What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, LD0506 said:

Joan of Ark, sword in a field

That clip right there describes religion better than anything I could ever do or say.

"You didn't see what was, you saw what you wanted to see."

 

A car accident:

"God was with my baby." says the mother ignoring the implication that God was not with the guy in the other car who died.

Recovery from Cancer:

"God cured me." says the patient sitting in the hospital room as the doctors who just finished the last round of chemo leave the room.

Missionary

"God has called me to the foreign mission field" he says with empty pockets and no way to get there.

We see what we want to see, and I was as guilty of that as anyone. I spent a lot of time at first trying to prove God, then when I found out I couldn't prove god I shoved him into the cracks of life, then when the cracks got filled in and god got smaller I put god behind everything, but then if god is behind everything then god is culpable. Finally, there were just too many unresolved problems that theology couldn't account for; why doesn't god speak today? Oh yes, god speaks through the church. Which one? Because there are a LOT of voices speaking on behalf of god that say contradictory things. Oh the true and authentic church....yours. In the end it's nothing more than a Rorschach test that reveals more about you than the world around you.

[PleaseBlitz]

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But that's very different then the movie clip you posted.  He has explanations.

 

The point made in your movie quote is not valid if you are not going to offer any other explanations.

 

I don't find it very reasonable or logical to live your life based on assumptions that you have no reason to believe are true.

 

And in general, to me, that attitude is the antithesis of science and the advancement of knowledge.  Knowledge advances by seeking out explanations and testing them to the best of our ability.

@PleaseBlitz

 

You've not very quickly moved through 3 different arguments.  Doesn't that bother you?

 

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the movie quote.  A thing happened.  There could be many explanations, but we don't know which one is correct based on the currently available evidence.  Some seem to be likely possibilities, some are "inexplicable."  One (God) makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet that is the one being purported as true.  

 

"I don't find it very reasonable or logical to live your life based on assumptions that you have no reason to believe are true."  This is exactly how I feel about the concept of God.  You don't have an explanation for something, you automatically ascribed it to God, for no other reason than you don't (yet) have a better explanation.  As time progresses, explanations will be conceived.  I'd rather just wait for the explanations rather than subscribe to a bad explanation in the time being.  

Edited April 17, 2019 by PleaseBlitz

[PeterMP]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the movie quote.  A thing happened.  There could be many explanations, but we don't know which one is correct.  Some seem to be likely possibilities, some are "inexplicable."  One (God) makes no logical sense whatsoever, yet that is the one being purported as true.  

 

"I don't find it very reasonable or logical to live your life based on assumptions that you have no reason to believe are true."  This is exactly how I feel about the concept of God.  You don't have an explanation for something, you automatically ascribed it to God, for no other reason than you don't (yet) have a better explanation.  As time progresses, explanations will be conceived.  I'd rather just wait for the explanations rather than subscribe to a bad explanation in the time being.  

 

You have no real evidence that it is a bad explanation.  If you did, you could offer not only some other explanation, but you could actually offer a better explanation.

 

Einstein didn't like the Schrodinger equation as a basis for quantum mechanics because it has not physical meaning as far as we know.  In his mind, it was a bad explanation.

 

That isn't good evidence that it isn't correct, and today, nobody doubts it is correct.

 

The person in your movie clip offers other actual explanations that could actually be tested.  GIven how swords are secured when people ride a horse, can a sword fall out is something that can be tested.  We can test the reasonableness of that explanation.

 

You are not giving another explanation, much less one that can or has passed any sort of test.

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You have no real evidence that it is a bad explanation.  If you did, you could offer not only some other explanation, but you could actually offer a better explanation.

 

Einstein didn't like the Schrodinger equation as a basis for quantum mechanics because it has not physical meaning as far as we know.  In his mind, it was a bad explanation.

 

That isn't good evidence that it isn't correct, and today, nobody doubts it is correct.

 

The evidence that it is a bad explanation is that, throughout the course of history, so many of the things formerly ascribed to God have been proven to be the result of other (observable) forces.  

