"Once Upon a Time" and the Constraints on Belief

[Prufrock]

The New Testament:

Once upon a time, God came to earth as a human named Jesus. He taught, performed miracles, died, and rose again and went to heaven. A lot of people saw it happen. God wants you to believe this happened so you can go to heaven, and will punish you for not believing. (oh, btw, God controls who believes and who doesn't, but don't worry with that now!)

I was raised in a Southern Baptist home and taught from a very young age that the Bible was, is, and always will be THE word of God, the sole revelation to this generation. This was the arch-narrative of my existance; my raison detre. The purpose of life was to believe this story, to count on it being true, and to come to love what Jesus had done.

Now I am 27, and for the past 5 or 6 years have been through various levels of unbelief, questioning, pleading with God, and frustration. I cannot recall any cognizable revelation to me, any communication that I could put into words, that is not based on logical inference. Logic and reasoning seem to be the only bases of truth.

God's way of revealing truth, if you read the Bible, is by signs and wonders (miracles). God showed his chosen people first-hand why they should believe in Him, and why they should fear him, from Adam on down. This was first-hand demonstrable action, that third persons, had they been there, could have seen (e.g. the red sea, the star of Bethlehem, and most importantly, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The early Church proselytized through signs and wonders. The apostles at Pentecost, Paul in his ministry (Acts 19:11-12) are examples of this direct revelation from God to man.

Today, God is revealed indirectly by men, the direct contact having ended 2,000 years ago, roughly. Arguments from indirect, circumstantial evidence, such as that the intricacy of the human body suggests a God, or the feeling of love suggests a God, are not at convincing as if God miraculously gave a blind person sight. That would be direct evidence. I would probably believe it. The Bible's reply is that even if I saw, I would not believe, just like Pharaoh did when Moses came back to Egypt. Much later, Thomas got a free pass at belief. Why am I not offered that assurance, given that God does not favor persons, according to Paul.

Even if I should believe in past miracles, why should I believe the biblical narrative to be a true historical account when there is very little corroborating evidence of its historicity outside of the Bible? Perhaps a man named Jesus lived and preached, but no outside accounts by the Romans, Greek, Jews or other Sects stand up to the scrutiny reasonably demanded of extraordinary, miraculous claims.

Even if God's method of communication was direct physical demonstration, why did he stop with the Apostles, given that countless others might have believed the Gospel if they had seen some evidence that miracles happen?

It seems more plausible to me that much of the history of Jesus was created after the fact, and that no miracle has ever occurred. Not that any of us atheists are completely overjoyed by the fact, of course. Given the option, we'd all like to exist at least a bit longer than biology allows and have another chance at life to try and live it better. Our desires for reality don't always come true though. To me, it is better to have reasonable expectations, and be delighted by pleasant surprises, an afterlife included.

Regards,

Pru

 

[drich0150]

Arguments from indirect, circumstantial evidence, such as that the intricacy of the human body suggests a God, or the feeling of love suggests a God, are not at convincing as if God miraculously gave a blind person sight. That would be direct evidence. I would probably believe it. The Bible's reply is that even if I saw, I would not believe, just like Pharaoh did when Moses came back to Egypt.

What about seeing or knowing a man cured of HIV, and a respiratory condition? Would that be enough, or would you explain it all away?

Why am I not offered that assurance, given that God does not favor persons, according to Paul.

Because God doesn't favor people.. according to Paul.
Thomas was in the right place at the right time, with the right question or doubt.

You and I have it much harder, We must want to believe, where the 1 century brothers could wittiness and believe. But even then the pride of man kept many people from belief.

To me, it is better to have reasonable expectations, and be delighted by pleasant surprises, an afterlife included.

If you were raised baptist, then you know if the after life is real then your surprise may not be so pleasant.

That's the purpose of this life, to secure the next one.

 

[Prufrock]

What about seeing or knowing a man cured of HIV, and a respiratory condition? Would that be enough, or would you explain it all away?

As far as I know, HIV is still not curable. It it was a miraculous cure, then yes. I'm willing to bet that such a man doesn't exist. Even if God did demonstrate a miracle to me, why would that be fair to all of those who have never been witness to a miracle. While I would certainly feel privileged, I would wonder about the overall fairness of God.

Because God doesn't favor people.. according to Paul.

Thomas was in the right place at the right time, with the right question or doubt.

You and I have it much harder, We must want to believe, where the 1 century brothers could wittiness and believe. But even then the pride of man kept many people from belief.

