Does God really want us us to know He exists?

[1over137]

Second, for the we-sleep-to-rest-our-brains thing, there's a problem there. So, let's assume the laws of physics didn't exist before God created the universe. We assume that God created them, right? But the thing is: if God invented new laws, He could have invented them in pretty much any way. Any way at all. So, if God created these laws and realized they implied humans would have to sleep...well, why didn't He just remove that part of the law? What's the point of making us experience, for moments, the so-called "feeling nothing", which could totally make us believe that's what expect us the our brain stops working? You may say that our brains were built in a way which implies the need for rest. Well, why not just "building" them in another way? It could actually be more productive; if we saw that animals slept but we didn't, we would have MORE reasons to believe we're not just animals and/or have something special. Where's the logic in sleep, then?

Bible tells me we sleep to have rest. God created the world the way he created and he declared it to be very good. Why do you demand from human brains to be more productive? Why to build them in another way?

Again, it doesn't that much! It just makes us more likely to believe that we don't know anything - anything at all - about the so-called "reality". I mean, how can we humans think whether the universe is evidence for God or not if we can't even be sure that the universes exists? The reality-or-not dilemma is a really obsessive one, sometimes even more than the is-there-a-God-or-not. Wouldn't this huge doubt keep us away from thinking on God's existence because we were "too obsessed" thinking whether this is "real" or not?

You are not sure universe exists? You are not sure you wake up each morning into the same reality?

That still bug me. "Suggest"? What, is God going to risk the well-being of hundreds sentient, intelligent, fragile beings (aka humans) on "suggesting"? This is no small issue we're talking about; we're talking about the risk of sending sentient beings into an eternity of suffering! This is relevant! The ammount of evidence God might give us is relevant! The ammount of evidence against God that God Himself allowed in the universe He created is relevant! Now, I've thought about gods a lot of times, and I wouldn't be surprised if they/he didn't care about us, since I also don't care about the "warriors" I kill when I play Warlords 2 (cool game, by the way). But from the Christian perspective...if God cares about us, why his He risking so much souls on a simple "suggestion"? Why not "clear, extensive, hardly deniable evidence"? Doesn't that sound safer?
And, please, don't come with the question of whether God should show Himself to us. I'm not saying He should. But...seriously...what about not giving us so much evidence against His existence?

First, God is not sending anyone into an eternity of suffering.

More evidence...

Maybe you can start looking into the Shroud of Turin thread. Many posters here consider it great resource about shroud in which Jesus was wrapped and on which traces of miraculous events are left.

Or on historicity of Jesus.

God cares about us. That's why he sent Jesus.

[PaulSacramento]

if God cares about us, why his He risking so much souls on a simple "suggestion"? Why not "clear, extensive, hardly deniable evidence"? Doesn't that sound safer?

I always find this view interesting.
Of course this view tends to ignore the fact that for billions this "suggestion" is "good enough".
BUT lets put that aside for now.
This view seems to imply that God should make His presence KNOW and UNDENIABLE to ALL because, if He doesn't, it isn't "fair" for those that CHOOSE to ONLY accept Him based on THEIR view of what is "enough evidence/proof".
Interesting isn't it?
God MUST conform to OUR views on what WE THINK is the right amount of proof so that HE can SAVE US.
Wow eh?

Look, here it is:
God has given (over the history of man) MORE than enough proof, including becoming ONE OF US !
What WE DO with that evidence is up to us and we have only US to blame for which path we choose.

See God is a God of CHOICE, so we MUST choose.
BUT what is important to undestand is WHAT kind of God God is and what I mean by that is what has God SHOWN Us about HIMSELF?

The answer lies in Christ.
Look to Christ and you see WHO and WHAT God is, the type of God He is, so I ask you this:

When you look at Christ do you see a God that is a God of Love and compassion or a God of pain and punishment? when you look at Christ do you see an offering of peace and redemption or a God that comes crashing into our reality as a dictator demanding worship OR ELSE !! ?


Look at Christ and see ALL He GAVE UP, all He went though for for Us, the pain, the torture and even death, for US !

What does all that tell you about God?

[PaulSacramento]

I would also add that a question I typically ask any skeptic is quite simply this:
What evidence would you accept that would prove to you that God exists?
What answer to your question will you accept?

I mean, if the skeptic doesn't have an answer to those questions, what is the point then?

[MBPrata]

Why do you demand from human brains to be more productive?

I don't "demand" anything (I know, semantic, but don't make me sound even more like a sinner; I realize that, if the God of the Bible exists, I sure am a huge sinner).

Why to build them in another way?

As I said: to make us believe that we have something special instead of being just animals created by insensitive, blind laws.

You are not sure universe exists? You are not sure you wake up each morning into the same reality?

"Sure", I'm not. Sometimes I am really convinced "my" reality is real, sometimes I'm not. It sucks, but that's the way I feel. I didn't choose to be this way. And sometimes I feel really afraid that God blames me for being this way...but that's another story!

As for the Shroud of Turin thing, I haven't read it yet. Maybe I will. I surely hope it helps me...

[MBPrata]

I would also add that a question I typically ask any skeptic is quite simply this:
What evidence would you accept that would prove to you that God exists?

Answering a question with a question is kind of cheating, namely because it usually means you didn't really answer. As if you were dodging. But you gave me a "real answer", so...

What evidence, you ask? Well, I don't know whether you will find this ambiguous or not (although, from a certain point of view, everything is ambiguous...), but I guess it would be the evidence that made me believe in a god in the first place: good evidence that intelligence was totally needed to create our universe.

[1over137]

I would also add that a question I typically ask any skeptic is quite simply this:
What evidence would you accept that would prove to you that God exists?

Answering a question with a question is kind of cheating, namely because it usually means you didn't really answer. As if you were dodging. But you gave me a "real answer", so...

What evidence, you ask? Well, I don't know whether you will find this ambiguous or not (although, from a certain point of view, everything is ambiguous...), but I guess it would be the evidence that made me believe in a god in the first place: good evidence that intelligence was totally needed to create our universe.

For me, laws of Physics are good evidence. The symmetry in them, the beauty, the simplivity... really like Intelligent Creator behind it.

-

Sorry for the using the word "demand". I should do better in choosing my words.

[Kurieuo]

I would also add that a question I typically ask any skeptic is quite simply this:
What evidence would you accept that would prove to you that God exists?

Answering a question with a question is kind of cheating, namely because it usually means you didn't really answer. As if you were dodging. But you gave me a "real answer", so...

What evidence, you ask? Well, I don't know whether you will find this ambiguous or not (although, from a certain point of view, everything is ambiguous...), but I guess it would be the evidence that made me believe in a god in the first place: good evidence that intelligence was totally needed to create our universe.

I strongly believe as far as rationality is concerned that there are no default positions.
All positions require proof of some sort, that is, justification.

What good evidence is there that an unintelligent cause was responsible for creating our universe?
What makes you sure that intelligence came from an unintelligent cause rather than the other way around?

I think you're missing the question in focusing on proof.
That question being, what is the most coherent and plausible scenario?
There aren't many options really when you think about it.

Tell me what makes more sense.
An intelligent something caused the universe, or
something pretty mysterious that is actually nothing caused something?

[PaulSacramento]

I would also add that a question I typically ask any skeptic is quite simply this:
What evidence would you accept that would prove to you that God exists?

Answering a question with a question is kind of cheating, namely because it usually means you didn't really answer. As if you were dodging. But you gave me a "real answer", so...

What evidence, you ask? Well, I don't know whether you will find this ambiguous or not (although, from a certain point of view, everything is ambiguous...), but I guess it would be the evidence that made me believe in a god in the first place: good evidence that intelligence was totally needed to create our universe.

That sort of is "opinion related' isn't it?
I mean, whether or not the universe needed some sort on intelligence to get started/created is strictly a metaphysical view, no?
On top of that you would have to reach some sort of consensus as to IF a particular event NEEDED intelligence as opposed to IF intelligence just so h append to make it so, know what I mean?

In short, it seems you are implying that you need some sort of evidence based on your PERSONAL opinion as enough evidence.
IE: Personal revelation.

[TheQuestor]

Christian fellows:

You know, there are days in which I believe in God (yeah, I have that difficulty to decide). But the more time passes, the less I believe in the God of the Bible. I mean...if God wants what is written in the Bible, it's rather unclear why He did things the way they are. Namely: does God really want us to know He exists?

Because if He does, He sure gave us some serious reasons not to believe in that! I know, Jesus came to the Earth, but maybe we'll talk about that later. My problem isn't that one; my problem is with the universe itself, the Earth, the human body and so on. Now, if God really wants us to believe He exists, I don't understand why He created such a universe. Let's see:


- He created a law by which particles can totally come out of "nowhere" (mr. Deem doesn't deny it:

Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats.

), thus leading us to think stuff can come out of nowhere with no divine intervention whatsoever
- He created a universe in which every single thing changes, thus leading us to think an "eternal" reality (e.g. Heaven) can not exist
- He (we assume) designed a lot of human-like creatures, thus giving us reasons to believe in evolution. Not to mention some really similar creatures...
- He made us sleep, thus leading us to think that a lesser quantity of electricity on the brain can obliterate all consciousness
- He made us dream and hallucinate, thus leading us to think "reality" comes from our brain and we can never be sure of what reality is


And I'm sure there are more. You see, I'm ok with thinking outside of the box and believing in a sentient, eternal, intelligent being creating our universe, but these apparent lacks of logic on God's thought really keep me away from belief. Well...at least from the belief in the God described in the Bible. Have you considered all this "clues" God gave us to think He isn't real? What are your thoughts on this?

I thank you in advance.

God does not want, we want.............

[Mallz]

1 Timothy 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

[Jac3510]

1 Timothy 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

That would be an anthropopathism.

[PaulSacramento]

1 Timothy 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

That would be an anthropopathism.

And no human can speak of God without it.

[TheQuestor]

1 Timothy 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

That would be an anthropopathism.

And no human can speak of God without it.

No human can speak of God, without what?

[PaulSacramento]

1 Timothy 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

That would be an anthropopathism.

And no human can speak of God without it.

No human can speak of God, without what?

Anthropopathism:
is the attribution of human emotions, or the ascription of human feelings or passions to a non-human being, generally to a deity

[TheQuestor]

1 Timothy 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

That would be an anthropopathism.

And no human can speak of God without it.

No human can speak of God, without what?

Anthropopathism:
is the attribution of human emotions, or the ascription of human feelings or passions to a non-human being, generally to a deity

God is human, the bible says so. "And God made man in his image"

Sodom/Gomorrah-----Hiroshima/Nagasaki, are examples of the power of God.