Lack of Proof

[Quath]

I was raised Christian, but had doubts when I was young (10 to 13 years old). One preacher said I needed blind faith. But that same day, my mother asked me, "If your friend told you to jump off a bridge, would you?" I realized with blind faith, I would. So that was unsatisfactory.

So I looked for proof of God. It wasn't something that was easy to talk about then due to my age. However, I was finally told that God answers all prayers. So I thought about it.

My reasoning went like this:
1. God wants me to find or keep salvation.
2. To have salvation, I need belief that He exists and belief in Jesus.
3. God listens to prayers and has unlimited powers.
4. So I just need to pray for God to tell me the lottery numbers right before they are called out. That way I only gain knowledge that He exists without any financial gains.

This seemed simple to me. I would be able to keep and reinforce my faith and know I am on the right track in my spiritual beliefs. It was also a good enough test that it wasn't open to any internal biases like guessing who is calling me on the phone or guessing what was for dinner.

As you can probably surmise, this did not work out for me. I tried the lottery proof. I tried flipping coins to see if God would let it come up heads 10 times in a row. I prayed for God to just show me some kind of sign that He existed and was not just made up like all the other gods.

In the end, I lost my belief in God. I remained open minded to the possibility He could exist, but I could not actively believe in Him anymore.

So with that long preface, here is what I am questioning: With such simple tests that anyone can perform to convince themself that God is real, why doesn't God reveal Himself?

One simple answer could be that He does want blind faith. Is that it?

Another is that He doesn't like to be tested. But in the Bible, God does prove Himself over and over like when He lights a fire for the priests of Ba'al or Jesus lets Thomas feel the holes. So it appears He is ok with proving truths in the past just not nowadays.

Do you think that God doesn't want everyone to have proof of His existance? Maybe just a select few?

Or is it something else?

 

[bsd31]

I was raised Christian, but had doubts when I was young (10 to 13 years old). One preacher said I needed blind faith. But that same day, my mother asked me, "If your friend told you to jump off a bridge, would you?" I realized with blind faith, I would. So that was unsatisfactory.

So I looked for proof of God. It wasn't something that was easy to talk about then due to my age. However, I was finally told that God answers all prayers. So I thought about it.

My reasoning went like this:
1. God wants me to find or keep salvation.
2. To have salvation, I need belief that He exists and belief in Jesus.
3. God listens to prayers and has unlimited powers.
4. So I just need to pray for God to tell me the lottery numbers right before they are called out. That way I only gain knowledge that He exists without any financial gains.

This seemed simple to me. I would be able to keep and reinforce my faith and know I am on the right track in my spiritual beliefs. It was also a good enough test that it wasn't open to any internal biases like guessing who is calling me on the phone or guessing what was for dinner.

As you can probably surmise, this did not work out for me. I tried the lottery proof. I tried flipping coins to see if God would let it come up heads 10 times in a row. I prayed for God to just show me some kind of sign that He existed and was not just made up like all the other gods.

In the end, I lost my belief in God. I remained open minded to the possibility He could exist, but I could not actively believe in Him anymore.

So with that long preface, here is what I am questioning: With such simple tests that anyone can perform to convince themself that God is real, why doesn't God reveal Himself?

One simple answer could be that He does want blind faith. Is that it?

Another is that He doesn't like to be tested. But in the Bible, God does prove Himself over and over like when He lights a fire for the priests of Ba'al or Jesus lets Thomas feel the holes. So it appears He is ok with proving truths in the past just not nowadays.

Do you think that God doesn't want everyone to have proof of His existance? Maybe just a select few?

Or is it something else?

Everyone has the exact same level of proof of the existence of God. It is each of our responsibility to believe the evidence. If you don't believe you are still accountable to God. As the scripture says everyone will be without excuse. The evidence? Creation itself. The fact that we even exist is evidence of God. The fact that anything else exists is evidence of God. If you want tangible, empirical evidence for yourself you'll need to have a relationship with Him first.

 

[drich0150]

With such simple tests that anyone can perform to convince themself that God is real, why doesn't God reveal Himself?

If God revealed himself to you in this way, What would He really be revealing to you? That He was a god of parlor tricks, and wonders? Would you approach the president of the United States in a formal setting and ask Him to say "Dyn-o-mite!" or a "what you talk'n about Willis?" To prove that he is indeed Black? If the President did respond to you this way would you or anyone else be able to respect Him as the Most powerful elected man in the United States?

so Why approach the Lord and Master of all of creation, and demand "proof" through parlor tricks? God in scripture outlines a way for any who seeks proof, a way to find it. Why not seek proof in the manner in which He tells us to do so?

 

[Hammster]

I wonder if God did give you 10 heads in a row while flipping a coin, if that would really convince you. Or, just because chance might get it, if you would ask for 10 more?

 

[Quath]

Everyone has the exact same level of proof of the existence of God. It is each of our responsibility to believe the evidence. If you don't believe you are still accountable to God. As the scripture says everyone will be without excuse. The evidence? Creation itself. The fact that we even exist is evidence of God. The fact that anything else exists is evidence of God. If you want tangible, empirical evidence for yourself you'll need to have a relationship with Him first.

Creation never did seem a very convincing argument to me. Since it just pushes the question back to "what created God?" If God can exist without cause, then it seems the Big Bang can be without case as well. Adding God just seems to complicate the issues unnecessarily.

