Why doesn't God reveal himself in a logical, evidence-based manner?

[Brenda Morgan]

Originally Posted by paul becke

He actually has revealed his personal relationship with each one of us in a thoroughly scientific way. The physics, the testing and peer reviewing, has all been done. Everything except the extrapolation of this divine relationship with the individual, from the clear, unambiguous evidence.


Brenda Morgan disagrees.
For Example......
God promised Abraham....
indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. Genesis 22:17

Here is the fulfillment of the above prophecy.....
The LORD your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are this day like the stars of heaven in number. Deuteronomy 1:10

So now we can look up into the sky and verify the Bible. NO WAY! At the time when Deuteronomy claims the prophecy was fulfilled the descendants of Abraham were only about 3 million people, having been recently counted in the second census. [See Numbers] We know that there are Billions and Billion of stars.
This concerns me. It shakes my faith. I wonder why the writer of Deuteronomy didn't know how many stars there are if he was being inspired by God.

How is that for Science, Physics, Testing, and Peer Review?
​

 

[chilehed]

Given how none of those can be reliably verified except for the "living among us" part, yes.

They can be verified as reliably as many other events of time. And better than others that you take for granted as having happened.

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

They can be verified as reliably as many other events of time. And better than others that you take for granted as having happened.

Not really, no. I imagine the complete lack of any secular historical sources that corroborate the resurrection story would've made you pause and think before making such a claim.

 

[bling]

Stories which make no sense. I don't accept the claim that God showing himself would turn people from him. Rather, it would shore up his credibility immensely. I think it's safe to say that, were it possible to conclusively, definitively prove that God exists (as you made an attempt to below), you would hardly be so quick to dismiss the need for that knowledge.

I was not suggesting that knowledge of God turns people away, but it does not help them. The only "need" the nonbeliever has is to fulfill his earthly objective and I am suggesting a knowledge of God's existance would not help him.

Would it be more humbling to know: there is the Christian God who creat you and everything else for you or to come to the realization this mental burden from hurting others in the past would be removed by a benevolent Creature if I trusted in His benevolent existance enough to accept His forgiveness?


Is it humbling to be counted among those that rely on the existance of an invisible Loving Creator as compaired to those that rely on non God solution?

Is it more noble (prideful) for a person to pay for their own transgressions, bear their own consequences, and/or do the time for the crime, then it would be to give up and plead for mercy from a possible God?

If we all knew that the Christian God did exist, what is the follow up question and is it made easier?

How would knowldege of God's existance help you with your objective: Humbly accepting God's Love in the form of accepting God's forgiveness (grace, mercy, charity) as a free undeserving and unconditional gift? Why would you accept it that way?

Because just because we can find God, doesn't mean that we're capable of doing everything else by ourselves. You're making a rather curious leap of logic that just because we can prove God means we'll become full of ourselves. How does it follow that discovering a supreme being who created the universe, is far more powerful than we could ever understand (let alone become), and whom we're all ultimately accountable to going to make us proud? In fact it's going to have exactly the opposite effect. True knowledge is a very humbling thing. You'll be hard-pressed, for instance, to find an astrophycisist who is not humbled by the vastness of the universe and the minute insignificance of our own segment of the galaxy. A tank full of water makes only a dull noise when struck; it's invariably the empty ones that rattle the loudest.

I was not suggesting coming up with the proof of God's existance will mean you can solve all other problems. What I was trying to say, "Coming up with solutions through self indever will increase self dependence."

Actually, life coming about from just "random chemicals" is pretty well-supported by science. There are plenty of plausible scientific models in the field of abiogenesis that puts forth viable explanations of how life arose (the problem is, however, we don't know which model is the correct one yet since they're all viable). The argument you present is an argument of incredulity. It relies not on evidence, because there isn't any, but on the listener being ignorant and awed enough to accept that the explanation you offer is the only possible one. The problem with this strategy is that, once another viable explanation is proposed, your whole argument falls apart. Which is exactly what is happening in this case.

As a Chemist I disagree with you here. No scientist has presented his "thoery" on the creation of life from chemicals for peer review. It is not because they have lots of alternatives to choose from, but because all the possibilities have huge as of now unsolvable problems. Chemicals do not evolve like living organism, so there is no known system to make that leap. To much has to come together at the same time in the same place for no reason.

The way you and everyone else are to witness God is by witnessing His Love.. This world filled with tragedies provides tons of opportunities for true Christians to show, experience, give, recieve and grow Godly type Love. That unselfish, unconditional, unbelievable Love is what you must descide to want and accept or reject it. The "knowledge of the creator is not what you must have first, but a desire for that type of Love. The Love that can forgive you.

