How can we know that God is?

[Alien]

That was in response to your point about God approaching us in a more gentle fashion, "still small voice". Yet He did do exactly that with the incarnation. And men, many men, perhaps even the majority, still hated Him. Again don't assume that if He spoke, even mildly, that you would not still reject Him (thereby incurring greater judgement on yourself). And you already made it clear that you would have no intention of worshiping Him. So you have your answer.

You've misunderstood me I fear. I wasn't talking about Jesus, who presented as a man and apart from some demonstrations of power mainly just spoke to people. You're right, if someone approached me today and claimed to be Jesus, my first reaction would be extreme doubt. As far as hating him goes, didn't he piss off the religious Jews by claiming to have powers (like forgiving sins) that they believed to be the province of God? An understandable reaction from their point of view, was it not? And the Romans didn't care about that, but were highly sensitive to anyone claiming a position higher than that of the Emperor (like , "king").

Anyway, what I meant by "more gentle fashion" referred to something less spectacular than flashes of lightening, blinding lights or whatever, that might frighten some and cause others to have adverse reactions. To restate, the request comes from one person. Surely God knows what mode of communication would be acceptable to that person? You're going to say God shouldn't have to adapt his communication to please us lowly humans. I say, why not, if he actually wants us to listen. You wouldn't speak to a child in words you might use to an adult. You'd come down to his level. What's wrong with that?

[Alien]

Again it comes back to one's motives. Why does a person feel the evidence on hand -- the wonders of Creation, history, the testimony of believers -- is insufficient? What are they really looking for, and are they genuinely willing to receive it if they find it?

I covered all that in the OP, albeit briefly. I do feel the evidence is insufficient, based on a lot of careful thought and research. I (was) looking for what I said. And I did receive it (I thought at the time). Remember it was just the answer "yes" to my "are you there?". It seems that as you yourself firmly believe certain things, as is your right, you automatically decide that anyone who comes to a different conclusion must be wrong. Mossy did admit that, to her, there is a huge element of faith involved.

Frankly, the "honest doubter" argument seems most often employed by people who want to accept God on their own terms. "I would like to believe that God exists, but I also don't want a God who demands I change my life that I'm actually pretty happy with at the moment. Oh well, I gave it my best shot. Surely a loving God wouldn't condemn me for my 'honest doubts'!"

Which is to say, are your doubts really honest?

You're now suggesting that as I don't agree with you my doubts are most likely to be dishonest. What can I say? Likely in some cases you are correct. Me, I think my doubts are honest. How can I be totally sure.

So before looking at the evidence God has already given you, you want him to give you a special revelation to convince you that the evidence is worth looking at? Why?

I spent many years here debating Christians and considering their replies. I've read a lot as well. So "before looking ..." is not correct. Why? because I want to know the answer. I suggest that you spend a few minutes considering the huge number of conflicting opinions among respectable Christians and ask yourself why they don't all agree? Does it suggest that the answers are plain for all to understand?

To use your house analogy, what you are essentially doing is asking that your neighbors go to great lengths to convince you that you should knock on the door and see for yourself.

Where did I say that? I just said they had told me something. And I suggested that the simplest and likely most accurate thing would be to knock on the door. No "great lengths" involved.

All the answers you want are in the Bible. You have nothing to lose by reading it with an open heart and mind.

Except a lot of time and the likelihood that I would remain as confused as I started. I repeat, what's the point of reading a manual before checking if the device exists?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Try responding to my whole post next time, because you seem to have missed my point and the point of the post I was responding to. The question was, essentially, "If miracles don't help people believe, then why did Jesus perform miracles for his disciples?"

The rest of your post was not relevant to my remarks.

By the beliefs at the time such "miracles" were hardly unknown. Today most informed lay-people know about psychosomatic and psychological conditions. We now know that what, 2000 years ago might have been considered demonic possession, can be explained by psychiatry and rational people today do not believe in demonic possession. Likewise psychosomatic illnesses can be treated with various therapies, including drug therapies.

I assume that if you see two ravens flying north to south or a nocturnal owl out in daylight you see two ravens flying north to south or the unusual sight of a nocturnal owl out in daylight and do not assign some supernatural significance to such events

[seer]

[QUOTE=Alien;n1367421]

Surely God knows what mode of communication would be acceptable to that person?

And again you are assuming that you would respond positively to that communication. In this matter I believe a few things. One, God knows us better than we know ourselves. So He knows how we would react (positively or negatively) to any level of outreach. Second, I believe that any man who sincerely desires the truth will find it, eventually. The fact is God managed to make himself known, in various ways, even to former agnostics like myself. In my case the ground work was laid by a series of unmistakable coincidences over the summer of 1990.

[Stoic]

I suppose it's like art, in a way: you know it when you see it, and what I do know is that a man who was killed, laid in a tomb for three days, and then rose from the dead performed a miracle.

I suspect the reason you think it was a miracle is that it would be considered improbable in the extreme, in the ordinary course of events.

So we come full circle back to: What would you expect the evidence for that to look like?

If someone I knew well and trusted were to tell me that he saw someone die, and verified that he was dead, and stayed with the body for three days, at the end of which the person came back to life, I would assume that he was either mistaken or lying.

So the evidence would need to be somewhat better than that to convince me.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Are you conceding that I never said that "a miracle is no big deal"?

My question is this: If a miracle actually happened, what would you expect the evidence for it to be?

You would need to define what you consider to be a miracle.

As I have noted in the past, for an individual from a less technologically advanced society a medical practitioner treating a festering wound [that would normally result in death] with antibiotics would be a miracle. Yet we would not consider it as such.

