How can I be reasonably sure God still exists?

[Gumph]

I would tell you to study the Word and pray.

But why would I? Studying the Word is a difficult and prolonged task. Praying is pointless unless I believe its going to be heard and given appropriate attention.

What would convince me to start down the path of studying and praying?

 

[golgotha61]

It makes perfect sense to me how he presented himself to the people of the ANE (assuming he did). What doesn't make sense is why he still thinks that is sufficient for our modern culture. An update is required - that is not meant to sound condescending, but is the best way that I can think of expressing my feeling on the matter.

Perhaps an understanding of the audience’s theology is in order. The ANE culture did not need proof of Yahweh’s existence and that is not the purpose of OT Scripture. The ANE people believed that every event was performed by the gods. There was no “natural” event, every weather event, earthquake, or volcanic eruption was the work of the gods.
The purpose of Scripture in the OT was to demonstrate and prove that Yahweh was the only god and that the other pagan gods were false. So, to demand that God restate the ancient Scripture so that we could determine His existence is forcing a message upon the ancient Scripture that was never intended.
[FONT=&quot] The best and most respectful way of gleaning proof of God’s existence from the ancient text is through logic and deduction. This then is the purpose of hermeneutical study and why it is necessary[/FONT]

The concern here is that we have to keep returning to the Bible as proof of Gods current existence. If I had total trust in the 2000 year old documents that would be no problem. Unfortunately I don't. There are many factors that create doubt (time passed, word of mouth errors, hidden agendas, etc).

Time has no bearing in and of itself on truth. Word of mouth literacy is what the ANE depended upon and since it was their method of literacy, it was dependable. The practice of oral transmission of narratives was not done haphazardly and that is because the transmission of truth depended upon the ability of the orators to be accurate. Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey are examples of the power, complexity, and sophistication of oral literature.



[FONT=&quot]Agendizing was not as much an occurrence due to the rules that were involved in copying the texts by the scribes. The scribes were not prone to a great deal of chicanery but when there are questions in the accuracy of textual transmission from the original texts to more recent ones, the art and science of textual criticism has helped in returning us to the original.[/FONT]

Ok, but what clue or reason, would get me to spend a great deal of time and effort on investigating Christianity rather than say: Islam, Hinduism, Astrology, Astronomy, Biology, Evolution or any other subject that tries to make more sense of life?

Perhaps you will find this simulating enough to investigate God’s Word deeper. This formulation is taken from Ravi Zacharias:
There are three tests for determining truth:
1. Logical consistency.
2. Empirical adequacy.
3. Experiential relevance.
Logical consistency
Nothing in the physical universe can explain its own existence, i.e., something does not come from nothing. In order for there to be something (and there is), there must be at least one state that is self-existent and does not derive its existence from something else. And it must be nonphysical. This does not posit God, it posits a nonphysical entity that explains its own existence and is uncaused.


Empirical adequacy
The raw materials that have resulted in the universe as we have it have been simultaneously brought together in an amazing array of combinations. Combinations that are to amazing to have happened by accident. This is the argument to design.
A number of scientists who were once supporters of the atheistic brand of evolution have since converted to Christianity and have denied a Godless method of creation. One of them is Dr. Dean Kenyon who wrote the book Biochemical Predestination. The book was used for some 20 years by universities, even after Kenyon recanted his major premise in the book. The raw materials of existence are now comprised in three classifications: matter, energy, and information.


Experiential consistency
The Biblical narratives in the New Testament reveal why Jesus was who He claimed to be and is followed by millions. A comparison of Jesus, Mohammad, Krishna (no evidence for a true existence), Buddha, and Mahavira show the extreme differences in their claims and demonstrations. Only one, Christ, ever claimed to be divine. For the follower of Christ the fact that the universe is not self-existent, plus the obvious intelligence embedded in the universe, and the experiential verification of what Jesus taught and did, make belief in Him a very rational and existentially fulfilling reality.

