Why believe the god of the Bible is God?

[christcnection1]

Even if the god of the bible claims to be God, why should we believe it?

Here is a quote I love…

Ravi Zacharias often cites Malcom Muggeridge’s summary of the 20th century:

“We look back upon history, and what do we see? Empires rising and falling. Revolutions and Counterrevolutions. Wealth accumulated and wealth disbursed. Shakespeare has written of the rise and fall of great ones, that ebb and flow with the moon. I look back upon my own fellow countrymen, once upon a time dominating a quarter of the world, most of them convinced, in the words of what is still a popular song, that the God who made them mighty, shall make them mightier yet. I’ve heard a crazed, cracked Austrian announce to the world the establishment of a Reich that would last a thousand years. I have seen an Italian clown say he was going to stop and restart the calendar with his own ascension to power. I’ve heard a murderous Georgian brigand in the Kremlin, acclaimed by the intellectual elite of the world as wiser than Solomon, more humane than Marcus Aurelius, more enlightened than Ashoka. I have seen America, wealthier and in terms of military weaponry, more powerful than the rest of the world put together, so that had the American people so desired, they could have outdone a Caesar, or an Alexander in the range and scale of their conquests. All in one lifetime, all in one lifetime, all gone. Gone with the wind. England part of a tiny island off the coast of Europe, threatened with dismemberment and even bankruptcy. Hitler and Mussolini dead, remembered only in infamy. Stalin a forbidden name in the regime he helped found and dominate for some three decades. America haunted by fears of running our of those precious fluids that keeps their motorways roaring, and the smog settling, with troubled memories of a disastrous campaign in Vietnam, and the victories of the Don Quixotes of the media as they charged the windmills of Watergate.”

“All in one lifetime, all in one lifetime, all gone. Gone with the wind.”

Zacharias then comments:

“Behind the debris of these solemn supermen, and self-styled imperial diplomatists, there stands the gigantic figure of one, because of whom, by whom, in whom and through whom alone, mankind may still have peace: The person of Jesus Christ. I present him as the way, the truth, and the life.”

I strongly suggest you check out…
rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=LMPT&v=detail&id=581
rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=LMPT&v=detail&id=623

I would also like to offer you a free book on my conversion story from agnosticism, to Protestantism, to Catholicism. If it was not for God I would likely be in prison or dead. It’s an interesting read! There are many supernatural events that helped lead me to some of these conclusions. The story is short and easy to read. I would be happy to send you a copy, or give you details on how you can get a free copy.

Please just send me a personal message.

I wish you all the best!

 

[utunumsint]

The purpose of the OP was to suggest an alternative explanation for such paranormal events, if they had in fact occurred.

As I indicated in another thread, it seems as least as likely as it is that the creator of the universe was involved. After all, we keep zoos and our children keep ant farms. Anyway they needn’t have been consistently involved; they need only have popped in from time to time to perform the reported “miracles”.
I’ve also indicated above that they needn’t be “space aliens”; they could be beings that have access to dimensions beyond our own, they could be magical beings akin to elves or fairies, or something else we can’t imagine. Science hasn’t found the creator of the universe either. Like God, these beings could be very good at hiding themselves.

You know, as a believer, I have to admit, from time to time, that I might be wrong about what I believe. Back in the day when I was agnostic, I couldn’t get passed the idea that Christianity was one big deception, or a product of a prescientific age. The philosophical arguments for the existence of God didn’t sound convincing to me either. However, one day I decided to conduct an experiment to disprove the existence of God.

In my mother’s old 1962 missal, there was a description of certain promises attached to attending Eucharistic adoration for one hour on 9 consecutive first Fridays. Here they are:

Promises of the Sacred Heart of Jesus

Of the many promises Our Lord Jesus Christ did reveal to Saint Margaret Mary in favor of souls devoted to His Sacred Heart the principal ones are as follows:

1. I will give them all the graces necessary for their state of life.
2. I will give peace in their families.
3. I will console them in all their troubles.
4. I will be their refuge in life and especially in death.
5. I will abundantly bless all their undertakings.
6. Sinners shall find in my Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.
7. Tepid souls shall become fervent.
8. Fervent souls shall rise speedily to great perfection.
9. I will bless those places wherein the image of
   My Sacred Heart shall be exposed and venerated.
10. I will give to priests the power to touch the most hardened hearts.
11. Persons who propagate this devotion shall
    have their names eternally written in my Heart.
12. In the excess of the mercy of my Heart, I promise you that my all powerful love will grant to all those who will receive Communion on the First Fridays, for nine consecutive months, the grace of final repentance: they will not die in my displeasure, nor without receiving the sacraments; and my Heart will be their secure refuge in that last hour.

