Do Christians acknowledge that God might not exist?

[alexiscurious]

My belief in God is not just a theological perspective to which I adhere. "God exists" is not just a proposition to defend but the beginning point of fellowship with Him. I know God exists first and foremost because the Bible tells me He does, but also because I experience Him as He says in His Word that I can. So, I cannot concede that God might not exist and that I am wrong about Him any more than I could make such a concession about my wife or my parents. Consequently, I feel no compunction about telling others - even those who believe in another god - that the God I know personally is the One True God.

So it looks like you confide in the human witnesses that wrote the Bible and your own personal experience. Does it trouble you at all that billions of people that share the same planet with you have the same experiences but a different god? How do your experiences differ from theirs?

 

[agua]

Are Christians willing to acknowledge that God might not exist? That you might be wrong? If so, why do you insist on telling other people that they are following the wrong god if yours is just as much of an uncertainty as theirs is?

If the Christian isn't certain that yahweh exists, their faith will eventually fail. Basically; without certainty that Yahweh exists, the Christian will not progress into experential/strong faith, as per Hebrews 11.

 

[aiki]

So it looks like you confide in the human witnesses that wrote the Bible and your own personal experience.

No, I trust in the God who inspired men to write the contents of the Bible. I see the stamp of the divine upon Scripture very clearly. So, I trust that it is truly the Word of God. My experience of God, then, and of His truth does not make the Bible true. It is true regardless of my experience. But my experience does bear out the revelation of God in Scripture.

Does it trouble you at all that billions of people that share the same planet with you have the same experiences but a different god?

And how do you know they have the same experience of their god that I do of mine? The heart of my faith is not in the externals (rituals, traditions, religious paraphernalia, sacred places) as it is in most other religions, but in a personal love-relationship with my Maker. No other religion that I'm aware of has this kind of relationship with God at its core. My faith does not require that I earn the love of my God; it does not demand that I worship and serve Him in order to be approved of, and accepted by, Him. No, in the Christian faith my worship of God and service to Him arise out of my first being accepted by Him as a result of my simple and sincere faith in His Son as my Saviour and Lord. God adopts me into His family, making me a "joint-heir with Christ." In no other religion does such a thing occur. My God walks with me always, supporting and loving me as I stumble along, convicting me of sin, illuminating His truth to me, answering my prayers, fulfilling His promises to me, and transforming me into a "vessel meet for the Master's use."

Selah.

 

[RDKirk]

Are Christians willing to acknowledge that God might not exist? That you might be wrong?

Of course not. Silly question. If a Christian thought another religion was just as valid, he wouldn't be a Christian, at least not in an orthodox sense.

 

[RDKirk]

So you consider God to be a certainty? Why do you need "faith" then?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. -- Hebrews 11

The writer of Hebrews did not completely originate this line. The ancient Greeks already had a saying by which they demonstrated the existence of air:

"Wind is the evidence of the unseen air."

Many people (unfortunately including many Christians) have the misconception that faith is something that one must have faith in. That's not the case.

When the writer of Hebrews describes faith as substance and evidence, he is that faith does not require belief. Faith is not a concept, faith is the palpable substance on which further belief is based.

For example, if a police forensic expert walks into a kitchen and sees on the floor a bloody knife and four pints of human blood, that is evidence. Based on that evidence, he will conclude somewhere is an unseen dead body.

He does not have to believe in the blood--he knows the blood exists. He believes a dead body exists based on the blood that he knows exists. The blood is the evidence of the unseen body, just as wind is evidence of the unseen air.

A person with faith knows he has faith. He knows he has something within him that did not exist before, now compelling him, propelling him toward something he cannot yet experience. One doesn't have to have faith in faith. If one has faith, he knows he has it.

 

[oi_antz]

Can you magically see into the minds of Matthew, Mark, Luke and see whether or not they were interested in telling the truth? I don't think so. They are dead.

I do think so though. The truth is always the truth. Yes magic is a key factor.

 

[Joshua260]

I just can't bring myself to believe in the small group of men that compiled the book that your entire faith's foundation rests on. A small group of human witnesses who lived 2000 years ago. Really?

I've heard you say this several times before, but I don't understand your logic in applying that criteria. Are you saying that we should not believe any documents written at least 2000 years ago?

God thinks that is a substantial amount of evidence for his existence? If God really did exist, I don't think he would leave such insufficient evidence for his existence especially when an eternity of torment is at stake..

