I need help from Christians well-versed in both philosophy and theology!

[Shaney77]

Pascal writing during his period of doubt is perhaps not the best authority on Christianity, but what he actually wrote was:

For it is not true that all reveals God, and it is not true that all conceals God. But it is at the same time true that He hides Himself from those who tempt Him, and that He reveals Himself to those who seek Him, because men are both unworthy and capable of God; unworthy by their corruption, capable by their original nature.

There'a a reference there to Hebrews 11:6.

Yes, I probably did read this at some point. Tom Morris' book about Pascal is where I got most of the information, so it could have been Morris projecting this idea onto Pascal.

 

[Shaney77]

I was halfway joking about leaving some out with the title.

I suppose it's an individual thing then, because for me, there is a knock out argument, and so much so, after hearing the mainstream alternatives, there is pretty much nothing to argue as far as I'm concerned...God makes perfect sense...even before one even thinks about the faith side of it.

Oh! I apologize for not seeing the joke.

For you, the alternatives to Christianity are quite inferior. I can see that! You've probably studied God a lot more than I have and/or are more intelligent in this area. I can't seem to grasp it.

 

[Shaney77]

Yes, or at least I think we're talking about the same thing, I'd probably have to explain it more...if I can it's hard to explain. I'm actually someone who was like memory foam when it came to believing that it was true VS believing it wasn't true. I constantly gave new life to my intellectual doubts, I would believe, then like memory foam I'd reform into the skeptic me again.

So this spiritual discernment concept is hard to explain. Conversion to believing that Christianity is true was not a straight shot for me and it was very long and doubt filled. However the long road gave me an interesting view of spiritual discernment. Let's give my intellectual objections the analogy of noise level, let's call my objections 'Loud' objections. I carried these loud objections with me all over the place, and picked Christian brains if I ran into any, and usually at the end of the conversation the volume of my objections didn't get any louder or quieter, UNLESS a good intellectual point was presented.

However, for argument's sake let's say that your volume knob of intellectual objections is set at 10, well mine was more like 7 because I did have a few things that I found impressive about Christianity (along with the objections). So ok, if you wanted to tweak my intellectual volume knob I wanted to hear something half decent! And my volume knob did get tweaked at times. If someone REALLY made me think the music might even get turned down to a 5.

So this was my thing. I was a Doubting Thomas and I picked brains. And if a half descent point was made I would feel a sort of slight reduction in the loudness of my objections. But again I was like memory foam...give it 2 weeks and I was back at 7.

Now here's where it gets intellectually strange. There is a backstory to this that meditation on Jesus and/or reading the Gospels brought about for me a natural high that existed with no other experience of thought, nothing but meditation on Jesus could produce this natural high for me, this 'Jesus Feeling.' This is kind of like how being in love is an awesome natural high feeling, but it is completely distinct from the awesome natural high feeling you get being around a baby. Both are awesome feelings, but totally different. Well likewise this 'Jesus Feeling' is a natural high that is completely distinct to any other great feeling that I've had in life.

I actually used to use the 'Jesus Feeling' on purpose sometimes when I didn't even feel like 'Going Religious' but I was simply very stressed and I really needed a feel good fix (however it did have the ability to pull me in a keep me for awhile). Ok back to the intellectual strangeness...this 'Jesus Feeling' I got from Jesus meditation or Gospel reading (which pretty much naturally brought on Jesus meditation all by itself as I would read the Gospels) would actually muffle the loudness of my intellectual objections, and the volume knob all the sudden found itself at 1 or 2 for absolutely no logical reason. I would literally sometimes make a confused face and be like, "Huh?? I'm pretty sure I believe now!! Um, yeah I do totally believe now!!"

But the intellectual side of me was puzzled as to why I now suddenly believed...yet my intellectual side (even though it was asking the question) wasn't jumping up and down in protest anymore like it does when the volume is on 7.