I thought, this is a good deal if it is true. If it is false, all I was doing was spending an hour in quiet meditation with the added bonus of knowing that God does not exist. I came out of those nine months transformed. Things happened that I can only classify as miraculous.

I like to watch science fiction shows. I am a fan of the Stargate and Star Trek series. I can contemplate the possibility that God is just some alien being playing a joke on our insignificant species. But those nine months have made me impervious to such doubts. For you, it may be that God is as likely an explanation for the events in the Gospels as aliens, but for me, not a chance.

I think it is unlikely that anyone will be able to convince you that God is real, and he revealed himself through Christ, so I wont post much more on this thread. But give the experiential test a chance. Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and give God an opertunity to prove himself to you.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Swiss guard wrote:

I didn’t claim they believed anything was a lie. Anyway, you’ll notice I am assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus DID rise from the dead, so I don’t see how this is relevant.

My error for reading something into your OP. You’re right, you didn’t say the Apostles lied.

However, the Apostles did preach the resurrection and were killed for it. They were given the opportunity to save their lives by no longer preaching the resurrection. St. Peter said it’s better to obey God than men. Now, if they were mistaken, why would they give their lives? Nowhere do you find the Apostles saying anything about aliens or magical beings. They do talk about Jesus being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

The Apostles believed what Christ revealed to them – that He is the Son of God. It’s not God’s fault you refuse to accept the evidence.

I don’t see why I need evidence about aliens or magical beings, but you don’t need evidence about the creator of the universe. The point is that the Apostles might have seen remarkable things and thought Jesus God or affiliated with God, but in fact Jesus might have been affiliated with aliens or magical beings (or might have been an alien or magical being). How could they have told the difference?

I presented the evidence in my first response that the Apostles believed Christ is the Son of God and everything He taught them. How could they tell Christ wasn’t some character from a Harry Potter novel or a Star Trek episode? They trusted Him. They cooperated with the supernatural grace of faith God gave them.

How could they be 100% certain? They couldn’t, anymore than you can be 100% certain that I’m not some extra-terrestial being living on Pluto who has access to the internet.

I’m not addressing the origin of the universe or whether only a material world exists. It might be reasonable to believe in extraterrestrial beings if Jesus rose from the dead, just to explain that event. I think we should be AT LEAST as open to that possibility as we are to the possibility that the creator of the universe

was behind such an event! Don’t you? Anyway, I’m not just suggesting aliens from outer space, traveling in spaceships. I think we should also be open to beings from other dimensions (the sort you might find on Star Trek) or what we might call “magical” beings. Perhaps there are “little people”, elves or fairies, who are behind such apparent miracles. They might be benevolent, malevolent, or just mischievous. The point is that we would have no way of knowing what was responsible for a paranormal event, even if we allowed (as I do only for the sake of argument) that such an event had occurred.
I would be open if it were reasonable to believe these beings exist. You won’t believe the evidence I present to show Christ is God but yet you expect me to believe something you thought up in your mind. I think you watched maybe one too many Star Trek episodes. You’re confusing fantasy with reality.

Continued in next post…

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Continued from previous post…

How can anyone choose not to believe what they KNOW to be true? I can’t believe grass is black with neon pink poke-a-dots no matter how hard I try! It seems to me that if you CAN doubt something that is important, you own it to your intellectual integrity to think critically about it.

I owe it to my intellectual integrity to think reasonably and critically about God. What you present as an argument is more like a science fiction TV show script. What you call critical thinking is nothing more than fantasy. I can’t reasonbly believe in magical beings or aliens if I have no evidence of their existence.

You make a very critical mistake in your first sentence. You said, “How can anyone choose not to believe what they KNOW to be true?” If you know something is true, belief isn’t needed. I don’t need to believe I’m sitting in my apartment watching the All Star Game. I know it because I’m doing it as I post my reply. You KNOW magical beings and aliens exist without any evidence? No, you choose to BELIEVE they exist without any evidence.

