If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[Ken-1122]

Will it be more convincing for me to show you some form of substantiation, or for you to seek and test the things stated in the Bible by yourself?

Just as you said you were an Atheist born in an Atheist family? I am the opposite; I was Christian for many years; born in a Christian family. As far as testing the things as stated in the Bible, all I can say is it doesn't work for me. I can't speak for you or anybody else; but as for myself; it doesn't work.

K

 

[WoundedDeep]

Just as you said you were an Atheist born in an Atheist family? I am the opposite; I was Christian for many years; born in a Christian family. As far as testing the things as stated in the Bible, all I can say is it doesn't work for me. I can't speak for you or anybody else; but as for myself; it doesn't work.

K

Whether testing works depends on the things you are testing and the attitude you use in testing. The things I am referring to that people should test and seek for themselves are the things God have already revealed in the Bible, and they are primarily concerned with God's message of salvation and His Kingdom.

I'm not sure what testing you did, but I can tell you that there are certain knowledge that you seek that you will not receive any answer from God, simply because God had determined that we are not able or ready to understand what He reveals. Just because your testing failed in regards to a certain knowledge outside the revealed knowledge in Scriptures does not make God or His Word false.

 

[Ken-1122]

Confused is perhaps the wrong word ... perplexed maybe ? At first glance it seems counterintuitive for an atheist to be defining a god they claim doesn't exist. It would be like someone who doesn't believe in Bigfoot saying, "I don't believe Bigfoot exists. But Bigfoot likes bananas, otherwise he's not Bigfoot." How would you know ? " If your answer is more or less, "Well that's what others told me," then I'm still somewhat perplexed why you would claim such a thing about Bigfoot while simultaneously claiming there is no Bigfoot.

Would it be easier for you to understand if I said even though I don’t believe in Santa Clause, I would describe him as a fat man who wears a red suit, rides a magic flying sleigh pulled by 8 reindeer; and live in the North Pole. And the reason I describe him that way is because the people that believe in him, and the stories and books written about him describe him that way?
Does that make sense to you or are you still …..perplexed???

You never said the society in which you grew up in, you said the society in which you live. What is the society in which you live ?

I grew up in and currently live in a society of where over 90% of the people believe in God as described in the bible.

And how could I possibly prove that every member of the society in which you live, or grew up in, defines god precisely the way you would claim they do ? To prove such a thing would be difficult, as I'd have to poll each and every individual you would consider part of your "society".

My point exactly; it would be impossible for you to prove me wrong, thus it would be futile for you to try to dispute me on that particular claim.

Personally, I would include the people you interact with daily on the internet as part of your society in some form or fashion.

I would not. I would only include the people I have direct contact with on a consistent basis as a part of my society

So if you want to continue the "society" route, you should probably define what you mean by "society", since we are no longer humans living in isolated pockets.

Society is a rather vague term in this context; but I grew up in a Christian home; a very religious family so the vast majority of the people I had direct contact with had a very strong Christian POV, thus the people I had direct and consistent contact with while growing up were for the most part Christian; and even today most of the people who are religious that I have contact with are usually Christian.

In the context of which I was speaking; society was just the people I associate with; not everyone in the USA, everyone in the State I live in, or everyone in my particular neighborhood. Hope that clears that up.

But you seem to be defining it as well. Esp from my perspective, since your own definition involves something which mine doesn't, which even you refer to as "common sense". By the rationale you just proposed, does that mean you believe in God since you define "God" ?

No! I defined Santa Clause as well! I don’t believe in him either, even though my definition may slightly differ from someone else who might actually believe.

Ken

 

[TillICollapse]

Would it be easier for you to understand if I said even though I don’t believe in Santa Clause, I would describe him as a fat man who wears a red suit, rides a magic flying sleigh pulled by 8 reindeer; and live in the North Pole. And the reason I describe him that way is because the people that believe in him, and the stories and books written about him describe him that way?
Does that make sense to you or are you still …..perplexed???