But being the hard headed block of memory foam that I was I pulled myself out of those states of belief all the time, this went on for years, I was a seesaw believer. Several times I would sort of try to philosophize with a friend of mine about how this made any sense. How was it that my intellectual objections could get lowered down to a 1 or 2 by doing something that had no intellectual content to it whatsoever??? Then, how could I pull myself out of it...and no longer relate to being in a state of "Volume Knob at 1" anymore, when I was literally just in that state of mind a mere 2 days ago!!?? Lol it really made no logical sense. Nevermind the fact that the entire pursuit for me was an intellectual one!! It was like there were 2 gauges inside of me not just one (gauge #1 the intellectual gauge). And the 2nd gauge was proving to be more powerful.

So I would say that 'Spiritual Discernment' for me is this (logically) bizarre phenomenon where Jesus can significantly muffle the volume of my intellectual objections without a single intellectual point being made. It's almost as if these 'Jesus Feelings' are this invisible blanket of comfort that Jesus places over my body, BUT attached to it is also a head piece that slips over my intellectual doubts. Lol again it is really hard to explain.

I think a guy like me is extremely rare though. People don't tend to seesaw around like I did (I think). Check out C.S. Lewis' conversion story. His path was an intellectual journey. He tells this story about how strange it was that he had been questioning Christianity for awhile...and he found himself on a pleasant drive to the zoo (not in the middle of some intellectual exchange), and then he says that he can't explain it but when the drive started he was not a Christian, but when he reached the zoo he was a Christian. That's probably more in line with how a normal person converts, unlike me lol.

I really like your explanation! I somewhat recall doing a similar thing a few years back. Like you, I'd read the Bible and feel amazing, but then doubt over some proposition would creep in, and my mind would say, "it's just a feel good story." It's like...there is certainly something very personal about Jesus' words, yet this fact alone doesn't convince me that they are divine. I keep looking for something that isn't here, namely evidence that no one can rationally question. My faith is in experts' opinions... And I can't get past that, no matter how hard I think about it.

 

[Shaney77]

the very desire you have to have a relationship with your creator is evidence He is calling you...all you need to do is seek Him.

You and everyone else who've told me that the very existence of my message here is evidence that He is at work on me, does bring me lots of peace. I guess it means my heart isn't completely hardened yet.

 

[Shaney77]

No problem. I was just asking. I know who Tom Morris is, too, but I read Pascal directly (in his Pensees).

As to the issue of sin, I'm going to have to say that I think God initiates nudges through our conscience to show us the moral direction He'd like for us to go. But then it's up to us to come to a place each day where we in fact shoulder the load and say, "Not my will, but Yours be done, Lord!" Of course, that's much easier thought and said than done.

In essence, I think if we look at the overall contexts of the Bible, we'll see that God expects us to volunteer our efforts in following after Him, despite what some hyper-charismatic voices might tell us should be the case otherwise. God is not interested in being a puppet-master, nor is He interested in necessarily making it all "easy" for us; however, I'm pretty sure He still wants us to receive help from Christian brothers and sisters to shoulder our burdens along the way.

Yes, I'd also say that God would want us to seek Him first. As for philosophy, I became interested in it as I began studying theology. The two kind of overlap sometimes. None of this was in college though. I like to research online, and I learned about the most relevant branches that way.

I like the quote you mentioned about prayer. Even after being on two forums and reading lots of responses on this, I still feel like merely reading the Bible and praying might be the best route. I've been recommended lots of good books too, but it's hard to keep at an entire book with bad ADHD. Where am I at now? I have no idea! Information overload? YES! I am spread too thin. Time to focus on tiny pieces of information.

 

[Dirk1540]

I really like your explanation! I somewhat recall doing a similar thing a few years back. Like you, I'd read the Bible and feel amazing, but then doubt over some proposition would creep in, and my mind would say, "it's just a feel good story." It's like...there is certainly something very personal about Jesus' words, yet this fact alone doesn't convince me that they are divine. I keep looking for something that isn't here, namely evidence that no one can rationally question. My faith is in experts' opinions... And I can't get past that, no matter how hard I think about it.

