What if God Gave Us Proof?

[Bruno_Schulz]

**Precisely this question is put by atheists over and over again: Why should “a God” take special interest in you personally?

To ask this way, arises out of less than minimum knowledge of God by people, who can’t imagine that the universe was created merely for humans, as a place of probation for us to be worthy to live eternally in Gods kingdom. Their counterquestion; why then exists the world millions of years and human race just very few years? is irrelevant here and takes another theoLOGICAL answer.

Would Jesus Christ, would God have undertaken the terrific effort, pain and trouble to save us with His passion if He had no interest in every single one of us?
Jesus told us in many ways, how very important every single person is and put this at one point in this word in Matthew 10:30 - even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
**

 

[Tellme_my_rites]

Hi Tellme,

Ok, Tellme, you seem to be looking for an argument? I’m your huckleberry…

When an atheist doesn’t know something like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed, they admit it! Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in just about every aspect of life with one exception: faith-based religion.

What your post demonstrates is a monumental irony in religious discourse: the all to frequent example of a person of faith praising himself for his own humility while criticizing another for his pride. Note that you do this while claiming to know facts about history and science that no historian, cosmologist, chemist, and biologist could claim to know within their own fields. I call that not merely prideful but arrogant.

While I have the gloves off…what could be more narcissistic than to believe that the creator of the universe takes a special interest in you personally?

So which one of us is really the one who has an inflated idea of his own intelligence and importance?

Best,
Leela

Leela,

Do you like Lima Beans? I don’t. But I eat them because someone told me they are supposed to be good for you. Why should I believe a person (or a bunch of people) who tell me Lima beans are good for you? It wasn’t I who did the research and found the proof that lima beans are good for me. If I found the proof myself, then that would be my proof, not someone telling me.

People do things they don’t like to do purposely because they are told it is beneficial, not because they themselves found the evidence themselves that it is beneficial. We all depend on the knowledge of others. And, we all have to do things we don’t like to do, and, trust in things and others without conducting the research ourselves and without acquiring the proof ourselves. An atheist is no different. Prayer is like eating lima beans. We are trying to tell atheists that prayer is good for you. You don’t have to like it. Are you kidding, most of the time I don’t like it. I rather do what I want to do. I started to pray because I was told it is suppossed to be good for you. I continue to pray for the same reason but also because I now have experienced they were right. You don’t have to believe it will help you. It just does. You don’t have to believe the people who say it does, it still does. A person will never know the rewards of prayer until they are consistent with it.

We are asking atheists to believe in the power of prayer. Belief in God will come later. People of faith have experienced the power of prayer, that is why they ask others to pray. Researchers have discovered the power of eating healthy, that is why they ask us to eat right.

About the part where you mention that I’m inflated with pride after you interpreted what I wrote I would like to say: You can either use your intuition and judge me or your discernment and trust me. Is not your discernment more reliable?

Remember, proof is only proof to those who found the proof themselves, not to those who were told proof has been found - those told have to use faith or trust those who say proof has been found. Trust those who have experienced God in their lives. Their belief in God comes from experience, not hearsay.

God Bless you and every atheist with much love & trust.

 

[jimmy]

It’s impossible to have “proof” that such letters were written by God. They could be written by some malevolent spirit only pretending to be God. I could make a similar argument for any other evidential “proof” you want to posit so the real answer is that it is simply impossible for God to give such proof.

Or they could have been written by aliens. Or they could possibly be due to some natural law of nature. An atheist will come up with anything to deny the existence of God no matter what you give them.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**We are we surrounded by the question for proof in every single aspect of life – no matter which. If its crime or physics, sports or health, whatever; it’s all doubted and prove seems essentially important.

But why?
It’s merely because the lie has overcome the world. Satan is Lord of the Lie. We are so much used to lies, that we think we need prove for everything.

Now; - to ask for prove of God, seems senseless, because not a single word God said across His prophets and later His son Jesus, is for the benefit of the one who told us. Jesus did do just nothing for His own benefit. He, owning a spirit and knowledge that even in the age of 12 He taught the wisest and even 2,000 years teaches us, could have become emperor of the world, in glorious victory over the Romans and rest of the world. But what did Jesus do; He UNSOLICITOUSLY went His way to the CONTUMELIOUS death on the cross to EXPIATE and take away our sins to that extend, that made us absolutely unworthy to live.

