Does God want us to believe he exists?

[ChristianT]

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.

The author of the above quote escapes my mind... Is is George Lucas? ...Frank Oz? ...oh well.














A: Yoda

 

[Cieza]

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.

I have news for you. That is precisely what Christian churches do. They exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers.

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?

You're missing the point. Let's say the sky is blue. If 99% of the people in the world say the sky is green, does that make it any less blue?

One of the things about Christianity that turns me off the most is that it draws in the naive - or people who believe something just because a lot of other people believe it. In other words, the Christian church is like a multi-level marketing scheme that preys on the week, naive or feeble minded. I think the Christian church should encourage people to intellectually & critically investigate every aspect of Christianity. If they are right, then they would have nothing to lose. But if it is all a bunch of hogwash, then they'd have a lot to lose. And guess what? - they do very little (or nothing at all) to encourage people to intellectually & critically investigate every aspect of Christianity.

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?

If you tell me in secular terms what you've observed (e.g. "I've observed the Empire State building moved to a cornfield in Nebraska" and not, "God has spoken personally to me") and I'll tell you if it's something I've 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.

Absolute 100% irrefutable evidence is one thing. What I'm talking about is different. I'm talking about enough to convince me to the point where I'd wager in favor of omnipotence rather than wager against it.

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.

If omnipotence is equal to being able to do anything, then seeing the Empire State Building moved to a cornfield in Nebraska would move me closer to wagering in favor of omnipotence being a real force. But perhaps I'm wrong about the definition of omnipotence. How would you define omnipotence?

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.

Since I defined the being who passed on this information to you as God, then we can rule out #2. And since I said if you make a choice contrary to what God knew you would make, then God has temporarily stripped himself of his omniscience, then #1 must be correct.

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.

OK, I'll start a new thread on that subject. But in the meantime, tell me why you suppose most Christians have a problem with what I need to observe to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist.

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?

That depends on your definition of God. I'm going by the definition of God in which he has fully omnipotent powers (or can do anything). Therefore, observing the Empire State Building being instantly moved to a cornfield in Nebraska, would definitely move me quite a bit toward believing that omnipotence (or the ability to do anything) is a real force present in this universe.

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

Probably not. But please keep in mind that the example I cited wouldn't fully convince me that omnipotence and omniscience are real forces in this universe.

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

I don't fault them. I merely find them to be naive, gullible and stubborn.

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?

I can't speak for others, but for me, it would convince me enough that I'd believe omniscience & omnipotence are real forces present in this universe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Could someone survive it? If someone did, would they be sane?

If I observed indisputable acts of omniscience & omnipotence, I would survive it. Would I remain sane? Absolutely. Would I outwardly proclaim I had observed indisputable acts of omniscience & omnipotence? Only if the acts I observed were objectively measurable and were observed by others as well.

Glibly, what makes you think some of the crazy people shouting in public squares about how they have met God have not?

Either it's an issue of semantics and what they experienced is no different than what most people experience or they are delusional (see David Koresh or Jim Jones).

In the Bible, when prophets see such things, they don't seem very happy about it.

The Bible is just a book which was written by humans. The humans who wrote the Bible could have had the prophets be happy or be unhappy when seeing those kind of things.

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

I don't expect I'll ever see the things which would be enough to convince me that omniscience and omnipotence are real forces in this universe.

 

[razeontherock]

I have news for you. That is precisely what Christian churches do. They exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers.

This is enough to get you an infraction, and your thread closed. C'mon man

I'd wager in favor of omnipotence rather than wager against it.

to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist.

fully convince me that omnipotence and omniscience are real forces in this universe.

it would convince me enough that I'd believe omniscience & omnipotence are real forces present in this universe.

I don't expect I'll ever see the things which would be enough to convince me that omniscience and omnipotence are real forces in this universe.

This is not seeking God. This is you trying to get God to climb into a box you have prepared for Him, like He was a pet dog or something. Even if you don't mean it this way, it's incredibly disrespectful, and not good for your soul.

Why the hang-up with omnipotence and omniscience? Neither word is even in the Bible.

 

[Cieza]

I have news for you. That is precisely what Christian churches do. They exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers.

This is enough to get you an infraction, and your thread closed. C'mon man

Then allow me to reword.

I have news for you. That is precisely what it appears to me Christian churches do. They seem to exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers

I'd wager in favor of omnipotence rather than wager against it.

to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist.

fully convince me that omnipotence and omniscience are real forces in this universe.

it would convince me enough that I'd believe omniscience & omnipotence are real forces present in this universe.