 

[WirSindBettler]

But why would I? Studying the Word is a difficult and prolonged task. Praying is pointless unless I believe its going to be heard and given appropriate attention.

What would convince me to start down the path of studying and praying?

To return to your original question:

I would like to know how (as a current agnostic) I could explore and perhaps be convinced that there is a God who is currently present in our every day lives?

Perhaps put another way: If I woke up with amnesia tomorrow, how could you try and convince me that God still exists?

How could you explore and perhaps be convinced that there is a God? By studying the Word. Why would you? I don't know. You tell me. You asked how you could explore, I gave an answer. It's up to you to step through the metaphorical door.

 

[alexiscurious]

Human witnesses are horribly unreliable. Conflicting crime reports and differing views from fans at a sporting events are common examples. And those are first hand examples. It gets worse as the story is retold. Then lets factor in hidden agendas.

I too seem to be suffering from the same doubt you do and I was someone who spent my entire life in a Christian school. I tend to ask myself why an all-powerful God would rely on mankind and human witnessing to tell everyone he loves them instead of just being direct. It has never made sense to me. It's silly and inefficient. I also ask myself why other man-made religions can effortlessly produce their own version of a divinely inspired and irreplaceable book like the Bible and how billions can be so easily deceived by it.

When I saw what Mormons were able to do I was even more shaken. They were able to actually add their own nonsense to the Bible and no one was the wiser. Then it hit me, no human here or anywhere really knows how to recognize a book that came from God. No religious person I've met has the slightest idea about who they really put their faith in, they just like to recite things that sound nice.

 

[aiki]

Most of the laymen discussions I've entered into about whether God exists tend to focus on how the world was created and whether Jesus existed. The arguments seem to be vague and go round and round without much resolution, mainly because of the time that has lapsed since those events.

I would like to know how (as a current agnostic) I could explore and perhaps be convinced that there is a God who is currently present in our every day lives?

Perhaps put another way: If I woke up with amnesia tomorrow, how could you try and convince me that God still exists?

I'm with golgotha61 in thinking that, if one grants the God revealed in Scripture, one must necessarily grant His eternality and the dependency of all reality upon Him. If one grants these things, then the fact that the universe exists is evidence that God exists; for the universe can only exist if God exists.

Mind you, it is possible, I think, to argue for a First Cause of the universe that is non-contingent, personal, and timeless and to argue for a universe that is fully contingent upon this First Cause without reference to the Bible. The Kalam Cosmological Argument concludes all these things simply from logical deduction.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

I too seem to be suffering from the same doubt you do and I was someone who spent my entire life in a Christian school. I tend to ask myself why an all-powerful God would rely on mankind and human witnessing to tell everyone he loves them instead of just being direct.

I think dying on a cross at the hands of wicked men to atone for the sins of all humanity is about as direct an expression of love as you can ever hope to get. God didn't just say to all the world, "I love you," but proved it with the most incredible demonstration of sacrificial love I have ever encountered. Do you expect Him to make the same demonstration for every single person who has ever come into existence? That seems rather unreasonable to me...

It has never made sense to me. It's silly and inefficient.

It is certainly extravagant; but silly? No, not silly. God wasn't interested in efficiency when He showed His love to humanity, but mercy, grace and sacrificial love.

I also ask myself why other man-made religions can effortlessly produce their own version of a divinely inspired and irreplaceable book like the Bible and how billions can be so easily deceived by it.

I think the answer is very simple: Satan, the Father of Lies, who blinds the hearts and minds of people and deceives them with counterfeits of the truth.

When I saw what Mormons were able to do I was even more shaken. They were able to actually add their own nonsense to the Bible and no one was the wiser.

No one was the wiser? I don't think so. From the first moment Joseph Smith's "addition" was publicly offered, Christian people rejected the Book of Mormon for the nonsense that it was.

Then it hit me, no human here or anywhere really knows how to recognize a book that came from God.

Speak for yourself, please. I have a perfectly good and reasonable criteria by which to determine the divine origin of a text. Just because you don't doesn't mean no one else does.

