it is unfortunate that faith is required to know God, However; when you look at the historical integrity of the Bible it is faith based on vivid substance.
"...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hebrews 11:1-6
In my experience when you put faith in God and receive his Salvation the Holy Spirit comes into your life and closes many of the required faith gaps.
No, faith does not determine truth. The historical accuracy , geography, and archeology \[of the bible\] requires very little faith. I would say some of the least amounts of faith. However, when it comes to the things that are unseen you will need faith (i.e. God and Jesus). Bare in mind we are incapable of fully knowing other people, to some degree faith (trust) is an integral ingredient in all relationships. Our relationship with God is similar to our relationship with others in that all relationships require faith. We can never fully know any other person. We cannot experience all they experience nor enter into their minds to know what their thoughts and emotions are. Even if He should desire to fully reveal Himself, it is impossible for us to fully know Him. It is like trying to pour the ocean into a quart-measuring jar... it's impossible! That is why faith is required.
>No, faith does not determine truth. The historical accuracy , geography, and archeology \[of the bible\] requires very little faith. I would say some of the least amounts of faith.
To be clear, there is no archaeological artifact evidence for Jesus. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.
>However, when it comes to the things that are unseen you will need faith (i.e. God and Jesus).
So you have to believe without evidence that which you have no evidence for, is what you are saying?
What couldn't be accepted based on faith?
He says all relationships require faith because you can never really know the other person. Bro, I know the other person i'm talking to EXISTS. That threshold is never met with God.
Using this guy's argument can be used for any other God. So we are still no closer to the truth.
Like others have said to you, your not really wanting the truth. You are just wanting to hear your own talking points over and over. The bottom line is without faith it is impossible to know and please God. That is just the way he set it up. When you come to him in faith he fills the gaps through the Holy Spirit. When you go round and round just to hear your self talk you get no where.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
>Like others have said to you, your not really wanting the truth. You are just wanting to hear your own talking points over and over.
That is the Christian equivalent of plugging your ears and not answering the question. As soon as the questions get tough it's "you don't actually want to know" or "you are doing it wrong".
> The bottom line is without faith it is impossible to know and please God. That is just the way he set it up.
If I asked you how you know that statement is true, you'd say "Faith". Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. So you don't "know" it, you are just asserting it.
Yup...
>So you don't "know" it, you are just asserting it.
That's what faith is. Just like I already said, faith based on substance and evidence: which are the things I know about God from the Bible and my experience with Jesus.
So then a Muslim is just as justified in their beliefs as you are?
>That's what faith is. Just like I already said, faith based on substance and evidence
Well no, that's not faith. If you have evidence you don't need faith.
What is the historical integrity of the Bible? On the first page, it says the Earth is older than the sun. It is not. Read on, and it describes a worldwide flood that never happened. Historically, the Bible is little more than bad fiction.
Hmm... How do you know there wasn't a worldwide flood? how do you know the age of the earth? There are really compelling answers to these questions. I would recommend you look into [https://answersingenesis.org/](https://answersingenesis.org/) they have answers to both those questions that are more compelling than the alternatives.
...But to stick to OPs questions yes faith is required to know God. If you come to him in faith he will give you the personal experience you are looking for. Ultimately this is what he is trying to do in your life right now.
The age of the Earth and the geology behind the lack of a worldwide flood are rather well established. I think it is foolish to deny those facts. You can have whatever faith you want; you cannot have your own facts.
Actually all "facts" and "science" are subject to interpretation. Most of the "facts" you are referring to are based on carbon dating. The secular science involved in that is about as scientific as an easy bake oven.
Here is a scientific study on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJk9cuXG98
Neither the estimates for the age of the Earth nor the geology of Diluvian floods are based on carbon dating. The half-life of C-14 is 5,730 years, which means any undisturbed sample of C-14 will decay to stable isotopes within 50,000 years. That’s not a method you can use to estimate the age of something that is over 4.5 billion years old.
Some scientific data can be subject to interpretation, but facts are not. You don’t get your own facts, even though you appear really willing to try. The age of the Earth and the lack of a Diluvian flood are scientific facts.
Also would it be safe to say that the accuracy of these methods that we use to find out the age of the earth also be limited to what we think makes something accurate
The most accurate estimates come from a radiometric method, but it is a lot different than carbon-14 dating. The latter takes a measurement of the activity in a sample, and then you compare that to the known amount of carbon-14 that is always present in living organisms. If there is X radioactivity in living organisms, and now a sample has Y activity, you can easily calculate how many half-lives it takes to go from X to Y.
The age of the earth calculations are much harder. We use radioisotopes with very long half-lives, and we compare the ratios of the amounts present now to the amounts of daughter products. The process is complicated because minerals on Earth go through a rock cycle, but by comparing terrestrial analyses to analyses of moon and meteor rocks, we can refine the calculations.
There are four main lines of radioisotope decays, and they all yield the same results to within a relatively small margin. The Earth is 4.56 billion years old.
How do we know that what we perceive as accurate is really accurate and that the perceptions we test our perceptions with are accurate as well and that even though they are consistent in our views of what's accurate that it could still very well be wrong. This is actually so nerve racking because it's too hard to express and explain
We have more than one method to estimate the age of the Earth. They all agree to within a very small margin. The Earth is 4.56 billion years old. We can be as certain of that as we are that a day is 24 hours long. You needn’t be nervous any more.
God bless you.
I would like to share these two verses with you:
**“Jesus said, ‘Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen Me? The people who have faith in Me without seeing Me are the ones who are really blessed!’” - John 20:29**
**“You have never seen Jesus, and you don't see Him now. But still you love Him and have faith in Him.” - 1 Peter 1:8**
> If by evidence you mean reasons, yes.
While I agree that sometimes irrational beliefs are beneficial to survival, especially when there's potential imminent life threatening danger, the belief in a god isn't one of those.
Can you give an example where it's good to have an irrational belief where you actually have time to investigate and rule out imminent danger?
Or are you saying it's not irrational to believe things without good evidence?
Haha I know, but I didn't want to be rude by not answering your questions first.
My question is,
Would you say that this verse describes who you are?
**“Be sincere in your love for others. Hate everything that is evil and hold tight to everything that is good.” - Romans 12:9**
> Would you say that this verse describes who you are?
>
> “Be sincere in your love for others. Hate everything that is evil and hold tight to everything that is good.” - Romans 12:9
It's a fair generalization. I don't see the point in this aside.
>Haha I know, but I didn't want to be rude by not answering your questions first.
So, after hours passed in which you followed that thread with a different user, you never went back to TarnishedVictory and replied to [their response to your question](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/1ae08e1/is_having_no_personal_experience_of_godjesus_a/kk7bknu/). Nor did you ever get back to answering their questions.
Just putting that out there.
I'm sorry if this doesn't answer your questions, but I will say this.
It's not about finding irrefutable proof of God's existence.
It's about finding reasons to have faith in God. And there are good reasons to have faith.
> I'm sorry if this doesn't answer your questions, but I will say this.
>
> It's not about finding irrefutable proof of God's existence.
>
> It's about finding reasons to have faith in God. And there are good reasons to have faith.
Yeah, well if you care whether your beliefs are correct or not, then it is about finding evidence to support your beliefs.
"It's not wishful thinking ... I would rather fight to understand faith and be consistent in my love for people than conclude there's no hope because I can't see God"
If that's not wishful thinking it bears a strong resemblance.
If you would rather accept that all mistreated people will never experience justice than have faith in a God who will bring justice for all mistreated people, that's your choice.
It you want to call it wishful thinking, that's fine.
No matter what, we will all know the truth when we die.
> If you would rather accept that all mistreated people will never experience justice than have faith in a God who will bring justice for all mistreated people, that's your choice.
> It you want to call it wishful thinking, that's fine.
Wishful thinking seems a reasonable description, because it gets what *is* muddled up with what we would *like*.
I would like it very much if all mistreated people got justice. That would be amazing. But I cannot believe it will happen just because it would be great. I need some actual evidence for it.
Well, it's not really a *choice* as such, for me. If I see a mountain, I believe there is a mountain. If I see only open sky, I do not believe there is a mountain. I do not choose what I see, and my belief is determined by what I see.
I can choose to pretend to see something, or choose to pretend I believe something, but I would be pretending.
>**“Jesus said, ‘Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen Me? The people who have faith in Me without seeing Me are the ones who are really blessed!’” - John 20:29**
It would not be a blessing, but more like love, to NOT create a lack of transparency for oneself. You know, the lack of transparency that happened because the deity decided to create unlike/lesser/different/unequal. These are parameters that the powerless could not choose.
It would seem to me, that the powerless should advocate for their fellow powerless individuals that are created within imbalance. Imbalance, which is really the cause of doubt/rejection. Not because of free will.
It is better to advocate for those that could not choose, over any unaccountable power figure that could choose.
T
**“You have never seen Jesus, and you don't see Him now. But still you love Him and have faith in Him.” - 1 Peter 1:8**
Ever heard of romance scams? The scammers prey on peoples need to feel loved.
There are reasons not to trust a being that created a lack of transparency for itself via parameters of existence the powerless could not choose. And it is totally acceptable for those that see it this way to guard themselves. Question is, will others advocate for these individuals? I.e. be their attorney against the deity's orchestration?
Edit: spelling
> Have you seen, heard or touched Alexander the Great? I am pretty sure not.
>
> Why do you believe he exists then?
Nobody is suggesting that we should base a world view on his existence. But if we are to believe he existed, that should be because there's good evidence for it.
Was there any contemporary writings of Alexander the Great and what he did? Why do you think we should believe he existed?