[Mountain Man]

The rest of your post was not relevant to my remarks.

In which case, your remarks were not relevant to my post.

To clarify, you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "believe". I meant believe Jesus' claims about himself. Jesus said, "I am God incarnate, come to save the world from sin." The Pharisees said, "Oh yeah? Prove it." So Jesus performed signs and wonders, and the Pharisees not only rejected him but accused him of using the power of Satan to perform miracles.

Now ask yourself why God doesn't bother giving special revelations to those who doubt.

[Mountain Man]

I suspect the reason you think it was a miracle is that it would be considered improbable in the extreme, in the ordinary course of events.


If someone I knew well and trusted were to tell me that he saw someone die, and verified that he was dead, and stayed with the body for three days, at the end of which the person came back to life, I would assume that he was either mistaken or lying.

So the evidence would need to be somewhat better than that to convince me.

I didn't ask what it would take to convince you that a miracle was true, I asked if a miracle was true, what kind of evidence would you expect there to be?

[Alien]

There is an old joke about talking to God and the deity answering!

Go on, tell it. I can think of a few but maybe yours will be new to me.

[Stoic]

I didn't ask what it would take to convince you that a miracle was true, I asked if a miracle was true, what kind of evidence would you expect there to be?

I guess that vary depending on how, when, and where the miracle occurred.

[Alien]

And again you are assuming that you would respond positively to that communication. In this matter I believe a few things. One, God knows us better than we know ourselves. So He knows how we would react (positively or negatively) to any level of outreach. Second, I believe that any man who sincerely desires the truth will find it, eventually. The fact is God managed to make himself known, in various ways, even to former agnostics like myself. In my case the ground work was laid by a series of unmistakable coincidences over the summer of 1990.

Dang it, how many times do I have to say this. I did respond positively, and ended up as a church member. (It then all went away which was weird to say the least.)

Your point is the same as mine. God would know what it would take to convince any given person. In your case it was co-incidences. In my case it was certain changes in my life. In some cases, but not all, it is "nothing", which could explain the silence. Don't we agree?

[Mountain Man]

I covered all that in the OP, albeit briefly. I do feel the evidence is insufficient, based on a lot of careful thought and research. I (was) looking for what I said. And I did receive it (I thought at the time). Remember it was just the answer "yes" to my "are you there?". It seems that as you yourself firmly believe certain things, as is your right, you automatically decide that anyone who comes to a different conclusion must be wrong. Mossy did admit that, to her, there is a huge element of faith involved.



You're now suggesting that as I don't agree with you my doubts are most likely to be dishonest. What can I say? Likely in some cases you are correct. Me, I think my doubts are honest. How can I be totally sure.



I spent many years here debating Christians and considering their replies. I've read a lot as well. So "before looking ..." is not correct. Why? because I want to know the answer. I suggest that you spend a few minutes considering the huge number of conflicting opinions among respectable Christians and ask yourself why they don't all agree? Does it suggest that the answers are plain for all to understand?



Where did I say that? I just said they had told me something. And I suggested that the simplest and likely most accurate thing would be to knock on the door. No "great lengths" involved.



Except a lot of time and the likelihood that I would remain as confused as I started. I repeat, what's the point of reading a manual before checking if the device exists?

Obviously I am arguing from the premise that God exists, so logically, if God exists, then there can be no good reason to doubt his existence, and therefore, no room for 'honest doubts".

You say the evidence is insufficient. Insufficient for what? What are you afraid will happen if you accept God and live according to the Bible based on the evidence that he has already given you?

[Mountain Man]

I guess that vary depending on how, when, and where the miracle occurred.

Let's say a man who claimed to be God rose from the dead 2000 years ago. What evidence would you expect to find?

[seer]

Dang it, how many times do I have to say this. I did respond positively, and ended up as a church member. (It then all went away which was weird to say the least.)

I doubt that if you were truly regenerated that you wouldn't still be following Christ today...

Your point is the same as mine. God would know what it would take to convince any given person. In your case it was co-incidences. In my case it was certain changes in my life. In some cases, but not all, it is "nothing", which could explain the silence. Don't we agree?

No I don't agree, I believe that some men, even a majority, can and will reject God to the bitter end - no matter His overtures.

As Christ said:

He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

[Alien]

To clarify, you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by "believe". I meant believe Jesus' claims about himself. Jesus said, "I am God incarnate, come to save the world from sin." The Pharisees said, "Oh yeah? Prove it." So Jesus performed signs and wonders, and the Pharisees not only rejected him but accused him of using the power of Satan to perform miracles.

Now ask yourself why God doesn't bother giving special revelations to those who doubt.

One particular set of people 2000 years ago refused to believe Jesus, despite compelling evidence. Therefore all doubters everywhere will refuse to believe. Hmmm.

About miracles, the word is very loosely used, but I would suggest that something has to be outside the physical laws of our universe to technically be a miracle. Do you agree? Someone who was truly dead for three days and came back to life would qualify, at least by modern understanding of what is physically possible. What I find interesting about the stories of his subsequent appearances is that he didn't seem to be the same in all respects as a "normal" person, appearing in locked rooms and so on.

Incidentally, I don't think God has to get things done through miracles all the time. He can work within the bounds of natural laws as well. Let's say God wanted to stop the war in Ukraine. He could make all the weapons disappear and instantly transport all the Russians back to Russia (miracle). Or he could persuade Putin to stop it, perhaps through his advisors (perfectly natural). In either case the war would be over.