Whether God Exists I guess

[Discussion]

Hope you're having a good day,

I am at present an agnostic who is seeking Christ, yet I am lacking reason to, and I was hoping this might help me in my search. Firstly, the reason I say I lack reason and do not mention faith in this message is that I have received no personal experiences that would allow me to believe in faith (if you believe I am missing something here, feel free to challenge me on this). Anyway, back to reasons to believe. I am going to try to be as charitable as possible and not point out any perceived contradictions I have with any Christian teachings, as I would not want to attack your faith. I will try to purely be trying to establish God through reason (if I find this not to be possible, as I have no personal experiences of God, this would warrant my lack of belief). To be rather boring, I am going to talk about 4 of the most popular arguments for God that I am aware of, these being the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument and the fine-tuning argument.

1. Cosmological Argument:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause (which is the Christian God).

This is the classic cosmological argument, but to me it fails due to the fact that neither premise can be established.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
To me this does not hold up, as no one has any evidence of anything having begun existing (in the sense of something out of nothing; even if it can be proved, it must have happened at some point due to the impossibility of infinities), and so the first premise cannot be established.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
This too cannot be established as the big bang. While it is the start of the expansion of the universe, the singularity that "exploded" was there before the big bang, and we have no idea of anything that happened before the big bang, so this premise cannot be justified.

Due to my inability to establish either premise, I cannot accept this argument.

2. Teleological Argument

Premise 1: Where design exists, a designer is needed.
Premise 2: The universe exhibits complex design.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have had a designer.

This is the classic teleological argument, but to me it too fails due to the fact premise 2 can't be established.

Premise 1: Where design exists, a designer is needed.
Premise 2: The universe exhibits complex design.

This argument fails, as to me we can't establish that the universe exhibits complex design (design meaning "purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object"). And as such, we can't draw the conclusion. The reason I don't reject premise 1 is that, by definition, design entails a designer (at least by my definition above).

3. Moral Argument

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Short answer here: objective moral values don't exist without God, so you can't just say they exist to establish him, and you can't prove objective moral values without God, making the argument cyclical without some other proof that objective moral values exist.

5. Fine-Tuning Argument

Premise 1: If the universe's physical constants and conditions are fine-tuned for life, then it is highly unlikely this occurred by chance.
Premise 2: The universe's physical constants and conditions are fine-tuned for life.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is highly unlikely the universe's life-permitting conditions occurred by chance.

For me this fails due to the fact that premise 1 cannot be justified, basically just for the reason that there is no possible way (that I have heard) you can establish that "it is highly unlikely this occurred by chance", as that implies that they could have been different, which we could not possibly know.

Anyway, thank you so much if you've tolerated all this. I hope that I can learn something from people's responses to this.

Thanks,
Luca

 

[Laodicean60]

yet I am lacking reason to, and I was hoping this might help me in my search.

Since you are new, several threads address most of your questions. Be Blessed.

 

[Discussion]

Since you are new, several threads address most of your questions. Be Blessed.

Thank you very much, I shall look for these but I was also looking to have a discussion on this forum otherwise I would have simply looked up responces (and I have listened to many hours of religious debates). Have a great day.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

God is not going to give you some personal experience (even though some claim this).

God is communicating in this age through The Bible and people who correctly teach God's word.

The revelations have been given The Bible states there is a God and that God is offering humanity God's Life (Eternal Life) free of charge.

Why does a person need The Life of God (Eternal Life) because if they want to spend eternity with God, when all of creation is made anew (new heaven and earth). Possessing The Life of God is the only way.

Now God has established only one way to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life. This one way is focused on one person Jesus The Son of God/The Messiah, the resurrection and the life, who in Himself is God.

God has been so gracious to include one book into The Bible that is written specifically about who Jesus is and shows (by the 8 miracles Jesus does) Jesus is The Son of God/The Messiah, the resurrection and the life,

The Gospel of John not only shows who Jesus is, but also explains that it is through the person Jesus and belief in Jesus. Is the only way a person can receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Simply by belief in Jesus, believing Jesus is who He says He is The Son of God/The Messiah, the resurrection and the life.

 

[Richard T]

-
​

God is not going to give you some personal experience (even though some claim this).