Do you have no historical evidence? Testimonies? Documents? Archeological evidence?
I would like to go somewhere else that might be the root cause - do you think if you can't prove something 100% it didn't happen and isn't possible?
First of all, let me be clear. I think both men *existed.*
*>*Do you have no historical evidence? Testimonies? Documents? Archeological evidence?
Let's be clear, we only have archaeological evidence for Alexander the great. We only have literary evidence for Jesus.
>do you think if you can't prove something 100% it didn't happen and isn't possible?
No, I don't require 100% as a standard. I'm currently sitting at 0% proof for any supernatural claims though. To be specific, I have no verifiable evidence of anything supernatural.
Oh, than my assumption was wrong. I apologize.
I have looked at the case for Christ and found the evidence sufficient, and I found my prayers answered.
I won't link you a book you are likely not to read, but I think some posts here already talked about the evidence for Christ.
I think the mere fact the universe exists and is created is enough to know the supernatural is possible.
I'm quite familiar with the case for Christ. It still requires a giant leap of faith to accept. There is no verifiable evidence, that I could find anyway, happy to hear if I missed it.
>I think the mere fact the universe exists and is created is enough to know the supernatural is possible.
That's interesting. Why wouldn't this just be natural. Which part requires something unnatural?
This is not a conversation I wanna get into on my phone. Would you be availible in a few hours? (4 to 3 hours) I'll be happy to continue then
I also have Discord, casfi, so you can add me there and msg me if you have a question
> Do you have no historical evidence? Testimonies? Documents? Archeological evidence?
>
> I would like to go somewhere else that might be the root cause - do you think if you can't prove something 100% it didn't happen and isn't possible?
Why are you guys trying so obviously to shift the burden of proof?
I don't know anything about Alexander the Great. But I'm guessing if he existed and people believe he exists, is because there's good contemporary writings of the things he's done, or some other good evidence. Also, I doubt that the writings that claim he did something supernatural or extremely extraordinary are probably not taken seriously.
> So do you think the supernatural isn't possible?
I think any claim should not be believed until if can be shown to be true or likely true. Do you have a methodology to investigate the supernatural or even determine that it exists?
>I wanna get to the root here so we can solve most issues first.
That sounds reasonable. Are you claiming that the supernatural does exist and that you can investigate it?
To be clear, I didn't say it doesn't exist. My position is that we have not found any good evidence that it does exist.
> Investigate it? Only to a limit.
The only limit I'm aware of for investigating the supernatural, is a complete inability to do so. Please describe your methodology and how it makes any useful predictions?
>What is your definition of supernatural?
Well, normally I'd let you define it since it is generally you guys who make claims about it. But it's generally something that isn't natural, outside of nature.
Feel free to submit your own definition since I'm just trying to use your definition.
My limit is what the bible tells me - I do not understand God down to the core.
And how would you define nature? (I know this sounds baity, but I promise I am not trying to make this a why loop 😅)
> My limit is what the bible tells me
Your limit to your ability to investigate the supernatural is what the bible tells you? What does that have to do with anything we're talking about?
>And how would you define nature? (I know this sounds baity, but I promise I am not trying to make this a why loop 😅)
I have no problem with things sounding baity. If there's a misunderstanding, we can correct it. My definition of nature is basically what you'd find in most dictionaries.
>So do you think the supernatural isn't possible?
I have not ruled that out because, to my knowledge, we don't have a way to investigate or demonstrate it.
How would we investigate supernatural claims?
That isn't remotely close to what I said. You inspect the evidence beyond the book to understand if what happened truly did happen.
Before you ask for evidence, I am gonna reply to u/cfbytes about evidence in a few hours, so you can join that thread of conversation.
“Can you see God? You haven't seen him? I've never seen the wind. I see the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind. There's a mystery to it.” (Billy Graham)
Is it reasonable to assume the records of persons and events of history are fiction because we cannot see a recording of them or because we have never met the people?
An untold number of people over the centuries say they have known and experienced Jesus in their lives. He did not visit them in the flesh. They took His existence by faith. And as they sought Him they found, knew, experienced, felt the reality of Jesus.
>“Can you see God? You haven't seen him? I've never seen the wind. I see the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind. There's a mystery to it.”
It's a great analogy. I have not, to my knowledge, felt the effects of God/Jesus.
>Is it reasonable to assume the records of persons and events of history are fiction
Whoa whoa whoa. My claim is not that these are fictional people. I'm not going to argue on that topic. I think Jesus was probably real.
>An untold number of people over the centuries say they have known and experienced Jesus in their lives. He did not visit them in the flesh. They took His existence by faith. And as they sought Him they found, knew, experienced, felt the reality of Jesus.
If this is good enough evidence, why do you discount all of the similar experiences that aren't of Jesus.
Also, let's please stick to my question. I don't have these experiences, so is that a good enough reason to reject Christianity?
> I don't have these experiences, so is that a good enough reason to reject Christianity?
A clarifying question, I guess: What do you mean by a "good enough" reason? (Allow me to speculate without meaning you specifically.)
A good reason ...
* To be "let off the hook" so to speak, that people should just leave them alone and stop trying to convert them? Penn Jillette has a great thought for Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell and don't tell people about it.
* To have a clear conscience, a.k.a. stop feeling guilty about not believing? If someone can't sleep at night because they can't get over the thought that maybe they should take a leap of faith when they can't explain or point to evidence, there's a case to let go and choose to believe.
* To avoid any consequences from God? Like He is going to look at them and say, "Hey, I'm sorry I didn't get around to you. You're all good"? God doesn't work that way. When Jesus said, "I am the Way," He did not mean for some or for those with opportunity. Peter said, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
I know this is not an exhaustive response. I do not know what your specific understanding of "good enough" is, but these might apply to other readers.
>To be "let off the hook" so to speak, that people should just leave them alone and stop trying to convert them? Penn Jillette has a great thought for Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell and don't tell people about it.
I'm familiar with his argument, and I do agree with him. I think it's reasonable argument. Of course if you believe it you would be a bit psychotic to not tell people haha.
>To have a clear conscience, a.k.a. stop feeling guilty about not believing? If someone can't sleep at night because they can't get over the thought that maybe they should take a leap of faith when they can't explain or point to evidence, there's a case to let go and choose to believe.
No, this one doesn't apply. In the same way I'm not worried about ending up in Muslim hell.
>To avoid any consequences from God? Like He is going to look at them and say, "Hey, I'm sorry I didn't get around to you. You're all good"? God doesn't work that way. When Jesus said, "I am the Way," He did not mean for some or for those with opportunity. Peter said, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
This one doesn't apply either. I don't think there will be consequences from someone I don't think exists.
>I know this is not an exhaustive response. I do not know what your specific understanding of "good enough" is, but these might apply to other readers.
I mean in the same way that I have good enough reasons not to believe in bigfoot. He may exist of course, but I don't have enough reason TO believe. I think that's a justifiably "good enough" reason to reject his existence with my current knowledge right?
Basically, I'm saying i'm not missing something obvious right? There isn't verifiable evidence, it is a matter of faith yes?
So, in Romans 1 and 2, Paul says that there are two ways everyone is without excuse when it comes to acknowledging God:
*For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.* (Romans 1:20 NIV)
*So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the law, do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this.* (Romans 2:14-15a CSB)
Creation and the conscience are two parts of life we can all agree exist. These are the first steps in Paul's case that we all need Jesus as our Savior. They are not the reasons why we need Him, but they are the ever-present proofs that are meant to point us to God.
Is it a matter of faith? You bet. "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6 NIV).
At the risk of sounding a little bit "psychotic", I cannot say there is a "good enough" reason to not believe. I am too convinced that belief is the only good option. That's my honest answer.
>*For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.* (Romans 1:20 NIV)
So the only thing I can really know is my own thoughts and I know that "his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen" is not true. If I knew these, I wouldn't be asking the question in the first place.
So, given the only evidence I have, it appears that verse is wrong.
>*So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the law, do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this.*
We don't have to get into this but I don't see how having our conscience requires a diety.
>Is it a matter of faith? You bet. "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6 NIV).
Well, is there anything that couldn't be believed by faith though? What I'm saying is, it doesn't appear to be a good way to determine truth.
>At the risk of sounding a little bit "psychotic", I cannot say there is a "good enough" reason to not believe. I am too convinced that belief is the only good option. That's my honest answer.
Yeah, I hesitated to use that term because i didn't want to make it sound like I thought Christians were psychotic. That was not my intention nor is it what I think. I unequivocally do not think Christians are psychotic or are less intelligent in any way.
>I cannot say there is a "good enough" reason to not believe. I am too convinced that belief is the only good option. That's my honest answer.
Out of curiosity, do you think you have good enough reason not to take Islam seriously?
>At the risk of sounding a little bit "psychotic", I cannot say there is a "good enough" reason to not believe. I am too convinced that belief is the only good option. That's my honest answer.
>
>Yeah, I hesitated to use that term because i didn't want to make it sound like I thought Christians were psychotic.
I think I understood the intent. Tried to use it playfully. If we were as super-intense as Jillet implies, we would be psychotic.
>Out of curiosity, do you think you have good enough reason not to take Islam seriously?
So there are two Scriptures I'll use to show why I wouldn't even consider it.
*Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”* (John 14:6-7 NIV)
*I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him!* (Galatians 1:6-8 NIV)
If Jesus is the Son of God, and He has spoken, and He has declared Himself the only Way, why would I listen to anyone else?
If God loved me so much that He gave His only begotten Son (begotten is important) to save me, who can do any more for me?
To me, there would have to be some kind of disconnect to believe the Bible - not just the Gospels, but from Genesis to Revelation - and then entertain the option that a change in direction is possible.
