Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence? Part II

This is my last try, so please read what I am writing and not what you think I'm writing.The original OP: Is God determined to allow no proof or evidence of his existence?This question is present tense, today, the here and now. Your contention is that God does not withhold evidence to generate faith. Unfortunately crashfrog's statement deals with the present and your arguments deal with the past. Crashfrog's statement deals with reality outside the Bible and your arguments deal with evidence within the Bible. IMO all you have shown with your copius verbage is that the authors of the Christian Bible felt that God provided evidence in their day and age. God was (past tense) willing to allow evidence during the Bible age.By removing the the "scientifically substantiated" part of crashfrog's statement all you have left us with is that you have a dragon in your garage.All you have alluded to as evidence in this day and age is personal revelation. Unfortunately personal revelation cannot be substantiated outside the individual.If all you wished to show was that the Bible showed that in the past God did not withhold evidence to generate faith, then you found scripture that shows that, but then there are scriptures that can be interpreted as otherwise, such as Hebrews 11. The Bible covers both sides of the coin.My questions deal with the here and now. Does God allow evidence of his existence today that can be substantiated? Since any evidence provided today is not written in the Bible, the evidence would need to be discussed and since you do not wish to dicuss the evidence, we have no discussion.IMO your thread ended up dealing with the past and not the present.This statement of yours pretty much sums up my belief that mankind created the concept of God.

quote:

---

If you're still waiting for him to light the candle for you, maybe you haven't seen that all you have to do is light the candle yourself.

---

This message has been edited by purpledawn, 06-12-2005 08:38 AM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Hmmm...well...I think someone had mentioned before about seeing the Virgin Mary in windows and toast and other strange things. I don't personally accept these kinds of experiences as evidence of God. It don't even think they're apparitions of any sort -- just odd optical illusions which might bring about a stronger faith in those that "already" believe.However, when Egyptian TV broadcasts live television footage of what many believe was the Virgin Mary appearing atop a Coptic church -- then I stop and take notice.http://www.apparitions.org/pictures/zeitun.gifThe church where the appearances had happened had been constructed in Zeitun to commemorate the area where Mary and Joseph had fled from Herod. From April of 1968 and for about 2 years after, visitors to the site had seen the glowing apparition of a woman above the church at night.The images were apparently captured by Egyptian TV cameras. Egyptian President Abdul Nasser, an avowed Marxist, had personally witnessed the "miracle" as well. The apparition was said to last from just a few minutes to as long as nine hours -- and she was seen accompanied by doves of light as well.The local police, who initially thought the apparitions were an elaborate hoax, searched a 15-mile radius surrounding the site to uncover any type of device that could be used to project such images. They were completely unsuccessful.Muslims who also saw the apparitions chanted from the Koran, "Mary, God has chosen thee. And purified thee; He has chosen thee. Above all women."All in all, we have Christians of many denomintations, Muslims of all kinds, and even atheists of various persuasions and influence, claiming to have seen something which they all testify to bearing a striking appearance of the Virgin Mother.You can find more details here:http://members.aol.com/bjw1106/marian7.htmhttp://www.zeitun-eg.org/arbnews.htmThere is some video footage circulating around. Some of it is just testimonials by people who saw (with just pictures placed in). However, there are other videos circulating about which are actually motion pictures from the News footage at the time -- it shows glowing doves and other things moving about this floating, glowing woman hovering above the church -- with everyone sitting there watching it rather wide eyed.And if you're looking to research this further, you can check this out:Aquinas and More - Not FoundEdit: And by the way, the whole point of this thread was to assume that God exists in the first place and try to determine if he would withold evidence in order to generate faith. I was never trying to "prove" God exists -- and I've said that over and over again.In other words, I was only trying to show that God "witholding" evidence of his existence would never "generate" faith in him. It is a logical falacy to assume that God would work this way -- and I've demonstrated it clearly many times.Clearly, when someone says that God "witholds" evidence of his existence, it only proves that the person saying this doesn't believe there is sufficient evidence of God's existence in the first place.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-12-2005 08:08 PMThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-16-2005 01:59 AM

I agree that the Bible was written some time ago but we still have it today so we still know about God in the past.Today we can still observe God's creation. We have been given a beautiful world to live in. The little we have seen of the rest of the universe doesn't look that hospitable.We learn about God today through our range of emotions. We have consciousness. Why? We learn about God when we hug our loved ones. There may be sorrow in the world but if there were no sorrow we couldn't know joy.I believe that science is a modern day method of God revealing himself to us. (I know that there are many here who vehemently disagree with this.)We can look at the balance required to hold the universe together with mathematical precision. How about particles. Everything is particles, and so everything is conditional on the characteristics of these particles. Where is the wisdom coming from to give impetus to the changing nature of the particles? Science has found in the terms of a layman's layman that our reality is an illusion. An illusion requires a creator and what a beautiful illusion has been provided for us.There are wise modern writers such as CS Lewis and others that can help in revealing God to us. On the other hand there are some false prophets who will distort God's reality.I believe that God reveals himself in many ways today but the evidence is circumstantial so we have the freedom to make what we want of the evidence.

Salvation is about faith in the saving work of Christ, in the death of Christ, the blood of Christ, in His being God who came to die in our place and rose again and is now seated on the right hand of the Father in heaven, eventually taking all His followers with Him. The idea that people who have not the SLIGHTEST apprehension of any of this can be saved by it nevertheless, to my mind makes the whole gospel appear to be incidental or even negligible altogether rather than the central focus it has been for two millennia. As if to say: "So they're a little bit behind." It's not something to be concerned about in the face of eternity after all.Again, I can see those like Job and Noah being saved BEFORE Christ was revealed, and even some in remote parts of the world now if they truly live as Noah and Job did -- knowing themselves to be sinners in God's eyes, requiring sacrifice for their sins and so on. If some like those do exist then I suppose they too will be saved, because those ideas are in keeping with the meaning of the gospel. But people who think they can go to heaven on their good works? That's the opposite of the meaning of the cross and such an idea effectively cancels out the gospel.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-12-2005 03:00 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 06-12-2005 03:02 PM

We've pretty much argued the other points to death now, so we'll simply agree to disagree on them.However, you last point caught my attention enough to respond: I think whenever someone realizes they've done something wrong (according to the Scripture's definition of wrong), and they have a sincere desire to correct the problem, then Christ is active in their heart on a spiritual level. Yes, these are perfect Scriptural examples. Tha's because you're looking at the surface of things. If Christ has not been clearly presented to them in a kind and loving manner, then how can they be expected to call upon Christ when they realize that they've done something wrong?I think when people realize that they've done something wrong and they seek to atone for it, their spirit is groaning for Christ on a subliminal level -- even though they are deluded for following other paths which do not point toward Christ in any sense of the word. Many people from other faiths express repentance, contrition, or sacrifice for thier "sins". Their problem is not necessarilly because they are unwilling to heed Christ's gospel (although it may be the case if the gosple were actually presented). More often than not, however, it's simply because they do not have a clear and untainted recourse to the gospel. My concern stems from the fact that you continue to repeatedly state that this WILL happen in all situations -- which in many people's opinions is a rather cruel perception of God. If you are wrong about this, and you have turned others away from Christ because of an error in your doctrine, then God may very possibly hold you accountable for their falling away from Christ -- not them.I, on the other hand, do not make the central focus of my discussing Christ's action for salvation one of damnation. Sure, I warn that it could happen. I also warn that if one rejects Christ when he is fairly presented then there is no excuse for one to reject him -- and even then I'm cautious because I don't know what other Christians may have done to them in the past to make them reject Christ in the first place. Have I ever not preached the gospel Faith? Have I ever said that salvation comes by anyone else except Christ Jesus?My assurance is more to counter your assertions so that others do not perceive God as an unfair judge who cares nothing for others who do not believe in his son. This isn't simply a matter of theodicy. After having read the Scriptures a fair amount I honestly believe that your position is inaccurate (in this sense anyway).When the atheist weeps over the loss of their child, God hears them.When the muslim boy weeps over the loss of his father in a military operation, God hears them.When the pagan woman weeps over their inability to conceive a child, God hears them.All people are a part of God's plan, Christian or not. And I think that God judges in proportion to what has been revealed to each individual.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 06-16-2005 08:25 PM

I believe your understanding is wrong and we really need to end this discussion with an agree-to-disagree. Thanks for the debates.

Thank you.

I don't think there's really much more to be said here. So if a moderator feels that it is time to close this thread, that's fine with me.

hmmm...I missed this one before... No. Actually it's not. I see. So the prophets of old didn't speak out against their spiritual leaders when they believed that God revealed that something was wrong with them? I'll try to keep this short too. You want to talk about mischaracterizations Faith?What you've said above here is simply not true. I do believe that there is a literal hell. I also beleive that those who reject Christ will most likely go there. Yes, it most ceretainly is. I also don't think people should be throwing it around as haphazardly as they do. It's kind of like fishing with dynamite. Sure...you can go fishing in the pond -- once -- and then you have to find another pond to go fishing in. I never said God did that. I never said that God's judgments were wrong.However, technically speaking, heaving rocks onto a person until their bones were pulverized under the stresses of the impact is not a freindly way too go no matter how one dresses it up. Internal bleeding and simply laying there until you die of bloodloss, thirst & hunger, and/or vultures or other scavengers picking apart your body is not a pleasant way to go no matter what one says. But that's the thing Faith -- when I read your posts you almost seem to be enjoying the prospects of others going to hell. You don't seem to be expressing any sadness by the fact that many people (in your opinion) will be going there. Contrary to this expression of sorrow, you seem to be relying on this knowledge in order to justify your own position on the matter. No, I'm not. I'm showing that your above statement is somewhat in error. If indeed God knew how to "lead people to himself without our doing anything but telling the truth", then our "loving God" certainly would have done so in the case of the plagues of Egypt.I admit that for whatever reason God has allowed these destructive things to happen -- I fully acknowledge that God is sovereign in doing these things as well. What I'm objecting to is this idea that you seem to portraying here -- that God can accomplish things with mere words from us. In the case of the Egyptians (with Pharaoh in particular), the society was apparently well beyond any "reasonable words" -- and only an awesome display of God's power at work was going to change the tide.Even we as Christians fully admit that at the secong coming of Christ, this world will be going through terrible calamities like none ever seen before or after. Clearly "words" are not going to be enough to change anyone's mind beyond a certain point. No, but I believe that you are taking offense to the idea of a non-Christian being saved. It's kind of like the prodical son -- but in this case you seem to be like the older brother who refuses to rejoice over the younger brother who was saved.As far as the differences between the Christian and the non-Christian are concerned, I guess I think of the allegory of the Christian soldier presented in the Christian Scriptures.I'm sure you're somewhat familiar with this passage... To put it simply, in my opinion, the Christian is thoroughly furnished with the whole armor of God -- whereas the non-Christian is potentially ill-prepared for the spiritual battle (and perhaps desperately so in some cases).Having said that, the responsiblity for the battle is that of the Christian. God has not assigned the non-believers the responsibility of tackling the devil's schemes -- until they are armed and equiped for such conflict by hearing the word of God.Consequently, just as the leader of the army would not hold civilians accountable for losing a battle against another army, I don't think that God would hold non-believers accountable for losing a battle against the adversary and his minions.On the other hand, if the Christians themselves lose the battle -- and they were defintely properly equipped -- then God will most definitely hold them accountable for not pushing the adversary back.Does this mean that I think that all non-beleivers will be "saved"?No. It does not. Certainly, as with any war, many will be lost.This does however reinforce what I've been trying to explain all along -- that God judges in proportion to that which is revealed to each individual.This is not a foreign concept in Christianity either -- did not Jesus himself say, "Forgive them Father -- for they know not what they do" ? From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Actually, according to the Bible, God did convince Pharoah with but words and reason. Pharoah was all ready to let the people go, but that meant poor pickins for the storyteller. So, in the best Mack Sennett tradition, the storyteller has GOD harden Pharoah's heart so God can do even more amazing things on the next installment.Cliff hangers.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You're refering to the passages which said that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart"? If so, you seem to be kind of selective in which passages you're noting to make your case.For example, what about the passages prior to those which said the opposite ... that "Pharaoh hardended his heart" ... or the non-specific passages which doesn't lay any blame on either Pharaoh or God and simply says that "Pharaoh's heart was hardened"?When something is said three different ways in the Scriptures, I don't assume that it's wrong or contradictory. It seems more logical to infer that three different perspectives are being reflected. I admit that I could be wrong -- but this is how I read it.In one sense, when the Spriptures talk about Pharaoh hardening his own heart, I'm fairly sure it captures the rebellious and proud side of the story from Pharaoh's own perspective -- that he was resisting God's will.When the same thing is told from a non-specific perspective (neither Pharaoh nor God's point of view), it seems as if the hardening is being described in terms of a natural consequences of pride in contrast to the inevitable future calamity. In other words, it seems to capture the denial that is common -- very common -- to many people who are facing certain death, such as cancer patients for example. Pharaoh himself perhaps may not be dying per se -- but his control over the kingdom of Egypt was coming to an end for sure.Finally, when the same thing is told from God's perspective, the causation seems to be directed according to God's larger plan -- in order to display that no matter what happens (even in the case of Pharaoh's rebellion) God is still in control. In other words, I personally don't take this to mean that God was "pulling the strings" of Pharaoh in order to force a destructive outcome and display his mighty will. Pharaoh knew what he was doing. In fact, he'd have to be totally stupid to not realize how much he was being humiliated.But, then again, it seems as though his entire faith system was being virtually obliterated before his eyes -- one little hebrew god totally knocking the stuffing out of possibly up to nine major Egyptian deities -- including his own "claim" to being a living deity (since Pharaoh was supposed to be some kind of god-man himself).I suppose, in rejecting the Lord, he simply had no hope left.Guess it sucks to be Pharaoh.

No, I'm looking at all of them. The whole story reads like the typical serial movie. It's a literary device of the story teller. Bring it towards a climax then back off. Keep the audience coming back nite after night to hear the tales of their history.The Exodus story is a folktale, designed to be told in increments.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ahh, I see. I guess we disagree then.

I'm sorry, Mr. Ex, I've simply forgotten this thread and don't remember the context of my remarks, so I really don't have an answer for you.

ah well...meh -- don't worry about it then.Jar, like I said before, a moderator might as well close off this thread. I don't think it's going anywhere now.
.