Why there is no "proof" of a Christian God

(Two things, right up front. First, this is written from the perspective of my view of Christian theology. It's my view, and most likely differs from others, though I believe that the theology is sound. Second, if your response is a simple "There is no proof, because there is no God", you need not add that here, as I have already done so for you. I respect your opinion, and your right to have it, but such a perspective would make for a dull discussion of this topic.)

Many of us know someone who says "I'd like to believe in God, but without solid proof, I just can't, there's too much doubt." You may even say it yourself. I can relate to that, because I have said it myself in the past. "If God wants me to believe in him, he needs to do more than just give me vague messages in a book that's 2,000 years old."

Why? Because having faith is a hard thing to do. It might seem easy to those who don't have it, and view those that do as being weak, unfulfilled or otherwise lacking, but, trust me, it's not easy. Having faith means giving up your belief that you are accountable to no one but yourself. Accepting that there is something out there that is not only bigger, better and more complete than you, but is so much so that you have little hope of comprehending him, much less being him.

Having faith means being belittled for your views, being insulted and hated for no reason other than having a faith. Have Christians treated others the same way? Of course, and the tragedy of it is that they're not only personally diminished in their faith, they damage the religion itself and vindicate those who treat Christians poorly. Regardless, to accept Christianity is to accept more than a fair bit of prejudice, hatred and intolerance by others.

So, if finding faith, keeping it and letting it grow is so difficult, why doesn't God just make it easier by giving us that bit of proof that would cement our position? Sadly, because so many people seem to have such a tough time with it, it comes down to those two words, so associated with Christianity, free will.

The core of the Christian faith is that God wants a relationship with you. He loves you, unconditionally, and he wants you to love him back. He also loves everyone else, because unconditional love means that there's nothing you can do to make him love you more, nothing you can do to make him love you less, so everyone's about the same, in his book. So he wants you to take his love for you, and your love for him, and turn around and express that love for everyone else. He wants you to show your love for him by loving others.

Aside from "love," the word that appears over and over in the preceding paragraph is "wants." God doesn't need you to love him. God doesn't want to force you to love him. He just wants you to love him. And he gives you that choice, love him or not. Accept him or not. Believe in him or not. It's entirely up to you.

Consider if you were to fall in love with another person. Wouldn't you want them to love you for the person that you are, without manipulation or dishonesty? Or would you be okay with forcing them to love you, feigning love for you, actually. We hear occasionally about persons whose obsessions drive them to kidnap their victims, believing that they can force them to return their affections. Is that behaviour that you would want in God?

But what does this have to do with proof? The person who says "I must have incontrovertible proof" is, in effect, saying "I won't come to God on his terms, with love, and by me seeking him. Rather, I expect him to come to me, and if he does, it means that he exists, and I don't want to get to hell, so I'll accept him." Dispelling all doubts, God would force you to "love" him, begrudgingly, out of a mere desire to avoid punishment.

(Frankly, I find the whole notion of salvation by wanting to avoid punishment to be unfortunate. It's not why I opted in, and I suspect that it's as off-putting as anything else. But I suppose that there are those who fail to see the benefits of a Christ-centric life, and need to evaluate by consequences.)

If there was concrete proof of God's existence, only a fool would deny him. All would accept his salvation, all would be saved. But only a few, maybe even none, would choose him purely for the reasons that he wants you to, out of the desire to love him, become closer to him, and to share that love with others.

That said, most people of faith will tell you that there is proof of God's existence, and his presence, in our lives, but that it comes after you seek it and accept God's existence as a belief. And Christians believe that we will all receive the ultimate proof, as concrete as it comes, at the time of our deaths, when we appear before him to be judged for our behaviours. Whether we have an opportunity at that time to recant our doubts, apologize and accept his offer of salvation is viewed differently by different faiths.

Our faith is that God loves you enough that he diminished himself, becoming man, to give you a way to reconcile your limited mortal self to the unlimited eternal him. Although Christ's sacrifice was for all, even if everyone else was perfect and didn't need it, he'd still have done it, just for you. That's what he offers to you -- and it's up to you to accept it or not.

And he also respects you enough to make that choice yours, and yours alone, which is why, so long as the opportunity to make that choice remains, concrete proof of God's existence will remain elusive.

reply to post by adjensen

I like the discussion.
I think you've left out one possible reason, viz. that ALL things are ultimately unprovable, in this life. Even the evidence of our senses could be logically challenged.
So the fact that there's "no proof" for the existence of God is not necessarily as big a deal as unbelievers sometimes like to think it is.

And Christians believe that we will all receive the ultimate proof, as concrete as it comes, at the time of our deaths

Yes, the concrete proof you will receive.... but you have to die to get it ;D. Might I add, if you believe what I say, I'll let you know whether I was lying or not, but only after you die!