To me, this is the contradiction in the Bible--the very one I am trying to explain. God does not favor persons, yet he does expect all people to believe in certain historical facts about Jesus, i.e. that he died, rose again, and ascended to heaven, and our generation has far less access to the facts then did the apostles and first-century Christians. Christians attempt to make people decide an issue which has very little evidence and tremendous consequence.

You even say yourself that our generation "has it much harder." You are right in saying that this generation must "want to believe", and people with that mindset will believe anything, no matter the amount of evidence.

If you were raised baptist, then you know if the after life is real then your surprise may not be so pleasant.

This is nothing more than an appeal to fear. The appeal to a literal hell is of fairly recent vintage in Christianity and its last great enclave is still the southern U.S. and the foreign mission fields that they propagate. There is much evidence of stringent argument in the early church over the doctrine of hell. I think the scarier version won out because it was more effective in gaining believers. If I don't believe in hell, then how can I be afraid of it? Are you afraid of the boogieman? Werewolves?

That's the purpose of this life, to secure the next one.

In your opinion, which is one of many. Others think there is no purpose for man other than to continue the species, or that our purpose is to marry so that we can start another universe with ourselves as gods. The list goes on and on. The Christian worldview is palatable, in many aspects, but it is heartless and cruel in others, your appeal to fear being a prime example.

And that's why I'm here. I'm open to the Christian worldview, but its less fair and loving aspects need some explaining. The difficulty in this path is that the very act of explaining seems contrary to the way God interacted in the Bible. He did less explaining than demonstrating his power, greatness, love, and compassion though signs and wonders. Why can't Christians work miracles?

 

[drich0150]

I'm willing to bet that such a man doesn't exist. Even if God did demonstrate a miracle to me, why would that be fair to all of those who have never been witness to a miracle.

About 12 years ago I started to come down with a skin virus. My Doctor said that "healthy people" usually don't develop these type of "tags." My condition was probably related to an immune system deficiency. He also suggested I take an HIV test, along with some other blood work.. Long story short The test came back positive. I'm not a drug user nor at the time had I even had sex. But about 16 months earlier I did help a guy at work (And got pretty bloody in the process) when he was severely hurt, At that time of the test he no longer worked there, but he was known as a "ladies man".. So I put two and two together.

To say the least I was up set for a while, and during a follow up visit to start the removal of my skin (I call them tags but they are like a more serious viral cousin.) During the procedure the Doctor explained to me what all of this meant and how my life would change, I accepted my fate, and told God if this is how he was to use me than so be it.. And what ever my lot I was ready to remain faithful. Even though I was sadden by this whole event greatly, I just wanted to use this to tragedy to God's service. At that moment I felt a great peace, and an inner warmth. In my inner dialog I thanked God for giving me comfort, mean while the Doctor was wanting to do another HIV test for conformation purposes, but he told me Because skin virus had taken such an aggressive hold in my arms and back that all of this was merely a formality, and even though it would be a couple of week before I got my conformation he wanted to start me on some immune system boosters, and some other meds ASAP. I was about to agree, but I heard a voice that said wait for the test results.. I was alittle startled because of how crisply and unexpected the voice was. Because it was only me the doctor and a female assistant observing all of this.. (they gave no indication of hearing anything)

So I told him I wanted to wait. Long story short The test came back negative, so did a quick follow up, and another 6 months later, and another 1year after that. All I have left from this whole experience are pot mark scars on my arms (They almost look like cigarette burns from the removal procedure) and a new look and lease on life.

I know it will be very easy for someone to say the OK the first test was wrong, but again My Doctor said that the skin condition I had was an indicator of someone in the later stages of Full blown AIDS. "Healthy people" even with a partially compromised immune systems can some times develop these viral tags, but usually in small clusters and they will usually clear up on there own.. I had over two hundred of these tags on my arms and back. I had two treatment sessions that had removed about 80% of the tags. (they will remove all that you can endure in one session, then they send you out to heal and recover then you come back for another round.)
But by the time I got my results back from the second test the "tags" started to go away on there own, so I did have to sit through any more treatments.

The Doctors (the other doctors in that practice all sat down with me because they all wanted to examine the remaining tags for themselves.) tried to explain all of this in several different ways, but could not explain the aggressive nature of my infection, the positive test, and the "recovery through unconventional means." I told them my story again, and At the end I was told that "we" were all part of a miracle.