God made as far as the world is concerned, nothing for His benefit, all out of love to us.
And some still do think they on top of it, need prove to believe.

OK – so simply do not believe. But what, when you find out it’s all true? Wouldn’t nonbelievers be rather on the safe side and believe for a start?! After a while, they’ll find out how very true God is.​

the 3 words in CAPITALS I looked up and don’t know is they’re right
**

 

[Leela]

OK – so simply do not believe. But what, when you find out it’s all true? Wouldn’t nonbelievers be rather on the safe side and believe for a start?! After a while, they’ll find out how very true God is.

Hi Bruno,

This sounds like an appeal to Pascal’s wager? Pascal suggested that religious believers are simply taking the wiser of two bets: if a believer is wrong about God, there is not much harm to him or to anyone else, and if he is right, he wins eternal happiness; if an atheist is wrong, however, he is destined for hell. Put this way, atheism seems the very picture of reckless stupidity?

But there are many questionable assumptions built into this famous wager? One is the notion that people do not pay a terrible price for religious faith. It seems worth remembering what sort of costs we are incurring on account of religion. With destructive technology now spreading throughout the world with 21st century efficiency, what is the social cost of millions of Muslims believing in the metaphysics of martyrdom? Who would like to put a price on the deep religious differences that the Sunni and the Shia are now expressing in Iraq? What is the net effect of so many Jewish settlers believing that the Creator of the universe promised them a patch of desert on the Mediterranean? What have been the psychological costs imposed by Christianity’s anxiety about sex these last seventy generations? The current costs of religion are incalculable.

Also, if the wager were valid, it could be used to justify any belief system (no matter how ludicrous) as a “good bet.” Muslims could use it to support the claim that Jesus was not divine (the Koran states that anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus will wind up in hell); Buddhists could use it to support the doctrine of karma and rebirth; and the editors of TIME could use it to persuade the world that anyone who reads Newsweek is destined for a fiery damnation.

But the greatest problem with the wager is its suggestion that a rational person can knowingly will himself to believe a proposition that he is not convinced of. A person can profess any creed he likes, of course, but to really believe something, he must also believe that the belief under consideration is true. To believe that there is a God, for instance, is to believe that you are not just fooling yourself; it is to believe that you stand in some relation to God’s existence such that, if He didn’t exist, you wouldn’t believe in him. How does Pascal’s wager fit into this scheme? It doesn’t.

Best,
Leela

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**All those suggestions don’t tell us too much.
The thing is: Either we believe in God, or we don’t.
If we do believe, we quite soon will feel and KNOW, we never are alone, we do have a loving father in heaven who is God himself.
If we do not believe, we are terribly alone, for if we count on people, we will soon learn what FORSAKE mans. And what about the days, when we know to die now… intuitive

Thanks heavens the intuitive Pascal (1623-1662) wasn’t simply a logician, mathematician, geometrican and analyser, but he knew and wrote down, that illogical thinking is the groundwork of all human thinking.

So Pascal wrote (humbly translated by me - who doesn’t speak English at all): „There are good reasons of rationality even for nonbelievers, to risk for themselves the daring exploit of believe. The Holy Scripture are filled with are enough clarity to enlighten believers, but also enough swartiness to remain submissive. Submissive! Not faithless!“

**

 

[Leela]

**All those suggestions don’t tell us too much.
The thing is: Either we believe in God, or we don’t.
If we do believe, we quite soon will feel and KNOW, we never are alone, we do have a loving father in heaven who is God himself.
If we do not believe, we are terribly alone, for if we count on people, we will soon learn what FORSAKE mans. And what about the days, when we know to die now… intuitive

Thanks heavens the intuitive Pascal (1623-1662) wasn’t simply a logician, mathematician, geometrican and analyser, but he knew and wrote down, that illogical thinking is the groundwork of all human thinking.

So Pascal wrote (humbly translated by me - who doesn’t speak English at all): „There are good reasons of rationality even for nonbelievers, to risk for themselves the daring exploit of believe. The Holy Scripture are filled with are enough clarity to enlighten believers, but also enough swartiness to remain submissive. Submissive! Not faithless!“

**

Can’t you see the logical flaw in “risk[ing] the daring exploit of belief”? He is suggesting that a rational person can knowingly will himself to believe a proposition that he is not already convinced of.