Well, you're basically just speculating on people's motives now. I could do the same, but that'd get the discussion nowhere, so I won't.

No. there are lots of ways people rationalize and justify their actions. If my ship sinks I might beg for recueing, but that is not the type of begging I am talking about.

When you feel, realize you are the sole cause of your tragic situation and no one should feel bad about not offering you charity, because you are in every way only getting what you fully deserve, and yet you humble plead for pure charity since your not man enough to take what you deserve. Then and only then are you able to accept God's unconditional undeserving charity (Love).

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

I was not suggesting that knowledge of God turns people away, but it does not help them. The only "need" the nonbeliever has is to fulfill his earthly objective and I am suggesting a knowledge of God's existance would not help him.

I would suggest that that's your assumption. Again you're making speculations on people's motives that, to me, seem quite unfounded. I would propose that you have closed your mind to the real reasons that people do not accept the existence of God, and you are postulating an imaginary straw man in place of it, because the straw man is easier to address than the real reason. Now this is an entirely valid approach if you're only seeking to attract converts who already agree with your mindset to begin with (i.e. logic, reason, and evidence are not needed, only faith), but if you intend to "preach the good news to all creation", such a strategy of making blanket statements based on unfounded premises borders on irrationality.

You cannot deny that there are a large number of people who accept things via logical deduction and reasoning, and that this presents a big stumbling block for religious evangelism efforts. If there were to be logical and reason-based knowledge of God's existence, I would propose that such people would be helped immensely. The apostle Thomas and Saul or Tarsus were greatly helped by such evidence. So will be many more people across the world.

Would it be more humbling to know: there is the Christian God who creat you and everything else for you or to come to the realization this mental burden from hurting others in the past would be removed by a benevolent Creature if I trusted in His benevolent existance enough to accept His forgiveness?

bling, you are missing my point. It is not possible for a sane man to come to the second realization without evidence. I might as well "realize" that there is a race of purple-winged unicorns prancing across the surface of Saturn.

Is it humbling to be counted among those that rely on the existance of an invisible Loving Creator as compaired to those that rely on non God solution?

Again, you are missing my point. Providing us with logical and reasonable existence of God would be the surest path of leading people to being humbled by God.

How would knowldege of God's existance help you with your objective: Humbly accepting God's Love in the form of accepting God's forgiveness (grace, mercy, charity) as a free undeserving and unconditional gift? Why would you accept it that way?

It would help me immensely by showing me that there is actually such a gift to be accepted in the first place.

I was not suggesting coming up with the proof of God's existance will mean you can solve all other problems. What I was trying to say, "Coming up with solutions through self indever will increase self dependence."

I don't see how that changes anything. Assuming the teachings of Christianity is correct, it's not like our self-independence is going to grow to the point where we won't need God anymore anyway. We're going to still be humbled in his presence regardless.

As a Chemist I disagree with you here. No scientist has presented his "thoery" on the creation of life from chemicals for peer review. It is not because they have lots of alternatives to choose from, but because all the possibilities have huge as of now unsolvable problems. Chemicals do not evolve like living organism, so there is no known system to make that leap. To much has to come together at the same time in the same place for no reason.

If you're a chemist, then I'm sure you also know what a theory is, and hence I won't patronize you by explaining why no theory has been proposed for peer-review. Also, you may be a chemist, but it seems like you're not a biologist. Evolution is not a trait specific to living organisms, it's a natural consequence whenever self-replicating bodies, living or otherwise, are subject to selection forces.

The way you and everyone else are to witness God is by witnessing His Love.. This world filled with tragedies provides tons of opportunities for true Christians to show, experience, give, recieve and grow Godly type Love. That unselfish, unconditional, unbelievable Love is what you must descide to want and accept or reject it. The "knowledge of the creator is not what you must have first, but a desire for that type of Love. The Love that can forgive you.

bling, this is rhetoric, not evidence. If you're really a chemist I'm sure you're more than aware of this. How do you propose that we logically deduce God's existence from people loving us?

 

[razeontherock]

The Jews wanted Jesus dead because they saw Jesus as a heretical false prophet, not because they wanted to "seize his inheritance".

Again, instead of wanting to learn anything at all, you prefer to force your way, even though it entails not understanding. Do you find that to be wise?

And again, Jesus' miracles, virgin birth, and resurrection are not corroborated by any reliable, secular historical record. It's very well to claim that this and that is true, but without the evidence it's just a story.

Baa This has been explained to you more than enough, and you still refuse to get it?