If God revealed himself to you in this way, What would He really be revealing to you? That He was a god of parlor tricks, and wonders? Would you approach the president of the United States in a formal setting and ask Him to say "Dyn-o-mite!" or a "what you talk'n about Willis?" To prove that he is indeed Black? If the President did respond to you this way would you or anyone else be able to respect Him as the Most powerful elected man in the United States?

How would this be more of a parlor trick than lighting fires for priests of Ba'al, turning a river into blood or making a donkey talk. It seems anything God does could be called a parlor trick.

I am not sure I follow the rest of your argument. I can look at the President and see that he is black, so why would I want him to portray a racial sterotype to prove it?

so Why approach the Lord and Master of all of creation, and demand "proof" through parlor tricks? God in scripture outlines a way for any who seeks proof, a way to find it. Why not seek proof in the manner in which He tells us to do so?

I never saw any other proof that did not prove any other god imagined. One problem I was having at that age was learning about Santa Claus. I saw how easily I could believe in make believe beings. I just wanted to make sure that God was not another fictional, magical being. So I wanted something more than I had with Santa.

It would seem that if God chose not to reveal Himself to me, then it was because He didn't exist or He did not mind if I believed or not. After all, it cost Him nothing to do a simple "trick" that would have saved my soul. If He cared, it seemed like such a simple thing to do.

I wonder if God did give you 10 heads in a row while flipping a coin, if that would really convince you. Or, just because chance might get it, if you would ask for 10 more?

At that age, I would have believed. Now, I know it is 1 in a thousand odds and that is not too convincing. (If a thousand people did this, someone should turn up 10 heads.) So I would probably go for something with higher odds like the lottery.

 

[aiki]

So I looked for proof of God. It wasn't something that was easy to talk about then due to my age. However, I was finally told that God answers all prayers. So I thought about it.

My reasoning went like this:
1. God wants me to find or keep salvation.
2. To have salvation, I need belief that He exists and belief in Jesus.
3. God listens to prayers and has unlimited powers.
4. So I just need to pray for God to tell me the lottery numbers right before they are called out. That way I only gain knowledge that He exists without any financial gains.

This seemed simple to me. I would be able to keep and reinforce my faith and know I am on the right track in my spiritual beliefs. It was also a good enough test that it wasn't open to any internal biases like guessing who is calling me on the phone or guessing what was for dinner.

As you can probably surmise, this did not work out for me. I tried the lottery proof. I tried flipping coins to see if God would let it come up heads 10 times in a row. I prayed for God to just show me some kind of sign that He existed and was not just made up like all the other gods.

In the end, I lost my belief in God. I remained open minded to the possibility He could exist, but I could not actively believe in Him anymore.

I'm confused: Why didn't you just ask God to appear before you? Why these games of chance rather than simply demanding His appearance? I mean, if you really think God ought to give you absolute and unequivocal proof that He exists, wouldn't showing up right in front of you be the best proof possible?

So with that long preface, here is what I am questioning: With such simple tests that anyone can perform to convince themself that God is real, why doesn't God reveal Himself?

What's wrong with the copious evidence He has already provided? Why are you unpersuaded while other thoughtful, rational, scholarly people are completely convinced of God's existence? Is the evidence really the issue, or is there something else, perhaps, that is the problem?

One simple answer could be that He does want blind faith. Is that it?

No. That is definitely not it.

Another is that He doesn't like to be tested. But in the Bible, God does prove Himself over and over like when He lights a fire for the priests of Ba'al or Jesus lets Thomas feel the holes. So it appears He is ok with proving truths in the past just not nowadays.

Do you really think your demand for proof is comparable to the showdown between God's prophet and the priests of Baal? I don't. And you aren't one of the twelve disciples. You aren't going to be used by God to establish the New Testament church and suffer martyrdom for Christs' sake in doing so. No, you're just a guy who wants God to jump through a few hoops for him.

Do you think that God doesn't want everyone to have proof of His existance? Maybe just a select few?

I think God has given us all the evidence we need in order to know that He is. You simply want more. But the evidence that He has already given to us has convinced millions of people. In light of this fact, its pretty safe to say that the problem isn't with sufficient evidence. Something else is in your way. I would wonder what that is, but the Bible makes it pretty clear (see John 3:19, 20).

Peace.

 

[98cwitr]

I wonder if God did give you 10 heads in a row while flipping a coin, if that would really convince you. Or, just because chance might get it, if you would ask for 10 more?

there is actually a 0.000976563 probability for that! haha, God's worked more complex and astounding probabilities in my life, probability is my proof.

 

[Quath]

I'm confused: Why didn't you just ask God to appear before you? Why these games of chance rather than simply demanding His appearance? I mean, if you really think God ought to give you absolute and unequivocal proof that He exists, wouldn't showing up right in front of you be the best proof possible? /quote]
I asked for that as well. I even left it open as "anything that would be convincing." It just meant that I would not be convinced by simple everyday stuff like finding car keys.

What's wrong with the copious evidence He has already provided? Why are you unpersuaded while other thoughtful, rational, scholarly people are completely convinced of God's existence? Is the evidence really the issue, or is there something else, perhaps, that is the problem?

The more science I learned, the less likely I saw that there could be a God. I am a scientist. One of the polls I have seen show that most scientists are agnostic or atheists, so education correlates more towards disbelief than belief.

Do you really think your demand for proof is comparable to the showdown between God's prophet and the priests of Baal? I don't. And you aren't one of the twelve disciples. You aren't going to be used by God to establish the New Testament church and suffer martyrdom for Christs' sake in doing so. No, you're just a guy who wants God to jump through a few hoops for him.