No religious person I've met has the slightest idea about who they really put their faith in, they just like to recite things that sound nice.

Not the slightest idea? Really? I think you're badly overstating things here. In fact, there is a great deal known about the writers of the Bible - particularly of the New Testament writers.

Selah.

 

[Gumph]

The best and most respectful way of gleaning proof of God’s existence from the ancient text is through logic and deduction. This then is the purpose of hermeneutical study and why it is necessary

Is that the only way to find proof of God's existence - to study the ancient texts?

Time has no bearing in and of itself on truth. Word of mouth literacy is what the ANE depended upon and since it was their method of literacy, it was dependable. The practice of oral transmission of narratives was not done haphazardly and that is because the transmission of truth depended upon the ability of the orators to be accurate. Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey are examples of the power, complexity, and sophistication of oral literature.

Agendizing was not as much an occurrence due to the rules that were involved in copying the texts by the scribes. The scribes were not prone to a great deal of chicanery but when there are questions in the accuracy of textual transmission from the original texts to more recent ones, the art and science of textual criticism has helped in returning us to the original.

With respect, I beg to differ. Over time cultures change, which means language nuances change. Some we are aware of some probably not. Some texts may be translated accurately and can be verified, others may have been lost or purposely destroyed over the years. These missing documents may change things significantly. I also find it hard to believe that agendizing then was any less common then it is today.

I may of course be wrong and am extremely unqualified to argue this in any detail. The point is that at first glance, there is reasonable doubt about these ancient texts. We are not talking about a historical record of who built a monument or building. We are discussing someone who claims that failing to follow him will results in eternity in a burning hell. This is serious stuff. There must be a hundred better ways to make us realise that we should take this seriously, rather than ancient texts written in a language and style many of us today struggle to understand.

Perhaps you will find this simulating enough to investigate God’s Word deeper. This formulation is taken from Ravi Zacharias:
There are three tests for determining truth:
1. Logical consistency.
2. Empirical adequacy.
3. Experiential relevance.

1. Makes sense to me.
2. Ditto.
3. Seems to rely heavily on ancient texts again. Which is my current problem and where it all falls down for me.

The proof of Gods current existence always seems to require the ancient texts or Bible. This is probably why so many discussions seem to revolve around the validity and accuracy of the bible. I was really hoping there was something else.

 

[Gumph]

How could you explore and perhaps be convinced that there is a God? By studying the Word. Why would you? I don't know. You tell me. You asked how you could explore, I gave an answer. It's up to you to step through the metaphorical door.

Well, if the only way to find God is to spend years studying ancient texts, then its a pretty daunting metaphorical door. It also makes the "why" part that much more important.

In my OP, I through in the amnesia angle as an attempt to try and start the discussion with a clean slate and try and keep pre conceived ideas out of the reasoning.

The impression I'm getting from you is that you say that there is a mighty and powerful God. You then say that the only way to verify this is to study some difficult writings written by men many centuries ago. Now its left up to me to decide whether I want to do so or not? Sho, that's not convincing I'm afraid.

 

[Gumph]

... if one grants the God revealed in Scripture, one must necessarily grant His eternality and the dependency of all reality upon Him. If one grants these things, then the fact that the universe exists is evidence that God exists; for the universe can only exist if God exists.

That is where my problem lies. The reliance on scripture to prove God exists now.

 

[yesyoushould]

In response to the post.

Don't doubt.

It is a fearful thing to doubt God.



Courageous believers in God! Rejoice.

 

[Gumph]

Oh dear, I'm going to get a bit side tracked here. I didn't want to really discuss the interpretation of the bible, but rather an alternative current mechanism. But seeing as I'm here ....

I think dying on a cross at the hands of wicked men to atone for the sins of all humanity is about as direct an expression of love as you can ever hope to get. God didn't just say to all the world, "I love you," but proved it with the most incredible demonstration of sacrificial love I have ever encountered. Do you expect Him to make the same demonstration for every single person who has ever come into existence? That seems rather unreasonable to me...

