How can we know that God is?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And another. Why would God hide from us and still say he wants a relationship with us? Is salvation a game of "Trivial Pursuits"?

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

[Mountain Man]

Many thousands witnessed the miracle at Fatima.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

And?

[Mountain Man]

One cannot argue at the same time that intimate proof was the only thing that inspired the disciples’ persistence of faith while at the same time argue that signs and wonders aren’t persuasive to depraved human beings, hence their rarity. There’s something odd about that.

The miracles Jesus did before the disciples were simply an affirmation of something they already believed. What you never saw Jesus do is perform a miracle in an attempt to convince someone who essentially stuck his chin out in defiance and said, "Prove it!" because such a person would not believe no matter what miracle was performed. Remember, even the Pharisees who witnessed Jesus' miracles refused to believe.

[Mountain Man]

You think a miracle is no big deal?

Some people think they are special somehow.

When did I say that "a miracle is no big deal"?

[Mountain Man]

As I suspected might happen, there is a lot of rehashing of arguments for and against the truth of Christianity going on. That's not what I intended. I've considered using my authority as OP to ask you to stop it, but on reflection I'm not going to do that. Have fun, but I'm going to resist the sometimes extreme temptation to get into it.

Here's what I ask. Respect "Seeker's" conclusions about various reasons to be Christian. Given his conclusions, consider how you would advise him to proceed in his quest. In other words, don't tell him that the Universe really is enough evidence for God. He doesn't think so. He may be wrong but his decision was made honestly, and not because he "hates God" or anything like that. You might also like to consider how he feels when you tell him that God doesn't answer requests. That was pretty much his last try and he'll probably give up if it doesn't work.

Here's another question to consider, which will be on his mind at this stage. He says "It doesn't seem fair that I should be judged and found wanting after I have made an honest attempt to find god. Are there no points for an best attempt?"

And another. Why would God hide from us and still say he wants a relationship with us? Is salvation a game of "Trivial Pursuits"?

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?

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?

That's actually a good point. In fact I spent some time with the wording, making sure that I didn't make demands, spoke respectfully, didn't specify what form the answer should take, or put a time limit on it. I realize that you don't try to order God around.

My motivation? Certainly not idle curiosity, though I was curious, as anyone would be. First and foremost, I genuinely wanted to settle the question of the existence of God. If I got no reply I would have continued with my life on the assumption that God didn't exist or didn't want to communicate with me (the same thing in effect). There was no point reading the Bible before establishing if there was anything to read about. There is really no difference in principle between this and a more mundane situation. Let's say there is a house next door to you that seems to be empty, but some of your neighbors claim to have seen movement in it. If the answer really matters to you, what would you do? How about knocking on the door and seeing if someone answers?

Incidentally, I don't think that an almighty God can be "bothered" or offended by a respectful approach. He would have infinite bandwidth available for communication, would he not? And if he loves us so much why would he turn away a lost soul that just wants guidance?

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?

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.

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

[Mountain Man]

I am one, and it is safe to assume that I am not the only one. The differences between the scant few who receive such a response and the many who do not is unknown to me - but it is certain that the reason is most assuredly not the petitioner's arrogance.

I would be curious to hear more about your experience, if you don't mind sharing.

[Stoic]

When did I say that "a miracle is no big deal"?

You said, "What is a miracle, really, other than an event that happened?"

Lots of events happen. What's special about a miracle?

[rogue06]

It is not attested from accredited and extraneous historical sources. What Paul alleges in his letters that he saw is somewhat different from the later texts of empty tombs, young men/angels and earthquakes.

Exactly what sort of "accredited and extraneous historical sources" do you envision?


Your continuous demand for such additional sources (while not bothering to define what should be expected) places you in a rather intractable if not impossible position.

To illustrate what sort of dilemma you have now placed yourself in, by starting with something from Scott Chandler observed in his A Defense of the Resurrection of Christ Against the Liberal Revisionism of John Dominic Crossan

"If we apply to the Bible the credence we would to other literary documents, Scripture is a slam dunk. Conversely, if you discount Scripture, then all of ancient history is a sham. Professor and philosopher John Warwick Montgomery was right: "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to let all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no other documents of the ancient periods are as well attested as the New Testament."

[...]

"Major contours of history hang on much thinner wires than the events of the New Testament and nobody doubts them!"

[*emphasis in original*]

Likewise, in Habermas' The Case for Christ's Resurrection, he mentions how ancient historian Paul Maier remarks that

"Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable."

To put that in some perspective this from Habermas and Licona's The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus illustrates that for the most part there is far more "extraneous corroborative evidence" for Jesus that what we typically find for folks who were far more famous in their lifetime:

"Let's look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus' ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke. Compare that to Jesus' forty-two total sources in the same length of time. That's more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular non-Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of nine each"

The point being, even for people who were incredibly important during that time (such as a Roman Emperor like Tiberius who very well had enough written about him and perhaps by him to fill a small library) we have scant record of them. Given just how much we do have for folks like Peter, Paul, and other disciples and apostles, one could say it is miraculous.