This sounds more like your subjective opinion rather than an objective argument. It seems to me that God has provided enough evidence to bring millions into a loving relationship with him.

There are no good philosophical arguments. I've looked at them all.

Really? That's interesting. I'm curious then. The Kalam Cosmological Argument states the following:

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Can you tell me where the fallacy is in this argument? So far, I've never heard a sufficient objection to the KCA.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

I just can't bring myself to believe in the small group of men that compiled the book that your entire faith's foundation rests on. A small group of human witnesses who lived 2000 years ago. Really? God thinks that is a substantial amount of evidence for his existence? If God really did exist, I don't think he would leave such insufficient evidence for his existence especially when an eternity of torment is at stake.

There are no good philosophical arguments. I've looked at them all.

I'm curious, Alexiscurious...*chuckle*

How exactly should God have done it, then? As per your standards...

 

[Lukaris]

So you consider God to be a certainty? Why do you need "faith" then?

Your question is: "would a Christian acknowledge that God might not exist?" I see nothing in it requiring an argument for proof to a non Christian. What I am saying it is self evident for a Christian to believe in God and the way to reach another person is to communicate the Gospel message and hope the intended person will believe it. It is not for us to judge, condemn, criticize etc. another person but to hope that their conscience will be convicted.

As far as needing faith well St. James says it well:

James 2:14-22New King James Version (NKJV)

Faith Without Works Is Dea14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ]

 

[alexiscurious]

I've heard you say this several times before, but I don't understand your logic in applying that criteria. Are you saying that we should not believe any documents written at least 2000 years ago?

There are no compelling reasons I can think of to accept their testimony or to prefer it over all the other religious fanatics that lived centuries ago. Also, the consequence of not accepting their message is eternal torment. Seems like a very desperate and deliberate attempt to intimidate people into believing their message. I don't buy into it. Sorry.

It seems to me that God has provided enough evidence to bring millions into a loving relationship with him.

It seems to me that mankind has provided enough evidence to bring millions into a loving relationship with false gods as well. Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, all passionately believe that they are in a loving relationship with their god too. It is not that hard to throw together a book similar to the Bible and to get people to mindlessly follow whatever it says.

Really? That's interesting. I'm curious then. The Kalam Cosmological Argument states the following:

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Can you tell me where the fallacy is in this argument? So far, I've never heard a sufficient objection to the KCA.

This argument has nothing to do with the existence of God unless you'd like to add onto it.

 

[alexiscurious]

I'm curious, Alexiscurious...*chuckle*

How exactly should God have done it, then? As per your standards...

Anything that mankind can't replicate is good enough evidence for me.

Human witnesses and religious texts do not fall under that category.

 

[alexiscurious]

No, I trust in the God who inspired men to write the contents of the Bible. I see the stamp of the divine upon Scripture very clearly. So, I trust that it is truly the Word of God. My experience of God, then, and of His truth does not make the Bible true. It is true regardless of my experience. But my experience does bear out the revelation of God in Scripture.

Is this what the stamp looks like?

 

[katerinah1947]

Are Christians willing to acknowledge that God might not exist? That you might be wrong? If so, why do you insist on telling other people that they are following the wrong god if yours is just as much of an uncertainty as theirs is?

Hi,
1.) It looks like you are a philosopher. If so no one can answer you.

2.) Are Christians willing to acknowledge that God might not exist?
I don't think so. Some might.
3.) If so, why do you insist on teliing other people that they are following the
wrong god if yours is just as much of an uncertainty as theirs is.?
Under the above answere of I don't think so, precludes this as answerable.
Under the above answer of Some might, I only know the reasons of some
of them, but not all of them.
4.) You did not ask this of anyone here.
A.) Is anyone certain that God exists?
B.) Is there anyone who is certain their God is the Real God?
C.) As Atheisim is defined normally, is there even one atheist out there?

It seems as though you have a complaint that maybe even you are unaware of to me. You have asked questions, but they seem to lead nowhere to me.
Maybe in my confusion, I will answer you from my personal experiences and my perspective,

1.) I think everyone should ask the question to themselves and find and anwer if possible, "Is there any chance out there that my version of God is wrong?" From my point of view, I did ask that very question, many many times.
2.) I don't in push my God. He just Is. And if you are not pushing me to follow any real or invented God such as Philosophy even, you will not normally hear about my God. If you push, I will tell as much as I can to get you off my back, or to say you are right and then follow your information.

