How do you know God is real?

[Oats]

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".

But Gods and Big Bangs work quite differently


God is eternal all powerful and everlasting

the Big Bang had a beginning, therefore a cause, therefore a causer


but anyone can say anything...that is their right

 

[Deavonreye]

Yes. "Cause" can be a slippery slope. The only reason why a god is said to be "absolutely eternal" is because it is beyond human understanding, thus it makes this god out to be unknowable, . . . thus could never have been "caused". Blasphemy! It is an issue of "we're finite, god is infinite". "We have limited power, god is omnipotent", and so forth. It is the idea of a "human type being" that can take care of us [we're created in his image]. A humanized form of ourselves who is actually worthy of worship.


I personally don't know if "the Big Bang" was the start of our universe. It may have happened. . . . or maybe not. For me, it really doesn't matter. Yes, the world and universe are amazing to view. Awe inspiring at times, fearful another. I just personally do not see how viewing nature can lead to a spiritual epiphany. For me, a spiritual epiphany would be because of a supra-natural event. And even then, it would only be a beginning as I worked to understand that event and what it meant for my life.

 

[Oats]

Yes. "Cause" can be a slippery slope.

I personally don't know if "the Big Bang" was the start of our universe. It may have happened. . . . or maybe not. For me, it really doesn't matter. Yes, the world and universe are amazing to view. Awe inspiring at times, fearful another. I just personally do not see how viewing nature can lead to a spiritual epiphany. For me, a spiritual epiphany would be because of a supra-natural event. And even then, it would only be a beginning as I worked to understand that event and what it meant for my life.

Hey DR, I am not holding anything against you. You were in my opinion created in God's image too.

So you have your right to use your logic how you want.


In all honesty miraculous or spiritual things have happened to me....


If you want God to reveal himself to you you have to be convicted by his existence first

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

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.

They may not "lie," but they rarely admit the truth unless backed into a corner. The fact is that when the issue of origin comes to bear, intelligent design is really the only logical conclusion they can come up with. How we got from the beginning to here is a whole other issue, but the fact that intelligence had to have been involved in the beginning is virtually something that cannot yet be disputed based on all of the available info and facts we are privy to.
One thing that always sticks out to me when the issue of science and God come together is the false notion that leads people to believe they are at opposition to one another. The facts are, and even devout atheists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins at the end of the day must admit and have admitted as Mr. Dawkins did in Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed" documentary that the origin or first cause of everything is inexplicable and that intelligence of some sort had to have been involved in the onset of the universe.
The real question again is not whether science points to intellignet design, because the further scientists are able to look back the more evident intelligent design becomes even to them, the question is WHO or WHAT is/are/was this intelligence? "Is it possible that the God of the bible is this intelligence," is the question that we need to focus on.

 

[Oats]

They may not "lie," but they rarely admit the truth unless backed into a corner. The fact is that when the issue of origin comes to bear, intelligent design is really the only logical conclusion they can come up with. How we got from the beginning to here is a whole other issue, but the fact that intelligence had to have been involved in the beginning is virtually something that cannot yet be disputed based on all of the available info and facts we are privy to.
One thing that always sticks out to me when the issue of science and God come together is the false notion that leads people to believe they are at opposition to one another. The facts are, and even devout atheists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins at the end of the day must admit and have admitted as Mr. Dawkins did in Ben Stein's "No Intelligence Allowed" documentary that the origin or first cause of everything is inexplicable and that intelligence of some sort had to have been involved in the onset of the universe.
The real question again is not whether science points to intellignet design, because the further scientists are able to look back the more evident intelligent design becomes even to them, the question is WHO or WHAT is/are/was this intelligence? "Is it possible that the God of the bible is this intelligence," is the question that we need to focus on.

great post, i saw that movie

 

[Deavonreye]

I believe I read that the Stein movie quite from Dawkins was taking out of context for the movie's sake. I don't recall where I read that, but I'm sure it could be looked up. Regardless, any post, in a secular forum, about ID states that taking parts away would just prove to be a different function. . . . or perhaps a primative function, such as the case of eye development.

I'm not too worried about all of this, actually. The past is the past. I'm more interested in today and how nature gives no direction as to a deity, and espcially not to a specific one [usually the Hebrew biblical god of christianity].

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Yes. "Cause" can be a slippery slope. The only reason why a god is said to be "absolutely eternal" is because it is beyond human understanding, thus it makes this god out to be unknowable, . . . thus could never have been "caused". Blasphemy! It is an issue of "we're finite, god is infinite". "We have limited power, god is omnipotent", and so forth. It is the idea of a "human type being" that can take care of us [we're created in his image]. A humanized form of ourselves who is actually worthy of worship.

Great observation and extremely sensible. It is quite possible that man has in an attempt to deify himself, personified a "god" in man's image and likeness. As I study and scrutinize the scriptures certain things stick out to me like where Jesus is quoted to have said that God is a spirit. Based on how the word spirit is used in scripture we can know that it means "unseen force", "breath", "wind", or "invisible power." What that tells me is that God has no physical image and cannot be seen physically ad the Bible does confirm that no man has seen God. What I also notice from scripture is that when God manifests himself in physical forms, He almost always take on a human avatar. He did so with Abram, I believe with young Samuel, and also PERHAPS as the Christ.
I've said all this to say that in scripture it seems that God is not like man in appearance and that our connection to God's likeness is based in fact that we are conscious, thinking, creative beings with a natural sense of morality that need not be taught.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I'm not too worried about all of this, actually. The past is the past. I'm more interested in today and how nature gives no direction as to a deity, and espcially not to a specific one [usually the Hebrew biblical god of christianity].

This is where I believe our disagreement begins as I believe the fact that there is existence and consciousness indicates the involvement or design of an intelligence in the fostering of it all. Now we can agree that nature DOES NOT give us direction to IDENTIFY said deity. In hopes of identifying the intelligence (or deity if you will), the best that can be done is analyze history in order to make an educated guess or we can wait for a miracle to confirm the indentity of the deity.

 

[mrroy1937]

My own trek to God has been fascinating. I've always known that some kind of being exists. But I really didn't discover the living God until the last few months of 1976. I met some of the most loving people I've even seen at a home fellowship group. They glowed as they shared Jesus with me. While it blew me away, there was no way I could avoid the love that I never knew existed. It showed that I was completly dead, on the inside.

Their love inspired me to buy a Bible, which I started reading, beginning with Matthew through Jude. As I read, those living words spoke to my heart as no other words ever did. It wasn't long before I knew that some kind of God was alive.

Then I heard someone speak in tongues. It was the most beautiful thing I had ever heard. I said in my heart, "God, I've heard about you all my life. But now I know that You are alive."

Not too long after that I was in a service and a person gave a message in tongues. Another man in front of me turned around and said, "I chose you while you were being developed in your mother's womb. Will you now chose Me." I did.

When the pastor finished his sermon, I was quick to run to the front and confess what had happened. I was snatched from the pit of darkness and placed into the kingdom of God, were love reigns.

Since that time, I've seen lives changed when it was humanly impossible that anything could have been done. I've seen people healed of sickness. I saw the Holy Spirit grow a man's thumb that had bee cut off in an accident.

So, you see, I know that God is alive and that He does wonders in the lives of people. I offer my testimony and people are free to accept it or reject it.

Now, I want to address the ugly things that go on in this world. God does not want to see these things happen. Rather, He wants the world to choose Him. Then ugly things won't happen any more. So, we're seeing the result of people rejecting God.

I will tell any athiest that I know they are dead inside, because I've been there. It's up to them. They can latch onto God and go to heaven or reject him and go to hell. It's their choice.

I woul prefer, of course, that anyone who does not know God to accept Him and come alive inside.

 

[Deavonreye]

This is where I believe our disagreement begins as I believe the fact that there is existence and consciousness indicates the involvement or design of an intelligence in the fostering of it all. Now we can agree that nature DOES NOT give us direction to IDENTIFY said deity. In hopes of identifying the intelligence (or deity if you will), the best that can be done is analyze history in order to make an educated guess or we can wait for a miracle to confirm the indentity of the deity.

Perhaps. The only problem is that we must also look back at that history and truly understand what was happening, . . . which for all intents and purposes, is impossible. Thus why I say, "whatever is true will make itself known to me IF it cares enough that I should know it". Thus far, I've not had any experience that would allow me to truthfully walk a path.

 

[cleanfreak]

Perhaps. The only problem is that we must also look back at that history and truly understand what was happening, . . . which for all intents and purposes, is impossible. Thus why I say, "whatever is true will make itself known to me IF it cares enough that I should know it". Thus far, I've not had any experience that would allow me to truthfully walk a path.

First off, let me say Deavonreye, that you are one of the most sensible non-christians I have ever seen. I enjoy reading all of your post and it makes me dig even deeper into the relationship I have with God. thanks.

Exactly what type of 'experience' are you looking for? Something specific?

 

[Drew]

Thus why I say, "whatever is true will make itself known to me IF it cares enough that I should know it". Thus far, I've not had any experience that would allow me to truthfully walk a path.

I think you and I have talked about this before.

I think Christians make a huge mistake, and sometimes are being downright dishonest, when they speak of an "experience" of God - some kind of "sense" of the presence of God. I politely suggest that these experiences may by and large be "fabricated" and / or the person who claims to have them may have no real grounds for ascribing such experiences to the presence of God. Perhaps its just "brain chemistry".

Why do I make such a sweeping and critical claim? Precisely because I have been a Christian for over 30 years and I never have such "experiences". And here is the key point: it seems exceedingly implausible that God would deny to one Christian the rich "experiences" He gives to others. Some good Christian friends of great maturity report the same thing - no "subjective" sense of the presence of God. In short, if God really makes Himself known in this specifically experiential way, why would He be "selective" in whom He gives this experience to. I expect that you will agree with me about this.

Now I want to say two things more in this present post:

1. As perhaps you can already tell, I remain a committed Christian despite the absence of these experiences. But I do not do so out of "pure faith" in the sense that this expression is normally understood. Instead, my belief in the reality of God is grounded in the nature of the Biblical narrative - in the grand sweeping story of redemption I see in the Bible, I discern a ring of truth - such a sophisticated, unified, and surprising story "must be true" (this is an over-simplification for the sake of brevity). So my sense of God's reality is not based on "me and my feelings" so much as it is based on a belief that the story we see in the Bible has certain properties that compel me to believe it could not likely be a "fabrication" of the imagination. I would have to explain this a lot more.

2. I politely suggest that when Christians focus on "personal experience of a transcendent God", they are, whether they realize it or not, dismissing the present created reality as being of lesser order - in grounding their knowledge of God in the "transcendent", they are implicitly denying what the Bible tells us - that God chooses to generally work through His creation, not around it. In other words, the "real" experiences of God are the experiences that this world gives us, not mystical experiences that are disconnected from the world. This may not be that well explained, but its a start.

 

[Oats]

I think you and I have talked about this before.

I think Christians make a huge mistake, and sometimes are being downright dishonest, when they speak of an "experience" of God - some kind of "sense" of the presence of God. I politely suggest that these experiences may by and large be "fabricated" and / or the person who claims to have them may have no real grounds for ascribing such experiences to the presence of God. Perhaps its just "brain chemistry".

Why do I make such a sweeping and critical claim? Precisely because I have been a Christian for over 30 years and I never have such "experiences". And here is the key point: it seems exceedingly implausible that God would deny to one Christian the rich "experiences" He gives to others. Some good Christian friends of great maturity report the same thing - no "subjective" sense of the presence of God. In short, if God really makes Himself known in this specifically experiential way, why would He be "selective" in whom He gives this experience to. I expect that you will agree with me about this.

Now I want to say two things more in this present post:

1. As perhaps you can already tell, I remain a committed Christian despite the absence of these experiences. But I do not do so out of "pure faith" in the sense that this expression is normally understood. Instead, my belief in the reality of God is grounded in the nature of the Biblical narrative - in the grand sweeping story of redemption I see in the Bible, I discern a ring of truth - such a sophisticated, unified, and surprising story "must be true" (this is an over-simplification for the sake of brevity). So my sense of God's reality is not based on "me and my feelings" so much as it is based on a belief that the story we see in the Bible has certain properties that compel me to believe it could not likely be a "fabrication" of the imagination. I would have to explain this a lot more.

2. I politely suggest that when Christians focus on "personal experience of a transcendent God", they are, whether they realize it or not, dismissing the present created reality as being of lesser order - in grounding their knowledge of God in the "transcendent", they are implicitly denying what the Bible tells us - that God chooses to generally work through His creation, not around it. In other words, the "real" experiences of God are the experiences that this world gives us, not mystical experiences that are disconnected from the world. This may not be that well explained, but its a start.

you should never make a broad sweeping statement like this, especially in this context.

God is everywhere at all times, even demons believe

If you have faith in God you will feel the Holy Spiti


plain and simple

The Role of the Holy Spirit causes us to experience him,

don't water down the gospel

Anything true can be experience in any true matter of experience

 

[Deavonreye]

cleanfreak, I appreciate your words. I am probably the way I am because I refuse the notion of ardent atheists, even in the face of no evidence. As for what I would "expect", . . . I really don't know. But as Drew has illuded to, I may live the rest of my life disappointed. I'd like to have an experience that is beyond the natural and how the brain works within the natural.

I will post more later. Have to run.

 

[darrell]

I'm not too worried about all of this, actually. The past is the past. I'm more interested in today and how nature gives no direction as to a deity, and espcially not to a specific one [usually the Hebrew biblical god of christianity].

Does nature give evidence of a deity? When I look at the world around me, I do indeed see evidence of a creator, first of all, in the complexity in nature. Take the human nervous system for example, with its afferent and efferent pathways – there are backup pathways in place! And it‘s like that with a lot of things in nature. There is simply too much complexity for me to believe it happened by chance – there had to be intelligence behind the design.
<O</O
As far as beauty in nature giving evidence to God, simply the fact that we can see a 200 year old oak tree and think, “What an awesome tree!†or a be inspired by a beautiful sunset or be blown away in wonder when we look at a star filled sky… From a survival standpoint, what purpose does it serve that we can even appreciate the beauty in nature? That we have this capacity to be inspired? I think it was <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

<ST1St. Augustine</ST1</st1:City> who asked, “Who created beauty if not the beautiful one?â€
<O</O
On the other hand we have all this chaos, the disorder in nature. This actually supports the Christian view, for it was after the fall from grace that disorder came to be. The second law of thermodynamics states the universe is moving from a state of order to a state of disorder. In God’s original creation, humans were in a state of grace. But after Adam and eve sinned, they brought disorder into the world – thorns, thistles, sweat, toil, suffering, death (Genesis 3).

 

[Drew]

you should never make a broad sweeping statement like this, especially in this context.

God is everywhere at all times, even demons believe

If you have faith in God you will feel the Holy Spiti


plain and simple

The Role of the Holy Spirit causes us to experience him,

don't water down the gospel

Anything true can be experience in any true matter of experience

I am afraid this is not really much of an argument - you are just making statements.

My experience is what it is and I have a right to have opinions to the effect that other people are often "fabricating" claims of spiritual experience. That may not make me popular, but it is not out of bounds for me to make this claim and argue for it.

Can you provide an actual Biblical case that Christians should expect to have subjective inner experiences of God?

By the way, "the gospel" refers to the declaration that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, constituted as Lord of the world by His resurrection. Paul never uses the term to refer to "inner spiritual experience".

 

[Drew]

Does nature give evidence of a deity? When I look at the world around me, I do indeed see evidence of a creator, first of all, in the complexity in nature. Take the human nervous system for example, with its afferent and efferent pathways – there are backup pathways in place! And it‘s like that with a lot of things in nature. There is simply too much complexity for me to believe it happened by chance – there had to be intelligence behind the design.

I agree with your conclusion, but, to be fair, this is not a very strong argument for it. At least conceptually, it is at least plausible that evolutionary processes, given enough time, could give rise to the complexity we see in nature. So we need a more fine-grained argument than this.

<O</O

… From a survival standpoint, what purpose does it serve that we can even appreciate the beauty in nature? That we have this capacity to be inspired?

Two points:

1. I could assert that the positive experience of beauty functions to re-inforce the urge to survive. If life was all misery, then arguably that drive would be greatly diminished.

2. I suspect that evolutionary theory need explain every phenomena in the world in order to be a legitimate model. Perhaps the experience of beauty is a "side-effect" of other processes that are otherwise clearly connected to the survival imperative.

By the way, I am entirely with you in your conclusion - I believe in a creator God. I just think we Christians need to be very careful in how we argue for the existence of God in light of the characteristics of the world all around us.

 

[Drew]

Further in defence of my skepticism about "personal experience of God" as evidence for His (God's) existence:

1. It has been my experience (no pun intended) that there is at least some correlation between people reporting experiences of the "supernatural", including the elements of the supernatural that make sense in the Christian domain, and having other clear "lifestyle problems". So, for example, I have known a few people who "see / experience" demons, and these people have rather clear problems in just getting by in life. I am not suggesting a 100 % correlation by any means, but my experience does suggest a relation. By contrast, those people I have known who are "competent" at living - having a job, being in stable relationships, taking care of themselves, etc - typically do not report supernatural experiences. Important caveat: I entirely accept the reality of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian, its just that I suspect we do not experience the Spirit subjectively as an "other" - its more like the Spirit acts to transform us into Christlikeness. So the evidence of the Spirit, I suggest, lies more in character transformation, than in subjective experience.

2. Its suspiciously "me-centred" to dwell on these subjective experiences as if they are central to the Christian life. I think its better to conceive of ourselves as "kingdom-builders", transforming and healing the world, rather than as vessels to "receive experiences". Having said this, I concede that this is not an "either / or" type of issue.

 

[Deavonreye]

I understand what you're saying, Drew. There may very well be a corrolation.

However, if this is the case, then it would SEEM that all a person has to go on is "that which people have always believed to be the case". In other words, a "faith that is based upon other people's beliefs". I don't have to be a christian to do good things OR desire to do good things. In fact, when I was firmly a christian, years ago, I never felt lead to "share my faith" because it just felt wrong. I didn't have a desire to "work in a soup kitchen". I DID do a few "helps", but it wasn't a desire.

So I have to wonder if people just don't follow a religion because they may need something "above them to make sure they do what they should". I don't know. It is something I have wondered about "people of faith".

 

[Drew]

However, if this is the case, then it would SEEM that all a person has to go on is "that which people have always believed to be the case". In other words, a "faith that is based upon other people's beliefs".

I am certainly not saying this. I have, I believe, affirmed that it is the compelling nature of the Biblical narrative that I find to be the best "evidence for God. I cannot get into more detail now, perhaps later.....