How can we know that God is?

[Mountain Man]

Actually the prayer I used went something like this.

"God, if you are there I'm asking you to let me know. I'm not asking for any particular sign or form of communication. I'm not setting a time limit. I'll wait with as much patience as I can muster."

I also had a Christian friend pray that I would get a reply.

I asked what I should do after the first response.

Personally, I have never heard of a non-Christian asking for a special revelation from God and actually getting it. Doesn't mean it has never happened, but every story like yours that I've ever read has the exact same ending. And I suspect the reason is that it is arrogant to tell God, "The evidence you have seen fit to give the rest of the world is not good enough. Now, here's what I want you to do for me..."

A question to ask yourself: Why are you even asking in the first place? Do you have a sincere desire to repent and serve God? Then just do it. Pick up the Bible, ask God to help you understand his revealed will and wisdom, and start reading.

If not, then why are you asking? Idle curiosity? Surely you would not expect the almighty creator of the universe to satisfy your whims.

Perhaps if you can figure out your own motives for seeking a special revelation, then you might understand why God hasn't responded.

[whag]

The resurrection of Jesus is at least as well attested as any other event we accept as true in the ancient world, and is better attested than most.

Yes, but be careful. If you give him the impression that all biblical scholars agree that miracles can be confirmed as historical facts, you set him on a path of doubt when he discovers otherwise.

[mossrose]

You should really clarify this statement and think hard about what you meant.

You may also be in deep doo-doo. Because if you don't believe in Christ you will pay your own penalty for your sin.

So you should think hard about your response to Christ.

[whag]

You may also be in deep doo-doo. Because if you don't believe in Christ you will pay your own penalty for your sin.

So you should think hard about your response to Christ.

Well he was specifically referring to Calvinism, so I’d ask you to clarify in that context. If you missed that the first time, you should allay his fear that Calvinism is true.

[Mountain Man]

Yes, but be careful. If you give him the impression that all biblical scholars agree that miracles can be confirmed as historical facts, you set him on a path of doubt when he discovers otherwise.

I'm talking specifically about the resurrection.

[Sparko]

OK, here we go.

I think the problem I have with your response is that you are coming from a position of certainty.

Just want to make a note about that: I don't think any Christian is absolutely certain of anything. That is why we call it "faith" - And remember the words of the father of the boy who was possessed by a demon in Mark 9:

²³ “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for one who believes.”
²⁴ Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”

I choose to believe and have faith despite not having absolute proof.

1. My faith makes me a better person than I was before it. That is good for me and for those around me.
2. If I am wrong and there is no God, then I will never know because I would just cease to exist, so no downside to being wrong. (sort of Pascal's wager I guess)
3. Having read the bible, and seeing some of the things happen in my life that pretty much seem like God working in my life (again no absolute proof) and studying other religions, I find that Christianity is more likely true than not.

4. Christianity is the only religion that bases it's claims on historic events: Jesus' life and resurrection. While we might not be able to have proof of that without a time machine, a lot of archeology supports the people and places and events mentioned in the bible. And a biggie is that those who could know because they lived through the events and times believed them to be true. If someone went around claiming Elvis resurrected and went on a world wide concert tour and healed people, not many people who lived through the 70s and 80's would believe that claim because it would have been pretty big news. Anyone trying to start a religion on that claim would fail. Same with the claims of Jesus' miracles and resurrection. Yet right after his resurrection, people believed and joined the church by the thousands. If it were a false claim there never would have been a church at all. Even his own followers didn't believe until he came back. And even then Thomas doubted he was real. Why would they bother making up a fake claim of resurrection? They were being ostracized by the Jews and hunted. There was no upside to starting a false religion. Better to just slink into the background and become regular Jews again.

[seer]

Explore the various "proofs" put forward by apologists: I didn't find any that that stood up to logical analysis, or supported anything but a vague deism.

I hate to encapsulate this way, but either the person of Christ as revealed in the New Testament resonates with you above all other claims to deity or He doesn't.

[whag]

I'm talking specifically about the resurrection.

I understood that. One can get carried away calling that a historically confirmed truth. That can lead to a certain arrogance that backfires. Consider the words of Sparko:

Just want to make a note about that: I don't think any Christian is absolutely certain of anything. That is why we call it "faith" - And remember the words of the father of the boy who was possessed by a demon in Mark 9:

²³ “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for one who believes.”
²⁴ Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”

I choose to believe and have faith despite not having absolute proof.

[Sparko]

I understood that. One can get carried away calling that a historically confirmed truth. That can lead to a certain arrogance that backfires. Consider the words of Sparko:

I don't think we have absolute proof of any event in history before the invention of cameras. Especially from 2000 years ago. We rely on objects we find and writings. We have to accept them or reject them, so it all comes down to "faith" at some point.

[Mountain Man]

I understood that. One can get carried away calling that a historically confirmed truth. That can lead to a certain arrogance that backfires. Consider the words of Sparko:

Try reading what I actually said:

"The resurrection of Jesus is at least as well attested as any other event we accept as true in the ancient world, and is better attested than most."

To be skeptical of the resurrection is to be skeptical of history in general

[Mountain Man]

I don't think we have absolute proof of any event in history before the invention of cameras. Especially from 2000 years ago. We rely on objects we find and writings. We have to accept them or reject them, so it all comes down to "faith" at some point.

Even photographs are not absolute proof because photo manipulation has existed since the invention of the camera. And even in a case where a photograph is genuine, we are trusting that it depicts what we're told it depicts.

The fact is, we know very little about the world and its history from our direct experience and rely a great deal on what we are told by others.

[Stoic]

To be skeptical of the resurrection is to be skeptical of history in general

Actually, to be skeptical of the resurrection is to be skeptical of claims of miracles from thousands of years ago.

[rogue06]

I don't think we have absolute proof of any event in history before the invention of cameras. Especially from 2000 years ago. We rely on objects we find and writings. We have to accept them or reject them, so it all comes down to "faith" at some point.

The War of 1812 is a hoax.

[Sparko]

The War of 1812 is a hoax.

Australia doesn't exist. Neither do birds. Or Stoic.

[Mountain Man]

Actually, to be skeptical of the resurrection is to be skeptical of claims of miracles from thousands of years ago.

What is a miracle, really, other than an event that happened? And if it's at least as well attested as any other contemporary event, what rational reason is there to doubt it?