How to know that God exists.

[Eightcrackers]

Out of how many tries? Your question is like asking, "What are the odds of ever seeing a 6 turn up on a die that was rolled?" without saying how many rolls you get.

Or whether or not there is even a face labelled "6".

 

[Temujin]

There does it get purpose from. The need to survive perhaps. Where does the need to survive come from

The need to survive is not as important as the need to reproduce. Where did this come from? Well natural selection obviously, since organisms that don't have a need to reproduce, will rapidly go extinct.

 

[Whatsisface]

I never bought into that false "fact". And you never demonstrated that it would.
You post as if there is 100% separation. There won't.
Depending on the flow velocity the amounts would vary.

Keeping in mind sandstone doesn't really contain pebbles like a conglomerate does....so what does that tell you?

Keep in mind these sandstone formation cover continents...often with a second sandstone of a different makeup laying on top.

If you ever drove throughTexas there is a portion that for miles upon miles you can drive and see the top of buttes and the strata that make up the buttes...with the buttes separated by miles....and you know the area between the buttes were once filled with sediment that washed away...perhaps as the flood waters receded....This is yet another example of a large flood, a flood that was described in the Bible.

If you are referring to Monument Valley, some of the more fragile columns of rock would not have survived a worldwide flood.

 

[CrowCross]

If you are referring to Monument Valley, some of the more fragile columns of rock would not have survived a worldwide flood.

No. They are not in Texas.

I've been to Monument Valley....and the same application of the sediment between the monuments apply. Keep in mind the monuments have aged and formed a more fragile columns of rock.

 

[Whatsisface]

No. They are not in Texas.

I've been to Monument Valley....and the same application of the sediment between the monuments apply. Keep in mind the monuments have aged and formed a more fragile columns of rock.

Nowhere can I find an explanation of Buttes that mention a global flood.

Here's one from National Geographic …

Buttes are tall, flat-topped, steep-sided towers of rock. Buttes were created through the process of erosion, the gradual wearing away of earth by water, wind, and ice. Buttes were once part of flat, elevated areas of land known as mesas or plateaus.

Found here.

 

[SteveB]

No, your approach comes across as accusation to anyone who claims to have approached God and not had the experience the Bible suggests they will.

Accusations....

I continue to demonstrate my experience.

Which according to you is inexperience.

When it comes to personal experience all you can do is trust the person relating their experience.

Which is why I keep asking you questions, to better detail what happened.
So far you have described your inexperience. I.e., your lack of connecting with Jesus.

If I said I tried chocolate ice-cream and I didn't like it, would you tell me I was wrong, because millions of others have tried it and they liked it?

And that appears to be the key distinction between us.
I'm not talking about chocolate ice cream.
This is not about liking or disliking something.
This is entirely about meeting Jesus and God.
You've told me that you never actually met Jesus. So, it's pretty clear that liking or disliking the flavors of foods isn't the same.

You have several decades of experience with something. Can you prove that the source of that experience was Jesus?

It matches the biblical narrative.

No, you continue to try to invalidate my experience.

That's just it....you keep saying that you had no experience. So I'm validating that you never actually met him, which shows that you never actually did what Jesus said.

Ah. The no true Scotsman fallacy. Nice.

Which is rather curious, because you are clearly stating that since you never actually met Jesus, nobody else could ever have met him either.
Sounds like you're the one who keeps using the no true scotsman fallacy.

I do believe your cancer experience. I just don't see it as proof of divine intervention.

That's a you thing.
Every single doctor I have has spent years saying that I'm a miracle.
Miracles, by their very definition are the result of that which is beyond our ability to understand.

No, that's what you are saying.
I simply related my knowledge and experience.

Remember, your experience is the lack of experience.

I am paying attention. All I hear are claims and supposition. I'm not hearing anything to substantiate either.

And all I hear is that you never actually met Jesus and aren't actually interested in knowing God.
So, how do you think this is going to go?

Apparently me and countless others if our efforts are to be judged solely by results.

The entire human race will experience a judgment.
Following Jesus is a life of results.
We believe him and he works in and through our lives.

Further demonstrating that you lack knowledge of the biblical definition of following Jesus.

