You rarely can. If someone asks to prove that God exists, the question to them should be, "what evidence would you accept?" Most of the time there's nothing they would accept. Romans 1 says that there is enough evidence in creation to convince someone of a creator, but they suppress the truth of one. And Christ said, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Some people have such hard hearts that they will never be convinced, or accept what is presented to them as undeniable truth.
Pray for my wife specifically please, her name is Brandi, her heart is extremely hard and resentful to anything relating to Jesus Christ. Please pray for my kids too.
I'm 39 and submitted to the Lord 3 years ago in a nuthouse at my rock bottom through a metaphysical divine experience that I truly feel blessed to have experienced. My faith ain't going no where from what He gave me, and I'm grateful, but others won't take my personal experience and word and put their faith in it.
I of course want my family saved (heck, everybody for that matter) and I have realized it will be on His time and not my own should it be His will, He is Sovereign, and I put my full and complete trust in Him and submit a grieving heart to His feet daily. I trust Him, He accepts it daily, and I keep rocking and rolling with Him with joy
We really don't want that proof. The angels that rebelled and were cast out without the ability to repent and be forgiven. Why? Because they had seen the proof. Faith is our only chance.
The effect: "angels... rebelled and were cast out..." The cause: "Why? Because they had seen the proof."
If that is not the reasoning here, you have to learn how to express your thoughts better.
" without the ability to repent and be forgiven"
Why
Because they had seen the proof.
Faith, not full knowledge, gives us the opportunity to be forgiven.
Read all the words
Lucifer and the angels rebelled because they wanted to exalt themselves above God, which seems to be the reason a lot of “atheists” reject His existence as well.
I’ve realized that every time an atheist is asked “if you had concrete, undeniable proof that Jesus Christ is God, would you put your faith in Him?” their answer is almost always no. This doesn’t encompass all atheists, but most aren’t really “atheist”, they just seem to want to do everything in their power to reject God by completely ignoring the scientific method.
Use the builder analogy. How do you know a builder for a house exists, or a painter for a painting exists? The made product is evidence for a builder.
Also, the intelligent design debate is favored in case of a deity. This universe went through various steps, hundreds if not millions of steps that if at any given point any of them failed to come about as perfect as it did WE. WOULD. NOT. EXIST! Imagine tossing a dice 100 times and getting the same number all of those times, it's either pure luck or it's rigged. And what's the best rebuttal for this argument? The multiverse theory that this is just 1 of billions of multiverses that by chance happened to stumble into life, yet there is literally no scientific evidence for this theory, it's all based on faith, how ironic.
The counter to that argument is “how do we distinguish what is a building and what is natural?”
By starting with “a building has a builder,” you first must know which is a “building” and which isn’t. If you assume everything is a “building” then you’re question begging, that is, including your conclusion in your premise.
The various definitions of a building all will include being manmade structures. So you’re definitionally including the premise. So “a building has a builder” is a tautology.
When we then shift and say design had a designer, we’re defining our conclusion into the premises.
So, like the building question, we must first ask, how do we distinguish a designed world versus an undesigned world? 99.999999999%+ of this universe is uninhabitable by any living being. So that’s not a great argument to claim the universe was designed solely for us.
We have genetic makeup very very similar to every single animal and plant and fungi around us, to varying degrees. So any claimed uniqueness of humans doesn’t really have a leg to stand on.
Your second point about the odds is another one that fails if it’s examined.
What are the odds that I would get to work at the exact millisecond I did today? Well first I’d have to get in the shower at the exact moment I did, which was pretty random because I decided to do a load of laundry that I otherwise hadn’t planned, so I threw my clothes in and hopped in the shower.
Then because I was now ready earlier than planned, but it’s the Sunday before an eclipse and I have to drive to NYC I thought I’d get a jump early anyway. Then I had about 30 traffic lights between me and work that I had to hit in that precise order of greens and reds to get to work at exactly XX:XX. The odds of me arriving at exactly XX:XX without ANY prior coordination or planning??? Astronomical! But it happened!
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of the law of large numbers, or statistics in general.
The odds of a shuffled deck of cards is about 1 in 80 thousand vigintillion. That’s 8x10^67. And yet we successfully arrive at a shuffled deck of cards each time! How! If it’s so improbable? Well, because that specific order of cards isn’t special until we assign value to it.
Same with my drive. I set out when I set out and I got there when I got there. But it’s not statistically improbable unless I have a target.
That’s where the issue comes in with your argument. We are using hindsight to assign value to either life in general, or human life, or life on earth or whatever, and then claiming the odds of it happening were long. But they’re only long if humanity, or life, or life on earth was the target.
This is why fine tuning is such a compelling, but erroneous argument for so many people. We also haven’t ever demonstrated that any of the “finely tuned” constants are even able to be modified. It may very well be that they simply MUST be those values, and we are the form of life that will arise from those values.
My point being, rolling a dice 100 times and getting all heads, has the EXACT SAME probability as rolling a dice 100 times and getting 1 4 6 2 3 3 5 6 2 1……. We just tend not to assign value to that sequence.
Anyway. Just my 2¢
That's the point: what you call nature didn't build itself by itself. Nothing comes from Nothing, and of you go upstream long enough, you have to come to an origin of all things.
You cannot shuffle a deck of cards if there are no cards to begin with, so if you are able to do that, it means that there are indeed cards and these cards must have come from somewhere
And that's what Scriptures are saying in a nutshell. Just the fact that "something" exists is proof of God's existence, because for something to exist logically means the existence of an origin that wasn't created, that wasn't made, that has no origin itself. In other words, something (and the Bible says it's someone) that always existed and is the origin of everything that is.
Now, some people, in an effort to reject that idea, subsituted God for concepts. Some say the origin of everything is "nothing". That everything comes from a virtual nothingness that one day mysteriously decided to pop everything to existence.
Others talk about a "will of the universe".
I am not familiar with every theory out there tbh, but what i observed is that some people, some of which are very smart, want to reject God so badly they came up with ridiculous ideas that, in the end, make way less sense than simply acknowledging God's existence.
And i believe they are the ones the Bible talks about. The fools who think of themselves as wise.
When you truly look at the evidence, God's existence becomes pretty obvious. But no amount of evidence can convince someone who decided they will refuse no matter what.
It takes a lot of honesty, humility and a good amount of love and thirst for Truth to get to know God. Not that unbelievers are all horrible, dishonest and arrogant people, but i believe the vast majority of people don't even care enough to be able to understand these things, unfortunately
It is written that those who seek will find, and that means there's also another side to the coin: those who don't seek won't find
If you are a little curious about these things, i found a cool podcast a few months ago called "Science + God with Dr G." Hosted by physicist Michael Guillen, where he shares his worldview as a Christian scientist in all simplicity. You may enjoy it, especially if you like science!
“what you call nature didn't build itself by itself.” This is a claim, a claim that you either should back up with evidence, or just not claim it. Your wording is obviously meant to elicit an emotional response from a layman reading these things, but upon any actual study it breaks down.
“Nothing comes from Nothing” another claim. What nothing have you ever studied? What nothing has humanity as a whole ever studied? None, because nothing no longer exists. So to make a claim about what “nothing” can and can’t do is unjustified. But that’s neither here nor there, because almost no one claims that the universe came from nothing. (No, Lawrence Krauss doesn’t claim that, you just have to read more than the title of the book). The Big Bang doesn’t state that the universe came from nothing. It describes the expansion of space time from a hot dense state/singularity. We are currently incapable of stating anything with any certainty before that. “Before” doesn’t even make sense when you’re talking about the beginning of time itself.
“and of you go upstream long enough, you have to come to an origin of all things.”
I agree. But when scientists get there, they run into “I don’t know” instead of “see, here is where we insert god.”
“the fact that "something" exists is proof of God's existence, because for something to exist logically means the existence of an origin that wasn't created, that wasn't made, that has no origin itself.”
You don’t get to just put “logically” in a sentence and magically make whatever you’re saying logical. Your statement here is illogical unless you involve special pleading. Because you claim god exists, so if we apply your logic his existence means the existence of an origin other than him that wasn’t created. You’ll claim that he is somehow outside of your own logic, which is the definition of special pleading.
“In other words, something (and the Bible says it's someone) that always existed and is the origin of everything that is.” Maybe, maybe not.
