Why no proof?

[Moral Orel]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

 

[oi_antz]

why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

Are you aware that He once did this?

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you aware that He once did this?

Yes, I am aware that the New Testament exists. Notice that my question uses the word "continuing" and not just a one time, short lived trip that I have to take people's words for it that he ever did anything miraculous in the first place. I'm sure he existed, I'm sure he was a "teacher" if you will, I'm not sure that he was the son of God. Why no proof?

 

[Moral Orel]

Sorry, that sounded kind of snotty now that I'm re reading what I wrote. I don't mean to be rude, but I really mean why don't we get the same proof that they did back then? Some people wouldn't have believed he was the son of God unless they had seen miracles back then, so why no proof now like they had then?

 

[oi_antz]

Yes, I am aware that the New Testament exists. Notice that my question uses the word "continuing" and not just a one time, short lived trip that I have to take people's words for it that he ever did anything miraculous in the first place. I'm sure he existed, I'm sure he was a "teacher" if you will, I'm not sure that he was the son of God. Why no proof?

There was proof at the time: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+12:9-14&version=NLT

Only He loves the truth, and stands for what is good and right. That doesn't suit everyone. In fact, it doesn't suit anyone all the time: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+3:19-21&version=NLT

Because of His stand for the truth, condemning the way the kingdom of God had been run for human interests, He was forced out of the world. Here, read this bit because it explains quite clearly the reason why His time was so short lived: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+21:33-46&version=NLT

 

[oi_antz]

Sorry, that sounded kind of snotty now that I'm re reading what I wrote. I don't mean to be rude, but I really mean why don't we get the same proof that they did back then? Some people wouldn't have believed he was the son of God unless they had seen miracles back then, so why no proof now like they had then?

It's not necessary, IMO.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, I am aware that the New Testament exists. Notice that my question uses the word "continuing" and not just a one time, short lived trip that I have to take people's words for it that he ever did anything miraculous in the first place. I'm sure he existed, I'm sure he was a "teacher" if you will, I'm not sure that he was the son of God. Why no proof?

From a traditional perspective we'd say He does continue to do this, that's, in part, what the Church is. We would also point to the Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist) as tangible realities of God's presence here with us.

That, probably, isn't quite what you mean though.

It's a valid question: Why not show up in a pillar of fire or burning bush as we read in the Old Testament. Or why not have angels descend singing hallelujah choruses like at Christ's birth. Why place everything upon a proclamation of word from a group of ordinary people who have nothing but faith? Lots of people will likely provide plenty of reasons and offer their own rationale, but honestly at the end of the day the most honest answer is we don't know. In faith we believe Christ gave us, His Church, the commission to preach His good news, to go out and among the nations being His people, baptizing, preaching, doing good works and that we rely entirely on God to bring people in--that God indeed operates through His Church to invite, draw, and bring people into the Church, to be believers in His Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oi_antz]

From a traditional perspective we'd say He does continue to do this, that's, in part, what the Church is. We would also point to the Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist) as tangible realities of God's presence here with us.

That, probably, isn't quite what you mean though.

It's a valid question: Why not show up in a pillar of fire or burning bush as we read in the Old Testament. Or why not have angels descend singing hallelujah choruses like at Christ's birth. Why place everything upon a proclamation of word from a group of ordinary people who have nothing but faith? Lots of people will likely provide plenty of reasons and offer their own rationale, but honestly at the end of the day the most honest answer is we don't know. In faith we believe Christ gave us, His Church, the commission to preach His good news, to go out and among the nations being His people, baptizing, preaching, doing good works and that we rely entirely on God to bring people in--that God indeed operates through His Church to invite, draw, and bring people into the Church, to be believers in His Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

Out of interest, do you believe there is likely to be procreation in the new earth after the resurrection and judgement?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sorry, that sounded kind of snotty now that I'm re reading what I wrote. I don't mean to be rude, but I really mean why don't we get the same proof that they did back then? Some people wouldn't have believed he was the son of God unless they had seen miracles back then, so why no proof now like they had then?

