I had an interesting discussion with a professed atheist over the phone last night who doesn't believe that God exists, but wants to believe that God exists.

This person was brought up in an Adventist home and was baptized three times before finally deciding that God doesn't really exist.

One reason, and probably the main reason why God doesn't exist is that, if God really existed, He wouldn't allow all the suffering that is going on in the world, especially the raping and molesting of children.

He asks two questions:

1 - Why does God allow the raping and molesting of children?

2 - Can it be proven that God exists?

As to the first question, this has been debated since Job's time. I'll not start on it here.

As to the second question, I would want to know this: "What would be taken to BE "proof" of God's existance?

to the Maritime forums.

What it would take to be considered proof of God's existence is a good question, that I would like us to try and answer.

I learned in college that everyone must make a faith choice (to break the vicious cycle between one's epistemology and metaphysical beliefs--but that's a topic for a philosophy class). We must accept God's existence by faith, or accept His non-existence by faith. I believe that God has given us the freedom of choice to such a degree that we are not forced, via indisputable proofs, to believe He exists.

Having said that, there are great bodies of evidence in support of our Creator God. What it will take for each individual person to accept the evidence and believe in Him will vary widely. I believe that God has provided us much evidence in every possible field of study, so that no one need be left without evidence that will appeal to him or her personally.

Once presented with this evidence, however, the choice is left with the individual: to believe or not to believe?

What is the specialty area of the professed atheist you spoke with, Daryl? Perhaps we can provide some evidence that would appeal to him within his own realm of understanding.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I find it interesting that he says that really wants to believe, but won't believe unless Christ actually appears to him as He did to Thomas, who said that unless he sees and touches Him, he won't believe.

He said that God can't exist for the reason that, if He existed, He wouldn't allow all the suffering that is going on in the world, especially in the area of children being raped and abused.

No one can "prove" God does or does not exist. It's a matter of faith. People who choose to believe He exists and who choose to abide in Jesus experience peace of mind that defies logic and reason. Therein lies their "proof". It cannot be faked, feigned, or fabricated.

People like the person you're describing haven't reached rock bottom, they haven't fallen far enough, they haven't reached the point where the only way out is up. For people like that they have to crash and burn big time before they are in a position to seriously consider Jesus as an option. They have to learn the hard way that the world cannot satisfy them or supply them with peace of mind.

To such people, Jesus says, "Come and see. Taste and see." Answering questions like the ones you're describing is fruitless and pointless if the person isn't lying flat on their back looking up. Then their questions will be, "How can I have peace of mind like you do?" In the meantime, then, a good way to handle such people is to let your light shine.

This may be true, but it brings up a whole new set of questions, such as "What's going on if I believe in Jesus and don't have this "peace of mind that defies logic and reason." Is my experience invalid? Am I not "trying hard enough"? Isn't God supposed to give me this peace? This leads to the whole guilt thing and self-focus.

Another set of questions involves people who do not know Jesus and have peace of mind. Muslims, Buddhists, Athiests, ect., all have followers who are perfectly content with what they believe.

So I cannot accept personal feeling as being any proof of anything, much less religious validation.

I must also ask the question of why, given the apparent importance of knowing God, did God not give empirical proof of his existance? (Do not misinterpret; I am a FIRM believer in God and his existance.)

Well, for now, let's use the gentleman's own logic as a starting point:

----------

Theorem: God cannot exist if He allows all the suffering that we see in the world.

First, let us put down four Assumptions:

1. God cannot exist in part: either we have a whole God, or no God at all.
2. Sin cannot exist in part: either we have sin or we do not.
3. Sin is the source and cause of suffering.
4. Freedom of choice cannot exist in part: either we have this freedom, or we do not.
4a. Corollary: Freedom of choice must necessarily include the freedom to sin and/or to cause suffering to oneself or to others (the result of sin).

Given that the above assumptions hold true, the following must also hold true, if the theorem is to be proven.

1) God cannot allow suffering;
2) Therefore, God cannot allow sin (the cause of suffering); and
3) Therefore, God cannot allow the freedom of choice.

If any one of these three points fails, the theorem must be rejected.

----------

Now, Daryl, would your friend prefer a world stripped of the freedom to choose? How would he like to be forced to do the will of God?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My initial response to your question is, Yes, if "perfect peace" is eluding them it is because they are doing something wrong. There is nothing wrong with God or His promises.


I have yet to personally meet a non-Christian who experiences "perfect peace". According to God it is impossible.