Are you saying that the Israelites repeatedly turning their backs to God despite all the signs and miracles he has given them and all those times he's saved them, strikes you as a particularly logical story?

Not only that, but I am telling you you reveal that you have 0 understanding of human nature.

it's simply absurd to draw any parallels between the society of today and the Israelites of the 3rd century.

Why? Because you fail to see the similarities?

So you're saying that your faith wouldn't be bolstered in any way whatsoever if God did reveal himself in the physical realm?

That's not Faith, and it's not even knowledge, as the Bible uses the terms. You are quite out of your depth here!

 

[razeontherock]

A great snip, from a great post:

The "knowledge of the creator" is not what you must have first, but a desire for that type of Love. The Love that can forgive you.

 

[norswede]

All RAZZLE DAZZLE to show us how smart you are. But totally irrelevant.

Actually it's very relevant. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. If it wasn't true, and if you were smart enough to know it wasn't, you would be able to prove it wrong.

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

Again, instead of wanting to learn anything at all, you prefer to force your way, even though it entails not understanding. Do you find that to be wise?

You make the ludicrous assumption that you have anything other than nonsense to teach me. And here your fellow Christians are arguing that faith is supposed to make one humble...

If you're interested in educating yourself, read up on Judaism apologetics and the real reasons why they reject Jesus instead of blindly accepting wholesale what the New Testament says about the Pharisees. Baaaa.

Baa This has been explained to you more than enough, and you still refuse to get it?

As I've pointed out to an earlier self-professed "Christian" earlier in this thread, lying is a sin. No credible explanation for the complete lack of verification of Biblical claims in secular historical sources has been offered, other than the ridiculously ignorant accusation that the historical method that Christian and non-Christian historians alike have been practicing for centuries is nothing more than a figment of my own imagination. I'm not religious, but allow me to offer a prayer that you're not stupid enough to think that's actually a good explanation.

Not only that, but I am telling you you reveal that you have 0 understanding of human nature.

Coming from you, that's really ironic.

Why? Because you fail to see the similarities?

Because it makes so much sense to compare an uneducated, illiterate, superstitious nation from the 3rd century to the modern, post-Rennaisance world where education is made compulsory by law, more than 87% of the world population are literate, and where critical and scientific knowledge are widely accepted and progress at an exponential rate. That is, assuming the story of the Israelites are even true at all, and also assuming that scores of other stories whose central characters profess faith and love for God when he reveals himself don't count.

That's not Faith, and it's not even knowledge, as the Bible uses the terms. You are quite out of your depth here!

Oh look, someone is dodging the question here. I wonder why. Could it be because they're uncomfortable about the answer? Of course not, that's preposterous... right?

 

[oi_antz]

Hi Captain, I suppose my last comment doesn't require a remark. I want to ask you something though about your own walk with faith. It appears to me that you have studied the biblical accounts quite a lot, but what you lack is some sort of reason to believe that the accounts are true. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I assume that you believe Jesus did walk the earth and challenged the religious leaders about their leadership. Now my question is this: do you believe in His resurrection, and if not, do you think that upon fulfillment of the following verse you would believe in His resurrection? The verse I have in mind is this:

Matthew 25:31
New Living Translation (NLT)
The Final Judgment

31 “But when the Son of Man[a] comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne.

I just wonder about this point in time, how many of the people who presently profess disbelief will suddenly change their tune. I wonder whether those people would be saved because of their new found faith. What are your thoughts about this?

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

Hi Captain, I suppose my last comment doesn't require a remark. I want to ask you something though about your own walk with faith. It appears to me that you have studied the biblical accounts quite a lot, but what you lack is some sort of reason to believe that the accounts are true. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I assume that you believe Jesus did walk the earth and challenged the religious leaders about their leadership. Now my question is this: do you believe in His resurrection, and if not, do you think that upon fulfillment of the following verse you would believe in His resurrection? The verse I have in mind is this:

I just wonder about this point in time, how many of the people who presently profess disbelief will suddenly change their tune. I wonder whether those people would be saved because of their new found faith. What are your thoughts about this?

Hey, sorry about not responding to your last post. I must've overlooked it; I'll go back and try to find it later.

In the meantime, you're right that I believe it's quite likely that there was once a man called Jesus who walked the earth and preached the gospel. You're also right that I don't believe in his resurrection. The verse you quoted is somewhat vague in its description, but if the Second Coming does happen like how I picture it would in my mind, yes, I would believe. Whether it would save me or not is inconsequential to me, because that and my current lack of belief are things beyond my control.

Does that answer your questions?

 

[drich0150]

Wait. Wait wait wait. So your argument is now that the historical method is a fictional field of study concocted by my imagination?