How can you dismiss the fact that God does give many an amazing personal experience? This is exactly what an agnostic needs. Definitive personal proof. It happened for the woman at the well as Jesus prophesied her life story. It happened to Paul when he fell down under the power of the Spirit, heard God and was blinded for a time. It happens so many times in the bible and still happens today. Few come to Christ intellectually, the bible says "professing to be wise they because fools." Rom 1:22. I am not saying these are poor questions, but it boils down to whether you have an experience with God that creates the faith to be saved. A heaven to gain and a hell to shun depends on it as some say. I pray this new member gets a faith moving experience. That their mind is settled concerning the Holy Spirit's witness that Jesus took their sin and that He rose from the dead as evidence that He settled the requirements for all that accept Him to become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ in addition to everything else Jesus did.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hope you're having a good day,

I am at present an agnostic who is seeking Christ, yet I am lacking reason to, and I was hoping this might help me in my search. Firstly, the reason I say I lack reason and do not mention faith in this message is that I have received no personal experiences that would allow me to believe in faith (if you believe I am missing something here, feel free to challenge me on this). Anyway, back to reasons to believe. I am going to try to be as charitable as possible and not point out any perceived contradictions I have with any Christian teachings, as I would not want to attack your faith. I will try to purely be trying to establish God through reason (if I find this not to be possible, as I have no personal experiences of God, this would warrant my lack of belief). To be rather boring, I am going to talk about 4 of the most popular arguments for God that I am aware of, these being the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument and the fine-tuning argument.

1. Cosmological Argument:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause (which is the Christian God).

This is the classic cosmological argument, but to me it fails due to the fact that neither premise can be established.

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
To me this does not hold up, as no one has any evidence of anything having begun existing (in the sense of something out of nothing; even if it can be proved, it must have happened at some point due to the impossibility of infinities), and so the first premise cannot be established.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
This too cannot be established as the big bang. While it is the start of the expansion of the universe, the singularity that "exploded" was there before the big bang, and we have no idea of anything that happened before the big bang, so this premise cannot be justified.

Due to my inability to establish either premise, I cannot accept this argument.

2. Teleological Argument

Premise 1: Where design exists, a designer is needed.
Premise 2: The universe exhibits complex design.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have had a designer.

This is the classic teleological argument, but to me it too fails due to the fact premise 2 can't be established.

Premise 1: Where design exists, a designer is needed.
Premise 2: The universe exhibits complex design.

This argument fails, as to me we can't establish that the universe exhibits complex design (design meaning "purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object"). And as such, we can't draw the conclusion. The reason I don't reject premise 1 is that, by definition, design entails a designer (at least by my definition above).

3. Moral Argument

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Short answer here: objective moral values don't exist without God, so you can't just say they exist to establish him, and you can't prove objective moral values without God, making the argument cyclical without some other proof that objective moral values exist.

5. Fine-Tuning Argument

Premise 1: If the universe's physical constants and conditions are fine-tuned for life, then it is highly unlikely this occurred by chance.
Premise 2: The universe's physical constants and conditions are fine-tuned for life.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is highly unlikely the universe's life-permitting conditions occurred by chance.

For me this fails due to the fact that premise 1 cannot be justified, basically just for the reason that there is no possible way (that I have heard) you can establish that "it is highly unlikely this occurred by chance", as that implies that they could have been different, which we could not possibly know.

Anyway, thank you so much if you've tolerated all this. I hope that I can learn something from people's responses to this.

Thanks,
Luca

Welcome to CF! I can appreciate your angst in all of this. I know it's especially frustrating when we can't seem to find anything in our lives that counts as a bona fide spiritual experience with the God of the Bible.

But, despite that, I'm going to suggest that if there is any substantial 'truth' within the Christian Faith, it's going to mainly reside within the confines of historical evaluations rather upon other philosophical starting points such as those which come with the usual pathways of ancient philosophy. Still, whatever substantial evidence might exist for our consideration, it won't be fully verifiable and at some point, we'll have to be willing to take a qualified epistemological risk and interpret the Rorschach Test involving Jesus of Nazareth in the best way we think we can.

 

[Discussion]

-
​

God is not going to give you some personal experience (even though some claim this).

God is communicating in this age through The Bible and people who correctly teach God's word.