You seem to believe that you can sit on the fence about the existence of God. You seem to think that if you’re wrong about God, He will understand because you didn’t know for certain. Well, the Apostles and saints didn’t know for certain, but they chose to believe what Christ revealed. They know what God has to say about those who are lukewarm in Revelation 3:14-16:

And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God: I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. (emphasis mine)

Pax tecum

 

[MichaelLewis]

Charlie Zeaiter wrote:
Could you imagine the conspiracy needed to put together a story about a man who was born from a virgin, under a bright star, in Bethlehem, who will be known as the Son of God, and be betrayed for 30 silver coins, and remain silent during a harsh accusation, and have his hands and feet pierced (even though crucifixion wasn’t invented back then), and be humiliated, and die amoung criminals, and forgiving His attackers, and have His clothes divided up and gambled for, and feel forsaken by His Father, and have none of His bones broken, and be stabbed/speared, and bear the punishment of many, and be buried with the rich, and then be saved by the power of death! Plus many many more.

All of the this was predicted! Centuries in advanced!

Assuming all of this was really prophesized (and please don’t quote scripture to me trying to prove that it was), as I am doing here for the sake of argument, it doesn’t seem to me that it would be hard to arrange if the beings in question had sufficient paranormal abilities.

Oh… so you do believe there is a God?

I didn’t say that, I’m just allowing that God might exist. If s/he doesn’t then they may have an ability to see into the future that wasn’t granted to them by God. That might just be the way they evolved, it may be a technology they developed, or they may have just begun to exist with that ability. My point is just that there are many possibilities.

Michael

 

[MichaelLewis]

Utunumsint wrote:

I think it is unlikely that anyone will be able to convince you that God is real, and he revealed himself through Christ, so I wont post much more on this thread. But give the experiential test a chance. Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and give God an opertunity to prove himself to you.

I used to be an Evangelical Christian; I feel I have given God an opportunity, and that I haven’t withdrawn it. If God has the ability and the desire, he can cause me to believe in Him. If he exists I would welcome that. But my purpose in posting here is to engage you folks in a rational dialog. I’m providing you an opponent against whom you might flex your apologetic muscles! In that sense it doesn’t matter whether you can convert me or not, does it?

Anyway, thank you for your concern Utunumsint. J

 

[utunumsint]

MichaelLewis:
I used to be an Evangelical Christian; I feel I have given God an opportunity, and that I haven’t withdrawn it. If God has the ability and the desire, he can cause me to believe in Him. If he exists I would welcome that. But my purpose in posting here is to engage you folks in a rational dialog. I’m providing you an opponent against whom you might flex your apologetic muscles! In that sense it doesn’t matter whether you can convert me or not, does it?

Anyway, thank you for your concern Utunumsint. J

Thanks for remaining open. I think that is an honest position to take. I’m not trying to convert you, except in the sense that all Christians have a duty to evangelize. **I’m offering you my apologetical answer. I believe in the primacy of religious experience. ** Why I got this experience, and you did not, I can’t tell. I can truly say it was a gift though. I didn’t earn the faith I now have. I cooperated with the graces I was given. Religious experience was a starting point which led me to be open to Christ and to the authority of his church.

So I think you can fall into two categories as believers:

• those who have had primary religious experiences which have lead them to faith
• Those who find that the primary religious experiences of others are convincing enough to lead them to faith

I do **have **a primary religious exprience that leads me to believe in the religious experience of the apostles, and Gospel writers, as well as their interpretation of the events they experienced.

I have no primary alien abduction expriences to convince me that aliens exist. I do not believe other people’s accounts of alien abductions. From what I can tell these events can be explained psychologically. I see no evidence to accept the theory that the God of the Old Testament and the miracles described in the Bible were of alien origin.

Still, for the sake of argument, lets allow that all the miracles were of alien origin. Even that some of the key players, for example, Christ, were aliens themselves. The message they were trying to convey was either a lie or the truth (e.g. resurrection from the dead, salvation, live everlasting, the existence of God, the attributes of God). If it was a lie, my question to you is, why would aliens come all this way to lie to us? If it was the truth, then the realities I believe in are still real, because the message is real.

Got to go.

Ut

 

[Teflon93]

How novel—you believe God needs to prove Himself to you, whereas we Catholics believe we must prove ourselves to God.

That said, a simple variation on the Prime Mover proof—where did the energy required for the Big Bang come from?

 

[Mirdath]

That said, a simple variation on the Prime Mover proof—where did the energy required for the Big Bang come from?