I think we moderns often forget the way people of two thousand years ago saw their world. An itinerant preacher and wonder-worker wouldn't have been terribly uncommon in those days. Stories of people performing miracles were part of the basic part of the tapestry of ancient life. One particularly famous example is Apollonius of Tyana, a Neopythagorean philosopher and claimed wonder-worker, who was partly contemporaneous with Jesus (born 15 AD, died 100 AD).

To that extent that someone was said to have performed miracles two thousand years ago wouldn't have been quite as astounding as it sounds to us today. So even assuming Jesus' miracles belief in Him and following Him would have still largely been a matter of faith. That Jesus did miracles didn't necessarily mean He was the Son of God--or at least that isn't necessarily the most immediate assumption ancient people might make. In the Gospel according to St. Matthew we have an exchange between Jesus and His disciples, at first asking them "Who do people say that I am?" And there were all sorts of answers to that question, that Jesus was a prophet, or that Jesus was the Elijah who was to come, or that He was John the Baptist come back from the dead. But it is specifically Simon Peter's confession that is important, "You are the Christ, the Son of God." To which Jesus says, "Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah, for you did not learn this from flesh and blood, but from My Father who is in heaven."

That Jesus wasn't just another wonder worker, not just another sage or a prophet, but that He was both the long-awaited Messiah and also the very Son of God was a profound revelation that came not by seeing miracles and wonders, but instead seen through the eyes of faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Out of interest, do you believe there is likely to be procreation in the new earth after the resurrection and judgement?

Probably not? The Lord said that in the resurrection there won't be any marriage. While that doesn't necessarily exclude procreation, it might weigh somewhat in favor of there not be. Frankly, we don't know and can't know until that Day actually happens.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oi_antz]

Probably not? The Lord said that in the resurrection there won't be any marriage. While that doesn't necessarily exclude procreation, it might weigh somewhat in favor of there not be. Frankly, we don't know and can't know until that Day actually happens.

-CryptoLutheran

That's my feeling too, that the old order of things will have passed away. I asked this because it ties in strongly with His decision to give His life "as a ransom for many" and I expect it might become an important assumption later in the thread.

 

[aiki]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

God has not withheld evidence of His existence. Both in the general revelation of Creation and the special revelation of Scripture, God has made Himself very evident. God took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ and lived among humans for some 33 years. He performed miracles, taught with unparalleled wisdom and authority, and rose from the dead. And yet, even in his own time, there were many who rejected the clear evidence of his divinity.

There will come a day when God will do exactly as you desire. He will make Himself very evident. All you have to do is wait. But at the point when He does put in a physical appearance, it will be either to judge the unrepentant and unbelieving wicked or bestow reward upon His loving children.

Is there some good reason why God, the Maker and Ruler of All Things, should veil His power and glory so that we can see Him?

God sent Jesus to Earth for a very specific purpose. Jesus fulfilled that purpose and is now back where he rightly belongs. Christ's presence here on Earth in human form was an incredible humiliation for him. He had to set aside his glory and power, his place at the Father-God's right hand, and take on the weak, limited, corrupt form of one of us. It is no wonder, then, that once his goal was accomplished Jesus returned to his rightful place at God's side. You would have his humiliation continue unending just to satisfy the inordinate skepticism of those who refuse his Lordship. I don't see that this is a reasonable expectation.

Selah.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

Hello Nicholas,

Good question!

As far as I can tell, God doesn't show up directly and tangibly because...well....despite the claims to the contrary--and we know there are quite a few of these--direct appearances by God don't by necessity help most people achieve faith, especially for those with whom the harboring of "pet sins" or "rebellious attitudes" is a felt need. I think if you'll take a long and close look at the epistemological contours in the Bible, you'll see that this is what Judaism and Christianity insinuate more often than not.

On top of this, the concept of "proof" is cognitively and philosophically tenuous, and not something that is as clearly defined as we'd like to think it is, except perhaps when applied to various demonstrations of mathematical structure.

There are other reasons too, but the two above are enough to think about for now.

If you want a third reason, then consider what I imply by the use of the following song: (enjoy)

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[paul1149]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

According to early Romans, He does just that through Creation. Look in the mirror. Why do you exist? It was not accident, it was not self-will. One man was converted without a word when he noticed the perfection of his newborn daughter's ear. One woman was, by studying a flower. He also speaks through the Word and the church. Yet despite that, most of us, I dare say, experience painful periods of silence from God.