I was not trying to get God to perform for me. I was seeking help from Him in an attempt to find belief in Him. If my salvation were important, I see no reason why God would ignore my prayers.

I think God has given us all the evidence we need in order to know that He is. You simply want more. But the evidence that He has already given to us has convinced millions of people. In light of this fact, its pretty safe to say that the problem isn't with sufficient evidence. Something else is in your way. I would wonder what that is, but the Bible makes it pretty clear (see John 3:19, 20).

The evidence is basically a book written by ancient people that looks like many other religious books written by other ancient people. The New Testament does not present strong evidence to say much about Jesus. The simplest explanation is he was like one of many people who thought they were prophets and who's followers claimed their leader had magical powers.

Most people follow the religion of their culture where truth seems to be decided by a popular vote.

One of the problems I was having at that time was trying to convince another person that Christianity was right while their belief was wrong (pagan). The only argument I could come up with is that their beliefs were silly. But this argument was reflected back at me. I could not really find anything that showed I was right while the pagan was wrong. This further led me to doubt it all.

 

[ebia]

I was raised Christian, but had doubts when I was young (10 to 13 years old). One preacher said I needed blind faith. But that same day, my mother asked me, "If your friend told you to jump off a bridge, would you?" I realized with blind faith, I would. So that was unsatisfactory.

So I looked for proof of God. It wasn't something that was easy to talk about then due to my age. However, I was finally told that God answers all prayers. So I thought about it.

My reasoning went like this:
1. God wants me to find or keep salvation.
2. To have salvation, I need belief that He exists and belief in Jesus.
3. God listens to prayers and has unlimited powers.
4. So I just need to pray for God to tell me the lottery numbers right before they are called out. That way I only gain knowledge that He exists without any financial gains.

It wouldn't get you anywhere anyway - all such a silly conjouring trick would demonstrate is, at best, that there is someone/thing responding to your suggestion; it wouldn't show that to be YHWH.

This seemed simple to me. I would be able to keep and reinforce my faith and know I am on the right track in my spiritual beliefs.

More likely it would breed an unhealthy dependency on magic tricks.

The real 'proof' is to learn to see God working in the ordinary - to see his beauty in the sunrise, his face in somebody's smile, his sadness in somebody's tears, his plan in your setbacks,... Not blind faith, nor so-called-objective-proof, but seeing through the eyes of love.

So with that long preface, here is what I am questioning: With such simple tests that anyone can perform to convince themself that God is real, why doesn't God reveal Himself?

He does - but one needs eyes to see it and ears to hear it.

One simple answer could be that He does want blind faith. Is that it?

Not blind faith, but not 'proof' on your terms either.

Another is that He doesn't like to be tested. But in the Bible, God does prove Himself over and over like when He lights a fire for the priests of Ba'al or Jesus lets Thomas feel the holes.

Such things of that type are extraordinarly few and far between, even in the bible - that's why people remember those two and maybe one or two more.

When God does set into the extraordinary it is never just a conjouring trick to prove he exists. Even the thing with Baal was about proving the powerlessness and fakeness of Baal, not about proving the power of YHWH. The thing with Thomas more about making it clear in the narrative that the risen Jesus was a physical person with a physical, if glorified, body, than about simply proving his existance.

Do you think that God doesn't want everyone to have proof of His existance? Maybe just a select few?

The knowledge is there for the taking - but on God's terms of love, not enlightenment terms of 'rational' proof. God's image is in every single person you've ever met.

How would this be more of a parlor trick than lighting fires for priests of Ba'al, turning a river into blood or making a donkey talk. It seems anything God does could be called a parlor trick

Each has a greater purpose than just being a parlour trick. For example, each New Testament miracle is an anticipation and demonstration in minuture of the future Kingdom of God. When God makes the extraordinary happen he does so for extrordinary reasons, and even in the bible its a pretty rare event considering the lenght of time the bible story from Abraham to the end of Acts represents.

The more science I learned, the less likely I saw that there could be a God.

Then I suspect you are looking for the wrong sort of God.

It would seem that if God chose not to reveal Himself to me, then it was because He didn't exist or He did not mind if I believed or not. After all, it cost Him nothing to do a simple "trick" that would have saved my soul. If He cared, it seemed like such a simple thing to do

Such tricks at your beck and call would actually come at an enormous cost.

 

[Bible2]

Quath:
If God can exist without cause, then it seems the Big Bang can be without case as well.

God exists without cause because he is existence itself (Exodus 3:14, Acts 17:28); he has always existed (Habakkuk 1:12) because it is not possible for existence itself not to exist or for non-existence itself to exist. Unlike God, the Big Bang and the resulting universe could not have been without cause (Romans 1:20), because then the Big Bang singularity would have had to have always existed like God, for if the singularity didn't exist and then came into existence, there would have to have been some cause for it coming into existence. But the Big Bang singularity could not have always existed, because of entropy. And the Big Bang could not have been without cause, because there would have to have been some cause for the singularity to suddenly begin expanding.

One of the problems I was having at that time was trying to convince another person that Christianity was right while their belief was wrong (pagan). The only argument I could come up with is that their beliefs were silly. But this argument was reflected back at me. I could not really find anything that showed I was right while the pagan was wrong.

God purposely designed Biblical Christianity so that it would appear silly (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16) to those to whom he has not granted the miraculous gifts of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8) and his Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). He did this so that people could not get saved through any intellectual proofs of men, but only through his own miraculous power (1 Corinthians 2:5). He did this in order to get all of the glory for people getting saved (1 Corinthians 1:29,31), and in order to completely bypass the fallen, sinful, proud, human intellect, which has been taken captive and blinded by the devil (2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Timothy 2:26, Job 41:34). In order for people to get saved, they must resist the devil and humble themselves as little children before God (Matthew 18:3-4, James 4:6-10).