And here's another comparison that also makes the point:

manuscript-comparison.jpg

So we have far, far more texts from far closer to the time of the events in question for Christianity than we have for virtually everything else.

IOW, given the above, in order for you to be even the least bit consistent you must argue that there is nothing that can be verified from the textual record. IOW, pretty much all of history is lost in the fog and that field of "history" is nothing but a joke.

Congratulations.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The miracles Jesus did before the disciples were simply an affirmation of something they already believed..

Performing miracles and a belief in magical practises was commonplace throughout the ancient world in both the Jewish and Graeco-Roman spheres. It was part of the contemporary context. The use of exorcism to remove evil spirits, imprecations and invocations involving deities, omens, divination, and the wearing or carrying of protective amulets all under-laid the fabric of society. It is therefore not surprising that Jesus was regarded as a wonder worker [goētēs].

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Exactly what sort of "accredited and extraneous historical sources" do you envision?


Your continuous demand for such additional sources (while not bothering to define what should be expected) places you in a rather intractable if not impossible position.

To illustrate what sort of dilemma you have now placed yourself in, by starting with something from Scott Chandler observed in his A Defense of the Resurrection of Christ Against the Liberal Revisionism of John Dominic Crossan

"If we apply to the Bible the credence we would to other literary documents, Scripture is a slam dunk. Conversely, if you discount Scripture, then all of ancient history is a sham. Professor and philosopher John Warwick Montgomery was right: "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to let all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no other documents of the ancient periods are as well attested as the New Testament."

[...]

"Major contours of history hang on much thinner wires than the events of the New Testament and nobody doubts them!"

[*emphasis in original*]

Likewise, in Habermas' The Case for Christ's Resurrection, he mentions how ancient historian Paul Maier remarks that

"Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable."

To put that in some perspective this from Habermas and Licona's The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus illustrates that for the most part there is far more "extraneous corroborative evidence" for Jesus that what we typically find for folks who were far more famous in their lifetime:

"Let's look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus' ministry and execution. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke. Compare that to Jesus' forty-two total sources in the same length of time. That's more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same period. If we only considered the number of secular non-Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of nine each"

The point being, even for people who were incredibly important during that time (such as a Roman Emperor like Tiberius who very well had enough written about him and perhaps by him to fill a small library) we have scant record of them. Given just how much we do have for folks like Peter, Paul, and other disciples and apostles, one could say it is miraculous.

And here's another comparison that also makes the point:

manuscript-comparison.jpg

So we have far, far more texts from far closer to the time of the events in question for Christianity than we have for virtually everything else.

IOW, given the above, in order for you to be even the least bit consistent you must argue that there is nothing that can be verified from the textual record. IOW, pretty much all of history is lost in the fog and that field of "history" is nothing but a joke.

Congratulations.

You forget that once Christianity was granted toleration [and after it became the state religion] its various texts were repeatedly copied. The works of Homer, Aristotle, Julius Caesar and others were not accorded that degree of interest.

As I have noted in the past we have no extraneous and attested historical records about this "resurrection".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Exactly what sort of "accredited and extraneous historical sources" do you envision?

You also forget that unlike Jesus and his disciples we have other evidence for the existence of Tiberius.

[Mountain Man]

You said, "What is a miracle, really, other than an event that happened?"

Lots of events happen. What's special about a miracle?

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?

[Mountain Man]

Performing miracles and a belief in magical practises was commonplace throughout the ancient world in both the Jewish and Graeco-Roman spheres. It was part of the contemporary context. The use of exorcism to remove evil spirits, imprecations and invocations involving deities, omens, divination, and the wearing or carrying of protective amulets all under-laid the fabric of society. It is therefore not surprising that Jesus was regarded as a wonder worker [goētēs].

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?" And my answer was:

The miracles Jesus did before the disciples were simply an affirmation of something they already believed. What you never saw Jesus do is perform a miracle in an attempt to convince someone who essentially stuck his chin out in defiance and said, "Prove it!" because such a person would not believe no matter what miracle was performed. Remember, even the Pharisees who witnessed Jesus' miracles refused to believe.

One additional point: It's curious that the Pharisees never disputed that a legitimate sign had been performed. Rather, they accused Jesus of being in league with Satan.

Scripture Verse: Matthew 12

Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you..."

© Copyright Original Source

[Stoic]

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

I note that you don't seem to be willing to say what's so special about a miracle.

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

My question is this: If a miracle actually happened, how would you know it was a miracle?

[Mountain Man]

I note that you don't seem to be willing to say what's so special about a miracle.

My question is this: If a miracle actually happened, how would you know it was a miracle?

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.

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