The question is related to the question of why God permits evil. God could have come down at any point and wrapped things up, but 1) He does not want to interfere with man's choices. 2) He also does not renege on His gifts. Satan was not relieved of his post and consigned to the abyss when he fell, much as he deserved it. God allows the whole thing to continue on its path toward its ultimate conclusion. "In the fulness of time" He will do what He has to do. It will be done perfectly, and each person will have to answer for what he did with what he was given, and 3) in this way, heaven will be fully populated.

The problem, AISI, is in the tension between faith and proof. Jesus came, walked among man and did mighty works. And what did most want? More proof. They demanded signs. And when Jesus sensed that attitude in His hearers what did He do? He hid truth in parables.

The underlying problem is the utter sinfulness of sin. Even the physical presence of God on earth was disbelieved, rejected and outright opposed. His beautiful works of free divine love were attributed to satan. Such is the stubbornness and perverseness of man.

And so Jesus spoke in parables in order to hide truth. While God leaves a witness, He does not "cast His pearls before swine". Only those with hungry hearts would dig into the parables and find the truth. The merely curious or the dilettantes will not find Him.

That might clear things up a bit, and it might be intellectually satisfying to some degree, but it is not a comfortable answer. There isn't one. Because we live in a fallen world it will always take effort to find God. Thus we have so many exhortations to do so in the Bible. The Kingdom of God is not automatic.

 

[Moral Orel]

Now I understand the general rule that I'm not supposed to tell God what to do, or say that I know better than him, but it's hard to explain where I'm coming from without doing just that. So apologies if I offend anyone with my following example.

Imagine you are in a class about to take a test. The teacher tells you that he is writing a number on a piece of paper but he won't show it to you. However, knowing the number that he wrote down is 90% of your grade. Why wouldn't the teacher be obligated to show me that piece of paper if he's going to grade me on it?

The trouble I have with faith is that I have no reason to believe in the supernatural of any kind. The only "strange thing" I have ever witnessed was a person "speaking in tongues" at an Apostolic church. But because I heard the pastor tell a story in passing about another church that told newly baptized Apostolics to say, "Yabba dabba do" as fast as you can to simulate speaking in tongues, even that becomes fake to me. I have prayed, but I don't hear the voice of God, not even a whisper. So most people like to tell me that I'm not listening, but I can't believe that either. I know myself and when I am earnestly seeking and when I am not.

Now theres the part about people who got to see Jesus's miracles in person and then still didn't believe, but at least they got to see something. I assure everyone reading this, that if God showed up in my back yard, fifty feet tall, I would become a Christian that instant. Who am I to tell God that he ought to do that? Nobody in the grand scheme of things. But I either need to understand why I should believe short of evidence like that, or God needs to want me in Heaven bad enough to do just that. If I at least believed he existed, I could try to follow his teachings. Without his beliefs I'll try to be good on my own because there is satisfaction in that, but not everything that the Bible might say.

 

[aiki]

You haven't engaged with any of the many points that have been made to you in this thread. Why is that? I am strongly disinclined to make any sort of response to your posts when you so completely ignore it.

I shall make one more reply, which will be my last if you ignore again the comments I make.

Imagine you are in a class about to take a test. The teacher tells you that he is writing a number on a piece of paper but he won't show it to you. However, knowing the number that he wrote down is 90% of your grade. Why wouldn't the teacher be obligated to show me that piece of paper if he's going to grade me on it?

But this isn't at all what God has done. As I said in my earlier post, God has given you an entire text, the Bible, that reveals His nature, and purposes to you. The answer to the "test" is in it and it's an open-book test. What's more, the answer to the test is written on every particle of the classroom and in the substance of your own being - if you're willing to see it. No, your analogy doesn't really work, I think.

The trouble I have with faith is that I have no reason to believe in the supernatural of any kind. The only "strange thing" I have ever witnessed was a person "speaking in tongues" at an Apostolic church. But because I heard the pastor tell a story in passing about another church that told newly baptized Apostolics to say, "Yabba dabba do" as fast as you can to simulate speaking in tongues, even that becomes fake to me. I have prayed, but I don't hear the voice of God, not even a whisper. So most people like to tell me that I'm not listening, but I can't believe that either. I know myself and when I am earnestly seeking and when I am not.

