Ask God for Me

[Ed1wolf]

Does your god know?

Yes.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I mean sufficient evidence for me to be convinced he exists.

You dont have anything specific and concrete?

 

[Tolworth John]

Resurrection - Show me sufficient evidence that Jesus as described in the Bible was resurrected

Interesting you claim to have examined the evidence yet still want to be shown the evidence.
The primary evidence is the biblical accounts of the resurrection.
I suggest you read Lee Strobes book the Case for Christ, or William Warner's coldcasechristianity.
There you have a journalist and a detective who both examined the biblical accounts with a detailed examination and came to the conclusion that they were accurate historical witness accounts.

Why do I believe?
Because of the resurrection, if it hadn't happened there is no Christianity, I could not find any reasonable explanation for it other than it had happened.
So Christianity is true and I have to believe.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes.

Is he able to implement it what it takes? If so, why hasn't he.

It's simple:
1) Does your god know what it would take to convince me without violating my will? Is he omniscient?
2) If yes, can he carry it out? Is he omnipotent?
3) If yes, why doesn't he? Is he willing that any should perish? Is he benevolent?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You dont have anything specific and concrete?

What do you mean?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Interesting you claim to have examined the evidence yet still want to be shown the evidence.

I have examined the evidence I have sought out. I do not claim to know all the evidence that could be out there. I am open to new evidence.

The primary evidence is the biblical accounts of the resurrection.

Then I am unconvinced. There is no way to know if the biblical accounts are accurate.

I suggest you read Lee Strobes book the Case for Christ, or William Warner's coldcasechristianity.
There you have a journalist and a detective who both examined the biblical accounts with a detailed examination and came to the conclusion that they were accurate historical witness accounts.

I have read a Case for Christ. It was hardly a complete review of the available evidence.

Why do I believe?
Because of the resurrection, if it hadn't happened there is no Christianity, I could not find any reasonable explanation for it other than it had happened.

Do you have credible evidence that it did happen though?

So Christianity is true and I have to believe.

So you believe the resurrection happened because you believe the biblical accounts are reliable. How did you determine the accounts were reliable?

 

[SPF]

No I don't acknowledge that at all. I was convinced I did for the same reasons a lot of Christians do. I feel like he guided me, gave me wisdom to understand the bible, I was convicted of my sin and begged for forgiveness which I believed I received. I believed I received guidance in prayer etc.

The point I'm trying to make is how you feel about it today, not how you felt about it then. Today, now that you don't believe that God exists, is it not safe to say that today, when you look back at your experiences as a Christian that you believe that God was not actually guiding you, that you believe that God was not actually convicting you of sin, that you believe that you didn't actually receive any sort of forgiveness.

That's one of the primary differences between me (a true Christian), and you (not a Christian). I look back at my experiences and there's no way, there's just no way I can say that they were made up in my head and that God was not part of them. You look back at your entire experience as a Christian, today, and say that God was never there, God never guided you, you never had a genuine relationship with God. Right?

So what. There are many people more educated than me that have come to the same conclusion. I don't believe because I am no longer convinced by the evidence...This is not what I said. I studied a lot but only Christian arguments. When I did study epistemology and anti theist arguments I became unconvinced by better logic and epistemology.

My point is that maybe you shouldn't be so closed minded or think that what you think is better logic IS better logic when people more educated and intelligent than you have seen the same material and drawn a different conclusion. Maybe you should be asking yourself what you're missing that they seem to get.

No, that is a logical fallacy. Just becasue I don't know of a natural reason is not evidence that it was supernatural...No, stop telling me what I believe please. I have no good reason becasue the evidence does not support a supernatural conclusion. I am not saying that it was not supernatural.

The evidence doesn't rule out a supernatural conclusion either, yet you are ruling it out.

No!!!!! I never said they were made up. You have a bad habit of putting words in other people mouths. I don't have an answer for these two experiences, they did happen. There is no reason to conclude that they were because a God exists.

Well, if you really believe that you saw a real blue head floating in the air, then let's be honest - there probably isn't a natural explanation. Right?