Our faith is that God loves you enough that he diminished himself, becoming man, to give you a way to reconcile your limited mortal self to the unlimited eternal him. Although Christ's sacrifice was for all, even if everyone else was perfect and didn't need it, he'd still have done it, just for you. That's what he offers to you -- and it's up to you to accept it or not.

The perfect divine animal sacrifice? Or did jesus just get caught up in a bad crowd?

I didn't ask for "him" to die, and I honestly don't see why beating a man then nailing him to a piece of wood (common at the time) is what needed to be done... why people still believe in the power of animal sacrifices is beyond me!

You've pretty much said throughout the whole post the same thing, but slightly different (tautology?). You've brought no new argument to the table, as you see it is also Allah who is seeking your love, but he cannot prove himself for the same reasons you have provided.... huh... wait that goes for all the gods that have been invented....

Consider if you were to fall in love with another person. Wouldn't you want them to love you for the person that you are, without manipulation or dishonesty? Or would you be okay with forcing them to love you, feigning love for you, actually. We hear occasionally about persons whose obsessions drive them to kidnap their victims, believing that they can force them to return their affections. Is that behaviour that you would want in God?

That behaviour (you avoided it) is exactly what you believe though, if I heard a man had tied up a woman in a basement and was beating her daily because she chose not to love him, well there would be outrage! Although with your 'god' it's a step further, you can 'love' or whatever, or you can not, and burn for eternity (unlike the former statement the woman can at least, at the very least die and escape the raging lunatic who is beating her).

first off, no one is going to burn in 'hell' forever....this was one of a few biblical teachings that were seriously perverted and twisted over the years to modify behavior through fear....which doesnt work very well by the way.


as for proof, as it was pointed out, nothing can be totally proven.

when it comes to faith....assuming we are all using the same basic definition.....we put faith in things all the time without fully vetting their trustworthiness. If you take five minutes im sure you can come up with a pretty healthy list.


the surprising thing to me is, not that we dont have faith, but that we have a strange way of using it. Yes, we have faith in the car we drive perilously down the road not giving a second thought that all the necessary parts will stay together and do their job when needed......we have no problem putting our faith in all kinds of infrastructure that if not well made could fail and put our lives or health in danger. Where is all the critical thinking and investigation of those things that we use every day that FAIL every day and give us only statistical safety?

yet, strangely, when it comes to a rather philosophical debate about religion, God, the after life....things that at least on their own do not pose any risk whatsoever to our health and safety.....are subjected to the greatest doubt and scrutiny? In fact, only when another human acts on their belief about those ideas is anyone elses life affected in the short term whatsoever.

ill say it till i can say it no more....ppl look for proof to feel ok believing what they want to believe. How many times have you met a person who wishes they didnt believe what they do...but out of intellectual honesty they will not change their beliefs just for the sake of comfort? Yes, it may be more common here on ATS because many of us are enlightened about the ways the world works that most ppl dont care to know....and therefore many of us are rather tortured souls for it.....but for the most part....most people i have met will CHANGE their beliefs to suit a level of comfort about their lives they feel they need. Thats just how it is......each person must answer to themselves alone for their intellectual honesty. Sarcasm, put downs, using logical constructs to defeat an opponent in discussion....all these things seem TO ME to merely mask what for many people is a very uneasy inner environment when it comes to issues of spiritual significance. Either that or they just dont care, or just want to have fun.....

Originally posted by adjensen
(Two things, right up front. First, this is written from the perspective of my view of Christian theology. It's my view, and most likely differs from others, though I believe that the theology is sound. Second, if your response is a simple "There is no proof, because there is no God", you need not add that here, as I have already done so for you. I respect your opinion, and your right to have it, but such a perspective would make for a dull discussion of this topic.)

Many of us know someone who says "I'd like to believe in God, but without solid proof, I just can't, there's too much doubt." You may even say it yourself. I can relate to that, because I have said it myself in the past. "If God wants me to believe in him, he needs to do more than just give me vague messages in a book that's 2,000 years old."

Why? Because having faith is a hard thing to do. It might seem easy to those who don't have it, and view those that do as being weak, unfulfilled or otherwise lacking, but, trust me, it's not easy. Having faith means giving up your belief that you are accountable to no one but yourself. Accepting that there is something out there that is not only bigger, better and more complete than you, but is so much so that you have little hope of comprehending him, much less being him.

Having faith means being belittled for your views, being insulted and hated for no reason other than having a faith. Have Christians treated others the same way? Of course, and the tragedy of it is that they're not only personally diminished in their faith, they damage the religion itself and vindicate those who treat Christians poorly. Regardless, to accept Christianity is to accept more than a fair bit of prejudice, hatred and intolerance by others.

So, if finding faith, keeping it and letting it grow is so difficult, why doesn't God just make it easier by giving us that bit of proof that would cement our position? Sadly, because so many people seem to have such a tough time with it, it comes down to those two words, so associated with Christianity, free will.