And innumerable people lay claim to the power of the law of attraction or crystals or any number of things.
Do you believe in those too? If not, why?

Experience with Jesus.
The bible is really clear about astrology, necromancy, mediums, psychics, etc....
So no. I do not engage in such activities.
Looking at the bible, it seems pretty clear that those things are real. But they are not based on the truth. They're built on lies, and deception.

And yet I have been many times.

Which raises the question of whether you were coming to Jesus or just looking for an emotional experience.
YHVH says in Jeremiah 29 that if we seek him with a whole heart we will find him.
The thing that makes me think that you didn't seek him with a whole heart is that you didn't engage in following Jesus.
According to your own description, you engaged in a religious construct. Something that you should be asking yourself. We're instructed in Corinthians that we should examine ourselves to see if we're actually in the faith or not.

2Co 13:5 WEB Examine your own selves, whether you are in the faith. Test your own selves. Or don’t you know about your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

Based on your own description, it appears that you did examine yourself and decided that you are not in the faith. So, I'm working from that perspective.

No, in this case it's the dictionary.

I'm working from the biblical definition of truth.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary was developed by a bible believer.

TRUTH, n.
1. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the truth of the scriptural prophecies.
My mouth shall speak truth. Prov.8.
Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth. John. 17.
2. True state of facts or things. The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth. Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3. Conformity of words to thoughts, which is called moral truth.
Shall truth fail to keep her word?
4. Veracity; purity from falsehood; practice of speaking truth; habitual disposition to speak truth; as when we say, a man is a man of truth.
5. Correct opinion.
6. Fidelity; constancy.
The thoughts of past pleasure and truth.
7. Honesty; virtue.
It must appear
That malice bears down truth.
8. Exactness; conformity to rule.
Plows, to go true, depend much on the truth of the iron work. [Not in use.]
9. Real fact of just principle; real state of things. There are innumerable truths with which we are not acquainted.
10. Sincerity.
God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. John 4.
11. The truth of God, is his veracity and faithfulness. Ps.71.
Or his revealed will.
I have walked in thy truth. Ps.26.
12. Jesus Christ is called the truth. John 14.
13. It is sometimes used by way of concession.
She said, truth, Lord; yet the dogs eat of the crums-- Matt 15.
That is, it is a truth; what you have said, I admit to be true.
In truth, in reality; in fact.
Of a truth, in reality; certainly.
To do truth, is to practice what God commands. John 3.

A distinction without a difference.

Not to you. Yet you've made it clear that you never actually met Jesus.
So of course you see no difference.

 

[SteveB]

No, history is the definer of reality.

The reality you're aware of.
So, unless you have all possible knowledge and awareness, I'm thinking that you don't actually know what reality is. You do indeed have your own beliefs about reality, but you don't have a clear picture of what reality beyond your views is.

Knowing so little, yet claiming to know so much seems to be your modus operandi.

Curious that you think I believe I know more than I actually do.
The difference between us is that I know, and am known to, the God who does know everything.
As his Word has opened up to us the knowledge and awareness of the eternal reality, we who follow Jesus are able to see and understand truth, and reality that unbelievers don't see or understand.

As is written in 1 Corinthians 2.
1Co 2:9-16 WEB 9 But as it is written, “Things which an eye didn’t see, and an ear didn’t hear, which didn’t enter into the heart of man, these God has prepared for those who love him.” 10 But to us, God revealed them through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God except God’s Spirit. 12 But we received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. 13 We also speak these things, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. 14 Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him; and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord that he should instruct him?” But we have Christ’s mind.

But self-righteousness comes from self.

Indeed.
Biblical righteousness is the gift of God through trusting Jesus.

2Co 5:21 WEB For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

It seems you do.
You need atheists to be definitively worse so you can validate the power of Christianity.

??
And you apparently need followers of Jesus to be definitively worse so you can validate the power of your unbelief.

I don't need you to be worse to validate the power of an institution.

YHVH himself has stated- the people who say there is no God is a fool.

So, it's pretty clear that I have no history in creating the idea that God has explicitly stated that atheists are fools.

It's a truth that has existed since eternity past. And as I'm only 62 years old, my time on earth is finite.

