Does God want us to believe he exists?

[Cieza]

Does God want us to believe he exists?

If God wants us to believe he exists, why does he not use sufficient methods to show he exists?

It seems to me that God - if he does exist - is unwilling to do what it takes to get non-believers to believe.

Why would it benefit God for some of us to believe he does not exist?

Matt's Brilliant Response - The Atheist Experience 696 - YouTube

 

[seekingagnostic32]

It benefits because god can show his wrath towards non-believers by sending them to hell forever. This is justice apparently.

 

[bling]

Would writing out a message to you specifically, with a big hand for everyone to see on the moon, cause you to believe He existed?

What change (outside just academic knowledge) if any would this make in your life, since you seem to be at peace with yourself right now?

As far as “evidence”, since the Garden, people have at least had the living world around them that begs for a response to “how could this be?”

If we learn anything from science it is “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”. If that is true; then we are constantly moving toward the God answer than toward any other answer (that is being a little philosophical).

We place a lot of emphasis on “knowing” the existence of God, but according to the Bible it has not helped humans in fulfilling their earthly objective, since “acknowledging” God’s existence is not man’s objective. Would it even be worse to acknowledge God’s existence and not care about Him?


Faith is needed, so knowing can be a handicap (this is a huge discussion). It is only "after" we fulfill the first part of our objective that trust in the existance of god is not needed and we can have knowledge of His existance.

 

[Cieza]

It benefits because god can show his wrath towards non-believers by sending them to hell forever. This is justice apparently.

Why would being sent to hell be justice? Once one is dead, they cease to have brain function at a level which would allow them to know if they are in heaven, hell or merely six feet under the ground.

 

[Willtor]

What would count as sufficient methods?

 

[Cieza]

Would writing out a message to you specifically, with a big hand for everyone to see on the moon, cause you to believe He existed?

It's not a black & white thing, but that would certainly make me think it were more likely an omniscient & omnipotent being exists than what I think right now.

What change (outside just academic knowledge) if any would this make in your life, since you seem to be at peace with yourself right now?

If I were presented with certifiable and undeniable physiological evidence that a fully omniscient & omnipotent being exists, I don't know what change it would make in my life. I'd probably feel less at peace with myself, as I'd be uncomfortable with someone/something other than myself knowing all those intimate details about me.

As far as “evidence”, since the Garden, people have at least had the living world around them that begs for a response to “how could this be?”

A living world around us is only evidence of a living world around us. It is not evidence that a fully omnipotent & omniscient being exists. If a fully omniscient & omnipotent being showed & revealed itself in an objectively measurable manner, then that would be evidence an omnipotent & omniscient being exists.

If we learn anything from science it is “the more we know the more we realize we do not know”. If that is true; then we are constantly moving toward the God answer than toward any other answer (that is being a little philosophical).

What do you think is the explanation for everything we don't know?

We place a lot of emphasis on “knowing” the existence of God, but according to the Bible it has not helped humans in fulfilling their earthly objective, since “acknowledging” God’s existence is not man’s objective. Would it even be worse to acknowledge God’s existence and not care about Him?

What is worse is to blindly accept that something exists when there is very little to suggest it does exist and while there is a lot to suggest it doesn't exist. It shows a lot of gullibility on the part of believers - that they are weak, feeble minded and unwilling to critically think/analyze whether or not something exists when there is little or no objective evidence.

Faith is needed, so knowing can be a handicap (this is a huge discussion). It is only "after" we fulfill the first part of our objective that trust in the existance of god is not needed and we can have knowledge of His existance.

It sounds like you're saying Christianity isn't based on knowing God exists, but on believing God exists without having any proof. And if proof were provided, it would no longer be faith, but knowledge. Am I correct?

Then what about the Christians who say they have talked with God, seen God, experienced God, or had something revealed to them by God? Now that they have proof (or enough proof for them), Christianity is no longer faith based, but becomes knowledge or fact based. How can you reconcile that?

 

[Cieza]

What would count as sufficient methods?

Observable omniscience & omnipotence that can be objectively measured.

 

[Willtor]

Observable omniscience & omnipotence that can be objectively measured.

That's a surprising statement, to me. Can you elaborate?

 

[Cieza]

That's a surprising statement, to me. Can you elaborate?

Allow me to present you with a few examples.

If you suddenly showed up in my living room and told me some secret that only I could know.

If you told me something which would happen tomorrow that no one could possibly know about and then it indeed did happen.

If you did something such as pick up the Empire State Building and set it down in a Nebraska cornfield.

If you turned a computer mouse pad into a squirrel.

If you allowed me to travel in time with you.

Those are some examples of the things, which if I observed, would increase the odds I'd place on a fully omniscient & omnipotent being existing.

 

[Willtor]

Allow me to present you with a few examples.

If you suddenly showed up in my living room and told me some secret that only I could know.

If you told me something which would happen tomorrow that no one could possibly know about and then it indeed did happen.

If you did something such as pick up the Empire State Building and set it down in a Nebraska cornfield.

If you turned a computer mouse pad into a squirrel.

If you allowed me to travel in time with you.

Those are some examples of the things, which if I observed, would increase the odds I'd place on a fully omniscient & omnipotent being existing.

See, none of these things would do anything for me. Don't misunderstand -- I would be profoundly impressed. But humanity will be able to do many of these things within the next few centuries.

Look, a freaking burning bush used to be enough to make people think it was God! Would a burning bush (that is not consumed) with a voice coming out of it convince you? Is "objective" evidence tied to the era in which it is given? If so, why do you not believe based on the burning bush?

 

[Cieza]

See, none of these things would do anything for me. Don't misunderstand -- I would be profoundly impressed. But humanity will be able to do many of these things within the next few centuries.

If I told you my friend Pete could juggle one hundred tennis balls with his eyes closed, would you believe me? What if you asked me to see Pete juggling one hundred tennis balls with his eyes closed and I said you had to take it on faith that I was telling you the truth? What if several hundred people told you Pete could do this, but not a single one ever had made a first hand objectively measurable observation of this? Would you then believe it or would you become suspicious of the claim?

If after all this, you still didn't fully believe that Pete could juggle one hundred tennis balls with his eyes closed, what would it take for you to believe it? You would probably need to observe it first hand. Now you should understand what I'm experiencing.

Look, a freaking burning bush used to be enough to make people think it was God! Would a burning bush (that is not consumed) with a voice coming out of it convince you? Is "objective" evidence tied to the era in which it is given? If so, why do you not believe based on the burning bush?

It seems you're talking about a God of the Gaps. As the gaps in our knowledge are closed, the less we credit to God.

I think the odds each person would place on a fully omniscient & omnipotent being existing are different and will change by different amounts depending on each person's susceptibility to translating observations into information. So if each one of us observes precisely the same thing, we're not all going to place the same odds on the occurrence being caused by an omniscient & omnipotent being.

 

[Willtor]

If I told you my friend Pete could juggle one hundred tennis balls with his eyes closed, would you believe me? What if you asked me to see Pete juggling one hundred tennis balls with his eyes closed and I said you had to take it on faith that I was telling you the truth? What if several hundred people told you Pete could do this, but not a single one ever had made a first hand objectively measurable observation of this? Would you then believe it or would you become suspicious of the claim?

If after all this, you still didn't fully believe that Pete could juggle one hundred tennis balls with his eyes closed, what would it take for you to believe it? You would probably need to observe it first hand. Now you should understand what I'm experiencing.

Even if you saw him do it, what would make you think it was supernatural?

It seems you're talking about a God of the Gaps. As the gaps in our knowledge are closed, the less we credit to God.

I think the odds each person would place on a fully omniscient & omnipotent being existing are different and will change by different amounts depending on each person's susceptibility to translating observations into information. So if each one of us observes precisely the same thing, we're not all going to place the same odds on the occurrence being caused by an omniscient & omnipotent being.

In what way does it seem like I'm talking about a God of the Gaps? I don't believe based on a burning bush, nor would I believe based on a moving Empire State Building. Isn't it _you_ who are looking for a God of the Gaps? I don't mean to be confrontational, so I apologize if it comes across as such. I just mean to ask, why is moving the Empire State Building proper evidence of God?

 

[Cieza]

Even if you saw him do it, what would make you think it was supernatural?

If you suddenly appeared, told me a secret that only I would know, told me something which would happen tomorrow that no one could possibly know about and it indeed did happen, etc., it would only increase the odds I'd place on you being fully omniscient & omnipotent.