Aside from not proving anything (you take it on faith that the source is God, I say it may be a deity but we don’t know for sure), how does that make it the Abrahamic God? All logical proofs of the divine I’ve seen are quite useless, and doubly so if one is attempting to make a case for a specific religion.
Charlie Zeaiter:

Who else, but the creator of time, is above time?

Doctor Who!

 

[Teflon93]

Aside from not proving anything (you take it on faith that the source is God, I say it may be a deity but we don’t know for sure), how does that make it the Abrahamic God? All logical proofs of the divine I’ve seen are quite useless, and doubly so if one is attempting to make a case for a specific religion.

Doctor Who!

My, how arrogant we are today!

I don’t know where you learned your logic, my friend, but don’t statements such as yours require evidence? I have infinitely more faith in God than in your tossed-off opinions. You clearly differ.

Let me draw it out for you in very simple terms:

1. The best astronomical evidence indicates our universe began with the phenomenon known as The Big Bang.
2. The energy required for this phenomenon, which set in motion the radical expansion of the universe, is immense.
3. This energy had to come from somewhere—a Prime Mover, if you will.
4. Catholics call this Prime Mover God.

That is the beginning of the argument, which is in two parts: 1. God exists. 2. He is the same God we see in the Bible. Both parts must be true for the argument to be true.

If you believe, as OP does, that God may not exist, it stands to reason that there must be another answer to the first part of the argument.

My question regarded what OP’s alternative to the Prime Mover IS. If OP says, “I don’t have one”, then the 1st argument is considered to be true and we can move on to the second.

Now, to my limited engineering mind, with my rather better understanding of thermodynamics than theology, this seems a much more rational way to proceed than your response indicates, unless you prefer the schoolyard taunting school of philosophy to that of Socrates and Plato.

Different strokes and all.

 

[Mirdath]

I don’t know where you learned your logic, my friend, but don’t statements such as yours require evidence?

How does ‘we don’t know, yet’ require evidence?

That is the beginning of the argument, which is in two parts: 1. God exists. 2. He is the same God we see in the Bible. Both parts must be true for the argument to be true.

So tell me, how exactly do you go about proving that the Prime Mover is omnibenevolent, tripartite, and incarnate in first-century Judea?

My question regarded what OP’s alternative to the Prime Mover IS. If OP says, “I don’t have one”, then the 1st argument is considered to be true and we can move on to the second.

That we do not know what these alternatives are doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Since God is not evidently extant through reason and has not been revealed to me through sensation, I reserve judgment.

 

[Teflon93]

How does ‘we don’t know, yet’ require evidence?

So tell me, how exactly do you go about proving that the Prime Mover is omnibenevolent, tripartite, and incarnate in first-century Judea?

That we do not know what these alternatives are doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Since God is not evidently extant through reason and has not been revealed to me through sensation, I reserve judgment.

The truth exists independent of your judgment and your reason.

Both are certainly questionable given your trolling response in advance of any argument being put forth whatsoever.

One must also consider the possibility that some people are simply impervious to reason.

The OP at least has the superior virtue of asking an open and honest question. He deserves an answer. Pure charity aside, I don’t see that you do.

Since I’m striving to be more charitable, I’ll offer one nonetheless.

Arguments require evidence or stipulations. If OP agrees to stipulate that God exists, we can discuss why the extant God is the God of the Bible. These are separate but related questions.

If OP does not agree to stipulate that God exists, then we must navigate how he explains creation existing absent a creator before moving on to his question.

I’m willing to presume good faith on the part of the OP here, which is why I’m asking the question.

You can Google Type I and Type II Error while we discuss this, if you’d like, since it speaks to your last statement.

 

[MichaelLewis]

Now, if they were mistaken, why would they give their lives? Nowhere do you find the Apostles saying anything about aliens or magical beings. They do talk about Jesus being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Well, they wouldn’t have known they were mistaken, otherwise they wouldn’t have been mistaken, right?
(While I don’t want to dispute here the phenomenal events recorded in the Bible, it is nowhere recorded that the Apostles spoke of “Jesus being the Second Person of the Holy Trinity”.)

The Apostles believed what Christ revealed to them – that He is the Son of God. It’s not God’s fault you refuse to accept the evidence.

What evidence is there that he was the son of God, even if he did amazing things?

How could they tell Christ wasn’t some character from a Harry Potter novel or a Star Trek episode? They trusted Him.

But did they have any good reason to trust him, assuming he really did claim to be the creator of the universe, or affiliated with the creator of the universe?

How could they be 100% certain? They couldn’t, anymore than you can be 100% certain that I’m not some extra-terrestial being living on Pluto who has access to the internet.

I’m afraid this mischaracterizes my concern. I’m not complaining that they couldn’t be 100% certain. If they had reason to be 90% certain that would be one thing. But I’m wondering if they or you would have had any more reason to suppose he was affiliated with God as opposed to some other powerful being(s).

You won’t believe the evidence I present to show Christ is God but yet you expect me to believe something you thought up in your mind. I think you watched maybe one too many Star Trek episodes. You’re confusing fantasy with reality.

What evidence have you provided that Jesus was God, as opposed to some lesser powerful being? I’m not asking you to believe any single theory of mine. I’m only suggesting that you needn’t suppose the paranormal events recorded in the bible required the intervention of the creator of the universe. I tried to provide examples of other possibilities from popular fiction. I’m not committed to any of them myself, and except for the sake of argument, I’m not committed to the proposition that any of the paranormal events described in the Bible actually occurred. But if they DID occur, I don’t think we should jump to ANY conclusions.

cont…

 

[MichaelLewis]

…cont

Swiss Guard:

You make a very critical mistake in your first sentence. You said, “How can anyone choose not to believe what they KNOW to be true?” If you know something is true, belief isn’t needed. I don’t need to believe I’m sitting in my apartment watching the All Star Game. I know it because I’m doing it as I post my reply. You KNOW magical beings and aliens exist without any evidence? No, you choose to BELIEVE they exist without any evidence.

Knowledge isn’t mere belief, but to know something one must believe it. A classical definition of knowledge was “justified true belief”. Though most now agree that isn’t sufficient to have knowledge, it is at least necessary if one is to have knowledge. And again, I don’t even BELIEVE in magical beings. I’m just suggesting that that is every bit as good of an explanation for paranormal events as God is.

You seem to believe that you can sit on the fence about the existence of God. You seem to think that if you’re wrong about God, He will understand because you didn’t know for certain. Well, the Apostles and saints didn’t know for certain, but they chose to believe

what Christ revealed.

I have no positive beliefs about God’s nature, assuming God exists. You might as easily be said to be assuming that God will understand and forgive your Christianity, assuming s/he exists and never endorsed Christianity.

Thanks,
Michael

 

[MichaelLewis]

I have no primary alien abduction expriences to convince me that aliens exist. I do not believe other people’s accounts of alien abductions. From what I can tell these events can be explained psychologically. I see no evidence to accept the theory that the God of the Old Testament and the miracles described in the Bible were of alien origin.

When I say “alien”, I don’t have little green men in mind. I just mean beings with a greater ability to manipulate reality than we do, who don’t originate in our world. I’m open to any possibility you can imagine, as I think we all ought to be.

Still, for the sake of argument, lets allow that all the miracles were of alien origin. Even that some of the key players, for example, Christ, were aliens themselves. The message they were trying to convey was either a lie or the truth (e.g. resurrection from the dead, salvation, live everlasting, the existence of God, the attributes of God). If it was a lie, my question to you is, why would aliens come all this way to lie to us? If it was the truth, then the realities I believe in are still real, because the message is real.

Well, it may not be difficult for them to visit us. They may not be “space aliens” at all, as I have said. Perhaps they aren’t even aliens, but the “little people” of legend who live unseen among us. It may be easy for them to deceive us, such that it is just an enjoyable pastime for them. On the other hand, perhaps they are trying to help us, to the best of their ability. To give us a motivation to behave ourselves and to have some (false?) hope, which might enrich our short lives. Or there may be other, directly self-serving motivations we don’t understand.

Thanks,
Michael

 

[MichaelLewis]

How novel—you believe God needs to prove Himself to you, whereas we Catholics believe we must prove ourselves to God.

That said, a simple variation on the Prime Mover proof—where did the energy required for the Big Bang come from?

I really don’t want to debate the existence of God here, only the existence of the Christian God. Though I would be happy to correspond with you outside of this thread, and tell you why I find all causal arguements for the exitence of God, including the design, cosmological, and moral arguements, to be deeply flawed.

Michael

 

[Teflon93]

I really don’t want to debate the existence of God here, only the existence of the Christian God. Though I would be happy to correspond with you outside of this thread, and tell you why I find all causal arguements for the exitence of God, including the design, cosmological, and moral arguements, to be deeply flawed.

Michael

Hi Michael-

That’s fine; let’s stipulate for the moment that God exists and move to the second question of proofs for the Judeo-Christian God.

How would God establish His bona fides?

I’d posit there have to be at least two conditions satisfied:

1. Direct interaction with men.
2. Supernatural activity.

The former is necessary to provide tangible proof aside from inward faith, the latter to establish that one is in fact a godlike being. Something’s missing, though:

1. No competitors who satisfy the first two conditions.

It’s not enough to be A God, one must be THE God. Still something missing though—the proof is not just of THE God, but of the Christian God:

1. Must match the New Testament description of God.

If these conditions were to be met, would you consider the proof to be valid?

 

[MichaelLewis]

The truth exists independent of your judgment and your reason.

It exists independent of yours as well, doesn’t it?

Both are certainly questionable given your trolling response in advance of any argument being put forth whatsoever.

What response of Mirdath are you talking about?

One must also consider the possibility that some people are simply impervious to reason.

The OP at least has the superior virtue of asking an open and honest question. He deserves an answer. Pure charity aside, I don’t see that you do.

For my part, I can’t distinguish the degree of my openness and honesty from Mirdath’s. He certainly doesn’t seem arrogant to me, as you have accused him of being in a previous post. You, on the other hand, have appeared to me to be impolite in several of your posts to him.

Since I’m striving to be more charitable, I’ll offer one nonetheless.

Arguments require evidence or stipulations. If OP agrees to stipulate that God exists, we can discuss why the extant God is the God of the Bible. These are separate but related questions.

If OP does not agree to stipulate that God exists, then we must navigate how he explains creation existing absent a creator before moving on to his question.

We can stipulate that God exists, though I’m a strict agnostic. I don’t think the existence of God in conjunction with the paranormal events reported in the Bible and/or the religious experiences had by contemporary believers can get you the Christian God. That is the only point I wanted to pursue here.

Thanks,
Michael

 

[MichaelLewis]

That’s fine; let’s stipulate for the moment that God exists and move to the second question of proofs for the Judeo-Christian God.

Ok.

How would God establish His bona fides?

I think the only way he could make it more reasonable to believe he is God is by somehow demonstrating his ability to make universes like our own, which would involve elevating us such that we could appreciate what he was doing. On the other hand, he could just cause us to believe in him, without any reason.

I’d posit there have to be at least two conditions satisfied:

1. Direct interaction with men.
2. Supernatural activity.

The former is necessary to provide tangible proof aside from inward faith, the latter to establish that one is in fact a godlike being. Something’s missing, though:

1. No competitors who satisfy the first two conditions.

If by 1 you meant direct interaction with him in as much of his glory as we could appreciate, then I would agree. But an ordinary looking person claiming to be God doesn’t seem to help at all. Equally satisfying competitors would certainly be a problem.

It’s not enough to be A God, one must be THE God. Still something missing though—the proof is not just of THE God, but of the Christian God:

1. Must match the New Testament description of God.

If these conditions were to be met, would you consider the proof to be valid?

As I’ve indicated, mere paranormal activity wouldn’t be good enough. I’d really have to experience the being in question as the creator of a universe before I would say that it was reasonable to suppose he was God. It would be very easy to mistake advanced technology (or, presumably, ‘magical powers’) for divine or spiritual interference. That actually seems to happen in the case of “cargo cults”, religions among technologically primitive people impressed with western technology.

Thanks,
Michael

 

[Teflon93]

“As I’ve indicated, mere paranormal activity wouldn’t be good enough. I’d really have to experience the being in question as the creator of a universe before I would say that it was reasonable to suppose he was God. It would be very easy to mistake advanced technology (or, presumably, ‘magical powers’) for divine or spiritual interference. That actually seems to happen in the case of “cargo cults”, religions among technologically primitive people impressed with western technology”

Okay, my mistake—you’re not asking an honest question at all.

You have merely put a question mark after a tautology.

1. I do not believe anything I have not experienced and comprehended myself.
2. I have not experienced God.
3. Therefore, I do not believe in God.

You start to stray into solipsism as you get from this proposition to “Therefore, no one else ought to.”