How do you know God is real?

[Sam21]

I believe in God because of convincing evidence, I walk with God by faith. Any person who would believe anything without convincing evidence would be a foolish person indeed.
The world around us does not hint at a created world of intelligent design and function, our world grabs you by the shirt collar and throws you up against a wall and sceams in your face that our world is a creation of intelligent design and function. I mean no offense to anyone, but those who deny the physical evidence of a creation in our world are simply people who have chosen to lie about what they have observed.

 

[cleanfreak]

I would respectfully disagree. I know a lot of atheists that are perfectly fine with other people believing in what they want to believe, myself included.

OK. 98%

This is good to know, and I feel the same about any atheist or whoever. They are free to believe whatever they want.

 

[Drew]

Isn't it hypocritical for you to condemn me, since God is known to repeatedly kill the unborn and children, not just in genocidal commands given to the Israelis and Judah, but, for instance, slowly killing David's son for a crime he never committed?

2 Samuel 12:14-15 (King James Version)
Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

While I have no comment on whether the other poster was "hypocritical", I want to make a comment on this statement of yours.

You appear to assume something - namely that when God "kills" children, or orders their killing, that this action is not actually part of a complicated plan to deal with evil for the bettermnet of all humankind.

In short, no one should rule out this possibility: All the "atrocities" that God orders, and all the deaths that He decrees, may be, sadly, necessary in order to bring about something that is ultimately good.

Analogy: When a cancer specialist prescribes chemotherapy, the patient is then subject to much suffering. Does this make the specialist "evil"? No - the specialist has no choice but to do this in the long term interests of the patient.

I have not, obviously, explained exactly why God might have been forced into the position of being the author of death for some ultimate good, but I believe we have to admit that this is at least a possibility.

 

[cleanfreak]

Isn't it hypocritical for you to condemn me, since God is known to repeatedly kill the unborn and children, not just in genocidal commands given to the Israelis and Judah, but, for instance, slowly killing David's son for a crime he never committed?

2 Samuel 12:14-15 (King James Version)
Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

I am still trying to understand why you use the bible as reference when you 'supposedly' do not believe in God. It seems as if you are trying to tell us God is evil because he allowed such killings and yet that in itself shows us that you believe in God. You just believe he is an evil God....is that right?

I am confused, please help me understand.

 

[Drew]

1) When I go read the newspaper, I find it almost impossible to believe there is a God, and if there is a God, He probably does not care about us. When a human being stands by and watches another person getting stabbed to death without doing a thing to stop it or get help, we call that evil. However, when God stands by and watches as women and children are raped daily as sex slaves we call Him loving and build churches in his honour. The double standard does not work for me.

In a similar vein to my last post, there is at least one assumption behind this. And to be fair to you, the church itself is probably responsible for you making such an assumption.

You assume that God is capable of intervening to prevent the atrocities to which you refer. Well, that may not be the case. And, no doubt, many Christians will promote this idea of a God that can "do whatever He wants". I am very doubtful that this is really the case. I am inclined to believe that when God created the world, He essentially "gave up" some of his "omnipotence" by the commitments He made in creation itself. For example, I suggest that it is eminently Biblical to assert that when God made the commitment to put Adam "in charge" of the world, that is a commitment He (God) cannot back out of. So if Adam screws up, which he does, then God has to find another "man" to put in charge. And He does exactly thus - Jesus is the "second Adam" who is now the human being "in charge".

The point is this: God takes creation very seriously and is committed to it. So despite what the majority of Christians will probably tell you, God generally does not "by-pass" creation and use "magic" to solve problems. So what I am suggesting is this: God certainly does not want anyone to be raped and murdered. However, His hands may be tied - He may simply be unable to intervene in the "super-natural" sense you (and Christians too) think that He is.

Now I am fully aware that there indeed accounts of miracles in the Bible - cases where it appears that God did indeed intervene. That does challenge my argument, but I do not think the challenge is fatal to my position. It could be the case that certain interventions are possible and others are not. I will have to think about this some more.

My main point is this: we need to be careful about defaulting to "sunday school" images of God - they may arise from our desire for easy answers and may not reflect reality.

 

[Deavonreye]

I believe in God because of convincing evidence, I walk with God by faith. Any person who would believe anything without convincing evidence would be a foolish person indeed.
The world around us does not hint at a created world of intelligent design and function, our world grabs you by the shirt collar and throws you up against a wall and sceams in your face that our world is a creation of intelligent design and function. I mean no offense to anyone, but those who deny the physical evidence of a creation in our world are simply people who have chosen to lie about what they have observed.

I am amazed that you can states such a thing. Do you really believe that those who study biology, anthropology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, archeology, geology, etc. for years, even obtaining doctorial degrees in their field, actually know that it all came about by a god person, . . . . but choose to mislead everyone to believe otherwise, in order to promote a secular agenda?? Just wanting to understand your point, since you claim they lie about the evidence they have studied for years.

 

[Sam21]

Isn't it hypocritical for you to condemn me, since God is known to repeatedly kill the unborn and children, not just in genocidal commands given to the Israelis and Judah, but, for instance, slowly killing David's son for a crime he never committed?

2 Samuel 12:14-15 (King James Version)
Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.

You wonder why God would allow all the pain and suffering in this world. We are living in a realm where humans run the show, it is a place where we can experience pleasure and good or pain and suffering(or both in one day). In our brief time here we can make a decision to simply trust Jesus Christ as Savior or reject Christ as Savior. When we die in our decision to accept Christ then we go to the higher level where pain and suffering does not exist. If we chose to reject Christ as Savior then we go to the lower level where it is nothing but pain and suffering. We have no choice except to either accept or reject Christ, the rest has been predetermined by a Higher Power, we can love God or hate God but these things are set and no amount of arguing over right or wrong will make any difference.

 

[Drew]

I am still trying to understand why you use the bible as reference when you 'supposedly' do not believe in God. It seems as if you are trying to tell us God is evil because he allowed such killings and yet that in itself shows us that you believe in God. You just believe he is an evil God....is that right?

I am confused, please help me understand.

If I may take a shot at this. GI is employing a legitimate argument - he or she is making an argument about perceived Christian hypocrisy. And when you make an argument about hypocrisy, you do not need to hold the beliefs of the person you deem to be hypocritical, you merely need to demonstrate internal inconsistency in that person's belief structure. Thus, the argument appears to be this:

1. Christians are against abortion;
2. Christians embrace the Bible and endorse all of God's actions as described;
3. But the Bible describes God as ordering infanticide;
4. Therefore, the Christian is being hypocritical by saying some child killings are OK but others are not.

This is indeed a valid argument given the way many Christians explain themselves. For reasons you will see if you read my recent posts, you will know that I think it is not ultimately a correct critique, but I certainly see GI's logic.

 

[Sam21]

I am amazed that you can states such a thing. Do you really believe that those who study biology, anthropology, chemistry, physics, astrophysics, archeology, geology, etc. for years, even obtaining doctorial degrees in their field, actually know that it all came about by a god person, . . . . but choose to mislead everyone to believe otherwise?? Just wanting to understand your point, since you claim they lie about the evidence they have studied for years.

The study of a field does not alter human bias. Educated human beings are quite capable of bias judgment if they have been taught to practice it.

 

[Drew]

I am amazed that you can states such a thing.....

Well, I agree that the statement was entirely unfair. However, you need to realize that just because the evidence works with an entirely "secular" model of reality, this does not mean it cannot also work within a theist framework.

Just as Christians are often guilty of very bad logic, so too are secularists at times.

And it is manifestly incorrect to argue as follows: Because all the data of the world, or at least almost all of it, can be 'explained' by models which do not require a 'god', this is an argument against the reality of 'god'.

The error lies in not realizing that multiple theories can, in principle, explain the same set of observable phenomena equally well.

 

[Sam21]

If I may take a shot at this. GI is employing a legitimate argument - he or she is making an argument about perceived Christian hypocrisy. And when you make an argument about hypocrisy, you do not need to hold the beliefs of the person you deem to be hypocritical, you merely need to demonstrate internal inconsistency in that person's belief structure. Thus, the argument appears to be this:

1. Christians are against abortion;
2. Christians embrace the Bible and endorse all of God's actions as described;
3. But the Bible describes God as ordering infanticide;
4. Therefore, the Christian is being hypocritical by saying some child killings are OK but others are not.

This is indeed a valid argument given the way many Christians explain themselves. For reasons you will see if you read my recent posts, you will know that I think it is not ultimately a correct critique, but I certainly see GI's logic.

Not a valid argument at all, you are placing God and man on equal terms, something the bible does not do, what is wrong for a human can be right for God.

 

[cleanfreak]

If I may take a shot at this. GI is employing a legitimate argument - he or she is making an argument about perceived Christian hypocrisy. And when you make an argument about hypocrisy, you do not need to hold the beliefs of the person you deem to be hypocritical, you merely need to demonstrate internal inconsistency in that person's belief structure. Thus, the argument appears to be this:

1. Christians are against abortion;
2. Christians embrace the Bible and endorse all of God's actions as described;
3. But the Bible describes God as ordering infanticide;
4. Therefore, the Christian is being hypocritical by saying some child killings are OK but others are not.

This is indeed a valid argument given the way many Christians explain themselves. For reasons you will see if you read my recent posts, you will know that I think it is not ultimately a correct critique, but I certainly see GI's logic.

great points Drew, but I am looking for something a little deeper.

GI--If the bible did not have anything in it concerning killings or the "evil God", but only those things of love and if the world was a perfect place with no such killings and evil doings, would you then believe in God?......Why or why not?

 

[Drew]

Not a valid argument at all, you are placing God and man on equal terms, something the bible does not do, what is wrong for a human can be right for God.

My argument does not depend in any way on this alleged setting of God and man on equal terms.

The problem is with the internal belief structure of the human person. If a person believes it is always wrong to kill infants, and if that same person believes that every act God does in the Bible is "morally correct", then that person is being inconsistent since God does indeed order infanticide.

This is simply about consistency in belief. And I have no idea what you mean about something being "right for God" but "wrong for a human".

 

[Sam21]

If you use the bible as the standard you cannot argue inconsistency with belief because a christian believes it is wrong to kill a baby and the bible tells us God killed a baby, because THE BIBLE places God above man and all creation and gives Him the right to kill anyone. The bible is clear that man cannot rightly judge the actions of God because man is simply not in the position to know all the story(read Job). So a christian can believe that it is wrong to kill a baby and still accept that if God kills a baby it is just because God is God and not man.

 

[Drew]

If you use the bible as the standard you cannot argue inconsistency with belief because a christian believes it is wrong to kill a baby and the bible tells us God killed a baby, because THE BIBLE places God above man and all creation and gives Him the right to kill anyone.

Well if this is your belief system, then indeed, there is no hypocrisy. But I suggest that many people - including most Christians - do not believe this, at least not without some careful qualification.

The bible is clear that man cannot rightly judge the actions of God because man is simply not in the position to know all the story(read Job).

Well, I have a lot of sympathy to this view, and have been more or less making a more detailed version of this argument in earlier posts.

So a christian can believe that it is wrong to kill a baby and still accept that if God kills a baby it is just because God is God and not man.

This is the part that I do not like, and which I suspect most Christians will reject. The mind, including the mind of the Christian, will recoil from the notion that, for example, its OK for God to torture people who seem entirely innocent to us "just because He is God". We need a better explanation than this.

 

[Deavonreye]

Sam21 and Drew, I was refering to the notion, as I bolded above from Sam's post, . . . that they [scientists] "purposefully lie when they know that the evidence points to an intelligent creator". That is patently false. If the evidence lead to an "intelligent creator" as the only means of it being, . . . there would be no reason to deny the facts, . . . . and furthermore, IF that had been the case, they would have no reason to NOT be religious. This "deception of themselves and the public" is like a conspiracy theory.

Now, for me, I really don't have any idea how it started since I wasn't there and/or am not in a field of study to make my own determination. However, I have the ability to reason, and my reason lends me to believe people who have studied their fields, and their conclusions to the experiments they perform.

Having said that, I'm not openly declaring that "a god cannot be real". What I'm pointing out is that just an observation of nature [especially when it is an uneducated one] isn't enough for me to say that "a god IS real", is a specific deity found in an earthly religious system, or could be known in any appreciable way.

 

[Drew]

Sam21 and Drew, I was refering to the notion, as I bolded above from Sam's post, . . . that they [scientists] "purposefully lie when they know that the evidence points to an intelligent creator". That is patently false.

I agree - it is entirely speculative to suggest that such scientists are lying.

If the evidence lead to an "intelligent creator" as the only means of it being, . . . there would be no reason to deny the facts, . . . . and furthermore, IF that had been the case, they would have no reason to NOT be religious. This "deception of themselves and the public" is like a conspiracy theory.

As per my earlier post, it might not be "lying", but if a scientist claims that God cannot exist because there are models that explain the data of the world without the need for God, that would be bad reasoning. It would be to overlook the possiblity that a theistic framework explains the same data equally well.

What I'm pointing out is that just an observation of nature [especially when it is an uneducated one] isn't enough for me to say that "a god IS real", is a specific deity found in an earthly religious system, or could be known in any appreciable way.

I agree.

 

[reba]

condemn? I dont have the power to condemn anyone.

 

[Oats]

Look, Oats. What I stated isn't false at all. I wasn't saying that it is COMPLETELY chaotic!!! But there IS a measure of chaos in the universe.

Regardless of what you are attempting to say here, even IF the universe were COMPLETELY orderly, that BY NO MEANS indicates that the Hebrew god of the Bible is real! 2

The Big Bang is not self sufficient

God is

we are creatures of reason...looking at something we must say it has a creator, if the evidence points that way

If a God is a miraculous God and did a miraculous act, who would know the difference?


-------------


If i had a Iphone and told you it randomly manifested what would you say?

 

[Drew]

The Big Bang is not self sufficient

God is

we are creatures of reason...looking at something we must say it has a creator, if the evidence points that way

Hi Oats:

Let me start by saying that I am a Christian who believes that God created the universe.

However, I politely suggest your argument here really does not work precisely because if you "get" to say God has no cause, then the atheist is equally justified in positing that the big bang has no cause.

We are all in the same boat in respect to this mystery of a "first cause".