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

[Shaney77]

For myself, there are some things I believe, and some things I know. In other words, I do not look at the clear blue sky and say in myself; "I believe it's blue." And so, the things I know, come without doubt. And many of the things I know, go against the conventional teaching of today's Christianity. In other words, I do not base my understanding on the teachings of the many. I do not say to myself; "Well, I guess if millions of people believe XYZ, then it must be true, so I had better also believe it. If that were the case, i might just as well be a Buddhist, or a Muslim. Again, as I said above, there is One who is my Teacher. And here is one thing I know. You do not get to God - or come to Christ - without first standing in fear of God. So, I know that any who have come to their belief without first fearing Him, carry a false faith. The God they worship is not the God of the Bible. They worship a false God. For they are looking at a goat, and calling it a sheep. Mat 7:23. And too; you cannot get to the middle, by skipping over the beginning. You cannot get to the middle of the true path - if you have started down the wrong path - a false path.

I think you would do well, to try and stand back away from yourself (as I now stand), so that you might see what is happening to you - or within you. Look at your words. You say; "Fear of hell will not leave my mind." And then you say you have a desire to; "Get right with God." And so, as I have already told you, you have been set down on the true path. And too; I have told you that you do not even realize that Christ (who is within you) is speaking to you. And you need only look to the Scriptures, to find the evidence of this. Luke 12:5. And I tell you the truth; He is not simply speaking it. He is commanding it!!! He is causing it to well up and blossom into your awareness! You are not 'deciding' or 'choosing' this. John 15:16. But rather, by the will of the Father, He is first drawing you. John 6:44. And so again I say; "Take heart little one!"

I really appreciate your opening up my mind to the idea that this very struggle is from God Himself. <3 I am sorry for the late response.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Hello everyone,

I came here to share a personal predicament and hopefully get some life-changing advice.

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.

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

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

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 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? Pascal seemed to believe that if a person wasn't moral, God would hide himself from that person. I can't possibly be moral without the Holy Spirit's help (per scripture), and the Holy Spirit won't come until belief is had. There is no way to win!

In the end, I wonder if belief will always elude me. Death is scary when of the knowledge that hell might await.

True repentance from a sinful life (breaking the Ten Commandments) and saving faith is a work of the Holy Spirit. You cannot receive these things by yourself. You can try with all your might, but you will continue to be frustrated in your search unless God, by His Holy Spirit gives you the require insight into what the Gospel of Christ is all about. Not good news for you. So what can you do?

You need to plead for mercy from God that He will give you the insight into how to get through the narrow gate of salvation in Christ. You can "get religion", be an outward Christian, but still be lost eternally. But God is not willing that any should perish, but that all may come to repentance. But what is true repentance? A clue is found in Psalm 51. Can you pray that prayer sincerely? Can you personalise that prayer for yourself? That is your starting point. Are you really convinced in yourself that you are a sinner, subject to condemnation at the Judgment? Until you are, you won't be able to pray Psalm 51 and really mean it. It is not just chanting the words, it has to be a heartfelt prayer to God, pleading for His mercy and grace to show you the way to salvation in Christ. Once He knows that you really mean business, He may give you the spirit of repentance and saving faith so that you will avoid the consequences of remaining Christless.

 

[Shaney77]

True repentance from a sinful life (breaking the Ten Commandments) and saving faith is a work of the Holy Spirit. You cannot receive these things by yourself. You can try with all your might, but you will continue to be frustrated in your search unless God, by His Holy Spirit gives you the require insight into what the Gospel of Christ is all about. Not good news for you. So what can you do?

You need to plead for mercy from God that He will give you the insight into how to get through the narrow gate of salvation in Christ. You can "get religion", be an outward Christian, but still be lost eternally. But God is not willing that any should perish, but that all may come to repentance. But what is true repentance? A clue is found in Psalm 51. Can you pray that prayer sincerely? Can you personalise that prayer for yourself? That is your starting point. Are you really convinced in yourself that you are a sinner, subject to condemnation at the Judgment? Until you are, you won't be able to pray Psalm 51 and really mean it. It is not just chanting the words, it has to be a heartfelt prayer to God, pleading for His mercy and grace to show you the way to salvation in Christ. Once He knows that you really mean business, He may give you the spirit of repentance and saving faith so that you will avoid the consequences of remaining Christless.