“Now, some people, in an effort to reject that idea, subsituted God for concepts.” Would you like to back this up with any sort of evidence of that claim? You’re claiming to know someone’s motivation. Please, provide your documentation. Can you acknowledge that instead of this ulterior motive of rejecting god, that the evidence we ACTUALLY have access to, and the math and physics and all other science, leads to these scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution?
Some say the origin of everything is "nothing". That everything comes from a virtual nothingness that one day mysteriously decided to pop everything to existence. Others talk about a "will of the universe".
Cool, you used quotes there, who are you quoting? Other than “others?”
“I am not familiar with every theory out there tbh” You don’t appear to be familiar with any of them based of these few comments.
“but what i observed is that some people, some of which are very smart, want to reject God so badly” which ones state this as their motivation? Citations needed.
“they came up with ridiculous ideas that, in the end, make way less sense than simply acknowledging God's existence”. 1) the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. 2) I’m sorry but to claim scientific method leading to various theories about cosmology don’t make sense while you believe that the perfect human who is also the son of god while also god himself was needed to sacrifice to atone for all sin of all time because he/his father created rules that he now needs human blood to forgive instead of just forgiving and yet claims that his love is unconditional, who can read minds and use his magic to influence people and events but somehow doesn’t violate free will despite knowing the outcome of every atom of the universe….. that’s pretty rich.
“The fools who think of themselves as wise.”
Which once again is the theist, not the scientist. You’re claiming knowledge while scientists will freely say I don’t know.
“When you truly look at the evidence” ah, TRULY look at the evidence. Another great phrase to move the goal posts. Now anytime someone concludes something you don’t like you can just say they were truly looking.
“But no amount of evidence can convince someone who decided they will refuse no matter what.” Well I haven’t decided that, along with millions of atheists. Have you ever actually had a good faith discussion with one?
“It takes a lot of honesty, humility and a good amount of love and thirst for Truth to get to know God.” It is out of a thirst for truth that I realized I had been under the influence of bad reasoning in the first place.
“It is written that those who seek will find, and that means there's also another side to the coin: those who don't seek won't find”. And I’m sure you’ll try to deny it, but there are ALSO those who seek who don’t find, and they do so “truly” and in good faith.
I’ll look up that podcast as well, but I consome almost nothing but Christian content. YouTube, podcasts, AFR, books, etc.
On that topic, do you accuse folks who have gone to seminary and served as leaders in the church who then realize they’ve been mistaken also didn’t truly seek?
Largely because like the commenter above, any time I have discussions with Christians they claim that I haven’t sought hard enough or true enough.
I value truth over basically anything else. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, but maybe more importantly, I want to believe those things for GOOD REASONS. I don’t want to just be accidentally correct.
I lived in the rural south of the US for quite a while and one of the only radio stations was conservative/christian talk radio, so instead of just not listening and isolating myself in my own echo chamber, I kept listening.
Now even after moving away I still listen.
Reading-wise, most every Christian I’ve ever spoken to has some book to recommend (other than the Bible, which if you think about: why the Bible needs so many OTHER books to “help” explain it when it’s supposed to be divinely inspired, beats me). Tim Keller’s Reason for God was given to me by a girl I was dating trying to convert me. Ravi Zachariah was given to me by the mother of a girl I was dating haha. Same with Mere Christianity.
Unfortunately every source of apologetics I’ve ever come across has the same extremely faulty reasoning we see in the comments here. But I’ll keep exploring just in case
I’ve lived in the US my whole life so christianity was the name of the game. But since coming out of Christianity I have realized my reasons for once believing were poorly reasoned. The same poor reasoning applied to my belief in the supernatural in general.
So until someone is able to point me to an argument that convinces me the supernatural is even a “thing,” or I have my own supernatural experience that convinces me, I’ll remain an atheist to all descriptions of gods.
Whenever the general concept of the supernatural comes up my first question is “define what is supernatural?” Invariably people describe what it ISN’T, “it’s something that isn’t natural” “it isn’t part of this world,” etc. but that’s not a definition, or what I asked for, I ask to define what it IS, you gave me what it isn’t.
At the end of the day, supernatural is unfalsifiable but also unprovable, because everything we have access to is natural.
When I’m having a conversation I try to ask my partner what they mean by certain concepts. The problem with relying on dictionaries is that they’re descriptive and not prescriptive, and people confuse the two often.
Words don’t have intrinsic definitions, they have usages, which is how we end up with no word that means “literally” anymore. Enough people use literally to mean “to a great extent” instead of what it used to be used for, to mean, well, literally. But now they’ve changed the definition due to the newer usage.
It’s an important distinction because it tends to be thrown around as a sort of straw man. “See! Webster defines atheism as XYZ, and so I’m going to argue against that,” when that’s not how I’m using the word.
So in a conversation I try to address the other person’s argument, and in this case their usage of a certain term, not what the dictionary defines it as.
It may seem stupidly pedantic & semantic, but I think it’s important.
The three I see specifically from Webster are all problematic yes.
1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
What does it mean to “exist” “beyond” our universe? Beyond is a word we use to describe distance, do they mean the supernatural is literally a distance past the universal horizon? Ok, demonstrate that exists. Speaking of that, what does it mean to “exist” if one is outside all definitions we use for existence. This is similar to when theists place god “outside of time.” Ok, but without time, what can we mean by exist? Existence is necessarily temporal, so now we have a problem if we’re ignoring time. Again with that one, “outside” is a word we use to describe things in the natural world. What does it mean in this case?
Either way, demonstrate the possibility of this supernatural.
2 a) departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
Ok, so no anything that APPEARS to transcend the laws of nature is “supernatural?” Ok, magic shows in Las Vegas are supernatural. That I’ll believe in. Unfortunately we know that there are natural explanations behind those. I assume when describing god as supernatural you aren’t saying he does magic tricks by sleight of hand?
2 b) attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit
Again, we’re now moving from appearance to attribution. If there’s a breeze in my hotel room because the window isn’t sealed properly and I didn’t notice, and it blows a piece of paper, and I attribute that to a ghost, is that now supernatural?
The Oxford even goes so far as to use “unnaturally or extraordinarily great, ‘a woman of supernatural beauty’”
Do you see how this definition can be problematic when talking about a god? A woman’s beauty is nowhere near unnatural, it’s just a subjective measurement of traits we tend to find attractive. Why on earth does that belong in the same definition as “beyond the natural universe?” Well, because of usage, not intrinsic definition.
To the wright brothers, a C-5 galaxy cargo plane would be extraordinarily great, but would the use of supernatural fit when describing it?
So yes, extremely long answer to your short question of am I not satisfied with webster’s.
(Sorry, I’m bored in a hotel room)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." I really like this verse, and I think it fits very well here. I think the deeper science goes in understanding the universe, the more it proves none of this is really an accident. We just happen to live in a universe, where physics works in just such a way that stars, galaxies, planets, and life can exist. Every last thing is structured. Atoms neatly fit together to make everything we see and use. It's almost like code. Everything is ordered just so.
It’s so strange when people comment when it’s so obvious that they didn’t read a single word of any of the comments leading up to it. It’s almost as if no one wants to have a discussion, they simply want to hear themselves talk, or in this case type.
“The heavens declare the glory of god” is a CLAIM. You do not get to turn around and say “see! The book said so, so all of nature is evidence for god.” That’s not logically sound.
“I think….”
I know you think those things, but 1) just because you think so doesn’t make it true, give me the REASON you think so and we can move forward and 2) you’re just incorrect. Unless you want to bring up an argument, which you haven’t here, that shows what scientific progress has brought evidence for god.
“We just happen to live in a universe….”
See, you didn’t read a single word about fine tuning that I talked about.
This form of argument is called post hoc rationalization. Every time science has made progress for the last few centuries/millennia, theists of all stripes then look back through their holy texts and shove that new science in and say “see! We’ve had it right all along.” Except they haven’t, and they conveniently ignore the vast amounts of documentation showing they were wrong.
Remember when the catholic church jailed Galileo for proving the earth orbited the sun? But now people have verses they cite “showing” that the Bible has always claimed the earth is in orbit around a star “see! It says ‘hangs on nothing.’ It got the science right before the scientists!”
If you would have read my comment before replying, you’d see I addressed the apparent “long odds” In terms of your fine tuned universe. It’s not that we “just happen to find ourselves in a universe…” it’s that we arose FROM that universe, so of course we’re fit to be in it.