Believing isn’t a choice. Try willing yourself to believe something that you don’t already believe. Here’s an easy one: for the next five minutes make yourself believe that there is a giant diamond buried somewhere in your back yard. (Personally I just wouldn’t want to live in a world where there wasn’t a giant diamond buried in MY backyard.)

best,
Leela

 

[Greg27]

I suppose if God delivered ‘proof’ in this manner, it would have to be in such a way that his existence would be evident to all, from the most intelligent to the mentally incompetent and insane. How God would do this is an interesting question.

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

Try willing yourself to believe something that you don’t already believe.

**Why does one believe in God?

Not because he always believed in God, but because he was taught by his parents or educators that we aren’t alone, there’s a loving God. Or this person found people who live in God, who where kind enough to tell him about God.

Then, over quite some lifetime, this person will either confirm this believe because he feels and experienced the truth of this, or one denies this truth and is back again on his own.

When I was a little child, I was ever so happy that I knew from my parents, that always there is my Father in Heaven, God, who is with me ALWAYS and I could talk to Him.

Believing is a choice and a challenge. You as anyone can very well decide to believe or not to believe. It’s up to anyone. If it was not, people wouldn’t be reliable of atheism or faith.
**

 

[Leela]

Believing is a choice and a challenge. You as anyone can very well decide to believe or not to believe. It’s up to anyone. If it was not, people wouldn’t be reliable of atheism or faith.

Hi Bruno,

I doubt that you actually have the power to will yourself to believe something that you don’t believe? Once again, I invite you to exercise this power by believing, say, that the moon is made out of cheese (the moon is actually made out of moon), for just five minutes. It shouldn’t be too hard for someone with your extraordinary power to believe things?

Perhaps you actually do have the power to believe anything you want. But I don’t. Of course I’d like to believe that when I die I will spend eternity in Heaven for believing in God, but I find the evidence for such claims as well as the contradictory claims made by other religions less than compelling.

Best,
Leela

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**I never spoke of believing “anything whatever”, or making myself believe things where else than they are.

To believe in God is a way of KNOWING there’s God, because you experienced a lot of evidence. This evidence is given by the grace of God to those who do believe. Other’s will never find it.

So – it’s this way round: First believe, then evidence. Not vice versa.

But: A huge amount of evidence is given in the scripture – if one is able to read by heart instead of just to put holy words of Jesus into perspective of thing one knows/believes already.
**

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi Bruno,

I doubt that you actually have the power to will yourself to believe something that you don’t believe? Once again, I invite you to exercise this power by believing, say, that the moon is made out of cheese (the moon is actually made out of moon), for just five minutes. It shouldn’t be too hard for someone with your extraordinary power to believe things?

Perhaps you actually do have the power to believe anything you want. But I don’t. Of course I’d like to believe that when I die I will spend eternity in Heaven for believing in God, but I find the evidence for such claims as well as the contradictory claims made by other religions less than compelling.

Best,
Leela

Maybe one can believe impossible things only if they come from*** outside*** the self. There may be very plausible reasons for believing that the moon is composed of green cheese - as long as they come from some source other than oneself.​

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

**I don’t know what all this silly remarks in the moon-made-of-cheese manner, and Christians making themselfes think what they actually don’t believe, is all about.

The terribly funny thing about all this is, that those disbelievers like a blind cave fish who believes there’s no sun, even though he wouldn’t live without the sun, think; all what they don’t understand is impossible.
Oh, there are Millions who think so. So be welcome in their club of: “True is – what I understand”

But isn’t heaven ever so obvious when we know about Jesus words - unless we deny there was a Jesus and don’t even know His word. Such people refuse to read in the bible, because they are of course a lot cleverer than the 2000 years old New Testament and the countless who in absolute convincement studied this most trustworthy work of love.

Quite vice versa the world in which we live, is compared to heaven, absolutely unbelievable. Foolish who thinks it’s normal; for we know the incredible huge Universe. We know, that there’s nothing of all those million things on earth we need to live and actually own, in this continuously exploding chaos of incredible temperatures to either side, without oxygen, continuously colliding masses, showered with asteroids that keep smashing into each other and into bigger planets – nothing, just nothing is able to survive there.