And everyone is different. Me and you need both, we need to feel that Jesus presence but we also need some rational data to chew on. But then the data that I find to be convincing you might just roll your eyes at, and vise versa, what does it for you might do nothing for me...or it could be somewhere in the middle you could think a certain point is somewhat helpful, and I could think it's enormously helpful.

Then a 3rd person will come along and think that the both of us are totally out of our minds for not considering the internal Jesus experiences to be enough. Their motto is "A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument." Before I ever had personal experiences I used to think these people were just full of hot air. They can't comprehend why we're looking through history or philosophy books when Jesus literally shakes you to your core. I laugh sometimes when I understand where 2 people are coming from...but the 2 people interacting have no clue where the other is coming from lol.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh! I apologize for not seeing the joke.

For you, the alternatives to Christianity are quite inferior. I can see that! You've probably studied God a lot more than I have and/or are more intelligent in this area. I can't seem to grasp it.

You are likely correct.

There is another aspect, if it were possible to get rid of all our learned biases, and have no knowledge of God, Heaven, Hell (punishment reward) big bang, evolution, none of that stuff.

Then have someone pose the question to us, a creator? or the alternative.

A somewhat doable example would be to ask someone where anything that isn't natural came from, and I'd guess no one would say it just appeared. Meaning we naturally think "creator" because that's all we've ever seen happen, where just coming into existence without explanation, may make no sense at all, so why is that not a logical explanation for the universe? Just on a higher lever.

Don't most old religions naturally point towards a creator?

Just some thoughts.

 

[razzelflabben]

Happiness, at this point, might just be some sort of peace that everything will eventually be OK.

which is one of the beautiful gifts God gives when we give ourselves wholly to Him.

I talked previously about belief of the heart, let me elaborate a bit. WE can make a decision with our mind as in, I set my thoughts to following the teachings of X...or we can set our hearts to something as in, I set my heart to follow the truth wherever it can be found. Which is more committed? Which is a stronger covenant? The heart right? because with the heart we apply our whole being to the thing we want. Now when it comes to God especially the God of peace what happens is that when we apply our whole being to follow we discover that the war within us ceases to a degree. (what I mean is that there is still a battle but we no longer have any conflict about what is right) God is the God of peace we know this because He is the God that requires faith and faith is a confident rest that God is all about what is best for us and in that trust. If you want happiness/peace you need God.

 

[aiki]

Basically, I am in a sort of existential crisis. I see myself as a soft agnostic, so I am skeptical of almost everything. To me, there are two very simple reasons that this is a rational stance: expert disagreement and the sheer complexity of existence. I want to know the ultimate truth of reality, but I don't see how anyone could possibly ever know such a thing.

We can't know the Ultimate Reality who is God entirely, but He has made some revelation of Himself in Creation, in the record of holy Scripture, and in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Skepticism is a double-edged sword. In extreme degree, it becomes self-refuting. If nothing can be truly known, then the statement that nothing can be truly known is itself in doubt. Skepticism, then, can become quite irrational, if one is not careful to limit it.

The main reason this is so pressing is because of the Christian hell threatening me (not to mention "hells" of other religions).

Why aren't you skeptical of the notion of hell? If skepticism is generally your default setting, why not simply be skeptical of divine punishment?

Christianity says that if you don't "believe," you perish. How on earth can someone magically choose to believe?

The Bible says nothing about "magically believing." In fact, Paul the apostle spelled out a very rational basis for his trust in Christ:

2 Timothy 1:12
12 ,...for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

For Paul, his trust in Christ was predicated upon knowledge that he was persuaded was true. There was no blind leap of faith as so many anti-theists today like to say is the essence of Christian belief. What is the knowledge, exactly, that persuaded Paul? There are three main realms of knowledge that led to his conversion to Christianity: The first is what is known as "natural theology." For a thorough investigation of this realm of knowledge go to:

www.reasonablefaith.org

Paul also had scriptural reasons to believe which he explains in his various letters to the Early Church. Third, Paul had a personal revelation, a direct experience of, God. Together, these things persuaded him to trust in Christ as his Saviour and Lord. There was, then, for Paul no "magically believing" in God.