It seems your experience with the Christian faith is very limited - and bizarre. Hardly a good basis from which to assess what it offers. Here are some excellent websites that will help expand your understanding of the Christian faith:

www.reasonablefaith.org
www.str.org
www.rzim.org
www.carm.org

I would also urge you to obtain the 2-volume set of Craig Keener's work "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts." It comprehensively addresses skepticism of the miraculous and in particular of the New Testament accounts of miracles. If you really are listening and earnestly seeking, you'll give Keener's work a serious look.

Now theres the part about people who got to see Jesus's miracles in person and then still didn't believe, but at least they got to see something. I assure everyone reading this, that if God showed up in my back yard, fifty feet tall, I would become a Christian that instant. Who am I to tell God that he ought to do that? Nobody in the grand scheme of things. But I either need to understand why I should believe short of evidence like that, or God needs to want me in Heaven bad enough to do just that. If I at least believed he existed, I could try to follow his teachings. Without his beliefs I'll try to be good on my own because there is satisfaction in that, but not everything that the Bible might say.

What difference does it make that people got to see Jesus' miracles if they remained unconvinced of his deity? They demonstrate just how little seeing often has to do with believing.

If God showed up in your backyard fifty feet tall, it would be too late for you to become a Christian. His mere presence would obliterate you. And the other problem with your "conversion" is that it would be devoid of love and faith, both of which God highly values in us. You would believe because of the force of what you could see and because to not believe would be to defy a fifty-foot high deity standing in your backyard, which would be a plainly dangerous and foolish course to follow. But this isn't the sort of belief and fidelity God desires from us.

In any case, it simply doesn't follow that because God has not shown up in your backyard He doesn't exist. This is a glaring non sequitur.

God doesn't need any of us. He certainly doesn't need us to believe in Him. He's perfect. And He was this way long before this universe and any of us existed. God desires our faith and love for our sake, not His. He made us to be in fellowship with Him; that is the fundamental purpose of our existence. He made us to find our greatest fulfillment in knowing, loving and worshiping Him. And so He has acted to secure our faith and love. But if we reject Him, He is not diminished one iota. We are the only ones who lose out when we refuse God's hand of fellowship.

The issue of belief really has nothing to do with available evidence. Many millions of people (some of them very intellectually brilliant) have been persuaded to faith in Christ as their Saviour and Lord by what evidence there is. Clearly, then, the problem isn't with the evidence; it has been persuasive to multi-millions of people. The problem is with you.

Selah.

 

[paul1149]

Now theres the part about people who got to see Jesus's miracles in person and then still didn't believe, but at least they got to see something. I assure everyone reading this, that if God showed up in my back yard, fifty feet tall, I would become a Christian that instant. Who am I to tell God that he ought to do that? Nobody in the grand scheme of things. But I either need to understand why I should believe short of evidence like that, or God needs to want me in Heaven bad enough to do just that. If I at least believed he existed, I could try to follow his teachings. Without his beliefs I'll try to be good on my own because there is satisfaction in that, but not everything that the Bible might say.

The problem is that that isn't really a choice. Go back to my first sentence: look in a mirror and consider why you even exist. You certainly did not cause yourself to happen. You are not a god unto yourself. And if you believe this world just somehow exists and produced you, that requires more faith than theism. And if this world simply self-exists, why then do you have moral scruples within you that you believe can steer you between right and wrong?

I don't think you've thought this through well enough. And that might be at the root of the problem. I referred to a tension between faith and proof. God does give us evidence. We're surrounded by it. But He still requires faith. That's because, as with any good parent, there is a time when He won't spoon-feed us because it's time for us to take the next step toward maturity. He does not want us as dependent hangers-on forever. He accepts us that way, of course, because without Him we are helpless, but His program is one of progressive sanctification and maturation as His grace transforms us into sons in the image of their Father.

If you think you can go back to living life on your terms then I guess you should do so, because this isn't an easy path. But I can tell you from my personal experience that Christ is indescribably lovely in every way, and that this world pales in comparison. I think it's good that you're asking hard questions before you sign on the dotted line, rather than glossing over them and then drifting away when the going gets tough. But it may well be that the questions you're asking yourself actually are not yet hard enough.

