Evidence that God exists

[fr0d0]

Hi Mark.

Forgive me quoting you this time. Your answer was too packed with goodies!

I am trying to figure out what the "guts of the matter" could possibly be, given that the god in which you believe appears to be not only impossible of being encountered, but even somewhat disingenuous, since he had it put in his divine book that he has worked miracles at various times, miracles which you allege he is unable to have done.

The "guts of the matter" is a subject worthy of debate, rather than a very hollow substitute.

I allege the opposite to what you are stating. I think God did do the miracles recorded in the Bible. I also think that it's poignant that these miracles are not provable.

Jesus said "you see me, yet you still don't believe" (fr0d0 paraphrase ©) . Even with a personal encounter, there is no proof even to the person experiencing it, that it happened. God says again and again about the necessity of faith to reap the rewards offered. This is very different from a scientific subject of study.

But it appears that you do not, after all, think that it is a logical necessity that the supposed God cannot work miracles -- deeds which, when beheld, lead clearly to the conclusion that he exists. It is just that, as a matter of fact does not do so. Am I right?

Forgive me. I find it difficult to get a clear idea of what you're trying to say in this paragraph. Hopefully I read you correctly here..

It's not a "necessity" that God works miracles. That he has, is very nice, thankyou. Our only hope would be that this would lead us to discover more about him.

"As a matter of fact", in the sense of provable fact, no, God does not supply. So in that sense you are right. A factual historian will never ever be able to prove the existence of God. I, on the other hand, have faith, and I believe that God did (and does) indeed do miracles as described in the Bible.

Do you agree that there is no way to know whether God might someday work a miracle (as defined above)?

I wouldn't be able to predict the workings of God. That would be impossible of course. Given precedent however, I could assume that God will never work a miracle that would be provable, yes.

That is, we cannot know whether the supposed god is incapable of doing miracles or whether, for the time being, he merely chooses not to do them?

You cannot know in any provable sense, is my point, No.

And so, that god will never work a miracle is a claim incapable of being supported by fact, but is instead an article of faith? (I do not use this term in a pejorative sense, since I among the articles of my faith are not only that there will never be any miracles, but that there are no gods to do them.)

It is indeed a claim incapable of being supported by fact. Precisely.

Taking this article of faith as a starting point, then, do you agree that it is an implication of your position that the supposed god can never answer prayer in any consistent way, or systematically favor the faithful over the unfaithful, or the good over the wicked, since doing so would create a empirical basis for proving his existence?

You presume that God could not provably doing anything = God not actually doing something. This is incorrect.

Do you agree this particular article of faith implies that the supposed god cannot convincingly and consistently address a person in his mind, still less directly reveal divine truth, since doing so would permit that person to draw the quite reasonable conclusion that he exists? Or is it only groups of people to which the supposed God is incapable of revealing his existence?

God is constantly revealing himself to everyone, in every moment. You are like a naked person in a desert with no possible shelter, and he is the Sun.

The implication is that the revelation of truth is constantly available, It is up to the individual to accept it or not, with complete choice. It would be correct, given the model, for either choice to be perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree that if this is true, then it must be that Jesus gave no clear sign to men that he was a god? In particular, that he was not resurrected from the dead?

To some it was clear, and yet to people standing next to them, seeing and hearing exactly the same thing, it was not. This perfectly follows my proposition I think.
I believe he did and was, you believe the opposite (or don't accept it to any degree)

---

You say, "Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now?"

Well all right, let us address the question of whether the supposed god can have any effects at all upon this reality of ours. You have said, god perhaps can have effects so long as they are do not lead to the conclusion that he exists. But how are these possible divine effects different from the operation of the blind natural forces that are widely supposed to be the exclusive mechanisms of this world of ours? Would not any difference at all be a basis for inferring his existence? And upon what basis then, can it be said that the supposed god has the power to work any such effects? Do you agree that the strongest possible statement that can be made in this regard is that we do not know whether or not the supposed god is capable of working any real effects whatsoever?

In the realm of provability, "we do not know". I'm really happy/ comfortable with that. None of this addresses the real nature of God though.

Do you think that there is a life after death, and if so, do you maintain that it will be possible to know at that time, for certain, whether or not the supposed god exists?

Thankyou for asking. I was avoiding the other thread on this as I didn't want to confuse things by adding my personal feelings on that. But since you ask, I'd be happy to say here.

To me the effects of Christianity are immediate, in a sense. Life and death as defined as heaven and hell aren't to do with some heebie jeebie unknown life after death nonsense, they're about our lives now. You can live both by the choices you make; you either grasp life or you rot and decay letting it go. This isn't my unique idea BTW, it's a mainstream one.

When you die, you'll carry on in the memories of those you affected, and in the artifacts you leave behind. That's all.

Thanks for this Mark, I'm enjoying it.