Why do you believe these things are supernatural and why do they give evidence for a christain God?

Because when I broke my foot in 6 places and was told I wouldn't be able to walk for at least 2 weeks and would not be able to go on my mission trip the following week to Brazil - when the team prayed for my foot to be healed.... and it was healed... I don's see a natural explanation. Neither did the doctor when he retook the x-rays.

Because when you see a demon possessed man in another country and he engages in conversation with you specifically because he recognizes you as a Christian, and he tells you things about your life, your family, and then God - and then you see him violently react when you talk about Christ - I can't find a natural explanation for that.

Because when you see a poor, homeless, skin and bones man go into a trance and come out stronger than the 5 men that were trying to constrain him - it's hard to have a natural explanation.

And when you see an uneducated, illiterate man go into a trance and come up speaking in a completely different voice, in a completely different language, and then beginning to write in perfect, beautiful Arabic - it's hard to have a natural explanation.

I could go on. But the fact is given the things I've seen, and the reliable testimonies I've heard from my friends in other countries, it's frankly obvious that there is more going on in this world than naturalism can explain.

I'll give you one more too. When my wife and I were newly married and had our first child, we were not yet in a financially good place. We had a number of bills coming due that we didn't know how to cover. They totaled $2,037. The day before the first bill was due, someone from our Church, who we weren't really all that close with, and who knew nothing about our financial situation (nobody did, my wife is extremely private about finances)... Anyway, they said that they felt really weird doing this but that they felt God wanted them to give us a check. Yes, it was for $2,037. I don't have a natural explanation for that.

Sure, you could go through all of those and say coincidence, or weird, or whatever and blow them off, but honestly, I think that would be intellectually dishonest.

One final thought... In regards to the Biblical accounts of the resurrection, you said: "
Then I am unconvinced. There is no way to know if the biblical accounts are accurate."

Well you're right, there is no way to "know". There's no way to "know" anything you want to "know" I mean let's be honest, at this point, I think the only level of confirmation you would accept would be if you could time travel back and see it first hand. And that will never happen.

We do know that the apostles and disciples all believed that Jesus rose from the dead. We do know they went on to spend their lives proclaiming this Truth, and ultimately dying for their faith. Why would they die for a lie? Why would they willingly be tortured and abused if they didn't actually believe it? You too easily reject the Bible outright, and the testimony that it provides. It is historical.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. It doesn't matter how we understand it. That won't change the fact that causality fails to exist in a state of reality wherein time does not exist.

... I could be wrong, but it almost seems like you're saying that, if there is a God, and if that God is 'timeless,' He "can't create" anything, since ....... well, do DO SO would imply His somehow pushing through and beyond timelessness, or somehow inverting or making 'implode' a state of timelessness in order to enable the act of creation to transpire (which requires 'time').

Or am I incorrect in 'how' I've understood what you've said (and in what I've attempted to understand what you've said by my application of hermeneutics to what you've said)? ... I mean, I'm willing to allow you to push this further through the Hermeneutic Circle so that I might gain a more coherent, and thereby, more substantial understanding of what you're really saying.

If there's some other causality that exists, or some extra dimension of time enveloping our own dimension of time, then there could be a cause of the Big Bang. Until either of those scenarios is indicated by science, it's illogical and ignorant to assert that there was a cause for the Big Bang.

What if it isn't an an extra dimension in which some form of 'time' still exists in an exterior presence outside of our present universe in which we live? What if there is something inherent within the nature of timeless being that can can still rip open the logical barrier between timeless existence and an 'act' of creation? Maybe another way to think about it is to contemplate, perhaps, what Frank Close states in the last of 10 points in the following, very short video? And I'd ask you, is this something that Lawrence Krauss would agree with? If not, then which of them is the 'more' rational and logical, NV?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The point I'm trying to make is how you feel about it today, not how you felt about it then. Today, now that you don't believe that God exists, is it not safe to say that today, when you look back at your experiences as a Christian that you believe that God was not actually guiding you, that you believe that God was not actually convicting you of sin, that you believe that you didn't actually receive any sort of forgiveness.