Are you serious?

I wish I could believe you're not, but the astounding level of ignorance you've displayed thus far - not only about science, history, and other religions, but also about Christianity itself - indicates otherwise. It seems like you've now been reduced to incoherent babbling in a desperately futile attempt to shore up your ignorance-based arguments, and your only purpose here is to now lower the average IQ of people who're posting in this thread.

I never said the historical method was fictitious. I simply pointed out your version of it was. To which I have, and still require proof of a method that allows you the power to dismiss any historical account that contradicts your claims. It is this method that I have repeatedly asked for you to define. Because the historical method Actual historians use would include the lost Gospels to write a history about Christ. Since you have dismissed these lost gospels it is apparent you are using a method of your own creation.

So again Please define the parameters of a method that would exclude or dismiss, any extra biblical account that confirms the biblical account.

Actually, I have. The answer is that there is no such thing as a historically-reliable, secular lost gospel. I didn't ask the question to find out the answer, because I already know it, but to find out how an ignorant boor like yourself is going to answer it. Apparently your best attempt was to lie and pretend that you don't have enough privileges to post links.

I just cut and paste the same answer you gave me when I asked you to define your version of the historic method. You sir are a hypocrite. I simply have followed your example and standards of answering questions, and yet you find them unsatisfactory.

That's a sin by the way, better deal with it first before being a Pharisee-like hypocrite and accusing others of lying to cover up your own ignorance.

Again you are creating another straw man. You seem to have a really bad habit of projecting your short comings onto others. once more if you did not like my answer you only have yourself to blame, for I am only putting forth the same effort that you have consistently shown me.

You're nothing short of an embarrassment to yourself and the religion that you're supposedly defending but are actually making an utter mockery of. As I've mentioned earlier, I'm interested in talking to people who can genuinely answer the question. I'm afraid to inform you that you've failed by a wide margin to meet even that simplest of requirements, and will be henceforth ignored until you can provide useful discussion that isn't based on nonsense and ignorance.

You have not asked one question. You have issued challenges in question form. to which these challenges all start out with a false premise (your straw man fallacies) The reason you do not like my answers is because I will not allow you to manipulate me into arguing the argument you have prepared. I am and will always hold you accountable to the standard of truth you have feigned interest in. If you wish to continue then by all means ask a genuine question. If you issue more challenges in question form know that my efforts will mirror your own.

 

[Captain Thunderpants]

The reason you do not like my answers is because I will not allow you to manipulate me into arguing the argument you have prepared.

As if we needed any more proof that you're only interested in throwing your boorish arguments at straw men instead of addressing the actual question asked. Yes, we already knew that.

As previously notified, you're now ignored until you can present arguments not based on nonsense and ignorance.

 

[Brenda Morgan]

What is really ironic about this discussion is that Jesus promised to show himself but has not shown himself.

 

[golgotha61]

I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.

The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.

God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.

It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?

Here is a present day revelation of God for you and you don't even have to read a book, just look around and you will see God's work: Since 567/568 B.C. until 1948 A.D. Israel was not a sovereign nation and was scattered throughout the world. Hated reviled attempted to be obliterated from existence but still remains extant and identifiable as a separate people by their religion and nationality. No other people group in the history of mankind can claim such a distinction. This existence of Israel today is exhibit A in the lineup of convincing evidences that the Bible’s prophecies concerning the future ahead of us will be fulfilled. This, perhaps, is the most important blessing we can receive from the astounding history of the Jews. It reveals the reality of God-His overwhelming power, the authenticity of His promises, the certainty of His existence, the urgency of His call to us, and His claim on our very being.

 

[drich0150]

As if we needed any more proof that you're only interested in throwing your boorish arguments at straw men instead of addressing the actual question asked. Yes, we already knew that.

As previously notified, you're now ignored until you can present arguments not based on nonsense and ignorance.

You are aware that to ignore someone means you have to not respond to them right?

It seems the only thing you have ignored are points that you are not able to defeat or even rightfully challenge. That correction made, and If you do not have any further questions on this topic, then know i look forward to your next thread!!!

 

[elman]

When you get down to it, almost everything in the Bible is "just a story". And given how Adam and Eve stood in the presence of God every day in the Garden of Eden before they were cast out, I fail to see how you conclude that it's "not really related much to actually standing in the presence of God".

Because it is just a story about people standing in the presence of God.