The revelations have been given The Bible states there is a God and that God is offering humanity God's Life (Eternal Life) free of charge.

Why does a person need The Life of God (Eternal Life) because if they want to spend eternity with God, when all of creation is made anew (new heaven and earth). Possessing The Life of God is the only way.

Now God has established only one way to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life. This one way is focused on one person Jesus The Son of God/The Messiah, the resurrection and the life, who in Himself is God.

God has been so gracious to include one book into The Bible that is written specifically about who Jesus is and shows (by the 8 miracles Jesus does) Jesus is The Son of God/The Messiah, the resurrection and the life,

The Gospel of John not only shows who Jesus is, but also explains that it is through the person Jesus and belief in Jesus. Is the only way a person can receive God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Simply by belief in Jesus, believing Jesus is who He says He is The Son of God/The Messiah, the resurrection and the life.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding this at all but is this some kind of Pascal's Wager arguement for God or just you telling me to trust the bible? The reason I can't trust the bible is because I can't establish for myself that God exists so I can't just trust it as much as I'd like to.
Thank you so much for your advice though, I am going to Church this Sunday and would like to read the bible if I get time while studying for my exams.

 

[Discussion]

How can you dismiss the fact that God does give many an amazing personal experience? This is exactly what an agnostic needs. Definitive personal proof. It happened for the woman at the well as Jesus prophesied her life story. It happened to Paul when he fell down under the power of the Spirit, heard God and was blinded for a time. It happens so many times in the bible and still happens today. Few come to Christ intellectually, the bible says "professing to be wise they because fools." Rom 1:22. I am not saying these are poor questions, but it boils down to whether you have an experience with God that creates the faith to be saved. A heaven to gain and a hell to shun depends on it as some say. I pray this new member gets a faith moving experience. That their mind is settled concerning the Holy Spirit's witness that Jesus took their sin and that He rose from the dead as evidence that He settled the requirements for all that accept Him to become heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ in addition to everything else Jesus did.

Thank you so much, I hope I have a moving experience but until it happens I can't help but be worried seeing as so many people have had these experiences that I will go to hell (assuming God exists on my part).
Have a great day.

 

[Discussion]

Welcome to CF! I can appreciate your angst in all of this. I know it's especially frustrating when we can't seem to find anything in our lives that counts as a bona fide spiritual experience with the God of the Bible.

But, despite that, I'm going to suggest that if there is any substantial 'truth' within the Christian Faith, it's going to mainly reside within the confines of historical evaluations rather upon other philosophical starting points such as those which come with the usual pathways of ancient philosophy. Still, whatever substantial evidence might exist for our consideration, it won't be fully verifiable and at some point, we'll have to be willing to take a qualified epistemological risk and interpret the Rorschach Test involving Jesus of Nazareth in the best way we think we can.

Thank you for your response, I negleted to mention it in the post but I have what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for all the historical facts that does not contain Jesus of Nazareth being resurected (I am happy to share this). Beyond this as I'm sure you're aware there are many philosophical objections to the Christian faith, as such while believing Jesus rose might not be too difficult of an epistemological jump I'm afraid that I find there to be too much metaphysical baggage that comes with this for me to justify taking on this belief (even just from an Occam's razor and Rorschach Test point of view). As of now based on the facts and experiences I have (none of which point to a God existing in my opinion) I am forced to remain agnostic but do hope that if God exists he will reveal himself to me. Not that this really matters but I have been baptised and am attending Church this Sunday (out of personal choice).
Have a lovely day.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for your response, I negleted to mention it in the post but I have what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for all the historical facts that does not contain Jesus of Nazareth being resurected (I am happy to share this). Beyond this as I'm sure you're aware there are many philosophical objections to the Christian faith, as such while believing Jesus rose might not be too difficult of an epistemological jump I'm afraid that I find there to be too much metaphysical baggage that comes with this for me to justify taking on this belief (even just from an Occam's razor and Rorschach Test point of view). As of now based on the facts and experiences I have (none of which point to a God existing in my opinion) I am forced to remain agnostic but do hope that if God exists he will reveal himself to me. Not that this really matters but I have been baptised and am attending Church this Sunday (out of personal choice).
Have a lovely day.