What would it take for me to think it was supernatural? It depends on your definition of supernatural. Give me an example of something supernatural and I'll be better equipped to answer any questions you have pertaining to supernatural.

In what way does it seem like I'm talking about a God of the Gaps? I don't believe based on a burning bush, nor would I believe based on a moving Empire State Building. Isn't it _you_ who are looking for a God of the Gaps? I don't mean to be confrontational, so I apologize if it comes across as such. I just mean to ask, why is moving the Empire State Building proper evidence of God?

You said a burning bush of an earlier era was attributed to God, but now the burning bush would not be attributed to God, apparently because we've come to a better understanding of what causes a burning bush. That is called closing the gaps or a God of the Gaps.

 

[Willtor]

If you suddenly appeared, told me a secret that only I would know, told me something which would happen tomorrow that no one could possibly know about and it indeed did happen, etc., it would only increase the odds I'd place on you being fully omniscient & omnipotent.

What would it take for me to think it was supernatural? It depends on your definition of supernatural. Give me an example of something supernatural and I'll be better equipped to answer any questions you have pertaining to supernatural.

Wouldn't the more parsimonious explanation involve people who have technologies that allow them to do these things, or even something as seemingly outlandish as advanced aliens -- as compared with God? Indeed, what would make positing God as the cause of these things seem better suited than something natural, but outside the scope of prior human experience?

Glibly, all of these things have been done in Star Trek. They've all been imagined. They've all been imagined with natural causes.

You said a burning bush of an earlier era was attributed to God, but now the burning bush would not be attributed to God, apparently because we've come to a better understanding of what causes a burning bush. That is called closing the gaps or a God of the Gaps.

Not quite. They knew what would cause a bush to burn. But not without consuming it. And not with a voice coming out of it. That it doesn't impress us has more to do with us than it does to do with the thing, itself. With modern technology, these things are not impressive because we can do them, too. There will almost certainly come a day when moving the Empire State Building will be no surprising feat. In fact, I once saw a magician make the Statue of Liberty disappear. Of course, I didn't attribute any of it to supernatural powers.

But you would be impressed by these things, yes? Even to the point of considering that it was God doing them? These things would not be enough for me. All gaps are closed to me, already. There are none left. And I submit that you should re-evaluate the sorts of things that would convince _you_, too.

 

[jacks]

Miracles will not convince an unbeliever of Gods existence. Confronted with an unexplainable event, they would first distrust their own senses and if they could not, they would then conclude that science would eventually explain the phenomena. They would not conclude that the source was God. The only way to truly believe in God is to have a personal relationship with Him.

 

[Willtor]

Miracles will not convince an unbeliever of Gods existence. Confronted with an unexplainable event, they would first distrust their own senses and if they could not, they would then conclude that science would eventually explain the phenomena.

...

Cieza is saying that he would believe.

_I_ am saying that I would not. Further, I am saying that believing on this basis shows dangerous credulity. If cold-reading psychics and quick-handed charlatans are not enough to convince you of this, then don't you know that Revelation says that the anti-christ will perform miracles to dazzle and impress people?

 

[razeontherock]

Allow me to present you with a few examples.

If you suddenly showed up in my living room and told me some secret that only I could know.

There are people on CF who have had such experiences.

If you told me something which would happen tomorrow that no one could possibly know about and then it indeed did happen.

I know of no Prophecy that was over such a short duration, but typically Prophecy is one of THE greatest things of the sort you claim to seek. And the Prophetic gift is very much alive and well!

fully omniscient & omnipotent being existing.

I'm puzzled over your valuing of non-Biblical things. One thing that God often does with personal revelation, is destroy our "theology," replacing it with reality!

 

[Cieza]

If you suddenly appeared, told me a secret that only I would know, told me something which would happen tomorrow that no one could possibly know about and it indeed did happen, etc., it would only increase the odds I'd place on you being fully omniscient & omnipotent.

What would it take for me to think it was supernatural? It depends on your definition of supernatural. Give me an example of something supernatural and I'll be better equipped to answer any questions you have pertaining to supernatural.

Wouldn't the more parsimonious explanation involve people who have technologies that allow them to do these things, or even something as seemingly outlandish as advanced aliens -- as compared with God? Indeed, what would make positing God as the cause of these things seem better suited than something natural, but outside the scope of prior human experience?

Glibly, all of these things have been done in Star Trek. They've all been imagined. They've all been imagined with natural causes.