Not exactly. I have no good reason to believe that was the case.

That's one of the primary differences between me (a true Christian), and you (not a Christian). I look back at my experiences and there's no way, there's just no way I can say that they were made up in my head and that God was not part of them. You look back at your entire experience as a Christian, today, and say that God was never there, God never guided you, you never had a genuine relationship with God. Right?

That is not what I am saying. I am saying I have no good reason to believe that was the case.

My point is that maybe you shouldn't be so closed minded or think that what you think is better logic IS better logic when people more educated and intelligent than you have seen the same material and drawn a different conclusion. Maybe you should be asking yourself what you're missing that they seem to get.

I have done a lot of studying, I am open to evidence i have not seen. I could say the same ting about you that educated people have seen the evidence you have and made different conclusions. It is not closed minded to be open to any evidence and evaluate it to see if it is convincing.

The evidence doesn't rule out a supernatural conclusion either, yet you are ruling it out.

I actually said these words: "I am not saying that it was not supernatural." I am not ruling supernatural explanations out, I am saying I have no reason to believe they happen. Give me sufficient evidence and I will have to believe it.

Well, if you really believe that you saw a real blue head floating in the air, then let's be honest - there probably isn't a natural explanation. Right?

No, people see things like this for natural reasons. My conclusion is I don't know what it was, which is the only reasonable answer. It was also over 30 years ago so I doubt my memory of it is reliable anyway.

Because when I broke my foot in 6 places and was told I wouldn't be able to walk for at least 2 weeks and would not be able to go on my mission trip the following week to Brazil - when the team prayed for my foot to be healed.... and it was healed... I don's see a natural explanation. Neither did the doctor when he retook the x-rays.

I hear stuff like this all the time. I am not saying this did not happen, do you have the before and after dated x-rays?

Because when you see a demon possessed man in another country and he engages in conversation with you specifically because he recognizes you as a Christian, and he tells you things about your life, your family, and then God - and then you see him violently react when you talk about Christ - I can't find a natural explanation for that.

Ok, how about I don't know. How can you know the reason was the christian god? Isn't this frowned upon by scripture anyway?

Because when you see a poor, homeless, skin and bones man go into a trance and come out stronger than the 5 men that were trying to constrain him - it's hard to have a natural explanation.

How about I don't know.

And when you see an uneducated, illiterate man go into a trance and come up speaking in a completely different voice, in a completely different language, and then beginning to write in perfect, beautiful Arabic - it's hard to have a natural explanation.

How about I don't know.

I could go on. But the fact is given the things I've seen, and the reliable testimonies I've heard from my friends in other countries, it's frankly obvious that there is more going on in this world than naturalism can explain.

Ok, then supply the evidence for it. I am not against supernatural being the answer, I just want sufficient evidence to believe it.

I'll give you one more too. When my wife and I were newly married and had our first child, we were not yet in a financially good place. We had a number of bills coming due that we didn't know how to cover. They totaled $2,037. The day before the first bill was due, someone from our Church, who we weren't really all that close with, and who knew nothing about our financial situation (nobody did, my wife is extremely private about finances)... Anyway, they said that they felt really weird doing this but that they felt God wanted them to give us a check. Yes, it was for $2,037. I don't have a natural explanation for that.

Ok, can you supply the evidence for this?

Sure, you could go through all of those and say coincidence, or weird, or whatever and blow them off, but honestly, I think that would be intellectually dishonest.

Nope, it is intellectually dishonest to believe something without sufficient evidence. Can you provide evidence for anything you have experienced? I believe you had these experiences, I just don't believe they were supernatural without evidence. Just because you cannot think of a explanation does not mean there is not one. Supply the evidence and I will believe you.

One final thought... In regards to the Biblical accounts of the resurrection, you said: "
Then I am unconvinced. There is no way to know if the biblical accounts are accurate."

Well you're right, there is no way to "know". There's no way to "know" anything you want to "know" I mean let's be honest, at this point, I think the only level of confirmation you would accept would be if you could time travel back and see it first hand. And that will never happen.

