How do you know God is real?

[darrell]

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.

Agreed, the beauty and complexity of the natural world in and of itself is not enough for most (probably including me) to believe in the existence of God. This is only one of many factors in my personal belief.

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.

I agree. IF we come from a superior or judgemental position, or if we even sound like that's where we're coming from even if it's not, we can turn people off instead of turning them on. :yes

 

[darrell]

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.

There have been very holy people who have been tormented by demons - the Apostle Paul for one. Also, satan made Job's life a living hell, and God Himself called Job his good and faithful servant.

I agree 100% that being a Christian isn't about receiving experiences; it's about allowing the Holy Spirit to transform us and then going out and doing our part in spreading the Kingdom of God.:yes However, in my personal walk with Jesus the last 10 years, I've found that the more I give Him, the more He gives me. We can't outdo God.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

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.

Your point would be valid if Christians did not believe God to be omnipotent. That is, the specialist has to give the patient pain for ultimate good, because he/she cannot merely wish away the disease. Non-omnipotent beings have to make sacrifices and exchanges. Omnipotent beings are not plagued by these trade-offs.

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.

I am a metaphysical naturalist. I only believe in a material world. I was addressing the double standard accusation made by Reba. I merely pointed out that according to her beliefs, God is guilty of killing children, so she, in fact, is hypocritical when it comes to the Deity. My friend calls it the "God-card." When you play the God-card, it makes even the worst atrocities "holy."

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.

So, you don't believe that prayers to God work? That is an interesting idea coming from a Christian.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

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.

I am inventing my own concept: the temporal-nihilism paradox. The basic premise of this paradox is that the religious attempt to have it both ways on the issue of evil actions perpetrated in the world. In other words, whenever believers need to defend God's inaction to protect the lives of innocent people, they make the argument that we need to look to eternity, and argue that nothing really matters in the temporal world, because in the grand scheme of things. God does not intervene in the world to stop suffering, because in light of heaven and hell, it is all irrelevant (i.e. temporal nihilism). Yet, believers contradict themselves when they then argue that human beings are terribly evil for committing horrible acts (e.g. Christians typically reference abortion). You cannot have it both ways I am afraid. You cannot say that God does not stop evil in the world, because it is not relevant in the long-term and then immediately say that human's sins are so terribly evil that they are worthy of eternal damnation. What happens in the temporal realm is either meaning-filled or nihilistic. You cannot have it both ways just to get out of a logical logjam.

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.

Thanks for seeing the logical consistency in my argument. :D

 

[Sam21]

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.

Second half of 2, I agree with. All of 1, I agree with. Never having had any "experiences" yet believing by faith in God and His word,"good". OK, the assertion that God would not be selective in experiences is false,God is selective with experiences and for reasons known only to Him. Possibly you are a more solid person than I am and did not need the "special experiences" that God gave me. At my salvation experience I knew nothing of the bible and simply asked God what He wanted me to do, I was immediately engulfed in intense love and God began to speak very clearly to my mind, the first thing He said to me was,"you must accept My Son as your Savior". It is too long to go into it here,but altogether God talked to me for about an hour. Maybe I am just a weak person who needed special help from God because God has done the supernatural for me several times(over many years). A lady touched my shoulder and said bless you and I saw a shower of stars fall over me and when each one hit me it felt like love. I have heard God speak audibly twice, Jesus spoke to me once when I was sick and showed me how to be healed, I saw Jesus in a vision once and He spoke briefly to me, God healed my back once, God put gas in my car one time when I did not have enough gas to go to work on. Anyway, that is some things that have stood out in my mind.
If you are strong enough in the Lord to make it without the special help then praise God because that is actually good, however in my case I needed help and God will do the supernatural if He decides it is necessary.

 

[Oats]

anyone can believe anything...

The complexity of nature doesn't mean God exist. But it is evidence

A bloody knife in my closet doesn't make me a murderer but it is likely i am one.

----

The odds of something so fined tuned coming from a random event is so extremely improbable that it takes a leap of faith.

Nature is an item of God, if it was just a spinning top I would still assume it had a creator. Things take form in an orderly manner. If disorder can give any directio than it must have a will there fore it is a God

God does not have to be anything like it says in the bible. there is other evidence for that. But as far as God existing I am sure of it.

Anything true can be doubted.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

"I want to know for myself, why you know God is real."

HE came to me when I was 7 or so, and Showed me He was there, that He HEARD me when I spoke to him, and DID things just because I asked Him to.

Simple as that.

 

[Deavonreye]

Bob, can you be more specific on "how he showed himself to you" and "what he did for you that you had asked"?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Why I Am Fully Convinced God is Real

Here's my "testimony". I believe there is a God, because the fact of existence seems to demand that that be the cause. We know the Earth was not alway here, the universe was not always here, and the evidence we have tells us that everything that exists had a beginning. The only logical explanation for the onset of existence necessitates that there be a "God entity."