I really appreciate your comment! Thank you!

 

[food4thought]

Hello everyone,

I came here to share a personal predicament and hopefully get some life-changing advice.

Hi Shaney77. I hope you have received some advice that was of help, and I hope that perhaps something I have to say will ignite a spark of faith within you.

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.

I am sorry to hear that you are so skeptical, it must be draining to constantly doubt things without proof. The "sheer complexity of existence" is one of the most compelling reasons to have faith in God, as this could hardly be the result of random forces acting over long periods of time. I Romans 1:19 Paul tells us that we all know there must be a God because of what is "within" us, indicating that our consciousness, intellect, and conscience should lead us to determine that something created us. Evolutionary explanations for these things are flimsy at best. Yet just knowing there is something out there is not enough for you... good! You want to actually know this creator.

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

The Bible tells us in multiple places that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom". Yet it is not the end of wisdom, but only the beginning (1 John 4:18)! What God desires from us is our love (1 John 4:7-8; Mark 12:30-31; etc.). When you truly come to now the heart of the Father, it is easy to love Him, and if we love Him we will love others also. Hell is an isolation unit for those who refuse to be healed by God's love, and thus are still contaminated by the evil of sin... it is for the protection of those who have been saved. Heaven would not be heaven if evil were allowed to dwell there. I don't know what the lost experience in hell, but I reject the literal understanding of a burning lake of fire... God does not need to inflict physical pain upon the lost, being left in their sin is punishment enough.

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

You don't need to "magically choose to believe". You can study the evidence for Christianity, study the Bible, spend time trying to connect with God. I believe that the reason many people never come to faith is because they do not truly want God. Do you truly want God in your life? If you do, I am confident He will meet you as you seek for Him in prayerful study of His word.

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.

I am convinced that my soul, my intellect, and my conscience are not accidental... that doesn't lead you all the way to faith in the God of the Bible, but it is a step in the right direction. Can we agree on that much?

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? Pascal seemed to believe that if a person wasn't moral, God would hide himself from that person. I can't possibly be moral without the Holy Spirit's help (per scripture), and the Holy Spirit won't come until belief is had. There is no way to win!

I see your dilemma. I don't agree with Pascal, but I also wouldn't expect some kind of supernatural sign from God. What you can expect is more subtle... answered prayer, a change in desires, and a still, small voice speaking to your heart. Once again, I think you must want God in order to connect with Him. He is love, and love does not force itself where it is not wanted. Do you want God... truly?

In the end, I wonder if belief will always elude me. Death is scary when of the knowledge that hell might await.

I am praying for you, Shaney77. I truly hope you find the One whom you seek.

 

[Shaney77]

Hi Shaney77. I hope you have received some advice that was of help, and I hope that perhaps something I have to say will ignite a spark of faith within you.



I am sorry to hear that you are so skeptical, it must be draining to constantly doubt things without proof. The "sheer complexity of existence" is one of the most compelling reasons to have faith in God, as this could hardly be the result of random forces acting over long periods of time. I Romans 1:19 Paul tells us that we all know there must be a God because of what is "within" us, indicating that our consciousness, intellect, and conscience should lead us to determine that something created us. Evolutionary explanations for these things are flimsy at best. Yet just knowing there is something out there is not enough for you... good! You want to actually know this creator.



The Bible tells us in multiple places that "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom". Yet it is not the end of wisdom, but only the beginning (1 John 4:18)! What God desires from us is our love (1 John 4:7-8; Mark 12:30-31; etc.). When you truly come to now the heart of the Father, it is easy to love Him, and if we love Him we will love others also. Hell is an isolation unit for those who refuse to be healed by God's love, and thus are still contaminated by the evil of sin... it is for the protection of those who have been saved. Heaven would not be heaven if evil were allowed to dwell there. I don't know what the lost experience in hell, but I reject the literal understanding of a burning lake of fire... God does not need to inflict physical pain upon the lost, being left in their sin is punishment enough.



You don't need to "magically choose to believe". You can study the evidence for Christianity, study the Bible, spend time trying to connect with God. I believe that the reason many people never come to faith is because they do not truly want God. Do you truly want God in your life? If you do, I am confident He will meet you as you seek for Him in prayerful study of His word.



I am convinced that my soul, my intellect, and my conscience are not accidental... that doesn't lead you all the way to faith in the God of the Bible, but it is a step in the right direction. Can we agree on that much?



I see your dilemma. I don't agree with Pascal, but I also wouldn't expect some kind of supernatural sign from God. What you can expect is more subtle... answered prayer, a change in desires, and a still, small voice speaking to your heart. Once again, I think you must want God in order to connect with Him. He is love, and love does not force itself where it is not wanted. Do you want God... truly?



I am praying for you, Shaney77. I truly hope you find the One whom you seek.

I'm really grateful for your response! In your post and a few others, I see that my actually *wanting* to know God is pretty instrumental in me actually being successful with knowing him, and I fear that might be my main issue. When it comes to this matter, I am fairly lazy, and I hardly have any drive or motivation. Stagnancy is a real deal here. I don't know how to "wake up" or be shook!

 

[food4thought]

I'm really grateful for your response! In your post and a few others, I see that my actually *wanting* to know God is pretty instrumental in me actually being successful with knowing him, and I fear that might be my main issue. When it comes to this matter, I am fairly lazy, and I hardly have any drive or motivation. Stagnancy is a real deal here. I don't know how to "wake up" or be shook!

Praying that God would ignite within you a desire to know Him.

 

[Shaney77]

Praying that God would ignite within you a desire to know Him.

Thank you so much!

 

[Uber Genius]

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

Not sure where you came up with this definition. The book of James says, "The demons believe," in God, are the demons also therefore Christian? Faith is not "claiming to know something for which there is no evidence." (PEter Boghossian, Dawkins, etc.) this is a pure charicature.

Faith, minus the New Athiest anachronism, is trust (from the Greek word pistis).

In scripture we are given various historical testimonies of supernatural acts, and specific details of events prophecies hundreds of years prior to those events. We get biographical discussions of various persons who interact with God, as well as one individual claiming to be God.

We evaluate this evidence to determine if this is something we can trust and more importantly take the next step to ask God if he exists for an experience that warrants these claims. This is known as Sensus Divinitatus, or absence that Jesus is who he claimed to be. Now I'm not saying "Just go with your gut." I'm saying let the evidence accumulate.

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.

Science is filled with inferences that are "hotly debated by elite scientific experts." Should we just conclude that science is not useful? Your approach is known as special pleading.

Your statement is also false as no elite professional philosophers argue for the logical problem of evil anymore. This is a problem that was resolved through natural philosophy in the late 1970s.

By defining knowledge as consensus you just reduce what can be labeled "knowledge." In fact you reduce our current knowledge of the world by several orders of magnitude just to eliminate natural theological evidence from reaching the jury. Hardly unbiased.

Why not just take them at face value, based on their merits?

 

[Soyeong]

Hello everyone,

I came here to share a personal predicament and hopefully get some life-changing advice.

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.

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

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

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 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? Pascal seemed to believe that if a person wasn't moral, God would hide himself from that person. I can't possibly be moral without the Holy Spirit's help (per scripture), and the Holy Spirit won't come until belief is had. There is no way to win!

In the end, I wonder if belief will always elude me. Death is scary when of the knowledge that hell might await.

Hello,

Hell is separation from God, who is the author and sustainer of life. If people want nothing to do with God in this life, then he does force them to spend eternity with them. So hell not like saying that you need to believe or else, but like informing you that if you drop a glass vase from height onto concrete, then it will shatter. Christianity is just as much about getting heaven into us as it is about getting us into heaven, so it is about reflecting God's love and other attributes to the world.

No one expects you to magically believe anything, but rather beliefs are only formed because someone has been given what they consider to be sufficient reason to believe it. For example, many people read the Bible and consider its testimony to be sufficient evidence to believe. Others look at people's testimonies of what God has done in their lives. There are hundreds of thousands of miracle claims, so some people look at those. I see nothing wrong with using metaphysical arguments like Aquinas's Five Ways. Others focus specifically on the resurrection of Jesus and on whether we can establish that to be an historical fact. Something extraordinary happened during that period that is extremely difficult to account for, I find the belief that Jesus did resurrect to be at least as difficult to believe as the belief that he did resurrect, but either way someone is believing something that is extremely difficult. If you can establish that the resurrection was an historical event, then supernatural occurrences don't have to be ones that happened to you personally.

 

[Shaney77]

Not sure where you came up with this definition. The book of James says, "The demons believe," in God, are the demons also therefore Christian? Faith is not "claiming to know something for which there is no evidence." (PEter Boghossian, Dawkins, etc.) this is a pure charicature.

Faith, minus the New Athiest anachronism, is trust (from the Greek word pistis).

In scripture we are given various historical testimonies of supernatural acts, and specific details of events prophecies hundreds of years prior to those events. We get biographical discussions of various persons who interact with God, as well as one individual claiming to be God.

We evaluate this evidence to determine if this is something we can trust and more importantly take the next step to ask God if he exists for an experience that warrants these claims. This is known as Sensus Divinitatus, or absence that Jesus is who he claimed to be. Now I'm not saying "Just go with your gut." I'm saying let the evidence accumulate.

Science is filled with inferences that are "hotly debated by elite scientific experts." Should we just conclude that science is not useful? Your approach is known as special pleading.

Your statement is also false as no elite professional philosophers argue for the logical problem of evil anymore. This is a problem that was resolved through natural philosophy in the late 1970s.

By defining knowledge as consensus you just reduce what can be labeled "knowledge." In fact you reduce our current knowledge of the world by several orders of magnitude just to eliminate natural theological evidence from reaching the jury. Hardly unbiased.

Why not just take them at face value, based on their merits?

Thank you for commenting. You made a great point about biblical faith being a form of trust. So I guess I wonder how we are supposed to have somewhat blind trust. I say blind because of the uncertainty involved. It seems there needs to be some sort of anchor or something. Maybe an anchor where there is no doubt involved.

I guess the so-called hiddenness of God *is* a form of the problem of evil, but I know it's also distinct enough from it. Also, there are newer (after the year 2000) books where this topic is still being wrestled with. Are you familiar with the idea of religious ambiguity? John Hick's work comes to mind here. Penelhum also. They believed the world is one where all sorts of opposing religious worldviews are rational in that they all have about equal amounts of apparent validity.

My purpose for bringing that up is I don't see how a layman can "choose" what to believe when such debates are going on. The mere presence of disagreement itself is not enough to disprove Christianity, but it's surely enough to make the whole matter crazy puzzling.

 

[Shaney77]

Hello,

Hell is separation from God, who is the author and sustainer of life. If people want nothing to do with God in this life, then he does force them to spend eternity with them. So hell not like saying that you need to believe or else, but like informing you that if you drop a glass vase from height onto concrete, then it will shatter. Christianity is just as much about getting heaven into us as it is about getting us into heaven, so it is about reflecting God's love and other attributes to the world.

No one expects you to magically believe anything, but rather beliefs are only formed because someone has been given what they consider to be sufficient reason to believe it. For example, many people read the Bible and consider its testimony to be sufficient evidence to believe. Others look at people's testimonies of what God has done in their lives. There are hundreds of thousands of miracle claims, so some people look at those. I see nothing wrong with using metaphysical arguments like Aquinas's Five Ways. Others focus specifically on the resurrection of Jesus and on whether we can establish that to be an historical fact. Something extraordinary happened during that period that is extremely difficult to account for, I find the belief that Jesus did resurrect to be at least as difficult to believe as the belief that he did resurrect, but either way someone is believing something that is extremely difficult. If you can establish that the resurrection was an historical event, then supernatural occurrences don't have to be ones that happened to you personally.

Thank you for commenting! Yes, studying the historicity of Jesus seems to be about the only "non-supernatural way" for me to go about finding God. I mean I at least see at least see a little promise in it. But then again, I am sure there are crazy scholarly debates going on about the historicity of the resurrection itself. So how would you know what to believe?

 

[Uber Genius]

Thank you for commenting. You made a great point about biblical faith being a form of trust. So I guess I wonder how we are supposed to have somewhat blind trust. I say blind because of the uncertainty involved. It seems there needs to be some sort of anchor or something. Maybe an anchor where there is no doubt involved.

I guess the so-called hiddenness of God *is* a form of the problem of evil, but I know it's also distinct enough from it. Also, there are newer (after the year 2000) books where this topic is still being wrestled with. Are you familiar with the idea of religious ambiguity? John Hick's work comes to mind here. Penelhum also. They believed the world is one where all sorts of opposing religious worldviews are rational in that they all have about equal amounts of apparent validity.

My purpose for bringing that up is I don't see how a layman can "choose" what to believe when such debates are going on. The mere presence of disagreement itself is not enough to disprove Christianity, but it's surely enough to make the whole matter crazy puzzling.

I don't believe we choose what to beleive, (doxastic voluntarism).

But rather we develop a trust in a person rather than a concept. It starts small and grows over time. You can produce defeaters for all sorts of things we take to be true.

We can't be certain of an external world, other minds, the reality or uniformity of the past, but based on our life experience it would be absurd to reject those properly basic foundational beliefs.

By setting the bar so high for what you describe as knowledge you don't just make it impossible to gain knowledge about religious truths, but also historical truths, and even scientific truths become dubious.

The God of the Bible wants people that seek him with all their hearts. We have an atheist community that is seeking to deny him with all their hearts. They will not find him ... The world he has created is for truth-seekers who will respond when they find enough truth to act on.

No need to rush. You can be thorough. But set the epistemic bar at a height that doesn't eliminate so much knowledge of the world.

God of Christianity is looking for people who know God fully and love him freely. Think of it as a marriage. Would you want to marry someone who said "Yeah, I guess Shaney exists, so what?"

God has created a world where people who want to love him find him. And those who would despise him are free to do so. That freedom requires that the Christian message not be completely compelling. IN other words sane, rational people will be intellectually free on reject the Christian God hypothesis.

 

[com7fy8]

How am I to get to a place where I genuinely want to see God for God?

That is God's miracle to do in you. We are praying for you.

 

[Shaney77]

I don't believe we choose what to beleive, (doxastic voluntarism).

But rather we develop a trust in a person rather than a concept. It starts small and grows over time. You can produce defeaters for all sorts of things we take to be true.

We can't be certain of an external world, other minds, the reality or uniformity of the past, but based on our life experience it would be absurd to reject those properly basic foundational beliefs.

By setting the bar so high for what you describe as knowledge you don't just make it impossible to gain knowledge about religious truths, but also historical truths, and even scientific truths become dubious.

The God of the Bible wants people that seek him with all their hearts. We have an atheist community that is seeking to deny him with all their hearts. They will not find him ... The world he has created is for truth-seekers who will respond when they find enough truth to act on.

No need to rush. You can be thorough. But set the epistemic bar at a height that doesn't eliminate so much knowledge of the world.

God of Christianity is looking for people who know God fully and love him freely. Think of it as a marriage. Would you want to marry someone who said "Yeah, I guess Shaney exists, so what?"

God has created a world where people who want to love him find him. And those who would despise him are free to do so. That freedom requires that the Christian message not be completely compelling. IN other words sane, rational people will be intellectually free on reject the Christian God hypothesis.

I like and trust your words here! They line up with a lot of philosophy I've read. So I am inclined to ask you a question that I can't answer for myself.

I, too, believe that we can't choose our beliefs. It more seems that we end up with beliefs from our experiences, intellect, environment, upbringing, education, etc. With that being said, why should I think my current beliefs about anything are trustworthy? After all, they are the product of multiple influences, and it's unknown if these influences are reliable ways of uncovering the truth. If two epistemic peers disagree, how can we choose one to trust over the other?

Pascal thought we should "live" our way to belief. If we don't believe now, we "live the life," and we will end up with belief later on. How is this not psychological manipulation? Of course if I jump head-first into something, I might be inclined to believe because of things like wish fulfillment or confirmation bias. Plus, if I invested a lot of time into something, psychologically I'd *want* my time spent to be worth something, so I might want to believe. But this belief wouldn't have any sort of reliable anchor.

I once sent C. Stephen Evans an email about this, and he seemed to champion Thomas Reid's common sense philosophy here. I'm just really confused...

 

[Shaney77]

That is God's miracle to do in you. We are praying for you.

Thank you so much! <3

 

[com7fy8]

You are welcome, @Shaney77

Yes, studying the historicity of Jesus seems to be about the only "non-supernatural way" for me to go about finding God.

I understand there are people who claim to report about Jesus, but they did not really spend time with Him or ever actually meet Him. So, their say would be on the hearsay side, and perhaps what they heard would be a modification from all which is true about Jesus.

But the four Gospels claim to be historical. And the Gospel of John to me seems the most likely to be a firsthand experience of walking with Jesus. And I don't think you will find humans who say the things which Jesus says and prays and how He handles things and relates with people, like we read in the Gospel of John.

But then again, I am sure there are crazy scholarly debates going on about the historicity of the resurrection itself.

Jesus appeared to chosen witnesses. And there is the claim that there were people who witnessed Jesus after He rose on the third day. And Jesus stayed a while with them; Jesus loves us; He was not in a hurry just to get back to Heaven where it is so better. But love had Jesus stay here with us humans, the way we can be. So, Jesus is not conceited!!

How Jesus so loves can help us to know how Jesus is.

So how would you know what to believe?

God proves Himself. God knows if He raised Jesus from the dead or not. He is able to personally communicate with you, about this.

 

[Uber Genius]

I, too, believe that we can't choose our beliefs. It more seems that we end up with beliefs from our experiences, intellect, environment, upbringing, education, etc. With that being said, why should I think my current beliefs about anything are trustworthy? After all, they are the product of multiple influences, and it's unknown if these influences are reliable ways of uncovering the truth. If two epistemic peers disagree, how can we choose one to trust over the other?

So the entailments of the privacy of your justifications (some of them) are not skepticism about your knowledge.

Imagine your mother is in a plane crash where everyone is lost at sea. No bodies are recovered, further all proof of her flying (the manifest) is deleted by mistake. Further every piece of evidence she existed disappears in a fire at her home and the courthouse that has all the records of her life. Someone sea the one photo that is left of your mom and asked you, "Who is that?" "My mom," you reply.

Do you really think that you would lose your knowledge of your mom because your proof was internal?

This is why skepticism is just a trick falsely limiting what can label knowledge.

More importantly knowledge isn't the game. God has created a world that rewards those who seek him "With all their hearts." Hiddeness of God separates he fakers from the real seekers. He is looking for a love relationship not someone who says, "well yeah I think God exists, so what?"

Apply your epistemic method to science. The scientists al have the various backgrounds that influence them and yet over time are willing to confirm some theories and reject as false other theories. History, art, music, math, philosophy all have the same limitations you discussed but none through up their hands and suggest gain knowledge is futile.

Because we have these differences we don't Evangeline's but just throwing up the four spiritual laws on nonbelievers. We give arguments, evidence, and experiential stories over a period of years.

Some can't possible envision a loving God due to horrible abuse by their parents (usual father), others were told by parents (themselves mad at God) that their was no God. It is not a race in that anyone at anytime can enter into a relationship with God (while living anyways).

 

[Uber Genius]

I like and trust your words here! They line up with a lot of philosophy I've read. So I am inclined to ask you a question that I can't answer for myself.

I, too, believe that we can't choose our beliefs. It more seems that we end up with beliefs from our experiences, intellect, environment, upbringing, education, etc. With that being said, why should I think my current beliefs about anything are trustworthy? After all, they are the product of multiple influences, and it's unknown if these influences are reliable ways of uncovering the truth. If two epistemic peers disagree, how can we choose one to trust over the other?

Pascal thought we should "live" our way to belief. If we don't believe now, we "live the life," and we will end up with belief later on. How is this not psychological manipulation? Of course if I jump head-first into something, I might be inclined to believe because of things like wish fulfillment or confirmation bias. Plus, if I invested a lot of time into something, psychologically I'd *want* my time spent to be worth something, so I might want to believe. But this belief wouldn't have any sort of reliable anchor.

I once sent C. Stephen Evans an email about this, and he seemed to champion Thomas Reid's common sense philosophy here. I'm just really confused...

Pascal was a good thinker but lived before a lot of the doxastic vulantarism work had been done.

You can no more force yourself to beleive you have three hands or that your mother is not your mother than you can force yourself to "choose to believe in God." This is why I don't not think Pascal's wager is a Biblical model for persuading belief. Paul uses historical data, prophetic data, philosophical arguments, and arguments from miracle experiences his audience is aware of and accepts as veridical. No wagers!

You have a body designed to operate knowingly in a physical world. Your soul chooses where to focus its attention (say on whether God exists or not), your soul weighs arguments (a priori) and life experiences as well as reports of others life experiences to determine what can be known one way or the other about the God inference.

Over time you gain data one direction or the other.

"Lord, I'm confused about the process of gaining knowledge about you, please give me clarity about my search, the data, and an experience of your existence." Is a prayer I might try. He is searching for you. Remember the response of the father in the parable of the prodigal son?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Thank you for commenting. You made a great point about biblical faith being a form of trust. So I guess I wonder how we are supposed to have somewhat blind trust. I say blind because of the uncertainty involved. It seems there needs to be some sort of anchor or something. Maybe an anchor where there is no doubt involved.

I guess the so-called hiddenness of God *is* a form of the problem of evil, but I know it's also distinct enough from it. Also, there are newer (after the year 2000) books where this topic is still being wrestled with. Are you familiar with the idea of religious ambiguity? John Hick's work comes to mind here. Penelhum also. They believed the world is one where all sorts of opposing religious worldviews are rational in that they all have about equal amounts of apparent validity.

My purpose for bringing that up is I don't see how a layman can "choose" what to believe when such debates are going on. The mere presence of disagreement itself is not enough to disprove Christianity, but it's surely enough to make the whole matter crazy puzzling.

I’m not trying to be rude, but isn’t aetheist a form of trust that there is not a God?

What are you basing this ‘trust’ on? The Big Bang theory or ??

I think just thinking life somehow came to exist for no reason or from some low level form is actually a crazier way of thinking that things like the four seasons, to plant life, to animal life to water vs land and the entire universe just happening by chance is a odder thing than believing in God.

Just look at babies and life created by a man and woman. Life starts as a that is so small itcannot be seen by the human eye into a complex body and brain that is energized by water and fed by land as far as crops and trees/ fruit ect.

The sun, night and day. Cold and warm. How our planet stays in orbit. The moons role in gravitational pull or even that our planet has gravity when we know that other planets and space does not. And air we breathe.

Honestly I think not seeing a Creator is a harder buy in for me. Seriously.

I just don’t see why you put your trust in that it was an accident. You would then be an accident with no purpose. Not created out of God’s love, in God’s image but just a random thing w no purpose.

To me that is an odd proposition

 

[Shaney77]

You are welcome, @Shaney77

I understand there are people who claim to report about Jesus, but they did not really spend time with Him or ever actually meet Him. So, their say would be on the hearsay side, and perhaps what they heard would be a modification from all which is true about Jesus.

But the four Gospels claim to be historical. And the Gospel of John to me seems the most likely to be a firsthand experience of walking with Jesus. And I don't think you will find humans who say the things which Jesus says and prays and how He handles things and relates with people, like we read in the Gospel of John.

Jesus appeared to chosen witnesses. And there is the claim that there were people who witnessed Jesus after He rose on the third day. And Jesus stayed a while with them; Jesus loves us; He was not in a hurry just to get back to Heaven where it is so better. But love had Jesus stay here with us humans, the way we can be. So, Jesus is not conceited!!

How Jesus so loves can help us to know how Jesus is.

God proves Himself. God knows if He raised Jesus from the dead or not. He is able to personally communicate with you, about this.

A person I really appreciate on a different forum said he found God by reading John's Gospel, and you mentioned it here, so I might need to work my way through it again. I'm sure I've only read parts in the past.

He would communicate through me reading the Bible and influence my thoughts? How else can He communicate with me?