Why Must God Show Up?

I write this in response to Salahdin’s “Why God doesn’t show up”. In the cartoon
that was displayed it could possibly be an allusion to God’s non-existence. If that
was the intended allusion that the cartoon tried to evoke – I don’t believe the
position is neither objectively provable nor a intellectually sensible position to
take. You could say (as one anonymous person said) that – “Religion is the
science and the method to experience God”.

One thing we have to understand is that the reality of the existence of God is far
separated from the one espoused by religions. They are basically different
interpretations for this core of “God”. You can say religions are the diverse
dogmatic assumptions behind the notion of a non-material omnipotent
transcendental reality. God is a related issue, but distinguished enough in itself to
demand a separate regard.

As far as investigations into the nature of reality are concerned, religion as well as
science (as it is regarded today) are dogmas. Just because science is widely
accepted across belief systems and the fact that it works at a practical level of
human affairs does not mean that it is a superior representation of truth. I have
no axe to grind with science per se, just the interpretative philosophy (as
represented by that of secular materialists) behind it to suit its own ends – that
existence can happen by itself independent of any higher extraneous cause. The
scientific method as a measure of objectivity and that objectivity as a standard of
proof speaks not only of the severe limitations of the human condition but also
the severe limitations such a method places on the advancement of human
intellectual understanding and, hence, knowledge.

To quote Robert Anton Wilson, the agnostic, who said- “I consider dogmatic
belief and dogmatic denial very childish forms of conceit in a world of infinitely
whirling complexity.”

He advocated a suspension of judgement not only on the issue of God but also at
a general level. Simple denial of God based on objective sense experience is not
enough to qualify the position of denial. But one should not speculate on it
without some sort of calculated assumptions right?. In this article I use “SM” to
mean “secular materialism” or “secular materialist” (to be applied as the context
requires). In it I assert, albeit a tad dogmatically, that God should exist – by
necessity. It may not be sufficiently objective for the purposes of science but
neither is it sufficiently absurd that science can disregard even by its own
standards. So in a crux, based on my arguments that follow, what I am asserting
here is that

1) I fundamentally assume God exists (unless otherwise conclusively

disproved by secular standards) because there exists a certain design in the way
the universe is made to exist. I look around and see it every day in every place the
“infinitely whirling complexities” that science has little answers for. The
convenience of preconceived ideas as to what I define truth to be is only as true as
a secularist assumes ideas in his own terms about the nature of reality.

2) Objectivity is not ideal as a standard to identify proof because, just like

religions, it’s veracity is vitiated by it’s underlying assumptions. The scientific
method notwithstanding, objectivity is not absolute if the fundamental
assumptions are not proven. In other words there is no such thing as absolute
objectivity and as such SM should not be regarded as such.

3) God does not manifest to human perception because I don’t see why he
should and that even if he can and he doesn’t, that does is not proof that he does
not exist in reason.

4) The question of why God doesn’t show up is moot because if He does show
up He necessarily exists but if He exists he doesn’t need to show up to prove his
existence. If he doesn’t exist, God necessarily cannot show up and if he cannot
show up, he cannot be God - because an entity that cannot do something cannot
be God. But that does not mean that God must do something to prove that he
can do it or to justify his existence.

God’s existence is a reality that is independent of belief by His

creations and his manifestation is independent of human
perception. So the showing up part is irrelevant because the real
question is if He exists.

5) If the question of why God is not showing up is on the assumption of the

theistic position (that he does indeed exist) is to show there is no objective
arguments for God to exist then the question must contain a reasonably obvious
inference - proving the absurdity of the reality of God’s existence - which it, by
and large, did not.

6) Magical cereal formations and divine clouds above the Kabbah

notwithstanding, the existence of supernatural events per se is no proof that
God’s exists

7) In SM philosophy, there is no ideological equivalent of “God”. It has neither

the intellectual or ideological platform to support the arguments for or against it
nor does it have the sufficiency in the advancement in it’s knowledge base to
tackle the conundrum of God. It can only object to the inconsistency of the idea
behind “God” to it’s own notions of what constitutes fact and it’s own standard of
proof. The real problem here is that the SMs could well be mistakenly addressing
an issue that was not a theists position on God in the first place.