 

[Hammster]

I'm sure you all have had to answer this age-old question a thousand times, but why is it a matter of faith in God in that he withholds evidence of his mere existence? And before people say that he reveals himself to those who seek him, I mean visibly, tangibly, audibly in the real world to an audience of anyone and everyone who just asks to see him.

On a side note, someone can answer why God made it so that we can't handle looking at him, but even if that all adds up, why doesn't he have Jesus hang out on Earth continuing to teach, perform miracles, and generally prove that God at least exists?

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20

 

[Moral Orel]

Christ's presence here on Earth in human form was an incredible humiliation for him.

I'm not saying to hang out on Earth as a human. He should be here in all the glory he can muster, as that would be more proof than looking like a human.

What's more, the answer to the test is written on every particle of the classroom and in the substance of your own being - if you're willing to see it.

There are plenty of reasonable theories and explanations as to where the substance of my being came from. Even if I accept that the only logical conclusion is that the KCA is correct, it doesn't mean God ever communicated with his creation, and if he did, that the Christian version is the correct one.

It seems your experience with the Christian faith is very limited - and bizarre.

Just because I have limited exposure to anything "supernatural" as was the topic of that paragraph, does not mean that I haven't attended numerous other churches of numerous other denominations and studied the Bible and spoke with other Christians about their beliefs.

If God showed up in your backyard fifty feet tall, it would be too late for you to become a Christian. His mere presence would obliterate you.

So God does not have the power to show himself to me without obliterating me? I disagree with any argument that limits God's abilities if God is supposed to be omnipotent.

And the other problem with your "conversion" is that it would be devoid of love and faith, both of which God highly values in us.

And that is the whole point of this thread. Faith is required. Some parts of the answers I find here are that proof is everywhere, I'm just not looking, and other parts tell me that faith is required. If there was proof, then faith would be unnecessary. At least proof that there is an enormously powerful being that I ought to follow.

You would believe because of the force of what you could see and because to not believe would be to defy a fifty-foot high deity standing in your backyard, which would be a plainly dangerous and foolish course to follow. But this isn't the sort of belief and fidelity God desires from us.

Some part of belief may be out of love for God, but that certainly isn't supposed to be all it is. We are supposed to fear God as well. God was wrathful in the Old Testament, the New Testament puts his wrath in the idea of a Hell, and he's coming back in Revelation to violently judge the Earth. So if I am to adhere to the Bible based on fear (at least in part) then I could fear the 50-foot tall God that I mentioned much easier than I could some human telling me that Hell exists.

Many millions of people (some of them very intellectually brilliant) have been persuaded to faith in Christ as their Saviour and Lord by what evidence there is.

Lots of smart people believed the Earth was flat too. A lot of smart people believing something is not evidence.

You are not a god unto yourself. And if you believe this world just somehow exists and produced you, that requires more faith than theism.

Why? If I can believe God just exists, then I can believe something else just exists. Why does it require less faith to believe that an intelligent, complex, supremely developed being just exists as opposed to something more basic. Everything anyone has ever known has started out basic and become more complex. Simply because we don't understand the origins of the Universe doesn't mean that we can't ever know the origins of the Universe.

I've seen the KCA but it doesn't prove anything. It is based on our (currently) limited knowledge about the origins of things. Steven Hawking recently came up with a theory about the origin point of the Universe being based inside of a dome of space-time that would have meant it was eternal without needing to trace it back further. I'm no astrophysicist, so I can't explain it really well, but the idea would be that with the curvature of the space time, asking to go back further in time would be like asking to go farther north than the north pole.

Does the best science we have right now seem just as plausible as magic? You bet, but that doesn't make magic true. If a flashlight was transported back in time to Jesus's day, people would call that magic too because they didn't understand the principles necessary for it to work. Ignorance of another way does not equal proof in some other way.

 

[paul1149]

If God doesn't exist then this is all a figment of our collective imagination. I find that impossible even on the physical plane, let alone life and consciousness. Science is a wonderful thing in its place, but it makes a vain god. In any case, since you seem quite convinced of this, I'll leave you to your thoughts.