There it is.. Take it or leave it. This kinda goes to another question you asked, Why can't christians "work miracles?" Let look at my situation Whether you believe it or not, I was the one who endured this torturous period of poking and prodding, and endless apprehension, and what seemed like eternity in waiting rooms.. Now after all of that and "conventional medicine" has little to nothing they can do for you, You (me) become open to just about anything. Now Enter a "Miracle worker" This Person comes in Jingles his Jangle or whatever at you and poof your healed.. Now who do you suppose the person Being legitimately healed will give thanks to.. "God" or the person who made all of this happen. Not to mention whatever denomination he belongs to will undoubtedly want to cash in and that will legitimize there religious beliefs over all of the other belief systems.

Look at all who claim to have this power now, and how corrupt they are.. Could you imagine if they had legitimate medical science backing them up? It would be the complete destruction of what little good religion does now.

As it is now If you receive a "healing" you know it comes from God, as it did when the apostles were healing in the name of Jesus.

You even say yourself that our generation "has it much harder."

Actually Jesus says That to Thomas more or less when he tells him:
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

This is nothing more than an appeal to fear. The appeal to a literal hell is of fairly recent vintage in Christianity and its last great enclave is still the southern U.S. and the foreign mission fields that they propagate. There is much evidence of stringent argument in the early church over the doctrine of hell. I think the scarier version won out because it was more effective in gaining believers. If I don't believe in hell, then how can I be afraid of it? Are you afraid of the boogieman? Werewolves?

I never alluded to "the scary version of hell." You made that leap on your own. My remark is the completion of your previous statement, using your written acknowledgments of the time you spent as a member of the baptist faith.

If there is an "after life" Then there is a Creator of that existence. Working from a baptist biblical world view, that creator has set a standard or prerequisites in which the "after life" can be obtained. I was stating that if in fact you were a baptist at one time, then you should know what those prerequisites are.
So it can be said, from the beliefs in your current profession of faith, you do not meet this standard. So If you do not meet God's standards, of his after life, then in fact the surprise you get will not be a pleasant one.. No matter which description of hell you subscribe too...

Hell doesn't have to be a feared place. That's why I was not pushing fear. When you make the leap to an after-life existence, or if you speak of one, whether you believe in hell or not, hell is a variable in which you will have to account for, because you are no longer speaking from a scientifically fact driven PoV.. Once you have crossed that line, it becomes a matter of faith. That is unless atheists have confirmed an existence after this life, devoid of hell.

 

[JohnDB]

There is no question as to the existance of the man Jesus by anyone...well, except atheists for some reason. All agree with the historical account that he was born and lived in Israel and that he was crucified. (as were many Jews during that day and time)

That Bible that your parents kept wanting you to read and you tend to ignore was written by over forty authors over a period of 1400 years...It also has in it 66 books in it that all agree perfectly...not one error.

You can't get a writer with some of the best editors to do that with his own work...much less get two people over in the theological discussion boards to agree...but we are talking about over forty men (some from other cultures made contributions) and over a period of 1400 years...that in itself is another miracle. And if it doesn't appear as one to you? Then your realization that you woulnd't see a miricle if it occurred right in front of you is true.
Your parent's involvement with Calvinism may have pushed you away from the good news (and the real news is good) but you don't have to rebel against God when you would rather rebel against your parents. You can choose to not be a follower of Calvin (a man) or yourself...you can choose to follow the one who made this place...set up the rules as to how things work....or not. All up to you.

 

[Quaero]

As far as I know, HIV is still not curable. It it was a miraculous cure, then yes. I'm willing to bet that such a man doesn't exist. Even if God did demonstrate a miracle to me, why would that be fair to all of those who have never been witness to a miracle. While I would certainly feel privileged, I would wonder about the overall fairness of God.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article589783.ece


There is something odd about this case, how he's refusing to be retested, but since it happened (2003) he hasn't died or redeveloped HIV....

 

[Adrift*]

The New Testament:

Once upon a time, God came to earth as a human named Jesus. He taught, performed miracles, died, and rose again and went to heaven. A lot of people saw it happen. God wants you to believe this happened so you can go to heaven, and will punish you for not believing. (oh, btw, God controls who believes and who doesn't, but don't worry with that now!)

First off, the punishment is self-imposed. We all sin, we all miss the mark. There are consequences for everything in life, because the universe and everything in it is governed by laws (material and spiritual). In God's greatness and mercy he's provided a way to escape the consequence of sin. And unless you're a Calvinist, Christianity does not teach that God controls who believes and who does not believe. We have the free will to either repent of our sins and make Jesus Lord in our lives... or not.