Sure, I can go to church, talk with believers, pray, and "live the life," but rather than this bringing about evidence of something real, how is this not merely facilitating psychological manipulated belief? I could do the same with any other religion and end up with some sort of belief in it as well. It'd be due to processes such as wish fulfillment and confirmation bias.

Is it wish fulfillment and confirmation bias at work when a person interacts with their parents, or siblings, or spouse and is confident in their trust in these people? Obviously not. So, too, with the Christian believer. God is not merely a religious theory or a philosophical position to embrace and defend; He is a Person. He wants to interact with His children and He does. He convicts them of sin; He illuminates their understanding to His truth; He comforts them in trouble; He provides for their needs both spiritually and physically; He produces in them the "peaceable fruit of righteousness." When this is a person's experience of God, it is no more possible to doubt His existence than it is to doubt the existence of family, spouse, or friends.

God exists whether or not we experience that He does; a person's experience of God is not the ultimate arbiter of His existence. There are plenty of reasons quite apart from one's personal experience upon which to rest a faith in the God revealed in the Bible. Here are some websites that can give you a thorough explication of those reasons:

www.crossexamined.org
www.str.org
www.rzim.org

No external "evidence" or type of natural theology should convince anyone of God's existence. These areas are hotly debated by elite philosophers on both sides, and no positive ground is ever made. The world is religiously ambiguous and God is essentially "hidden," per major Christian philosophers.

This assumes your position of agnosticism is somehow the best position to adopt. Obviously, those "elite philosophers" who are "hotly debating" natural theology on both sides disagree that your position is a good one. How, then, is your agnosticism superior to their affirmation or denial of the arguments for God from natural theology? Is the man who hears that the building he is in is on fire and responds with skeptical agnosticism to the claim wiser than the one who says it is on fire or denies outright that it is not? Is it a wise man who waits 'til the fire is licking at his toes before he abandons his agnosticism about its existence? No, a wise man would, given the potential danger, do the necessary work as quickly possible to ascertain one way or the other if the claim about the fire was true. It would be foolish of him to just throw up his hands and say, "Well, there is controversy about the reality of the claim that the building is on fire. I guess I'll just sit and wait until I see the fire before I'll make any sort of response." People who do this sort of thing end up crispy and dead. And their response is, practically-speaking, exactly the same as those who actively deny that the building is on fire.

This leaves us to rely on supernatural occurrences from God. I can safely say that only a supernatural occurrence will convince me of anything. Yet how can I somehow get God to grant me this?

For someone who claims agnosticism you are rather too sure about what is reliable evidence for God and what is not. The mere presence of controversy, however strong, does not necessarily mean that the truth is not and cannot be known. Imagine a man who jerks up from his table at a restaurant, clutching his throat and turning red in the face. Another man at a nearby table
says, "Oh, look! That fellow's meal was too hot. He's burnt his mouth and throat!" A woman glancing over leaps to her feet and shouts, "Goodness! He's choking! The man is choking!" She moves to help the fellow who's lurching about and waving his arms. "Just get him some ice or a glass of cold water. He'll be fine," says the man at the nearby table. There's some controversy over what is, in fact, wrong with the man who's staggering about. Should you sit back and do nothing? Would it be right to say to yourself, "These two are very certain about what they think is wrong. They've got the very same information but have come to very different but plausible conclusions. I suppose its impossible, then, to know what's actually wrong until the fellow tells us"? I hope not. Controversy does not mean the truth is not or cannot be known.