Comparing Santa Claus to God is apples and oranges. Santa Claus has more modern origins as to the concept of Santa Claus, and is in general more streamlined and less diverse in the variations of Santa Claus. "God" as a concept is loaded, vague, and can mean anything from jackal headed human hybrids to an Omega Point civilization. Even with someone saying, "I'm Christian" it is loaded and may be vague. However the rest of your response here is showing me where your ideas come from I believe, so I'll try to skip to that ...

I grew up in and currently live in a society of where over 90% of the people believe in God as described in the bible.

My point exactly; it would be impossible for you to prove me wrong, thus it would be futile for you to try to dispute me on that particular claim.

I would not. I would only include the people I have direct contact with on a consistent basis as a part of my society

Again, it would be up to you to prove your claim, not for me to disprove it. However if you define society as only those people whom you interact with on a consistent basis ... that's discounting billions and billions of people on the earth, not to mention millions that influence your life (I'm assuming you don't grow your own food, make your own clothes, are a webmaster at the sites you use, etc and so forth). But I'm not actually interested in you proving your claim, so I'll drop that point.

Society is a rather vague term in this context; but I grew up in a Christian home; a very religious family so the vast majority of the people I had direct contact with had a very strong Christian POV, thus the people I had direct and consistent contact with while growing up were for the most part Christian; and even today most of the people who are religious that I have contact with are usually Christian.

In the context of which I was speaking; society was just the people I associate with; not everyone in the USA, everyone in the State I live in, or everyone in my particular neighborhood. Hope that clears that up.

Okay this helps provide context.

I did not grow up in a religious home, however I was surrounded by a diverse demographic that practiced all manner of religions. My father was an atheist/agnostic, my mother was a Christian believer in certain contexts but disliked religion. I never had anything shoved down my throat, and my own curiosity wasn't discouraged (for the most part) as it concerned all things supernatural or religious in nature, etc. I had friends who were Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Sikh, etc. I even remember someone practicing Santeria and a form of Voodoo.

For whatever reason, I was not content to be told what to think about "God" and the nature of supernatural things, rather I wanted to find out for myself. I would get the input of others, but ultimately I was capable of thinking for myself and judging things for myself, and I was not restricted by the Bible, books, etc. I sought answers in practical, physical reality and experience, not reading and being told. The concept of "Bible only" was foreign to me and counterintuitive as well. I am still perplexed as to how people can be content with that.

What you're saying here, is helping me to understand where your preconceived notions and ideas are coming from: others and the influences in your life, etc. However at some point, I presume you began to attempt to think for yourself and reason on your own ... yes ? If so, I can relate to that point. What I would ask of you, then, is if your atheism is essentially the stance that the concepts of God you learned in Christianity are no longer believed by you ... yet you still may wonder and be curious as to whether certain types of supernatural phenomena are "real" without the "Christian biases" getting in the way ? IOW ... is your atheism the stance there are no gods, or that there are no gods that the Christianity of your "society" described as existing ? Are you open to the idea there may be something else in existence that perhaps could have attributes that the 90% which you absorbed by osmosis somewhat simply misunderstood ?

No! I defined Santa Clause as well! I don’t believe in him either, even though my definition may slightly differ from someone else who might actually believe.

Ken

On a side note, I had a kid ponder last year with me why Santa could be in multiple places at the same time. I said that Santa was in a state of quantum superposition (I thought it was funny).

 

[Achilles6129]

What do you mean - "God"?

The Creator of the cosmos and the Supreme Being, more powerful and intelligent than anyone else and also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

 

[Achilles6129]

That is untrue. There is no proof that God exists. If you disagree I challenge you to provide such proof.

The existence of anything at all is evidence for God's existence (not that I want to get into a debate about this, just making a minor point).

Even though there is no proof of God’s existence, if God were everything people claim he is; he could provide such proof in a way that even a skeptic like me could believe.

The point of this thread is that God cannot provide proof in such a way that would convince a skeptic like you to believe. God cannot provide proof of himself through the five senses because an alternate explanation is always possible. For example, it could be Satan masquerading as God or it could be an alien with super-advanced technology. The entire point is that the experience would have to come from within, not from without.

Your own personal experiences does not substantiate the bible, all it does is convince YOU.

