What Convinced you God Exists?

[Hishandmaiden]

For me, I had always believed in a supreme God, just not know which religion He came from.
So, I searched for Him and prayed for Him to reveal Himself to me.
This and many personal experiences led me to believe in the Christian God.

 

[cvanwey]

There are two kinds of believers: —One who simply believes God exists, and believes certain things about him, such as the Devil believes "and trembles". —One who has the faith that God gives; in whom the Spirit of God has taken up residence, giving him new life. It seems to me that #3, though I find your way of putting it curious, is the only one to refer to the latter. And it is to this that I credit my continued belief. Should the Spirit of God not have regenerated me —i.e. if I had not been one of those to whom God chose to show mercy— I doubt I would have remained more than Agnostic, or Deist at best. Regardless, I am sure I would have pursued a mindset that considered God irrelevant, since God would be inconvenient. I would not have been intellectually honest, though no doubt I would have considered myself to be so. The other "reasons I believe" would not of themselves do the job, though since I am a believer, they are inextricable from the Faith I have referred to as the work of God.



Not really 'from time to time'. In my way of thinking, not only does God's timelessness do away with that, but within the notions of MANY of God's logically necessary attributes, such as Divine Simplicity and Aseity, and his Immanence, it has become obvious (to me) that he upholds very fact, including all that comes to pass. (If he should 'let go', all would cease to exist; in fact, I think, all would cease to even have existed!) God is the structure and essence behind fact and reality, I say for lack of a better way of saying it.

Most Christians tend to think more of creation itself as being neutral, and God's love as toward humanity. I tend to think more about all things being upheld by God's love, perhaps his love being in fact the very physical smallest or most basic 'particle' of matter/ energy, or whatever is behind their existence. His more obvious action, or intention, that we often refer to as his love, is particularly toward his chosen (particular) people —the Church, the Body of Christ.

(Just some thoughts from 'Divine Hiddenness' and 'time to time'. Sorry)



Yes, I noticed that early on, and found it curious. I don't really, any longer. I used to think we were meant to have a unified approach and belief and understanding and focus and so on. But I have come to see that not only are the different members of Christ all of different kinds and mentalities, but that God is not after perfection in the common sense of the word, but uses each person (believer and non-believer, obedient and disobedient, angel or demon, and all fact, ugly or beautiful) to accomplish his plan. Those denominations, cults, churches, are intended by God, who uses "all the wrong stuff" to accomplish his work. (This is similar to how he installs the worst governments, and the best, to accomplish not what is the most socially or religiously productive societies, but the precise society that will bring about his plan, (unwittingly, of course)).

(Side note: When I was a teenager, I found it curious that when I returned to the states every 5 years (I was a missionary kid), the whole tenor of Christianity seemed to have taken on a new tone or feel/ focus, churchese speech and mindset, and to have new flashy things to talk about and to write hymns about. Haha, and not only that, but right around 4 years after having returned to 'the mission field' those same things would show up in the church in general down there!)

Anyhow, it took me a long time to realize I was no more confused about what the Bible teaches —in fact, maybe less— than most Christians, who were also trying to figure it out. I also came to realize this confusion was by design, God using Satan, and sinfulness of men, and the confusion, to bring about the precise mature believer each was intended to become, by God's choice and purpose.



Yes, some actually are. As the Bible says, there are differing gifts, and not every member can say they are of the arm, or the eye. Not only that, but like I said above, God purposely uses all the "wrong stuff" to bring about his purposes. For example, my particular set of beliefs might be way off, yet if my neighbor had not heard them, he might not have started thinking about God. I know of at least one popular evangelist, late 1970's, early 1980's, who it turns out was a bald faced liar, but people came to Christ through his activities nonetheless.

This is a bit like the way he talks to people in the Bible. We want a comprehensive description of all things, so we can decide what to do with ourselves. But he 'talks down' to our level, because that is all we can handle right now.

Throughout the Bible, we see God behaving differently at different times for different reasons to different people. God lets us get it wrong, because for some of us, that is how we are going to get it at all; but it will also be partly right.




Reason 3, mostly.


No. It just matches up, attribute by attribute.

Not sure what you mean. Yours is a negative, "no gods". Mine is a positive claim, "yes God". Yours assumes the possibility of other explanations for existence. Mine assumes there cannot be.

My reasons for believing in the resurrection are like my Faith. I can't convince anyone, nor do I believe God will change the heart of anyone, just because they believe some fact. All I know is if Christ had not died my sins would not be forgiven, nor would life be much fun.

I'll address this when I can devote some real time

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

For me, I had always believed in a supreme God, just not know which religion He came from.
So, I searched for Him and prayed for Him to reveal Himself to me.
This and many personal experiences led me to believe in the Christian God.

How did God reveal Himself to you? What experiences did you have that convinced you?

 

[jayem]

I haven’t read all 600+ posts. This might have already been mentioned. A lot of posters seem to have become believers after having a personal experience, which they interpret as a calling, message, or revelation from God. I’m not negating this. But I have a question: Did you choose God, or did God choose you? As I see it, if belief in God results from some type of epiphany, then it’s not really your free will choice. Logically, it much more supports a sort of Calvinist predestination.

Maybe this should be a separate thread.

 

[cvanwey]

There are two kinds of believers: —One who simply believes God exists, and believes certain things about him, such as the Devil believes "and trembles". —One who has the faith that God gives; in whom the Spirit of God has taken up residence, giving him new life. It seems to me that #3, though I find your way of putting it curious, is the only one to refer to the latter. And it is to this that I credit my continued belief. Should the Spirit of God not have regenerated me —i.e. if I had not been one of those to whom God chose to show mercy— I doubt I would have remained more than Agnostic, or Deist at best. Regardless, I am sure I would have pursued a mindset that considered God irrelevant, since God would be inconvenient. I would not have been intellectually honest, though no doubt I would have considered myself to be so. The other "reasons I believe" would not of themselves do the job, though since I am a believer, they are inextricable from the Faith I have referred to as the work of God.

My current synopsis is...

You believe YHWH has chosen you because you were first indoctrinated, which is/was lead by repetitive reinforcement, which has also anchored your ability to unfalsifiably justify intentional agency - (the god you were raised to believe exists). You then later came across apologetics; which provides belief perseverance. (i.e.) the 'first cause 'argument particularly...

Yes, I noticed that early on, and found it curious. I don't really, any longer. I used to think we were meant to have a unified approach and belief and understanding and focus and so on. But I have come to see that not only are the different members of Christ all of different kinds and mentalities, but that God is not after perfection in the common sense of the word, but uses each person (believer and non-believer, obedient and disobedient, angel or demon, and all fact, ugly or beautiful) to accomplish his plan. Those denominations, cults, churches, are intended by God, who uses "all the wrong stuff" to accomplish his work. (This is similar to how he installs the worst governments, and the best, to accomplish not what is the most socially or religiously productive societies, but the precise society that will bring about his plan, (unwittingly, of course)).

(Side note: When I was a teenager, I found it curious that when I returned to the states every 5 years (I was a missionary kid), the whole tenor of Christianity seemed to have taken on a new tone or feel/ focus, churchese speech and mindset, and to have new flashy things to talk about and to write hymns about. Haha, and not only that, but right around 4 years after having returned to 'the mission field' those same things would show up in the church in general down there!)

Anyhow, it took me a long time to realize I was no more confused about what the Bible teaches —in fact, maybe less— than most Christians, who were also trying to figure it out. I also came to realize this confusion was by design, God using Satan, and sinfulness of men, and the confusion, to bring about the precise mature believer each was intended to become, by God's choice and purpose.

Yes, some actually are. As the Bible says, there are differing gifts, and not every member can say they are of the arm, or the eye. Not only that, but like I said above, God purposely uses all the "wrong stuff" to bring about his purposes. For example, my particular set of beliefs might be way off, yet if my neighbor had not heard them, he might not have started thinking about God. I know of at least one popular evangelist, late 1970's, early 1980's, who it turns out was a bald faced liar, but people came to Christ through his activities nonetheless.

This is a bit like the way he talks to people in the Bible. We want a comprehensive description of all things, so we can decide what to do with ourselves. But he 'talks down' to our level, because that is all we can handle right now.

Throughout the Bible, we see God behaving differently at different times for different reasons to different people. God lets us get it wrong, because for some of us, that is how we are going to get it at all; but it will also be partly right.

I'll raise a specific example:

If I go to a Pentecostal church, and I see 30 people all speaking in tongues to 'god', I ask myself logical questions:

1. Why do they all sound different? Does 'tongue language' have 30 distinct dialects?
2. Does God only induce the abilities for humans to speak in tongues, if they are of certain specific denominations, and surrounded by others who are also already speaking in tongues?
3. Is it possible all 30 of these people, who are speaking in tongues, are not speaking to 'god'?
4. If so, maybe all of them are not?
5. How do you know you are communicating with God, and not just fooling yourself?