At least you're giving Church and the Christian Faith, generally conceived, your time and attention. I'm sure someone like Blaise Pascal would encourage your current efforts.

Have a blessed Easter as well.

 

[NBB]

One argument for me is, why if in the beginning there were a bunch of energy and dust, how it could end up as consciousness and intelligence etc,
you wouldn't believe an animal would build a computer right? well, this proposition of a bunch of dust and energy ending up like this is a lot harder to believe.

Also God can interact with us, if i could transfer my ideas and memories to another person i would but i can't, i have experience a lot from God, and i am not even a minister or something like that.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread has been moved from The Kitchen Sink to Exploring Christianity.

Please remember that responses should be directed to the OP and do not debate each other.

Also, only Christians can respond to the OP, and the OP can respond in the thread. There shouldn't be any other non-Christians. ​

 

[Discussion]

One argument for me is, why if in the beginning there were a bunch of energy and dust, how it could end up as consciousness and intelligence etc,
you wouldn't believe an animal would build a computer right? well, this proposition of a bunch of dust and energy ending up like this is a lot harder to believe.

Also God can interact with us, if i could transfer my ideas and memories to another person i would but i can't, i have experience a lot from God, and i am not even a minister or something like that.

Well to answer your first question earth is less than 0.00000000000000001% of the matter in the universe so in a space with so much matter its not at all surprising for planets to form especially given the laws of physics (most namely gravity seeing as it pulls things together), and on one of those planets the conditions were right for life to form (astrophysicists thave observed many others through telescopes) this is really not very hard to believe that it would happen once in the universe given its huge size. Once life has come about on a planet humans already have a perfectly functional theory that does not posit the supernatural to explain how it develops to have intelligence and becomes better at surviving via mutations and natural selection.
As for your proof based on experiences of God, I would argue this even points against his existence as if God is willing to give experiences to some people (especially those who already believe in him) and believing in God saves you from hell it seems if he was all loving and he is willing to give visions to people he should give all who don't believe in him visions of him in order to save them from hell. Also, people of other religions also have religious experiences, would you just say they are lying but yours are the true experiences? If so the exact same can be said about yours.

Have a beautiful day.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for your response, I negleted to mention it in the post but I have what I believe to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for all the historical facts that does not contain Jesus of Nazareth being resurected (I am happy to share this). Beyond this as I'm sure you're aware there are many philosophical objections to the Christian faith, as such while believing Jesus rose might not be too difficult of an epistemological jump I'm afraid that I find there to be too much metaphysical baggage that comes with this for me to justify taking on this belief (even just from an Occam's razor and Rorschach Test point of view). As of now based on the facts and experiences I have (none of which point to a God existing in my opinion) I am forced to remain agnostic but do hope that if God exists he will reveal himself to me. Not that this really matters but I have been baptised and am attending Church this Sunday (out of personal choice).
Have a lovely day.

I'd be very interested to hear about your "perfectly reasonable explanation for all the historical facts." Maybe you could even tell me something about your present choice of Epistemological praxis?

 

[Discussion]

I'd be very interested to hear about your "perfectly reasonable explanation for all the historical facts." Maybe you could even tell me something about your present choice of Epistemological praxis?

I personally would use the minimal witnesses hypothesis as an alternative explanation of Jesus's resurection which claims:

• Only a handful of individuals (maybe even just one or two) had some kind of powerful experience.
• These experiences could have been visions, hallucinations, dreams, or misinterpretations of normal events under conditions of grief, stress, or religious expectation.
• These initial experiences were sincerely believed and shared with others.
• Over time, the belief spread, was reinforced, and became part of early Christian teaching.

For a far better explanation: The “Minimal Witnesses” Naturalistic Hypothesis

As for my epistemological praxis; I would say I base what I believe on things I know e.g. sense data (mostly reliable). I am somewhat unfamiliar with having to define this sort of thing so excuse me for stopping there feel free to ask follow-ups to that. My kinda chain of reasoning for God not existing would be. I accept that I exist (not getting into this) --> I accept the physical universe exists as I can see it (not getting into this). From here I have never seen a physical reason to accept anything beyond the physical exists (which is all that I can observe therefore is my entire data set), therefore I have no reason to accept God exists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I personally would use the minimal witnesses hypothesis as an alternative explanation of Jesus's resurection which claims:

• Only a handful of individuals (maybe even just one or two) had some kind of powerful experience.
• These experiences could have been visions, hallucinations, dreams, or misinterpretations of normal events under conditions of grief, stress, or religious expectation.
• These initial experiences were sincerely believed and shared with others.
• Over time, the belief spread, was reinforced, and became part of early Christian teaching.