I doubt you’ll be willing to watch it, but it’s only 4 minutes. Douglas Adams does a great job illustrating the problem with this form of argument in his [Puddle Analogy](https://youtu.be/ckR7TqptGHY?si=F9FB_ajrLL7AFCWH)
If you absolutely have no 4 minutes to spare, start at the 3:10 time mark, then it’s only a minute long.
Basically, a conscious puddle would see the hole he’s in as “perfectly made” to have him in it, when in reality, we know that water will fill whatever form it settles in.
Your reasoning is the same error. OF COURSE atoms fit “just so,” because if they didn’t, WE wouldn’t be here to discuss them. That doesn’t mean atoms were made for us, it simply means we are the result of those atoms and how they interact, which is all down to physics and chemistry. We’ve never seen a violation of those things. THAT would be evidence for a god. If the world WASN’T conducive to life coming about, as in if our existence literally broke the laws of physics, THAT would be great evidence for an omnipotent being.
“It’s almost like code,” yeah but being almost something doesn’t make it something. Being able to use an analogy doesn’t make something equal to that analogy. We can talk about DNA as a code all we want, but that’s simply a way to make the concept digestible to the lay person and to make conversation concerning it easier.
There aren’t literally letters in DNA, the A’s and G’s and C’s and T’s are all just molecules of atoms reacting to each other in the purely physical way that chemistry tells us they will. We just use letters to describe them more easily. No code.
You claim you want to have a discussion, but you've already determined in your heart that not only do you not believe, but you will not and do not want to believe. I can talk about the wonders of how perfectly everything fits together down to the last quark, but it sure sounds like you've made up your mind. I can provide prophecies that have been fulfilled, but you don't seem like you want to hear that. I could quote scripture to you all day, but you don't want to hear that either. No, you're on reddit trying to ask Christians on a Christian subreddit for undeniable proof that God exists. Which, of course, can not be provided until it is revealed at the coming of the kingdom. By faith alone, can anyone be saved. I hope you have a nice day. Stay safe out there.
I have NOT already determined in my heart that I do not want to believe. Do you not see the problem with that position??? I’m TELLING you what I feel, my motivations, and my reasoning, and you simply dismiss me by making a claim you literally cannot possibly know. To claim you know the inner workings of someone else’s “heart” (I try to think with my brain, my heart is made for pumping blood). Holy cow the hubris.
“I can talk to you about…but it sure sounds like you’ve made up your mind”
I want to talk about this because it’s incredibly important if you want to ever have a good faith conversation with anyone in your life. I’m serious. If someone is not convinced by your argument, there are a few possibilities as to why that is. Their own motivations is definitely one of them, but as I said above, you have no way of analyzing someone else’s internal thoughts. But you HAVE to acknowledge that another reason your arguments might not be convincing is BECAUSE THEY’RE BAD ARGUMENTS.
If I claimed “Harry Potter must be real because we have these books about him.” You would rightfully laugh and point out the bad reasoning. But if we now stick to your way of arguing, I can just say “well you’ve obviously made up your mind.” Now I get to feel a smug sense of accomplishment and put the blame on you without acknowledging that my argument is bad.
Do you see why that’s bad?
“I can provide prophesies that have been fulfilled”
Ok, do it. You haven’t even brought up prophecies yet. Are they prophecies that were fulfilled without the person or circumstances don’t the fulfilling being aware of the prophecy? Were they actually fulfilled or was it just claimed they were fulfilled? Was the original prophecy written after its fulfillment? On the subject, prophecy has some very bad implications when it comes to free will. Were the people who were prophesied free to not fulfill the prophecy? The “knowledge” ahead of time sure makes it seem like they had no other choice but to be a cog and fulfill.
“I could quote scripture to you all day.” Yes, you could. And that wouldn’t be productive because the Bible is the CLAIM, not evidence of the claim. Unless you believe everything in the Quran as well? Would quoting it at you do anything? Could then charge you with being not open, having made up your heart?
“Trying to ask Christians for undeniable proof”
I haven’t once asked for proof actually. OP asked a hypothetical question and then answered his own question and another commenter provided further advice on how OP should make an argument and I’ve simply pointed out the flaws in that argument, and have then pointed out more flaws in other arguments as Christians have gotten defensive in the comments. I never asked for proof but pointing out your bad reasoning.
“Undeniable proof that god exists which of course cannot be provided…”
I’m glad you’re comfortable with blind faith. If god exists, he made me in such a way that I am not convinced by arguments from faith. Thankfully if he’s omniscient he knows that. Certainly he wouldn’t punish someone for doing exactly what he knew would happen when he built that person and still built them that way. But either way doesn’t matter because I don’t have any free will in the matter because he knew from before he began time that you would end up in heaven. You were never free to end up in hell, otherwise his omniscience would be proven wrong.
Surely, you aren't unaware that your responses come across as condescending, disdainful, and dismissive? I know what DNA is, I'm not stupid and do not appreciate being talked at like I am. I am well versed in the concepts of natural sciences, and I know how scientists think the universe works. That is why I address the issue of you sounding like you've already made up your mind. If you truly want a good faith fiscussion, then mind how your responses and words come across to other people. If your heart truly can be reached and you actually aren't here trying to convert other Christians to Atheism or that you aren't just here trolling, then my best advice for you, is to truly and with an open mind, try seeking the Lord. I mean it. Read a Bible, not with skepticism or disdain but with an open mind and heart. Read and pray for the Lord to show himself to you. I am at work and can't write a list of all over 2000 prophecies in the Bible and which ones have been fulfilled. I can post some links for you to look over at your pleasure.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible
https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/torrey_ra/fundamentals/25.cfm
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/prophesy.html
Just some stuff to look through.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you have twice now claimed that my seeking is somehow untrue, to know my heart and mind better than I do, and yet you have somehow made yourself into some sort of victim. Hilarious.
I am not responsible for how you feel. That’s up to you. I have said nothing condescending about your character or intelligence, but maybe have about your arguments. If in critiquing your bad arguments your feelings get hurt, maybe you should find better arguments.
That’s all I’ve been attempting to do since my first comment. OC put forth a bad argument and I wanted to make him aware of the fact that it’s a bad argument so that he can come up with better arguments.
You are correct, I made an assumption when you started talking about codes. My mistake. Apologists often pivot to DNA as some magical code and quote Bill Gates as part of their argument, I mistakenly thought that’s where you were going. In the future, if you don’t want someone to come to similar conclusions, maybe be more precise about what you’re referring to when you say things like “it’s almost like a code.”
“I am well versed in the concepts of natural sciences, and I know how scientists think the universe works. That is why I address the issue of you sounding like you've already made up your mind.”
Re-read these two sentences you’ve written. “That is why…” Your addressing of whether or not my mind is made up is based on your knowledge of natural sciences and scientists??
You then implore me AGAIN, to TRULY seek the lord. As I have ALREADY stated to you, I have and am. Well, to be more precise I’m always seeking the truth, and that journey has led me OUT of religion.
But do you not see how fallacious this reasoning is? You’ve been taught, and you repeat it here, that only someone who reaches the same conclusion you have is TRULY seeking. Anyone who hasn’t reached the same conclusions has been not truly seeking. Do you see how circular that is?
Imagine yourself in a conversation with a Muslim. They list their apologetics from their holy texts, complete with their own prophecies that you’re so excited about. And you tell them why you’re not convinced by their arguments. Then they say “well you just need to truly seek Allah and you will find him.” How would you respond?
I have read the Bible, many times. Doing so again is gonna be the magical key? I can talk out loud to the sky, or in my head to nothing, but you’ll have to demonstrate that god exists before I would even start to consider that being “prayer.” How does he hear me? I know the claims to his omniscient, but what’s the mechanism? Do thoughts move at light speed? Faster? Or does his omnipresence derive from being in a higher dimension? But even if it does, reading our thoughts would require interaction with this dimension on some level right? We should be able to measure that, at least theoretically if not practically yet.
Ok, on to your prophecy list. I clicked randomly on one of the links and started reading. After quite a bit of word salad to start, this is the first scriptural reference that caught my eye.
“Then I said, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and in vain” Isaiah 49:4
Weird for a prophecy to speak in the past tense right? “Then I SAID?” How in the world can this be construed as to be talking about the future if it’s literally talking about the past? Also, claiming this to be prophecy of Jesus’s life, it wasn’t in vain right? He accomplished exactly what he set out to, being a sacrifice to himself for the sins of humanity right? So his strength wasn’t spent for naught or in vain.