I don't expect I'll ever see the things which would be enough to convince me that omniscience and omnipotence are real forces in this universe.

This is not seeking God. This is you trying to get God to climb into a box you have prepared for Him, like He was a pet dog or something. Even if you don't mean it this way, it's incredibly disrespectful, and not good for your soul.

If God is omniscient & omnipotent and he wants us to believe he exists, then he is either really stupid or really stubborn. For a fully omnipotent being, it would be about as easy to get me to believe as it is for the average human being to take a breath of air.

What am I seeking? I am seeking reality. If God is real, then I'll believe in God. If omniscience & omnipotence are real, then I'll believe in omniscience & omnipotence. If Satan is real, then I'll believe in Satan. If heaven is real, then I'll believe in heaven. But there is nothing (short of a semantic game which Christians like to play) to suggest that any of these things are real.

Why the hang-up with omnipotence and omniscience? Neither word is even in the Bible.

Many Christians have maintained that God is fully omnipotent and omniscient. Even the Bible suggests this:

Proverbs 15:3:
The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

However:

Genesis 18:20 clearly suggests God is not omniscient: Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

 

[oi_antz]

Then allow me to reword.

I have news for you. That is precisely what it appears to me Christian churches do. They seem to exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers

Not all churches are equal. I have witnessed what you are describing though, in fact the majority of them are industrialized. This is what Jesus means "work hard to enter the narrow gate for wide is the path to destruction and many go that way". The lesser proportion contains those which are more integral to promoting faith. Sadly you can't identify them by denomination or the shape of their building, you actually have to visit them and interact with the people to know which ones are truly working for God. The pastors of industrialized churches are those who are choked by thorns in the parable of the sower. They are choked by the cares of this world (wealth and fame) and they never mature. Certainly if you listen to the waffle of many Christian radio and televangelist's you can see that their understanding is so mediocre. Get out and visit different churches, you will probably find one that inspires you, but you can't expect to find it unless you go shopping for it!

If God is omniscient & omnipotent and he wants us to believe he exists, then he is either really stupid or really stubborn. For a fully omnipotent being, it would be about as easy to get me to believe as it is for the average human being to take a breath of air.

God is stubborn, He certainly isn't stupid. There must be a reason why He hasn't revealed Himself to you, have you offered to obey Him yet?

What am I seeking? I am seeking reality. If God is real, then I'll believe in God. If omniscience & omnipotence are real, then I'll believe in omniscience & omnipotence. If Satan is real, then I'll believe in Satan. If heaven is real, then I'll believe in heaven. But there is nothing (short of a semantic game which Christians like to play) to suggest that any of these things are real.

Why do you keep going on about this when on at least two occasions I have shown you the way it works? Jesus came to demonstrate God to us. The religious leaders didn't like being convicted (again, you see that they had made a lucrative industry of religion), so in their greed they had Him removed. That is why God has installed a new creed: that every disciple of Jesus is a messenger, compared to the days of old when God would pick a prophet. Nowadays God can choose to prophesy through any of His people. Anyhow, I am getting sidetracked. What I'm quoting to you for the third time I can remember is this:

Indwelling of the Father and the Son


19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”
23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

Notice the part I bolded. This is how you can get your proof of the reality of God. Notice that you need to obey Jesus, and notice that God is that stubborn that it must happen on His terms and you can't force Him to change. I understand that you can bargain with God and enter contracts with Him too, so ask for wisdom when you are ready to engage with Him. Heck, ask for wisdom right away!

Many Christians have maintained that God is fully omnipotent and omniscient. Even the Bible suggests this:

Proverbs 15:3:
The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

However:

Genesis 18:20 clearly suggests God is not omniscient: Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Is this another excuse not to take the bull by the horns? You're a heart breaker Cieza.

 

[Willtor]

I have news for you. That is precisely what Christian churches do. They exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers.

That may be true for some, but I don't attend such a church, nor would I encourage anyone else to do so. On the contrary, I would discourage anyone from attending such a church, and encourage them to attend a church that is not predatory.

You're missing the point. Let's say the sky is blue. If 99% of the people in the world say the sky is green, does that make it any less blue?

Of course it doesn't. One need simply observe otherwise.

Are you saying that believing that Jesus is God is like saying that the sky is green? Are you that certain that he isn't?

One of the things about Christianity that turns me off the most is that it draws in the naive - or people who believe something just because a lot of other people believe it. In other words, the Christian church is like a multi-level marketing scheme that preys on the week, naive or feeble minded. I think the Christian church should encourage people to intellectually & critically investigate every aspect of Christianity. If they are right, then they would have nothing to lose. But if it is all a bunch of hogwash, then they'd have a lot to lose. And guess what? - they do very little (or nothing at all) to encourage people to intellectually & critically investigate every aspect of Christianity.