No. It just matches up, attribute by attribute.

Without getting too repetitive, how so? Maybe just list bullet points of how the story of YHWH in the Bible, perfectly matches up with "first cause"; and why the Biblical account of 'first cause' must then be true?

Not sure what you mean. Yours is a negative, "no gods". Mine is a positive claim, "yes God". Yours assumes the possibility of other explanations for existence. Mine assumes there cannot be.

To reiterate, you stated prior: "I'd say I have at least as much reason to believe what I do as anyone has to believe what they do."

Case/point: Matthew 27:52-53 speaks about graves opening. I do not believe this actually happened. If you are a Bible believer, you must believe it did.

Are you saying that your reason(s) to believe these folks rose from their graves are just as substantial as my reason(s) to believe no one has ever rose from their grave(s)?

My reasons for believing in the resurrection are like my Faith. I can't convince anyone, nor do I believe God will change the heart of anyone, just because they believe some fact. All I know is if Christ had not died my sins would not be forgiven, nor would life be much fun.

This starts with the fact that you were indoctrinated. -- Followed by reasons 2 and 3, and then, reinforced by reason 4

 

[Mark Quayle]

My current synopsis is...

You believe YHWH has chosen you because you were first indoctrinated, which is/was lead by repetitive reinforcement, which has also anchored your ability to unfalsifiably justify intentional agency - (the god you were raised to believe exists). You then later came across apologetics; which provides belief perseverance. (i.e.) the 'first cause 'argument particularly...

I'll assume you mean, "You believe.....because" —not "YHWH has chosen you because"

There's really no point in calling him a god. "'The god' I was raised to believe" sounds like he is only just another god. Do you see no difference between Omnipotent First Cause and any other so-called 'god'?

‘To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all our categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess, so we save face by thinking God down to our level, or at least down to where we can manage Him.” AW Tozer

I believe I was chosen by him because I believe in him, and have come to know him, and have no cause to doubt him, and see him as altogether good in all his ways, and because I cannot deny communication with him, nor am I able to deny his existence and his relevance. AND, I know myself well enough to see that the only true good in me is God and his doings, just as Romans 8 says the person apart from God has no ability to do.

I'll raise a specific example:

If I go to a Pentecostal church, and I see 30 people all speaking in tongues to 'god', I ask myself logical questions:

1. Why do they all sound different? Does 'tongue language' have 30 distinct dialects?
2. Does God only induce the abilities for humans to speak in tongues, if they are of certain specific denominations, and surrounded by others who are also already speaking in tongues?
3. Is it possible all 30 of these people, who are speaking in tongues, are not speaking to 'god'?
4. If so, maybe all of them are not?
5. How do you know you are communicating with God, and not just fooling yourself?

Lol, I'm not in the habit of speaking in tongues; also the Bible refers to that as done as a spirit thing, not with the understanding of scientific logic, but of the spirit of the person speaking with the Spirit of God.
1. What is funny to me (I'm automatically skeptical in situations like what you describe here) is that time after time visiting my in-law's church, the leader's 'tongues language' is actually the same series of syllables EVERY time.
2. One time my wife, when she was a teenager, was at a charismatic church where they were pretty much all having a cacaphonic good time, and it just wasn't coming to her. She was told she needed to "prime the pump", to just start making meaningless syllables and it would start making sense to her.
3 and 4. The Bible says that in a meeting of believers, if two are speaking in tongues, that one needs to shut up, and let the other speak. Also it says if someone is speaking in tongues, there needs to be someone interpreting. 'Let all be done decently and in order'.
5. When I'm praying, I'm talking to God, certainly not to anyone else. I don't create a concept in my mind, like CS Lewis mentions in the Screwtape Letters, some place in the corner of the ceiling to place my focus and pray towards, or such. I don't even think in terms of 'relationship, therefore' but simply speak to him as I what little I understand him to be —in charge, capable, creator and judge, redeemer, 'decider', the one who does or doesn't do and the universe is affected, the only one who knows better than I do what I try to express, the only one who cares about what needs cared about, the only one who knows what is best. If I need to feel restoration after turning my back on him, it is him that I talk to about it. If I'm worried about someone I love, he is the one of whom I ask. I don't have to see a face in my mind or keep a comprehension of a relationship with him, nor even his abilities. His abilities are not a concern.

Also, most the day, in fact, I talk to him in ways not generally called 'prayer', just a simple, "thank you", or a grin, or an acknowledgement that my hopes are not under the authority of chance nor luck, and I can't tell you how often it feels like a hug, or a grin in return, or a "keep thinking", and so on. Granted, those are subjective, at least in my experience, even if specific, but the strange thing (to my mind) is how sure, almost empirical, the non-specific sense of the presence of God is, and of his good humor and satisfaction with his plan and delight in his own particular people.

But I understand your question isn't really about tongues, and communicating with God, but maybe rather about how there are as many different POV's as there are people. I see nothing wrong with that, nor that it proves anything in and of itself.

Without getting too repetitive, how so? Maybe just list bullet points of how the story of YHWH in the Bible, perfectly matches up with "first cause"; and why the Biblical account of 'first cause' must then be true?

YHWH:

1. Infinite, Self-existence, Omniscience, Aseity of God, Immanence and Transcendence of God:
"And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." - Colossians 1:17

“Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure” – Psalm 147:5

2. Omnipotence, Sovereignty, Self-sufficiency, Self-existence, Authority: I AM THAT I AM" implies all the above also, the meaning of the name JEHOVAH (used more than 6000 times in the Bible, according to some) implies self-existence and sovereignty, along with goodness and Lordship.

3. Immutable:
“I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.” Malachi 3:6

4. Self-sufficient:
“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” John 5:26

5. Omnipotent:
“By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” Psalm 33:6
“...Is there anything too hard for me?” Jeremiah 32:27

6. Omniscient:
“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” Isaiah 46:9-10

7. Omnipresent:
“‘Am I a God at hand,’ declares the Lord, ‘and not a God afar off? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him?’ declares the Lord. ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord” Jeremiah 23:23-24

8. Justice, goodness, reliability:
"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.” Duet 32:4

9. Well-intentioned toward his creation:
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1 John 4:7-8

10. Singular, one-of-a-kind:
“I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:5,6

Do I need to show you where philosophical development has described the same attributes for God?

To reiterate, you stated prior: "I'd say I have at least as much reason to believe what I do as anyone has to believe what they do."

Case/point: Matthew 27:52-53 speaks about graves opening. I do not believe this actually happened. If you are a Bible believer, you must believe it did.

In fact, I did not say that I have as much reason to believe everything that I do believe as everyone one else has to believe the opposite. There was context to the statement. However, as to your application, I have plenty of confidence in the veracity of the Scriptural account, I'd guess at least as much as you have in the negation of the account, and will continue to have, unless someone can show me why not —perhaps something along the lines of the Johannine Comma, where apparently somebody copying wrote a comment into his copy, which was then copied as belonging to the text, instead as mere commentary.

Are you saying that your reason(s) to believe these folks rose from their graves are just as substantial as my reason(s) to believe no one has ever rose from their grave(s)?

Yes, unless it can be shown me otherwise —I have not studied the question in depth to think it doesn't belong there, or that maybe it is hyperbolic, false, or figurative, or a use of some other literary device, nor do I have any particular inclination to.

This starts with the fact that you were indoctrinated. -- Followed by reasons 2 and 3, and then, reinforced by reason 4

Do you have some relevant reason for this analysis? I don't understand why you insist on it. Is there a point, such as, "Indoctrination is the beginning of your belief, therefore, your belief is not only biased, but based on simple fate, 'luck of the draw', so to speak, unfounded substance rather than plan of some higher authority like God himself."?

 

[Vap841]

Off and on for years... joined when I was a Christian. Back when Erwin ran the place. Remember those days? As Hitch once said, "Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."

Why don’t you think that reincarnation could be true? I’m not saying that you’d keep your memory, but yes it is true that we constantly witness loved ones dying, however we also constantly witness birth!

 

[HitchSlap]

Why don’t you think that reincarnation could be true? I’m not saying that you’d keep your memory, but yes it is true that we constantly witness loved ones dying, however we also constantly witness birth!

For the same reasons I don't believe in heaven/hell; I'm not aware of any part of us that exists beyond death.

 

[cvanwey]

I'll assume you mean, "You believe.....because" —not "YHWH has chosen you because"

I'm in response to what you stated here:

"Should the Spirit of God not have regenerated me —i.e. if I had not been one of those to whom God chose to show mercy"

In essence, since you are a believer, God decided to then cause you to become inexorably drawn to him and/or He transformed you anew.