Now I am 27, and for the past 5 or 6 years have been through various levels of unbelief, questioning, pleading with God, and frustration. I cannot recall any cognizable revelation to me, any communication that I could put into words, that is not based on logical inference. Logic and reasoning seem to be the only bases of truth.

There is nothing illogical nor unreasonable about belief in God.

God's way of revealing truth, if you read the Bible, is by signs and wonders (miracles). God showed his chosen people first-hand why they should believe in Him, and why they should fear him, from Adam on down. This was first-hand demonstrable action, that third persons, had they been there, could have seen (e.g. the red sea, the star of Bethlehem, and most importantly, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The early Church proselytized through signs and wonders. The apostles at Pentecost, Paul in his ministry (Acts 19:11-12) are examples of this direct revelation from God to man.

I, personally, believe that miracles happen today. All the time in fact. Probably more than we will ever know. I've heard testimony after testimony from people who've either received or witnessed miracles, and I personally have had many prayers answered. That said, how often do extraordinary miracles happen in the full history presented in scripture? Not many really. There's even periods where the miraculous almost seems to disappear for an age. It wasn't everyday that people witnessed pillars of fire and columns of smoke, or seeing Jesus walk on water. God typically seems to work in most people's lives through natural means rather than miraculous manifestations. This is nothing new really.

Today, God is revealed indirectly by men, the direct contact having ended 2,000 years ago, roughly. Arguments from indirect, circumstantial evidence, such as that the intricacy of the human body suggests a God, or the feeling of love suggests a God, are not at convincing as if God miraculously gave a blind person sight. That would be direct evidence. I would probably believe it. The Bible's reply is that even if I saw, I would not believe, just like Pharaoh did when Moses came back to Egypt. Much later, Thomas got a free pass at belief. Why am I not offered that assurance, given that God does not favor persons, according to Paul.

I don't know what all anyone would believe or not believe if they saw something like Jesus walking on water, but we do know that before his resurrection there were people who would not accept Jesus' miracles at face value (Nazareth) or attributed his miracles to satan (the Pharisees). Thomas got a free pass, but that demonstration seems to have proved a larger point rather than that Thomas was the lucky one who got to poke his finger in Jesus' wounds. Specifically, the points made are that those who have not seen but believe are blessed, and that Jesus truly had been crucified and resurrected from the dead and had not just been a case of mistaken identity.

Even if I should believe in past miracles, why should I believe the biblical narrative to be a true historical account when there is very little corroborating evidence of its historicity outside of the Bible? Perhaps a man named Jesus lived and preached, but no outside accounts by the Romans, Greek, Jews or other Sects stand up to the scrutiny reasonably demanded of extraordinary, miraculous claims.

I never understood the reasoning behind this type of thinking... If you were a witness to the miraculous and reported it, wouldn't you be a believer? Why would a skeptic report a miraculous event that they witnessed and believed in? Wouldn't they stop being a skeptic once they believed it? And why would any contemporary historian outside of maybe Josephus really care about miraculous stories happening inside of a small Roman province like Israel anyway?

Even if God's method of communication was direct physical demonstration, why did he stop with the Apostles, given that countless others might have believed the Gospel if they had seen some evidence that miracles happen?

Who said it stopped with the Apostles? Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both refer to the gifts of the Spirit in their own day, well after the original Apostles had already passed away. Many Christians believe the gifts of the Spirit continue to this very day. Even those who believe that the gifts have ended believe that they can directly communicate with God through Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit is still with us.

It seems more plausible to me that much of the history of Jesus was created after the fact, and that no miracle has ever occurred. Not that any of us atheists are completely overjoyed by the fact, of course. Given the option, we'd all like to exist at least a bit longer than biology allows and have another chance at life to try and live it better. Our desires for reality don't always come true though. To me, it is better to have reasonable expectations, and be delighted by pleasant surprises, an afterlife included.

There's nothing pleasant about living a life not to its fullest. We were created with purpose and an abundant life doesn't start after you're dead, it starts as soon as you make Jesus first in your life.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

Why do you suggest that "Today, God is revealed indirectly by men, the direct contact having ended 2,000 years ago, roughly"?

J.E.B.