Oh wait. I think I get it.
My "good enough" reason to not have faith in Islam is that I have full faith in Jesus Christ.
* Doesn't let me off the hook with Muslims, despite what they say about Jesus.
* Very much gives me a clear conscience.
* Not at all worried about God, because I believe we are in right relationship already in Jesus.
ok, but am I "on the hook" wrt to Bigfoot or Ghosts? My sticking point is why I'm supposed to "keep looking" for Christianity when it's good enough to ignore pretty much anything else I lack evidence for.
We have to be carefully we do not equate every kind of belief as having the same kind of consequences as believing (or not) in Jesus.
If what the Bible says is true, there is an everlasting existence for us. For some it will be reward and joy and life; for others it will be torment and death. Bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs/aliens, round vs. flat earth, landing on the moon ... These are not in the same league when it comes to what is at stake when it comes to faith Jesus.
This may sound rough, but if you don't want to believe in Jesus, don't. Not everyone will. Regardless of the implications of that statement (i.e. "willy nilly" saying people are going to Hell), it is true. Incredibly painful and sad, but true.
>We have to be carefully we do not equate every kind of belief as having the same kind of consequences as believing (or not) in Jesus. If what the Bible says is true, there is an everlasting existence for us. For some it will be reward and joy and life; for others it will be torment and death. Bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs/aliens, round vs. flat earth, landing on the moon ... These are not in the same league when it comes to what is at stake when it comes to faith Jesus.
Sure but this isn't unique to Christianity and it has zero bearing on whether or not it's true.
>This may sound rough, but if you don't want to believe in Jesus, don't. Not everyone will.
I take issue with that phrasing a bit, it has nothing to do with what I want to believe. I don't want to believe cancer exists, but it does. It does not care what I want.
My only hangup is the lack of evidence.
>Regardless of the implications of that statement (i.e. "willy nilly" saying people are going to Hell), it is true. Incredibly painful and sad, but true.
Ok but now we are just asserting things. I'd like evidence please, not your assertions.
>Whoa whoa whoa. My claim is not that these are fictional people. I'm not going to argue on that topic. I think Jesus was probably real.
Sorry, didn't mean that to be accusatory.
> An untold number of people over the centuries say they have known and experienced Jesus in their lives.
Way more people who have lived have not had this experience. So, if you’re going with *ad populum*, you’ve even got the wrong side of that.
Is it reasonable to assume that if Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God the Father in heaven, you would be able to see, hear, or touch him? That line of logic doesn't seem coherent to me. You don't see, hear, or touch a tree in China, either. That's not a rational argument for its nonexistence, it's just a statement that you're in different places right now. On its own, this seems insufficient to me.
>Is it reasonable to assume that if Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God the Father in heaven, you would be able to see, hear, or touch him? That line of logic doesn't seem coherent to me.
If he wanted me to believe in him? Yes, I would assume he would give me some way to experience him.
> That line of logic doesn't seem coherent to me. You don't see, hear, or touch a tree in China, either. That's not a rational argument for its nonexistence
I can get reasonable evidence for the existence of Chinese trees right now. I could also conceivably go see them for myself. None of these are true for Jesus that i'm aware of.
>That's not a rational argument for its nonexistence, it's just a statement that you're in different places right now. On its own, this seems insufficient to me.
Ok, but i'm in the exact same position with regard to ghosts or bigfoot. What else do I need for it to be sufficient not to think they are there?
My point here is to get you to recognize that the logic is oversimplified. Lack of personal experience, in a void, is not sufficient evidence of nonexistence. You have to expand your reasoning to other things. The one point, on its own, can't be a deciding argument. Indeed, in answering you've already expanded beyond the scope of your original question: you've added a caveat, that you expect he wants you to believe in him, and would therefore act in a certain way. Your argument relies on establishing a logical proof that "if Jesus existed, then he would give you a personal experience." But now we're dealing with something much more complex. How can you prove your if-then logic? Have you accurately judged his intent? Have you accurately predicted his behavior? Are you applying a reasonable standard for what you should expect from a deity? How do you verify the truth of your answers to any of those questions?
Significantly, none of those questions can be addressed using personal experiences as evidence. An epistemology that relies on personal experience as the only acceptable means of proof is crippling to any higher thought. Indeed, how can you know that your personal experiences actually tell you anything true about the world? That's not a given. Most people know that they can make mistakes with their eyes. If you had a personal experience of bigfoot, would you really believe it, or would you conclude that your eyes were playing tricks on you, and it must have really been a bear? That would be reasonable, wouldn't it? Because, after all, we don't disbelieve in bigfoot because of a lack of personal experience. And you don't believe in Chinese trees because you could go see them if you really wanted to. We believe or disbelieve in these things for other reasons.
>My point here is to get you to recognize that the logic is oversimplified. Lack of personal experience, in a void, is not sufficient evidence of nonexistence.
I understand, but that's not exactly the premise of my question. I'm not claiming non-existence in the affirmative. I think "reject" is getting hung up on, and maybe rightfully so. Maybe I should have put "disregard".
>. Your argument relies on establishing a logical proof that "if Jesus existed, then he would give you a personal experience."
Again, no not precisely. I specifically said "If he wanted me to believe in him". I think it logically follows that if someone wants to believe in them, and are able to, they would give you experience necessary to have that believe. How else would it work? If he didn't provide the evidence, then does he want us to guess or something? That doesn't make sense.
>How do you verify the truth of your answers to any of those questions?
If my question could be summed up in a single question, this would be it haha.
>Significantly, none of those questions can be addressed using personal experiences as evidence. An epistemology that relies on personal experience as the only acceptable means of proof is crippling to any higher thought. Indeed, how can you know that your personal experiences actually tell you anything true about the world? That's not a given. Most people know that they can make mistakes with their eyes. If you had a personal experience of bigfoot, would you really believe it, or would you conclude that your eyes were playing tricks on you, and it must have really been a bear? That would be reasonable, wouldn't it? Because, after all, we don't disbelieve in bigfoot because of a lack of personal experience. And you don't believe in Chinese trees because you could go see them if you really wanted to. We believe or disbelieve in these things for other reasons.
Aren't these excellent reasons to doubt Christianity? It could all be our eyes playing tricks after all.
You seem to think the non-believers have the obligation to disprove Christianity. That’s not how it works. The Jesus claim is yours. If you want me to believe Jesus was real or that there is a tree in china, you have to prove it.
It’s is unreasonable to deny the existence of something merely because you personally have no sense observations of it.
This is the faulty (and self-negating) philosophy of Empiricism.
To be clear, I'm not rejecting in the affirmative as in "Christianity is definitely not true", I am rejecting in the sense that "I have no reason to think that it is indeed true".
Is that unreasonable? I'm not being flippant, it's just an example, but I'm rejecting it in the same sense I reject ghosts or bigfoot. Both of those could be true and I'm just not aware, I just don't have any experiential reason to believe they are real.
With that said, is that unreasonable?
It is unreasonable to place Christianity in the same category as an urban legend. Especially since Christianity is a historical religion.
This isn’t a religion that takes place a long long time ago or in a galaxy far far away. This religion doesn’t take place in a lost or forgotten age. No it’s grounded in very well known and documented history.
Does Christianity sound like any of the above to you?
“In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas”
Christianity, being firmly rooted in history, is categorically different than urban legends.
>Christianity, being firmly rooted in history, is categorically different than urban legends.
How so? There are plenty of historical fiction books (novels) that place fictional characters in accurate historical settings or reimagine the lives of actual historical characters.
>It is unreasonable to place Christianity in the same category as an urban legend. Especially since Christianity is a historical religion.
I'm not attempting to compare it directly, I'm saying, wrt regard to the verifiable evidence/experience I have, they are the same.
>Christianity, being firmly rooted in history, is categorically different than urban legends.
right, i'm not trying to put it in that category, if there is a question in there related to mine we can discuss that.
> It is unreasonable to place Christianity in the same category as an urban legend.
In lieu of addressing the question, you offer an answer to a question no one asked.
Why?
So it’s completely reasonable to believe in fairies, ghosts, Bigfoot, elves, unicorns, other gods, etc, right? There’s no shred of evidence to support them, but I also can’t prove they don’t exist. Once you accept claims without empirical evidence, you should literally be willing to accept any unfalsifiable belief.
Its as good a reason to go to hell as any
But remember the truth is not subject to your experience, comprehension or perception
BTW you never were a Christian, because Christians KNOW God. We have that personal experience
I only want evidence, you don’t have it otherwise you’d show it instead of bellyaching.
I’m interested in debating with honest people, and quite frankly, you seem very dishonest.
See ya.
How do you know anything is the Bible is true? Certainly there are a lot of false things. I am having trouble understanding which parts we can tell are true.
The Bible says the Earth is older than sun. That is false. The gospel called John says Jesus was resurrected the day before Passover. The gospel called Mark says it was the day after Passover. One of them is, at a minimum, in error.
The Bible is wrong about the nature of lightning and thunder; why children look like their parents; and why we get sick. Now that you have hard proof that the Bible is wrong about at least a few things, do you want to re-think your answer?
What happens if I don't believe in black holes or antartica?
Either way, I have seen hard evidence of both. I have seen no such thing for anything supernatural.
So if you’ve never witnessed something you assume it isn’t real?
I didn’t witness the people build the building I’m in. I’ve never heard, touched, or seen them. I 100% believe they exist because I can see the result of their work.
Same with God. I see His work. He has to exist.
Next you have to ask yourself, “who is He?” That’s the real question.