There's quite a lot that is intellectually rigorous and stimulating, actually. I mean, I agree that if one is right about one thinks and believes, one has nothing to lose by investigating. After all, if I'm wrong about something, I'd like to know about it. But I'm sorry you have been told that you shouldn't do so in Christianity. I disagree with the person or people who told you that.

Regarding naive people, although it would be good to encourage everyone to be intellectually rigorous, different people can reach different distances. And Jesus did not come only for the strong of mind. Add to that, if society were reversed, so that, say, atheism were in the majority, you know that most naive people would be atheists. In that case, would you accept the argument that non-religion encouraged naivete?

If you tell me in secular terms what you've observed (e.g. "I've observed the Empire State building moved to a cornfield in Nebraska" and not, "God has spoken personally to me") and I'll tell you if it's something I've observed.

Absolute 100% irrefutable evidence is one thing. What I'm talking about is different. I'm talking about enough to convince me to the point where I'd wager in favor of omnipotence rather than wager against it.

If omnipotence is equal to being able to do anything, then seeing the Empire State Building moved to a cornfield in Nebraska would move me closer to wagering in favor of omnipotence being a real force. But perhaps I'm wrong about the definition of omnipotence. How would you define omnipotence?

I haven't observed any such thing. As I say, I wouldn't consider your example evidence of the properties you mention, anyway.

Omnipotence is non-restriction in power. This might mean the ability to do anything, but it might have an exception for contradictions (which, if semantic nonsense and a mere artifact of language, are not properly a restriction).

Since I defined the being who passed on this information to you as God, then we can rule out #2. And since I said if you make a choice contrary to what God knew you would make, then God has temporarily stripped himself of his omniscience, then #1 must be correct.

There's a big leap to say that it is God who is telling. But I took the question as a hypothetical scenario, not as a philosophical question. Did you mean to be moving on to philosophy?

OK, I'll start a new thread on that subject. But in the meantime, tell me why you suppose most Christians have a problem with what I need to observe to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist.

Even if the assertion is so, I couldn't say.

That depends on your definition of God. I'm going by the definition of God in which he has fully omnipotent powers (or can do anything). Therefore, observing the Empire State Building being instantly moved to a cornfield in Nebraska, would definitely move me quite a bit toward believing that omnipotence (or the ability to do anything) is a real force present in this universe.

But omnipotence is not required for moving the Empire State Building. Seeing that would move me a long way toward believing that _great_ power is a real force in this universe. To go back to the burning bush, I'll wager that was as impressive a show of power to people of that time as moving the Empire State Building is to you and me. But that isn't omnipotence. It doesn't even move one in that direction.

Probably not. But please keep in mind that the example I cited wouldn't fully convince me that omnipotence and omniscience are real forces in this universe.

I don't fault them. I merely find them to be naive, gullible and stubborn.

Suppose they didn't believe purely on that basis? Suppose that just "moved them in the direction of believing" in omnipotence? Would that be less naive, gullible, and stubborn?

I can't speak for others, but for me, it would convince me enough that I'd believe omniscience & omnipotence are real forces present in this universe. Nothing more, nothing less.

If I observed indisputable acts of omniscience & omnipotence, I would survive it. Would I remain sane? Absolutely. Would I outwardly proclaim I had observed indisputable acts of omniscience & omnipotence? Only if the acts I observed were objectively measurable and were observed by others as well.

I'm doubtful. Certainly, if you observed the Empire State Building moved to Nebraska, I don't doubt you would remain in perfect control of your faculties. But for real evidence, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. People see comparatively mundane things and aren't right-in-the-head afterwards.

Either it's an issue of semantics and what they experienced is no different than what most people experience or they are delusional (see David Koresh or Jim Jones).

I don't doubt that they're delusional. Thus, "glibly." The point is, I don't think you've given a lot of thought to what you're asking for.

The Bible is just a book which was written by humans. The humans who wrote the Bible could have had the prophets be happy or be unhappy when seeing those kind of things.

Och! You're side-stepping the issue! You're willing to concede the hypothetical possibility of an omnipotent God until you are presented with a possible reason that seeing evidence of omnipotence is not a good thing.

I don't expect I'll ever see the things which would be enough to convince me that omniscience and omnipotence are real forces in this universe.

I don't think they are forces in this universe. If they were, I think the universe would necessarily be other than it is.