You will get your chance when he returns. Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that he is Lord, so you will know he is God. Unfortunately if you don't believe before then it will be too late for you.
Let me say this very, very clearly: this is not just. This God, if he will indeed indict me and my fellow men for not believing that which cannot be seen, heard, known or at all scientifically observed, instead requiring a fleeting faith, is not a just God.
And for the record, sanity is not statistical. I will not know, nor will I indeed accept, that he is God simply because every knee is bowing and every tongue is confessing that he is. 1.5 billion or so people are currently doing this for Allah, and I became an apostate when I was 15.
Romans 1:20 NLT
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
Seeing "the invisible" seems a bit of a paradox doesn't it? Why does the Earth and the sky, and everything God has made, point to your God and not the gods of the Greeks or the Hindus?
God believes that is enough.
Then why must non-believers "suffer" in their perpetual ignorance? Clearly, it is not enough: it is not enough to expect me to believe because a series of translated writings written thousands of years ago tell me of this God; it is not enough to expect me to believe because his existence is somehow self-evident; it is especially not enough to expect me to believe because everyone else does.
He did! But, we still won't believe. Does he need to do it every day for eternity?
That is exactly what he needs to do. To sit on his throne in plain view so we can worship him or not accordingly.
‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’†Luke 16:27-31, NKJ
I would not call one who could rise from the dead a God, no. Is one of God's special properties rising from the dead? One would think that a special property of God is that he does not die (please, spare me the half-man, half-God; I'm well versed in it from my Christian days).
A God would know how to prove to me that he is God, all things considered (him being omniscient and omnipotent). Rising from the dead is certainly an amazing feat (if he did really rise from the dead), but neither does it demonstrate any supernatural power nor does it demonstrate absolute divinity.
I would be curious if you believe that Caesar existed and why you believe this.
The only reliable evidence we have of a historical Jesus is a passing remark made by Tacitus. I continue to believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Caesar's existence as a Roman Emperor is historically valid and reliable.
This is the same reason as to why I am conflicted in believing that Socrates existed as a historical figure, rather than as a literary of Plato, and why I see no compelling reason to believe that Laozi existed.
I don't consider ontological arguments to be valid evidence.
In any case: if the universe was created by God, because all things must have been created, then what created God, and what created whatever created God? Why can we not, according to your logic, cut out the middleman? - why did a God have to create the universe
t is the unchanging Source of change
So I assume you're a deist then?
He is knowable, and possible to experience.
But can Science bring God down to a science, no.
But can you see God , yes, however no man has ever seen God though, in his fullness that is
If he is knowable and "possible to experience," then he is observable and within the realm of scientific observation. God is not somehow exempt from this.
God does exist, but you choose not to believe.
That was the most magnificent cop out I've seen on an internet forum for a long time.
You have a five sense bias
There's no such thing.
If the Bible is right about what it says about us sinners than why would God be wrong?
Because you assume the bible is right. This is circular logic in its finest form.
I suggest you will probably not be able to put forward credible evidence that there has been substantial "perversion" of the relevant texts. I am not suggesting that there are no "errors", but you are making quite a claim here, and I suspect you will not be able to support (any more than I could "prove" that the texts are uncorrupted).
That's fair. "Serious error," which can result in grievous misinterpretation, is probably a better term than perversion, because it may not have been translated incorrectly on purpose, and any evidence that it was is merely circumstantial ("the RCC translated it to fulfill their agenda" and so forth).
On the matter of God being here in the flesh, I think we should be careful about our expectations in this respect. While I certainly understand the desire to "see God in the flesh", as it were, the fact that we don't is not really evidence that God does not exist. There may be any number of reasons why God remains "hidden" at this time.
Sure, but I am not an antitheist - presented with evidence for a God, I would certainly believe in his existence. Results for a test which try to prove the existence of something unseen do not come back with "it doesn't exist" but "inconclusive," meaning that we have no substantial reason to believe that it does exist, but at the same time, it very well might. The aether as a theory related to relativity was never formally "disproven," but Einstein rendered it superfluous - it might exist, but we've no reason to believe that it does when we have an explanation that better explains the observed phenomena, namely special relativity (this was before we flew space shuttles to the moon and beyond; the physics tends to disagree with the aether now).