 

[packermann]

Today, God is revealed indirectly by men, the direct contact having ended 2,000 years ago, roughly. Arguments from indirect, circumstantial evidence, such as that the intricacy of the human body suggests a God, or the feeling of love suggests a God, are not at convincing as if God miraculously gave a blind person sight. That would be direct evidence. I would probably believe it. The Bible's reply is that even if I saw, I would not believe, just like Pharaoh did when Moses came back to Egypt. Much later, Thomas got a free pass at belief. Why am I not offered that assurance, given that God does not favor persons, according to Paul.

I myself used to be a Protestant, and I admit that it seemed hokey that God would only produce miracles 2,000 miracles ago, and no miracles since then.

But I am now Catholic, and as a Catholic I have been exposed to God’s continuous miracles throughout these last 2,000 years. Protestants just totally ignore them, simple because of their anti-Catholic bias.

But they are there. The latest being the appearance of the Blessed Virgin approved by the Catholic Church in Fatima. There our Lady appeared to three children, and 70,000 people saw the sun dancing in the sky. That’s a lot of witnesses, and some were not even believers. But they all said that they saw the sun danced in the sky. Not only that, but Mary made some startling predictions through the children that all came true.

Then there is Lourdes, where millions of people go every year for healing. These are ongoing miracles. Before you discount these miracles, I suggest you go there and check it out yourself.

So it is only being of your anti-Catholic biased environment that you were raised to think that miracles only happened 2,000 years ago. Actually, God has provided miracles throughout history that cannot be scientifically explained.

Even if I should believe in past miracles, why should I believe the biblical narrative to be a true historical account when there is very little corroborating evidence of its historicity outside of the Bible? Perhaps a man named Jesus lived and preached, but no outside accounts by the Romans, Greek, Jews or other Sects stand up to the scrutiny reasonably demanded of extraordinary, miraculous claims.

This is not logical. Anyone who was exposed to a miracle of Jesus, and admits it being a miracle would no longer be a non-believer but a believer. You are expecting a non-believer to say something that only a believer would say, and still be a non-believer. Jesus made radical claims on our lives. And in that culture, anyone who admitted that Jesus produced miracles (unless it was black magic from the Devil, which is what the Jewish Talmud accused Him of) would be persecuted by the Jews and the Romans. So only a person who was ready to convert to Christianity would admit to the miracles of Jesus.

Also, you seem to have the understanding that the Bible started as one book. It did not. The Bible is a compilation of about 25 different historical documents written by about 8 different authors at different places and different times. If you had phrased your argument by saying “there is very little corroborating evidence of its historicity outside 25 different historical documents”, the weakness of your argument would be apparent to all.

It seems more plausible to me that much of the history of Jesus was created after the fact, and that no miracle has ever occurred. Not that any of us atheists are completely overjoyed by the fact, of course. Given the option, we'd all like to exist at least a bit longer than biology allows and have another chance at life to try and live it better. Our desires for reality don't always come true though. To me, it is better to have reasonable expectations, and be delighted by pleasant surprises, an afterlife included.

I disagree. I think the idea that Christianity may be true scares the living daylights out of you. Since you believe there is no God, you are free to live anyway you want. You can make your own morality. Anything goes when it comes to sex. The conscience is something we should learn to ignore.

But if it turns out to be true, you are in a lot of trouble. It is one thing to think that when you die, you stop existing. It is another thing to think that you would spend eternity in hell.

Your very action by posting this thread supports my contention that deep down you are scared. Why else would you be trying to convince us? You hope that by finding some convert to atheism, that this will calm your doubts that atheism may be wrong after all. Otherwise, why are you wasting your time trying to convince us we are wrong? Life is short. According to you atheistic beliefs (yes, they are beliefs) you have a short time left in your existence. So why are you not trying to live life to the fullest? Why aren’t you on a date, or spending time with your wife, or going on a ski trip, or drinking with your friends? Why waste your time with us? It is because deep down you are a Christaphobe. You are afraid that it just may be true after all, and as long as there are Christians, they remind you that you may be wrong and you would go to eternal hell.

Ironically, atheists like you strengthen our faith. As Hamlet once said “Me thinkest thou protesteth too loudly”. Your zeal to convince us that we are wrong only shows that deep down you are afraid that we just may be right.

 

[1985Bears]

Just the mere fact that "god" is requiring you to believe that somebody told somebody who told somebody they were god is absurdity at its finest. This is not revelation. Revelation must come directly from God to man. I have no more reason to believe Jesus was Lord than I do David Koresh. As far as I'm concerned, there's more evidence for a flying teapot as Lord, as he/she doesn't have a book in their name filled with contradictions and atrocities.

The opening post is correct, its a fairy tale.