 

You have no evidence that "God" is a good explanation for anything.  It's just your placeholder until the above happens some more. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by PleaseBlitz

[AsburySkinsFan]

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't find it very reasonable or logical to live your life based on assumptions that you have no reason to believe are true.

 

This right here is why I no longer believe. I have no reason to believe that god exists. And you can argue first mover, you can argue gaps, you can argue sunsets, you can argue love, you can argue complexity; I know them all. I've tasted the goodness of the word of god and I have fallen away. Those faith commitments I once held as true no longer are sufficient. I don't see god working in this world, I see people. I don't see the church as an alternative, in fact I see the church is exactly the same as everyone else only in denial through their delusion that they are exempt because they said a cosmic "I'm sorry". It doesn't even bring me pain to write this because it's not like I've lost something.

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You have no real evidence that it is a bad explanation.  If you did, you could offer not only some other explanation, but you could actually offer a better explanation.

 

Einstein didn't like the Schrodinger equation as a basis for quantum mechanics because it has not physical meaning as far as we know.  In his mind, it was a bad explanation.

 

That isn't good evidence that it isn't correct, and today, nobody doubts it is correct.

 

The person in your movie clip offers other actual explanations that could actually be tested.  GIven how swords are secured when people ride a horse, can a sword fall out is something that can be tested.  We can test the reasonableness of that explanation.

 

You are not giving another explanation, much less one that can or has passed any sort of test.

So in your mind god exists until we open the box that finally shows that there is no god.

That's gaps brother, shoving god into the cracks of the unknown all to maintain the idea of a god.

The only problem is that with every day your god becomes smaller, shoved into a tinier box than the day before because human knowledge grows forcing the idea of god to the margins.

[No Excuses]

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I believe it especially as a scientist.

 

p-values are p-values for a reason.  P is for probability.  Not proof.

 

You are playing with words here. There is a burden of proof necessary in science and p-values are one way to establish legitimacy for scientific claims.

 

Everything from our legal system to our scientific method relies on a burden of proof, and further no one ever asks for irrefutable proof, but enough to establish a high probability that a claim is legitimate or not.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

No, it isn’t. This is the weakest argument.

 

”Something amazing that we don’t fully understand must have come from God... who is even more amazing... and who we don’t understand... and whose existence I also can’t explain.”

 

 

The argument is flawed.  What you are saying is that @AsburySkinsFan argument is not flawed because an argument you made up as an example, is wrong. That’s not convincing.

 

There is no way to see beyond your own perception (and if there was a god he could put blinders on you, and have a logical reason for doing so) so there is no way to determine if the universe can be explained without a god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The argument is flawed.  What you are saying is that @AsburySkinsFan argument is not flawed because an argument you made up as an example, is wrong. That’s not convincing.

 

There is no way to see beyond your own perception (and if there was a god he could put blinders on you, and have a logical reason for doing so) so there is no way to determine if the universe can be explained without a god.

 

I always feel like a drunk when reading your posts. If god intentionally put blinders on people because we might prove his existence then that god is a bit of a prick.

And there is a way to see beyond your own perception. It's called community. Where you may not be able to see others can. And if your argument is simply about the limited nature of perception then your argument isn't for god, it is instead the limitations of the human creature. And then science's quest would be to reduce those limitations by expanding human perception.

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

This right here is why I no longer believe. I have no reason to believe that god exists. And you can argue first mover, you can argue gaps, you can argue sunsets, you can argue love, you can argue complexity; I know them all. I've tasted the goodness of the word of god and I have fallen away. Those faith commitments I once held as true no longer are sufficient. I don't see god working in this world, I see people. I don't see the church as an alternative, in fact I see the church is exactly the same as everyone else only in denial through their delusion that they are exempt because they said a cosmic "I'm sorry". It doesn't even bring me pain to write this because it's not like I've lost something.

So in your mind god exists until we open the box that finally shows that there is no god.

That's gaps brother, shoving god into the cracks of the unknown all to maintain the idea of a god.

The only problem is that with every day your god becomes smaller, shoved into a tinier box than the day before because human knowledge grows forcing the idea of god to the margins.

 

Again, every day my God does not become smaller.