I've never understood this fully. Millions have been martyred or killed for their beliefs or values. What makes this incident so different? Is it because he claimed to be the son of God?

Could he not consider some other type of demonstration, not necessarily of sacrificial love, just that he is still here? I think that's reasonable.

It is certainly extravagant; but silly? No, not silly. God wasn't interested in efficiency when He showed His love to humanity, but mercy, grace and sacrificial love.

I don't think its silly either, I think that's just Alex's frustration coming through. I don't think its extravagant either though. He apparently sent one human form to us 2000 years ago. It may well have been an important form for him. However extravagant would have been to send thousands of these son forms to every community on Earth, and to continue doing so on a regular basis. Throw in a unworldly entrance and exit and that would be even more extravagant.

Nope sorry, the lack of extravagance is what concerns me. Its raised the possibility, however small, that Jesus may have been a mortal man.

No one was the wiser? I don't think so. From the first moment Joseph Smith's "addition" was publicly offered, Christian people rejected the Book of Mormon for the nonsense that it was.

I agree with you. Most people do seem to reject it as nonsense. The concern is that there is a significant amount of people that do believe in it. That worries me (not the addition because I know virtually nothing about it, but rather how easy it is for a split to occur). We also then start treading on dangerous ground by using numbers as a measure of validity. Keep in mind that there are apparently more non-Christians than Christians on this planet.

I have a perfectly good and reasonable criteria by which to determine the divine origin of a text.

Would you be prepared to share?

 

[Gumph]

In response to the post.

Don't doubt.

It is a fearful thing to doubt God.

Not sure which post, but don't think that really matters.

I'm sorry, but I do doubt and I'm currently looking for a reason to start travelling down the road of trying to reduce that doubt. But at the moment that road looks long and daunting. I need a pretty good reason to head down it.

 

[Gumph]

Right, perhaps this would be a good time to summarise what I have managed to gain from this thread. Thanks to all for your input.

- To verify that God still exists, one needs to study and understand the ancients texts (mainly the Bible).
- Once you are convinced about the validity of and truth in the Bible, it will lead to the conclusion that God created the world and that he still exists today.
- There is no other way to do this.

Does that seem like a reasonable summary?

If so then my next question, if I may, is what reasons are there for taking on the not insignificant task of studying these texts? Or would it be better to start a new thread with that question?

 

[yesyoushould]

Oh dear, I'm going to get a bit side tracked here. I didn't want to really discuss the interpretation of the bible, but rather an alternative current mechanism.

Well at least you came to the wrong place. :/

 

[yesyoushould]

Not sure which post, but don't think that really matters.

I'm sorry, but I do doubt and I'm currently looking for a reason to start travelling down the road of trying to reduce that doubt. But at the moment that road looks long and daunting. I need a pretty good reason to head down it.

Now doubt, it can be tough to head down a road when clinging onto so much burden.

Can't go wrong saying yes to goodness.

 

[Receiver]

...
I would like to know how (as a current agnostic) I could explore and perhaps be convinced that there is a God who is currently present in our every day lives?

I left organised religion and became agnostic.
I saw no evidence that God was present in my everyday life, but then why should he be, I was master of my own destiny, I chose my ways, my thoughts.

then I met people who were different, they had what I was loking for ... fulfilling purpose, contentment, confidence based on experience not argument etc.

They had done what God says man needs to do, receive His Spirit ("born again"), like the disciples (Acts 2:4, 39; 1 Cor. 14:2, 4)

To cut the story short, when I came to a point of whiole-heartedly wanting that I found God.

 

[Gumph]

Well at least you came to the wrong place. :/

Lol. I meant in this thread. I don't mind asking about the Bible in other threads of this forum. I'm worried that it may side track the main question in this thread only

 

[Gumph]

Now doubt, it can be tough to head down a road when clinging onto so much burden.

Can't go wrong saying yes to goodness.