 

[bling]

I would suggest that that's your assumption. Again you're making speculations on people's motives that, to me, seem quite unfounded. I would propose that you have closed your mind to the real reasons that people do not accept the existence of God, and you are postulating an imaginary straw man in place of it, because the straw man is easier to address than the real reason. Now this is an entirely valid approach if you're only seeking to attract converts who already agree with your mindset to begin with (i.e. logic, reason, and evidence are not needed, only faith), but if you intend to "preach the good news to all creation", such a strategy of making blanket statements based on unfounded premises borders on irrationality.

You cannot deny that there are a large number of people who accept things via logical deduction and reasoning, and that this presents a big stumbling block for religious evangelism efforts. If there were to be logical and reason-based knowledge of God's existence, I would propose that such people would be helped immensely. The apostle Thomas and Saul or Tarsus were greatly helped by such evidence. So will be many more people across the world.

It is not any more “logical” to believe the universe came about or that life would start from chemicals without an intelligent designer then with an intelligent designer. That argument rages on among scientist, there is just no scientific evidence for apparent fine tuning needed (being observed) for the creation of stars and the beginning of life.

You have to have “faith” in something to explanation the reality in front of you. So is it more likely that an intelligent designer made it happen or random luck caused it? How lucky would you have to be?

As far as Thomas and Saul of Tarsus go: the doubting of Thomas of today can have his doubts resolved with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Assurance of God’s mercy is not needed to receive God’s mercy, just a strong desire for mercy.

Saul of Tarsus is a unique individual, but Jesus/God did not remove Saul’s free will and make the moral decision to become a Christian. Saul could have reasoned he had heat stroke, fell off his horse, stared at the sun to long, had a bad dream, and Christ had not come to him. This conclusion would have helped him keep his prestigious position, kept him from being a murder in his own mind, retained the respect he had for the Jewish leadership, and maintained is pride and self esteem. Saul had quite time to reflect on all this and all he did know about Christ, while he was fasting and blind. Saul was wise, knowledgeable and smart, so he could think this through and draw the most “logical” conclusion. Saul over time might have draw this same conclusion without the Damascus road experience.

bling, you are missing my point. It is not possible for a sane man to come to the second realization without evidence. I might as well "realize" that there is a race of purple-winged unicorns prancing across the surface of Saturn.

As I have said before “there is evidence” if you choose to accept the evidence. What evidence is there that there is not a God? I am not talking about “knowing for certain” anything other than you have a problem and will accept help.

Again, you are missing my point. Providing us with logical and reasonable existence of God would be the surest path of leading people to being humbled by God.

If you believe you are the random result of matter and energy in an infinite universe, how humbling is that as compared to being the thought out designed creation of an infinitely wise and powerful God

You seem to be saying it is more humbling to know there is the Christian God, then it would be to not know, but have not proved that concept?

It would help me immensely by showing me that there is actually such a gift to be accepted in the first place.

Why do people accept Charity over accepting the results of their own behavior/choices?

If you're a chemist, then I'm sure you also know what a theory is, and hence I won't patronize you by explaining why no theory has been proposed for peer-review. Also, you may be a chemist, but it seems like you're not a biologist. Evolution is not a trait specific to living organisms, it's a natural consequence whenever self-replicating bodies, living or otherwise, are subject to selection forces.

Hypotheses have not been brought up for pear review either, since they have been shoot down for not explaining the exceptions everyone of them have. There are huge huddles that some of which we do not even know yet that chemicals must overcome to form life. Chemicals do not “evolve” since they do not reproduce. I am not talking about biological reactions, but non living substances.

bling, this is rhetoric, not evidence. If you're really a chemist I'm sure you're more than aware of this. How do you propose that we logically deduce God's existence from people loving us?

The “objective” is not to believe or know there is a God. What you do need is a desire for unselfish type Love. Wanting to be loved unconditionally and have that type of Love in yourself is the first step. So recognizing that such a Love exist is extremely helpful.

The bottom line

You may not see faith as helping, but at least for some of us trusting (faith) in a benevolent Creator has been a humbling enough experience for us to correctly accept His charity. As far as people accepting God’s Love (forgiveness) with knowledge of God’s existence, if the Bible is true, it did not help.

You are suggesting it would help people to know there is definitely a Christian God to know there is a gift, but knowing there is a gift does not mean you will desire the gift enough to accept the gift as pure charity (humbling yourself). That is an assumption on your part, which cannot be proven for you since God is not going to make Himself, while the assumption on my part that it would not help has been shown in my life/thinking and other Christian’s lives/thinking.

 

[GA777]

God wants faith.
And you can get enough evidence in the bible which proves God's existance anyways.

 

[elman]

God wants faith.
And you can get enough evidence in the bible which proves God's existance anyways.

Faith without love is worthless. 1 Cor 13:2