 

Every day, today is like yesterday, the universe is not largely changed, and we are able to push our knowledge forward through using logic and our natural senses is a day that my evidence for God is strengthened.

 

Go back to the predictions I made for No Excuses.  Every day those predictions are true is a day of added evidence of my God.

10 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

You are playing with words here. There is a burden of proof necessary in science and p-values are one way to establish legitimacy for scientific claims.

 

Everything from our legal system to our scientific method relies on a burden of proof, and further no one ever asks for irrefutable proof, but enough to establish a high probability that a claim is legitimate or not.

 

No those things rely on a burden of evidence.  Not proof.

[AsburySkinsFan]

@PeterMPthe sun coming up is not proof of God, neither is the fact that since the sun has come up for millions of years proof of God, neither is the fact that I'm reasonably sure that the sun will come up tomorrow. I don't know where you came up with this idea that predictability is the evidence of god. Not when physics provides a reasonable answer to whether or not the sun will come up. 

You seriously sound like the ancient Greeks that look out in the morning and see the sun rising and give glory to Apollo for riding his chariot across the sky again.

[PeterMP]

17 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The evidence that it is a bad explanation is that, throughout the course of history, so many of the things formerly ascribed to God have been proven to be the result of other (observable) forces.  

 

You have no evidence that "God" is a good explanation for anything.  It's just your placeholder until the above happens some more. 

 

I believe, as did St. Augustine, that God has given us the ability to understand our natural world.  That science continues to provide information on our natural world is not evidence that God does not exist.  In fact, it is evidence that God does exist.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I always feel like a drunk when reading your posts. If god intentionally put blinders on people because we might prove his existence then that god is a bit of a prick.

 

Perhaps. It doesn’t mean the the universe can be explained without a god though.

 

 

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

And there is a way to see beyond your own perception. It's called community. Where you may not be able to see others can. And if your argument is simply about the limited nature of perception then your argument isn't for god, it is instead the limitations of the human creature.

 

My arguement was never for a god. My argument was that you cannot be sure the universe can be explained without one.

 

3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

 

And then science's quest would be to reduce those limitations by expanding human perception.

 

 But ultimately, if an all powerful god did exist, surely he could choose to limit mans ability to gain perception.

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

No those things rely on a burden of evidence.  Not proof.

 

Just stop digging this hole for yourself. I know you aren't ignorant of this but I am going to link this here anyways:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

You aren't going to change the definition of burden of proof because it clashes with your arguments. This is completely absurd.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I believe, as did St. Augustine, that God has given us the ability to understand our natural world.  That science continues to provide information on our natural world is not evidence that God does not exist.  In fact, it is evidence that God does exist.

Augustine started with the assumption of God as are you, that's not proof that a presupposition. It was Augustine's fault, as it is yours. 

Believe it or not Augustine was wrong.

[No Excuses]

57 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

That it is not discussed elsewhere is irrelevant.  Whether it is or not insightful is also not evidence that it isn't true.

 

The fact of the matter is that you believe something that you have no real reason to believe (i.e. that science has and will continue to work).

 

Given that seeking an explanation is a reasonable and logical (and even scientific) thing to do.  And then using ideas from science (ideas that make predictions are most likely true) is a logical way to precede.

 

It is not irrelevant because philosophers who have pondered this question much more than you and I don't really take "Because God" as a serious explanation for the problem of induction.

 

The problem of induction in science has long been regarded as not a problem for actually doing science. Hume even said so when he posed the problem of induction:

 

Quote

Nature will always maintain her rights, and prevail in the end over any abstract reasoning whatsoever. Though we should conclude, for instance, as in the foregoing section, that, in all reasonings from experience, there is a step taken by the mind, which is not supported by any argument or process of the understanding; there is no danger, that these reasonings, on which almost all knowledge depends, will ever be affected by such a discovery. (E. 5.1.2)

 

And there have been better attempts at either providing explanations or providing alternatives, such as Karl Popper's view that science is deductive. Now you can agree or disagree, but it attempts to solve the problem far better than coming up with a fantastical assumption, and then trying to label it as a prediction, which is what you are trying to do

[AsburySkinsFan]

12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Perhaps. It doesn’t mean the the universe can be explained without a god though.

 

 

 

My arguement was never for a god. My argument was that you cannot be sure the universe can be explained without one.

 

 

 But ultimately, if an all powerful god did exist, surely he could choose to limit mans ability to gain perception.

Well we are certainly beyond arguing for the Judeo-Christian god. At the very best what you're after is a primary mover god, one who sets things in motion and then hides himself from perception. Sooner or later we stop talking about a god and start describing an external force. And we can work with this through Occam's Razor, all things being equal the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. So which is more likely 1) an all powerful god and conscious god created everything, set it all in motion and then hid himself through purposeful blinding of intelligent minds and is now off somewhere entertaining himself or 2) an as of yet undiscovered process brought the universe into being and is only hidden because the limits of our scientific exploration?

 

My mother in law would say, "It's god" but then she's not real bright. The scientific mind says that we cannot assume god simply because we don't have a better answer. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by AsburySkinsFan

[Epochalypse]

At the risk of rehashing something you all have already covered, in which case I apologize in advance, I'll offer this.

 

God wants us to have faith.  Faith is believing without seeing, in essence without proof.  If God were to open up the heavens, reach down and toss a certain public official into some recently opened fissure teeming with demons and smelling of sulfur and humanity stood and watched (or watched it later on social media), it would cease to be faith, and would merely become acknowledgment of what just happened.  That is easy.

 

And yes I understand how this is in essence a cop out, but seeking to provide proof to people here on Earth when God wants us to exhibit faith provides very little chance of reaching an outcome acceptable to either side.  As a Christian, I would argue that going out of my way to search for irrefutable proof of God suggests I don't really believe.

 

I know what I believe.  I know how my life is better as a Christian than when I wasn't as strong a believer as I am now.  Maybe I've been lucky?  Maybe I'm fooling myself?  I'm sure there are narratives to match whatever people on both sides feel on the subject.  I only know that I am a better person believing in Jesus; by no means a perfect person, but better.  And I know there are many people today who claim to be Christians that twist Christianity into a weapon, but that is likely for the other thread.  I bring it up though because those who do so do more harm to bringing people to Jesus than any LGBTQ, Muslim, "brown person", atheist, immigrant, pro-choice, socialist, whatever other group of people these fake Christians want to decide don't fall under the "Child of God" label every single one of us already have.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Epochalypse

[AsburySkinsFan]

11 minutes ago, Epochalypse said:

At the risk of rehashing something you all have already covered, in which case I apologize in advance, I'll offer this.

 

God wants us to have faith.  Faith is believing without seeing, in essence without proof.  If God were to open up the heavens, reach down and toss a certain public official into some recently opened fissure teeming with demons and smelling of sulfur and humanity stood and watched (or watched it later on social media), it would cease to be faith, and would merely become acknowledgment of what just happened.  That is easy.

 

And yes I understand how this is in essence a cop out, but seeking to provide proof to people here on Earth when God wants us to exhibit faith provides very little chance of reaching an outcome acceptable to either side.  As a Christian, I would argue that going out of my way to search for irrefutable proof of God suggests I don't really believe.

 

I know what I believe.  I know how my life is better as a Christian than when I wasn't as strong a believer as I am now.  Maybe I've been lucky?  Maybe I'm fooling myself?  I'm sure there are narratives to match whatever people on both sides feel on the subject.  I only know that I am a better person believing in Jesus; by no means a perfect person, but better.  And I know there are many people today who claim to be Christians that twist Christianity into a weapon, but that is likely for the other thread.  I bring it up though because those who do so do more harm to bringing people to Jesus than any LGBTQ, Muslim, "brown person", atheist, immigrant, pro-choice, socialist, whatever other group of people these fake Christians want to decide don't fall under the "Child of God" label every single one of us already have.

Here's my biggest problem with the "God wants us to take him on faith not proof" argument, why?

The answer is typically "obedience", but that doesn't make sense either. If there is a god and that god is the Judeo Christian god then he created us with smart minds that seek evidence and proof, scientific minds. But he hid himself and chose only to whisper to a few people and has all but stopped since. So what's the purpose of just faith without seeing? Why the game? If god's purpose is to save the world then do it, he's changed the rules before why not do it again.

I know the answer, it's the mystery of god.

Well, for me, that answer stopped being acceptable.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

@PeterMPthe sun coming up is not proof of God, neither is the fact that since the sun has come up for millions of years proof of God, neither is the fact that I'm reasonably sure that the sun will come up tomorrow. I don't know where you came up with this idea that predictability is the evidence of god. Not when physics provides a reasonable answer to whether or not the sun will come up. 

You seriously sound like the ancient Greeks that look out in the morning and see the sun rising and give glory to Apollo for riding his chariot across the sky again.

 

This is where you are wrong and confused.

 

Physics doesn't actually provide a reasonable answer to as why the sun will come up tomorrow.  Physics provides a reasonable explanation as to why the sun will come up tomorrow IF the physics of today is the same as tomorrow.  And physics does not and cannot say the physics of today will be the same as tomorrow.

 

Physics cannot say that "law of gravity" will not change over night.  We should celebrate the sun coming up tomorrow because that means there have been no large changes in our "laws of physics" which we really do not have any good evidence that they cannot change.  And physics (or science in general) cannot provide you with that evidence.

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

It is not irrelevant because philosophers who have pondered this question much more than you and I don't really take "Because God" as a serious explanation for the problem of induction.

 

The problem of induction in science has long been regarded as not a problem for actually doing science. Hume even said so when he posed the problem of induction:

 

 

And there have been better attempts at either providing explanations or providing alternatives, such as Karl Popper's view that science is deductive. Now you can agree or disagree, but it attempts to solve the problem far better than coming up with a fantastical assumption, and then trying to label it as a prediction, which is what you are trying to do

 

It is irrelevant, and it is a logical fallacy.  That I am the first person (to your knowledge) to put forward this argument in support of God is not evidence that my argument is not true or my evidence is not good.  You are appealing to experts (other people in history (that you know of) that have studied philosophy.  you are committing a logical fallacy (because you can't tackle the issue directly so that is all that you are left with).

 

What other people have thought in history have no bearing on the quality of my argument.

 

Deductive or inductive does not matter.  The same is true.  You assume that the world is going to be the same today as tomorrow at some level (that funding science studies tomorrow and into the future makes sense and is a reasonable thing to do).  Whether the process is inductive or deductive, you have no real good evidence to support that.

 

You have a belief that you have no explanation to support.  I'm giving you an explanation.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Augustine started with the assumption of God as are you, that's not proof that a presupposition. It was Augustine's fault, as it is yours. 

Believe it or not Augustine was wrong.

 

In science, you call it a hypothesis.  Does it make you feel better if we start with a hypothesis that God exist?

 

And then from that, we make a prediction.  And then we see if the prediction is true.  If the prediction is true, then we have support for our hypothesis.

[AsburySkinsFan]

@PeterMPobjects in motion tend to stay in motion until acted upon by another force.

So you want to know why? and my guess is that your reason is god said so.

Yeah, see that's not nearly as convincing as you want it to be.

Not to mention that all this does is get us to First Mover, and that's a LOOOOOOOOOONGGG way from Jesus as my personal lord and savior.

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

In science, you call it a hypothesis.  Does it make you feel better if we start with a hypothesis that God exist?

 

And then from that, we make a prediction.  And then we see if the prediction is true.  If the prediction is true, then we have support for our hypothesis.

Go for it

Run your science experiment to prove your hypothesis.

We'll wait

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You have a belief that you have no explanation to support.  I'm giving you an explanation.

 

Fine here's my explanation, it isn't the Judeo Christian god, it's instead aliens from a parallel space-time continuum that have the ability to snap their fingers with a special glove and cause entire dimensions to come into being or cease to exist.

There is my explanation, and it is EVERY bit as valid as yours.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The argument is flawed.  What you are saying is that @AsburySkinsFan argument is not flawed because an argument you made up as an example, is wrong. That’s not convincing.

I didn’t make it up. You said the universe can’t be explained without God. Ok, well how do you explain God then. If something as amazing as a God can exist with no explanation, then why can’t the universe do the same?

 

Either you need to be able to explain why something exists or you don’t. You don’t get to say, “I can’t explain where this universe, which I know exists because I’m it, came from. Therefore, it proves that this other thing that I can’t see is real even though I can’t explain where it came from.”

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I didn’t make it up. You said the universe can’t be explained without God. Ok, well how do you explain God then. If something as amazing as a God can exist with no explanation, then why can’t the universe do the same?

 

Either you need to be able to explain why something exists or you don’t. You don’t get to say, “I can’t explain where this universe, which I know exists because I’m it, came from. Therefore, it proves that this other thing that I can’t see is real even though I can’t explain where it came from.”

No no, it's Thanos. It's as plausible as anything they've brought forward.

That's the point, it's the whole weakness to the theological argument is that at the end of the day you have to take it on faith and nothing else.

They'd like you to believe otherwise, but it's not true, their own book even says as much even though they've spent a lot of ink trying to do otherwise. It's the ultimate cheat, anything can't be explained...God. Anything seems to contradict that...mystery.

It's a self licking Popsicle.

[PeterMP]

28 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

@PeterMPobjects in motion tend to stay in motion until acted upon by another force.

So you want to know why? and my guess is that your reason is god said so.

Yeah, see that's not nearly as convincing as you want it to be.

Not to mention that all this does is get us to First Mover, and that's a LOOOOOOOOOONGGG way from Jesus as my personal lord and savior.

 

Go for it

Run your science experiment to prove your hypothesis.

We'll wait

 

Fine here's my explanation, it isn't the Judeo Christian god, it's instead aliens from a parallel space-time continuum that have the ability to snap their fingers with a special glove and cause entire dimensions to come into being or cease to exist.

There is my explanation, and it is EVERY bit as valid as yours.

 

The experiment runs every second of everyday.

 

That would be another possible explanation.  I don't think it as good as mine though for various reasons.  But you don't really believe that either so I'm not going to bother debating the point with you.

 

You are also crediting me with a belief that I don't actually believe.

 

18 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I didn’t make it up. You said the universe can’t be explained without God. Ok, well how do you explain God then. If something as amazing as a God can exist with no explanation, then why can’t the universe do the same?

 

Either you need to be able to explain why something exists or you don’t. You don’t get to say, “I can’t explain where this universe, which I know exists because I’m it, came from. Therefore, it proves that this other thing that I can’t see is real even though I can’t explain where it came from.”

 

Nobody's saying prove (at least not here and now), and again, just because something else lacks an explanation doesn't mean it isn't a good explanation for something else.

 

(for like the 5th time in the last few pages) History is full of cases where we couldn't explain an explanation, but the explanation turned out to be correct.  That the explanation can't be explained is not good evidence that the explanation isn't true.

 

Fundamentally, you have an observation.  You look for the best possible explanation.

 

Believing something is true without reason makes no sense.  Believing science "works" without having a reason doesn't make a lot of sense (works in the context of is gong to be true tomorrow too).

Edited April 17, 2019 by PeterMP

[Epochalypse]

27 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Here's my biggest problem with the "God wants us to take him on faith not proof" argument, why?

The answer is typically "obedience", but that doesn't make sense either. If there is a god and that god is the Judeo Christian god then he created us with smart minds that seek evidence and proof, scientific minds. But he hid himself and chose only to whisper to a few people and has all but stopped since. So what's the purpose of just faith without seeing? Why the game? If god's purpose is to save the world then do it, he's changed the rules before why not do it again.

I know the answer, it's the mystery of god.

Well, for me, that answer stopped being acceptable.

I can't say with certainty why He chooses things to work this way. I can offer some considerations. I'm retired Air Force, and one of our core values is Integrity First...doing what is right even when no one is watching.  It would be hard to measure that if it was established beyond a doubt God is there all the time.

Speaking as a parent, there is an immeasurable joy when you see your child do something selfless without knowing you saw.

To your point, I'd offer it's not really obedience He wants. He wouldn't have given us free will. I think it's trust.