Well, its more likely that the road won't be travelled because of the doubt, rather than being a burden. But I get your point.

I agree with your second line. Now to find out which "goodness" to say yes to. One of the issues that has started me asking all these questions is I don't follow the logic in some of the Christians rules / laws / commandments.

Up until now I have just "gone with the flow" and not given it much attention. Recently though I have had some experiences which have caused me to wonder just how "good" religion is. Don't get me wrong, whichever way I end up leaning, most of what religion stands for seems to be good. There are however some issues which seem a little illogical to me at the moment.

 

[Gumph]

I left organised religion and became agnostic.
I saw no evidence that God was present in my everyday life, but then why should he be, I was master of my own destiny, I chose my ways, my thoughts.

then I met people who were different, they had what I was loking for ... fulfilling purpose, contentment, confidence based on experience not argument etc.

They had done what God says man needs to do, receive His Spirit ("born again"), like the disciples (Acts 2:4, 39; 1 Cor. 14:2, 4)

To cut the story short, when I came to a point of whiole-heartedly wanting that I found God.

Receiver, I am glad it worked out for you. Just some comments from my side:

I don't think we are masters of our own destiny. Randomness, happenstance and the free will of others hugely affect our attempts to control our own destiny.

The people you have met and now it seems you too have experienced something personally to convince them and now you that God is still here. Here in possibly lies the alternative to "studying the Bible", that I am looking for.

The typical issue here is that the instructions on how to travel this path tend to be very vague. How do you go about receiving a spirit or what caused you to whole heartedly want. This is terminology that I struggle to relate to.

Then there is the other nagging concern. Just because someone feels content and fulfilled by coming to some sort of realisation or belief does not necessarily mean that the belief is true. Nor does it mean that someone else will also be able to experience the same result.

 

[aiki]

I've never understood this fully. Millions have been martyred or killed for their beliefs or values. What makes this incident so different? Is it because he claimed to be the son of God?

If Scripture is true, Jesus' sacrifice was unique because he was the perfect son of God. It was his divine, sinless perfection that was vital to his atonement for sin. No martyr has ever been able to claim divine, sinless perfection.

Could he not consider some other type of demonstration, not necessarily of sacrificial love, just that he is still here? I think that's reasonable.

Christ's sacrifice wasn't just a demonstration of love but was also the means by which God's justice was satisfied. Calvary wasn't just about God saying, "I'm here and I love you," but about Jesus being "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

I don't think its silly either, I think that's just Alex's frustration coming through. I don't think its extravagant either though. He apparently sent one human form to us 2000 years ago. It may well have been an important form for him. However extravagant would have been to send thousands of these son forms to every community on Earth, and to continue doing so on a regular basis. Throw in a unworldly entrance and exit and that would be even more extravagant.

Nope sorry, the lack of extravagance is what concerns me. Its raised the possibility, however small, that Jesus may have been a mortal man.

This is the thinking of one who has not understood well who God is and how completely undeserving of His love and mercy we are. The very act of God taking on human form, of becoming man, was excessive in the extreme! There was enormous humiliation in such an act. God lowered Himself from His Supreme, glorified, transcendent, heavenly estate and in the Person of Christ became a weak, tiny (sub-microscopic, really, in the context of the entire universe), grubby human being. And the humiliation didn't stop there! He took upon Himself the role of a servant, serving ignorant, and selfish, and antagonistic humanity first as teacher and healer, and then, at the hands of evil men, as a sacrifice. This was all done, not because we deserved for it to be done. Not hardly! God had perfect right to do the very opposite! He was under no obligation whatever to save us from our sins. But God's extravagant love and grace provoked Him to redeem us through blood atonement from the just punishment of our sin.

Would you be prepared to share?

1.) Thematic unity.
2.) Fulfilled prophecy.
3.) Historical/archaeological accuracy.
4.) Impact upon individuals and culture.
5.) Survivability.
6.) Personal experience of its truth.
7.) Correspondence to reality.
8.) Explanatory power.

And so on.

Selah.