"Thoughts and feelings combined" make up moral character. Peace is one of the fruits of the Spirit. It seems reasonable to expect "perfect peace" to feel great. Of course there are false feelings we must work to resist.


We have empirical proof if we accept the testimony of people like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, etc. But, like you, I sometimes wonder why God doesn't provide fresh proof on a daily basis. I believe it makes sense to God to orchestrate things the way He does, so, by faith, I accept it.

(If we go much further down this road we will have to come to some understanding of just what "perfect peace" is, or how it is manifested.)

As to your first point, of course we are doing something wrong; that's what we do. (This does in no way imply there is something wrong with God.) However, when we accept the Gospel in faith, and give our lives to the Lord, believing that "He is able", what else can we do? And as we grow and learn, should not this "peace" be with us, and increasing as we learn more?
However, I have met many Christians who lack this nebulous "peace", and therefore question their experience. Which leads to "I must try harder", and all the works-related baggage.

As to your second point, I have personally had extended discussions with both Muslims and Buddhists who are very happy, peacefull, well-adjusted people, very content with their faith practices. On the other hand, many are NOT happy, but then, many Christians are not happy...

(Just as an aside I'd like chapter and verse for this assertion: "According to God it [perfect peace] is impossible [without him].")

Point three. I disagree with the whole response. Thoughts and feelings not only mean nothing, but are dangerous. Check your SOP. It is NOT reasonable for "perfect peace" to "feel great". This now puts "testable criteria" on "perfect peace", based on how you feel it should express. (Which brings me back to my opening statement that we should at some point define "perfect peace")

Last, "the testimony of people like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, etc." is not empirical proof. Empirical proof is based on observation and experiment. (ie: something we can test) "The testimony of people like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, etc." is fine for believing Christians, but bear in mind that we are discussing a professed athiest.

All this is pointless, however, unless we know what the athiest in question would accept as proof of God's existance.

Athiests generally rely on things that are tangible and physical to deny the existence of a supreme being. In my rebelious years I tried to veiw the world in the same way, but discovered that the opposite is true. The concept of the Big Bang attempts to expain away the existence of our visible universe by physics alone. The bottom line, in athiestic thinking, is that even time and space came from absolutely nothing because nothing was ever created to begin with. I followed this line of thought and discovered a very strange place. A dimensionless void lacking the limitations of time. If such a "reality" existed the only principle physics that would exist would be the existence of it's self. Since time doesn't exist, and there is no volume of separating space, this physical property would have an infinite effect on it's self instantly and it would never end. The only thing I can think of comparing it with would be the effect on light from two opposing mirrors. This situation doesn't discribe the Big Bang, in my mind it describes an infinite deity that exists outside time and space.

None of that proves anything but, how can athiests explain the laws of physics remaining consistant and unchanging in perfect harmony throughout the universe without the presence of an unknown infinite force that operates outside the confines of space and time? Use this point and you'll make generate one or two agnostics at least. In my experience its easy to convert atheists to believe that a god might exist. Converting a protestant christian (who even believes in the Sabbath) to SDA is a very different story.

JAK, thank you for the honest response. By "perfect peace" I mean the fruit of perfect obedience, the fruit of abiding in Jesus. Jesus is the ultimate example of what I have in mind. He was in perfect harmony with the will of God. We experience perfect peace while we are in perfect harmony with the will of God. Jesus has seen the Father and His testimony serves as empirical proof. People are free to reject His testimony; however, it is unlikely they will see the Father in this lifetime. Seeing the Father is proof He exists.

But how does this "perfect peace" express itself in our life and our experience. Do we constantly experience a Buddhist-like tranquility, or a blonde oblivion to reality, or a euphoric "high" state of mind, or just what.

I agree that Jesus is our ultimate example of "perfect peace", yet he himself often showed anguish of heart, and distress, especially just before his crucifiction*, yet this was the time when he was most in harmony with God's will.

So we use these phrases like "perfect peace", and "the fruit of abiding" but we really have no concrete idea of what we are talking about. How much less do others understand our idioms if we ourselves don't know what they mean?

* We could also mention when he drove the money changers from the temple or when he healed the withered hand on the Sabbath.

JAK, it sounds like you're assuming Jesus was not experiencing "perfect peace" when He did the things you named above. Or, did I misunderstand your point? I've always thought peace and pain cohabitate in the hearts of those who love and obey God. "Perfect peace", therefore, isn't bliss or the absence of trouble. "Perfect peace" is knowing you're walking in the will of God.

What was posted in #122473 by JCS is more along the lines of what I am looking for in this thread.

Tangible evidence is what I am looking for in response to this person I spoke to over the phone.

Daryl,

Is math tangible? The reason I posted asking what this individual's areas of interest are, is that I can offer substantial proof, but if it is in an area that the person does not grasp or have interest, it may be of little use.

If the person is inclined toward math or science, I suggest reading through "The Mathematics of Evolution." You can view it online at this address: http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/

Basically, if you start with the assumption that humans exist (we do, don't we?), and then wonder how it is that we got here, evolution does not stand a chance of having created us who we are today. We ourselves are walking, living proof that a Creator God exists.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Daryl, perfection and perfect peace is tangible evidence the bible is telling the truth about God.

MM, perfection and perfect peace are NOT tangible. Each one is personally defined, they are completely subjective, and even the Christians on this web-site (myself included--no offense intended) have not yet given a practical definition of either one.

Moreover, to say ""Perfect peace" is knowing you're walking in the will of God." and then propose this as a proof of God is completely circular in reasoning. Bear in mind that we are trying to show proof of God to an athiest who a)does't believe in God (or gods) and b)certainly does not care about walking in his will in order to find proof.

Looking at this whole question from his (the athiest's) point of view means we must step away from those forms of "proof" that "work" for (some) committed Christians and find something he will take as proof. This task is made more complex by the fact that many athiests have not thought through their belief system thoroughly enough to know what they would accept for proof. (Sadly, the same applies to many Christians as well.)

GC, I can take that as proof for me. Modern science, on the other hand, makes two assumptions where you have made one. The first assumption is that we exist. That is not really an assumption; actually it's not an assumption at all. We can show hard evidence that humans exist. (I won't even discuss this point) But the second assumption modern science makes is that God does not exist. This is much harder to argue either pro or con.

All science (indeed, all religion, all law codes, all moral codes, and probably anything eles one can think of) is based on assumptions. These assumptions create, and are reinforced by, our world view. Together they create the paradigms we operate from. To change ones view of the world you must change the paradigms, which changes the assumptions, which changes the worldview.

At the end of the day, God has not asked us to prove that he exists. He has asked us to go and make disciples. He has left the proof to himself.

We might turn this question around and ask the athiest to prove that God does not exist. You never know; it worked for C.S. Lewis.

JAK, you seem very passionate about this. I'm not as convinced as you are that personal testimony is not tangible proof everything the Bible says about God is true, especially Jesus' testimony. It matters not that atheists dismiss it.

It matters to the athiest.

As this topic is to minister to the atheist, I am looking for what can speak to the atheist. What can speak to the atheist can also definitely speak to everybody else, when it comes to both the existence of God and everything else about God.

I am hoping that both math and science are tangible to both him and every other atheist, which is why I directed him to http://www.halos.com as tangible scientific evidence of an instant creation.

Even if you can prove an Intelligent Being had to have created everything out of nothing, it still doesn't prove Christians are right about God. Are atheists better off if they believe an Intelligent Being created everything out of nothing and continue to reject Jesus Christ as their personal Savior?

That's not really the question, MM. Daryl posted 2 questions in the opening post that the athiest wanted answered:



So, as much as certain things may be evidence for us, we need to consider the person asking the question. Our evidence is certainly not their evidence. What works for us does not work for them.

Jak,

This is true, but I also see that in this particular situation, there may not exist an answer that this atheist would accept. It is really not a matter of evidence, but of belief. We could provide all the evidence in the world--does not God already give ample evidence through nature, the Bible, and through the many blessings He shares with us?

According to the OP, this gentleman "was brought up in an Adventist home and was baptized three times before finally deciding that God doesn't really exist." THREE TIMES.

His real problem is not evidence. His real problem is one of conscience. His sins have separated him from God, and how can a sinner who is separated from God understand God through evidence when he has already rejected the light? His case seems, sadly, nearly hopeless. It is a great risk to reject the light. He was brought up to know God. He has departed from the faith three times. God can forgive, but his sins are blinding him to the point of "unpardonable sin"--so called because the sins which are unconfessed and unrepented of (i.e. no pardon requested) are not pardoned. How will he ask for pardon of a Being he prefers to believe does not exist?


Instead of these questions being legitimate reasons why he cannot see God, they are excuses to him. He has reasoned that these are evidences of that which he prefers to believe in order to escape a guilty conscience--that God does not exist.

If he wishes to save himself, he needs to make a full and thorough repentance, and seek God again, through His Word, through prayer and tears. The question is, does he have left in him any desire for this? or has he entirely hardened his heart to God's Spirit?

Well, today is the first in the New Year. I wish to recommit my life to Him in this year.

Maranatha!

Green Cochoa.

JAK, thank you for steering this thread in the right direction.

GC, I agree that in cases like this one the only evidence that matters is faith. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." May he see Jesus through us in ways that endears him to Jesus. Otherwise, like you, I suspect he is hopeless.

It sounds like there is a question in establishing God's character if it can be established that God exists. A simple model representing characteristics of God can provide insight to his character. The key principle to God is that he is infinite in all true aspects. Kurt Godel (one of the world's greatest mathmaticians and best freind of Albert Einstein) compared the principle of an infinite deity to a real number set that is composed of all other real number sets. This being the case, there can be no other number set in which this infinite set can be added to. I pondered this concept and then wondered how the effects of sin fit into the mess. Consider all of the values that exist within this infinite number set are "true values" and that all values outside this set are "false values". There would be an infinite to the infinite power of possible false values. (It seems probable that this fact is what deceived Lucifer into believing he could overwhelm the Creator by the introduction of chaos.) I suspect that these false values accurately represent sin as all things that are not in harmony with God. Since God is perfect then we must have complete faith in him that he has a perfect plan that will finally succeed in ridding creation fully of sin. Without faith we freely give up our will to the destructive power of sin itself.

It is a step in the right direction that would hopefully lead into accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour.

Daryl, I fear the opposite is true. Jesus said it is better to go swimming weighted with a millstone than to know the truth and reject Him. A lot of people talk about "God" but most of them don't have Jesus in mind. "Almost but not wholly saved, means to be not almost but wholly lost. {COL 118.1}

When someone learns about God the Holy Spirit works to impress their heart with a desire for the Lord. At that point it is up to the individual to accept or reject God's leading.

Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

What does the word "evidence" mean in that verse?

Daryl, the point was made a few posts ago that faith is evidence the Bible is telling the truth about God. It is substance. Faith comes by hearing and heeding the Word. The faith of the faithful is witness and testimony.

Yes, faith is evidence in the sense that God doesn't give us only blind faith to go by, but also gives us evidence for our faith.

True. But faith is also evidence in and of itself. It is tangible substance. The faith of faithful believers is proof the Bible is telling the truth about Jesus.

Understanding the Great Controversy Issues helps answer these questions.
However, that too, takes faith.

Can we prove that a great controversy is taking place?
Can we prove that a loving God has been challenged by a powerful rebel?

Did you know that a large section in the "novel" aisle of a bookstore deal with the great controversy issue?
I've not read any of the books but looked at the summary on the back covers. The major themes in most of these books is a "reversed" Great controversy story. (Reversed in that the saving Prince is seen as the enemy, while the dragonic prince is seen as defending life in present state. It's usually about a powerful prince and his associates trying to keep the earth or his kingdom from a prince who will invade and ultimately destroy dragon prince and everything on the earth.

However, that Prince that is coming, is the GOOD Prince Who will save us , the dragon prince is the originator and contributor and agitator to earth's suffering and problems.

Once that is established and the idea that God is allowing the rebel to show the true colors of his seemingly pleasing to self methods, then the reason for all the pain and suffering becomes apparent. God has allowed the freedom of choice to people that they might demonstrate the consequences of their choices and see the dreadfulness of sin, and in contrast the peace in even trouble of the righteous.

Sin is cruel. The sinful course of people in power leads even the innocent to suffer.

The evidence of God's presense is seen in the times when He does protect and make ways of escape for His praying people, or gives them the strength to endure.



Another great way to show that God exists is to point to the fulfilled prophecies in scripture. Prophecies that were written many years prior to their fulfilment.

Look at Daniel 2.
The message stands out clear --- the fake religious advisors couldn't come up with the correct revelation.
But Daniel connected with the REAL GOD and he was able to show and explain the kings' dream.

Further more that dream of the successive empires stands as a monument that God does exist and has accurate information concerning the future.


Finally, prophecy pictures things as getting far worse (great time of trouble) before Christ's coming. The powers of evil will be allowed to make a final display of their form of government.
If we think nothing bad ever should happen because God is love, we dont' understand the issues.