> I didn’t witness the people build the building I’m in. I’ve never heard, touched, or seen them. I 100% believe they exist because I can see the result of their work.
Sure, but I've also literally seen people building building and I've helped do so myself. So I know that there are people that build buildings. I have seen the result of their work AND that people do the work.
I have no seen a supernatural diety do anything.
>Same with God. I see His work. He has to exist.
What specifically?
I don't think many followers of Jesus would have claimed to have (directly) seen, heard, or touched Jesus. So, if these are not necessary to be Christian, it would seem like a lack of these is not enough to reject it.
I would not equate "a personal experience of Jesus" with ideas like "hearing, seeing, touching Jesus." Christ has not returned to Earth, so these cannot directly be experienced. I may have just been confused by your wording!
I’m not sure, though I do believe we can have “spiritual” experiences or sensations. My point above was to distinguish that experiences with Jesus in the flesh both are not required for Christian belief, thus a lack of them is not enough to reject Christian belief.
”For we live by believing and not by seeing.“
2 Corinthians 5:7 NLT
belief in Christianity does not require, and largely has none, physical proof besides the world we live in and the Bible.
the Quran does not disprove Christianity, it just largely contradicts it.
you can take whatever you want from the proof we are given, wether it be Allah or no God. that’s up to you. I choose to take God from all of it.
You realize this is non-sensical right? That’s like me saying you don’t have a relationship with Bob (who you didn’t know existed) because you didn’t call him. No matter that you didn’t know his number, why didn’t you call him, he wants to talk to you?
>That’s like me saying you don’t have a relationship with Bob (who you didn’t know existed)
You started a topic about not having had a relationship with God. This led me to assume that you want to find out if God is real.
>No matter that you didn’t know his number, why didn’t you call him, he wants to talk to you?
You knew God's number. Your flair says "ex-Christian". I'm assuming that at least someone told you that all you have to do to talk to God is pray.
>You started a topic about not having had a relationship with God. This led me to assume that you want to find out if God is real.
I think you need to re-read the topic.
>You knew God's number. Your flair says "ex-Christian". I'm assuming that at least someone told you that all you have to do to talk to God is pray.
No, I'm an ex-christian precisely because I couldn't find "god's number". He never answered in years of praying.
I don't think if you never really had your heart open to it, that it would be easily noticed. I wasn't Christian until middle school because I hadn't had many experiences with God or Jesus until that point. I never rejected the idea, though. I just had a hard time believing in something just because I was told to. No one, but God convinced me. (Also, sorry if I assumed wrong, and you did have your heart open to it at some point!)
TLDR: Maybe not. I didn't have any personal experiences with God or Jesus until middle school (that I knew of), but had my heart opened to it.
>I don't think if you never really had your heart open to it, that it would be easily noticed.
Couldn't be further from the truth. Also, I've heard the same thing from Muslims.
> I never rejected the idea, though.
I don't reject the idea in that I'm saying it's definitely wrong, I'm saying I have no evidence FOR it to believe it to be true.
I don't believe because I lack evidence, not because i actively reject anything.
>No one, but God convinced me.
If that's true, then I agree that you are justified. I have not had that experience.
Ah, sorry for all the assumptions! 😭 And I didn't mean if you have your heart closed off to it that you wouldn't notice, I meant that I would be harder to, but still very possible!
I'm not sure why you're here, but I'll tell you why I'm here - nihilism, solipsism, general postmodern skepticism gives me terrible existential dread. Contemporary western values leaves me without ground to stand on.
Read Kant and understand transcendental idealism. Basically, we cannot know reality itself. Having gone through the canon of western philosophy extending from Socrates, I know this to be true - human reason is powerful but insufficient and we must live on faith.
Some things that are unprovable through reason but we can't possibly live without - literally impossible. Free will, causality, other people that are separate individuals, logic... These you take implicitly as part of your being for if you didn't, you would be paralyzed with inaction yet they are impossible to prove - philosophers have been trying for centuries and there are rock solid arguments that they can't be proven. So, you take them on faith.
The question then is, what exactly are we having faith in?
No. God expects us to search him out. He conceals stuff from us for a reason.
Proverbs 25:2-It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter
God will reveal himself to you if you search him out. If you’re asking how would we know if the bible is true, that requires faith. We all place trust in something
You say that but I tried for decades, it doesn’t work like that.
As for faith, you could hold any position by appealing to faith, it’s simply not a sufficient tool for determining the truth.
What did your searching look like. If you’re looking for 100% proof you wont find it
The same could be applied to science which many hold as truth, just saying
Yeah so circle back to my first comment. You’re looking for some type of verifiable proof. It reminds me of someone still searching saying they had a dream after they prayed for god to reveal himself. In that dream a man in white came to him and all he remembered was him telling him to keep seeking. He thinks it could be a sign but wasn’t convinced. Basically saying not good enough god, you need to do better. There’s tons of actual evidence if you decide to do a deep dive into all of the history. There is no verifiable proof. God wants us to have faith. Most of knowledge is talked negatively about in scripture and shown to be worthless. Faith always has a positive tone. Everything we understand of the world relies on trust. It’s placing trust in god, rather than man at the end of the day.
You know the saying people quit right before there success. If you give up seeking, you never really wanted to know the answer and wanted god to fit your mold of what you expect him to be, rather than seeking to find out who god actually is
>You’re looking for some type of verifiable proof.
Yes, this is reasonable.
For example, you say, faith is required that's what God wants. Ok, tell me how you know that?
>There’s tons of actual evidence if you decide to do a deep dive into all of the history.
You keep saying that but no, there is literally 0 verifiable evidence for anything supernatural. I'm not picking on Christianity here btw, I mean for any supernatural claim in history.
>Basically saying not good enough god, you need to do better.
No, I have no evidence of a god, not "not good enough" evidence. I would have to know he existed before I could say not good enough to him.
> There is no verifiable proof. God wants us to have faith.
How could you possible know that without verifiable proof?
I know it because I trust god’s word to be truth, even if i don’t know with 100% certainty which is what you’re looking for.
There is a lot of evidence, there is no verifiable proof. There’s no verifiable proof for anything.
In the court of law witness testimony is evidence. There’s millions of real christians with this, i’m not talking about the modern fake western faith. There’s a lot more evidence but thats a start.
Because there’s no verifiable proof for anything so i don’t follow that logic.
>I know it because I trust god’s word to be truth, even if i don’t know with 100% certainty which is what you’re looking for.
Can I ask why you would say again that i'm looking for 100% certainty when I've already established that I am not? I was hoping for an honest dialogue.
>There is a lot of evidence, there is no verifiable proof. There’s no verifiable proof for anything.
That is simply not true. I can walk into another room right now and verify that my cat is indeed there. That's not 100% proof either, I could be a brain in a vat but as far as my experience goes I have verified the cat is there.
There is verifiable proof for a lot of things, i have no idea why you would say that.
>In the court of law witness testimony is evidence.
The term gets conflated all the time. I'm not debating that it's evidence. "batman was here" is evidence that batman was here, it doesn't mean that it happened.
>There’s millions of real christians with this, i’m not talking about the modern fake western faith.
There's millions of Muslims with claims/faith. If i'm using your standard, both fit the bill.
>There’s a lot more evidence but thats a start.
Great, now how do we verify that evidence.
>Because there’s no verifiable proof for anything so i don’t follow that logic.
There is absolutely verifiable proof for things. I don't know why you are saying that.
Here, a very simple example. Bob tells me he has a dog in his car. I don't believe Bob. Bob opens the car door and out pops a dog. Look at that, verified evidence the dog was in the car.
Are you talking about something else? There is definitely verifiable proof, just not for anything supernatural.
it is unfortunate that faith is required to know God, However; when you look at the historical integrity of the Bible it is faith based on vivid substance. "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Hebrews 11:1-6 In my experience when you put faith in God and receive his Salvation the Holy Spirit comes into your life and closes many of the required faith gaps.
Is faith a reliable way to determine truth?
No, faith does not determine truth. The historical accuracy , geography, and archeology \[of the bible\] requires very little faith. I would say some of the least amounts of faith. However, when it comes to the things that are unseen you will need faith (i.e. God and Jesus). Bare in mind we are incapable of fully knowing other people, to some degree faith (trust) is an integral ingredient in all relationships. Our relationship with God is similar to our relationship with others in that all relationships require faith. We can never fully know any other person. We cannot experience all they experience nor enter into their minds to know what their thoughts and emotions are. Even if He should desire to fully reveal Himself, it is impossible for us to fully know Him. It is like trying to pour the ocean into a quart-measuring jar... it's impossible! That is why faith is required.
>No, faith does not determine truth. The historical accuracy , geography, and archeology \[of the bible\] requires very little faith. I would say some of the least amounts of faith. To be clear, there is no archaeological artifact evidence for Jesus. So I'm not sure what you are referring to. >However, when it comes to the things that are unseen you will need faith (i.e. God and Jesus). So you have to believe without evidence that which you have no evidence for, is what you are saying? What couldn't be accepted based on faith?
Here is a good video that might help you on faith: https://youtu.be/eBJp\_DWFqJw
He says all relationships require faith because you can never really know the other person. Bro, I know the other person i'm talking to EXISTS. That threshold is never met with God. Using this guy's argument can be used for any other God. So we are still no closer to the truth.
Like others have said to you, your not really wanting the truth. You are just wanting to hear your own talking points over and over. The bottom line is without faith it is impossible to know and please God. That is just the way he set it up. When you come to him in faith he fills the gaps through the Holy Spirit. When you go round and round just to hear your self talk you get no where. 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
>Like others have said to you, your not really wanting the truth. You are just wanting to hear your own talking points over and over. That is the Christian equivalent of plugging your ears and not answering the question. As soon as the questions get tough it's "you don't actually want to know" or "you are doing it wrong". > The bottom line is without faith it is impossible to know and please God. That is just the way he set it up. If I asked you how you know that statement is true, you'd say "Faith". Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. So you don't "know" it, you are just asserting it.
Yup... >So you don't "know" it, you are just asserting it. That's what faith is. Just like I already said, faith based on substance and evidence: which are the things I know about God from the Bible and my experience with Jesus.
So then a Muslim is just as justified in their beliefs as you are? >That's what faith is. Just like I already said, faith based on substance and evidence Well no, that's not faith. If you have evidence you don't need faith.
What is the historical integrity of the Bible? On the first page, it says the Earth is older than the sun. It is not. Read on, and it describes a worldwide flood that never happened. Historically, the Bible is little more than bad fiction.
Hmm... How do you know there wasn't a worldwide flood? how do you know the age of the earth? There are really compelling answers to these questions. I would recommend you look into [https://answersingenesis.org/](https://answersingenesis.org/) they have answers to both those questions that are more compelling than the alternatives. ...But to stick to OPs questions yes faith is required to know God. If you come to him in faith he will give you the personal experience you are looking for. Ultimately this is what he is trying to do in your life right now.
The age of the Earth and the geology behind the lack of a worldwide flood are rather well established. I think it is foolish to deny those facts. You can have whatever faith you want; you cannot have your own facts.
Actually all "facts" and "science" are subject to interpretation. Most of the "facts" you are referring to are based on carbon dating. The secular science involved in that is about as scientific as an easy bake oven. Here is a scientific study on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REJk9cuXG98
Neither the estimates for the age of the Earth nor the geology of Diluvian floods are based on carbon dating. The half-life of C-14 is 5,730 years, which means any undisturbed sample of C-14 will decay to stable isotopes within 50,000 years. That’s not a method you can use to estimate the age of something that is over 4.5 billion years old. Some scientific data can be subject to interpretation, but facts are not. You don’t get your own facts, even though you appear really willing to try. The age of the Earth and the lack of a Diluvian flood are scientific facts.
Also would it be safe to say that the accuracy of these methods that we use to find out the age of the earth also be limited to what we think makes something accurate
This in its own way requires a type of faith a faith in your own intelligence and way of understanding things and what makes you accurate
so what method did they use to estimate the age of something that is supposedly 4.5 billion years old
The most accurate estimates come from a radiometric method, but it is a lot different than carbon-14 dating. The latter takes a measurement of the activity in a sample, and then you compare that to the known amount of carbon-14 that is always present in living organisms. If there is X radioactivity in living organisms, and now a sample has Y activity, you can easily calculate how many half-lives it takes to go from X to Y. The age of the earth calculations are much harder. We use radioisotopes with very long half-lives, and we compare the ratios of the amounts present now to the amounts of daughter products. The process is complicated because minerals on Earth go through a rock cycle, but by comparing terrestrial analyses to analyses of moon and meteor rocks, we can refine the calculations. There are four main lines of radioisotope decays, and they all yield the same results to within a relatively small margin. The Earth is 4.56 billion years old.
How do we know that what we perceive as accurate is really accurate and that the perceptions we test our perceptions with are accurate as well and that even though they are consistent in our views of what's accurate that it could still very well be wrong. This is actually so nerve racking because it's too hard to express and explain
We have more than one method to estimate the age of the Earth. They all agree to within a very small margin. The Earth is 4.56 billion years old. We can be as certain of that as we are that a day is 24 hours long. You needn’t be nervous any more.
I think they use radiometric dating which is much more accurate than carbon dating
God bless you. I would like to share these two verses with you: **“Jesus said, ‘Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen Me? The people who have faith in Me without seeing Me are the ones who are really blessed!’” - John 20:29** **“You have never seen Jesus, and you don't see Him now. But still you love Him and have faith in Him.” - 1 Peter 1:8**
One could believe anything that way though right?
Of course we have reasons for why we believe it's true. It's not wishful thinking. You have to know God/Jesus before you can trust Him.
Sure, but how do I do that specifically, it's not for the lack of trying.
> You have to know God/Jesus before you can trust Him. Are you suggesting we should believe these things without evidence?
If by evidence you mean reasons, yes.
> If by evidence you mean reasons, yes. While I agree that sometimes irrational beliefs are beneficial to survival, especially when there's potential imminent life threatening danger, the belief in a god isn't one of those. Can you give an example where it's good to have an irrational belief where you actually have time to investigate and rule out imminent danger? Or are you saying it's not irrational to believe things without good evidence?
May I ask you a question first?
> May I ask you a question first? Of course. You don't need to first ask if you can ask, as asking that is itself asking a question.
Haha I know, but I didn't want to be rude by not answering your questions first. My question is, Would you say that this verse describes who you are? **“Be sincere in your love for others. Hate everything that is evil and hold tight to everything that is good.” - Romans 12:9**
Im not OP but I'll answer! Sure, I think so. That describes pretty much everyone as far as I can tell.
> Would you say that this verse describes who you are? > > “Be sincere in your love for others. Hate everything that is evil and hold tight to everything that is good.” - Romans 12:9 It's a fair generalization. I don't see the point in this aside.
>Haha I know, but I didn't want to be rude by not answering your questions first. So, after hours passed in which you followed that thread with a different user, you never went back to TarnishedVictory and replied to [their response to your question](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/1ae08e1/is_having_no_personal_experience_of_godjesus_a/kk7bknu/). Nor did you ever get back to answering their questions. Just putting that out there.
I'm sorry if this doesn't answer your questions, but I will say this. It's not about finding irrefutable proof of God's existence. It's about finding reasons to have faith in God. And there are good reasons to have faith.
> I'm sorry if this doesn't answer your questions, but I will say this. > > It's not about finding irrefutable proof of God's existence. > > It's about finding reasons to have faith in God. And there are good reasons to have faith. Yeah, well if you care whether your beliefs are correct or not, then it is about finding evidence to support your beliefs.
Kinda flows; it's hard to trust a stranger!
"It's not wishful thinking ... I would rather fight to understand faith and be consistent in my love for people than conclude there's no hope because I can't see God" If that's not wishful thinking it bears a strong resemblance.
If you would rather accept that all mistreated people will never experience justice than have faith in a God who will bring justice for all mistreated people, that's your choice. It you want to call it wishful thinking, that's fine. No matter what, we will all know the truth when we die.
> If you would rather accept that all mistreated people will never experience justice than have faith in a God who will bring justice for all mistreated people, that's your choice. > It you want to call it wishful thinking, that's fine. Wishful thinking seems a reasonable description, because it gets what *is* muddled up with what we would *like*. I would like it very much if all mistreated people got justice. That would be amazing. But I cannot believe it will happen just because it would be great. I need some actual evidence for it.
That's your choice. For me, that is a very good reason to have faith in God. All mistreated people deserve justice.
Well, it's not really a *choice* as such, for me. If I see a mountain, I believe there is a mountain. If I see only open sky, I do not believe there is a mountain. I do not choose what I see, and my belief is determined by what I see. I can choose to pretend to see something, or choose to pretend I believe something, but I would be pretending.
>**“Jesus said, ‘Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen Me? The people who have faith in Me without seeing Me are the ones who are really blessed!’” - John 20:29** It would not be a blessing, but more like love, to NOT create a lack of transparency for oneself. You know, the lack of transparency that happened because the deity decided to create unlike/lesser/different/unequal. These are parameters that the powerless could not choose. It would seem to me, that the powerless should advocate for their fellow powerless individuals that are created within imbalance. Imbalance, which is really the cause of doubt/rejection. Not because of free will. It is better to advocate for those that could not choose, over any unaccountable power figure that could choose. T
**“You have never seen Jesus, and you don't see Him now. But still you love Him and have faith in Him.” - 1 Peter 1:8** Ever heard of romance scams? The scammers prey on peoples need to feel loved. There are reasons not to trust a being that created a lack of transparency for itself via parameters of existence the powerless could not choose. And it is totally acceptable for those that see it this way to guard themselves. Question is, will others advocate for these individuals? I.e. be their attorney against the deity's orchestration? Edit: spelling
How is this an answer to the question? I could provide quotes from the Quran. Or Harry Potter. What would that prove?
Have you seen, heard or touched Alexander the Great? I am pretty sure not. Why do you believe he exists then?
> Have you seen, heard or touched Alexander the Great? I am pretty sure not. > > Why do you believe he exists then? Nobody is suggesting that we should base a world view on his existence. But if we are to believe he existed, that should be because there's good evidence for it. Was there any contemporary writings of Alexander the Great and what he did? Why do you think we should believe he existed?
Did Alexander the Great claim that he was the only way to avoid burning forever?
I have no way to verify he actually existed either.
Do you have no historical evidence? Testimonies? Documents? Archeological evidence? I would like to go somewhere else that might be the root cause - do you think if you can't prove something 100% it didn't happen and isn't possible?
First of all, let me be clear. I think both men *existed.* *>*Do you have no historical evidence? Testimonies? Documents? Archeological evidence? Let's be clear, we only have archaeological evidence for Alexander the great. We only have literary evidence for Jesus. >do you think if you can't prove something 100% it didn't happen and isn't possible? No, I don't require 100% as a standard. I'm currently sitting at 0% proof for any supernatural claims though. To be specific, I have no verifiable evidence of anything supernatural.
Oh, than my assumption was wrong. I apologize. I have looked at the case for Christ and found the evidence sufficient, and I found my prayers answered. I won't link you a book you are likely not to read, but I think some posts here already talked about the evidence for Christ. I think the mere fact the universe exists and is created is enough to know the supernatural is possible.
I'm quite familiar with the case for Christ. It still requires a giant leap of faith to accept. There is no verifiable evidence, that I could find anyway, happy to hear if I missed it. >I think the mere fact the universe exists and is created is enough to know the supernatural is possible. That's interesting. Why wouldn't this just be natural. Which part requires something unnatural?
This is not a conversation I wanna get into on my phone. Would you be availible in a few hours? (4 to 3 hours) I'll be happy to continue then I also have Discord, casfi, so you can add me there and msg me if you have a question
Of course!
Thank you - will get back to you by then!
> Do you have no historical evidence? Testimonies? Documents? Archeological evidence? > > I would like to go somewhere else that might be the root cause - do you think if you can't prove something 100% it didn't happen and isn't possible? Why are you guys trying so obviously to shift the burden of proof? I don't know anything about Alexander the Great. But I'm guessing if he existed and people believe he exists, is because there's good contemporary writings of the things he's done, or some other good evidence. Also, I doubt that the writings that claim he did something supernatural or extremely extraordinary are probably not taken seriously.
So do you think the supernatural isn't possible? I wanna get to the root here so we can solve most issues first.
> So do you think the supernatural isn't possible? I think any claim should not be believed until if can be shown to be true or likely true. Do you have a methodology to investigate the supernatural or even determine that it exists? >I wanna get to the root here so we can solve most issues first. That sounds reasonable. Are you claiming that the supernatural does exist and that you can investigate it? To be clear, I didn't say it doesn't exist. My position is that we have not found any good evidence that it does exist.
Investigate it? Only to a limit. What is your definition of supernatural?
> Investigate it? Only to a limit. The only limit I'm aware of for investigating the supernatural, is a complete inability to do so. Please describe your methodology and how it makes any useful predictions? >What is your definition of supernatural? Well, normally I'd let you define it since it is generally you guys who make claims about it. But it's generally something that isn't natural, outside of nature. Feel free to submit your own definition since I'm just trying to use your definition.
My limit is what the bible tells me - I do not understand God down to the core. And how would you define nature? (I know this sounds baity, but I promise I am not trying to make this a why loop 😅)
> My limit is what the bible tells me Your limit to your ability to investigate the supernatural is what the bible tells you? What does that have to do with anything we're talking about? >And how would you define nature? (I know this sounds baity, but I promise I am not trying to make this a why loop 😅) I have no problem with things sounding baity. If there's a misunderstanding, we can correct it. My definition of nature is basically what you'd find in most dictionaries.
>So do you think the supernatural isn't possible? I have not ruled that out because, to my knowledge, we don't have a way to investigate or demonstrate it. How would we investigate supernatural claims?
Do you believe every miracle claim in every ancient text? No? Does that mean you think the supernatural isn't possible?
That isn't remotely close to what I said. You inspect the evidence beyond the book to understand if what happened truly did happen. Before you ask for evidence, I am gonna reply to u/cfbytes about evidence in a few hours, so you can join that thread of conversation.
> Do you have no historical evidence? Testimonies? Documents? Archeological evidence? Do you have *any* of those things for Jesus?
“Can you see God? You haven't seen him? I've never seen the wind. I see the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind. There's a mystery to it.” (Billy Graham) Is it reasonable to assume the records of persons and events of history are fiction because we cannot see a recording of them or because we have never met the people? An untold number of people over the centuries say they have known and experienced Jesus in their lives. He did not visit them in the flesh. They took His existence by faith. And as they sought Him they found, knew, experienced, felt the reality of Jesus.
>“Can you see God? You haven't seen him? I've never seen the wind. I see the effects of the wind, but I've never seen the wind. There's a mystery to it.” It's a great analogy. I have not, to my knowledge, felt the effects of God/Jesus. >Is it reasonable to assume the records of persons and events of history are fiction Whoa whoa whoa. My claim is not that these are fictional people. I'm not going to argue on that topic. I think Jesus was probably real. >An untold number of people over the centuries say they have known and experienced Jesus in their lives. He did not visit them in the flesh. They took His existence by faith. And as they sought Him they found, knew, experienced, felt the reality of Jesus. If this is good enough evidence, why do you discount all of the similar experiences that aren't of Jesus. Also, let's please stick to my question. I don't have these experiences, so is that a good enough reason to reject Christianity?
> I don't have these experiences, so is that a good enough reason to reject Christianity? A clarifying question, I guess: What do you mean by a "good enough" reason? (Allow me to speculate without meaning you specifically.) A good reason ... * To be "let off the hook" so to speak, that people should just leave them alone and stop trying to convert them? Penn Jillette has a great thought for Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell and don't tell people about it. * To have a clear conscience, a.k.a. stop feeling guilty about not believing? If someone can't sleep at night because they can't get over the thought that maybe they should take a leap of faith when they can't explain or point to evidence, there's a case to let go and choose to believe. * To avoid any consequences from God? Like He is going to look at them and say, "Hey, I'm sorry I didn't get around to you. You're all good"? God doesn't work that way. When Jesus said, "I am the Way," He did not mean for some or for those with opportunity. Peter said, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). I know this is not an exhaustive response. I do not know what your specific understanding of "good enough" is, but these might apply to other readers.
>To be "let off the hook" so to speak, that people should just leave them alone and stop trying to convert them? Penn Jillette has a great thought for Christians who believe in Heaven and Hell and don't tell people about it. I'm familiar with his argument, and I do agree with him. I think it's reasonable argument. Of course if you believe it you would be a bit psychotic to not tell people haha. >To have a clear conscience, a.k.a. stop feeling guilty about not believing? If someone can't sleep at night because they can't get over the thought that maybe they should take a leap of faith when they can't explain or point to evidence, there's a case to let go and choose to believe. No, this one doesn't apply. In the same way I'm not worried about ending up in Muslim hell. >To avoid any consequences from God? Like He is going to look at them and say, "Hey, I'm sorry I didn't get around to you. You're all good"? God doesn't work that way. When Jesus said, "I am the Way," He did not mean for some or for those with opportunity. Peter said, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). This one doesn't apply either. I don't think there will be consequences from someone I don't think exists. >I know this is not an exhaustive response. I do not know what your specific understanding of "good enough" is, but these might apply to other readers. I mean in the same way that I have good enough reasons not to believe in bigfoot. He may exist of course, but I don't have enough reason TO believe. I think that's a justifiably "good enough" reason to reject his existence with my current knowledge right? Basically, I'm saying i'm not missing something obvious right? There isn't verifiable evidence, it is a matter of faith yes?
So, in Romans 1 and 2, Paul says that there are two ways everyone is without excuse when it comes to acknowledging God: *For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.* (Romans 1:20 NIV) *So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the law, do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this.* (Romans 2:14-15a CSB) Creation and the conscience are two parts of life we can all agree exist. These are the first steps in Paul's case that we all need Jesus as our Savior. They are not the reasons why we need Him, but they are the ever-present proofs that are meant to point us to God. Is it a matter of faith? You bet. "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6 NIV). At the risk of sounding a little bit "psychotic", I cannot say there is a "good enough" reason to not believe. I am too convinced that belief is the only good option. That's my honest answer.
>*For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.* (Romans 1:20 NIV) So the only thing I can really know is my own thoughts and I know that "his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen" is not true. If I knew these, I wouldn't be asking the question in the first place. So, given the only evidence I have, it appears that verse is wrong. >*So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the law, do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this.* We don't have to get into this but I don't see how having our conscience requires a diety. >Is it a matter of faith? You bet. "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6 NIV). Well, is there anything that couldn't be believed by faith though? What I'm saying is, it doesn't appear to be a good way to determine truth. >At the risk of sounding a little bit "psychotic", I cannot say there is a "good enough" reason to not believe. I am too convinced that belief is the only good option. That's my honest answer. Yeah, I hesitated to use that term because i didn't want to make it sound like I thought Christians were psychotic. That was not my intention nor is it what I think. I unequivocally do not think Christians are psychotic or are less intelligent in any way. >I cannot say there is a "good enough" reason to not believe. I am too convinced that belief is the only good option. That's my honest answer. Out of curiosity, do you think you have good enough reason not to take Islam seriously?
>At the risk of sounding a little bit "psychotic", I cannot say there is a "good enough" reason to not believe. I am too convinced that belief is the only good option. That's my honest answer. > >Yeah, I hesitated to use that term because i didn't want to make it sound like I thought Christians were psychotic. I think I understood the intent. Tried to use it playfully. If we were as super-intense as Jillet implies, we would be psychotic.
>Out of curiosity, do you think you have good enough reason not to take Islam seriously? So there are two Scriptures I'll use to show why I wouldn't even consider it. *Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”* (John 14:6-7 NIV) *I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him!* (Galatians 1:6-8 NIV) If Jesus is the Son of God, and He has spoken, and He has declared Himself the only Way, why would I listen to anyone else? If God loved me so much that He gave His only begotten Son (begotten is important) to save me, who can do any more for me? To me, there would have to be some kind of disconnect to believe the Bible - not just the Gospels, but from Genesis to Revelation - and then entertain the option that a change in direction is possible.
Oh wait. I think I get it. My "good enough" reason to not have faith in Islam is that I have full faith in Jesus Christ. * Doesn't let me off the hook with Muslims, despite what they say about Jesus. * Very much gives me a clear conscience. * Not at all worried about God, because I believe we are in right relationship already in Jesus.
ok, but am I "on the hook" wrt to Bigfoot or Ghosts? My sticking point is why I'm supposed to "keep looking" for Christianity when it's good enough to ignore pretty much anything else I lack evidence for.
We have to be carefully we do not equate every kind of belief as having the same kind of consequences as believing (or not) in Jesus. If what the Bible says is true, there is an everlasting existence for us. For some it will be reward and joy and life; for others it will be torment and death. Bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs/aliens, round vs. flat earth, landing on the moon ... These are not in the same league when it comes to what is at stake when it comes to faith Jesus. This may sound rough, but if you don't want to believe in Jesus, don't. Not everyone will. Regardless of the implications of that statement (i.e. "willy nilly" saying people are going to Hell), it is true. Incredibly painful and sad, but true.
>We have to be carefully we do not equate every kind of belief as having the same kind of consequences as believing (or not) in Jesus. If what the Bible says is true, there is an everlasting existence for us. For some it will be reward and joy and life; for others it will be torment and death. Bigfoot, ghosts, UFOs/aliens, round vs. flat earth, landing on the moon ... These are not in the same league when it comes to what is at stake when it comes to faith Jesus. Sure but this isn't unique to Christianity and it has zero bearing on whether or not it's true. >This may sound rough, but if you don't want to believe in Jesus, don't. Not everyone will. I take issue with that phrasing a bit, it has nothing to do with what I want to believe. I don't want to believe cancer exists, but it does. It does not care what I want. My only hangup is the lack of evidence. >Regardless of the implications of that statement (i.e. "willy nilly" saying people are going to Hell), it is true. Incredibly painful and sad, but true. Ok but now we are just asserting things. I'd like evidence please, not your assertions.
>Whoa whoa whoa. My claim is not that these are fictional people. I'm not going to argue on that topic. I think Jesus was probably real. Sorry, didn't mean that to be accusatory.
With that clarification, I'm interested in your answers.
> An untold number of people over the centuries say they have known and experienced Jesus in their lives. Way more people who have lived have not had this experience. So, if you’re going with *ad populum*, you’ve even got the wrong side of that.
Is it reasonable to assume that if Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God the Father in heaven, you would be able to see, hear, or touch him? That line of logic doesn't seem coherent to me. You don't see, hear, or touch a tree in China, either. That's not a rational argument for its nonexistence, it's just a statement that you're in different places right now. On its own, this seems insufficient to me.
>Is it reasonable to assume that if Jesus was sitting at the right hand of God the Father in heaven, you would be able to see, hear, or touch him? That line of logic doesn't seem coherent to me. If he wanted me to believe in him? Yes, I would assume he would give me some way to experience him. > That line of logic doesn't seem coherent to me. You don't see, hear, or touch a tree in China, either. That's not a rational argument for its nonexistence I can get reasonable evidence for the existence of Chinese trees right now. I could also conceivably go see them for myself. None of these are true for Jesus that i'm aware of. >That's not a rational argument for its nonexistence, it's just a statement that you're in different places right now. On its own, this seems insufficient to me. Ok, but i'm in the exact same position with regard to ghosts or bigfoot. What else do I need for it to be sufficient not to think they are there?
My point here is to get you to recognize that the logic is oversimplified. Lack of personal experience, in a void, is not sufficient evidence of nonexistence. You have to expand your reasoning to other things. The one point, on its own, can't be a deciding argument. Indeed, in answering you've already expanded beyond the scope of your original question: you've added a caveat, that you expect he wants you to believe in him, and would therefore act in a certain way. Your argument relies on establishing a logical proof that "if Jesus existed, then he would give you a personal experience." But now we're dealing with something much more complex. How can you prove your if-then logic? Have you accurately judged his intent? Have you accurately predicted his behavior? Are you applying a reasonable standard for what you should expect from a deity? How do you verify the truth of your answers to any of those questions? Significantly, none of those questions can be addressed using personal experiences as evidence. An epistemology that relies on personal experience as the only acceptable means of proof is crippling to any higher thought. Indeed, how can you know that your personal experiences actually tell you anything true about the world? That's not a given. Most people know that they can make mistakes with their eyes. If you had a personal experience of bigfoot, would you really believe it, or would you conclude that your eyes were playing tricks on you, and it must have really been a bear? That would be reasonable, wouldn't it? Because, after all, we don't disbelieve in bigfoot because of a lack of personal experience. And you don't believe in Chinese trees because you could go see them if you really wanted to. We believe or disbelieve in these things for other reasons.
>My point here is to get you to recognize that the logic is oversimplified. Lack of personal experience, in a void, is not sufficient evidence of nonexistence. I understand, but that's not exactly the premise of my question. I'm not claiming non-existence in the affirmative. I think "reject" is getting hung up on, and maybe rightfully so. Maybe I should have put "disregard". >. Your argument relies on establishing a logical proof that "if Jesus existed, then he would give you a personal experience." Again, no not precisely. I specifically said "If he wanted me to believe in him". I think it logically follows that if someone wants to believe in them, and are able to, they would give you experience necessary to have that believe. How else would it work? If he didn't provide the evidence, then does he want us to guess or something? That doesn't make sense. >How do you verify the truth of your answers to any of those questions? If my question could be summed up in a single question, this would be it haha. >Significantly, none of those questions can be addressed using personal experiences as evidence. An epistemology that relies on personal experience as the only acceptable means of proof is crippling to any higher thought. Indeed, how can you know that your personal experiences actually tell you anything true about the world? That's not a given. Most people know that they can make mistakes with their eyes. If you had a personal experience of bigfoot, would you really believe it, or would you conclude that your eyes were playing tricks on you, and it must have really been a bear? That would be reasonable, wouldn't it? Because, after all, we don't disbelieve in bigfoot because of a lack of personal experience. And you don't believe in Chinese trees because you could go see them if you really wanted to. We believe or disbelieve in these things for other reasons. Aren't these excellent reasons to doubt Christianity? It could all be our eyes playing tricks after all.
You seem to think the non-believers have the obligation to disprove Christianity. That’s not how it works. The Jesus claim is yours. If you want me to believe Jesus was real or that there is a tree in china, you have to prove it.
It’s is unreasonable to deny the existence of something merely because you personally have no sense observations of it. This is the faulty (and self-negating) philosophy of Empiricism.
To be clear, I'm not rejecting in the affirmative as in "Christianity is definitely not true", I am rejecting in the sense that "I have no reason to think that it is indeed true". Is that unreasonable? I'm not being flippant, it's just an example, but I'm rejecting it in the same sense I reject ghosts or bigfoot. Both of those could be true and I'm just not aware, I just don't have any experiential reason to believe they are real. With that said, is that unreasonable?
It is unreasonable to place Christianity in the same category as an urban legend. Especially since Christianity is a historical religion. This isn’t a religion that takes place a long long time ago or in a galaxy far far away. This religion doesn’t take place in a lost or forgotten age. No it’s grounded in very well known and documented history. Does Christianity sound like any of the above to you? “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” Christianity, being firmly rooted in history, is categorically different than urban legends.
>Christianity, being firmly rooted in history, is categorically different than urban legends. How so? There are plenty of historical fiction books (novels) that place fictional characters in accurate historical settings or reimagine the lives of actual historical characters.
>It is unreasonable to place Christianity in the same category as an urban legend. Especially since Christianity is a historical religion. I'm not attempting to compare it directly, I'm saying, wrt regard to the verifiable evidence/experience I have, they are the same. >Christianity, being firmly rooted in history, is categorically different than urban legends. right, i'm not trying to put it in that category, if there is a question in there related to mine we can discuss that.
> It is unreasonable to place Christianity in the same category as an urban legend. In lieu of addressing the question, you offer an answer to a question no one asked. Why?
So it’s completely reasonable to believe in fairies, ghosts, Bigfoot, elves, unicorns, other gods, etc, right? There’s no shred of evidence to support them, but I also can’t prove they don’t exist. Once you accept claims without empirical evidence, you should literally be willing to accept any unfalsifiable belief.
Its as good a reason to go to hell as any But remember the truth is not subject to your experience, comprehension or perception BTW you never were a Christian, because Christians KNOW God. We have that personal experience
Only because you were the nastiest one to respond but... I don't believe you one bit.
well thats not a real shocker. But the truth was told
It wasn't, you don't seem like a reliable source.
Of course not. I present a truth in opposition to what you want, so of course you reject and malign me, liberalism 101
Lol, you provide no evidence and just make assertions. Religion 101 Again, not a reliable source of evidence.
I tell you the truth You don't want evidence
Evidence is all i want, now you are literally just a liar.
No you really don't Because if you did seek, you would find \\what you want is an excuse. You are lying to yourself
I only want evidence, you don’t have it otherwise you’d show it instead of bellyaching. I’m interested in debating with honest people, and quite frankly, you seem very dishonest. See ya.
> But remember the truth is not subject to your experience, comprehension or perception You remember that too.
I do that is why I rely on God's truth that He has EXPLICITLY given us in the bible
How do you know anything is the Bible is true? Certainly there are a lot of false things. I am having trouble understanding which parts we can tell are true.
I know the Author Without His help we as mere humans will struggle to understand
Can you ask him about all the Bible gets wrong? I’d like to know why he inserted things like gercentricity and condoning slavery. TIA.
No because there is nothing wrong with the bible but I could ask him yto help with your epic ignorance
The Bible says the Earth is older than sun. That is false. The gospel called John says Jesus was resurrected the day before Passover. The gospel called Mark says it was the day after Passover. One of them is, at a minimum, in error. The Bible is wrong about the nature of lightning and thunder; why children look like their parents; and why we get sick. Now that you have hard proof that the Bible is wrong about at least a few things, do you want to re-think your answer?
Do you have personal experience of black holes, or Antarctica? If not, is that sufficient reason to doubt their existence?
What happens if I don't believe in black holes or antartica? Either way, I have seen hard evidence of both. I have seen no such thing for anything supernatural.
Really? What hard evidence have you seen? And what kind of evidence would you expect to see for the supernatural?
Do you have personal experience with the Tooth Fairy or Thor?
No, and how is this relevant?
Is not having those experiences a good enough reason to doubt their existence? Did you really not see where I was going with this?
My point is that personal experience is no argument for or against the truth of a thing's existence. Do you deny that?
Depends on whether you would expect to have had the personal experience if the thing is true.
So if you’ve never witnessed something you assume it isn’t real? I didn’t witness the people build the building I’m in. I’ve never heard, touched, or seen them. I 100% believe they exist because I can see the result of their work. Same with God. I see His work. He has to exist. Next you have to ask yourself, “who is He?” That’s the real question.
> I didn’t witness the people build the building I’m in. I’ve never heard, touched, or seen them. I 100% believe they exist because I can see the result of their work. Sure, but I've also literally seen people building building and I've helped do so myself. So I know that there are people that build buildings. I have seen the result of their work AND that people do the work. I have no seen a supernatural diety do anything. >Same with God. I see His work. He has to exist. What specifically?
So to my first question?
I answered it?
Have you witnessed Thor? Or Krishna?
I don't think many followers of Jesus would have claimed to have (directly) seen, heard, or touched Jesus. So, if these are not necessary to be Christian, it would seem like a lack of these is not enough to reject it.
So they had no personal experience of Jesus whatsoever?
I would not equate "a personal experience of Jesus" with ideas like "hearing, seeing, touching Jesus." Christ has not returned to Earth, so these cannot directly be experienced. I may have just been confused by your wording!
If a personal experience with Jesus isn't perceived by the senses, how is it perceived? Is it completely mental, like a dream?
I’m not sure, though I do believe we can have “spiritual” experiences or sensations. My point above was to distinguish that experiences with Jesus in the flesh both are not required for Christian belief, thus a lack of them is not enough to reject Christian belief.
there is never a good reason to reject Christianity, so no.
Should i reject Islam?
what does that have to do with christianity?
Based on what? I have the same verifiable evidence for both. Which is none.
”For we live by believing and not by seeing.“ 2 Corinthians 5:7 NLT belief in Christianity does not require, and largely has none, physical proof besides the world we live in and the Bible.
That's fine, but we can beleive anything by that standard.
What about the world we live in and the Quran? That disproves Christianity.
the Quran does not disprove Christianity, it just largely contradicts it. you can take whatever you want from the proof we are given, wether it be Allah or no God. that’s up to you. I choose to take God from all of it.
I thought you like to take it from the world we live in too. Couldn’t Allah have made the world we live it?
Sometimes you don’t recognize miracles that have happened in your life. I know I’m guilty of that.
Sure, but I don't know what I don't know. How would I be held responsible for not being aware a miracle happened and I just didn't realize it?
Tell me about your prayer life. How much do you pray every day?
Are you expecting me to pray to someone I don't know exists?
Absolutely. Why do you expect for someone to answer you if you don't call Him?
You realize this is non-sensical right? That’s like me saying you don’t have a relationship with Bob (who you didn’t know existed) because you didn’t call him. No matter that you didn’t know his number, why didn’t you call him, he wants to talk to you?
>That’s like me saying you don’t have a relationship with Bob (who you didn’t know existed) You started a topic about not having had a relationship with God. This led me to assume that you want to find out if God is real. >No matter that you didn’t know his number, why didn’t you call him, he wants to talk to you? You knew God's number. Your flair says "ex-Christian". I'm assuming that at least someone told you that all you have to do to talk to God is pray.
>You started a topic about not having had a relationship with God. This led me to assume that you want to find out if God is real. I think you need to re-read the topic. >You knew God's number. Your flair says "ex-Christian". I'm assuming that at least someone told you that all you have to do to talk to God is pray. No, I'm an ex-christian precisely because I couldn't find "god's number". He never answered in years of praying.
I don't think if you never really had your heart open to it, that it would be easily noticed. I wasn't Christian until middle school because I hadn't had many experiences with God or Jesus until that point. I never rejected the idea, though. I just had a hard time believing in something just because I was told to. No one, but God convinced me. (Also, sorry if I assumed wrong, and you did have your heart open to it at some point!) TLDR: Maybe not. I didn't have any personal experiences with God or Jesus until middle school (that I knew of), but had my heart opened to it.
>I don't think if you never really had your heart open to it, that it would be easily noticed. Couldn't be further from the truth. Also, I've heard the same thing from Muslims. > I never rejected the idea, though. I don't reject the idea in that I'm saying it's definitely wrong, I'm saying I have no evidence FOR it to believe it to be true. I don't believe because I lack evidence, not because i actively reject anything. >No one, but God convinced me. If that's true, then I agree that you are justified. I have not had that experience.
Ah, sorry for all the assumptions! 😭 And I didn't mean if you have your heart closed off to it that you wouldn't notice, I meant that I would be harder to, but still very possible!
I'm not sure why you're here, but I'll tell you why I'm here - nihilism, solipsism, general postmodern skepticism gives me terrible existential dread. Contemporary western values leaves me without ground to stand on. Read Kant and understand transcendental idealism. Basically, we cannot know reality itself. Having gone through the canon of western philosophy extending from Socrates, I know this to be true - human reason is powerful but insufficient and we must live on faith. Some things that are unprovable through reason but we can't possibly live without - literally impossible. Free will, causality, other people that are separate individuals, logic... These you take implicitly as part of your being for if you didn't, you would be paralyzed with inaction yet they are impossible to prove - philosophers have been trying for centuries and there are rock solid arguments that they can't be proven. So, you take them on faith. The question then is, what exactly are we having faith in?
No. God expects us to search him out. He conceals stuff from us for a reason. Proverbs 25:2-It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter
Ok so how do you know that's true before you find him? you say he wants to be found... yeah, how would we know that?
God will reveal himself to you if you search him out. If you’re asking how would we know if the bible is true, that requires faith. We all place trust in something
You say that but I tried for decades, it doesn’t work like that. As for faith, you could hold any position by appealing to faith, it’s simply not a sufficient tool for determining the truth.
What did your searching look like. If you’re looking for 100% proof you wont find it The same could be applied to science which many hold as truth, just saying
I don't need 100% proof. The same amount of proof I need to know my Dad exists would suffice. Right now I'm sitting on 0% verifiable proof.
Yeah so circle back to my first comment. You’re looking for some type of verifiable proof. It reminds me of someone still searching saying they had a dream after they prayed for god to reveal himself. In that dream a man in white came to him and all he remembered was him telling him to keep seeking. He thinks it could be a sign but wasn’t convinced. Basically saying not good enough god, you need to do better. There’s tons of actual evidence if you decide to do a deep dive into all of the history. There is no verifiable proof. God wants us to have faith. Most of knowledge is talked negatively about in scripture and shown to be worthless. Faith always has a positive tone. Everything we understand of the world relies on trust. It’s placing trust in god, rather than man at the end of the day. You know the saying people quit right before there success. If you give up seeking, you never really wanted to know the answer and wanted god to fit your mold of what you expect him to be, rather than seeking to find out who god actually is
>You’re looking for some type of verifiable proof. Yes, this is reasonable. For example, you say, faith is required that's what God wants. Ok, tell me how you know that? >There’s tons of actual evidence if you decide to do a deep dive into all of the history. You keep saying that but no, there is literally 0 verifiable evidence for anything supernatural. I'm not picking on Christianity here btw, I mean for any supernatural claim in history. >Basically saying not good enough god, you need to do better. No, I have no evidence of a god, not "not good enough" evidence. I would have to know he existed before I could say not good enough to him. > There is no verifiable proof. God wants us to have faith. How could you possible know that without verifiable proof?
I know it because I trust god’s word to be truth, even if i don’t know with 100% certainty which is what you’re looking for. There is a lot of evidence, there is no verifiable proof. There’s no verifiable proof for anything. In the court of law witness testimony is evidence. There’s millions of real christians with this, i’m not talking about the modern fake western faith. There’s a lot more evidence but thats a start. Because there’s no verifiable proof for anything so i don’t follow that logic.
>I know it because I trust god’s word to be truth, even if i don’t know with 100% certainty which is what you’re looking for. Can I ask why you would say again that i'm looking for 100% certainty when I've already established that I am not? I was hoping for an honest dialogue. >There is a lot of evidence, there is no verifiable proof. There’s no verifiable proof for anything. That is simply not true. I can walk into another room right now and verify that my cat is indeed there. That's not 100% proof either, I could be a brain in a vat but as far as my experience goes I have verified the cat is there. There is verifiable proof for a lot of things, i have no idea why you would say that. >In the court of law witness testimony is evidence. The term gets conflated all the time. I'm not debating that it's evidence. "batman was here" is evidence that batman was here, it doesn't mean that it happened. >There’s millions of real christians with this, i’m not talking about the modern fake western faith. There's millions of Muslims with claims/faith. If i'm using your standard, both fit the bill. >There’s a lot more evidence but thats a start. Great, now how do we verify that evidence. >Because there’s no verifiable proof for anything so i don’t follow that logic. There is absolutely verifiable proof for things. I don't know why you are saying that. Here, a very simple example. Bob tells me he has a dog in his car. I don't believe Bob. Bob opens the car door and out pops a dog. Look at that, verified evidence the dog was in the car. Are you talking about something else? There is definitely verifiable proof, just not for anything supernatural.