You have your supernatural occurrence in the resurrection of Christ. For more miraculous evidence read "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts," by Craig Keener. It's a two-volume set that offers very credible evidence, not just for biblical miracles, but for various miracles that have occurred since the writing of the New Testament.

It's been my experience that walking with God inevitably involves seeing His supernatural intervention in my affairs. I have seen Him do many incredible things for which a natural explanation just doesn't work. I recall my brother praying for a job and getting one but lacking the means to travel to and from the job. He couldn't walk or cycle the distance and public transit couldn't get him to his workplace. So, he prayed that God would also provide the means of transport to the job. He didn't tell anyone of his need or of his request. The next morning - the day of his first shift at the new job - a man arrived in a car. He walked up to the door of our house and when my brother answered the door, he dropped a pair of car keys into his hand and said, "God told me you needed a car. Here are the keys. Insurance is good to the end of the month. God bless." And then he got into another car that had pulled up and drove off. We were all quite stunned. My brother knew the man in only a second-hand sort of way but got in his new car and headed off to work.

When you say, "Only a supernatural sign will convince me God exists," you're putting yourself in the position of telling God what to do. He doesn't work that way. He won't jump through your hoops just because you demand that He do so. Look, He doesn't need you to believe in Him. He's absolutely undiminished by your lack of faith. But you, on the other hand, very much need Him. Your eternal destiny hangs upon your coming into relationship with Him. Your life's purpose, it's meaning and fulfillment, is entirely contingent upon Him. So, you can fold your arms across your chest and try to order God to do a miracle for you, but I very much doubt He will. You must come to Him His way, not yours. And if you don't, you're the only one who suffers.

 

[Shaney77]

And everyone is different. Me and you need both, we need to feel that Jesus presence but we also need some rational data to chew on. But then the data that I find to be convincing you might just roll your eyes at, and vise versa, what does it for you might do nothing for me...or it could be somewhere in the middle you could think a certain point is somewhat helpful, and I could think it's enormously helpful.

Then a 3rd person will come along and think that the both of us are totally out of our minds for not considering the internal Jesus experiences to be enough. Their motto is "A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument." Before I ever had personal experiences I used to think these people were just full of hot air. They can't comprehend why we're looking through history or philosophy books when Jesus literally shakes you to your core. I laugh sometimes when I understand where 2 people are coming from...but the 2 people interacting have no clue where the other is coming from lol.

I totally wish I knew how and why people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. It'd be something good to study, but I'm not sure what the discipline would even be called. Actually, I've read about it before, but I can't remember who wrote the paper or what its title was. I know one small aspect is due to the philosophical school that someone studied in college.

 

[Dirk1540]

I totally wish I knew how and why people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. It'd be something good to study, but I'm not sure what the discipline would even be called. Actually, I've read about it before, but I can't remember who wrote the paper or what its title was. I know one small aspect is due to the philosophical school that someone studied in college.

When @2PhiloVoid reads this I think he will be foaming at the mouth haha, this is one of his favorite subjects...I will yield the floor to him lol.

 

[Shaney77]

You are likely correct.

There is another aspect, if it were possible to get rid of all our learned biases, and have no knowledge of God, Heaven, Hell (punishment reward) big bang, evolution, none of that stuff.

Then have someone pose the question to us, a creator? or the alternative.

A somewhat doable example would be to ask someone where anything that isn't natural came from, and I'd guess no one would say it just appeared. Meaning we naturally think "creator" because that's all we've ever seen happen, where just coming into existence without explanation, may make no sense at all, so why is that not a logical explanation for the universe? Just on a higher lever.

Don't most old religions naturally point towards a creator?

Just some thoughts.

Oh, you mean if we were thrown into the world with no memories and someone asked us if it was due to design? This is a nice thought experiment. When I focus on the beauty of nature, I can safely say it looks like design, but when I factor in all the death and destruction, I go completely the opposite direction. This is probably where some sort of historically accurate religious explanation comes in, otherwise I guess deism might be the rational choice?

 

[Shaney77]

which is one of the beautiful gifts God gives when we give ourselves wholly to Him.

I talked previously about belief of the heart, let me elaborate a bit. WE can make a decision with our mind as in, I set my thoughts to following the teachings of X...or we can set our hearts to something as in, I set my heart to follow the truth wherever it can be found. Which is more committed? Which is a stronger covenant? The heart right? because with the heart we apply our whole being to the thing we want. Now when it comes to God especially the God of peace what happens is that when we apply our whole being to follow we discover that the war within us ceases to a degree. (what I mean is that there is still a battle but we no longer have any conflict about what is right) God is the God of peace we know this because He is the God that requires faith and faith is a confident rest that God is all about what is best for us and in that trust. If you want happiness/peace you need God.

You're right; the heart would definitely be more powerful and able to force more actions.

 

[Shaney77]

We can't know the Ultimate Reality who is God entirely, but He has made some revelation of Himself in Creation, in the record of holy Scripture, and in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Skepticism is a double-edged sword. In extreme degree, it becomes self-refuting. If nothing can be truly known, then the statement that nothing can be truly known is itself in doubt. Skepticism, then, can become quite irrational, if one is not careful to limit it.



Why aren't you skeptical of the notion of hell? If skepticism is generally your default setting, why not simply be skeptical of divine punishment?



The Bible says nothing about "magically believing." In fact, Paul the apostle spelled out a very rational basis for his trust in Christ:

2 Timothy 1:12
12 ,...for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day.

For Paul, his trust in Christ was predicated upon knowledge that he was persuaded was true. There was no blind leap of faith as so many anti-theists today like to say is the essence of Christian belief. What is the knowledge, exactly, that persuaded Paul? There are three main realms of knowledge that led to his conversion to Christianity: The first is what is known as "natural theology." For a thorough investigation of this realm of knowledge go to:

www.reasonablefaith.org

Paul also had scriptural reasons to believe which he explains in his various letters to the Early Church. Third, Paul had a personal revelation, a direct experience of, God. Together, these things persuaded him to trust in Christ as his Saviour and Lord. There was, then, for Paul no "magically believing" in God.



Is it wish fulfillment and confirmation bias at work when a person interacts with their parents, or siblings, or spouse and is confident in their trust in these people? Obviously not. So, too, with the Christian believer. God is not merely a religious theory or a philosophical position to embrace and defend; He is a Person. He wants to interact with His children and He does. He convicts them of sin; He illuminates their understanding to His truth; He comforts them in trouble; He provides for their needs both spiritually and physically; He produces in them the "peaceable fruit of righteousness." When this is a person's experience of God, it is no more possible to doubt His existence than it is to doubt the existence of family, spouse, or friends.

God exists whether or not we experience that He does; a person's experience of God is not the ultimate arbiter of His existence. There are plenty of reasons quite apart from one's personal experience upon which to rest a faith in the God revealed in the Bible. Here are some websites that can give you a thorough explication of those reasons:

www.crossexamined.org
www.str.org
www.rzim.org



This assumes your position of agnosticism is somehow the best position to adopt. Obviously, those "elite philosophers" who are "hotly debating" natural theology on both sides disagree that your position is a good one. How, then, is your agnosticism superior to their affirmation or denial of the arguments for God from natural theology? Is the man who hears that the building he is in is on fire and responds with skeptical agnosticism to the claim wiser than the one who says it is on fire or denies outright that it is not? Is it a wise man who waits 'til the fire is licking at his toes before he abandons his agnosticism about its existence? No, a wise man would, given the potential danger, do the necessary work as quickly possible to ascertain one way or the other if the claim about the fire was true. It would be foolish of him to just throw up his hands and say, "Well, there is controversy about the reality of the claim that the building is on fire. I guess I'll just sit and wait until I see the fire before I'll make any sort of response." People who do this sort of thing end up crispy and dead. And their response is, practically-speaking, exactly the same as those who actively deny that the building is on fire.



For someone who claims agnosticism you are rather too sure about what is reliable evidence for God and what is not. The mere presence of controversy, however strong, does not necessarily mean that the truth is not and cannot be known. Imagine a man who jerks up from his table at a restaurant, clutching his throat and turning red in the face. Another man at a nearby table
says, "Oh, look! That fellow's meal was too hot. He's burnt his mouth and throat!" A woman glancing over leaps to her feet and shouts, "Goodness! He's choking! The man is choking!" She moves to help the fellow who's lurching about and waving his arms. "Just get him some ice or a glass of cold water. He'll be fine," says the man at the nearby table. There's some controversy over what is, in fact, wrong with the man who's staggering about. Should you sit back and do nothing? Would it be right to say to yourself, "These two are very certain about what they think is wrong. They've got the very same information but have come to very different but plausible conclusions. I suppose its impossible, then, to know what's actually wrong until the fellow tells us"? I hope not. Controversy does not mean the truth is not or cannot be known.

You have your supernatural occurrence in the resurrection of Christ. For more miraculous evidence read "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts," by Craig Keener. It's a two-volume set that offers very credible evidence, not just for biblical miracles, but for various miracles that have occurred since the writing of the New Testament.

It's been my experience that walking with God inevitably involves seeing His supernatural intervention in my affairs. I have seen Him do many incredible things for which a natural explanation just doesn't work. I recall my brother praying for a job and getting one but lacking the means to travel to and from the job. He couldn't walk or cycle the distance and public transit couldn't get him to his workplace. So, he prayed that God would also provide the means of transport to the job. He didn't tell anyone of his need or of his request. The next morning - the day of his first shift at the new job - a man arrived in a car. He walked up to the door of our house and when my brother answered the door, he dropped a pair of car keys into his hand and said, "God told me you needed a car. Here are the keys. Insurance is good to the end of the month. God bless." And then he got into another car that had pulled up and drove off. We were all quite stunned. My brother knew the man in only a second-hand sort of way but got in his new car and headed off to work.

When you say, "Only a supernatural sign will convince me God exists," you're putting yourself in the position of telling God what to do. He doesn't work that way. He won't jump through your hoops just because you demand that He do so. Look, He doesn't need you to believe in Him. He's absolutely undiminished by your lack of faith. But you, on the other hand, very much need Him. Your eternal destiny hangs upon your coming into relationship with Him. Your life's purpose, it's meaning and fulfillment, is entirely contingent upon Him. So, you can fold your arms across your chest and try to order God to do a miracle for you, but I very much doubt He will. You must come to Him His way, not yours. And if you don't, you're the only one who suffers.

I really appreciate you taking the time to wrestle with my post.

I agree with a lot you wrote, but I do think I need to clarify a few things, as I feel I wasn't quite clear enough. And I'll answer the questions you asked.

I am skeptical that hell is real, but the fact that it might be real is what worries me. There is too much on the line to be wrong here. I think my heightened belief in it is from where I grew up in a Christian home.

Paul was allowed a lot more evidence than we have now, so there wasn't any "magic" involved in his belief when compared to ours. (I'm referring to his direct experience with God.)

Certainly agnosticism isn't a wise place to be until death. As William James believed, agnosticism seems to sever any chance a person has of finding the truth. I'm not and won't ever be satisfied as an agnostic, but I feel it's the only possible worldview for me right now. Soft agnosticism is the place for a seeker who doesn't know or is confused on how to clearly/reliably proceed forward.

I think everything has a truth and sure way of being (contrary to relativism), but there's no good way to choose an expert or side on any matter. It's not possible to test all the arguments and evidence of two debating experts in a timely manner: the line of cited sources would continue on and on and on, through each work to the next.

You mentioned that the supernatural occurrence has already happened, and it was in the resurrection of Christ. The idea to study the historicity of Christ's resurrection is very attractive to me now, and I could see myself getting very involved with it, but I know when I feel I am finished, there'll be some sort of doubt that I missed some piece of its puzzle or didn't read the totality of what is available...not sure how to escape that. I do also know that some in history (such as Schweitzer) looked at the historical evidence and came away not believing in the resurrection.

