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

[Conscious Z]

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?

Note -- I haven't read the previous seven pages.

This is a good question. I do think that if there was just one or a series of occurrences that appeared to be miraculous, such as a person walking on the water, I would not believe. It would seem more likely that I was schizophrenic or had been duped than the laws of physics had just been broken. I think people often underestimate how incredible of a claim "He walked on water" is. That is contrary to the experience of billions of people who have walked on this earth, along with our scientific knowledge of why such a thing is impossible. That is a mountain of evidence that must be overcome, and I don't think my witnessing an apparent act of walking on water would make me believe that I was observing an actual miracle.

For me, the proof would need several elements:
1) Resolve what I believe are very strong philosophical arguments against god's existence
2) The existence of some sort of compelling case for why god would be needed for our natural order or some clear break of the natural order that god attributed to himself. Again, this would have to be quite substantial.

 

[Kylie]

So you need to know God first in order to recognize His manifestation.

Actually, God would need to know me, not the other way around. And since believers claim God already knows me, I have to wonder why God has been so quiet in the whole showing me that he exists area...

I mean, God, being all-knowing and all-powerful would know exactly what I would need in order for me to know it was him even being an atheist. And being all-powerful, he could make it happen. And yet it doesn't happen.

Heck, I do know a bit about God, from reading the Bible. If God did something I recognised from the Bible, such as speaking to me from a burning bush, that would go some way towards doing it, and yet God doesn't even do that.

So I reach a very reasonable conclusion. He just ain't there.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Actually, God would need to know me, not the other way around. And since believers claim God already knows me, I have to wonder why God has been so quiet in the whole showing me that he exists area...

God does not visit those who are not seeking Him or who think they are too good to require God in their lives. Relationships are always two-way whereby both parties want to know each other just as much. He isn't quiet in terms of showing people He exists, on the contrary, it is people who are not looking for Him in His created universe.

 

[Conscious Z]

God does not visit those who are not seeking Him or who think they are too good to require God in their lives. Relationships are always two-way whereby both parties want to know each other just as much. He isn't quiet in terms of showing people He exists, on the contrary, it is people who are not looking for Him in His created universe.

It would be irrational for a person to seek that which he or she believes does not exist. That is almost the definition of irrationality.

That's the great catch-22 of the whole "seek god and you'll find him" bit. If one believes god doesn't exist, it would be insane to seek him. Do you seek Zeus? Or Krishna? Of course not....because you believe they do not exist.

 

[orangeness365]

I actually had a dream during sleep paralysis when I was 15/16 years old, before I developed schizophrenia and tried to prove I was prophet, even though I'm not, that made me think that God really had talked to me. Now I debate back and forth whether it was really God talking to me or not, but at the time I believed it was God because He told me scriptural bits that I had not read about yet, so it was a matter of learning knowledge that I did not know, and could verify against scripture. When the dream was over I was confused, because the dream was of the Great White Throne room, but at the time I didn't know about that. I knew that I was talking to God because the men sitting on the other thrones told me the voice was God, and I saw a bright white light in the shape of a man that was supposed to be Jesus in it as well. When I woke up I was confused and disappointed because I thought maybe they had been the greek gods or something because they were all a bunch of humanoid characters sitting on thrones, and I couldn't tell their gender in the dream. But when I told my brother about it, he showed me about the book of Revelation and the 24 elders sitting on thrones there. Also, what I was told matched scripture. I still doubt though, sometimes, and I wonder why I didn't write it down at the time, because I now have trouble remembering parts of it, but most of it was just reciting scripture in different contexts that I had not yet thought of. But you know, I'm not the only one that has dreamed about Christ before, they are many other people in the world far more credible a source than I am, who have had dreams and visions about Christ coming to them, such as in places where if they convert from Islam to Christianity they could be killed. So even though I think God manifested himself to me as much as possible without showing up in person at my doorstep, I still doubt sometimes, and sin against him. Though I am sometimes grateful for the conversation, at least I think I had one, I still am just as sinful and doubtful as I was before it happened. Reading the bible from the beginning all the way through to the end when I was older did much more to transform my life than the one conversation did, even though I had read bits and pieces of the Bible before the conversation. I know for some people that having a conversation like that would be life changing and leave no room for doubt, for me, it didn't do much other than help my faith a little bit, but not much.

 

[Kylie]

God does not visit those who are not seeking Him or who think they are too good to require God in their lives. Relationships are always two-way whereby both parties want to know each other just as much. He isn't quiet in terms of showing people He exists, on the contrary, it is people who are not looking for Him in His created universe.