LOVE,
...Katie., .... .

 

[agua]

Anything that mankind can't replicate is good enough evidence for me.

Can you build me a tree please And be sure to start from scratch.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Anything that mankind can't replicate is good enough evidence for me.

Such as what, though? You're not making sense...give an example. What would God have to do in order for you to believe? There are many things mankind can't replicate. Spider's silk for instance. If the Bible were written on parchment made of spider silk, would you believe?

 

[aiki]

Is this what the stamp looks like?

LOL! No. I'm not big on circular arguing.

Here a few of the reasons why I believe the Bible is the Word of God:

1. Thematic unity.
2. Fulfilled prophecy.
3. Archaeological and historical accuracy.
4. Its survivability and popularity.
5. Its enormous impact upon individuals and societies.
6. Its correspondence to reality/explanatory power.
7. The uniqueness of its redemption message.

And so on. As you can see, there is nothing circular in my reasoning here. None of these points standing alone (except maybe point #2) is a knock-out punch in favour of the divine nature of Scripture. But taken together, the cumulative weight of these points makes my belief quite reasonable.

Selah.

 

[98cwitr]

It can't be. As a former atheist, I first found out God must exist, then choose Christianity over other religions.

this. I was an Atheist for 25 years and I'll also affirm that one cannot be a REAL Christian (may people aren't but label themselves as such because their society, community, peer group influences them to do so) you MUST believe not only in God, but affirm Him as the Creator and that His Son came in flesh, died, and was resurrected for the propitiation of sin.

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_sof_creed

 

[dcalling]

Anything that mankind can't replicate is good enough evidence for me.

Human witnesses and religious texts do not fall under that category.

How about.... life? If you kill something, no doctor can revive it

 

[Joshua260]

There are no compelling reasons I can think of to accept their testimony or to prefer it over all the other religious fanatics that lived centuries ago. Also, the consequence of not accepting their message is eternal torment. Seems like a very desperate and deliberate attempt to intimidate people into believing their message. I don't buy into it. Sorry.

So it sounds like you acknowledge now that just because the New Testament was written long ago, that's no reason not to believe it. But now you are accusing the writers of the New Testament as being "religious fanatics". Whether or not they were fanatical about their faith in no way proves that their testimony was true or not. That is a non sequitur. So why would you not believe their testimony any less than any other writer of antiquity?

It seems to me that mankind has provided enough evidence to bring millions into a loving relationship with false gods as well. Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, all passionately believe that they are in a loving relationship with their god too. It is not that hard to throw together a book similar to the Bible and to get people to mindlessly follow whatever it says.

You said that God did not provide sufficient evidence, and I replied that you are only stating your subjective opinion and that millions of others disagree with you. Really, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other. But in any case, what other faiths have done is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.

This argument has nothing to do with the existence of God unless you'd like to add onto it.

Interesting. So you can see how the argument could relate to the existence of God. But I asked you to point out any fallacies in the logic and you evaded answering. So is there a fallacy in the following, and if so please explain:

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

 

[alexiscurious]

So it sounds like you acknowledge now that just because the New Testament was written long ago, that's no reason not to believe it. But now you are accusing the writers of the New Testament as being "religious fanatics". Whether or not they were fanatical about their faith in no way proves that their testimony was true or not. That is a non sequitur. So why would you not believe their testimony any less than any other writer of antiquity?

No. The age of their testimony is the least of my concern. I'll say it again: there are no compelling reasons to believe in those human witnesses. And I'm not going to give them special treatment over anyone else. You aren't convinced of the testimony of Mohammed or Joseph Smith for the same reason. There are plenty of men who claimed to have had experiences with god. I'm just a human, not a mind reader. I can't magically look thousands of years in the past into the minds of all these people and see who was telling the truth. I don't have that ability unfortunately.

You said that God did not provide sufficient evidence, and I replied that you are only stating your subjective opinion and that millions of others disagree with you. Really, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other. But in any case, what other faiths have done is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I'm saying the evidence you claim came from God can just as easily come from man. What other religions have done is completely relevant. It shows me just what mankind is capable of, and how easily it is to deceive by the millions.

Interesting. So you can see how the argument could relate to the existence of God. But I asked you to point out any fallacies in the logic and you evaded answering. So is there a fallacy in the following, and if so please explain:

1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

I don't see how it could only relate to God. All it proves is that something that was timeless caused our existence.