There's really no point in calling him a god. "'The god' I was raised to believe" sounds like he is only just another god. Do you see no difference between Omnipotent First Cause and any other so-called 'god'?

If the verbiage states that God is an (omni-everything first-causer), so what? Just because a book makes claims, for which you like, it must then be true?

Please think about it... Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular, by definition. How do you know YHWH actually exists? And then, how do you then know YHWH answers to no one or nothing? And before you answer, please pay careful attention to what I just said, underlined above...

‘To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all our categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess, so we save face by thinking God down to our level, or at least down to where we can manage Him.”

AW Tozer

Here's the problem I see with this passage... The passage states "to admit", as if we all know there exists a "higher power". We all do not. This passage is intellectually painful, because it reminds me of Roms 1. The Bible writers operate under the notion that there exists two types of people:

1. believers who follow
2. believers who rebel (either because they are blinded by sin, not yet "spiritually awakened", suppress, other)

This, of course, is a false dichotomy.

Furthermore, to accuse the ones who logically rule out "god", or to reduce their believed upon god to some attainable level, because they lack humility, seems insulting.

If I believed in the God of the Bible, (and I actually read the Bible as a believer), I would logically have no choice but to reconcile that this Book is plagued with contradiction, and is also quite vague; especially as it relates to soteriology/salvation. Maybe this is why many ultimately turn to apologetics for comfort -- (reason #4 in your case)?

I believe I was chosen by him because I believe in him, and have come to know him, and have no cause to doubt him, and see him as altogether good in all his ways, and because I cannot deny communication with him, nor am I able to deny his existence and his relevance. AND, I know myself well enough to see that the only true good in me is God and his doings,

This response looks to be a classic example of unfalsifiably invoking intentional agency (i.e. inferring that God communicates with you). ---- Reason number 3 for your continued beliefs.

Now be honest... Read your above quoted response, for which you just provided. Then imagine if I just asked a Scientologist how they know their God is real. And they then provided your answer above, exactly verbatim.

We have millions/billions whom make similar claims, whom also infer a completely differing agent(s). As stated prior, they cannot all be right, but it's quite possible they can all be wrong.

Lol, I'm not in the habit of speaking in tongues; also the Bible refers to that as done as a spirit thing, not with the understanding of scientific logic, but of the spirit of the person speaking with the Spirit of God.

In other words, make sure it is done unfalsifiably "Spirit" seems to be the believer's safety net, as there is then no true way to verify one way or another.

1. What is funny to me (I'm automatically skeptical in situations like what you describe here) is that time after time visiting my in-law's church, the leader's 'tongues language' is actually the same series of syllables EVERY time.

And yet, I'm sure this person is convinced they are actually communicating with God, in some capacity. Right? If so, is there any way to truly falsify his conviction, if you should have doubt he is really speaking to God?

2. One time my wife, when she was a teenager, was at a charismatic church where they were pretty much all having a cacaphonic good time, and it just wasn't coming to her. She was told she needed to "prime the pump", to just start making meaningless syllables and it would start making sense to her.

Then how can you know if God is truly communicating with you? Please recall what you stated above (quoted below):

"I believe I was chosen by him because I believe in him, and have come to know him, and have no cause to doubt him, and see him as altogether good in all his ways, and because I cannot deny communication with him, nor am I able to deny his existence and his relevance. AND, I know myself well enough to see that the only true good in me is God and his doings,"

How is the person, whom spoke to your wife and asserted that "it would start making sense to her" any different than your 'verified' experience? I do not see that they are...?

3 and 4. The Bible says that in a meeting of believers, if two are speaking in tongues, that one needs to shut up, and let the other speak. Also it says if someone is speaking in tongues, there needs to be someone interpreting. 'Let all be done decently and in order'.

Okay, so all these people are verified counterfeits? Is "tongue speaking" ever legit? How can you know????

5. When I'm praying, I'm talking to God, certainly not to anyone else. I don't create a concept in my mind, like CS Lewis mentions in the Screwtape Letters, some place in the corner of the ceiling to place my focus and pray towards, or such. I don't even think in terms of 'relationship, therefore' but simply speak to him as I what little I understand him to be —in charge, capable, creator and judge, redeemer, 'decider', the one who does or doesn't do and the universe is affected, the only one who knows better than I do what I try to express, the only one who cares about what needs cared about, the only one who knows what is best. If I need to feel restoration after turning my back on him, it is him that I talk to about it. If I'm worried about someone I love, he is the one of whom I ask. I don't have to see a face in my mind or keep a comprehension of a relationship with him, nor even his abilities. His abilities are not a concern.

Also, most the day, in fact, I talk to him in ways not generally called 'prayer', just a simple, "thank you", or a grin, or an acknowledgement that my hopes are not under the authority of chance nor luck, and I can't tell you how often it feels like a hug, or a grin in return, or a "keep thinking", and so on. Granted, those are subjective, at least in my experience, even if specific, but the strange thing (to my mind) is how sure, almost empirical, the non-specific sense of the presence of God is, and of his good humor and satisfaction with his plan and delight in his own particular people.

But I understand your question isn't really about tongues, and communicating with God, but maybe rather about how there are as many different POV's as there are people. I see nothing wrong with that, nor that it proves anything in and of itself.

Thank you for your response here. But honestly, how does this not further demonstrate that we are products of evolution - 'survival of the fitter'? The ones which less-so invoke "intentional agency", (whether it be intentional harm or intentional 'good'), will less likely not survive long enough to reproduce. And ultimately, only the the ones which more-so invoke agency, (good or bad), even when it turns up there is none in either case case, are the only ones left in survival.

In my case, I may still do it sometimes. But then, my sense in logic, mainly due to 'divine hiddenness',then begins to take over where 'god' is concerned.

And also, as stated prior, if you are wrong about this conviction, (no-harm-no-foul). It would merely be another one of those type 1 errors we likely all commit from time to time.

YHWH:

1. Infinite, Self-existence, Omniscience, Aseity of God, Immanence and Transcendence of God:
"And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." - Colossians 1:17

“Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure” – Psalm 147:5

2. Omnipotence, Sovereignty, Self-sufficiency, Self-existence, Authority: I AM THAT I AM" implies all the above also, the meaning of the name JEHOVAH (used more than 6000 times in the Bible, according to some) implies self-existence and sovereignty, along with goodness and Lordship.

3. Immutable:
“I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.” Malachi 3:6

4. Self-sufficient:
“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” John 5:26

5. Omnipotent:
“By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” Psalm 33:6
“...Is there anything too hard for me?” Jeremiah 32:27

6. Omniscient:
“Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” Isaiah 46:9-10

7. Omnipresent:
“‘Am I a God at hand,’ declares the Lord, ‘and not a God afar off? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him?’ declares the Lord. ‘Do I not fill heaven and earth?’ declares the Lord” Jeremiah 23:23-24

8. Justice, goodness, reliability:
"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.” Duet 32:4

9. Well-intentioned toward his creation:
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1 John 4:7-8

10. Singular, one-of-a-kind:
“I am the Lord, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
people may know there is none besides me.
I am the Lord, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:5,6

Follow up question...

"and why the Biblical account of 'first cause' must then be true?"

I'll give you my take... The Bible looks to be nothing more than a collection of stories. Some 'good', some 'bad', some strange, some inaccurate. It also seems to be written by men alone, in that the Bible mentions nothing really forward thinking. I would imagine the concept of 'first cause' has been a philosophical concept that was already been around. Someone just applied it to paper. However, we do not KNOW if there actually exists such a 'first cause'? And if there is, what/who/other is it?

In my mind, both sides can argue fallacious reasoning -- (both in "first cause" and "eternal"). But as I will mention here... Something someone said a while back, I forget who...?

(Paraphrased) "Do philosophical propositions get solved on their own, or do they seem to always require the likes of 'science' to solve them?"

And to follow up.. How many assertions have be falsified, in the Bible, due to the likes of "science" --- (any)?

I have plenty of confidence in the veracity of the Scriptural account, I'd guess at least as much as you have in the negation of the account, and will continue to have, unless someone can show me why not

Yes, unless it can be shown me otherwise —I have not studied the question in depth to think it doesn't belong there, or that maybe it is hyperbolic, false, or figurative, or a use of some other literary device, nor do I have any particular inclination to.

Show me one instance, (not from unverified written stories however), where a body has surpassed rigor mortis and rotting flesh, which then came back to life? I will then redact my current belief that humans do not rise from their graves, ever.

Seems to me, that you apply 'faith' to this story in Matt 27, because it is in the Bible - (inspired by God)?

Do you have some relevant reason for this analysis? I don't understand why you insist on it. Is there a point, such as, "Indoctrination is the beginning of your belief, therefore, your belief is not only biased, but based on simple fate, 'luck of the draw', so to speak, unfounded substance rather than plan of some higher authority like God himself."?

Yes. The title of this thread asks what convinced you. Indoctrination is the beginning. The rest reinforces this first reason, in my estimation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm in response to what you stated here:

"Should the Spirit of God not have regenerated me —i.e. if I had not been one of those to whom God chose to show mercy"

In essence, since you are a believer, God decided to then cause you to become inexorably drawn to him and/or He transformed you anew.

Not at all. What some people mean by foreknowledge is quite a lot different a thing from what the Bible is talking about, which also agrees with good reason —that First Cause does *EDIT: [does NOT]* know the thing without also causing that the thing be. As humans, we have the habit of seeing everything backwards.

God did not decide to cause me to do anything in reaction to what I did first. He causes in accord with his plan —and my response is in reaction to THAT.

If the verbiage states that God is an (omni-everything first-causer), so what? Just because a book makes claims, for which you like, it must then be true?

I think you are missing the point —are we discussing First Cause, Omnipotent God, or something else?— I have no interest in discussing some lesser being, that some might refer to as a god. You had asked, if I remember right, and this is still part of that question, if the God of the Bible and [philosophical] First Cause were necessarily the same. Now it seems you are deviating from that question to ask if there might be some other god. Why?

Please think about it... Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular, by definition. How do you know YHWH actually exists? And then, how do you then know YHWH answers to no one or nothing? And before you answer, please pay careful attention to what I just said, underlined above...

I'm not using the Bible to prove the Bible. I was (I think, lol) in the process of pointing out the rational merit of First Cause, who is the same as the God of the Bible. However, if I was trying to answer your question you are perhaps repeating above, I know YHWH actually exists, because, it makes more sense to me that First Cause should exist, than even that I should exist (and yet, here I am), and because he has made himself known (to some degree) to me.

Here's the problem I see with this passage... The passage states "to admit", as if we all know there exists a "higher power". We all do not. This passage is intellectually painful, because it reminds me of Roms 1. The Bible writers operate under the notion that there exists two types of people:

1. believers who follow
2. believers who rebel (either because they are blinded by sin, not yet "spiritually awakened", suppress, other)

This, of course, is a false dichotomy.

Well, it is not what is written. The Romans 1 people who 'knew God' didn't believe, and chose not to believe. That is the rebelling. Rejecting what they knew instinctively, is the way I take it. They see nature and existence, and refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

Furthermore, to accuse the ones who logically rule out "god", or to reduce their believed upon god to some attainable level, because they lack humility, seems insulting.

If I believed in the God of the Bible, (and I actually read the Bible as a believer), I would logically have no choice but to reconcile that this Book is plagued with contradiction, and is also quite vague; especially as it relates to soteriology/salvation. Maybe this is why many ultimately turn to apologetics for comfort -- (reason #4 in your case)?

Yes, I can see how that might be insulting, but Tozer had a point, which I have always thought was basic to the notion of First Cause —that it is a concept that by its greatness demands submission. I have always supposed there is a certain amount of rebellion against the consideration of God, because by definition (First Cause, Creator), he is OWNER of everything else. I think that is felt instinctively without even 'getting there' intellectually. And it is in the nature of humanity to want to be self-determining. I have the same problem.

This response looks to be a classic example of unfalsifiably invoking intentional agency (i.e. inferring that God communicates with you). ---- Reason number 3 for your continued beliefs.

Now be honest... Read your above quoted response, for which you just provided. Then imagine if I just asked a Scientologist how they know their God is real. And they then provided your answer above, exactly verbatim.

We have millions/billions whom make similar claims, whom also infer a completely differing agent(s). As stated prior, they cannot all be right, but it's quite possible they can all be wrong.

Just to be clear, when I said, "I believe I was chosen by him because I believe in him..." I was not saying that he chose me because I believe in him, but that I believe that I am of those he chose, and I believe that because I believe in him. I could not have believed in him if he had not chosen me. My belief in him is a result of his choosing, not a cause of his choosing.

Now to your response: The Scientologist, or the "millions/billions who make similar claims, who also infer a completely differing agent(s)", that different agent is the point —the belief they posit may be all intellectual, or all emotional or mental, or a mixture, but none of them demonstrate they believe their god to be Omnipotent, combined with, "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." —referring to the faith that is generated by the Spirit of their god, and not by them. The agent (the god) is different, and thus the results, too.

In other words, make sure it is done unfalsifiably "Spirit" seems to be the believer's safety net, as there is then no true way to verify one way or another.

I don't think they usually do it on purpose, realizing it is a safety net, and taking advantage of that fact. Frankly, I think it is usually just duplicating what they have been taught, filling a role, and using their imagination, or even just having fun. But, unfalsifiable things are often reliable, and have proven basic to reason, such as logic and math. (No, I did not say conclusions and equations, lol.)

And yet, I'm sure this person is convinced they are actually communicating with God, in some capacity. Right? If so, is there any way to truly falsify his conviction, if you should have doubt he is really speaking to God?

Yes, but you won't like it —the principles from Scripture relating to that very activity.

Then how can you know if God is truly communicating with you? Please recall what you stated above (quoted below):

"I believe I was chosen by him because I believe in him, and have come to know him, and have no cause to doubt him, and see him as altogether good in all his ways, and because I cannot deny communication with him, nor am I able to deny his existence and his relevance. AND, I know myself well enough to see that the only true good in me is God and his doings,"

How is the person, whom spoke to your wife and asserted that "it would start making sense to her" any different than your 'verified' experience? I do not see that they are...?

I'm not sure why you demand my experience be 'verified'. But the person who told my wife that is nothing like God. I believe not because of verification, but because I was convinced. (Not saying there was no verification —but verification does not necessarily cause belief.)

Okay, so all these people are verified counterfeits? Is "tongue speaking" ever legit? How can you know????

I suppose it could be legit. It seems it was sometimes legit in New Testament times. I tend towards the teaching of some that 'the sign gifts have ceased', but I admit that God can do anything he pleases.

Thank you for your response here. But honestly, how does this not further demonstrate that we are products of evolution - 'survival of the fitter'? The ones which less-so invoke "intentional agency", (whether it be intentional harm or intentional 'good'), will less likely not survive long enough to reproduce. And ultimately, only the the ones which more-so invoke agency, (good or bad), even when it turns up there is none in either case case, are the only ones left in survival.

Does not your 'products of evolution' and 'survival of the fitter' refer to what survives to reproduce —not, what happens after death?

We may have the instinct for survival —but I don't see how that demonstrates Darwinian evolutionary theory.

In my case, I may still do it sometimes. But then, my sense in logic, mainly due to 'divine hiddenness',then begins to take over where 'god' is concerned.

And also, as stated prior, if you are wrong about this conviction, (no-harm-no-foul). It would merely be another one of those type 1 errors we likely all commit from time to time.

Sure, but the fact it is safer is not why I believe.

Follow up question...

"and why the Biblical account of 'first cause' must then be true?"

I'll give you my take... The Bible looks to be nothing more than a collection of stories. Some 'good', some 'bad', some strange, some inaccurate. It also seems to be written by men alone, in that the Bible mentions nothing really forward thinking. I would imagine the concept of 'first cause' has been a philosophical concept that was already been around. Someone just applied it to paper. However, we do not KNOW if there actually exists such a 'first cause'? And if there is, what/who/other is it?

Your last two questions there —"However, we do not KNOW if there actually exists such a 'first cause'? And if there is, what/who/other is it?" —we have touched on before. I think logic demands first cause, by course of the law of causation. As for what it is, logic demands intent, singularity, omnipotence and sovereignty and a lot of other things.

I would not be very much surprised if Adam himself thought about it from time to time.

Also, I think you might be surprised, if you were to study how the Pentateuch was communicated and maintained, and written, at the answers to your suppositions concerning it. But that is not my bailiwick.

In my mind, both sides can argue fallacious reasoning -- (both in "first cause" and "eternal"). But as I will mention here... Something someone said a while back, I forget who...?

(Paraphrased) "Do philosophical propositions get solved on their own, or do they seem to always require the likes of 'science' to solve them?"

And to follow up.. How many assertions have be falsified, in the Bible, due to the likes of "science" --- (any)?

Science depends on philosophy. (There is even a philosophy of science). Science doesn't often solve philosophical propositions. Logic, and/or logical development of ideas does.

Show me one instance, (not from unverified written stories however), where a body has surpassed rigor mortis and rotting flesh, which then came back to life? I will then redact my current belief that humans do not rise from their graves, ever.

Seems to me, that you apply 'faith' to this story in Matt 27, because it is in the Bible - (inspired by God)?

Don't worry about it —I have no examples to show you. If what you need is an example before your very eyes (and nose) then I don't expect you will ever believe it. And yes, I believe it because I have no reason not to believe it.

Yes. The title of this thread asks what convinced you. Indoctrination is the beginning. The rest reinforces this first reason, in my estimation.

Indoctrination may have begun it, but the Spirit of God is what convinced me. It is not an intellectually based act, to have this kind of faith, but a confidence and trust generated by the Spirit of God.

 

[cvanwey]

PART 1. I'll answer the rest later...

Not at all. What some people mean by foreknowledge is quite a lot different a thing from what the Bible is talking about, which also agrees with good reason —that First Cause does know the thing without also causing that the thing be. As humans, we have the habit of seeing everything backwards.

God did not decide to cause me to do anything in reaction to what I did first. He causes in accord with his plan —and my response is in reaction to THAT.

Your response means He causes who will and will not believe and follow? If this is the case, what is His criteria for choosing who will become inexorably drawn to Him? Testimonials have been made by both wanna-be followers and the opposite, (like Saul of Tarsus), who received revelation from God.

Case/point, I was a believer for decades. But due to complete 'divine hiddenness', and among other reason(s), I ultimately 'lost my faith.' Like you, I was indoctrinated, and was geographically surrounded by other believers. However, applying intentional agency, time after time, and yet, seeing nothing but the same results as random chance, lead me away from belief. Among many later things...

If you are saying God decides, He could surely 'poof' me into a believer/follower. Hence, 'God's will' decides who will be damned, regardless of the human's intent apparently.?.?.?

I think you are missing the point —are we discussing First Cause, Omnipotent God, or something else?— I have no interest in discussing some lesser being, that some might refer to as a god. You had asked, if I remember right, and this is still part of that question, if the God of the Bible and [philosophical] First Cause were necessarily the same. Now it seems you are deviating from that question to ask if there might be some other god. Why?

Haha No. I think you have missed my point. Seems as though you invoke/assert a 'first cause/God' because the Bible says so. As I alluded to later, just because we have the ability to ponder scenarios, does not make them 'fact'. The Bible may be nothing more than a collection of already circulating ideas, and/or unfalsifiable philosophical argument(s).

1. I'm not using the Bible to prove the Bible. I was (I think, lol) in the process of pointing out the rational merit of First Cause, who is the same as the God of the Bible.

2. However, if I was trying to answer your question you are perhaps repeating above, I know YHWH actually exists, because, it makes more sense to me that First Cause should exist, than even that I should exist (and yet, here I am), and because he has made himself known (to some degree) to me.

1. Please look at the part highlighted above, in bold. = "The Bible says so, therefore YHWH"?

2. You have again rationalized that a 'first cause' must exist. We are then right back to the 'first cause' (vs) 'eternal' argument -- (where both sides claim the other side is using fallacious reasoning): (i.e.):

first cause = "special pleading"
eternal = "question begging"

On the other hand, your existence is confirmed to be in reality; unless you wish to claim something beyond "solipsism" Asserting a 'first cause' into existence, to justify your existence, seems thus far speculative at best.

Well, it is not what is written. The Romans 1 people who 'knew God' didn't believe, and chose not to believe. That is the rebelling. Rejecting what they knew instinctively, is the way I take it. They see nature and existence, and refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

I was a believer for decades. And now I am not. The Bible then deems me a liar, in so many words. But I digress....

My point here, is that the writer of this Verse is projecting his own (reason #3 for belief) to others. The writer sees intention/God as the source, and thinks others must as well.

Yes, I can see how that might be insulting, but Tozer had a point, which I have always thought was basic to the notion of First Cause —that it is a concept that by its greatness demands submission. I have always supposed there is a certain amount of rebellion against the consideration of God, because by definition (First Cause, Creator), he is OWNER of everything else. I think that is felt instinctively without even 'getting there' intellectually. And it is in the nature of humanity to want to be self-determining. I have the same problem.

You did not conclude 'first cause' because you became humble. You concluded 'first cause' because you cannot resolve the conclusion to the origin of your existence in any other way. Humility, is to admit your are currently invoking fallacious reasoning - unless you can answer why nothing can come before YHWH? And how you know YHWH exists, aside from appealing to the Bible in doing so? (rhetorical questions)

Just to be clear, when I said, "I believe I was chosen by him because I believe in him..." I was not saying that he chose me because I believe in him, but that I believe that I am of those he chose, and I believe that because I believe in him. I could not have believed in him if he had not chosen me. My belief in him is a result of his choosing, not a cause of his choosing.

Then He can choose everyone. Why doesn't He? If we are all sinners, and are all in need of saving, then He should contact everyone. But I do not feel He has contacted me. Hence, that whole 'divine hiddenness' topic which keeps popping up...

Now to your response: The Scientologist, or the "millions/billions who make similar claims, who also infer a completely differing agent(s)", that different agent is the point —the belief they posit may be all intellectual, or all emotional or mental, or a mixture, but none of them demonstrate they believe their god to be Omnipotent, combined with, "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." —referring to the faith that is generated by the Spirit of their god, and not by them. The agent (the god) is different, and thus the results, too.

I think you have missed my point.

Billions claim to speak to some agent. They cannot all be right, but they could surely all be wrong. HOW do you know your communication with any external agency, (first cause or other), is validated? So far, I have seen little else besides 'faith'. For which any believer, in any doctrine, can apply, at will.

Is 'faith' reliable? When do we know to apply "faith", and when not to?

Further, seems odd that God would tell His followers that "faith" is the pathway to truth?

1. I don't think they usually do it on purpose, realizing it is a safety net, and taking advantage of that fact. Frankly, I think it is usually just duplicating what they have been taught, filling a role, and using their imagination, or even just having fun.

2. But, unfalsifiable things are often reliable, and have proven basic to reason, such as logic and math. (No, I did not say conclusions and equations, lol.)

1. I'm sure it is not purposeful. But it is still quite convenient

2. "Unfalsifiable" - no empirical test can establish that it is false

Can any empirical tests be ran to validate communication with any external agency???? Or, am I to merely accept your anecdotal story as truth, equally as I might also from the Scientologist, or the ghost story, or the alien communication, or the 'medium' communication with the dead, or other other other?

Yes, but you won't like it —the principles from Scripture relating to that very activity.

You've already touched upon it, in the prior response. Does this mean 'speaking in tongues' is legit, sometimes, or never???

If it is sometimes, how do we empirically determine which one(s) are truly legit? and once you answer this question, you can then see how validation of this directly coincides with your anecdotal claim(s) of communicating with God.

I'm not sure why you demand my experience be 'verified'. But the person who told my wife that is nothing like God. I believe not because of verification, but because I was convinced. (Not saying there was no verification —but verification does not necessarily cause belief.)

I know you are convinced, but so are countless others. Likely including the ones conversing with your wife. Does there exist any empirical way(s) to discern which God communications are legit, verses the ones that are not?

Does not your 'products of evolution' and 'survival of the fitter' refer to what survives to reproduce —not, what happens after death?

We may have the instinct for survival —but I don't see how that demonstrates Darwinian evolutionary theory.

(Reason 3) - My point is that all the ones who never infer intentional danger, only need to be wrong once. And viola, they are then dead and cannot reproduce. The same ones whom invoke [intentional bad] laterally also invoke [intentional good]. This is likely why 90+% are God believers. Please remember all the examples you have given, thus far, which I have pointed out, to demonstrate your reason #3 for belief

Where you and I later diverge, is reason #3. Sure, I still commit false positives all the time. But due to 'divine hiddenness', I logically can no longer invoke a "God agency' like you still do. You still do, for your reason(s). I no longer do, for many reason(s). And your beginning catalyst is indoctrination, followed by reason 2 (geography), then skipping to reason 4 (comfort/conformation bias/belief perseverance/apologetics = first cause).

I'll send you the bill in the mail, for your diagnosis Just kidding of course....

Sure, but the fact it is safer is not why I believe.

I'm not saying you believe because it is safer. I'm saying you apply intentional agency for God.

This inference is unfalsifiable. If you are wrong, you will never know. Your inferences cannot be empirically validated as false, if your inferences happen to be false. And in doing so, if you are wrong, no true harm will come to you, for being wrong. Hence, no-harm-no-foul. The fact that any God belief, medium belief, etc, is not really harmful, is what validates one's continued belief. It is hardly ever falsified, if they are indeed incorrect. Otherwise, you could empirically demonstrate why the Scientologists are wrong

 

[cvanwey]

Your last two questions there —"However, we do not KNOW if there actually exists such a 'first cause'? And if there is, what/who/other is it?" —we have touched on before. I think logic demands first cause, by course of the law of causation. As for what it is, logic demands intent, singularity, omnipotence and sovereignty and a lot of other things.

- All causes and effects require intent? I think not.
- The source of cause and effect, if there exists such a thing, requires an all powerful agency? I think not.
- How is true "sovereignty" not special pleading in a nutshell? I'd like to know?

Like I stated, the Bible states some good, some bad, some strange, some incorrect. Just like any other claimed Holy Book.

Science depends on philosophy. (There is even a philosophy of science). Science doesn't often solve philosophical propositions. Logic, and/or logical development of ideas does.

I'm afraid this may lead us astray... I will not comment here; at least for now

Don't worry about it —I have no examples to show you. If what you need is an example before your very eyes (and nose) then I don't expect you will ever believe it. And yes, I believe it because I have no reason not to believe it.

Saul was a believer, due to 'revelation', right? Thus, He too required tangible/empirical proof.

So why do you believe people have risen from their graves, if you have no empirical examples -- (like Saul's revelation of Jesus/God, for instance)? This is why I know He believed.

Do you believe in the rising dead, ala Matt. 27, because you believe in God, whom you believe has revealed Himself to you? Which in turn, makes you have 'faith' in all His claims; even though you have not laid eyes on such said examples of open graves?

Indoctrination may have begun it, but the Spirit of God is what convinced me. It is not an intellectually based act, to have this kind of faith, but a confidence and trust generated by the Spirit of God.

Right, reason #1 started it, and reason #3 further solidified it

 

[Mark Quayle]

- All causes and effects require intent? I think not.

First Cause is with intent, is what I was saying. First Cause is not mechanical fact.

- The source of cause and effect, if there exists such a thing, requires an all powerful agency? I think not.
- How is true "sovereignty" not special pleading in a nutshell? I'd like to know?

Like I stated, the Bible states some good, some bad, some strange, some incorrect. Just like any other claimed Holy Book.

Your say-so, like mine, doesn't make it so, however.

First Cause, by definition, is the source of everything else, including the principles by which everything else operates, time, matter/force —in fact, reality itself proceeds from him. First Cause, by definition, cannot be subject to any exterior cause or principle.

Saul was a believer, due to 'revelation', right? Thus, He too required tangible/empirical proof.

So why do you believe people have risen from their graves, if you have no empirical examples -- (like Saul's revelation of Jesus/God, for instance)? This is why I know He believed.

Saul was a believer because God regenerated him. God convinced him, both in intellect and emotion, but his believing happened to him —it was not his choice that caused the belief.

I believe what the Bible says, because the Bible has proven to be reliable when I am subjective. It is an objective anchor; like logic is the rudder or maybe better, the policeman of argument and investigation, the Bible steadies and guides and keeps me from straying off on my own too far. It has proven to be indeed the Word of God. It is not just any book. But that is how I see it —I'm not saying that you must. But if you spend time in it, you might just begin to understand things you hadn't imagined.

Do you believe in the rising dead, ala Matt. 27, because you believe in God, whom you believe has revealed Himself to you? Which in turn, makes you have 'faith' in all His claims; even though you have not laid eyes on such said examples of open graves?

That's one way to put it, though by your past questions I suppose you might take a 'yes' answer to mean that the revelation is what caused the belief. It is much simpler and more basic than that. I believe as a result of the Spirit of God taking up residence in me, changing me, and not as a result of my choosing what seems best to me.

Right, reason #1 started it, and reason #3 further solidified it

Well, no. Reason 1 started me thinking and reason 3 is God changing me.

 

[cvanwey]

First Cause is with intent, is what I was saying. First Cause is not mechanical fact.

Kool. Now rather than merely asserting it into existence, can we prove it? Or, do we merely apply one of Thomas Aquinas' arguments or something?... ... And then address one of our favorite apologists?

Your say-so, like mine, doesn't make it so, however.

I'm not asserting the alternate must be the case. I'm saying I think not? If you cannot demonstrate your position soundly, then my doubt is no less sound than your blank assertion

First Cause, by definition, is the source of everything else, including the principles by which everything else operates, time, matter/force —in fact, reality itself proceeds from him. First Cause, by definition, cannot be subject to any exterior cause or principle.

I'm aware of what 'first cause' implies. However, you must then demonstrate how this mere assertion does not fall into the trap of fallacious reasoning, as expressed prior.

Please remember, I do not know IF a true first cause exists, or if an eternal state exists. Sure, you can argue they are both fallacious. But until we have proof, it's your assertion against my skepticism to either proposition

Saul was a believer because God regenerated him. God convinced him, both in intellect and emotion, but his believing happened to him —it was not his choice that caused the belief.

As I stated prior then.., God can just do this to everyone. Why doesn't He? Aren't we all deserving of grace? Aren't we all sinners?

I believe what the Bible says, because the Bible has proven to be reliable when I am subjective.

I find this a hard pill to swallow. Have you actually read all parts? What happens when you get to a perceived "strange" part, inaccurate part, or a perceived "bad" part? Reason #4 - apologetics?

It has proven to be indeed the Word of God. It is not just any book. But that is how I see it —I'm not saying that you must. But if you spend time in it, you might just begin to understand things you hadn't imagined.

I've read all of it. I stand firm that there exists good parts, bad parts, strange parts, and inaccurate parts; just like any other claimed Holy Book.

That's one way to put it, though by your past questions I suppose you might take a 'yes' answer to mean that the revelation is what caused the belief. It is much simpler and more basic than that. I believe as a result of the Spirit of God taking up residence in me, changing me, and not as a result of my choosing what seems best to me.

Great. Since you feel God has 'regenerated you', which also means it was God's will to change you, and not your choice; you now also believe in open graves -- even though evidence only exists to the contrary. --- That dead people stay dead... Got it.

Well, no. Reason 1 started me thinking and reason 3 is God changing me.

I see no real difference, but okay

 

[Vap841]

I haven’t read all 600+ posts. This might have already been mentioned. A lot of posters seem to have become believers after having a personal experience, which they interpret as a calling, message, or revelation from God. I’m not negating this. But I have a question: Did you choose God, or did God choose you? As I see it, if belief in God results from some type of epiphany, then it’s not really your free will choice. Logically, it much more supports a sort of Calvinist predestination.

Maybe this should be a separate thread.

If other situations in life besides religious callings are any indication then I’ll cast my vote that it would come down to the person. I know people who have had epiphanies of various things that make them swear that they are a changed person because of it, some will in fact make a permanent change, some people will swear by an epiphany on Monday but then dump “The new them” by Wednesday, and everything in between. Also some people seem to have lots of epiphanies but they routinely throw them back. Of course this is limited to when people even discuss it, so I would imagine it could be even more of a mystery with how people keep things to themselves. By the way I most definitely didn’t read 600+ post either I just peak at the last page or two of a lot of threads.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Kool. Now rather than merely asserting it into existence, can we prove it? Or, do we merely apply one of Thomas Aquinas' arguments or something?... ... And then address one of our favorite apologists?

Well, now I'm not sure what you want proven —existence of First Cause? that First Cause is God? That First Cause is With Intent? That First Cause cannot be mere mechanical fact?

But, I will try to deal with the existence of first cause, though at some point in the line of logic this will probably be called 'mere assertion', but anyhow. Assuming Cause-and-Effect is pervasive, as Science and Philosophy both claim, any chain of cause and effect regresses logically to either First Cause, or infinite regression of causes. Infinite regression is offensive to reason, and a begging of the question with each iteration, not to mention "Turtles all the way down". We are left with First Cause. I will try to deal with objections later, as you raise them.

I'm not asserting the alternate must be the case. I'm saying I think not? If you cannot demonstrate your position soundly, then my doubt is no less sound than your blank assertion

Soundness of logic? Reason? or soundness of principle/ belief?

But my blank assertion can be altogether sound, though the reasoning behind it be atrocious.

And not that you must or even should stop doubting on the merits of my assertion, if I can't demonstrate my reasoning to you, but to assume that
there is no reasoning if I can't demonstrate it is also fallacious. This is why I almost never come to a final conclusion, or maybe more accurately, I am open to improvement of any conclusion, up to and including replacement. (However, some of them are constantly affirmed and improved, not denied, by what I learn over time). I am skeptical of my own thinking, but depend on it anyway, as I am skeptical of everyone else's thinking.

I'm aware of what 'first cause' implies. However, you must then demonstrate how this mere assertion does not fall into the trap of fallacious reasoning, as expressed prior.

If I wish to convince you, I must, yes, but if I wish to get you thinking, no. I've argued at length, long long hours, worn out keyboards, and no amount of 'proofs' and logical sequences convinced the opponent of anything. I've run into everything from 'intelligent-donkey' mocking to irrelevant responses to every kind of logical fallacy to repeated assertion of "mere assertion" to every added cog in the machine of logic to dropped threads. I've just about come to the conclusion that I'd do better to get to know the person and their way of thinking, because if they at least admit to some degree of instinctual affirmation of such things as First Cause = God, or First Cause implies intent, or absolute Causation of all things except First Cause, or no Free Will, then the conversation can be off and running. My logical sequences prove nothing.

Please remember, I do not know IF a true first cause exists, or if an eternal state exists. Sure, you can argue they are both fallacious. But until we have proof, it's your assertion against my skepticism to either proposition

You might notice that propositional logic is used all the time, in both negative and positive fashion, to attempt to prove the proposition or a supposedly paralleling proposition. In your next questions you do this, as an attempt to show that the notion, "God", doesn't make sense. (Granted, you don't sound too sure of yourself in that example, and good for you there.)

As I stated prior then.., God can just do this to everyone. Why doesn't He? Aren't we all deserving of grace? Aren't we all sinners?

Yes we are all sinners; none of us deserves grace. Those given grace are not intrinsically better than those not given grace. He doesn't do this to everyone, because the accomplishment of his plans for some (his 'particular people') necessarily includes his justice upon the others.

I find this a hard pill to swallow. Have you actually read all parts? What happens when you get to a perceived "strange" part, inaccurate part, or a perceived "bad" part? Reason #4 - apologetics?

Yes, I've read all parts, several times straight through, and probably many times I've read just about every part as individual passages. I have found very few inaccurate parts (more in some translations/ paraphrases), though many imprecise parts. As they say, it is not a science textbook. Quite a few parts I don't understand, yet I see the mind of God in probably all of it (that is, I don't recall not seeing the mind of God in any of it). I have run into a lot of confirmation bias on my part in assuming something means something, and later realizing it isn't talking about that at all. Yes, apologetics, but also hermeneutics, internal and external reference work, consultation and discussion...

I've read all of it. I stand firm that there exists good parts, bad parts, strange parts, and inaccurate parts; just like any other claimed Holy Book.

Sounds pretty subjective to me.

Great. Since you feel God has 'regenerated you', which also means it was God's will to change you, and not your choice; you now also believe in open graves -- even though evidence only exists to the contrary. --- That dead people stay dead... Got it.

If you wish to mock me further, remark on the circular reasoning that I use in claiming the many eyewitnesses, which are only available in the same 2000 year old text that posits that resurrection.

Like I said before, though, even if I could lay out justification for my beliefs, you would not agree until you are ready. I can't say I blame you.

(Btw, I said 'mocking', and it was, but my feelings are not hurt —it was done in good humor, not as others do it)

Concerning the resurrection, there is the logically necessary nature of First Cause —he is, as the saying goes, "a God of the living, not the dead". (Yes it is a saying, not to be taken the way a skeptic would like to take it, turning the words on themselves.)

 

[cvanwey]

@Mark Quayle

I'll address your last post later. In the mean time, were you planning on addressing post #611 at some point? Some of it may be overlap, but I feel that post addresses, more to the 'heart', of what is directly relevant to this thread

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle

I'll address your last post later. In the mean time, were you planning on addressing post #611 at some point? Some of it may be overlap, but I feel that post addresses, more to the 'heart', of what is directly relevant to this thread

Thought I had addressed all three you asked me about. I'll go see.

Oh, I see, it's not one of the three. But yeah, I'm pretty sure I answered it, or at least worked on an answer. Oh well, I'll try again.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your response means He causes who will and will not believe and follow? If this is the case, what is His criteria for choosing who will become inexorably drawn to Him? Testimonials have been made by both wanna-be followers and the opposite, (like Saul of Tarsus), who received revelation from God.

I miswrote: "First Cause does know the thing without also causing that the thing be.." I should have said, "First Cause does NOT know the thing without also causing that the thing be.."

His criteria is "the council of his own will". It has nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of any creature.

We know (according to Scripture) that he is making us into a dwelling place. It is not a more virtuous seed that grows into a tree that produces the particular stick of wood I choose to use for the leg of a beautiful piece of furniture. But God made the seed for that particular purpose. (No it's not a particularly fitting analogy).

Case/point, I was a believer for decades. But due to complete 'divine hiddenness', and among other reason(s), I ultimately 'lost my faith.' Like you, I was indoctrinated, and was geographically surrounded by other believers. However, applying intentional agency, time after time, and yet, seeing nothing but the same results as random chance, lead me away from belief. Among many later things...

If you are saying God decides, He could surely 'poof' me into a believer/follower. Hence, 'God's will' decides who will be damned, regardless of the human's intent apparently.?.?.?

I'm not saying you are implying belief in 'random chance' is logical, but I get what you are saying, that (perhaps) it may as well be random chance causing what happens, as far as you can tell. Certainly, for most people, naturalism (mere cause-and-effect with no evident first cause) is a more fitting answer for what they see around them, than to suppose that Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God causes things. Indeed many Christians hesitate or decline to attribute all effects to God, saying that only the good (as judged by a human viewpoint) things are caused by God, the rest are directly or indirectly caused by freewilled agents, or are neutral (neither good nor bad).

Yes, because, according to Romans 8:5-8 and other places, the humans' intent is "only ever evil continually", unless God changes their heart. (Actually, the quote is from Genesis 6:5, concerning mankind before the flood, but the principle continues). Even when supposedly well-intentioned, the deeds of man are at the core still full of self-declared independence from God and non-submission to God ('Total Depravity'). So he 'poofs' (as you put it), whomever he chooses (by the council of his own will alone), into believers, without increasing his efforts by their added help.

God does not obtain the permission nor the assistance of the unbeliever, before changing their heart/will by making them born again. He does it by himself.

And so, though all are condemned to begin with, for all have sinned, he chooses who will ultimately be damned, and not just by default, but by purposely creating them for the Romans 9 use of them.

Haha No. I think you have missed my point. Seems as though you invoke/assert a 'first cause/God' because the Bible says so. As I alluded to later, just because we have the ability to ponder scenarios, does not make them 'fact'. The Bible may be nothing more than a collection of already circulating ideas, and/or unfalsifiable philosophical argument(s).

Well, no, frankly. While I may have assumed "God" originally because of several reasons, I invoke/assert First Cause/ God because it is simply logical/reasonable. To me it only makes sense, not because the Bible says so. (You know —cause-and-effect, etc.)

Lol, not making a cosmological statement here —it's only a figure of speech— but 'things don't happen in a vacuum'.

1. Please look at the part highlighted above, in bold. = "The Bible says so, therefore YHWH"?

2. You have again rationalized that a 'first cause' must exist. We are then right back to the 'first cause' (vs) 'eternal' argument -- (where both sides claim the other side is using fallacious reasoning): (i.e.):

first cause = "special pleading"
eternal = "question begging"

On the other hand, your existence is confirmed to be in reality; unless you wish to claim something beyond "solipsism" Asserting a 'first cause' into existence, to justify your existence, seems thus far speculative at best.

1. No, I meant to word that to show that my reasoning for First Cause was of its own worth, and that the God of the Bible (also a stand-alone proposition as is First Cause) matches First Cause in every way.
2. Lol, I would, of course, word that a bit differently. You say, 'rationalized'. I say 'reasoned'. Regardless, the fact that each side claims the other to be fallacious does not make them both equally valid/invalid.

It seems to me simple reasoning: What we see was caused. Science operates on that same premise. "First Cause" is a simply clinical term. It names nothing except the first link in the chain of causation, though on further consideration it implies much. Thus, it is not special pleading, but the obvious fact. For those who wish to deny 'God', that is another matter —they may even say that infinite regression is the First Cause, though to me that is semantics, sophistry. To me, the fact of first cause only makes sense.

I was a believer for decades. And now I am not. The Bible then deems me a liar, in so many words. But I digress....

My point here, is that the writer of this Verse is projecting his own (reason #3 for belief) to others. The writer sees intention/God as the source, and thinks others must as well.

I hope you are not offended that the thought comes to me that you don't even know for sure that you are not a believer. The notion may be so ground into you that the question is judged on your early teachings of who God is or what Christianity is or what a 'believer' believes, that you don't realize God working in you as we speak. I too rejected at one point what I had believed, not that God didn't exist however, but that he was very different in many ways from what I had been taught.

The writer of Romans 1 was either right, or he was not. But he is not the only one who talks of such things in the Bible. I don't think he was ignorant enough to not see himself projecting, as you speculate to be the case here. On the other hand, of course, I believe what Paul wrote to be the truth, because it was inspired word for word by God. So, there's that bias on my part.

You did not conclude 'first cause' because you became humble. You concluded 'first cause' because you cannot resolve the conclusion to the origin of your existence in any other way. Humility, is to admit your are currently invoking fallacious reasoning - unless you can answer why nothing can come before YHWH? And how you know YHWH exists, aside from appealing to the Bible in doing so? (rhetorical questions)

Of course it was not by humility I concluded 'first cause'. But it may be humility is involved in accepting the notion of 'first cause'. It certainly is a humbling proposition. (I suppose some people may be able to separate themselves somewhat from their notions in an attempt at pure intellectual consideration, but I don't think any of them are able to do it completely.)

I agree it takes humility to admit to fallaciousness, but that is only one place for humility. You seem to assume I cannot answer WHY noting can come before YHWH, and how I know YHWH exists, aside from appealing to the Bible. Or when you said they were rhetorical questions, did you mean simply 'as if'? Anyhow, short answer: Nothing can come before YHWH because he is first cause. If he is not first cause, he is not God and I want nothing to do with him nor with considerations concerning him. As first cause, there is more reason he should exist than that anything else should exist.

Then He can choose everyone. Why doesn't He? If we are all sinners, and are all in need of saving, then He should contact everyone. But I do not feel He has contacted me. Hence, that whole 'divine hiddenness' topic which keeps popping up...

That has been dealt with so many times I can't remember if I told you. Like with Israel, his 'chosen people', who were a 'type', of the New Testament (i.e. current) Church, he has a particular people he created for that special purpose, that goes by several names: Body of Christ, Bride of Christ, God's People, Children of God, God's Dwelling Place etc. The rest of who he created are part of what it takes to produce that end product. It may not feel good to be considered collateral damage, but he has that right over his creation. I comfort myself with the knowledge that such things are judged by all knowledge, by God himself, and not by our concepts. Those who reject God, for whatever reasons, will not be punished beyond the severity of their crimes.

I think you have missed my point.

Billions claim to speak to some agent. They cannot all be right, but they could surely all be wrong. HOW do you know your communication with any external agency, (first cause or other), is validated? So far, I have seen little else besides 'faith'. For which any believer, in any doctrine, can apply, at will.

Is 'faith' reliable? When do we know to apply "faith", and when not to?

Further, seems odd that God would tell His followers that "faith" is the pathway to truth?

Well, that is what I have been repeating: the huge difference in the definition of 'faith' as given by Hebrews 11:1. As far as I know, no other religion has it, though some may try to approach it with some nebulous notion of being 'transported mentally' in some New-Age-like construct.

I have gone so far as to speculate that this faith is not simply the work of the Spirit of God within us, but IS the Spirit of God within us. It is that much HIS doing, generated by him, and full of integrity and fact, instead of being something we produce somehow as an act of will on our untrustworthy part. This is a hard concept for most people, but I think it is integral to understanding the relationship between God and man. I say man is not even a complete being, until he is one with God. The words there are only descriptive, being mine. I don't consider them Gospel, but the idea behind them is the Gospel: as Christ said, "apart from me you can do nothing" —it is not hyperbole, nor is it saying "you need my help", but it is talking about being one with Christ (vs. being separate from Christ).

Humans were made for God. Humanity was made for God's purposes.

Other religions and philosophies dance all around this matter, some even claiming we become Gods like him, or that we join with the omni, the universe or whatever, dispersed into the ether, or some (even many Christians seem to hold to this one) that we are simply a crowd of happy people at the end, and, as concerning the presence of God, that we come and go as we please.

1. I'm sure it is not purposeful. But it is still quite convenient

2. "Unfalsifiable" - no empirical test can establish that it is false

Can any empirical tests be ran to validate communication with any external agency???? Or, am I to merely accept your anecdotal story as truth, equally as I might also from the Scientologist, or the ghost story, or the alien communication, or the 'medium' communication with the dead, or other other other?

1. No doubt, in fact, I'm lately in conversation with a person who in one breath criticizes others for thinking they are in communication with God, while in the next, this person is claiming THEY are, and so have special knowledge, unquestionable by people like me, lol.
2. Unfalsifiable: Not capable of being proven, false, nor for that matter, true. I.e. not the sort of thing that science can deal with as such, though science well may need them.

To some extent, science 'proves' nothing. 'Validate' is a good word there. But science can do experiments demonstrating transfer of information from one agent to another. "External" agent? Do you mean, external to our normal experience? If you mean communicating with ghosts or with God, probably not, unless there is means to document someone who could not have known something they end up able to relate.

You've already touched upon it, in the prior response. Does this mean 'speaking in tongues' is legit, sometimes, or never???

If it is sometimes, how do we empirically determine which one(s) are truly legit? and once you answer this question, you can then see how validation of this directly coincides with your anecdotal claim(s) of communicating with God.

Again, it would have to be the sort of thing that can be documented and verifiable. I personally am very skeptical of any example of 'speaking in tongues' modern day, but I will not say God cannot cause it to happen. Some people I have heard appear to be interpreting the 'tongues', but never have I heard someone speaking, let's say, Spanish, who is documented to know no Spanish prior, and someone else who knew Spanish able to verify that what was 'spoken in tongues' made good sense/ could translate it. Lol, and even then, I would have to say, all that happened would be that the person spoke in some language that they were unfamiliar with, which could have been caused in ways that aren't even supernatural. Or it could have been supernatural, but been demon possession.

I know you are convinced, but so are countless others. Likely including the ones conversing with your wife. Does there exist any empirical way(s) to discern which God communications are legit, verses the ones that are not?

1 John 4:2,3 "By this you will know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God." Of course, then we have to take into consideration other qualifiers. The devil is a liar, a pretender. It would be prudent to consider what is meant by the words, and not just hear the words. The word 'confess' means 'to agree with' and not simply, 'to say', nor even, 'to agree with this phrase'. The verse is referring to Messianic prophecy, and to the fact that Jesus is God himself, in human flesh.

(Reason 3) - My point is that all the ones who never infer intentional danger, only need to be wrong once. And viola, they are then dead and cannot reproduce. The same ones whom invoke [intentional bad] laterally also invoke [intentional good]. This is likely why 90+% are God believers. Please remember all the examples you have given, thus far, which I have pointed out, to demonstrate your reason #3 for belief

Where you and I later diverge, is reason #3. Sure, I still commit false positives all the time. But due to 'divine hiddenness', I logically can no longer invoke a "God agency' like you still do. You still do, for your reason(s). I no longer do, for many reason(s). And your beginning catalyst is indoctrination, followed by reason 2 (geography), then skipping to reason 4 (comfort/conformation bias/belief perseverance/apologetics = first cause).

I'll send you the bill in the mail, for your diagnosis Just kidding of course....

I'm not saying you believe because it is safer. I'm saying you apply intentional agency for God.

This inference is unfalsifiable. If you are wrong, you will never know. Your inferences cannot be empirically validated as false, if your inferences happen to be false. And in doing so, if you are wrong, no true harm will come to you, for being wrong. Hence, no-harm-no-foul. The fact that any God belief, medium belief, etc, is not really harmful, is what validates one's continued belief. It is hardly ever falsified, if they are indeed incorrect. Otherwise, you could empirically demonstrate why the Scientologists are wrong

In this you continue to ignore (not that it is unexpected, because you don't experience it yourself) the witness of the Spirit of God within. (Lol, kind of funny, I meant to include that in the discussion above, re validating 'tongues'.) While the 'witness of the Spirit' within the believer is taken to be subjective, (and probably is, most the time), there is an objective faith (yes, still not falsifiable), that is not generated by the believer, but by the Spirit of God.

This faith both causes and validates one's continued belief. I believe and continue to believe, not because of bias nor habits from upbringing, nor because of convenience, nor because of results, nor because of intellect and reasoning (though all of those are used by the reason), but because of the Spirit of God as he works in me.

I am a theist by reason. I am a follower of Christ by the Spirit of God. Continually, the end (goal, result) of reason is First Cause, YHWH, affirmed by the witness of the Spirit of God within me. This is an objective witness, as Hebrews 11:1 shows, but my apprehension of it may be more subjective than objective.

 

[J_B_]

I know I'm late to the party, so maybe this has already been addressed, but the answer to the question depends on what someone is looking for ... or if they were looking for anything at all.

I was young when I came to faith, but even then, I wouldn't say I was looking for God, and so had no expectations of what he would be. I didn't set out with a list of traits that needed to be met. So, it wasn't a matter of 'finding God' in the sense most people mean that. It was an experience of meeting a person and learning who he is - much the same as meeting any person and learning who they are.