No offense, but I find this a bit of a cop out. I'm seeking the truth, whatever it is. What you are saying is like saying that there's a wealthy millionaire who wants to spend his life with me and make me happy and comfortable, but he's not going to get in touch unless I believe that he's real. I'd think any person who did that was just being silly. There's no need for that sort of game from anyone, and so I refuse to believe that any real God is going to act like that.

 

[WoundedDeep]

It would be irrational for a person to seek that which he or she believes does not exist. That is almost the definition of irrationality.

That's the great catch-22 of the whole "seek god and you'll find him" bit. If one believes god doesn't exist, it would be insane to seek him. Do you seek Zeus? Or Krishna? Of course not....because you believe they do not exist.

The very fact that people refuse to believe in Someone whom they can't prove to exist is irrational. In other words, their disbelief is irrational. What makes their disbelief even more irrational is that the same group of unbelievers are willing to believe in the possibility of other life forms, which similarly they can't prove to exist. Why then, are they open minded in seeking other life forms, but close minded when it comes to seeking a Divine God? Absurd reasoning is it not? To me, their reluctance in seeking God stems more from denial rather than rationality.

 

[Conscious Z]

The very fact that people refuse to believe in Someone whom they can't prove to exist is irrational.

No, it's not irrational. I'm not sure you understand what "irrational" means. That is a word that is often misused. Irrationality involves compatibility between beliefs, intentions, actions and reasons. There is nothing irrational about disbelief in god if one does not believe there is proof he exists.

What makes their disbelief even more irrational is that the same group of unbelievers are willing to believe in the possibility of other life forms, which similarly they can't prove to exist. Why then, are they open minded in seeking other life forms, but close minded when it comes to seeking a Divine God?

One claim is far more extraordinary than the other. Believing aliens exist doesn't require me to suspend my beliefs about the laws of physics and the belief that everything in the world is physical. Belief in god does.

You still haven't responded to my main objection to your claim: How would it make sense for a person to seek a being if that person believes that being does not exist?

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

We are talking about what would convince ME not everybody else. My point is; there are specific things that would convince me; it may not convince everybody else, but we aren’t talking about what would convince everyone else now are we.

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.

Some of the prophecies were fulfilled; some were not. If you throw enough claims out there; something is liable to stick. Also, sometimes believers can make sure a prophecy is fulfilled like the “Israel will one day become a nation” After WW-2 the USA and other nations with a large number of Christian citizens made sure Israel became a nation thus fulfilling that prophecy.

Ken

 

[WoundedDeep]

No offense, but I find this a bit of a cop out. I'm seeking the truth, whatever it is. What you are saying is like saying that there's a wealthy millionaire who wants to spend his life with me and make me happy and comfortable, but he's not going to get in touch unless I believe that he's real. I'd think any person who did that was just being silly. There's no need for that sort of game from anyone, and so I refuse to believe that any real God is going to act like that.

I am not offended by rational and honest feedback, no worries.

I'm but a human being and my reasoning may be flawed anyway. But when you say God did not get in touch, that is false. God walked as flesh 2000 years ago, and even then, people charged Him with blasphemy and crucified Him on a Cross for calling Himself God. When God is invisible, people say they can't believe because they can't touch or see Him. When He walked as a Man performing miracles no men could do, people accuse Him of blasphemy for revealing Himself as God and still refuse to believe. So how should God get in touch with stubborn unbelievers then to make them believe?

It is the absurd denial and stubbornness of men that stop them from knowing God.

 

[Kylie]

The very fact that people refuse to believe in Someone whom they can't prove to exist is irrational. In other words, their disbelief is irrational. What makes their disbelief even more irrational is that the same group of unbelievers are willing to believe in the possibility of other life forms, which similarly they can't prove to exist. Why then, are they open minded in seeking other life forms, but close minded when it comes to seeking a Divine God? Absurd reasoning is it not? To me, their reluctance in seeking God stems more from denial rather than rationality.

First of all, the idea of other life forms is something we can comprehend. Every time we discover a new species we experience this.

Secondly, no one is saying that other life forms (I assume you mean aliens) is the only explanation for how the universe came to be (except IDers, but that's just religion in a fancy hat).

Thirdly, I don't think you even believe this yourself. Not unless you also believe in fairies. Do you believe in fairies? True, I can't prove they exist, but if you refuse to believe inj fairies just because I can't prove them, isn't that irrational? Of course you see this is a silly argument. But why is it silly when you don't believe in Fairies, but oh-so-logical when you believe in God?