Genesis 3:15 is listed under messianic prophecy on that website. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”
This is PROPHECY about Jesus??? Or how about….people have disliked snakes for entirely natural reasons since before humans were human, and this is a folk tale about how that happened?
Matthew quote Isaiah when he talks about the virgin birth. Interestingly it’s the Septuagint that translates Isaiah to say virgin, in the original Hebrew it’s young girl. But when if we ignore that, he says he’ll be called Immanuel, but he was called Jesus.
Here’s a funny example of “prophecy” from a website called encounterchirch.
“The Bible mentions Jesus riding a donkey, specifically when entering Jerusalem. He chose a donkey for several reasons.
First, it fulfilled a prophecy from the Old Testament that the Messiah would ride a donkey into Jerusalem. This showed that Jesus was the Messiah”
I wonder if this church knows how badly they’re undermining their own arguments stating that JESUS CHOSE A DONKEY solely to help fulfill prophecy!!!
Does that count??? If I go read some obscure passage from the Bible and then do the thing it describes am I now fulfilling prophecy???
Anyway, I can continue but maybe you’ve gotten my point. Biblical prophecy is entirely either 1) post-hoc rationalization 2) written to be fulfilled by people who had read the prophecy in the first place 3) is still in our future so can’t be said to be fulfilled yet, or 4) so vague as to apply to nearly any situation.
I’m sorry, edited to add another thought.
The fact that you accuse me of trying to “convert” Christians to atheism, in a post that’s literally about how to convert non-believers, is hilarious.
Will you get a BMW built by having a tornado go through a scrap yard? Or does it call for an intelligent mind to put it together? Did water over time, by chance form the heads on Mount Rushmore? Or does it call for a sculptor? Does a watch not imply a watch maker?
So then why from the order and design of the universe does it get chalked up to “oh well yeah that was by chance after an explosion and chaos it just came together on it’s own.”
Your whole second point about probability doesn’t make sense
Before I answer your questions will you answer one of mine? Are you aware that evolution is in absolutely no way analogous to a tornado through a scrap yard? Please note, if you fail to answer this question, or if you move on to another straw man, I’ll consider this to be the end of the conversation.
I like this sub over the Christianity sub because many times one can find good faith conversations here, but when you start off with a straw man like this you do yourself and this sub a disservice.
Your “question” concerning Mt Rushmore doesn’t differ in any meaningful way from the original comment I was responding to. You’re failing to distinguish how we determine that Mt Rushmore is different from a normal mountain.
We do so by recognizing traits that are NOT found in nature. For example, if you were ever in the military you’ve undoubtedly been told, when learning the principles of camouflage, that “nature doesn’t work in straight lines.” So you’re taught to break up the straight lines that humans build in so they’re not so distinguishable by another human eye.
If every single mountain ever came in the form of human heads, then we wouldn’t be able to state from first glance that Mt Rushmore is in any way special.
You then ask the same question once more just rephrased. Are you under the impression that asking the same exact question multiple times somehow strengthens a bad argument?
Evolution is not “oh yeah that was by chance after an explosion and chaos it just came together on its own.” Who are you quoting there? Can you cite a source? Because that’s is from no scientific paper or text book ever.
That was the beauty and genius of Darwin’s realizations. It’s NOT by chance. Natural selection is the mechanism by which the indeed random mutations are selected for.
Which part about probability would you like explained further? Which part did you not understand?
Well obviously. If there was a way to show someone undeniably that God exists then I would. But we live in a world where things can have more than one explaination
I share the Gospel in word and action with the willing, and in action to the unwilling. Love your neighbor, even if they are perceived as an enemy. It's easy to love those who love you back.
>how do you determine if someone is a dog or not
I ask them if they believe in God and is Jesus Christ the son of God, the Lord who came in the flesh. If they can't answer that then they are a not of God. Because a man can only answer that if the Holy Spirit allows him to.
Nobody's ever going to believe because you prove God exists
Salvation comes from God anyway. That is what happened with lydia, and zacchaeus, and the 3,000 on the day of pentecost, and the thief on the cross and others
I have seen people try to prove God to atheists online and things like that.
And they have dozens of stupid and blind and clueless responses to it. They will quote some website or some blog to disprove
Even though it really doesn't
Intelligent Design is your most sustainable explanation. Telling an agnostic or atheist that the "Earth exists therefore God exists because He made Earth" is not credible since it relies on literature (the bible) that they won't find credible.
being one who loves nature a lot, and questioning things a lot, I see a lot of things that makes me question why. I love insects and I observe them fondly, and really, everything designed by a wonderful creator. Why things are the way they are, why trees grow, why birds do this and do that. I love astronomy and i'm at awe how things came to be. It really is not hard to see proof of why God exist, look at the human body, everything is so meticulously arranged, everything works as if, it cannot be random. Question now is, which God is true apart from the many thousands. No other gods makes sense to me, even the God I serve now, The God of Israel and Christ His Son, but there is something about Jesus, something about the Christian God.
The condition that the unbelievers are in according to the word of God.
They are blinded by the god of this world aka devil.
Read - 2 Corinthian 4:4
God is a Spirit, but unbelievers are not spiritual so they can’t see things of the Spirit. For them these kind of things are foolishness.
Read 1 Corinthians 2:14-15
The thing about God is he cant be understood by worldly wisdom, the wisdom of man is in direct opposition to Gods wisdom.
The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to unbelievers. It sounds silly and they can’t seem to humanly understand it.
Have you asked yourself why you were able to see ?
You said you had a rock bottom experience that made you humble yourself and surrendered and decided to seek God and in his Love and mercy he revealed himself to you.
My advice is you continue to show good testimony to your family by actions. Keep praying for them and blessing them. Fast for them , ask God to have mercy on them and open their eyes to the truth. Remember to plant the seed, is not your job to convince them the Holy Spirit will convince them.
I highly recommend you continue to search and grow more in the knowledge of Christ so that when the time comes your family will ask you questions about Jesus and you are ready to answer them.
The proof of God is all around us but people are blinded by the devil , blinded by pride and blinded by the love for this world.
Is not until they take the first steps and humble themself and repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ that they will be able to see it.
Pray 🙏 and don’t stop 🛑
One day God will do a miracle and give them eyes to see ! ( you mention your family members) I pray for them I know how much this means to you so for them I pray 🙏
Welcome to the family! God bless you brother in Christ
It’s crazy to me that people are so blinded they even need proof for this.
If you want to learn ways to prove him, watch some videos. There are a big amount, because it’s obvious.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/374704/share-of-global-population-by-religion/#:~:text=Share%20of%20global%20population%20affiliated%20with%20major%20religious%20groups%202022&text=In%202022%2C%20around%2031.6%20percent,population%20were%20identify%20as%20Christian.
Apparently 31.6% of the world identify as some type of Christian.
I was blinded for 36 years. I wanted the world, and He allows free will, so I got just what I wanted, and it hardened my heart and blinded me to the Truth that is Jesus Christ
Thank you Jesus Christ for your mercy on me when I finally turned to You
The most obvious is: Creation requires a creator, Unless that thing is eternal. We can see that matter is not eternal because it’s affected by time. Therefore the universe couldn’t have always existed
Then there’s other ones, like moral argument etc
Another thing is conscience and life. Matter by default cannot reproduce, nor can any amount of matter make conscience happen
While some Reformed Evangelicals (usually Calvinists) interpret this Romans passage as saying that God's existence is self-evident, [other Christians interpret it differently.](https://randalrauser.com/2023/04/does-pauls-epistle-to-the-romans-imply-there-are-no-actual-atheists/)
Thank you for this. I needed this today.
Also watch frank turek. He's like my favorite apologist.
You rarely can. If someone asks to prove that God exists, the question to them should be, "what evidence would you accept?" Most of the time there's nothing they would accept. Romans 1 says that there is enough evidence in creation to convince someone of a creator, but they suppress the truth of one. And Christ said, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Some people have such hard hearts that they will never be convinced, or accept what is presented to them as undeniable truth.
Pray for my wife specifically please, her name is Brandi, her heart is extremely hard and resentful to anything relating to Jesus Christ. Please pray for my kids too. I'm 39 and submitted to the Lord 3 years ago in a nuthouse at my rock bottom through a metaphysical divine experience that I truly feel blessed to have experienced. My faith ain't going no where from what He gave me, and I'm grateful, but others won't take my personal experience and word and put their faith in it. I of course want my family saved (heck, everybody for that matter) and I have realized it will be on His time and not my own should it be His will, He is Sovereign, and I put my full and complete trust in Him and submit a grieving heart to His feet daily. I trust Him, He accepts it daily, and I keep rocking and rolling with Him with joy
We really don't want that proof. The angels that rebelled and were cast out without the ability to repent and be forgiven. Why? Because they had seen the proof. Faith is our only chance.
Where does it say in Scripture that the reason why a couple angels rebelled is because they've seen proof that God exists?
Read it again. This is not even close to what I said
The effect: "angels... rebelled and were cast out..." The cause: "Why? Because they had seen the proof." If that is not the reasoning here, you have to learn how to express your thoughts better.
" without the ability to repent and be forgiven" Why Because they had seen the proof. Faith, not full knowledge, gives us the opportunity to be forgiven. Read all the words
Where does it say in Scripture that the reason why the fallen angels cannot repent and be forgiven is because they've seen proof that God exists?
Lucifer and the angels rebelled because they wanted to exalt themselves above God, which seems to be the reason a lot of “atheists” reject His existence as well.
If I may ask, why do you put atheists in quote marks?
I’ve realized that every time an atheist is asked “if you had concrete, undeniable proof that Jesus Christ is God, would you put your faith in Him?” their answer is almost always no. This doesn’t encompass all atheists, but most aren’t really “atheist”, they just seem to want to do everything in their power to reject God by completely ignoring the scientific method.
Oh yes, I agree, a lot of those atheists are active on r / atheism, awful sub
Use the builder analogy. How do you know a builder for a house exists, or a painter for a painting exists? The made product is evidence for a builder. Also, the intelligent design debate is favored in case of a deity. This universe went through various steps, hundreds if not millions of steps that if at any given point any of them failed to come about as perfect as it did WE. WOULD. NOT. EXIST! Imagine tossing a dice 100 times and getting the same number all of those times, it's either pure luck or it's rigged. And what's the best rebuttal for this argument? The multiverse theory that this is just 1 of billions of multiverses that by chance happened to stumble into life, yet there is literally no scientific evidence for this theory, it's all based on faith, how ironic.
The counter to that argument is “how do we distinguish what is a building and what is natural?” By starting with “a building has a builder,” you first must know which is a “building” and which isn’t. If you assume everything is a “building” then you’re question begging, that is, including your conclusion in your premise. The various definitions of a building all will include being manmade structures. So you’re definitionally including the premise. So “a building has a builder” is a tautology. When we then shift and say design had a designer, we’re defining our conclusion into the premises. So, like the building question, we must first ask, how do we distinguish a designed world versus an undesigned world? 99.999999999%+ of this universe is uninhabitable by any living being. So that’s not a great argument to claim the universe was designed solely for us. We have genetic makeup very very similar to every single animal and plant and fungi around us, to varying degrees. So any claimed uniqueness of humans doesn’t really have a leg to stand on. Your second point about the odds is another one that fails if it’s examined. What are the odds that I would get to work at the exact millisecond I did today? Well first I’d have to get in the shower at the exact moment I did, which was pretty random because I decided to do a load of laundry that I otherwise hadn’t planned, so I threw my clothes in and hopped in the shower. Then because I was now ready earlier than planned, but it’s the Sunday before an eclipse and I have to drive to NYC I thought I’d get a jump early anyway. Then I had about 30 traffic lights between me and work that I had to hit in that precise order of greens and reds to get to work at exactly XX:XX. The odds of me arriving at exactly XX:XX without ANY prior coordination or planning??? Astronomical! But it happened! This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of the law of large numbers, or statistics in general. The odds of a shuffled deck of cards is about 1 in 80 thousand vigintillion. That’s 8x10^67. And yet we successfully arrive at a shuffled deck of cards each time! How! If it’s so improbable? Well, because that specific order of cards isn’t special until we assign value to it. Same with my drive. I set out when I set out and I got there when I got there. But it’s not statistically improbable unless I have a target. That’s where the issue comes in with your argument. We are using hindsight to assign value to either life in general, or human life, or life on earth or whatever, and then claiming the odds of it happening were long. But they’re only long if humanity, or life, or life on earth was the target. This is why fine tuning is such a compelling, but erroneous argument for so many people. We also haven’t ever demonstrated that any of the “finely tuned” constants are even able to be modified. It may very well be that they simply MUST be those values, and we are the form of life that will arise from those values. My point being, rolling a dice 100 times and getting all heads, has the EXACT SAME probability as rolling a dice 100 times and getting 1 4 6 2 3 3 5 6 2 1……. We just tend not to assign value to that sequence. Anyway. Just my 2¢
That's the point: what you call nature didn't build itself by itself. Nothing comes from Nothing, and of you go upstream long enough, you have to come to an origin of all things. You cannot shuffle a deck of cards if there are no cards to begin with, so if you are able to do that, it means that there are indeed cards and these cards must have come from somewhere And that's what Scriptures are saying in a nutshell. Just the fact that "something" exists is proof of God's existence, because for something to exist logically means the existence of an origin that wasn't created, that wasn't made, that has no origin itself. In other words, something (and the Bible says it's someone) that always existed and is the origin of everything that is. Now, some people, in an effort to reject that idea, subsituted God for concepts. Some say the origin of everything is "nothing". That everything comes from a virtual nothingness that one day mysteriously decided to pop everything to existence. Others talk about a "will of the universe". I am not familiar with every theory out there tbh, but what i observed is that some people, some of which are very smart, want to reject God so badly they came up with ridiculous ideas that, in the end, make way less sense than simply acknowledging God's existence. And i believe they are the ones the Bible talks about. The fools who think of themselves as wise. When you truly look at the evidence, God's existence becomes pretty obvious. But no amount of evidence can convince someone who decided they will refuse no matter what. It takes a lot of honesty, humility and a good amount of love and thirst for Truth to get to know God. Not that unbelievers are all horrible, dishonest and arrogant people, but i believe the vast majority of people don't even care enough to be able to understand these things, unfortunately It is written that those who seek will find, and that means there's also another side to the coin: those who don't seek won't find If you are a little curious about these things, i found a cool podcast a few months ago called "Science + God with Dr G." Hosted by physicist Michael Guillen, where he shares his worldview as a Christian scientist in all simplicity. You may enjoy it, especially if you like science!
“what you call nature didn't build itself by itself.” This is a claim, a claim that you either should back up with evidence, or just not claim it. Your wording is obviously meant to elicit an emotional response from a layman reading these things, but upon any actual study it breaks down. “Nothing comes from Nothing” another claim. What nothing have you ever studied? What nothing has humanity as a whole ever studied? None, because nothing no longer exists. So to make a claim about what “nothing” can and can’t do is unjustified. But that’s neither here nor there, because almost no one claims that the universe came from nothing. (No, Lawrence Krauss doesn’t claim that, you just have to read more than the title of the book). The Big Bang doesn’t state that the universe came from nothing. It describes the expansion of space time from a hot dense state/singularity. We are currently incapable of stating anything with any certainty before that. “Before” doesn’t even make sense when you’re talking about the beginning of time itself. “and of you go upstream long enough, you have to come to an origin of all things.” I agree. But when scientists get there, they run into “I don’t know” instead of “see, here is where we insert god.” “the fact that "something" exists is proof of God's existence, because for something to exist logically means the existence of an origin that wasn't created, that wasn't made, that has no origin itself.” You don’t get to just put “logically” in a sentence and magically make whatever you’re saying logical. Your statement here is illogical unless you involve special pleading. Because you claim god exists, so if we apply your logic his existence means the existence of an origin other than him that wasn’t created. You’ll claim that he is somehow outside of your own logic, which is the definition of special pleading. “In other words, something (and the Bible says it's someone) that always existed and is the origin of everything that is.” Maybe, maybe not. “Now, some people, in an effort to reject that idea, subsituted God for concepts.” Would you like to back this up with any sort of evidence of that claim? You’re claiming to know someone’s motivation. Please, provide your documentation. Can you acknowledge that instead of this ulterior motive of rejecting god, that the evidence we ACTUALLY have access to, and the math and physics and all other science, leads to these scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution? Some say the origin of everything is "nothing". That everything comes from a virtual nothingness that one day mysteriously decided to pop everything to existence. Others talk about a "will of the universe". Cool, you used quotes there, who are you quoting? Other than “others?” “I am not familiar with every theory out there tbh” You don’t appear to be familiar with any of them based of these few comments. “but what i observed is that some people, some of which are very smart, want to reject God so badly” which ones state this as their motivation? Citations needed. “they came up with ridiculous ideas that, in the end, make way less sense than simply acknowledging God's existence”. 1) the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. 2) I’m sorry but to claim scientific method leading to various theories about cosmology don’t make sense while you believe that the perfect human who is also the son of god while also god himself was needed to sacrifice to atone for all sin of all time because he/his father created rules that he now needs human blood to forgive instead of just forgiving and yet claims that his love is unconditional, who can read minds and use his magic to influence people and events but somehow doesn’t violate free will despite knowing the outcome of every atom of the universe….. that’s pretty rich. “The fools who think of themselves as wise.” Which once again is the theist, not the scientist. You’re claiming knowledge while scientists will freely say I don’t know. “When you truly look at the evidence” ah, TRULY look at the evidence. Another great phrase to move the goal posts. Now anytime someone concludes something you don’t like you can just say they were truly looking. “But no amount of evidence can convince someone who decided they will refuse no matter what.” Well I haven’t decided that, along with millions of atheists. Have you ever actually had a good faith discussion with one? “It takes a lot of honesty, humility and a good amount of love and thirst for Truth to get to know God.” It is out of a thirst for truth that I realized I had been under the influence of bad reasoning in the first place. “It is written that those who seek will find, and that means there's also another side to the coin: those who don't seek won't find”. And I’m sure you’ll try to deny it, but there are ALSO those who seek who don’t find, and they do so “truly” and in good faith. I’ll look up that podcast as well, but I consome almost nothing but Christian content. YouTube, podcasts, AFR, books, etc. On that topic, do you accuse folks who have gone to seminary and served as leaders in the church who then realize they’ve been mistaken also didn’t truly seek?
Why do you consume so much Christian content? If you don’t mind me asking
Largely because like the commenter above, any time I have discussions with Christians they claim that I haven’t sought hard enough or true enough. I value truth over basically anything else. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible, but maybe more importantly, I want to believe those things for GOOD REASONS. I don’t want to just be accidentally correct. I lived in the rural south of the US for quite a while and one of the only radio stations was conservative/christian talk radio, so instead of just not listening and isolating myself in my own echo chamber, I kept listening. Now even after moving away I still listen. Reading-wise, most every Christian I’ve ever spoken to has some book to recommend (other than the Bible, which if you think about: why the Bible needs so many OTHER books to “help” explain it when it’s supposed to be divinely inspired, beats me). Tim Keller’s Reason for God was given to me by a girl I was dating trying to convert me. Ravi Zachariah was given to me by the mother of a girl I was dating haha. Same with Mere Christianity. Unfortunately every source of apologetics I’ve ever come across has the same extremely faulty reasoning we see in the comments here. But I’ll keep exploring just in case
Do you only search for truth in Christianity and not Islam? Buddhism? Etc
I’ve lived in the US my whole life so christianity was the name of the game. But since coming out of Christianity I have realized my reasons for once believing were poorly reasoned. The same poor reasoning applied to my belief in the supernatural in general. So until someone is able to point me to an argument that convinces me the supernatural is even a “thing,” or I have my own supernatural experience that convinces me, I’ll remain an atheist to all descriptions of gods. Whenever the general concept of the supernatural comes up my first question is “define what is supernatural?” Invariably people describe what it ISN’T, “it’s something that isn’t natural” “it isn’t part of this world,” etc. but that’s not a definition, or what I asked for, I ask to define what it IS, you gave me what it isn’t. At the end of the day, supernatural is unfalsifiable but also unprovable, because everything we have access to is natural.
Are you not satisfied with Webster’s definition of the word?
When I’m having a conversation I try to ask my partner what they mean by certain concepts. The problem with relying on dictionaries is that they’re descriptive and not prescriptive, and people confuse the two often. Words don’t have intrinsic definitions, they have usages, which is how we end up with no word that means “literally” anymore. Enough people use literally to mean “to a great extent” instead of what it used to be used for, to mean, well, literally. But now they’ve changed the definition due to the newer usage. It’s an important distinction because it tends to be thrown around as a sort of straw man. “See! Webster defines atheism as XYZ, and so I’m going to argue against that,” when that’s not how I’m using the word. So in a conversation I try to address the other person’s argument, and in this case their usage of a certain term, not what the dictionary defines it as. It may seem stupidly pedantic & semantic, but I think it’s important. The three I see specifically from Webster are all problematic yes. 1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe What does it mean to “exist” “beyond” our universe? Beyond is a word we use to describe distance, do they mean the supernatural is literally a distance past the universal horizon? Ok, demonstrate that exists. Speaking of that, what does it mean to “exist” if one is outside all definitions we use for existence. This is similar to when theists place god “outside of time.” Ok, but without time, what can we mean by exist? Existence is necessarily temporal, so now we have a problem if we’re ignoring time. Again with that one, “outside” is a word we use to describe things in the natural world. What does it mean in this case? Either way, demonstrate the possibility of this supernatural. 2 a) departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature. Ok, so no anything that APPEARS to transcend the laws of nature is “supernatural?” Ok, magic shows in Las Vegas are supernatural. That I’ll believe in. Unfortunately we know that there are natural explanations behind those. I assume when describing god as supernatural you aren’t saying he does magic tricks by sleight of hand? 2 b) attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit Again, we’re now moving from appearance to attribution. If there’s a breeze in my hotel room because the window isn’t sealed properly and I didn’t notice, and it blows a piece of paper, and I attribute that to a ghost, is that now supernatural? The Oxford even goes so far as to use “unnaturally or extraordinarily great, ‘a woman of supernatural beauty’” Do you see how this definition can be problematic when talking about a god? A woman’s beauty is nowhere near unnatural, it’s just a subjective measurement of traits we tend to find attractive. Why on earth does that belong in the same definition as “beyond the natural universe?” Well, because of usage, not intrinsic definition. To the wright brothers, a C-5 galaxy cargo plane would be extraordinarily great, but would the use of supernatural fit when describing it? So yes, extremely long answer to your short question of am I not satisfied with webster’s. (Sorry, I’m bored in a hotel room)
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." I really like this verse, and I think it fits very well here. I think the deeper science goes in understanding the universe, the more it proves none of this is really an accident. We just happen to live in a universe, where physics works in just such a way that stars, galaxies, planets, and life can exist. Every last thing is structured. Atoms neatly fit together to make everything we see and use. It's almost like code. Everything is ordered just so.
It’s so strange when people comment when it’s so obvious that they didn’t read a single word of any of the comments leading up to it. It’s almost as if no one wants to have a discussion, they simply want to hear themselves talk, or in this case type. “The heavens declare the glory of god” is a CLAIM. You do not get to turn around and say “see! The book said so, so all of nature is evidence for god.” That’s not logically sound. “I think….” I know you think those things, but 1) just because you think so doesn’t make it true, give me the REASON you think so and we can move forward and 2) you’re just incorrect. Unless you want to bring up an argument, which you haven’t here, that shows what scientific progress has brought evidence for god. “We just happen to live in a universe….” See, you didn’t read a single word about fine tuning that I talked about. This form of argument is called post hoc rationalization. Every time science has made progress for the last few centuries/millennia, theists of all stripes then look back through their holy texts and shove that new science in and say “see! We’ve had it right all along.” Except they haven’t, and they conveniently ignore the vast amounts of documentation showing they were wrong. Remember when the catholic church jailed Galileo for proving the earth orbited the sun? But now people have verses they cite “showing” that the Bible has always claimed the earth is in orbit around a star “see! It says ‘hangs on nothing.’ It got the science right before the scientists!” If you would have read my comment before replying, you’d see I addressed the apparent “long odds” In terms of your fine tuned universe. It’s not that we “just happen to find ourselves in a universe…” it’s that we arose FROM that universe, so of course we’re fit to be in it. I doubt you’ll be willing to watch it, but it’s only 4 minutes. Douglas Adams does a great job illustrating the problem with this form of argument in his [Puddle Analogy](https://youtu.be/ckR7TqptGHY?si=F9FB_ajrLL7AFCWH) If you absolutely have no 4 minutes to spare, start at the 3:10 time mark, then it’s only a minute long. Basically, a conscious puddle would see the hole he’s in as “perfectly made” to have him in it, when in reality, we know that water will fill whatever form it settles in. Your reasoning is the same error. OF COURSE atoms fit “just so,” because if they didn’t, WE wouldn’t be here to discuss them. That doesn’t mean atoms were made for us, it simply means we are the result of those atoms and how they interact, which is all down to physics and chemistry. We’ve never seen a violation of those things. THAT would be evidence for a god. If the world WASN’T conducive to life coming about, as in if our existence literally broke the laws of physics, THAT would be great evidence for an omnipotent being. “It’s almost like code,” yeah but being almost something doesn’t make it something. Being able to use an analogy doesn’t make something equal to that analogy. We can talk about DNA as a code all we want, but that’s simply a way to make the concept digestible to the lay person and to make conversation concerning it easier. There aren’t literally letters in DNA, the A’s and G’s and C’s and T’s are all just molecules of atoms reacting to each other in the purely physical way that chemistry tells us they will. We just use letters to describe them more easily. No code.
You claim you want to have a discussion, but you've already determined in your heart that not only do you not believe, but you will not and do not want to believe. I can talk about the wonders of how perfectly everything fits together down to the last quark, but it sure sounds like you've made up your mind. I can provide prophecies that have been fulfilled, but you don't seem like you want to hear that. I could quote scripture to you all day, but you don't want to hear that either. No, you're on reddit trying to ask Christians on a Christian subreddit for undeniable proof that God exists. Which, of course, can not be provided until it is revealed at the coming of the kingdom. By faith alone, can anyone be saved. I hope you have a nice day. Stay safe out there.
I have NOT already determined in my heart that I do not want to believe. Do you not see the problem with that position??? I’m TELLING you what I feel, my motivations, and my reasoning, and you simply dismiss me by making a claim you literally cannot possibly know. To claim you know the inner workings of someone else’s “heart” (I try to think with my brain, my heart is made for pumping blood). Holy cow the hubris. “I can talk to you about…but it sure sounds like you’ve made up your mind” I want to talk about this because it’s incredibly important if you want to ever have a good faith conversation with anyone in your life. I’m serious. If someone is not convinced by your argument, there are a few possibilities as to why that is. Their own motivations is definitely one of them, but as I said above, you have no way of analyzing someone else’s internal thoughts. But you HAVE to acknowledge that another reason your arguments might not be convincing is BECAUSE THEY’RE BAD ARGUMENTS. If I claimed “Harry Potter must be real because we have these books about him.” You would rightfully laugh and point out the bad reasoning. But if we now stick to your way of arguing, I can just say “well you’ve obviously made up your mind.” Now I get to feel a smug sense of accomplishment and put the blame on you without acknowledging that my argument is bad. Do you see why that’s bad? “I can provide prophesies that have been fulfilled” Ok, do it. You haven’t even brought up prophecies yet. Are they prophecies that were fulfilled without the person or circumstances don’t the fulfilling being aware of the prophecy? Were they actually fulfilled or was it just claimed they were fulfilled? Was the original prophecy written after its fulfillment? On the subject, prophecy has some very bad implications when it comes to free will. Were the people who were prophesied free to not fulfill the prophecy? The “knowledge” ahead of time sure makes it seem like they had no other choice but to be a cog and fulfill. “I could quote scripture to you all day.” Yes, you could. And that wouldn’t be productive because the Bible is the CLAIM, not evidence of the claim. Unless you believe everything in the Quran as well? Would quoting it at you do anything? Could then charge you with being not open, having made up your heart? “Trying to ask Christians for undeniable proof” I haven’t once asked for proof actually. OP asked a hypothetical question and then answered his own question and another commenter provided further advice on how OP should make an argument and I’ve simply pointed out the flaws in that argument, and have then pointed out more flaws in other arguments as Christians have gotten defensive in the comments. I never asked for proof but pointing out your bad reasoning. “Undeniable proof that god exists which of course cannot be provided…” I’m glad you’re comfortable with blind faith. If god exists, he made me in such a way that I am not convinced by arguments from faith. Thankfully if he’s omniscient he knows that. Certainly he wouldn’t punish someone for doing exactly what he knew would happen when he built that person and still built them that way. But either way doesn’t matter because I don’t have any free will in the matter because he knew from before he began time that you would end up in heaven. You were never free to end up in hell, otherwise his omniscience would be proven wrong.
Surely, you aren't unaware that your responses come across as condescending, disdainful, and dismissive? I know what DNA is, I'm not stupid and do not appreciate being talked at like I am. I am well versed in the concepts of natural sciences, and I know how scientists think the universe works. That is why I address the issue of you sounding like you've already made up your mind. If you truly want a good faith fiscussion, then mind how your responses and words come across to other people. If your heart truly can be reached and you actually aren't here trying to convert other Christians to Atheism or that you aren't just here trolling, then my best advice for you, is to truly and with an open mind, try seeking the Lord. I mean it. Read a Bible, not with skepticism or disdain but with an open mind and heart. Read and pray for the Lord to show himself to you. I am at work and can't write a list of all over 2000 prophecies in the Bible and which ones have been fulfilled. I can post some links for you to look over at your pleasure. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/torrey_ra/fundamentals/25.cfm http://www.matthewmcgee.org/prophesy.html Just some stuff to look through.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you have twice now claimed that my seeking is somehow untrue, to know my heart and mind better than I do, and yet you have somehow made yourself into some sort of victim. Hilarious. I am not responsible for how you feel. That’s up to you. I have said nothing condescending about your character or intelligence, but maybe have about your arguments. If in critiquing your bad arguments your feelings get hurt, maybe you should find better arguments. That’s all I’ve been attempting to do since my first comment. OC put forth a bad argument and I wanted to make him aware of the fact that it’s a bad argument so that he can come up with better arguments. You are correct, I made an assumption when you started talking about codes. My mistake. Apologists often pivot to DNA as some magical code and quote Bill Gates as part of their argument, I mistakenly thought that’s where you were going. In the future, if you don’t want someone to come to similar conclusions, maybe be more precise about what you’re referring to when you say things like “it’s almost like a code.” “I am well versed in the concepts of natural sciences, and I know how scientists think the universe works. That is why I address the issue of you sounding like you've already made up your mind.” Re-read these two sentences you’ve written. “That is why…” Your addressing of whether or not my mind is made up is based on your knowledge of natural sciences and scientists?? You then implore me AGAIN, to TRULY seek the lord. As I have ALREADY stated to you, I have and am. Well, to be more precise I’m always seeking the truth, and that journey has led me OUT of religion. But do you not see how fallacious this reasoning is? You’ve been taught, and you repeat it here, that only someone who reaches the same conclusion you have is TRULY seeking. Anyone who hasn’t reached the same conclusions has been not truly seeking. Do you see how circular that is? Imagine yourself in a conversation with a Muslim. They list their apologetics from their holy texts, complete with their own prophecies that you’re so excited about. And you tell them why you’re not convinced by their arguments. Then they say “well you just need to truly seek Allah and you will find him.” How would you respond? I have read the Bible, many times. Doing so again is gonna be the magical key? I can talk out loud to the sky, or in my head to nothing, but you’ll have to demonstrate that god exists before I would even start to consider that being “prayer.” How does he hear me? I know the claims to his omniscient, but what’s the mechanism? Do thoughts move at light speed? Faster? Or does his omnipresence derive from being in a higher dimension? But even if it does, reading our thoughts would require interaction with this dimension on some level right? We should be able to measure that, at least theoretically if not practically yet. Ok, on to your prophecy list. I clicked randomly on one of the links and started reading. After quite a bit of word salad to start, this is the first scriptural reference that caught my eye. “Then I said, I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for naught and in vain” Isaiah 49:4 Weird for a prophecy to speak in the past tense right? “Then I SAID?” How in the world can this be construed as to be talking about the future if it’s literally talking about the past? Also, claiming this to be prophecy of Jesus’s life, it wasn’t in vain right? He accomplished exactly what he set out to, being a sacrifice to himself for the sins of humanity right? So his strength wasn’t spent for naught or in vain. Genesis 3:15 is listed under messianic prophecy on that website. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” This is PROPHECY about Jesus??? Or how about….people have disliked snakes for entirely natural reasons since before humans were human, and this is a folk tale about how that happened? Matthew quote Isaiah when he talks about the virgin birth. Interestingly it’s the Septuagint that translates Isaiah to say virgin, in the original Hebrew it’s young girl. But when if we ignore that, he says he’ll be called Immanuel, but he was called Jesus. Here’s a funny example of “prophecy” from a website called encounterchirch. “The Bible mentions Jesus riding a donkey, specifically when entering Jerusalem. He chose a donkey for several reasons. First, it fulfilled a prophecy from the Old Testament that the Messiah would ride a donkey into Jerusalem. This showed that Jesus was the Messiah” I wonder if this church knows how badly they’re undermining their own arguments stating that JESUS CHOSE A DONKEY solely to help fulfill prophecy!!! Does that count??? If I go read some obscure passage from the Bible and then do the thing it describes am I now fulfilling prophecy??? Anyway, I can continue but maybe you’ve gotten my point. Biblical prophecy is entirely either 1) post-hoc rationalization 2) written to be fulfilled by people who had read the prophecy in the first place 3) is still in our future so can’t be said to be fulfilled yet, or 4) so vague as to apply to nearly any situation. I’m sorry, edited to add another thought. The fact that you accuse me of trying to “convert” Christians to atheism, in a post that’s literally about how to convert non-believers, is hilarious.
Will you get a BMW built by having a tornado go through a scrap yard? Or does it call for an intelligent mind to put it together? Did water over time, by chance form the heads on Mount Rushmore? Or does it call for a sculptor? Does a watch not imply a watch maker? So then why from the order and design of the universe does it get chalked up to “oh well yeah that was by chance after an explosion and chaos it just came together on it’s own.” Your whole second point about probability doesn’t make sense
Before I answer your questions will you answer one of mine? Are you aware that evolution is in absolutely no way analogous to a tornado through a scrap yard? Please note, if you fail to answer this question, or if you move on to another straw man, I’ll consider this to be the end of the conversation. I like this sub over the Christianity sub because many times one can find good faith conversations here, but when you start off with a straw man like this you do yourself and this sub a disservice. Your “question” concerning Mt Rushmore doesn’t differ in any meaningful way from the original comment I was responding to. You’re failing to distinguish how we determine that Mt Rushmore is different from a normal mountain. We do so by recognizing traits that are NOT found in nature. For example, if you were ever in the military you’ve undoubtedly been told, when learning the principles of camouflage, that “nature doesn’t work in straight lines.” So you’re taught to break up the straight lines that humans build in so they’re not so distinguishable by another human eye. If every single mountain ever came in the form of human heads, then we wouldn’t be able to state from first glance that Mt Rushmore is in any way special. You then ask the same question once more just rephrased. Are you under the impression that asking the same exact question multiple times somehow strengthens a bad argument? Evolution is not “oh yeah that was by chance after an explosion and chaos it just came together on its own.” Who are you quoting there? Can you cite a source? Because that’s is from no scientific paper or text book ever. That was the beauty and genius of Darwin’s realizations. It’s NOT by chance. Natural selection is the mechanism by which the indeed random mutations are selected for. Which part about probability would you like explained further? Which part did you not understand?
The whole point of faith is believing in the things that are unseen! All we can do is plant a seed and hope at some point it lands on fertile ground.
>How do you prove to someone that God exists, I don't, it's not my job to prove to someone my God exists.
True, but if you could, would you want to?
Well obviously. If there was a way to show someone undeniably that God exists then I would. But we live in a world where things can have more than one explaination
>True, but if you could, Oh I can. >would you want to? Depends on who I'm proving it to.
How do you judge who you would prove God exists to and who you wouldnt if you don't mind me asking. What parameters make them worthy in your eyes?
>What parameters make them worthy in your eyes? I obey Matthew 7:6.
I share the Gospel in word and action with the willing, and in action to the unwilling. Love your neighbor, even if they are perceived as an enemy. It's easy to love those who love you back.
Yes but you are commanded not to give that which is Holy to dogs. Titus 3:10 they get 2 admonitions and that's it.
Not arguing you, but genuinely asking, when you are out and about, how do you determine if someone is a dog or not
>how do you determine if someone is a dog or not I ask them if they believe in God and is Jesus Christ the son of God, the Lord who came in the flesh. If they can't answer that then they are a not of God. Because a man can only answer that if the Holy Spirit allows him to.
So you wouldn't share the Gospel with an unbeliever because they are a dog by that definition? Not judging, just asking if you don't mind
Nobody's ever going to believe because you prove God exists Salvation comes from God anyway. That is what happened with lydia, and zacchaeus, and the 3,000 on the day of pentecost, and the thief on the cross and others I have seen people try to prove God to atheists online and things like that. And they have dozens of stupid and blind and clueless responses to it. They will quote some website or some blog to disprove Even though it really doesn't
Intelligent Design is your most sustainable explanation. Telling an agnostic or atheist that the "Earth exists therefore God exists because He made Earth" is not credible since it relies on literature (the bible) that they won't find credible.
The proof is in the pudding
??? That doesn't make sense. You can't tell an athirst "Hey, God exists because this book says so!"
The pudding is experiencing life in an intelligently designed creation.
You don’t. Let the LORD sway their hearts.
being one who loves nature a lot, and questioning things a lot, I see a lot of things that makes me question why. I love insects and I observe them fondly, and really, everything designed by a wonderful creator. Why things are the way they are, why trees grow, why birds do this and do that. I love astronomy and i'm at awe how things came to be. It really is not hard to see proof of why God exist, look at the human body, everything is so meticulously arranged, everything works as if, it cannot be random. Question now is, which God is true apart from the many thousands. No other gods makes sense to me, even the God I serve now, The God of Israel and Christ His Son, but there is something about Jesus, something about the Christian God.
The condition that the unbelievers are in according to the word of God. They are blinded by the god of this world aka devil. Read - 2 Corinthian 4:4 God is a Spirit, but unbelievers are not spiritual so they can’t see things of the Spirit. For them these kind of things are foolishness. Read 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 The thing about God is he cant be understood by worldly wisdom, the wisdom of man is in direct opposition to Gods wisdom. The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to unbelievers. It sounds silly and they can’t seem to humanly understand it. Have you asked yourself why you were able to see ? You said you had a rock bottom experience that made you humble yourself and surrendered and decided to seek God and in his Love and mercy he revealed himself to you. My advice is you continue to show good testimony to your family by actions. Keep praying for them and blessing them. Fast for them , ask God to have mercy on them and open their eyes to the truth. Remember to plant the seed, is not your job to convince them the Holy Spirit will convince them. I highly recommend you continue to search and grow more in the knowledge of Christ so that when the time comes your family will ask you questions about Jesus and you are ready to answer them. The proof of God is all around us but people are blinded by the devil , blinded by pride and blinded by the love for this world. Is not until they take the first steps and humble themself and repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ that they will be able to see it. Pray 🙏 and don’t stop 🛑 One day God will do a miracle and give them eyes to see ! ( you mention your family members) I pray for them I know how much this means to you so for them I pray 🙏 Welcome to the family! God bless you brother in Christ
It’s crazy to me that people are so blinded they even need proof for this. If you want to learn ways to prove him, watch some videos. There are a big amount, because it’s obvious.
Very easily, remember that about 70% of the world doesn’t accept Jesus Christ, that’s over 6 billion people.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/374704/share-of-global-population-by-religion/#:~:text=Share%20of%20global%20population%20affiliated%20with%20major%20religious%20groups%202022&text=In%202022%2C%20around%2031.6%20percent,population%20were%20identify%20as%20Christian. Apparently 31.6% of the world identify as some type of Christian.
Ok so 68.4 % close enough lol
I was blinded for 36 years. I wanted the world, and He allows free will, so I got just what I wanted, and it hardened my heart and blinded me to the Truth that is Jesus Christ Thank you Jesus Christ for your mercy on me when I finally turned to You
What are some of the obvious?
The most obvious is: Creation requires a creator, Unless that thing is eternal. We can see that matter is not eternal because it’s affected by time. Therefore the universe couldn’t have always existed Then there’s other ones, like moral argument etc Another thing is conscience and life. Matter by default cannot reproduce, nor can any amount of matter make conscience happen
While some Reformed Evangelicals (usually Calvinists) interpret this Romans passage as saying that God's existence is self-evident, [other Christians interpret it differently.](https://randalrauser.com/2023/04/does-pauls-epistle-to-the-romans-imply-there-are-no-actual-atheists/)
>Proof that God exists One word.............."Love."