If I observed the things I described, then I would much more strongly believe that an omniscient & omnipotent being exists. If it seemed outside the scope of plausible natural occurrences, then I'd attribute it to a fully omniscient & omnipotent force. But if that were the case, then something fully omniscient & omnipotent wouldn't be supernatural, would it?

It seems as if something which is natural but is outside the scope of prior human experience isn't really supernatural, as it is subject to whether or not humans have experienced it.

You said a burning bush of an earlier era was attributed to God, but now the burning bush would not be attributed to God, apparently because we've come to a better understanding of what causes a burning bush. That is called closing the gaps or a God of the Gaps.

Not quite. They knew what would cause a bush to burn. But not without consuming it. And not with a voice coming out of it. That it doesn't impress us has more to do with us than it does to do with the thing, itself. With modern technology, these things are not impressive because we can do them, too. There will almost certainly come a day when moving the Empire State Building will be no surprising feat. In fact, I once saw a magician make the Statue of Liberty disappear. Of course, I didn't attribute any of it to supernatural powers.

Did the Statue of Liberty disappear? Or did the magician merely make it appear as if the Statue of Liberty disappeared? There is a clear distinction between the two.

Why did those who observed a burning bush with a voice coming out of it not attribute it to some kind of hoax or illusion?

But you would be impressed by these things, yes? Even to the point of considering that it was God doing them? These things would not be enough for me. All gaps are closed to me, already. There are none left. And I submit that you should re-evaluate the sorts of things that would convince _you_, too.

I would be very impressed by those things. At where would I draw the line between these things being illusions by man vs. being done by an omniscient & omnipotent being? I don't know. Perhaps if you provide some examples, I can specify between illusion by man or performed by an omniscient & omnipotent being.

 

[Willtor]

If I observed the things I described, then I would much more strongly believe that an omniscient & omnipotent being exists. If it seemed outside the scope of plausible natural occurrences, then I'd attribute it to a fully omniscient & omnipotent force. But if that were the case, then something fully omniscient & omnipotent wouldn't be supernatural, would it?

It seems as if something which is natural but is outside the scope of prior human experience isn't really supernatural, as it is subject to whether or not humans have experienced it.

How would you know the difference?

Did the Statue of Liberty disappear? Or did the magician merely make it appear as if the Statue of Liberty disappeared? There is a clear distinction between the two.

The distinction is not so clear, to me. Again, how would you know the difference? I knew the difference in this case because the man who did it claimed to be an entertainer. Presumably, another might have known precisely how it was done.

Why did those who observed a burning bush with a voice coming out of it not attribute it to some kind of hoax or illusion?

That's the right question. Why not attribute it to a hoax or illusion? Why not attribute it to a demon?

I would be very impressed by those things. At where would I draw the line between these things being illusions by man vs. being done by an omniscient & omnipotent being? I don't know. Perhaps if you provide some examples, I can specify between illusion by man or performed by an omniscient & omnipotent being.

This is not a dichotomy. It may be done, neither as an illusion, nor be done by God. To a primitive mind, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Suppose the person who appeared in your living room claimed to be God and then said, "I will make the Sun go nova, and then restore it, protecting the solar system, supernaturally, the whole time." Some eight minutes later, it appeared to you to happen... and then was restored. Further, when you flip on the TV, there is rioting in the streets across the world, and people holding signs about the end of the world. Pat Robertson comes on and attributes it to homosexuality in America.

Illusion, advanced technology, supernatural being (besides God), or God? Or, a fifth option I haven't considered, here?

 

[Cieza]

Miracles will not convince an unbeliever of Gods existence. Confronted with an unexplainable event, they would first distrust their own senses and if they could not, they would then conclude that science would eventually explain the phenomena. They would not conclude that the source was God. The only way to truly believe in God is to have a personal relationship with Him.

That isn't true. For every living human, there is a certain threshold of observable evidence which if crossed would convince that human that omniscience & omnipotence are real forces in this universe.

The kind of things that you would likely think of would probably not convince someone like me that omniscience and omnipotence are real. However, I have already highlighted some of the things I would need to see for me to place much more stock in the likelihood of omniscience & omnipotence being real forces in this universe.

BTW, when you say "Gods", do you mean omniscient & omnipotent forces? In other words, things that can do anything and know everything?