 

[Koensayr]

Even if I should believe in past miracles, why should I believe the biblical narrative to be a true historical account when there is very little corroborating evidence of its historicity outside of the Bible? Perhaps a man named Jesus lived and preached, but no outside accounts by the Romans, Greek, Jews or other Sects stand up to the scrutiny reasonably demanded of extraordinary, miraculous claims.

Hey Prufrock,

I suggest that you read Lee Strobel's book The Case For Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation Of The Evidence For Jesus as in it he recounts how he asked the very questions that you ask in this paragraph.

For example, one of the most important Roman historian of the first century, Tacitus, notes in AD 115 that Nero persecuted the Christians as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself for the great fire that had devastated Rome in AD 65:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstitution, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of evil, but even in Rome...
​

Edwin Yamauchi, responding to Lee Strobel's question on the significance of this account (1998, p. 108), reveals that is of particular interest to note is how one could account for "the spread of a religion based on the worship of a man who had suffered the most ignominious death possible... ".

In his book, Lee Strobel goes over the other accounts by people like the first century Jewish historian Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, among others.

Many people argue as you do that there's "no corroborating evidence" of the Bible's truth, but that's simply not true. Such people are often just repeating rhetoric they've heard from someone else and haven't investigated the evidence. It's much like a "PRATT" - Point Refuted A Thousand Times - that holds no water.


Resource:
Strobel, L (1998), The Case For Christ, Zondervan, Grand Rappids, Michigan.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

The New Testament:

Once upon a time, God came to earth as a human named Jesus. He taught, performed miracles, died, and rose again and went to heaven. A lot of people saw it happen. God wants you to believe this happened so you can go to heaven, and will punish you for not believing. (oh, btw, God controls who believes and who doesn't, but don't worry with that now!)

I was raised in a Southern Baptist home and taught from a very young age that the Bible was, is, and always will be THE word of God, the sole revelation to this generation. This was the arch-narrative of my existance; my raison detre. The purpose of life was to believe this story, to count on it being true, and to come to love what Jesus had done.

Now I am 27, and for the past 5 or 6 years have been through various levels of unbelief, questioning, pleading with God, and frustration. I cannot recall any cognizable revelation to me, any communication that I could put into words, that is not based on logical inference. Logic and reasoning seem to be the only bases of truth.

God's way of revealing truth, if you read the Bible, is by signs and wonders (miracles). God showed his chosen people first-hand why they should believe in Him, and why they should fear him, from Adam on down. This was first-hand demonstrable action, that third persons, had they been there, could have seen (e.g. the red sea, the star of Bethlehem, and most importantly, the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. The early Church proselytized through signs and wonders. The apostles at Pentecost, Paul in his ministry (Acts 19:11-12) are examples of this direct revelation from God to man.

Today, God is revealed indirectly by men, the direct contact having ended 2,000 years ago, roughly. Arguments from indirect, circumstantial evidence, such as that the intricacy of the human body suggests a God, or the feeling of love suggests a God, are not at convincing as if God miraculously gave a blind person sight. That would be direct evidence. I would probably believe it. The Bible's reply is that even if I saw, I would not believe, just like Pharaoh did when Moses came back to Egypt. Much later, Thomas got a free pass at belief. Why am I not offered that assurance, given that God does not favor persons, according to Paul.

Even if I should believe in past miracles, why should I believe the biblical narrative to be a true historical account when there is very little corroborating evidence of its historicity outside of the Bible? Perhaps a man named Jesus lived and preached, but no outside accounts by the Romans, Greek, Jews or other Sects stand up to the scrutiny reasonably demanded of extraordinary, miraculous claims.

Even if God's method of communication was direct physical demonstration, why did he stop with the Apostles, given that countless others might have believed the Gospel if they had seen some evidence that miracles happen?

It seems more plausible to me that much of the history of Jesus was created after the fact, and that no miracle has ever occurred. Not that any of us atheists are completely overjoyed by the fact, of course. Given the option, we'd all like to exist at least a bit longer than biology allows and have another chance at life to try and live it better. Our desires for reality don't always come true though. To me, it is better to have reasonable expectations, and be delighted by pleasant surprises, an afterlife included.

Regards,

Pru

Unfortunately, I have no irrefutable proof that can be verified through systematic investigation and repeated experimentation that will show God exists. Religion, by its very nature, is a matter of faith.

Would mind sharing what first raised doubt for you about the understanding of the Bible you were taught? What would you like to see or experience to prove the existence of God?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy