried yogurt yet? ONCE AGAIN YOUR IGNORANCE IS ASTOUNDING. Even a bacteria without a microscope or modern science is more OBSERVABLE THAN YOUR FRICCKING GOD.

catholicray's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

Tell that to ancient civilizations you angry ape. Also glad to see you got out that sticky situation with your testicles.

David Killens's picture
Just like black holes, our

Just like black holes, our science has advanced since a few thousand years ago.

David Killens's picture
@catholicray

@catholicray

Do you not feel god in your everyday life? I can easily get thousands of theists who will say yes.

Do you not feel gravity in your everyday life? Light, heat, inertia?

Diotrephes's picture
catholicray,

catholicray,

"But do you have the proper tool to identify it?"

According to the biblical fairy tale Moses chatted with God face-to-face and God went on a picnic with over 70 guys. And other people saw God as well. Isn't Jesus supposed to be God? Didn't people see him?

Do you even know anything at all about your favorite religious fairy tale?

Sheldon's picture
Very true, and this is

Very true, and this is despite multiple biblical texts stating that no one can look upon god and survive.

It really is the large book of multiple choice.

catholicray's picture
@Sheldon

@Sheldon

Trinitarian theology answers this dilemma.

Cognostic's picture
@catholicray

@catholicray
Unfortunatley trinitarian theology is not biblical. It was invented by the Bishops of Constantine's court specifically to explain this dilemma and bring the plethora of Christian faiths together under one belief system. That was the entire reason for the trinitarian doctrine.

Early Christians DID NOT SHARE THIS CONCEPT.
The Father's at Nicea insisted that they were not introducing anything new. In fact they were simply combining as many Christian beliefs as they could into a single ideology. The Arians were in sharp disagreement. The merging of most Christian faiths of the time into the Nicean Creed. Those that did not agree would later be eliminated.

Paul was not a Trinarian and specifically warns - "Barely two decades after Christ’s death and resurrection, the apostle Paul wrote that many believers were already “turning away . . . to a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6). He wrote that he was forced to contend with “false apostles, deceitful workers” who were fraudulently “transforming themselves into apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13). One of the major problems he had to deal with was “false brethren” (2 Corinthians 11:26)."

"A very different religion, now compromised with many concepts and practices rooted in ancient paganism (such mixing of religious beliefs being known as "syncretism," common in the Roman Empire at the time), took hold and transformed the faith founded by Jesus Christ."

"By the second century, faithful members of the Church, Christ’s “little flock” (Luke 12:32), had largely been scattered by waves of deadly persecution. They held firmly to the biblical truth about Jesus Christ and God the Father, though they were persecuted by the Roman authorities as well as those who professed Christianity but were in reality teaching “another Jesus” and a “different gospel” (2 Corinthians 11:4; Galatians 1:6-9)."

"This was the setting in which the doctrine of the Trinity emerged." This is what led Constantine the Great to convene the Council of Nicaea (in modern-day western Turkey) in A.D. 325.

"When it came to the Nicene Council, The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination” (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386)." Constantine was a Pagan! THINK ABOUT IT. Your Trinity came from a Pagan.

"Constantine, who had no understanding of the theological issues, but in fact there was no unanimity at Nicaea. After the council, the bishops went on teaching as they had before, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years."

The ongoing disagreements were at times violent and bloody. Of the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea, noted historian Will Durant writes, “Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome” ( The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8).

The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture” ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568).

YOUR ASSERTION IS AN INANE AS YOUR RELIGIOUS DOGMA!
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/is-god-a-trinity/the-surp...

catholicray's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

I’m well aware of the assimilation of paganism in Catholicism. Not all pagan practice and understanding is against the truth.

Oh I know tell me about how Jesus couldn’t possibly be born in December.

Cognostic's picture
@Catholicray: Then you are

@Catholicray: Then you are well aware that your doctrine of the trinity is bullshit. It explains nothing. Why is it so hard to just concede a point. YOU FUCKED UP!

catholicray's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

Ummmmm calm down and eat a banana. My assertion is that Trinitarian theology answers Sheldon question. I didn’t start debating anything else until you chimed in. Show me the error in that or eat another banana.

If you want to debate the Trinity itself start your own thread. Monkey can’t even stay on topic.

catholicray's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

That link contains a subtle error. It says the “early Christians held close to the biblical truth.”

Ooooooh you mean they strictly observed the New Testament writings like Protestants do today? Even though they hadn’t even written the first list considering what the New Testament canon should be? Even though the books letters would have been in different locations? Well my my that is interesting.

Cognostic's picture
@Catholic Ray? "New

@Catholic Ray? "New Testament Writings? " What the fk are you talking about? Early Christians were Jews. There was no New Testament. You have no New Testament until the manuscripts were combined. Then of course they are altered and recombined several times before we get the watered down junk we have today.

catholicray's picture
So how did they practice

@Cognostic

So how did they practice anything in the New Testament?

We’re talking past each other. You’re correct but they didn’t follow the Old Testament ultimately either.

They followed the Church Acts Chapter 15

Cognostic's picture
@Catholicray: My Point

@Catholicray: My Point exactly.... NO TRINITY

catholicray's picture
@Cognostic

@Cognostic

That’s a plausible understanding I see where you’re going now.

The Trinity was not formalized until much later this is true. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t understand it or that it wasn’t practiced.

The Church formalized certain teaching only after they were challenged on the topic. The council you’re dealing with for example only formalized that the Son was consubstantial with the Father. It wouldn’t be until later that they formalized that the Holy Spirit was as well.

But we are still going to talk past each other on this because of other issues concerning doctrinal development.

Ultimately your understanding is plausible or it’s plausible that they practiced it and did not formalize the doctrine until it was challenged.

Cognostic's picture
It was not practiced until

It was not practiced until the council of Nicea invented it by combining the various Christian faiths. That was the entire purpose of the Nicean Creed. We have no indications of anything like a trinity in any writings before that. Paul never mentions anything like it. I don't see how it can be defended as the reason for being able to see a god. You are better off simply asserting, god can choose to reveal himself to anyone he wishes to reveal himself to, pre or post trinity.

Kafei's picture
There's a mystical

There's a mystical interpretation of the Trinity where The Father is defined as the philosophical Absolute, it is Paul Tillich's "Ground of Being," which is in contrast with mother nature. So, for the mystic, The Son is the conduit which receives direct insight to The Father by means of the Holy Spirit or what neuroscientists today are calling a "complete" mystical experience.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.