For any believer, God must manifest in reality to have any significance at all to mankind. The non believer has to be shown where that encounter can be found and what they ought to be looking for when they get there. God must be empirical in some way, in some manner of experience.

It profoundly baffles me that apologists literally point to the skies, the rocks, the seas, to animals, or to well groomed logical possibilities, thinking somewhere in the world, God can be found; an object, a property, concrete.

Experience is believing. If the believer has none, then what good is the idea of God? If he himself is not a manifestation of God — that esse of volitional, creative, caring spirit — then who should be interested in listening to him? His proof isn’t to be found where he points, in any direction and at anything in particular, and is not an icon himself as proof of the value of some experience promised; the believer is not transformed in any way, and that can be the only proof that ought to matter at all, and the only kind of proof possible.

Talk is cheap, and god-talk, generally useless.

Tagged ,

2 thoughts on “Seeing

  1. campeador says:


    A few thoughts re your post:

    1. Your last sentence calls into question the utility of your post and blog. Although you left yourself an out, by using the modifier “generally”.
    2. God can, indeed, be found “somewhere”, or ‘everywhere’, or ‘nowhere’, for that matter. Which of these depends on the consciousness of the person doing the ‘finding’.
    3. Experience, by definition, is knowing; although a case can be made for ‘intuition’, which is a form of ‘belief’, as experience.
    4. I agree that the best ‘proof’ of God’s existence is the believer’s ‘testimony by example’. The paucity of such testimony is perhaps the reason why so little is ‘known’ or ‘believed’ of God.

    Best regards,


    • Steven Hoyt says:

      the purpose of my talking about god isn’t to say anything about god. if you read all my blogs, they’re ways of affirming we can’t. we can say meaningful things of course, but as a matter of course in our circumstances, we can’t know that our signifiers have a referent other than ourselves. or if there is, any of them actually apply.

      i think we have different things in mind about “finding god”. clearly i think there are numinous experiences and perhaps these are rightly attributed to the divine. but what we cannot mean is that we can do more than infer a mystery, as if we can take any fact of reality, look at it, and say “there he is!” the two are very different things to say and mean.

      experience has no definition of being knowledge at all, unless we should never have any questions or ever be surprised. what do i know, for example, in having a déjà vu or being confused about “what just happened?” and all having had the same shared experience have different ideas? i think kant fairly well expressed that experience leads to concept, and concept to image, image to justification, and justification to truth, truth being knowledge. and indeed, sentiment is belief; such as we signify as beliefs entailing action … the sun rising tomorrow need not be cognitive to be a belief that is acted on, and in fact is every day.

      love the comments each time, rod.

      take care, buddy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: