Does God want us to believe he exists?

[Cieza]

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?

What is your belief that omniscience and omnipotence exist based on?

 

[Cieza]

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.

Were these experiences objectively measurable? Were these experiences recordable in such a manner that they could be replayed (televised, audio-recorded, etc.) for others to observe? Did these experiences ever occur in a situation where a second human was witness to it?

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!

Then have God show me a fulfilled prophecy and I will be far more towards being convinced than I am now. Have God tell me something which will happen tomorrow - that no one could possibly know about - and then it does happen.

Obviously if God is real, he would know that's one of the things it would take to get me on the path to believing. But he does nothing. Can you explain that?

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!

Once something becomes reality, then you don't need faith, as you have proof. If Christianity is a faith based religion, then what do you call fact based religions? It sounds like with a personal revelation, you have moved out of Christianity and into some kind of fact-based or reality-based religion. Perhaps the Church of Reality. See Church of Reality

 

[Pinchme]

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?

I say no, He wants you to believe that you exist first. Find your heart. He will come. He spoke for thousands of years and is recorded in the bible what he wants. He is easy. We are hard.

 

[Cieza]

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?

Once I had experienced or observed it, it would certainly cease to be supernatural to me. But if prior to my observing it, one had asked me if such an occurrence were supernatural or not, I would say it was supernatural.

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.

While you may not see such a distinction between the two, I do. If the Statue of Liberty really were made to disappear on the command of a human, then it would prove that a human possessed enough power to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. If the disappearance were merely due to an illusion, then it would only prove that a human had enough power to make it APPEAR that the Statue of Liberty disappeared.

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?

Why do you suppose those who observed a burning bush with a voice coming out of it not attribute it to some kind of hoax or illusion? (this time please answer the question!)

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.

Are you willing to provide some examples? You provide a scenario and I'll tell you if would believe it was just an illusion (magical act) or if I would think it were really omniscience/omnipotence.

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.

If I observed that, I'd be far more convinced that omnipotence - but not omniscience - exists.

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

When you say "God", do you mean omniscience & omnipotence?

What is a possible fifth option?

 

[Cieza]

I say no, He wants you to believe that you exist first. Find your heart. He will come. He spoke for thousands of years and is recorded in the bible what he wants. He is easy. We are hard.

I certainly believe that I exist.

What do you mean by "Find your heart"? I know where my heart is - it is in my chest. But I don't think that's what you mean.

With what mechanism did God speak? What physical location did the audio generate from?

 

[bling]

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.

Besides just taking you free will away and forcing you to believe He exist what would it take for you? (I was trying to make it cut and dry.)

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.

This is not the first time I have heard this, I now believe most agnostics and atheists do not want to know the Christian God exist and it would not make a positive change in their lives.

God does not want to make it harder on you, so it sounds best that He stays unknown for you?

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.

“Evidence” is very subjective, so it is up to the individual what the individual will allow to be evidence.

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

If what we “don’t know” is ever increasing then the complexity is virtually infinite, so that leaves out any “simple” answer and requires a virtually complex answer which God is.

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.

]This very complex system that creates life suggests intelligent design. There is nothing to suggest unintelligence produced this universe and/or life (that conclusion takes lots of faith to believe

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?

“Proof” like evidence is again very subjective. Right! “knowledge” does not require faith and yet a little faith is needed, to fulfill man’s objective.

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?

The individual before becoming a Christian needs to have faith in the existence of God to help him humbly accept Charity. BUT, once you have accepted God’s help in the form of humbly accepting God’s forgiveness your faith will grow beyond just the little faith of trusting in a benevolent Creator. You can know God exist through the indwelling Holy Spirit.

 

[pgp_protector]

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.



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.

Reading this thread I keep thinking of that StarTrek episode Devil's Due where Captain Picard goes up against the "Devil" (who was just a woman using transporters, tractor beams & hologram generators )

 

[ChristianT]

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

exactly. God doesn't simply want "believers" to believe, but to live according to their faith. We have evidence of this. the devil himself once was an angel and always believed in God (otherwise he has no reason to oppose God), but does God like the devil? (HINT: no... not really). Also, Jesus said that those who believe but do not show it (live out Jesus' commands), then they don't have a strong foundation of faith (and are no better off than a non-believer).

This is not to mean that if we slip, we're doomed forever, but far from that. If we we skip in following God, we can always ask Him for forgiveness (and here's the other important part!: repent. ) Repent is a fancy (mystical word apparently), but it simply means that you will try to do what you should and stop doing what you shouldn't. But if a "believer" does not even try to repent, they are no better off than a non believer. (because Christ calls (-ed) us to repent.)

 

[Faulty]

"Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22).

 

[Willtor]

What is your belief that omniscience and omnipotence exist based on?

Trust. Meeting God, being persuaded that He is God, and believing His assertions about Himself.

 

[Willtor]

Once I had experienced or observed it, it would certainly cease to be supernatural to me. But if prior to my observing it, one had asked me if such an occurrence were supernatural or not, I would say it was supernatural.

While you may not see such a distinction between the two, I do. If the Statue of Liberty really were made to disappear on the command of a human, then it would prove that a human possessed enough power to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. If the disappearance were merely due to an illusion, then it would only prove that a human had enough power to make it APPEAR that the Statue of Liberty disappeared.

Sure, I suppose if I had perfect knowledge, for everything that I saw, whether it were an illusion, or whether it were real... But, then, I'm not omniscient. All I have is my reason. And there are a lot of predators out there who will try to take you for a ride when they manage to find the thing for which you can't tell the difference.

I say, amazing acts are a bad reason to believe that someone is God. One who seeks them out is just asking to find a charlatan. God may do them, but He isn't the only one.

Why do you suppose those who observed a burning bush with a voice coming out of it not attribute it to some kind of hoax or illusion? (this time please answer the question!)

I want to resolve the first issue, first. I want to persuade you that looking for signs has a bad track record.

Are you willing to provide some examples? You provide a scenario and I'll tell you if would believe it was just an illusion (magical act) or if I would think it were really omniscience/omnipotence.

If I observed that, I'd be far more convinced that omnipotence - but not omniscience - exists.

And if you showed a video of a nuclear blast to an ancient skeptic, would (s)he also be persuaded that there were omnipotence?

For an example, take the one I mentioned in my last post about the Sun. For the record, I will say there is a possibility that would persuade me, but it's not what you're looking for.

When you say "God", do you mean omniscience & omnipotence?

I mean God, as He really is. If He has those properties, so be it. If not, so be it.

What is a possible fifth option?

I don't know. My point is that there are many possible explanations for surprising and impressive things, and I don't think I have considered them all. For the example that I mentioned, what do _you_ think is the most parsimonious option?

 

[Willtor]

Reading this thread I keep thinking of that StarTrek episode Devil's Due where Captain Picard goes up against the "Devil" (who was just a woman using transporters, tractor beams & hologram generators )

Haha! Yeah. NetFlix has Next Gen available, streaming, and my wife and I just finished it, end-to-end (not in one sitting ).

But that's the sort of thing I mean. Ardra was a scam artist, but she had the people convinced she was who she said she was by use of spectacular signs.

 

[Cieza]

exactly. God doesn't simply want "believers" to believe, but to live according to their faith.

What if my faith isn't Christianity, but my faith dictates that I live to a set of values/morals that are precisely the same as those dictated by Christianity?

We have evidence of this. the devil himself once was an angel and always believed in God (otherwise he has no reason to oppose God), but does God like the devil? (HINT: no... not really).

Who exactly is the devil?
What evidence do you have that the devil exists?
How did you get confirmation that the devil always believed in God?

Also, Jesus said that those who believe but do not show it (live out Jesus' commands), then they don't have a strong foundation of faith (and are no better off than a non-believer).

Please describe what it means to live out Jesus' commands.
Does this mean those who have said to have eternal life, "you merely have to believe that Jesus died for the sins of others" are lying?

This is not to mean that if we slip, we're doomed forever, but far from that. If we we skip in following God, we can always ask Him for forgiveness (and here's the other important part!: repent. ) Repent is a fancy (mystical word apparently), but it simply means that you will try to do what you should and stop doing what you shouldn't. But if a "believer" does not even try to repent, they are no better off than a non believer. (because Christ calls (-ed) us to repent.)

Can one who purports to be a Christian do things like lie, cheat, steal, etc. while retaining their sure admittance to heaven or their being granted an eternal life?

 

[ChristianT]

1.

What if my faith isn't Christianity, but my faith dictates that I live to a set of values/morals that are precisely the same as those dictated by Christianity?

Then you might want to study both of our beliefs and see if yours simply deleted G-d or has a misnomer of Him.

2.

a) Who exactly is the devil?
b) What evidence do you have that the devil exists?
c) How did you get confirmation that the devil always believed in God?

a) The devil was an angel who resided in heaven with all the other angels. One day, he decided he deserved as much or more praise as G-d did. G-d punished the devil to reside on the earth until Judgement day, when the devil will be thrown into the fiery pit.

b) Anything that is evil is work of the devil. The first sins were from his lies, and any sin is born of him.

c) In the bible, it said that he is a fallen angel. This means he used to be in heaven, where he saw G-d. Logically, we can assume he believed in G-d. Why else would he want praise instead? Why would he try to rebel against someone he didn't believe in?

3.

a) Please describe what it means to live out Jesus' commands.
b) Does this mean those who have said to have eternal life, "you merely have to believe that Jesus died for the sins of others" are lying?

a) To live out Jesus' commands is to take all the lessons he teaches and apply them to your life. Treat others as you would wish them to treat you, love G-d with all of your heart, body, and mind; etc.

b) No, they are not lying, however if you believe in G-d, your sins have been forgiven. But if you live out what Jesus said, it is evident that G-d has changed you, so only then can you be sure of eternal life. [DISCLAIMER: there's nothing one can do to *earn* eternal life. since we sin, we deserve eternal death (eternal separation from G-d). But since he loves us, he gives us a chance to receive his gift of grace, much like a present. When a family member gives you gifts, it's not b/c you deserve them, but b/c your family is nice.]

4.

a) Can one who purports to be a Christian do things like lie, cheat, steal, etc. b) while retaining their sure admittance to heaven or their being granted an eternal life?

a) Only if they truly repent of those things. It's in people's nature to sin, but if they truly regret doing it and sincerely ask for forgiveness, then they may be sure of G-d's grace.

See "repent" in my earlier post. or even better, here's a dictionary entry:

repent |riˈpent|
verb [ intrans. ]
feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin : the priest urged his listeners to repent | he repented of his action.
• [ trans. ] view or think of (an action or omission) with deep regret or remorse : Marian came to repent her hasty judgment.
• ( repent oneself) archaic feel regret or penitence about : I repent me of all I did.
DERIVATIVES
repentance |riˈpentns| noun
repentant |riˈpentnt| adjective
repenter noun

sincere |sinˈsi(&#601r|
adjective ( -cerer , -cerest )
free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings : they offer their sincere thanks to Paul.
• (of a person) saying what they genuinely feel or believe; not dishonest or hypocritical.
DERIVATIVES
sincereness noun
sincerity |sinˈseritē| noun

 

[Cieza]

I say, amazing acts are a bad reason to believe that someone is God. One who seeks them out is just asking to find a charlatan. God may do them, but He isn't the only one.

Each of us has our own unique criteria for what we need to observe to believe something is real. I know precisely what I need to observe to believe that omniscience and omnipotence are real things.

I want to resolve the first issue, first. I want to persuade you that looking for signs has a bad track record.

Why would looking for signs have a bad track record?

And if you showed a video of a nuclear blast to an ancient skeptic, would (s)he also be persuaded that there were omnipotence?

Possibly. God - if he exists - has done absolutely nothing to convince me he exists. If he indeed can do anything, then he must not really care if I believe he exists.

For an example, take the one I mentioned in my last post about the Sun. For the record, I will say there is a possibility that would persuade me, but it's not what you're looking for.

You and I are different. What I need to observe to be convinced omniscience and omnipotence are real forces is probably different from what you need to observe to be convinced.

I mean God, as He really is. If He has those properties, so be it. If not, so be it.

Do you believe God to be fully omnipotent & omniscient?

I don't know. My point is that there are many possible explanations for surprising and impressive things, and I don't think I have considered them all. For the example that I mentioned, what do _you_ think is the most parsimonious option?

Please post your example again and I will address it.

 

[Cieza]

1.

Then you might want to study both of our beliefs and see if yours simply deleted G-d or has a misnomer of Him.

This is something I have often suspected. Because it is so difficult to come to a resolution to many of the issues I have pertaining to the way Christians discuss God, I think it is highly likely that whatever "God" is, it is something that I do believe exists. I think the problem is Christians don't quite know how to define God to the secular world.

a) The devil was an angel who resided in heaven with all the other angels. One day, he decided he deserved as much or more praise as G-d did. G-d punished the devil to reside on the earth until Judgement day, when the devil will be thrown into the fiery pit.

Do you mean all this literally or is this a parable of some kind?

b) Anything that is evil is work of the devil. The first sins were from his lies, and any sin is born of him.

If a human who knows that his neighbor will get crushed to death by a collapsing building but does nothing to save his neighbor, is that considered evil?

c) In the bible, it said that he is a fallen angel. This means he used to be in heaven, where he saw G-d. Logically, we can assume he believed in G-d. Why else would he want praise instead? Why would he try to rebel against someone he didn't believe in?

Do you mean this literally or is this a parable of some kind?

a) To live out Jesus' commands is to take all the lessons he teaches and apply them to your life. Treat others as you would wish them to treat you, love G-d with all of your heart, body, and mind; etc.

What if you don't like others to buy you dinner, but you know that others would like to be treated to dinner? By treating others as you would wish them to treat you, you'd end up not buying them dinner when they want dinner bought for them.

b) No, they are not lying, however if you believe in G-d, your sins have been forgiven. But if you live out what Jesus said, it is evident that G-d has changed you, so only then can you be sure of eternal life. [DISCLAIMER: there's nothing one can do to *earn* eternal life. since we sin, we deserve eternal death (eternal separation from G-d). But since he loves us, he gives us a chance to receive his gift of grace, much like a present. When a family member gives you gifts, it's not b/c you deserve them, but b/c your family is nice.]

What if God is a misnomer? Let's say "God" represents something I believe in but because of the way Christians use the term "God", I'm led to think that God doesn't exist. Does that mean my sins have been forgiven?

a) Only if they truly repent of those things. It's in people's nature to sin, but if they truly regret doing it and sincerely ask for forgiveness, then they may be sure of G-d's grace.

What if one is a non-Christian, but repents of everything in precisely the same manner that Christians repent?

 

[Willtor]

Each of us has our own unique criteria for what we need to observe to believe something is real. I know precisely what I need to observe to believe that omniscience and omnipotence are real things.

Why would looking for signs have a bad track record?

As I say, snake-oil salesmen use them. People end up giving all their money to predators, or worse.

Possibly. God - if he exists - has done absolutely nothing to convince me he exists. If he indeed can do anything, then he must not really care if I believe he exists.

He came in the flesh. He died and was resurrected. I'd say that's pretty impressive. Though, I suppose those things weren't very flashy.

You and I are different. What I need to observe to be convinced omniscience and omnipotence are real forces is probably different from what you need to observe to be convinced.

This is not a subjective thing.

