Why There is No Proof of God

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

(This apparently may not be the best translation, but it fits here, anyway):

Blessed are those who have learned to acclaim you, who walk in the light of your presence, LORD.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Randy

…are we citing reasons from the Bible to confirm what we say the Bible says?

No, we are citing reasons for those who are believers not to doubt their salvation. Believers need to know that they are believers as evidenced primarily by a changed heart – fundamentally changed desires, desiring God and desiring obedience to their loving Father more than mere temporal pleasure, not that there aren’t plenty of legitimate temporal pleasures within the context of obedience.

(Those that don’t pass the multiple self-tests in scripture should not be so assured.)

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

But faith is not rational. That is the whole point of it.

Christianity is extremely rational – it covers the gamut of reality, beginning to end.

[Randy]

@Dale

for those who are believers not to doubt their salvation

Ah, I see. Sorry I missed this. I guess I only got part of the question. Thanks.
Back in my early 20’s I became seriously concerned and obsessed with the idea that I had committed the unpardonable sin–against the Holy Spirit. I could not find any references that my pastor or parents gave me that would convince me I had not been in danger, at least, of losing my salvation. I still don’t, actually, find those verses convincing; I felt that if I choose, I could still reject God. However, of course, I don’t. I appreciate those who try to reassure us; but I don’t think it was the purpose of the Scripture either to cause severe anxiety about their choices, nor to completely reassure believers that they don’t have a worry about the consequences of their choices. Much of Christ’s teaching was about the Kingdom of Heaven coming to earth, not about how we are to get to Heaven. In that way, it was extremely common sense and functional.

I have great sympathy with those who struggle about their salvation, and hope that those, as Wesley called the “over meticulous,” can move on with less condemnation and more rest.

Thanks.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I think the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit is to deny that Jesus is Lord. It is, after all, the Holy Spirit who works in us to soften our hearts of stone and make them live, and he opens our blind spiritual eyes and and unstops our spiritual ears. He does use means, however, and I long to be used by him in my remaining years (if it is more than one ).

[Randy]

@Dale

(if it is more than one ).

Hopefully, it is more! My grandma just lived to 95, and I was blessed by her companionship.

Don’t you think that only God knows our hearts; and He will judge if we understand what is going on? I love Lewis’ and Macdonald’s belief that God knows we don’t understand everything (He made us anyway) and will give us eternity to finally come round to His way of thinking, through correction as with a child. As Jesus said, to deny a little one water or food is the same as denying Him; and we are all learning how to serve the least of these, who are also the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Blessings! Good to talk with you.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

The evidence you do get is not empirically verifiable and repeatable, thus not scientific, but my co-instants, or rather, the co-instants that I am delighted to be given, even including kidney cancer and its timing, are indicative of several things, not the least of which is that they are evidence of God’s providential M.O. and his sovereignty over time and space.

Nevertheless, you think this evidence should be more than enough to compel belief in others, correct?

@Dale

You are correct in that at this point in my life that I cannot not believe in God, similar to believing in the existence of my earthly father.

I think most atheists are asking why we don’t see that type of evidence.

[Shawn_Murphy (Shawn T Murphy)]

@T_aquaticus

Nevertheless, you think this evidence should be more than enough to compel belief in others, correct?

There is a very basic Spiritual Law at work - Seek and Ye Shall Find. This means that we cannot convince anyone, unless they have taken the first step to search for God. Once you start searching, you find God all around you. If you never seek, you will never find. So, how does God deal with this? He provides opportunities for each person to stop and think. The people I know who did not allow God into their lives, were given much time before death to reflect on their life, without access to one thing that kept them doing in the day-to-day lives. The people I know who spoke too much had strokes and died after of protracted time unable to speak. The ones who spent too much time reading romance novels had ocular cancer. And so on.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@heddle

@RichardG

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see,

God is a god of faith. That makes him unprovable. If God is visible than their is no faith.

I have (friendly) trouble with this line of thinking. Because later, in Hebrews 11, people like Abraham and Gideon and many others are commended for their faith. But for them it (faith in the existence of God) was not invisible–those in the Faith Hall of Fame in Hebrews 11 all enjoyed supernatural experiences that proved God’s existence in ways that we can but envy.

They were applauded, not for their faith in God par se but for their faith in His promises that were as yet unfulfilled.

The problem with the supernatural as a “proof” is that you end up with the Calvanistic view of God’s chosen rather than a Universal faith. Also, if you allow yourself to use reason and proof then you make yourself vulnerable to the negative. If and when God does not come up to expectations: the answer to prayer does not come as desired, the “Miracle” does not happen… I have seen so many fall away because God did not do what they thought He aught, or repeat something they thought He had done before.

We can convince ourselves that what we see is “the hand of God” and, yes, some things might even be seen as supernatural. But, they usually occur after the germ of faith rather than as a catalyst to it.