 

[Ken-1122]

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

You've misunderstood me. If you met my criteria of seeing evidence for it, and it is something I would call God; of course I would call it God. My point is; I have yet to see evidence of such a being;thus there is currently nothing that I call God.

Ken

 

[Conscious Z]

When God is invisible, people say they can't believe because they can't touch or see Him.

No one says this. I hear theists make this claim all the time, yet I've never once heard an atheist say the reason for the disbelief was that god couldn't be seen or touched.

When He walked as a Man performing miracles no men could do, people accuse Him of blasphemy for revealing Himself as God and still refuse to believe. So how should God get in touch with stubborn unbelievers then to make them believe?

Do you really believe that god's "actions" are the most compelling case for his existence that he could have possibly contrived? Showing up in an age with poor communication, only to have a handful of people record the story a few decades later, does not seem to be the overwhelming evidence you think it is.

It is the absurd denial and stubbornness of men that stop them from knowing God.

No, it is the lack of proportional evidence to the extraordinary claim.

 

[WoundedDeep]

No, it's not irrational. I'm not sure you understand what "irrational" means. That is a word that is often misused. Irrationality involves compatibility between beliefs, intentions, actions and reasons. There is nothing irrational about disbelief in god if one does not believe there is proof he exists.

Conflicts about beliefs etc have nothing to do with irrationality, it is merely an indication that not all beliefs etc are correct or true.

Anything devoid of reasoning or logic is what you call irrational. So I ask, what is the logic or reasoning behind people's beliefs that no proof of God exists? If there is no logic, their disbelief in God is irrational.

One claim is far more extraordinary than the other. Believing aliens exist doesn't require me to suspend my beliefs about the laws of physics and the belief that everything in the world is physical. Belief in god does.

You still haven't responded to my main objection to your claim: How would it make sense for a person to seek a being if that person believes that being does not exist?

Then you certainly have no idea that there are lots of speculations about other life forms that suspend people's beliefs about laws of physics and the physical world, and yet they continue to believe and seek to prove them.

In fact, it is already evident that the universe contains non-physical energy and forces. What then is the logic behind disbelief in God's existence?

I never said that people will seek what they disbelieve, what I'm saying is that their disbelief in itself is void of any sense of logic or rationality.

 

[Conscious Z]

Conflicts about beliefs etc have nothing to do with irrationality, it is merely an indication that not all beliefs etc are correct or true.

That is not true. I cannot believe X and also believe not-X. That is irrational.

Of course, you can have contradictory beliefs if you do not know they are contradictory, but it is irrational to simultaneously hold two beliefs that you know are mutually exclusive.

Anything devoid of reasoning or logic is what you call irrational.

No, that is not sufficient for a definition of "irrational."

So I ask, what is the logic or reasoning behind people's beliefs that no proof of God exists? If there is no logic, their disbelief in God is irrational.

That is a massive question that is outside the scope of this thread. There is nothing irrational, however, in saying "I don't believe there is evidence for the existence of X, so I'm not going to believe in X."

Then you certainly have no idea that there are lots of speculations about other life forms that suspend people's beliefs about laws of physics and the physical world, and yet they continue to believe and seek to prove them.

I'm sure there are a lot of crazy beliefs about aliens. I'm not here to defend all of them. I'm merely pointing out that simply believing that aliens might exist is a far less extraordinary thing than believing an omnipotent and omniscient non-physical god exists.

In fact, it is already evident that the universe contains non-physical energy and forces.

No, it isn't.

I never said that people will seek what they disbelieve, what I'm saying is that their disbelief in itself is void of any sense of logic or rationality.

Your initial claim was that people who do not believe in god do not believe because they haven't sought him. However, that does not explain why it is that someone who doesn't believe in god would ever seek god...after all, that would be seeking something they do believe exists.

 

[WoundedDeep]

No one says this. I hear theists make this claim all the time, yet I've never once heard an atheist say the reason for the disbelief was that god couldn't be seen or touched.

No one said it? You just said it yourself:

Believing aliens exist doesn't require me to suspend...the belief that everything in the world is physical. Belief in god does.

Didn't you just state that you don't believe in God because He isn't physical? I'm sure you aren't the first nor the last to say that.

Do you really believe that god's "actions" are the most compelling case for his existence that he could have possibly contrived? Showing up in an age with poor communication, only to have a handful of people record the story a few decades later, does not seem to be the overwhelming evidence you think it is.