One's own personal experience can be in line with Scripture and thus one could know that Scripture is true (see Jn. 7:17). The Bible can be proven true by several ways, two of which are:

1) Experiential personal experience

2) Fulfilled Biblical prophecy

 

[Achilles6129]

...you wouldn't "need" proof; God's presence would be known through the experience of the numinous, as Rudolf Otto would have said it. In fact, this is the kind of phenomenon we see in Scripture when a person encounters the Divine (or one of His agents).

And how do you know it's not Satan masquerading as God? Ever studied the Satanic verses in the Qur'an?

Rebuttals to Islamic Awareness : Muhammad and the Satanic Verses

One of the most embarrassing events in Muhammad's life occurred when Satan put his words in Muhammad's mouth. Muhammad spoke Satan's words as the word of God. This event is documented by several early Muslim scholars and referenced in the Hadith and Quran. Later Muslims, ashamed that their self declared prophet spoke Satan's words, denied the event occurred. A myriad of excuses and denials have been put forth by these later Muhammadans to cover up Muhammad's sinful error.
It must be pointed out again that the "Satanic Verses" event is not something made up by non-Muslims. The event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources available on Muhammad's life. No one should think that it is a story made up by people who are critical of Islam. It is an episode directly found in the early Islamic records.
This topic is one of the most controversial in Islam. Satan caused Muhammad to recite his words as God's words.

 

[quatona]

The Creator of the cosmos and the Supreme Being, more powerful and intelligent than anyone else and also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

Ok, thanks. Now back to your question:

So here's a question for all to ponder: Suppose that God manifests himself in some sort of physical or spiritual revelation, to you personally, you and a group of people, or to the entire planet. How would you know that this was God? How would you know, for instance, that it wasn't some sort of alien with super-advanced technology pretending to be God?

No idea.
But with regards to the requirements "omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent" I guess I would ask it: "Please convince me you are God. If you are God you know what it takes, and you can do it."

 

[Ken-1122]

What I would ask of you, then, is if your atheism is essentially the stance that the concepts of God you learned in Christianity are no longer believed by you ... yet you still may wonder and be curious as to whether certain types of supernatural phenomena are "real" without the "Christian biases" getting in the way ? IOW ... is your atheism the stance there are no gods, or that there are no gods that the Christianity of your "society" described as existing ?

My Atheism is the stance that of all the God concepts I’ve heard of, none of them sounds credible.

Are you open to the idea there may be something else in existence that perhaps could have attributes that the 90% which you absorbed by osmosis somewhat simply misunderstood ?

I am open to the idea that there could be something else in existence; but in order for me to believe it, there would have to be able to see evidence of it. And whatever might exist I do not call it God.

On a side note, I had a kid ponder last year with me why Santa could be in multiple places at the same time. I said that Santa was in a state of quantum superposition (I thought it was funny).

On a side note, a kid whose family is struggling financially asked me why does Santa favor all the rich kids over the poor kids and give the rich kids X-Box, I Pads, and all the cool stuff; but he only gives the poor kids socks and ear muffs. (I thought it was kinda sad)

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

The point of this thread is that God cannot provide proof in such a way that would convince a skeptic like you to believe. God cannot provide proof of himself through the five senses because an alternate explanation is always possible.

Any being who is incapable of providing enough evidence to convince a skeptic like me to believe; is not worthy of being called God.

One's own personal experience can be in line with Scripture and thus one could know that Scripture is true (see Jn. 7:17). The Bible can be proven true by several ways, two of which are:

1) Experiential personal experience

2) Fulfilled Biblical prophecy

Experimental personal evidence only convinces you

As far as Bible prophecies.... Did you know the men who wrote the books of the bible also had access to the prophecies? If you gonna make up stories for the bible; might as well throw some fulfilled prophecies in there while you're at it!


Ken

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So here's a question for all to ponder: Suppose that God manifests himself in some sort of physical or spiritual revelation, to you personally, you and a group of people, or to the entire planet. How would you know that this was God? How would you know, for instance, that it wasn't some sort of alien with super-advanced technology pretending to be God?

A follow-up question for antitheists: If a personal manifestation/appearance of God wouldn't prove to you that God exists (since there could always be another explanation - aliens or whatever), then what sort of proof would you accept that God exists?

First of all, any communication from God will be self-documenting; that is, you will have the distinct impression it is from God.

Secondly, you can check the communication against reality. Is God promising something that is going to happen? It should happen, if it is of God.

Thirdly, you can accept it on faith. It is not necessary to prove things in some sort of mathematical demonstration before acting on them. Some things are not amenable to proof before acting, such as whether or not one should propose marriage to one's sweetheart.

 

[variant]

So here's a question for all to ponder: Suppose that God manifests himself in some sort of physical or spiritual revelation, to you personally, you and a group of people, or to the entire planet. How would you know that this was God? How would you know, for instance, that it wasn't some sort of alien with super-advanced technology pretending to be God?

A follow-up question for antitheists: If a personal manifestation/appearance of God wouldn't prove to you that God exists (since there could always be another explanation - aliens or whatever), then what sort of proof would you accept that God exists?

If a being is advanced enough to convince me that it is a God through demonstration then calling it a God is probably at the very least not far off.

Basically I am going to ask for a demonstration of what I consider to be impossible and information that I consider fairly impossible for the being to know, and if, they can show they know that to my limited mind...

 

[TillICollapse]

My Atheism is the stance that of all the God concepts I’ve heard of, none of them sounds credible.

I am open to the idea that there could be something else in existence; but in order for me to believe it, there would have to be able to see evidence of it. And whatever might exist I do not call it God.

If it met your criteria of seeing evidence for it, why would you not call "God" whatever might exist ?

 

[Davian]

...you wouldn't "need" proof; God's presence would be known through the experience of the numinous, as Rudolf Otto would have said it. In fact, this is the kind of phenomenon we see in Scripture when a person encounters the Divine (or one of His agents).

How would you differentiate this experience from a wholly imagined one?

 

[Achilles6129]

Any being who is incapable of providing enough evidence to convince a skeptic like me to believe; is not worthy of being called God.

There are some things that God cannot do, things that are outside of his nature, for example. God could provide a reasonable amount of evidence that he was God (for your five senses), but the bottom line is that there could always be an alternate explanation. You might have run into another deity who's very, very powerful but less powerful than God. Or you could be dealing with extra-terrestrials.

No matter how much reasonable evidence God provides, there could always be an alternate explanation.

Experimental personal evidence only convinces you

Correct, unless others follow in your footsteps and also obtain that experiential personal evidence.

As far as Bible prophecies.... Did you know the men who wrote the books of the bible also had access to the prophecies? If you gonna make up stories for the bible; might as well throw some fulfilled prophecies in there while you're at it!

While most of the prophecies in Scripture were fulfilled within the lifetime of the prophet, there are some that were not. Some were fulfilled hundreds (even over a thousand) years later. In other words, it would have been impossible for anyone to put these things in Scripture after the fact.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And how do you know it's not Satan masquerading as God? Ever studied the Satanic verses in the Qur'an?

...you mean the ones that deny Christ is the Son of God and that He was crucified and rose again? {tongue-in-cheek}

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How would you differentiate this experience from a wholly imagined one?

Well, if we understand Otto correctly, the experience would be unmistakable if it were the 'real thing'; otherwise, we might assess ourselves as having had "A Beautiful Mind" moment.

 

[Davian]

Well, if we understand Otto correctly, the experience would be unmistakable if it were the 'real thing'; otherwise, we might assess ourselves as having had "A Beautiful Mind" moment.

As self-deception can be mistaken for the "real thing", it is the far more parsimonious conclusion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As self-deception can be mistaken for the "real thing", it is the far more parsimonious conclusion.

...what was that Ronald Reagan comment by which he used to commonly retort?

Have you ever thought you might want to 'Occam' Occam's Razor?

 

[Davian]

...what was that Ronald Reagan comment by which he used to commonly retort?

Have you ever thought you might want to 'Occam' Occam's Razor?

No. My beliefs change, based on new information. I do not have a belief so precious that I cannot let it go.

Yourself?