For a far better explanation: The “Minimal Witnesses” Naturalistic Hypothesis

As for my epistemological praxis; I would say I base what I believe on things I know e.g. sense data (mostly reliable). I am somewhat unfamiliar with having to define this sort of thing so excuse me for stopping there feel free to ask follow-ups to that. My kinda chain of reasoning for God not existing would be. I accept that I exist (not getting into this) --> I accept the physical universe exists as I can see it (not getting into this). From here I have never seen a physical reason to accept anything beyond the physical exists (which is all that I can observe therefore is my entire data set), therefore I have no reason to accept God exists.

I concur that the Biblical narratives are somewhat difficult to believe, and I understand when guys like Paulogia set up shop on youtube to share their own viewpoint about what they perceive is the paltry evidence for the Christian faith. I say this as a Realist myself, and not to knock Habermas' Minimal Facts hypothesis, I think one can do a bit better than to simply rely upon his approach to establish historical cogency for the Christian Faith. On the other had, I think a small amount of push back on the criticisms of ex-Christian youtubers can be exerted too, although no one should expect some sort of Rocky Balboa knock out to be had either way. As Pascal said---and I quite agree with him---"in faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't."

I also think that Paulogia's conclusion is too easy, "In short, to account for the established history of Christianity (and indeed, Gary Habermas’ “minimal facts”), we need only a single disciple to believe Jesus rose, a later convert who hallucinated the same, and a well-marketed legend to spread."

However, assuming you're interested in finding any substantive plausibility in the Christian Faith, in order to do a bit better, I suggest you begin by engaging Epistemology and challenging your own current epistemological assumptions, particularly whatever inclinations you have for settling with the position of "Reliabalism."

At this point I'd ask: With your current understanding of the Christian Faith, what evidence do you expect to appear in the world that, as far as you can tell, doesn't but should?

 

[Discussion]

I concur that the Biblical narratives are somewhat difficult to believe, and I understand when guys like Paulogia set up shop on youtube to share their own viewpoint about what they perceive is the paltry evidence for the Christian faith. I say this as a Realist myself, and not to knock Habermas' Minimal Facts hypothesis, I think one can do a bit better than to simply rely upon his approach to establish historical cogency for the Christian Faith. On the other had, I think a small amount of push back on the criticisms of ex-Christian youtubers can be exerted too, although no one should expect some sort of Rocky Balboa knock out to be had either way. As Pascal said---and I quite agree with him---"in faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't."

I also think that Paulogia's conclusion is too easy, "In short, to account for the established history of Christianity (and indeed, Gary Habermas’ “minimal facts”), we need only a single disciple to believe Jesus rose, a later convert who hallucinated the same, and a well-marketed legend to spread."

I mean fair enough all I'm saying is that the historical evidence doesn't really point either way I don't believe that the minimal witnesses hypothesis is a knockout, just a plausible explanation for the evidence I know of.

However, assuming you're interested in finding any substantive plausibility in the Christian Faith, in order to do a bit better, I suggest you begin by engaging Epistemology and challenging your own current epistemological assumptions, particularly whatever inclinations you have for settling with the position of "Reliabalism."

I'm really sorry I understand that you're asking me to reconsider my reliabilism but quite frankly I'm rather baffled at how else I could possibly know if something is a good way to know/predict things other than that it consistently leads to correct predictions. If you are interested I truly believe I don't know anything at all because it's unestablishable but I'm going to argue on the basis that reality is true the only way forward I see for knowing things about it is being able to make reliable predictions about it. If you have an alternative you can explain to me that you believe is better I would greatly appreciate it.

At this point I'd ask: With your current understanding of the Christian Faith, what evidence do you expect to appear in the world that, as far as you can tell, doesn't but should?