Whether it is compelling or not doesn't matter, what matters is people stubborn in unbelief will not change their disbelief no matter what evidence God gives. Out of everything physical in this universe, appearing as a Man is the best physical evidence that God can give, yet there are people who still deny Him. You and the rest keep accusing God for not providing evidence of His existence, yet when He did in the Man of Jesus, the lot of you discredit it in every way possible. My point is proven: stubborn men will never find God.

 

[Conscious Z]

No one said it? You just said it yourself:

Didn't you just state that you don't believe in God because He isn't physical? I'm sure you aren't the first nor the last to say that.

Something being invisible and unable to be touched is not the same as it being non-physical. There are many invisible substances or things I have never touched that I believe exist.

Whether it is compelling or not doesn't matter, what matters is people stubborn in unbelief will not change their disbelief no matter what evidence God gives. Out of everything physical in this universe, appearing as a Man is the best physical evidence that God can give, yet there are people who still deny Him.

No, I think there are many things god could do that would be better evidence. If he came back as Jesus TODAY with modern technology to document it, that would be orders of magnitude stronger evidence.

You and the rest keep accusing God for not providing evidence of His existence, yet when He did in the Man of Jesus, the lot of you discredit it in every way possible. My point is proven: stubborn men will never find God.

People who don't believe in god don't believe that there was a person named Jesus who did the things attributed to him in the Bible.

But you're still dodging the question: Why would someone who doesn't believe seek god? You keep saying that their unbelief is due to stubbornness, but that's beside the point Your claim is that if someone seeks god, they will believe. But why would someone who doesn't believe seek god?

 

[WoundedDeep]

That is not true. I cannot believe X and also believe not-X. That is irrational.

Of course, you can have contradictory beliefs if you do not know they are contradictory, but it is irrational to simultaneously hold two beliefs that you know are mutually exclusive.

Irrationality comes in many ways, your example is but one form of irrationality which fits my notion that irrationality is devoid of logic. I gave a broader definition which you failed to debunk.

No, that is not sufficient for a definition of "irrational."

My definition is a general and broad one, you merely gave an example that echoed my definition. You did not redefine anything.

That is a massive question that is outside the scope of this thread. There is nothing irrational, however, in saying "I don't believe there is evidence for the existence of X, so I'm not going to believe in X."

So there are in fact two statements made:

1) I'm not going to believe in X, because

2) I don't believe there is evidence for the existence of X.

The fact that nothing can explain the logic behind statement 2 makes both statements irrational.

No, it isn't.

So you don't believe that there is gravity and electromagnetic forces, both of which are non-physical? You're kidding right?

Your initial claim was that people who do not believe in god do not believe because they haven't sought him.

You wholly misunderstood my initial claim. I said God is not discovered by men because they are not seeking Him, I didn't talk about beliefs. It is you who linked my claims to people's unbelief.

 

[Conscious Z]

Irrationality comes in many ways, your example is but one form of irrationality which fits my notion that irrationality is devoid of logic. I gave a broader definition which you failed to debunk.

I said that your broader definition was not sufficient, which it wasn't. All irrationality features bad logic, but not all bad logic is an example of irrationality.

So there are in fact two statements made:

1) I'm not going to believe in X, because

2) I don't believe there is evidence for the existence of X.

The fact that nothing can explain the logic behind statement 2 makes both statements irrational.

Nothing can explain the logic behind not believing there is evidence for X? You believe there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the existence of stuff all the time....take unicorns, for example. Is it irrational for you to not believe in unicorns because you don't believe there is sufficient evidence for them?

You may make the case that someone is being a bad epistemic agent because they are overlooking evidence for god, but that is not irrationality.

So you don't believe that there is gravity and electromagnetic forces, both of which are non-physical? You're kidding right?

Both of those certainly are physical. You're kidding, right?

You wholly misunderstood my initial claim. I said God is not discovered by men because they are not seeking Him, I didn't talk about beliefs. It is you who linked my claims to people's unbelief.

"Discovering" god or "knowing" god both require belief in god.

Again, it would be irrational for someone to seek god if they do not believe he exists.

 

[orangeness365]

No one said it? You just said it yourself:



Didn't you just state that you don't believe in God because He isn't physical? I'm sure you aren't the first nor the last to say that.



Whether it is compelling or not doesn't matter, what matters is people stubborn in unbelief will not change their disbelief no matter what evidence God gives. Out of everything physical in this universe, appearing as a Man is the best physical evidence that God can give, yet there are people who still deny Him. You and the rest keep accusing God for not providing evidence of His existence, yet when He did in the Man of Jesus, the lot of you discredit it in every way possible. My point is proven: stubborn men will never find God.

John 5:43
43I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him.