And who's fault is that? Wasn't it God that set this system up so we cannot verify it?

Can God supply me with the evidence today I would need to convince me? Will you answer this question?

We do know that the apostles and disciples all believed that Jesus rose from the dead. We do know they went on to spend their lives proclaiming this Truth, and ultimately dying for their faith. Why would they die for a lie?

Because as you said they believed it.

Why would they willingly be tortured and abused if they didn't actually believe it? You too easily reject the Bible outright, and the testimony that it provides. It is historical.

The answer is because they believed it. That is what you said.

We don't know who wrote the gospels.
We don't have the originals, we have copies of copies of copies.
They were not written down for at best 50 years after the events, the first known copy we have is in 130 and the full four gospels to cross reference at 145.
They conflict with known history
There were at least 20 gospels about Jesus that were written, why trust these four.
They conflict with each other.

Why do you believe these are historical? Here is a quote from Richard Carrier:

"Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980's? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well — no"

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So 48 posts into this thread and no one wants to ask God what to tell me to convince me?

 

[MrsFoundit]

So 48 posts into this thread and no one wants to ask God what to tell me to convince me?

No, and why would anyone do it? Why did you ask if anyone would?

 

[dlamberth]

So 48 posts into this thread and no one wants to ask God what to tell me to convince me?

I think your suppose to be an atheist. So why are you looking for more? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, and why would anyone do it? Why did you ask if anyone would?

If a Christian who claimed they can talk to God through prayer gets an answer from God that convinced me he exists then I would be a believer. Isn't that what Christians want?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I think your suppose to be an atheist. So why are you looking for more? That makes no sense to me.

I am an atheist. However, I am open to new evidence that a god exists, I don't believe because from the evidence I have seen there is insufficient evidence to believe. I want to know what is true and what is false, if God exists he should be able to convince me he exists with sufficient evidence.

 

[dlamberth]

I am an atheist. However, I am open to new evidence that a god exists, ....

With all due respect, I don't believe this for second.

 

[bling]

I wonder if anyone here who can talk to God in prayer would ask God what they could say to me to convince me He exists and post it here if they get an answer.

This question comes up all the time.

If God did make Himself unquestionably known to you:

How would it change you for the better?

Would you tell others about your knew knowledge and why would they believe you like they believed Saul?

Knowledge quenches the need for faith, so do you really need faith and if you do need faith knowledge will not necessarily help you get faith?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

With all due respect, I don't believe this for second.

Why?

You cut off the rest of my sentence that said "I want to know what is true and what is false". Don't you?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This question comes up all the time.

If God did make Himself unquestionably known to you:

How would it change you for the better?

I would know more of what is true. That is a good thing.

Would you tell others about your knew knowledge and why would they believe you like they believed Saul?

I don't know. But if God gave me sufficient evidence maybe it would be sufficient for others.

Knowledge quenches the need for faith, so do you really need faith and if you do need faith knowledge will not necessarily help you get faith?

Yes, knowledge destroys faith.

 

[dlamberth]

You cut off the rest of my sentence that said "I want to know what is true and what is false". Don't you?

Because of your exuberance to deny anything and everything, I don't believe that as well. A searcher your not.

 

[bling]

I would know more of what is true. That is a good thing.

Be careful, knowledge of the Christian God's existence, can be truly depressing for some and up setting since they do not like the Christian God, as they read of Him in scripture. If you really believed you were hell bound would that be comforting to you? You might be better off not knowing?

I don't know. But if God gave me sufficient evidence maybe it would be sufficient for others.

That is not the way it works. Some will believe you, but others will pick up stones to stone you.
Your "witness" is not: "Everyone look how much God Loves me over the rest of you since he came to me and not you", but your witness has to be "I was this big time sinning atheist and God made a huge change in my life the same kind of change He can make in your life so join me in seeing the change He has made in me." (Like God did with Paul)

Yes, knowledge destroys faith.

Knowledge does not "destroy" faith, since after you extend just a little faith, knowledge can be used to help grow that faith. Knowledge without faith, will quench the desire for faith.