But still, we’ couldn’t possibly believe it – if we wouldn’t live there: Inmidst the nowhere, there’s a jewel of planet, created and protected by God, that has got everything we need like water, fresh air, growth of food, including one thing that’s nowhere in space – right temperatures!
Living in such unbelievable surrounding, within sight of endless environs we definitely couldn’t live, that’s really the unbelievable thing, and that is thinking peoples prove of God.
Only mindless might think all this is coincidence.

But well – even they will see one day. And what then, when they suddenly see; the Holy bible was absolutely right ?! What then…
**

 

[Leela]

So – it’s this way round: First believe, then evidence. Not vice versa.

Hi Bruno,

I can’t see a point of entry for someone who does not already believe. How does one believe what they are not convinced is true?

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

God would not break the laws of Reason, for then we would have no basis of knowing Him.

dont forget Reason alone is insufficient, too please G-d, one must also have Faith

 

[Bruno_Schulz]

I can’t see a point of entry for someone who does not already believe. How does one believe what they are not convinced is true?

**I can’t see any reason of entry in this forum for someone who does not believe - other, than wanting to know more about why Christians do believe.

Nobody ever believes anything he is not convinced is true!

Many though want to know more about Christian believe and many of them – if they inquire open hearted, finally feel: Oh – this is true after all!

This will not happen, if one from the very start denies that this could be true. In that case, one will not be given Gods grace to be able to believe.
**

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Tellme,

Ok, Tellme, you seem to be looking for an argument? I’m your huckleberry…

When an atheist doesn’t know something like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed, they admit it! Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in just about every aspect of life with one exception: faith-based religion.

What your post demonstrates is a monumental irony in religious discourse: the all to frequent example of a person of faith praising himself for his own humility while criticizing another for his pride. Note that you do this while claiming to know facts about history and science that no historian, cosmologist, chemist, and biologist could claim to know within their own fields. I call that not merely prideful but arrogant.

While I have the gloves off…what could be more narcissistic than to believe that the creator of the universe takes a special interest in you personally?

So which one of us is really the one who has an inflated idea of his own intelligence and importance?

Best,
Leela

please dont be further offended but admitting ones lack of knowledge concerning the origin of the observable universe just doesnt matter, one has the tools available too all of us, there is an observable universe with reams of empirical data for one to compare any conjecture about those origins.

one can use Reason and and the empirical universe to deduce certain facts, thats how science operates (in general).

those same tools can be applied to any argument for or against a G-d, you are not admitting a lack of knowledge in our origins, you are just admitting to a lack of desire too find out, and from that people like us deduce that such an investigation may be detrimental to what ever beliefs you hold

further without that most basic of premises argued than no other premise you assert will have as much value to us, because for us that is the core issue, all others rest on that.

if i cared too spend the time reading harris, dawkins, and hitchens, and then studied the basics of moral philosophy then i could debate those issues with meaning that you could understand, taking whatever position fit, but you came here, not to forums for Moral philosophy, so you should expect to argue with some understanding of our methodology, and how it differs with your own. you must use our language, so to speak.

otherwise your motives may well be questioned. after all if we dont “speak the same language” than how can we learn from you?

thats the whole point of my other thread, to get people to examine their real interior motives. no matter what those motives are you are welcome here, but you should expect to occasionally get “the business”

 

[runandsew]

I’m sure if god did exist he could manage to provide some evidence of his existence. At least he could do better than he is currently doing.

If god does in fact exist, what purpose do you think hiding accomplishes, other than leading many to disbelief?

You mean like sending his Son who did many many miracles and performed signs in front of quite of few Jews, and then was crucified died ans was buried, then was resurrected on the third day just like he has foretold, and witnessed by over 500 people over a period of 40 days?
Do you mean that just because you weren’t alive at that time, it doesn’t count?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

G-d did give proof to someone, they’re called angels.
everybody knows how that worked out, don’t they?

 

[gavanhe]

An interesting thread for a discussion. The whole point to me seems a little moot. If God here and every where were to give us unequivocal proof of his existence, our notion of faith based religion would no longer be in existence. We have essentially the freedom to believe or not based on existing available evidence whether biblical, historical or evidentiary. If some of us are unconvinced by this over whelming evidence and require indisputable proof of our Lords existence, faith and reason will be removed from our reasoning faculties and our free will diminished.
Cheers
Gerry