Oblivion, Hell, Nihl, that's just semantics and doesn't really make a difference for my argument.
But for my worldview their definitions are totally different:
Oblivion: total and perpetual erase of someone existence. The after death will be exactly the same as the before birth. This is the logical conclusion to Atheism and Scientism.
Hell: eternal conscious existence in evil.
Nihil: the first creation of God (TzimTzum). Nihil is neutral. Nihil is what makes the separation of the Three Persons inside Godhead. Only these Divine Persons can exist in the Nihil. Nihil is infinite potential used to create. God can freely create from nihil (creatio ex nihilo). Finite beings (spirits and humans) can only turn (irreversibly) the neutral nihil into evil.
And how does his giving scientific proof take away from that? Would having scientific evidence for something keep me having "spirit and truth?" How would it do that?
Obviously if you have sensorial proof you can't have faith anymore. Is that hard to understand?
Using an analogy from quantum mechanics:
Faith: wave function .
Sensorial evidence: wave collapse or a particle.
Faith and sensorial evidence is just like velocity and position. You simply can't have both.
You can't accept a premise (axiom) using sensorial evidence. You accept a premise through faith.
Okay, then where are these miracles? I have never seen one that I can even be reasonably sure has come from God.
Here's some of them that have convincing evidence:
- Our Lady of Fatima (miracle of the sun)
- Our Lady of Zeitoun
- Eucharist miracles of Lanciano and Buenos Aires.
The terminology is irrelevant, the argument still stands.
Plainly wrong. In any rational argument the terminology is necessary.
Why does he send us to a "place" lacking God for not believing in him before we die?
He doesn't. Hell is an intentional stubborn choice.
What purpose does it serve? How does it help anything or anyone?
Authenticity. Justice demands things to be authentic.
It would take only a fraction of his power to provide universal evidence capable of convincing any reasonable person, but he does not do it.
Scientific evidence, by definition, can't be a universal evidence.
The only universal evidence possible must be metaphysical and this universal evidence is faith.
Look, I get where coming from, I don't agree with you, but I understand your reasoning.
Thank you and congratulations for the understanding of a good discussion.
If you don't agree with the conclusions of your opponent does not mean your opponent is pathetic or irrational.
A good debater analyzes the value of the premises and then it can point out where the argument falls.
Premises must be "attacked" not the reasoning or even the conclusion of the opponent.
The false conclusion must be changed from the premises (axioms).
Bad premises must lead to a false conclusion.
Good premises = true conclusion.
The only universal tool we have to analyze premises is metaphysics.
However, it doesn't seem to apply to why he isn't doing what needs to be done to assure everyone that he really is up there watching out for us.
Look, any argument to the existence of God needs a personal choice based on faith. Same faith needed when you accept a premise (axiom). You must search your intuition and "see" if there's a ring of truth in it. At least a subtle possibility of truth.
To apply your own illustration, he is like a parent who puts their child in an ambulance to go get a medical procedure, but instead of going to the hospital to offer support, they stay home and let their child face all the pain alone.
My view is entirely different.
That is what it is like for those of us who would like to believe in God but have simply not seen convincing evidence.
People with this thinking always are talking about a scientific evidence. This very position is pure non sense because is demanding a physical and limited proof to a metaphysical and infinite reality.
Evidence which he could easily provide but chooses not to.
The easiest explanation I can find for why such evidence is not readily available is simply that God doesn't exist, at least not in the way you would like him to.
It's your choice. Be careful with your metaphysical choices because some of them are irreversible.
Perhaps I am wrong, and it would be remiss of me not to account for that possibility, but until I meet someone who can prove me wrong, I shall remain an agnostic that leans towards skeptical disbelief in the supernatural.
Agnosticism is indeed a logical consistent position. I risk to say is a necessary position to know God, and it's a recurring position because even Christ in the cross was an agnostic in a moment. God is infinity then we will always reach new levels of knowledge and the first reaction must be Agnosticism.
But it's a limited position because to be consistent it must be temporary.
About meeting "someone", this will never happen because this "someone" is you. This is the most important choice to be made and nobody can do it for you. You have the total responsibility in this choice. Blame anyone else never worked and will never work. And blame God is exactly the worse option.
So keep searching the truth and your Agnosticism will naturally disappear.
Remember, truth is a metaphysical entity and must be ultimately searched with metaphysical tools.