But this relates only to Biblical Christian truth, which involves more than just the existence of God (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The existence of God, by itself, has already been proven to everyone through the existence of the universe, so that no one has any excuse for not knowing that God exists (Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1-4). Atheism arises from human foolishness and sinfulness (Psalms 53:1).

 

[Quath]

It wouldn't get you anywhere anyway - all such a silly conjouring trick would demonstrate is, at best, that there is someone/thing responding to your suggestion; it wouldn't show that to be YHWH.

More likely it would breed an unhealthy dependency on magic tricks.

At the time, the issue was partly "Does God even exist?" but also "If, which god(s) exist?" Were the pagans right? Was Jesus a time traveller from the future? Was God an alien prankster? There seemed to be so many possibilities with all thr gods throughout history and all the guesses as to God. Without proof, all religious possibilities seemed equal. So I just wanted a sign I was on the right track.

I didn't want health, wealth or power. I just wanted to know I was on the path of Truth. At the time, I believed I would go to Hell if I were wrong. But I knew I could not make myself believe in something without good evidence. So I was looking for anything.. even a simple trick or miracle.

The real 'proof' is to learn to see God working in the ordinary - to see his beauty in the sunrise, his face in somebody's smile, his sadness in somebody's tears, his plan in your setbacks,... Not blind faith, nor so-called-objective-proof, but seeing through the eyes of love.

This is the proof of Gaea, pantheism, and just about any other creator god as well. It is also the same proof as Big Bang/Evolution would give.

Such things of that type are extraordinarly few and far between, even in the bible - that's why people remember those two and maybe one or two more.

Every prayer God answers is a miracle. So eother miracles do happen often or they do not. If they do not, then people are just guessing at God based on an old book and some internal feelings. If they do happen, then we should be able to see these miracles.

God exists without cause because he is existence itself (Exodus 3:14, Acts 17:28); he has always existed (Habakkuk 1:12) because it is not possible for existence itself not to exist or for non-existence itself to exist. Unlike God, the Big Bang and the resulting universe could not have been without cause (Romans 1:20), because then the Big Bang singularity would have had to have always existed like God, for if the singularity didn't exist and then came into existence, there would have to have been some cause for it coming into existence. But the Big Bang singularity could not have always existed, because of entropy. And the Big Bang could not have been without cause, because there would have to have been some cause for the singularity to suddenly begin expanding.

I am a scientist and understand entropy very well and understand how that is not a good argument. We know through science that things come into existance uncaused. About 90% of our mass is made up of these particles that come into come into existance and disappear. The sum of all the energy of the Universe is 0. So the universe does not need anything to start it or to power it. God is not necessary to make the Big Bang happen. This is one of the big reasons why most scientists do not believe in God. There is nothing in science in which he is needed to explain anything.

God purposely designed Biblical Christianity so that it would appear silly (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16) to those to whom he has not granted the miraculous gifts of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8) and his Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16). He did this so that people could not get saved through any intellectual proofs of men, but only through his own miraculous power (1 Corinthians 2:5). He did this in order to get all of the glory for people getting saved (1 Corinthians 1:29,31), and in order to completely bypass the fallen, sinful, proud, human intellect, which has been taken captive and blinded by the devil (2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Timothy 2:26, Job 41:34). In order for people to get saved, they must resist the devil and humble themselves as little children before God (Matthew 18:3-4, James 4:6-10).

I never heard that God envisioned that Christianity would be a silly religion. Without intellect and reason, we just have guesses and feelings, which justify any religion you can pick. If human intellect does not lead us to God, then rationality is bad and this conversation has to be meaningless.

But this relates only to Biblical Christian truth, which involves more than just the existence of God (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). The existence of God, by itself, has already been proven to everyone through the existence of the universe, so that no one has any excuse for not knowing that God exists (Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1-4). Atheism arises from human foolishness and sinfulness (Psalms 53:1).

The existance of a god has to be a first step towards belief in anything further in that religion. Why would God hide from scientific examination? If science, reason, intellect can not find Him, it seems the most obvious conclusion is that He doesn't exist or He doesn't want to be found except through guesswork.

I can understand how people who do not understand the Big Bang or evolution could see God as the creator. After all, "God did it" solves any scientific question if you let it. However, if you ever studied the fields, it becomes pretty obvious that God is not needed to explain the Universe or humanity.

 

[ebia]

At the time, the issue was partly "Does God even exist?" but also "If, which god(s) exist?" Were the pagans right? Was Jesus a time traveller from the future? Was God an alien prankster? There seemed to be so many possibilities with all thr gods throughout history and all the guesses as to God. Without proof, all religious possibilities seemed equal. So I just wanted a sign I was on the right track.

How would the sign you want achieve that? Sure, it would eliminate a few possibilities, but it would hardly prove exactly what person or power provided your show.

And even supposing it did, what next? Are you going to expect a magic trick everytime you want a question answered or you're not sure whether you're on the right track?

As I say, that's not creating a healthy relationship between you and God and, so far as I can see, wouldn't actually deliver the kind of certainity you were hoping for anyway.

I didn't want health, wealth or power. I just wanted to know I was on the path of Truth.

The right way of trying to do that is not by trying to look up the answers in the back of the book - they aren't there.