8) If science wants to disprove the existence of God conclusively it has to

assume or borrow the theistic ideological platform to address that because :
a. (as said earlier) the idea of God is alien to secular materialism i.e. it has no
intellectual platform on the issue so it has to borrow the theistic position to
address the question.

b. The objective intellectual experience being squarely sandwiched between a

priori deductions and a posteriori inductions - both of which are required to
form an absolute truth - are fundamentally unsubstantiable. What I mean is that
you either know the cause and speculate on the effect or know the effect and
speculate of the cause. It is impossible to know both the fundamental cause and
the fundamental effect to objectively realise absolute truth. In other words one
cannot arrive at absolute truth via objective reasoning.

As such human knowledge as it is limited, is a floating crib that has no foundation

in the vastness of knowledge.The superiority of SM could not be sufficiently
established over other dogmatic belief systems. Period.

Euclid once said that every proof relies on at least a few assumptions (or
postulates) which themselves cannot be proven. Set the standards of proof too
high and nothing at all can be proven. By the same token, set the standards too
low, practically anything can be proven. At the heart of secular materialist (“SM”)
belief (as with theism) are unprovable assumptions that require faith to believe
in. At the heart of those assumption is this assumption : “that which eludes
scientific explanation has a scientific explanation yet to be discovered.” And God
does not feature in those assumptions as a valid premise “yet to be
discovered”. One thing we have to distinguish is reason and logic and SM.

Reason and logic does not represent SM’s philosophy but it forms a means to
verify it’s postulates and justify belief in it’s claims. Thus the assumptions of
science defines it’s principles not reason and logic which float above those
assumptions.

Reason and logic define the reality of these materialist principles. So negation of
God per se does not form the hallmark of SM. It’s just that the premises behind
the hypothesis (that God exists) that does not conform to materialist definition of
reality and as such it becomes anathema to science.

Despite objective scientific findings that conclusively points to the existence of

non-material entities, secular science refuses to even suspend judgement on the
issue of God – it goes straight into the “God offensive”. SM has it’s own standards
of proof, evidence and definitions for reality. So for secularists, there is no
definition or platform to allow a belief in God which it views as an irrational
amorphous a posteriori abstraction that is beyond the scope of SM definitions
because God cannot be observed or secondarily inferred from specific
supernatural phenomena.

Thus there is no secular definition for the term “God” in secular materialist
philosophy as theists understand it because it lies beyond the scope of SM
objective intellectual experience. But SM sees the reality and the possibility of
existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal entity through
it’s own terms. However it finds no basis to include the possibility, however
remote, the existence of that reality. In other words what I am essentially saying
is :

i) The evidence against God is at least in the objective sense –

inconclusive. In such an instance, reason and logic requires a suspension of
judgement in this case.

ii) The centrality of absolute adherence to the objective way (the so-
called scientific method) towards ascertainment of truth cannot be assumed to be
superior or the only way because objective establishment of hard facts requires
solid data – and if Euclid was right, absolute fact is impossible.

So what is Transcendental Reality? There can be no answer to it in SM

philosophy because, essentially, it holds that there can be no reality transcending
the objective experience or observation. Such a line of thought has no room for
the acceptance of subjective or intuitive deduction as valid explanations of reality.
As such they don’t see the point (of the reality of God’s existence) because they
don’t have one to start with.

In SM theory, the idea of God as defined by theists, simply cannot be observed or

at least reasonably inferred. Yes as you said God is “NOT empirically verifiable”.
To rephrase that you were effectively saying “your proof does not fit my
standards”. That's all. Standards vary and you have to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that SM's standards are superior before I can be required to satisfy for my
opinions to be intellectually acceptable.

As I have said earlier religion does not need to objectify it’s arguments to secular
materialist definitions because it follows a different philosophy. If you consider
empirical verifiability of hypotheses, there are indeed tons of observed, realities
that secular science subscribes to, that does not fit SM's empirical objectivity. I
hold the standard of objectivity that goes into the theory of evolution to be in the
same league as that of the theory of the existence of God both of which are
basically a posteriori rationalisations of their respective claims to essential
truths. Thus to say that religion is a fantasy is thus a matter of secular, value-
based opinion and I cannot reasonably regard it as superior to theistic
constructs.

How To identify God?

But seriously if I had the answer to that I’d be in some uncharted Himalayan
highland happily meditating till death takes over me. But if you want God to show
up like say in a clear night you see the stars in the sky clearly going out of their
usual positions to make the words “I am God and to prove it, I will make the stars
disappear in exactly 7 minutes”. And then say it does happen. Does that prove the
existence of God? How do you know it is from God? Could be one of those angels
teasing or maybe satan himself playing tricks? Can this event be empirically
verifiable as something that is indeed coming from God?

