The only way to know God exists is by him proving it to you

[awitch]

What then would be the acceptable solution, since it's been claimed that even if a person returned from the dead, it wouldn't be believed.

Without some irrefutable evidence, I don't know what would be sufficiently convincing. There's no compelling reason for me to believe it happened.

A spiritual experience is probably most likely to convince some people, but as I said, those are prone to errors and is not convincing to anyone else.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Without some irrefutable evidence, I don't know what would be sufficiently convincing. There's no compelling reason for me to believe it happened.

A spiritual experience is probably most likely to convince some people, but as I said, those are prone to errors and is not convincing to anyone else.

One has to realise that the problem is two fold.

The assumption is that the claim is of God's existence. It is that, but it's also more. The full claim is that he exists, has expectations from those he created, and is now making a declaration of his intention to impose penalties on those who are in infraction, are not compliant with the requirements, and confirmed it by raising to life the one who will impose those penalties. He has overlooked the non compliance of the past because of ignorance, but feels he has now given sufficient notice of his rightful demands on his creations to hold them accountable.

Two
What constitutes sufficient knowledge/proof? People expect evidential proof, but really no amount of evidence can ever be sufficient, if one knows a little bit about epistemology, how people know what can be known, even scientific proof is insufficient. This post articulates the problem we'll:

Quote
Human knowledge is profoundly uncertain, including the Sciences, which after all are based on falsification.

The New Atheist - movement

Basically, the authentication that people hold to be definitive itself cannot be authenticated

 

[awitch]

He has overlooked the non compliance of the past because of ignorance, but feels he has now given sufficient notice of his rightful demands on his creations to hold them accountable.

A book that says so is in no way sufficient, especially when there are over 140,000 ways to interpret that book. Then you have the problem of other books that say something different, each with their own multiple interpretations.

Two
What constitutes sufficient knowledge/proof? People expect evidential proof, but really no amount of evidence can ever be sufficient, if one knows a little bit about epistemology, how people know what can be known, even scientific proof is insufficient. This post articulates the problem we'll:

Quote
Human knowledge is profoundly uncertain, including the Sciences, which after all are based on falsification.

This shouldn't suggest that science is guesswork.
Is it falsifiable? Is it repeatable? Can we use it to make consistently successful predictions? If so, then we can reliably accept it. But there is no explanation of god that meets those requirements and "God works in mysterious ways" just sounds like a cop-out to non-believers.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It is an all too common rationalization among ideologies to deny that those who once believes as you do (but then came to a different conclusion) cannot possibly have been "true" believers to begin with.

This is why both secular and religious ideologies throughout history have always hated the apostate/heretic more than the unbeliever/"pagan" (or whatever names they gave to these).

 

[tansy]

That's what I'm talking about. There's something that's really complicated and hard to understand but you don't even have to try if you point to god.

Except that people have always tried to understand...probably from the beginnings of mankind. If we didn't try to understand things and experiment then we would presumably still be sheltering in caves and wouldn't have been able to develop any kind of technology or anything.
Yes, there are probably some people who have never tried to understand anything, but most young children at least are inquisitive...always asking why and how. Obviously, there are so many interesting things to pursue and try and figure out, one person cannot in a lifetime, learn about everything, one has to specialise to a point.
Just because I don't understand everything in the universe doesn't mean to say I just point to God and say 'no worries, don't have to figure anything out'. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't even bother to get up in the morning.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If you have a hard time processing that people could be just as convinced of the Absolute Truth of their faith as you are, and yet end up deconverting and feeling that what they believed was wrong:

Just take a look at Scientologists or people in other world views you'd consider obviously false. Their converts are *utterly* convinced that Dianetics changes their lives for the better on a fundamental level. They'll defend their position with tooth and claw, and maintain that those who "fall away" are "suppressive persons" who stand against everything that's good and pure.

Same "mechanics", same result. "No True Believer".

 

[Wordkeeper]

A book that says so is in no way sufficient, especially when there are over 140,000 ways to interpret that book. Then you have the problem of other books that say something different, each with their own multiple interpretations.

Just because a compelling answer hasn't been provided doesn't mean it can't be provided. Maybe all you need is that compelling explanation to swing you towards acceptance. Maybe that is the answer the book states is sufficient.

This shouldn't suggest that science is guesswork.
Is it falsifiable? Is it repeatable? Can we use it to make consistently successful predictions? If so, then we can reliably accept it. But there is no explanation of god that meets those requirements and "God works in mysterious ways" just sounds like a cop-out to non-believers.

Like already mentioned, falsification isn't bullet proof. If a false example has not been found it does not mean it does not exist, only it has not been found. So falsification has its weakness as a method for authentication. So it does not follow that the existence of God is only provable by falsification. In fact many compelling theories aren't falsifiable, but are accepted for lack of an alternative explanation.

Quote
Case in point: String theory. The darling of many theorists, string theory represents the basic building blocks of matter as vibrating strings. The strings take on different properties depending on their modes of vibration, just as the strings of a violin produce different notes depending on how they are played. To string theorists, the whole universe is a boisterous symphony performed upon these strings.

It’s a lovely idea. Lovelier yet, string theory could unify general relativity with quantum mechanics, solving what is perhaps the most stubborn problem in fundamental physics. The trouble? To put string theory to the test, we may need experiments that operate at energies far higher than any modern collider. It’s possible that experimental tests of the predictions of string theory will never be within our reach.

Meanwhile, cosmologists have found themselves at a similar impasse. We live in a universe that is, by some estimations, too good to be true. The fundamental constants of nature and the cosmological constant, which drives the accelerating expansion of the universe, seem “fine-tuned” to allow galaxies and stars to form. As Anil Ananthaswamy wrote elsewhere on this blog, “Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless.”

Why do these numbers, which are essential features of the universe and cannot be derived from more fundamental quantities, appear to conspire for our comfort?

One answer goes: If they were different, we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

This is called the “anthropic principle,” and if you think it feels like a cosmic punt, you’re not alone. Researchers have been trying to underpin our apparent stroke of luck with hard science for decades. String theory suggests a solution: It predicts that our universe is just one among a multitude of universes, each with its own fundamental constants. If the cosmic lottery has played out billions of times, it isn’t so remarkable that the winning numbers for life should come up at least once.

In fact, you can reason your way to the “multiverse” in at least four different ways, according to MIT physicist Max Tegmark’s accounting. The tricky part is testing the idea. You can’t send or receive messages from neighboring universes, and most formulations of multiverse theory don’t make any testable predictions. Yet the theory provides a neat solution to the fine-tuning problem. Must we throw it out because it fails the falsifiability test?

Does Science Need Falsifiability? - The Nature of Reality — The Nature of Reality | PBS

 

[awitch]

Just because a compelling answer hasn't been provided doesn't mean it can't be provided.

One has to wonder why it hasn't been provided when every single person's eternal soul is supposedly on the line.

Maybe all you need is that compelling explanation to swing you towards acceptance. Maybe that is the answer the book states is sufficient.

Like already mentioned, falsification isn't bullet proof. If a false example has not been found it does not mean it does not exist, only it has not been found.

This is true and it's a strength for science to self-correct as we acquire more information.

So falsification has its weakness as a method for authentication. So it does not follow that the existence of God is only provable by falsification.

We're not trying to prove that god doesn't exist, but empirical evidence does show that that certain events described in the Bible could not have actually happened.

(Remember, I do believe in gods, just not yours)

 

[Wordkeeper]

One has to wonder why it hasn't been provided when every single person's eternal soul is supposedly on the line.







This is true and it's a strength for science to self-correct as we acquire more information.



We're not trying to prove that god doesn't exist, but empirical evidence does show that that certain events described in the Bible could not have actually happened.

(Remember, I do believe in gods, just not yours)

Who said it hasn't been provided? The answer is simple, yet has been overlooked or misread.

As for those events which couldn't have happened, they fall under the same category as the event of the existence of God. Not necessarily to be only authenticated by falsification. As I'm sure is the same of your gods and their doings.

 

[awitch]

Those events fall under the same category as the existence of God. Not necessarily authenticated by falsification. As I'm sure is the same of your gods and their doings.

Right now the evidence shows the events did not happen as described. Until some other evidence comes along to show otherwise (which would be extremely unlikely) there is no reason to think they did.

Yes, the true is the same for the mythologies of my gods. They did not literally happen either.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Right now the evidence shows the events did not happen as described. Until some other evidence comes along to show otherwise (which would be extremely unlikely) there is no reason to think they did.

Yes, the true is the same for the mythologies of my gods. They did not literally happen either.

Why would you apply double standards in following a system that is not authenticated and reject another on the same grounds?

 

[awitch]

Why would you apply double standards in following a system that is not authenticated and reject another on the same grounds?

I'm not sure I follow you.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I'm not sure I follow you.

I mean, why follow what you follow? What is the deciding factor?

 

[awitch]

I mean, why follow what you follow? What is the deciding factor?

Oh, for me it was a personal experience. That was sufficiently convincing for me, but it is not proof and I have no expectation that retelling my account is sufficiently convincing for anyone else. There is still no reason for anyone else to believe what I follow.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Oh, for me it was a personal experience. That was sufficiently convincing for me, but it is not proof and I have no expectation that retelling my account is sufficiently convincing for anyone else. There is still no reason for anyone else to believe what I follow.

This, basically.
Nor do I feel the pressing need for it to convince anybody else, because I don't believe their well-being hinges on seeing things my way.
Just as you could live a perfectly happy life without ever knowing that what powers the sun is nuclear fusion or that what makes the sky appear blue is Rayleigh scattering, you can lead a fulfilling, meaningful and altogether complete life without ever exploring spirituality.

 

[cloudyday2]

I was reading the transcript from a debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman. I thought this quote from Craig was very sensible. I do not understand why Christian apologists seem to ignore the experiential approach and focus on philosophical arguments that can only prove a very generic god at best.

Finally, I want to conclude now just by saying something about that other avenue to a knowledge of the resurrection, the experiential approach. You see, if Christ is really risen from the dead as the evidence indicates, then that means that Jesus is not just some ancient figure in history or a picture on a stained glass window. It means that he is alive today and can be known experientially. For me, Christianity ceased to be just a religion or a code to live by when I gave my life to Christ and experienced a spiritual rebirth in my own life. God became a living reality to me. The light went on where before there was only darkness, and God became an experiential reality, along with an overwhelming joy and peace and meaning that He imparted to my life. And I would simply say to you that if you’re looking for that sort of meaning, purpose in life, then look not only at the historical evidence, but also pick up the New Testament and begin to read it and ask yourself whether or not this could be the truth. I believe that it can change your life in the same way that it has changed mine.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

 

[Wordkeeper]

Oh, for me it was a personal experience. That was sufficiently convincing for me, but it is not proof and I have no expectation that retelling my account is sufficiently convincing for anyone else. There is still no reason for anyone else to believe what I follow.

So you signed up for a world view that is not authenticated by falsification. Meaning you could easily sign up for another world view if it appealed to your personal feelings a bit more. I'm not talking about arbitrary choices, but one that was based on, not falsification, but compelling explanations of the questions you asked. Questions that persist in spite of you feeling fulfilled, purposeful and complete.

 

[awitch]

So you signed up for a world view that is not authenticated by falsification. Meaning you could easily sign up for another world view if it appealed to your personal feelings a bit more. I'm not talking about arbitrary choices, but one that was based on, not falsification, but compelling explanations of the questions you asked. Questions that persist in spite of you feeling fulfilled, purposeful and complete.

I wouldn't use the phrase "appealed to personal feelings", but if you mean it's possible for me to convert to something else, then yes, absolutely it's possible.

I identified strongly as an atheist but attended a friend's ritual in college, not because I had any interest, but because I was bored and had nothing better to do. It turned out to be an unexpectedly profound experience. Eventually, I started down my path while maintaining a cautious and skeptical attitude. I read a lot of myths and books about the topic but they were little more than inspiration. Instead of taking someone else's word for it, I follow my path based on the experiences. They are not falsifiable, they are not testable, there is no empirical evidence. I'm not claiming its true, either.

Now if I had the same experience with your god, I'd consider it. He should know where to find me.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I wouldn't use the phrase "appealed to personal feelings", but if you mean it's possible for me to convert to something else, then yes, absolutely it's possible.

I identified strongly as an atheist but attended a friend's ritual in college, not because I had any interest, but because I was bored and had nothing better to do. It turned out to be an unexpectedly profound experience. Eventually, I started down my path while maintaining a cautious and skeptical attitude. I read a lot of myths and books about the topic but they were little more than inspiration. Instead of taking someone else's word for it, I follow my path based on the experiences. They are not falsifiable, they are not testable, there is no empirical evidence. I'm not claiming its true, either.

Now if I had the same experience with your god, I'd consider it. He should know where to find me.

Would you agree there is more evidence for Jesus Christ existence and potential resurrection than for your pagan gods? Also do you believe that those who wrote the bible and claimed what they claim 100% believed what they wrote? I just want to say I believe in the christian God for a multitude of reasons that are both logical and emotional. Both objective and subjective. I believe the accounts of his disciples and moses etc to be objective truth, the subjective comes into my own personal experiences of God of this world and how it all fits together.

I find it kind of hard to understand why you believe in pagan gods based off of experience when you seem to doubt the storys told about them. You seem to have had some experiences that override your logical side of your belief system. I dont know how a person could believe in gods when they dont believe some of the aspects of it to be true. Likewise if I didn't believe in the miracles of jesus christ because science has proven it is impossible I couldn't be a christian. I don't know how you can believe in pagan gods without really believing it. Thats no faith at all. Just a more casual passive, I had a great time at some ritual and ya know what I don't care if its true or not cause I felt it. This isn't what christians do and I don't know how or why you would do that unless there is more to the story.

As far as your lack of experiences with the christian God I think you going from atheist to pagan is at least potentially going to lead you to Christ but as the door is open you have to walk through it. You have to seek the true God. Ask the true God to come in your life. Beg him to come in your life. If you do then he will answer. This will not be an overnight process but stranger things have happened and people have seen the truth. I am a truth seeker and could care less about christianity or any other religion. What I care about is what is true, what can we know, how can we know it? This has led me to christianity but its not why I believe it. I hope somehow that pagan barrier is broken down so you can see the truth but if not don't let it be because of passiveness. But actively seek the truth. It just seems so lazy on your part to just go to some place, have some experience and then accept it as true with less evidence than christianity or judaism islam buddhism etc. I am not saying your experience is irrelevant but an experience is one thing believing that experience to be the truth is another. My mind is just boggled right now about your story but I hope you can clear up the confusion and show some active responsibility to finding the truth about God than just sitting back and passively going through life believing in something cause of one experience.

And I just want to say one last thing. Believing in the true God is not about whether or not you can live a good sound moral life without him. As we all know there are unbelievers who live better lives than some of the strongest believers. So its not about outward appearance. But its about knowing your creator knowing the truth, having that relationship with the only God who can talk, see, hear, and move. None of these other Gods can do what Our God can. Hopefully my post was not offensive because it was not meant to be, I am simply reacting to what seems kind of strange.

 

[awitch]

Would you agree there is more evidence for Jesus Christ existence and potential resurrection than for your pagan gods?

No, otherwise I'd be a Christian.

Also do you believe that those who wrote the bible and claimed what they claim 100% believed what they wrote?

Hard to say since they died long before I was born. I guess that also depends on what parts of the Bible were meant to be metaphorical and which parts were meant to be taken literally; there's no consensus on that even today. I'm sure some of them must have believed parts of it, though.

I find it kind of hard to understand why you believe in pagan gods based off of experience when you seem to doubt the storys told about them. You seem to have had some experiences that override your logical side of your belief system. I dont know how a person could believe in gods when they dont believe some of the aspects of it to be true.

Have you read any of the myths? Some of them are really messed up and they don't align with the personalities in my mind's eye.
I think of the myths as early fan-fiction. People just used the gods as characters in their stories because it makes it more interesting.

Likewise if I didn't believe in the miracles of jesus christ because science has proven it is impossible I couldn't be a christian. I don't know how you can believe in pagan gods without really believing it. Thats no faith at all. Just a more casual passive, I had a great time at some ritual and ya know what I don't care if its true or not cause I felt it. This isn't what christians do and I don't know how or why you would do that unless there is more to the story.

I do believe in the deities, but I can't say with any integrity that I can prove them, nor do I have any incentive to do so since there is no guaranteed reward or punishment. I do, however, acknowledge that I can be wrong about them.

As far as your lack of experiences with the christian God I think you going from atheist to pagan is at least potentially going to lead you to Christ but as the door is open you have to walk through it.

I've been to and sincerely participated in many different church services as an atheist and as a Witch, but never got anything out of it. (We have no punishment for participating in other religious practices)

You have to seek the true God.

That's what I've been doing for the last 20 years and I'm still a Witch.

Ask the true God to come in your life. Beg him to come in your life. If you do then he will answer. This will not be an overnight process but stranger things have happened and people have seen the truth.

I think this falls into the trap of, "In order to believe, you have to believe."
I didn't have to beg my deities, but I did hit a few walls before I found my current pantheon. It wasn't like flipping a switch for me. I thought about that initial experience (what I call my formal introduction) for a long time trying to make sense of it. Then I tried to learn as much as I could about it. Then it took a long time to work up the courage to try on my own. I don't know if I was more terrified that I wouldn't be able to replicate that experience or if I would.

My mind is just boggled right now about your story but I hope you can clear up the confusion and show some active responsibility to finding the truth about God than just sitting back and passively going through life believing in something cause of one experience.

That one experience triggered the curiosity to pursue the path. There are many, many experiences over the course of the last 20 years that shaped the course I walk today. You could even say it's an experiential faith.

But its about knowing your creator knowing the truth, having that relationship with the only God who can talk, see, hear, and move. None of these other Gods can do what Our God can. Hopefully my post was not offensive because it was not meant to be, I am simply reacting to what seems kind of strange.

You used the "r" word.
I still don't really understand what it means when Christians say they have a "relationship" with god. God lays out his expectations in a written book that applies equally to everyone until the end of the time. He has the exact same rules and expectations for everybody who ever will be. He holds heaven and hell over the heads of people as if they must decide their beliefs under duress. When you go to church, you mostly passively sit and listen to a sermon written by someone else, maybe recite the same prayers again, and maybe sing hymns that were picked out by other people and were written by other people who probably died before you were born.

Now imagine there's no heaven or hell and you're the pastor of your own church and you have to come up with every detail of your service on your own. Oh, and Jesus is the only person sitting in the pews. That's kind of what it's like for me.

I'm not at all offended. I appreciate your sincerity and curiosity.