This is the proof of Gaea, pantheism, and just about any other creator god as well. It is also the same proof as Big Bang/Evolution would give

.
That's true to a point because each of those is an attempt to come to terms with the same creation - although the last is not at odds with Christianity or the first two for that matter. Part of what you need to ask yourself is whether Christianity does a better job of describing both the beauty and the pain of creation, the broken image of God in each person, etc. You'd do well to read Simply Christian by +Tom Wright.

Bear in mind you are not going to get post-enlightenment style 'objective proof' - that's a system of thought that is self-limiting to exploring the created order itself.

Every prayer God answers is a miracle. So eother miracles do happen often or they do not. If they do not, then people are just guessing at God based on an old book and some internal feelings. If they do happen, then we should be able to see these miracles.

A good definition of miracle in line with the New Testament is not "a supernatural act" but "a wonderous sign of the future Kingdom of God". As such they make good signposts but poor proofs.

I am a scientist and understand entropy very well and understand how that is not a good argument. We know through science that things come into existance uncaused. About 90% of our mass is made up of these particles that come into come into existance and disappear. The sum of all the energy of the Universe is 0. So the universe does not need anything to start it or to power it. God is not necessary to make the Big Bang happen. This is one of the big reasons why most scientists do not believe in God. There is nothing in science in which he is needed to explain anything.

And therefore the "god they don't believe in" is not YHWH, since YHWH is not a god-of-the-gaps, there to explain the bits we can't otherwise explain. Curiously, the scientists most likely to believe in the Christian God are theoretical physicists! You might like to read some John Polkinghorne (theoretical physicist turned Anglican priest and theologian).

I never heard that God envisioned that Christianity would be a silly religion. Without intellect and reason, we just have guesses and feelings, which justify any religion you can pick. If human intellect does not lead us to God, then rationality is bad and this conversation has to be meaningless.

Christianity is certainly not without intellect and reason, but it does explicitly go out of it's way to subvert the thinking of the world - that, after all, is the whole point. So God defeats evil not through a show of power, but by become weak and letting evil do it's worst to him on the cross, for instance. Or that true leadership and reward is servanthood.

One has to hold in tension the fact that Christianity requires us to use our God given capabilities - including reason - but that the Christianity is about subverting everything that is wrong with the world, including misguided reasoning.

The existance of a god has to be a first step towards belief in anything further in that religion. Why would God hide from scientific examination?

It's more the other way around - scientific examination, and enlightenment reasoning more generally - is designed to leave God out of the equation so as to get down to understanding the mechanics of the created order. The Haynes Manual for a car is not the right tool for understanding the thinking of the driver.

If science, reason, intellect can not find Him, it seems the most obvious conclusion is that He doesn't exist or He doesn't want to be found except through guesswork.

That simply does not follow - it assumes without evidence that (a) one was looking for the right sort of thing and (b) that one was using the right tool for the job. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, as they say.

I can understand how people who do not understand the Big Bang or evolution could see God as the creator. After all, "God did it" solves any scientific question if you let it. However, if you ever studied the fields, it becomes pretty obvious that God is not needed to explain the Universe or humanity.

The purpose of YHWH is not explain the mechanics of those things. What Christianity offers is an explanation for the fleeting presence of what Tom Wright calls "echos of a voice": justice, spirituality, relationship, beauty,... the presence of those things, but the impaired presence of them. Why the world is both beautiful and badly damaged. And what God is doing to put it to rights. You can't reduce it to an examination of the mechanics of creation without missing the whole point.

 

[drich0150]

I can look at the President and see that he is black, so why would I want him to portray a racial stereotype to prove it?

When i said that He's Black I wasn't referring to the color of his Skin. The line of reason is as follows: To not recognize his ethnicity from his most prominent ethnic attribute, and to ignore the dignity and honor His authority in office holds, by having the President "prove' His ethnicity to you, through a trivial measure that you have approved, is beneath Him. Further more if He did humor your request for a position of authority then it would not only humiliate him it would devalue the position he holds.

So in turn if the President of the United States would not sing and dance for you, then why would you demand the God of all existence yield to you in this way?

How would this be more of a parlor trick than lighting fires for priests of Ba'al, turning a river into blood or making a donkey talk. It seems anything God does could be called a parlor trick.

God has the authority to do as He pleases. If He wish to make a donkey talk then it establishes His power and authority. But, If you command God to make a donkey talk then what does it say about God? How is He served by obeying your command? Does a slave command His master? does an employee dictate to the owner?

Again if you want proof then seek it, in the place where God has placed it. Don't expect the Master and commander of this universe to put on a puppet show for your own personal satisfaction, and pout when He doesn't show up to entertain you.

 

[Quath]

How would the sign you want achieve that? Sure, it would eliminate a few possibilities, but it would hardly prove exactly what person or power provided your show.

And even supposing it did, what next? Are you going to expect a magic trick everytime you want a question answered or you're not sure whether you're on the right track?

True. It is hard to prove something with 100% confidence. But 99% confidence is achievable. You are right in that I probably would have teken it to the next level to see which version of God is correct. By many denominations, I am destined for hell, so I would want to avoid that. If God can change probability to communicate clearly, then I can ask questions like "Are the Mormons right? The Muslims? New Age Christians?" Basically, if I were expected to live by God's rules, I would like to know which of the thousands of denominations got it right. But that would have been step 2. At the time I was stuck at step 1, which is knowing if there is even a God to follow.

As I say, that's not creating a healthy relationship between you and God and, so far as I can see, wouldn't actually deliver the kind of certainity you were hoping for anyway.

I was always told that God loves me and He does not want me to go to hell. So it seems like such a simple thing to do to at least show me that belief is reasonable.

That's true to a point because each of those is an attempt to come to terms with the same creation - although the last is not at odds with Christianity or the first two for that matter. Part of what you need to ask yourself is whether Christianity does a better job of describing both the beauty and the pain of creation, the broken image of God in each person, etc. You'd do well to read Simply Christian by +Tom Wright.

I have read a lot of books on religion and to me they all do an equally bad job of describing creation. But my criteria is more of a scientific viewpoint where I look for logic and testability.

A good definition of miracle in line with the New Testament is not "a supernatural act" but "a wonderous sign of the future Kingdom of God". As such they make good signposts but poor proofs.

It is hard to separate the New and Old Testament. If the Old Testament is true, God did lots of wonderous and easily verifyable miracles. The New Testament had more subdued miracles that easily blended in with the miracles of other religions at the time. The problem was that I could not see God of the Old Testament in today's life. That God was one who would punish people for even questioning a prophet. I would expect that God to be pretty visible in human affairs. Yet I saw nothing that showed he was around. I know the standard answer is that Jesus changed everything. But God's character is unchangable. So I would expect Him to act as He always had.

And therefore the "god they don't believe in" is not YHWH, since YHWH is not a god-of-the-gaps, there to explain the bits we can't otherwise explain. Curiously, the scientists most likely to believe in the Christian God are theoretical physicists! You might like to read some John Polkinghorne (theoretical physicist turned Anglican priest and theologian).

Most of the physicists I know are atheists. Some are slightly religious, but more on the agnostic side. I do know of one physicist who specialized in general relativity who claimed to be Christian. However, his statement of belief is that all religions are correct and God calls each person to their own religion. He also claimed that there is no material proof that God exists. But I was unconvinced since it would imply that God called me to be an atheist. Or God calls others to beleive in mutually exclusive truths.

One has to hold in tension the fact that Christianity requires us to use our God given capabilities - including reason - but that the Christianity is about subverting everything that is wrong with the world, including misguided reasoning.

I see no way to see if reason is misguided without using reason itself. It all comes back to evidence and reason for me because all else is just wild guesses in the dark.

It's more the other way around - scientific examination, and enlightenment reasoning more generally - is designed to leave God out of the equation so as to get down to understanding the mechanics of the created order. The Haynes Manual for a car is not the right tool for understanding the thinking of the driver.

So this is interesting. If God messes with the Universe he should leave fingerprints that are material proof. Without this, then the Universe shows no proof of God and can exist without Him. If everything can be explained without God, why do we even need to theorize His existance?

That simply does not follow - it assumes without evidence that (a) one was looking for the right sort of thing and (b) that one was using the right tool for the job. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, as they say.

True. God coul exists and be hidden. The only tool that Christians really said I had was prayer and I tried that. I also used the tool of looking for God in the events of the world. I looked for God in science (like evidence of the Flood, Creationism, etc).

The purpose of YHWH is not explain the mechanics of those things. What Christianity offers is an explanation for the fleeting presence of what Tom Wright calls "echos of a voice": justice, spirituality, relationship, beauty,... the presence of those things, but the impaired presence of them. Why the world is both beautiful and badly damaged. And what God is doing to put it to rights. You can't reduce it to an examination of the mechanics of creation without missing the whole point.

I have an agnostic, Catholic coworker who says that religion answwes "why" and science answers "how." Unfortunately, it does not seem so straightforward. Science can answers a who lot of "why" questions. Most religions also claim "how" answers that greatly conflict with science.

When i said that He's Black I wasn't referring to the color of his Skin. The line of reason is as follows: To not recognize his ethnicity from his most prominent ethnic attribute, and to ignore the dignity and honor His authority in office holds, by having the President "prove' His ethnicity to you, through a trivial measure that you have approved, is beneath Him. Further more if He did humor your request for a position of authority then it would not only humiliate him it would devalue the position he holds.

Like trying to find out where he was born? I actually think that is a valid question, just like questioning God's existance. The difference is that there was great evidence that Obama was born in the US while no evidence was given for God's existance. Now if I tried to get God to tell me His skin color, that would probably be beneath him.

God has the authority to do as He pleases. If He wish to make a donkey talk then it establishes His power and authority. But, If you command God to make a donkey talk then what does it say about God? How is He served by obeying your command? Does a slave command His master? does an employee dictate to the owner?

God can do as He pleases, but it is said that He pleases for people to gain salvation. So by a small act, He could help a soul on its way through life. Why would He refuse? I was not commanding him for my amusement or entertainment. I was questioning salvation and eternal life. If those questions are not worth a tiny thought of his infinite power, then He does not care; it does not matter; or God doesn't exist.

 

[theVirginian]

Quath,

Ask God to reveal himself to you, then don't do two things.

1) Don't tell him how to do it. You don't have that right and he knows you better than you do. He'll do it in a way that is custom fit for you. You'll waste your time trying to spot him. He usually has to blindside people to get around their carnal thinking.

2) Don't set a time limit. Just ask him then walk away from it. The sooner you forget you ever asked him, the sooner it will happen.

 

[Quath]

Quath,

Ask God to reveal himself to you, then don't do two things.

1) Don't tell him how to do it. You don't have that right and he knows you better than you do. He'll do it in a way that is custom fit for you. You'll waste your time trying to spot him. He usually has to blindside people to get around their carnal thinking.

2) Don't set a time limit. Just ask him then walk away from it. The sooner you forget you ever asked him, the sooner it will happen.

In essence, that is what I did. After the failed attempts at seeing coins and lottery numbers (and many other attempts), I prayed for God to show me anything that is convincing. But I had pretty much lost my belief by that point. I stayed open-minded to see if He would ever reveal Himself to me, but that never happened. I think 25 years is quite a bit of time to wait.

I am interested in the truth of life. So if He ever does reveal Himself, I would believe. However, until that time, I have to treat Him as I would any other god or magical being imagined. I can't live my life trying to believe in something in which there is no rational proof for me.

 

[ebia]

True. It is hard to prove something with 100% confidence. But 99% confidence is achievable. You are right in that I probably would have teken it to the next level to see which version of God is correct. By many denominations, I am destined for hell, so I would want to avoid that. If God can change probability to communicate clearly, then I can ask questions like "Are the Mormons right? The Muslims? New Age Christians?" Basically, if I were expected to live by God's rules, I would like to know which of the thousands of denominations got it right. But that would have been step 2. At the time I was stuck at step 1, which is knowing if there is even a God to follow.

In other words, it leads you to think you can interrogate God - that's not building towards the kind of necessary healthy relationship that's needed.

I was always told that God loves me and He does not want me to go to hell. So it seems like such a simple thing to do to at least show me that belief is reasonable.

He's not going to do it in a way that builds the wrong sort of relationship since that would defeat the whole point.

I have read a lot of books on religion and to me they all do an equally bad job of describing creation. But my criteria is more of a scientific viewpoint where I look for logic and testability.

If you insist on looking at the world through a single-colour lens don't be surprised if everything looks blue.

There's nothing wrong with a scientific viewpoint - except for taking that as all there is (which is not, in itself, scientific).

On the whole religions do not make claims which fall within the scientific competency to test. Christianity gets closer than most religions in that it does make an historical claim as central - it lives or dies on the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as an historical event that happened to a real person in a real place at a real time (at the time of writing) in the recent past. But that's the perview of history, not science, to investigate and historical method is substantially different to scientific method.

It is hard to separate the New and Old Testament. If the Old Testament is true, God did lots of wonderous and easily verifyable miracles.

When one remembers that the Old Testament covers a period of about 1,000 years (ignoring Genesis 1-11, which is mythical prologue) they aren't actually as common as they first appear; they appear at the major turning points in history, not willy-nilly to prove God exists to every Tom, Dick and Jacob to show God's power and faithfulness to people who already understand his existance.

The New Testament had more subdued miracles that easily blended in with the miracles of other religions at the time. The problem was that I could not see God of the Old Testament in today's life.

We don't live in the Old Testament, we live on the other side of the greatest event since the creation of the world - the Resurrection of Jesus.

That God was one who would punish people for even questioning a prophet.

It's not a good idea o

I would expect that God to be pretty visible in human affairs. Yet I saw nothing that showed he was around. I know the standard answer is that Jesus changed everything. But God's character is unchangable. So I would expect Him to act as He always had.

God acts in real history - in an ongoing story. To simple repeat what happened in Act 1 of the play in Act 4 doesn't work - the story has moved on. Not that God was half as visible in OT times as you seem to think - you are taking the remarkable and regarding it as normative.

Most of the physicists I know are atheists.

I didn't say that most physicists are Christians, but that they are the group of serious scientists most likely to be Christian. Polkinghorne has some interesting ideas about why this is so.

I see no way to see if reason is misguided without using reason itself.

Then you're stuffed, aren't you!

It all comes back to evidence and reason for me because all else is just wild guesses in the dark.

If that's the position you choose to take that's up to you, but you have to recognise that is a choice to assume that enlightenment style reason-and-evidence is the only appropriate tool for knowing.

So this is interesting. If God messes with the Universe he should leave fingerprints that are material proof.

On the whole God doesn't "mess with the universe". You are still trying to dichotomise between God acting and "natural causes". So long as you insist on setting those up as an either-or you aren't talking about the Judeo/Christian God.

Without this, then the Universe shows no proof of God and can exist without Him.

The latter does not follow from the former. I can only repeat - stop looking for a god-of-the-gaps because that's not the right God.

If everything can be explained without God, why do we even need to theorize His existance?

Because God's existance isn't about explaining what we otherwise cannot explain. God exists and is acting to put right what is wrong with creation, and inviting us to get on-board with that to be put right ourselves in and for that project.

True. God coul exists and be hidden.

Not hidden, but you are using the wrong tool to look.

The only tool that Christians really said I had was prayer and I tried that.

Prayer, love, relationship, worship, scripture, the Gospel, vocation,...

I also used the tool of looking for God in the events of the world. I looked for God in science (like evidence of the Flood, Creationism, etc).

Bear in mind that majority of Christians do not take Genesis 1-11 literally - it's a prologue to the story of the bible proper that begins at Genesis 12. Genesis 1-11 explains the necessary background in narrative terms:

• what creation is intended to be like (Gen 1 & 2)
• why creation is not like that (Gen 3)
• the consequences of that (Gen 4-5)
• why God cannot simply wipe out evil (Gen 6-9)
• linking material (Gen 10-11 approx)

written in a set of narrative forms broadly called myth. Looking for physical evidence of them is a red-herring.

I have an agnostic, Catholic coworker who says that religion answwes "why" and science answers "how." Unfortunately, it does not seem so straightforward. Science can answers a who lot of "why" questions. Most religions also claim "how" answers that greatly conflict with science.

It's a shorthand. Science studies the mechanics of creation - the "why" questions it answers are about mechanism, they are really "how" questions formed in a "why" way. And Religion is about purpose, intention, hope, love, relationship, beauty... - it's "how" questions are really "why" questions formed in a "how" way.

 

[Joveia]

There's an interesting passage on asking God for a sign from the Bible:

"One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. "Tell us by what authority you are doing these things," they said. "Who gave you this authority?" He replied, "I will also ask you a question. Tell me, John's baptism—was it from heaven, or from men?" They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet." So they answered, "We don't know where it was from." Jesus said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things."

I wondered about why Jesus didn't give them a straight answer as to whether He was the messiah, which could have gotten them into heaven and so on. But I think the reason is that the pharisees were sitting on the fence and weren't really sure about committing to either position. If the pharisees had said Jesus was flat out wrong, then Jesus might have been able to win them over by argument. If the pharisees had put their foot down on the 'pro-Jesus' side then then Jesus could have won them over. But the pharisees didn't commit to either side so Jesus didn't answer them.

So when we ask God for a sign I think we need to put our foot down in a manner of speaking and say "I really want you to exist God, please help me believe" or "I don't want you to exist" in which case God won't force Himself on you. Asking for a sign without doing this means you're undecided about whether you really want a sign.

 

[drich0150]

The difference is that there was great evidence that Obama was born in the US while no evidence was given for God's existance. Now if I tried to get God to tell me His skin color, that would probably be beneath him.

So by a small act, He could help a soul on its way through life. Why would He refuse?

The evidence is there for all who seek it, there just isn't or won't be any "proof" that will be provided outside of what has been prepared for us.

If God were to bend to your will, and become a magic genie that grants wishes on demand or a signs and wonders generator. Do you think He could still be The type of God that is needed to fill the Role of the Alpha and Omega the one that is in the position to forgive sin?

Would you truly wish to have the one being with infinite power in all of the universe bending to you need for trivial wonders? wouldn't that in fact make you the supreme being?

In reality if your pride will not allow you to seek God on His terms, then in your mind that somehow obligates God to Seek you on your terms. If God has to bend to your will doesn't that make you more powerful than God? If so then Why serve a God you have power over? Shouldn't He serve you?

So I ask again. If God bends to your need for pallor tricks to prove His existence to you, Do you think He could still fill the role of the Alpha and Omega that is needed to pardon all sin?

If you seek proof then look for it where God has placed it.

 

[Bible2]

Quath:
I am a scientist and understand entropy very well and understand how that is not a good argument.

Because of entropy, the Big Bang singularity could not have always existed before it expanded in the Big Bang, because if the singularity had always existed, entropy would have already caused the singularity to eventually cool down to a temperature of absolute zero, the only temperature at which there is no more entropy. But the Big Bang occurred when the singularity was at an almost infinite temperature, meaning that the Big Bang must have occurred almost immediately after the singularity came into existence. So if the Big Bang occurred some 10-15 billion years ago, the singularity must have come into existence almost immediately before that. And because nothing can occur without a cause, something beyond the Big Bang singularity had to have caused it to come into existence.

We know through science that things come into existance uncaused. About 90% of our mass is made up of these particles that come into come into existance and disappear.

Just because science cannot currently prove what causes virtual particles to suddenly appear for an instant even in a vacuum, this in no way means that science has proven that something can come into existence without a cause; all it means is that science has not yet figured out for certain what the cause for the appearance of virtual particles is. One theory is that even a seeming-vacuum could potentially contain an infinitesimal, undetectable amount of each of the different wavelengths of energy, which together could add up to an almost infinite amount of potential "zero-point energy" in every point of space. This zero-point energy could be where the virtual particles come from. While zero-point energy could theoretically be traced back to the energy originally contained within the Big Bang singularity, science still has to explain where the energy in the Big Bang singularity came from.

The sum of all the energy of the Universe is 0. So the universe does not need anything to start it or to power it. God is not necessary to make the Big Bang happen.

The sum of all of the energy in the Big Bang singularity was almost infinite. And all of that energy had to come from somewhere, because of the first law of thermodynamics. So God is ultimately necessary for the coming into existence of the Big Bang singularity.

Also, God is ultimately necessary for the eternal existence of humans, because the whole universe is dying: because of entropy the universe is inexorably cooling down until its temperature will reach the point of absolute zero, in which no life will exist.

This is one of the big reasons why most scientists do not believe in God. There is nothing in science in which he is needed to explain anything.

God is needed to explain the origin of the Big Bang singularity. Simply saying "it was uncaused" is not a scientific explanation at all, but a fudge, just as if scientists in ancient times, unable to explain the origin of the Sun, were to say "it was uncaused", that would not have been a scientific explanation at all, but only a fudge, a pathetic admission that they had not yet figured out what caused the Sun to come into existence.

I never heard that God envisioned that Christianity would be a silly religion.

God didn't make Christianity silly; he only made it so that it would appear silly to the lost (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16).

Without intellect and reason, we just have guesses and feelings, which justify any religion you can pick.

That's a false choice, for there is a third option: God's miraculous gifts of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 11:1) and his Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).

If human intellect does not lead us to God, then rationality is bad and this conversation has to be meaningless.

A distinction must be made between simply knowing that God exists and knowing that Biblical Christianty is true. Everyone can know by reason that God exists, simply by seeing the existence of the universe (Romans 1:20). But knowing that Biblical Christianty is true can only come by God's miraculous gifts of Christian faith (Ephesians 2:8) and his Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-16).