You'd need to observe the Empire State Building being lifted up and deposited in Nebraska.

I'd need to observe truth-in-itself.

These are categorically different standards of what constitutes evidence of God. You are looking for something/someone that is "very powerful" (at least by today's standards) not "almighty."

Do you believe God to be fully omnipotent & omniscient?

Yes.

Please post your example again and I will address it.

Someone appears in your house/apartment and says that he is God. To prove it, he says he will now cause the Sun to go nova and then restore it, all the while protecting the rest of the solar system from damage. It appears to happen. Convinced? Is there no more parsimonious explanation you can posit?

 

[Cieza]

Each of us has our own unique criteria for what we need to observe to believe something is real. I know precisely what I need to observe to believe that omniscience and omnipotence are real things.

Why would looking for signs have a bad track record?

As I say, snake-oil salesmen use them. People end up giving all their money to predators, or worse.

I don't give my money to predators - aka I don't go to church, nor have I sacrificed any of my values or life on the account of Christianity. Christians - on the other hand - have been falling for the "snake-oil salesman" techniques employed in the church. I'm just not that gullible. My message to God - if he exists - is show me credible and objectively measurable evidence and I'll believe. If God truly is all powerful, then doing what it would take for me to believe would be about as easy for him as it is for you or me to take a breath of air.

Possibly. God - if he exists - has done absolutely nothing to convince me he exists. If he indeed can do anything, then he must not really care if I believe he exists.

He came in the flesh. He died and was resurrected. I'd say that's pretty impressive. Though, I suppose those things weren't very flashy.

I didn't see him come in the flesh and neither did you. The only reason you believe that he did, is because so many masses of people have preached that to be true. Why do you accept that these people are right? Why not critically examine the situation without bias?

If you and almost everyone else told the masses over and over again that 2+2 is equal to 7, eventually almost everyone would believe that. There would be exceptions such as myself who know that just because everyone else says the sky on a clear sunny day is green doesn't mean it is any less blue.

You and I are different. What I need to observe to be convinced omniscience and omnipotence are real forces is probably different from what you need to observe to be convinced.

This is not a subjective thing.

If it isn't subjective, then what Christians have observed is different from what I've observed. Why then if my mind, eyes and ears are all wide open have I not observed what you've observed?

You'd need to observe the Empire State Building being lifted up and deposited in Nebraska.

I'd need to observe truth-in-itself.

I thought you said what we need to observe is not subjective. It seems like you contradicted yourself.

These are categorically different standards of what constitutes evidence of God. You are looking for something/someone that is "very powerful" (at least by today's standards) not "almighty."

Christians have posited that God can do anything and knows everything. There is nothing unreasonable about my desire to see the Empire State Building being lifted up and deposited in a cornfield in Nebraska to move me forward towards believing that there is a God that can do anything.

Do you believe God to be fully omnipotent & omniscient?

Yes.

This means you believe God can do absolutely anything and knows absolutely everything. That being said, what then happens if God knows your a/b choice of tomorrow to be a, tells you it is a and you proceed to choose b?

Other than that he has chosen to relinquish his omniscience with respect to the case of your a/b choice, there cannot be an explanation.

Please post your example again and I will address it.

Someone appears in your house/apartment and says that he is God. To prove it, he says he will now cause the Sun to go nova and then restore it, all the while protecting the rest of the solar system from damage. It appears to happen. Convinced? Is there no more parsimonious explanation you can posit?

Observing such a thing would move me quite a bit along in believing that a fully omnipotent power exists. Could I be 100% sure it wasn't a man-made optical illusion? No.

Why is it you and other Christians have a problem with what I need to observe to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist?

I find it oddly suspicious that Christians don't expect to see such acts of omnipotence and that the God Christians talk about does absolutely no objectively measurable omnipotent or omniscient acts.