YHVH has been demonstrating himself to me, and to those who believe in Jesus for millennia.

As such, I'm not the one who needs atheists to be definitively worse.
Furthermore, according to the atheists on this forum, apparently ignorance is the ideal state of existence.

I don't claim that they are good things. I'm saying that your bias appears to keep you from seeing the many good things that people do.

Appears.....
So, in your mind, I'm blinded by bias from seeing that people do good things.

Hmm....
So, are you saying that these good things that people do should give them access to heaven?
I.e., their good things earn them the right?

Not based upon my lack of knowledge and experience. I have plenty of knowledge and experience.
I just lack experience of your God making himself known to me.

Bingo!

How did God demonstrate himself to you?

I previously explained it.
I asked him if he was real and if Jesus was real or just another pile of religious bs.

He demonstrated himself to me in a manner that matched the biblical description.

What was the unassailable proof?

His revelation of himself was in agreement with the bible.

 

[Tiburon]

Which according to you is inexperience.

No it's experience. Inexperience would be if I never even tried.
If two people drop a stone into a well and one hears a splash and another doesn't, that is their experience.
They are both experiences.
We both sought God. You say you got a response I say I didn't. Those are our experiences.

Which is why I keep asking you questions, to better detail what happened.
So far you have described your inexperience. I.e., your lack of connecting with Jesus.

My experience is a lack of connecting with Jesus.

And that appears to be the key distinction between us.
I'm not talking about chocolate ice cream.
This is not about liking or disliking something.
This is entirely about meeting Jesus and God.
You've told me that you never actually met Jesus. So, it's pretty clear that liking or disliking the flavors of foods isn't the same.

No it's about an argumentum ad populum.

It matches the biblical narrative.

So what?
Experiencing what you expect to experience doesn't prove Jesus.

That's just it....you keep saying that you had no experience. So I'm validating that you never actually met him, which shows that you never actually did what Jesus said.

I had an experience of not meeting him. You cannot say from that, that I didn't do what Jesus said.

Which is rather curious, because you are clearly stating that since you never actually met Jesus, nobody else could ever have met him either.
Sounds like you're the one who keeps using the no true scotsman fallacy.

I don't think that is a no true Scotsman fallacy.
I think it's just a dismissal of your claim.

That's a you thing.
Every single doctor I have has spent years saying that I'm a miracle.
Miracles, by their very definition are the result of that which is beyond our ability to understand.

Have you had a doctor sign an affidavit to that effect?
People use the term "Miracle" all to readily.

Remember, your experience is the lack of experience.

And?

And all I hear is that you never actually met Jesus and aren't actually interested in knowing God.
So, how do you think this is going to go?

No, I never actually met Jesus. If there is a God then I am actually interested in knowing God.
"How do you think this is going to go?"
I think it's going to go as usual. You'll keep claiming that I'm not interested in knowing God and that I haven't done what Jesus said.

The entire human race will experience a judgment.
Following Jesus is a life of results.
We believe him and he works in and through our lives.

So is following Allah or Vishnu or Buddha.
The result comes from approaching life from a particular viewpoint.

Experience with Jesus.
The bible is really clear about astrology, necromancy, mediums, psychics, etc....
So no. I do not engage in such activities.
Looking at the bible, it seems pretty clear that those things are real. But they are not based on the truth. They're built on lies, and deception.

So the Bible got there first.

Which raises the question of whether you were coming to Jesus or just looking for an emotional experience.
YHVH says in Jeremiah 29 that if we seek him with a whole heart we will find him.
The thing that makes me think that you didn't seek him with a whole heart is that you didn't engage in following Jesus.
According to your own description, you engaged in a religious construct. Something that you should be asking yourself. We're instructed in Corinthians that we should examine ourselves to see if we're actually in the faith or not.

2Co 13:5 WEB Examine your own selves, whether you are in the faith. Test your own selves. Or don’t you know about your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

Based on your own description, it appears that you did examine yourself and decided that you are not in the faith. So, I'm working from that perspective.

No, I didn't come to Jesus just looking for an emotional experience. I did expect some sign that I had been accepted into the flock.
I suppose you are going to tell me I was wrong for expecting anything.
More excuses.

I'm working from the biblical definition of truth.

The 1828 Webster's Dictionary was developed by a bible believer.

TRUTH, n.
1. Conformity to fact or reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. The truth of history constitutes its whole value. We rely on the truth of the scriptural prophecies.
My mouth shall speak truth. Prov.8.
Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth. John. 17.
2. True state of facts or things. The duty of a court of justice is to discover the truth. Witnesses are sworn to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3. Conformity of words to thoughts, which is called moral truth.
Shall truth fail to keep her word?
4. Veracity; purity from falsehood; practice of speaking truth; habitual disposition to speak truth; as when we say, a man is a man of truth.
5. Correct opinion.
6. Fidelity; constancy.
The thoughts of past pleasure and truth.
7. Honesty; virtue.
It must appear
That malice bears down truth.
8. Exactness; conformity to rule.
Plows, to go true, depend much on the truth of the iron work. [Not in use.]
9. Real fact of just principle; real state of things. There are innumerable truths with which we are not acquainted.
10. Sincerity.
God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. John 4.
11. The truth of God, is his veracity and faithfulness. Ps.71.
Or his revealed will.
I have walked in thy truth. Ps.26.
12. Jesus Christ is called the truth. John 14.
13. It is sometimes used by way of concession.
She said, truth, Lord; yet the dogs eat of the crums-- Matt 15.
That is, it is a truth; what you have said, I admit to be true.
In truth, in reality; in fact.
Of a truth, in reality; certainly.
To do truth, is to practice what God commands. John 3.

No, it seems you are using the 1828 Webster's Dictionary definition of truth.

Not to you. Yet you've made it clear that you never actually met Jesus.
So of course you see no difference.

Care to explain it then?

 

[Tiburon]

The reality you're aware of.
So, unless you have all possible knowledge and awareness, I'm thinking that you don't actually know what reality is. You do indeed have your own beliefs about reality, but you don't have a clear picture of what reality beyond your views is.

So we are in the same boat.

Curious that you think I believe I know more than I actually do.
The difference between us is that I know, and am known to, the God who does know everything.
As his Word has opened up to us the knowledge and awareness of the eternal reality, we who follow Jesus are able to see and understand truth, and reality that unbelievers don't see or understand.

You see the same reality you just frame it differently based upon your beliefs.

Biblical righteousness is the gift of God through trusting Jesus.

2Co 5:21 WEB For him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

I'm not talking about "Biblical" righteousness.

??
And you apparently need followers of Jesus to be definitively worse so you can validate the power of your unbelief.
I don't need you to be worse to validate the power of an institution.
YHVH himself has stated- the people who say there is no God is a fool.
So, it's pretty clear that I have no history in creating the idea that God has explicitly stated that atheists are fools.
It's a truth that has existed since eternity past. And as I'm only 62 years old, my time on earth is finite.
YHVH has been demonstrating himself to me, and to those who believe in Jesus for millennia.
As such, I'm not the one who needs atheists to be definitively worse.
Furthermore, according to the atheists on this forum, apparently ignorance is the ideal state of existence.

I don't need followers of Jesus to be anything.
I would expect to see some difference based upon the claims they make. It seems though that they are no better or worse than anyone else.
"YHVH himself has stated- the people who say there is no God is a fool."
No, it was supposedly David who said that in Psalm14.

Appears.....
So, in your mind, I'm blinded by bias from seeing that people do good things.

I don't know. It seems that way from your posts. You definitely don't seem to have a good opinion of humanity as a whole.

I previously explained it.
I asked him if he was real and if Jesus was real or just another pile of religious bs.

He demonstrated himself to me in a manner that matched the biblical description.
His revelation of himself was in agreement with the bible.

Which was what exactly? A nice warm fuzzy feeling? A booming voice from on high?

 

[Manfred]

Out of how many tries? Your question is like asking, "What are the odds of ever seeing a 6 turn up on a die that was rolled?" without saying how many rolls you get.

And, that's not the end of it either, because of natural selection, as others have pointed out.

Ok.
How many tries you want?

We have now introduced repeatability into the equation.

Let's say you add a bunch of amino acids into a system that developed by chance to sustain life. An you have entropy doing its thing and these AA's are degrading etc.
You say through adding more AA's into the mix, and repeating that over and over for billions of years, you will have some life form evolve because at some point the degraded AA's will not degrade quick enough and you will get 10 improvement's in a row before degradation that will allow life to be formed.

 

[Manfred]

The Bible is the claim, not evidence for the claim.

"My dad says you're scared of the dark."
"Prove it.
"I just did - my dad said it."

Did your dad say I am scared or you are?
Is your dad omniscient, or what attributes does he have to know whether or not I am scared of the dark?

How do you know, what an omniscient being knows about me and about you.

Er... OK - given the required ingredients for life, would life arise naturally?
Yeeees...?

Out of what?
Where did the ALL the ingredients come from, and what are the odds that all these ingredients came together by chance.
1:1? 1:10? 1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000"

From pre-existing matter, as far as we can tell.

As far as you can tell?
So amino acids were pre-existent and there was no entropy and these amino acids migrated together and formed separately single cell organisms who then adapted to a "need" to change and become male and female organisms.
Why are we not seeing new life every day there are lots of pre-existing AA's about that must have been in the process of evolving for billions of years now.

See above.

Asking "where did that come from?" until you get your interlocutor to the point where they say "I don't know" does not prove your argument.

Ok. So you do know right?

 

[Manfred]

The need to survive is not as important as the need to reproduce. Where did this come from? Well natural selection obviously, since organisms that don't have a need to reproduce, will rapidly go extinct.

Why do you suppose there is a "need" not to go extinct? If there is no meaning then surely there is no need.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Ok. So you do know right?

NO.

How does this prove creationism, or invalidate abiogenesis?

Did your dad say I am scared or you are?
Is your dad omniscient, or what attributes does he have to know whether or not I am scared of the dark?

How do you know, what an omniscient being knows about me and about you.

Presupposes that what the Bible, says is the result of such a being.

 

[Manfred]

NO.

How does this prove creationism, or invalidate abiogenesis?

Presupposes that what the Bible, says is the result of such a being.

Again. You seem to be unable to even understand the "concept" of God and the attributes associated with God.

You want to remove the attributes, and change the definition because you cannot conceive that if their were a God, the one I am talking about on this Christian site, that He would have these attributes.

Are you concerned about Christians believing in an omniscient God? Do you prefer we believe based on your say-so that God is not omniscient?

 

[Manfred]

NO.

So if you don't know why the rhetoric?
You believe AA's evolved out of nothing/or something you don't know, and think you have a better argument for the existence of life than an intelligent designer?

 

[Temujin]

Why do you suppose there is a "need" not to go extinct? If there is no meaning then surely there is no need.

There is no need as such. Some organisms would have this drive, others wouldn't. Those that don't, go extinct. Which is why we are left with those that do. Everything about evolution is about reproduction and the passing on of genes, directly or indirectly.

 

[Manfred]

There is no need as such. Some organisms would have this drive, others wouldn't. Those that don't, go extinct. Which is why we are left with those that do. Everything about evolution is about reproduction and the passing on of genes, directly or indirectly.

Organisms do not go extinct because of a lack of drive to survive. Can you give an example of biological organisms that stopped reproducing and thus became extinct.
Can you give an example of something? I may be unaware of any such cases that have been established?

 

[Eightcrackers]

You believe AA's evolved out of nothing/or something you don't know, and think you have a better argument for the existence of life than an intelligent designer?

I don't have an argument, and I am not obligated to have an argument.

I simply don't know.

 

[Caroljeen]

There is no need as such. Some organisms would have this drive, others wouldn't. Those that don't, go extinct. Which is why we are left with those that do. Everything about evolution is about reproduction and the passing on of genes, directly or indirectly.

What natural cause stimulates this drive? hormones?

 

[Whatsisface]

Organisms do not go extinct because of a lack of drive to survive. Can you give an example of biological organisms that stopped reproducing and thus became extinct.
Can you give an example of something? I may be unaware of any such cases that have been established?

I think it might be more accurate to say that organisms wouldn't get started in the first place if if they didn't have a drive to survive.