There is no way you can make that assumption. Possibly even David Blane could
create stellar formations. The fundamental mistake in your wanting God to prove
himself by manifesting to within the limitations of human perception is that you
ascribe some supernatural event as satisfactory “empirical” proof of God’s
existence. That would be a great folly because theists do not understand God to
be defined as supernatural per se. God is also seen through the reality of the
existence of the devil – and devils are supernatural. And so too are angels and
Jinns who exist in another realm of empirically unverifiable reality which science
has no definitions for. And hence your mockery of which in the cartoon. You
simply cannot identify with that. God is understood in a variety of contexts that
really narrows and sharpens, rather than widens and blurs, as to what is
God. SM have to consider all contexts before making any judgement about God.

The secular materialistic understanding of God simplistically and conveniently

misconstrues the multi-dimesionalities of theo-centric belief of God and it’s
existence. So if you want some cloud above the Kabbah or ceral formations to
conclusively proof of God’s existence, I have to say that your standards are pretty
low because it just proofs one thing. - and that is the existence supernatural
things – at most. That’s all. One cannot make the mistake of simply drawing a
definite line from supernatural events to the existence of God because that is not
how God is understood by theists. And you cannot assert the position that any
supernatural event that claims to Godhood has to be taken as that because
secularists have no definition in their theories as to what should be considered as
God to start with. In mainstream Islam and Judaism it gets even weirder
because it essentially holds the reality of God to be beyond the grasp human
comprehension. That is why I say secularists such as youselves have no idea what
you are into really when you ask such questions.

God : A belief of convenience?

Another thing is that I don’t think I believe in God because it gives me the
answers I want. I believe in God because I am essentially left with the choice of
two fantasies of secular materialism and theism. And that I admit this is an
opinion. This is due to my realisation that science has failed to adequately answer
the hard questions and refuses to establish the truth of God’s existence other than
to vehemently deny it. If the size of the universe is a barometer, science, in my
opinion, has answered next to nothing the questions arising about the nature of
reality. So this makes the choice of theism and secularism arbitrary not clear in
any one direction.

The irrelevance of God’s material absence

My reason for claiming your question to be moot is because it necessarily
assumes : “Proof that God exists underpins in him supernaturally showing up,
otherwise he doesn’t exist” And your conclusion I infer as : - And God
showing up means manifesting himself to human perception. - Thus far God has
not showed up and therefore he does not exist? This logic is warped.

Thomas Aquinas said to the question of God’s existence that God is neither self-
evident nor beyond proof. I brought up the oblivious frog-in-the-well analogy to
imply the fact that the lack of appeal of the concept of the existence of an
omnipotent being to materialist reason and logic may not be sufficient to
disprove god’s existence even though it may also be insufficient to prove it. The
lack of a reason as to why God doesn’t show up does not automatically beg the
question as to the proof of God’s non-existence.

Aquinas also said about dogmatic belief (faith) and denial :

"If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any
means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his
objections — if he has any — against faith".

In other words the question of God’s existence is beyond rational abstractions.

And being an irrational concept you don’t see the point of God’s existence. It is
beyond the ken of SM. And when you don’t see the point, you object based on
your own standards belief. And when I object to your objections based my
standards of belief, you may call it fantasy. So now, I am answering to your
objections based on your understanding of reality.

However, you will never find an answer based on your basic requirement for
materialist proof. That is why I used the word Transcendental-reality in place of
“God” in my earlier reply as God transcends materialist perception. And reality in
theo-centric thought lies beyond human intellectual perception and as such I can
only try and disprove your objections to it. You may find some faint questionable
evidence here and there but one will never be able to grasp it. As secular-
materialist reason and logic is contingent upon objective extrapolation of sense
perception, it cannot “see” why god should or can exist. Having said that said, I
must also add that the lack of proof as in the so-called scientific method should
not necessarily point to a conclusion as to God’s non-existence. You have to do a
better job at disproving it to debunk the idea of God as a necessary myth. So far
the hypothesis of God's existence cannot be scientifically disproved.

Is SM standards really superior?

Notwithstanding other unanswered ontological questions, can materialist logic

find an answer to the question of god’s existence? The question of why God
doesn’t show up underpins the question of his existence. If he exists then it does
not matter at all if he shows up or not. If he doesn’t exist then the question of why
he doesn’t show up is moot. Is it fair that for the purposes of proof to human
understanding it necessitates a certain manifestation of God in the material
world. But God is not obliged to do this as he is understood to be independent of
this requirement. My simple take on this would be “Look around”. So the
question that is within secular materialist range to know and too within that of
the theists (non-materialists?) to prove is “can god exist?”