 

[Willtor]

I don't give my money to predators - aka I don't go to church, nor have I sacrificed any of my values or life on the account of Christianity. Christians - on the other hand - have been falling for the "snake-oil salesman" techniques employed in the church. I'm just not that gullible.

I didn't mean church (although, of course, there are such churches). I meant people who intend to benefit off of followers' naivete to their detriment.

My message to God - if he exists - is show me credible and objectively measurable evidence and I'll believe. If God truly is all powerful, then doing what it would take for me to believe would be about as easy for him as it is for you or me to take a breath of air.

I didn't see him come in the flesh and neither did you. The only reason you believe that he did, is because so many masses of people have preached that to be true. Why do you accept that these people are right? Why not critically examine the situation without bias?

If you and almost everyone else told the masses over and over again that 2+2 is equal to 7, eventually almost everyone would believe that. There would be exceptions such as myself who know that just because everyone else says the sky on a clear sunny day is green doesn't mean it is any less blue.

Why would I tell the masses that? That seems demonstrably false.

Do you really think that Jesus being God is akin to saying that 2 + 2 = 7? You are mathematically certain that he is not?

If it isn't subjective, then what Christians have observed is different from what I've observed. Why then if my mind, eyes and ears are all wide open have I not observed what you've observed?

What have I observed that you haven't observed?

I thought you said what we need to observe is not subjective. It seems like you contradicted yourself.

What I meant was that we have different ideas of what would constitute evidence of omnipotence, and that yours was actually not evidence of that. My idea of what would constitute that is proper evidence of that because it is something that has no natural explanation.

Christians have posited that God can do anything and knows everything. There is nothing unreasonable about my desire to see the Empire State Building being lifted up and deposited in a cornfield in Nebraska to move me forward towards believing that there is a God that can do anything.

Sure there is. It isn't evidence of omnipotence. It is evidence of great power. There is a categorical difference.

This means you believe God can do absolutely anything and knows absolutely everything. That being said, what then happens if God knows your a/b choice of tomorrow to be a, tells you it is a and you proceed to choose b?

Other than that he has chosen to relinquish his omniscience with respect to the case of your a/b choice, there cannot be an explanation.

That would probably mean at least one of two (not mutually exclusive) possibilities:

1. The one who told me I would choose 'a' is not omnicient.
2. The one who told me I would choose 'a' is not God.

Observing such a thing would move me quite a bit along in believing that a fully omnipotent power exists. Could I be 100% sure it wasn't a man-made optical illusion? No.

Why is it you and other Christians have a problem with what I need to observe to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist?

I can't really speak for other Christians, I'm afraid. So, part of this question will have to be asked of them.

For myself, it seems you're looking for something that is not evidence of God. Again, what is the most parsimonious explanation for the Empire State Building being lifted and deposited in Nebraska? Is God _really_ the parsimonious explanation?

If this happened, would you fault someone else for thinking you were gullible for thinking that it was evidence of God?

Relatedly, do you fault people for attributing things to God when they see things that, although strange, have natural explanations?

I find it oddly suspicious that Christians don't expect to see such acts of omnipotence and that the God Christians talk about does absolutely no objectively measurable omnipotent or omniscient acts.

In the case of real evidence of this, what would that do to a person? Could someone survive it? If someone did, would they be sane? Glibly, what makes you think some of the crazy people shouting in public squares about how they have met God have not? In the Bible, when prophets see such things, they don't seem very happy about it.

More than being surprised that Christians do not expect to see weird and paradoxical things, I am surprised that you do.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The idea of "try" with God doesn't sound logical. If He wanted your egoic self to know him it would. Other parts of the soul that are often labeled "unconscious" may have knowledge of the divine even if the ego doesn't though. The Soul is actually a gestalt of many selves some which are more knowledgeable than others in certain arenas. Experiential knowledge of God is there within all of us it's just that this knowledge is only shared with egoic consciousness to the degree necessary for the performance of it's role in a given life or situation. Sometimes a little hide and seek is useful for the evolution of consciousness.