Rather unfortunatly you're going to have to be much more specific as many different denominations and Christians interpret the bible differently so it's rather impossible to say as Christian's seem to believe anything can be justified if they just say "I don't understand it but thats to be expected of God as he's so much greater than us.". But from a sort of base line with God being described as tri-omni, and assuming that onmi-benevolence entails wanting the best for everything then as he is also omni-powerful it seems to be the case that everything should be perfect (and I would argue it definitly is not).

 

[NBB]

I personally would use the minimal witnesses hypothesis as an alternative explanation of Jesus's resurection which claims:

• Only a handful of individuals (maybe even just one or two) had some kind of powerful experience.
• These experiences could have been visions, hallucinations, dreams, or misinterpretations of normal events under conditions of grief, stress, or religious expectation.
• These initial experiences were sincerely believed and shared with others.
• Over time, the belief spread, was reinforced, and became part of early Christian teaching.

For a far better explanation: The “Minimal Witnesses” Naturalistic Hypothesis

As for my epistemological praxis; I would say I base what I believe on things I know e.g. sense data (mostly reliable). I am somewhat unfamiliar with having to define this sort of thing so excuse me for stopping there feel free to ask follow-ups to that. My kinda chain of reasoning for God not existing would be. I accept that I exist (not getting into this) --> I accept the physical universe exists as I can see it (not getting into this). From here I have never seen a physical reason to accept anything beyond the physical exists (which is all that I can observe therefore is my entire data set), therefore I have no reason to accept God exists.

Spiritual experiences, are excused by atheists, with 'hallucinations', 'low standards for proof' 'drugs' or mental illness.
But they can be more real than anything else, and when things keep happening with God, denying that would be silly.
The things Paul wrote about the Spirit in the new testament we can experience too.

But unbelievers are going to unbelief i guess.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean fair enough all I'm saying is that the historical evidence doesn't really point either way I don't believe that the minimal witnesses hypothesis is a knockout, just a plausible explanation for the evidence I know of.

Personally, with my own understanding of Historiography and History, I wouldn't put much investment in Paulogia's "naturalistic" alternative. I don't think it accounts for much. It would be more cogent, I think, for him to just admit that there's not as much evidence as he'd prefer to have access to and that life has been difficult for him and not afforded him the emotional reassurance that a God exists who loves him. I'd totally understand that if he admitted it, and I'd offer him my sincere sympathy.

I'm really sorry I understand that you're asking me to reconsider my reliabilism but quite frankly I'm rather baffled at how else I could possibly know if something is a good way to know/predict things other than that it consistently leads to correct predictions.

Yes. As a philosopher, I'm going to ask you to challenge your own assumptions about the epistemology of Reliabilism. No epistemolgical position offers any perfect justification, so it's good to recognize this.

If you are interested I truly believe I don't know anything at all because it's unestablishable but I'm going to argue on the basis that reality is true the only way forward I see for knowing things about it is being able to make reliable predictions about it. If you have an alternative you can explain to me that you believe is better I would greatly appreciate it.

Yes, I'm interested in this turn where you're now adding in a "predictive" mode in conjunction with your own personal view of reliabilism.

Have you studied much about Reliabilism?

As for my view, I don't assume that any one epistemological position offers anything in the way of certainty; in fact, I think all that most of us can do is attempt to make evaluations about the Bible from different angles and do our best to avoid various informal fallacies along the way. There is no certainty to be had here theologically like we could with the mathematical sense of the term.

Rather unfortunatly you're going to have to be much more specific as many different denominations and Christians interpret the bible differently so it's rather impossible to say as Christian's seem to believe anything can be justified if they just say "I don't understand it but thats to be expected of God as he's so much greater than us.". But from a sort of base line with God being described as tri-omni, and assuming that onmi-benevolence entails wanting the best for everything then as he is also omni-powerful it seems to be the case that everything should be perfect (and I would argue it definitly is not).

I don't believe just anything can be justified. That's not how human cognition and fully rational thought (via critical thinking) works.

In regard to what your current expectations have you thinking about what God should be doing, I recommend you jettison those expectations at the next opportunity you have to do so and decide to engage, instead, some additional learning of Epistemology, Historiography, Hermeneutics and Abductive methodology before engaging further theistic metaphysical speculation.