I can recount several “miracles” I have personally been involved in and several more that I have witnessed the results of. But, Paul’s definition of faith still stands. Faith propped up with facts is actually weaker than “blind” faith which cannot be shaken because it does not rely on any sort of evidence, proof or reasoning.
(IM not so HO)

Richard

[heddle (David Heddle)]

@RichardG

They were applauded, not for their faith in God par se but for their faith in His promises that were as yet unfulfilled.

Agreed. They were lauded for their faith that God would keep his promises.

@RichardG

The problem with the supernatural as a “proof” is that you end up with the Calvanistic view of God’s chosen rather than a Universal faith.

I am in no way advocating a reliance on supernatural proof. (I am a Calvinist though!) I am merely pointing out that believing in God without proof (blind faith) is not, in my opinion, the gold standard. Otherwise (to take one example) Gideon (who demanded physical proof; twice; and it was provided.) should not be in Hebrews 11.

[T_aquaticus]

@Shawn_Murphy

This means that we cannot convince anyone, unless they have taken the first step to search for God. Once you start searching, you find God all around you. If you never seek, you will never find.

I have always found this argument to be circular. If someone doesn’t believe, then they never truly searched. Heads you win, tails I lose.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

It may depend on how one searches. If someone has concluded that there is nothing to be found, they may not actually have searched with an open heart as a child. Or some demand what the results of the search must look like, and failing those specified results declare victory in their godless presumption.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

It may depend on how one searches.

Where things go off the rails is when people presume how someone searched. I have had plenty of people tell me what I think and and how I think based solely on my atheism (present company excluded, of course). It can be somewhat entertaining to see certainty give rise to mind reading.

For the record, I did grow up in the church and did search God out with an open heart and open mind. I didn’t find God. I don’t discount that others claim to have found God, but I can only speak for myself. I do appreciate your willingness to talk to me and other atheists, and have found this thread to be very informative and fair, so thanks for that.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Another possibility (and I am not suggesting it of you) is that the ‘seeker’ does not want to find God, and of course doesn’t. This might be a subcategory of either above, or one or both above may be a subcategory of this.

[Randy]

@Dale

‘seeker’ does not want to find God

Well, there’s the rub for us, isn’t there? We want there to be a God. Frequently, the best and kindest Christians I know (my close relatives among them) unconsciously transfer our own faults on others and say those who don’t agree with us have the same prejudice in the other direction. It’s hard to really dig into the facts and realize that the proof of God isn’t empirical.

Others may want there to be a God, but can’t bring themselves to believe in Him. **I remember a quote from a character in G K Chesterton’s “Father Brown” Series–in “The Miracle of Moon Crescent”–“I wish to God there was a God; and there ain’t. It’s just my luck.”

Many of us wish there was a God, but through a multitude of paths, have come to the honest conclusion there may not be, or there isn’t, one.

Doesn’t it seem that God really understands what we do know, and meets us where we are–if He is truly just? After all, given how many grow up as Hindus, Buddhists, etc, based on birth and not knowledge, it sees He has decreed that they be that way. We can be as patient as He is in realizing that He will eventually teach us what we need to know, if He really thinks it’s important enough (which I think He does).

Thanks.

[Shawn_Murphy (Shawn T Murphy)]

This spiritual law is akin to the Heisenberg principle. It is the presence of the observer that determines the outcome. It is not a circular argument, it is a scientific principle.

[NickolaosPappas (Nick)]

Guys sorry for interrupting. I saw a comment before that said faith in believing that there is reward in afterlife is aspirational and then continue to say that some moderators from here would still keep their faith without wanting any reward. But my question is this. Since the bible tells us that we are gonna get a reward isnt that a thing? I mean some people forget that Christianity is an eternal life with God who is love.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@NickolaosPappas

Christianity is an eternal life with God who is love

You are absolutely right ,Nickolaos, but Christ also provides contentment our present situation, no matter what the circumstances, as Paul said in Phillipians 4, though perhaps it is not automatic, as he states he learned to so be content, which implies a process. My comment in that context was meant to convey the idea the God is worthy of praise and worship without a “quid pro quo” (doing something to get something).

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Another possibility (and I am not suggesting it of you) is that the ‘seeker’ does not want to find God, and of course doesn’t.

I am sure that multiple reasons can be brought up. I am only saying that all of us should be careful not to make assumptions about what is in a person’s heart or mind. That definitely includes me. There are times when I am just as guilty of projecting beliefs or emotions onto other people. It appears to be a human flaw we all share.

[T_aquaticus]

@Shawn_Murphy

This spiritual law is akin to the Heisenberg principle. It is the presence of the observer that determines the outcome.

I don’t see the parallels. The Heisenberg principle says that we can’t accurately determine both the position and the velocity of a particle, we can only determine one of them accurately. How does that apply here?