Seeking this God entity in a sense is impossible because God is transcendent, and that is why what one must seek is a revelation of/from God. The revelation MUST then be supernatural in nature or be passed down from someone(s) who received a supernational revelation in order for it to be authentic. That means that a person or people who claim to be receiving new revelation should be able to verify their claim by supernatural means. In other words, miracles would need to be employed to confirm the message. Without the miraculous, there is no way to confirm that the message is anymore than imaginary.
As far as identifying this "God entity", I believe it to be the God of the scriptures because I believe that the scriptures meet the above requirements. I believe this because of the historical and prophetic accuracy of the Bible narrative as well as due to the miraculous abilities the human "charactors" in the Bible often displayed in confirming their message.

 

[Drew]

I agree 100% that being a Christian isn't about receiving experiences; it's about allowing the Holy Spirit to transform us and then going out and doing our part in spreading the Kingdom of God.

I am encouraged to know that some other Christians are aware of the kingdom-building imperative.

 

[Drew]

Your point would be valid if Christians did not believe God to be omnipotent. That is, the specialist has to give the patient pain for ultimate good, because he/she cannot merely wish away the disease. Non-omnipotent beings have to make sacrifices and exchanges. Omnipotent beings are not plagued by these trade-offs.

I am afraid you do not know the spectrum of Christian opinion on this well enough. Yes, many believe that God is omnipotent in the sense that He can "anything He wants regardless of His previous actions".

I certainly do not believe this. And there are reputable theologians who share this view.

 

[Drew]

So, you don't believe that prayers to God work? That is an interesting idea coming from a Christian.

I do not believe I posted anything that would lead to the ascription of such a view to me.

 

[Oats]

for everything that exist, there is proof

 

[Deavonreye]

Oats, I would agree with that. To that I will add, . . . "if not now, eventually".

 

[darrell]

I am afraid you do not know the spectrum of Christian opinion on this well enough. Yes, many believe that God is omnipotent in the sense that He can "anything He wants regardless of His previous actions".

I certainly do not believe this. And there are reputable theologians who share this view.

I believe a more correct way of stating God's omnipotence is that He can do anything except go against His own nature.

 

[darrell]

for everything that exist, there is proof

Oats, I would agree with that. To that I will add, . . . "if not now, eventually".

"eventually" as in when we die (if not before) we will either experience nothing because we will cease to exist, or we will meet our maker and judgement.

Agreement on what constitues "proof" is the problem. What many consider proof others dismiss or explain away.

God gives us just enough to seek Him, and never enough to fully find him. To do more would inhibit our freedom, and our freedom is very dear to God.
Ron Hansen, Marriette in Ecstacy

 

[Drew]

I believe a more correct way of stating God's omnipotence is that He can do anything except go against His own nature.

I disagree. Here is an example. God made a commitment that the world was to be "governred" by a human being (Adam). When Adam fell, God could not go back on this commitment. And, of course, the picture we get in the Scriptures is that now Jesus is the "human being" in charge of the world.

So I would suggest that God cannot simply "undo" his earlier commitments.

 

[Deavonreye]

Well, "proof" is for mathmatics and alcohol. But what I mean is that eventually, what isn't known should be able to be testable [if technology reaches a point to do that]. I think that "the supernatural" could be "natural, just not testable yet". Just my opinion.

 

[Eventide]

Evidence..

Conviction is built upon evidence.. and that is what faith is, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen..

The ENTIRE OT speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ, for in the volume of the book it is written of Him.. story after story, type after type.. all of it points to HIM.. and the story was foretold in countless ways before it ever came to pass.. and the irony is that the ancient OT oracles were entrusted to the nation of Israel, and they are blinded to this fact.

Who can read the word of God and not say... "Never a man spake like this Man"... or "Come see a man who told me all things ever I did"..

The word of God is how each and every person is born again.. it's the incorruptible seed by which faith is multiplied... faith comes by hearing the word of God.. here a little, there a little.. over the course of an entire lifetime..

Then of course once a person trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ, they are sealed with the Holy Spirit of God and it's painfully obvious that God is real, because He lives within the believer.

There will be no excuses.. the evidence is beyond convicting.. it's undeniable and God says that those who reject Him are without excuse because He has revealed Himself to them.. just like the Lord's example to the rich man who asked that a man from the dead would go to warn his brothers... and Jesus said that they have the word of God.. and if that is not believed then even a man raised from the dead wouldn't matter.

He is that TRUE LIGHT which lighteth every man that comes into the world.

 

[Oats]

Well, "proof" is for mathmatics and alcohol. But what I mean is that eventually, what isn't known should be able to be testable [if technology reaches a point to do that]. I think that "the supernatural" could be "natural, just not testable yet". Just my opinion.

YAY! dry canackuna

we agree on something