By virtue of the fact that the universe seemed to be “designed” can mean God
does exist. But by virtue of the fact of existing scientific hypotheses proposing
other ways in which the universe could have come into existence, he may well not
exist. The proof behind the “can” and “cannot” of God’s existence is inconclusive.

If one regards the theory of evolution as a valid explanation for the origin of all
that exists, he is sadly mistaken because it can be scientifically be debunked as a
glaringly unverifiable hypothesis. (see here for more info)

Must God “show up”?To the question of why God doesn’t show up I ask why
must he? If it is within his capacity to be within our perceptual grasp, it is also
within God to to be beyond it (i.e to “not show up”). Why should he? A secular
materialist wants to see him?

The reason why God doesn’t show up does not mean he doesn’t exist. But I am
not begging that that points conclusively that God does not “not exist” either
(which is different from “God exists”). It is still inconclusive by SM
requirements. Religious philosophy holds that belief is a prerequisite for
perception. In other words it is far true that you can only see what you believe
than vice versa.

If you were blind all your life with no sensory link to the material world
whatsoever and were suddenly given sight, you will not be able to make out or
even see what appears before your eyes. A complementary neuro-intellectual
infrastructure (that has adapted to the environment) is a necessary requirement
to complement the optical hardware in your body to complete the faculty of sight.
While the functional eye receives the signal, it is the neural hardware and the
software within that gives it a functional meaning and purpose. The eye provides
a window for the intellect to “perceive”. SO it is the brain that acually "sees"
rather than the eyes which is only an instrument.

So the objective system of ascertainment of proof, technically speaking, is

hardwired to effectively preclude the belief in the existence of a non-material all-
powerful transcendental being. That is because the intellect extrapolates
incoming sensory data by hard objective standards.

An analogy to explain this would be this : It is grossly meaningless that you just
have a computer without the software to run it. You need the software to
complement the hardware to make the computer meaningful for the purposes for
which it was intended. The hardware (eyes) and the software (the neural
network) are mutually complementary. By themselves they are useless and need
to be married to be functional and purposeful.

What I mean by this is that we all only see (“truth”) as far as we believe
(“assumptions”). If you live by the basis of not subscribing by any assumptions
you cannot possibly think.You cannot see because you believe in something else.

So just because I have an eye does not mean that everything that is real should
fall within my sight to be regarded as existing in truth. If you ask why God
doesn’t show up – I ask you why must he? If he is indeed God and He wants his
creatures to know Him then he should or else he does not exist? I can’t see the
logic behind this. If you want something you need to know what exactly you mean
by that. If you want to see that which I believe in, then you can only see it by my
definitions because that’s what I believe in. And I believe that if I can see "God"
materially manifested as a burning bush I don't think that is God in His true
nature but a representation of God through which God communicates to me.
Thats because I believe God in his true nature is unknowable. If you want God to
show up you must be able to handle the truth of which and so far SM has no
handle to hold to even start to grasp the reality of God

I can only base my arguments by the requirements of your standards which does
not see beyond the confines of intellectual extrapolation of objective sense
perception (i.e the materialist platform) with regards to even existential
questions. Science as it advanced through the ages has proven that there exists
things that are beyond human comprehension and at the moment the case for
God can neither be objectively affirmed nor denied. It is thus your burden, as a
secular materialist to disprove god’s existence as much as it mine, as a believer, to
prove god’s existence. So far neither of us have done a good job.

If the theory of evolution needs to be disproved objectively to negate its

acceptance for scientific purposes, then so too the case of the existence of God.
But the theory of Evolution even fails by science’s own standards of proof. At the
most, you and I can only suspend judgement on the question of God – for neither
position is superior to the other.

The origin of creation and the determination of the primary cause for existence is
far too complex for simple answers. It may be poetic if not absurd that the
universe, created itself and managed to arrange itself in such a way as to create
man (among others) in a lonely outpost in the middle of a unimaginably vast
nowhere to ask existential questions about itself. An infinitesimally tiny bit of the
universe is searching for its own identity and origin and getting no real answers.
Hmmm…How could that be?