In the past, I do somewhat remember noticing lots of weird "coincidences" when I was trying to follow Jesus. How do I know my mind wasn't playing tricks on me and causing me to notice what I was already biased to? If we begin to look for some awareness in daily life, we have a far higher chance of finding it than if we weren't looking. Isn't this a byproduct of merely increasing our attention and being more sensitive/present?

Some here believe that it's God job to bring us to him - not the other way around. Of course, there are verses that support both sides. If you look in a systematic theology, the amount of views on incredibly important topics (such as salvation) is astounding. There are a lot of (seemingly?) contradictory verses. I've no idea how a layman is supposed to sort through these issues. And why does a layman even have to come to textual experts for help? The Gospel is supposed to be easy enough for a child to understand.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I want to know the ultimate truth of reality, but I don't see how anyone could possibly ever know such a thing.

Well, Yahweh solves your problem then.
Not a worry in the world, nothing (except yourself) can prevent you from finding out the Truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I totally wish I knew how and why people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. It'd be something good to study, but I'm not sure what the discipline would even be called. Actually, I've read about it before, but I can't remember who wrote the paper or what its title was. I know one small aspect is due to the philosophical school that someone studied in college.

...pssstt!!! It's called 'hermeneutics,' but it's not biblical hermeneutics I'm referring to but rather the broader, more general type which encompasses psychological perception, epistemology, and interpretation.

And if you'll go to my own personal 'Information' page, scroll to nearly the bottom, you'll find a very short video there by a scholar who briefly lays out what is entailed in the scope of the hermeneutic endeavor.

 

[Dirk1540]

...pssstt!!! It's called 'hermeneutics,' but it's not biblical hermeneutics I'm referring to but rather the broader, more general type which encompasses psychological perception, epistemology, and interpretation.

And if you'll go to my own 'Personal Information' page, scroll to the bottom, you'll find a very short video there by a scholar who briefly lays out what is entailed in the scope of the subject matter.

I just peeked at your information page, I'll check the video out myself a little later. I don't think I've ever been to your info page before but I'll tell you one thing there's a coincidence that is blowing my mind! I see your picture in there, it's right next to your favorite quote. So you're favorite quote is from C.S. Lewis AND you look exactly like C.S. Lewis!!???

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I just peeked at your information page, I'll check the video out myself a little later. I don't think I've ever been to your info page before but I'll tell you one thing there's a coincidence that is blowing my mind! I see your picture in there, it's right next to your favorite quote. So you're favorite quote is from C.S. Lewis AND you look exactly like C.S. Lewis!!???

Do you want to know what the scary thing about it is? I probably really do look a little bit like ol' Lewis, now days anyway.

 

[Dirk1540]

Do you want to know what the scary thing about it is? I probably really do look a little bit like ol' Lewis, now days anyway.

Ok. I unintentionally create fictitious mental pictures of what some members look like, I had one for you, I officially picture Lewis' face now lol.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Oh, you mean if we were thrown into the world with no memories and someone asked us if it was due to design? This is a nice thought experiment. When I focus on the beauty of nature, I can safely say it looks like design, but when I factor in all the death and destruction, I go completely the opposite direction. This is probably where some sort of historically accurate religious explanation comes in, otherwise I guess deism might be the rational choice?

Yep, not understanding that sometimes things we may not like, are for a purpose/for our own good is reason enough for some to walk away from it. As a kid we may not have understood punishment or other things our parents implemented.

When I think about it, I supposes it's matter of relevance. Our parents may have spanked/grounded in order to get us under control, but the things that needed doing to get the whole world under control, a different story altogether, and could amount to brutal in our minds. Some things we won't understand till the time comes, just as we may not have til we became adults, concerning our parents doings.