================
Response to Salahudin on Why Doesn’t God
show himself.
This is in respose to this piece by slahudin

As we can see from the pie chart (taken from adherents.com) about 84% of the world is
religious. Theism vis-a-vis non-theism - the majority of the world believes in God. The
secularists are a minority in the world today and yet they consider theocentric-belief as
some kind of hocus pocus - Santa claus and the toothfairy notwithstanding.

It would be interesting to note that some of the greatest mind that are involved in
revolutionising science - such as Einstein, Isaac Newton, Johann Karl Friedrich,
Copernicus, Kepler and Galeleo - were believers in God. These guys were responsible for
the great development of modern science as it is now and these guys thought there was an
all-powerful being. I bet my last buck that they thought deeper than alot of secular
scientists out there because it is far too easier to consume knowledge than it is to create it.

I consider the question of why it is more sensible to believe in a God than not, a no
brainer. Science has opened up a cosmic can of worms in it’s bold quest for truth and lays
there defeated by the mysteries of reality. Just to cite a few examples that science has not
resolved by it’s own scientific standards :

*Why does some matter have mass while others don’t?

* Why the forces of physics (electo-magnetic, weak, strong and gravity) cannot be
mathematically unified into one single expression even though they behave in the same
way?

*If the theory of evolution is right what process in the so-called primordial soup triggered
the animation of inanimate matter?

* What is time?

* Did time predate matter or co-existent with matter?

*What existed or happened at time zero of the big bang?

*What necessary cause caused the big bang?

* Why only 30% of the universe can be materially accounted for while the rest of the
70% “matter” (so-called “Dark Matter”) cannot be observed?

* What is a black hole and how does it function

*Why do we sleep and what is the explanation for the loss of consciousness of the self?
 * Why do we yawn?

* Why and how do we dream?

* What is the ghost behind the brain?

* What causes the effect of gravity?

* Why are there no intermediate species

between the evolutionary “monkies”

*What happened to the neanderthals?

And the list just goes on. It just doesn’t end.

Alot of these questions are explained away by
preposterous presumptions. For example to the question of how the every parameter of
the universe turned out just right that it did not collapse under it’s own weight? The
answer is : The Multiverse - a theory where every possible permutation of matter is
expressed in every way. This is a stupidity of convenience - because secularists just can’t
answer why the universe turned out so right that made earth and all the life within it
possible. Instead of finding a cause, they came up with an easy catch-all. This theory is
also known as the “last refuge of the desparate atheist”. In other words - deny God at all
costs - even rationality. The best of this is that they can’t answer why mater must express
in all it’s possible ways to make the multiverse theory stick. They don’t even know what
system can support a Multiverse. Theory after theory after theory and no answers.

Salahudin, this is the secular equivalent of the theistic Santa Claus and tooth fairy that
you were referring to.

It is still true that science can tell you how something works but never why. That is the
challenge for science - by it’s own standards. It cannot answer questions at a certain depth
of knowledge. And it has failed - extremely miserably. And nowadays they pass of vague
“theories” as knowledge. I’m sorry Salahudin, It’s more sensible to believe in God -
secular materialist answers are at the least - grossly incomplete.

If truth in this chart is denied - then 84% of the world are idiots.

Why God Doesn’t Show up

This is the second response to salahudin on the above

I’m sorry I did not get to your initial question. I was specifically addressing to your “are
you kidding me” part. But it’s response also covers my larger point that science as we
know it today though complex as it seems, is simply not sophisticated enough to answer
or (by extension) ask questions relating to a non-material transcendental reality. I will
explain why this renders moot the question of “Why Doesn’t God show himself.”

With the options that are before me at the moment, namely the choice of theistic and
atheistic belief systems, science falls flat like last years soda when it comes to the hard
questions. It is particularly telling of human cognitive weakness and the failure by
secularists to understand the level of their cluelessness to the question of the nature
reality. Stephen Hawkings was attributed to have said :
“The greatest enemy to knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge”.

Stephen Hawking also wrote that , “the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of
presently known laws of physics,” The instant of creation remains a scientific mystery.
So if science is telling us about the big bang and that which preceded it – the scientists
are making it up – pure and simple. Something akin to the santa claus and the tooth fairy
hocus pocus but masquerading as sure knowledge.

As far as the ontological or existential questions of the universe is concerned, science

may well be barking up the wrong tree together with it’s adherents.

So what would god look like if he were to show up? Obviously science cannot answer
that because it blinds itself to explaining observable phenomena with fantastic theories.
Coming back, what kind of image would satisfy your notion of “God”? Would a
humongous ethereal being descending from the heavens with huge white wings with a
magic wand claiming to be God satisfy you? Or do you want some guy claiming to be
God and curing the sick with the name Jesus to appear? Or would you dismiss him as
some sort of an illusionist? What exactly do you expect to see when you talk about god
never showing up? What really is your idea of “God”, the existence of which you deny?
What do you want to see?
It’s pretty hard to fathom your question alone because it lacks some idea on your part as
to what should constitute a “God” as the theist would like to have you believe in. Before
you deny, you should know that which you deny in all reasonableness.

As far as my position is concerned, science has proven to be grossly incomplete as

something that one can totally believe in. This leaves me a relatively far superior and
sensible choice of subscribing myself to believing in an all-powerful transcendental
reality that is responsible for all creation.

In short I’d rather be deluded by the God Delusion than be “stupidified” by science.

The reason being that the concept of an imperfect human understanding and apprehension
of reality directly resulting from sensory and perceptive limitations makes it impossible
to fathom a transcendental reality. Science can’t even fathom the nature of the Universe –
what else the question of God? Humans are simply not equipped to apprehend and
understand the true nature of reality.
So allegations of perceived delusions about God and the associated flaws in theo-centric
belief systems, really exist in the human mind not in God. The mind is unable to
apprehend such a reality and it’s flawed understanding, of what little it knows, tends to
see something that is right as something that is wrong no matter how it sees it. This is
because it’s fundamental principles, assumptions are flawed due to sensory and
perceptive limitations. The concept of God is reality in supreme perfection but the
understanding of humans of such a concept – both theists and secularists alike – is not.
As such proponents of secular materialistic beliefs should concentrate on perfecting their
understanding of reality before they find fault with theists.

So the flaw really is in man’s ability to see “God” than it is in the fact that he exists. Just
because you can’t see him does not mean that he does not exist. Just because the frog in
the well cannot apprehend nor comprehend my existence does not simply negate that fact
that I exist. And by virtue of the fact that the frog in the well cannot understand the fact of
my existence automatically throws it’s understanding of my purpose into dreadful error if
it ever gets to such a question.
Such an understanding of transcendental perfection of ideas is akin to the Socratic idea of
the existence of transcendental perfection of forms as seen in it’s relative representations
in the material world.
So to the question of did God create man or did man create god – the answer is the latter.
It is man’s imperfect idea of God that gets represented here because of his limitations in
his ability to perceive, comprehend, understand and communicate a transcendental reality
which renders impossible the scientific quest for knowing the reality of God.

The microsope and the telescope can only see so far and beyond which is calculated
speculation and further beyond still is absolute nonsense – such as the wild theories of the
multiverse, the foggy abstractions of the M-theory and the propositions of the Anthropic
principle.
So to belittle something based on ill-conceived notions, half-baked constructs without
having the ability to fully appreciate the mind’s limitations is fatal for secular philosophy.
That is why ideas of people like Richard Dawkins can be confined to the dustbins of
science as constructs more deluded than their alleged delusions against a belief in God.

My answer to you is :
1) The asker of the question of “Why God doesn’t show up” is unsure as to what he
means when he speaks of a God. What is really meant in the question is unclear? What
kind of idea does the asker want to be represented with so that (hypothetically speaking)
you can identify God when he does show up? What standards do we apply? Material
standards (which is grossly inadequate) or metaphysical standards (which is grossly
unsubstantiable nor comprehensible)?
2) Material science has been reduced to the theoretical and abstract mathematical realm
of Quantum physics and cosmic science has been reduced to vague theories because up to
a certain point material observations have become impossible in the infinitesimal and the
overawing at the infinitude. How can one expect to “see” God when one can’t even see or
know what is before him to fully understand it? The fact that important unanswered
questions exist, points to a failure in understanding of the nature of reality. Without these
answers being in order one simply cannot proceed from such a stance to judge the
question of an all-powerful transcendental reality simply because when the basics are
flawed the answers will be skewed. How does one expect to behold and apprehend the
infinite with the limited self when his knowledge is imperfect?
The atheists’ question of “Why God doesn’t show up” not only shows a lack of
appreciation of the concept of an all-powerful transcendental reality (i.e “God”) as it is
understood, but also a failure to acknowledge the necessary flaws proceeding from
human perceptive and sensory limitations.

So the question by virtue of these reasons is rendered moot at the very least.

Iqbaldinho
Taken from
http://iqbaldinho.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/why-god-doesnt-show-up/