The core of the Christian faith is that God wants a relationship with you. He loves you, unconditionally, and he wants you to love him back. He also loves everyone else, because unconditional love means that there's nothing you can do to make him love you more, nothing you can do to make him love you less, so everyone's about the same, in his book. So he wants you to take his love for you, and your love for him, and turn around and express that love for everyone else. He wants you to show your love for him by loving others.

Aside from "love," the word that appears over and over in the preceding paragraph is "wants." God doesn't need you to love him. God doesn't want to force you to love him. He just wants you to love him. And he gives you that choice, love him or not. Accept him or not. Believe in him or not. It's entirely up to you.

Consider if you were to fall in love with another person. Wouldn't you want them to love you for the person that you are, without manipulation or dishonesty? Or would you be okay with forcing them to love you, feigning love for you, actually. We hear occasionally about persons whose obsessions drive them to kidnap their victims, believing that they can force them to return their affections. Is that behaviour that you would want in God?

But what does this have to do with proof? The person who says "I must have incontrovertible proof" is, in effect, saying "I won't come to God on his terms, with love, and by me seeking him. Rather, I expect him to come to me, and if he does, it means that he exists, and I don't want to get to hell, so I'll accept him." Dispelling all doubts, God would force you to "love" him, begrudgingly, out of a mere desire to avoid punishment.

(Frankly, I find the whole notion of salvation by wanting to avoid punishment to be unfortunate. It's not why I opted in, and I suspect that it's as off-putting as anything else. But I suppose that there are those who fail to see the benefits of a Christ-centric life, and need to evaluate by consequences.)

If there was concrete proof of God's existence, only a fool would deny him. All would accept his salvation, all would be saved. But only a few, maybe even none, would choose him purely for the reasons that he wants you to, out of the desire to love him, become closer to him, and to share that love with others.

That said, most people of faith will tell you that there is proof of God's existence, and his presence, in our lives, but that it comes after you seek it and accept God's existence as a belief. And Christians believe that we will all receive the ultimate proof, as concrete as it comes, at the time of our deaths, when we appear before him to be judged for our behaviours. Whether we have an opportunity at that time to recant our doubts, apologize and accept his offer of salvation is viewed differently by different faiths.

Our faith is that God loves you enough that he diminished himself, becoming man, to give you a way to reconcile your limited mortal self to the unlimited eternal him. Although Christ's sacrifice was for all, even if everyone else was perfect and didn't need it, he'd still have done it, just for you. That's what he offers to you -- and it's up to you to accept it or not.

And he also respects you enough to make that choice yours, and yours alone, which is why, so long as the opportunity to make that choice remains, concrete proof of God's existence will remain elusive.

There's no "proof" of ANY God, so I think you kind of named this thread a bit wrongly there, chuckles.

let´s have a look into where this "god came from...

According to Hermetic tradition, the direct, albeit unwilling cause of this catastrophe which affects us to this day, was Moses.
Everybody knows that Moses appeared floating in a basket down a river and was subsequently adopted, deceiving the Egyptian priests of the time. They took him for an Egyptian and initiated him into the mysteries of ritual magic, which is a method for making the key notes of Nature vibrate, and thus produce certain phenomena which the operator wishes to achieve. ...
In spite of his esoteric identification with Egyptian magic, Moses was always loyal to his ancestral blood. Thus, his most powerful wish was to make himself the leader who would free his people from enslavement, leading them to the promised land. Guided by this desire, and conscious of the powerful forces he had learned to control, Moses had a daring idea: to make a magic pact or alliance with an angel, a divine creature charged with the task of providing him with power and assistance from heaven to save his people. After lengthy preparations done in deep solitude, he performed the ritual ceremony with magic words and corresponding invocations. In the midst of amazing atmospheric and terrestrial phenomena, an impressive being appeared, making Moses tremble with fear and panic, due to the tremendous force it projected. It will never be possible to know or even imagine the conditions under which the pact between man and heaven was made. The angel agreed to everything Moses requested and promised his help, demanding the strictest obedience in return.
He revealed his name as Y., and requested that as a sign of union, all his followers should undergo a small ritual surgical operation, with a light discharge of blood. Every man who underwent this would come to be a son of Y. The blood that was shed sealed the pact. From that day forward, Moses was invested with superhuman powers and started doing all kinds of magical feats, converting the Ark of the Covenant into the center of his power.
Plagues and calamities fell over Egypt, and non-believers and rebels were struck down by the wrath of Y In this manner, Moses' people started the Exodus that would last forty years. Later, Y., the occult power behind the leader, suddenly started to change his procedures by formulating strange demands, all of which had the shedding of blood as the common denominator. Moses was overcome with fear and started to become aware of the magnitude of the error he committed. He then understood that the divine angel was in truth an angel of darkness, the complete opposite of the luminous power he had intended to invoke. This infernal angel was a member of the host of shadows. In order to maintain its power and strength, this vampire needed to feed on human blood, an essence charged with the vitality conferred by the divine spark. This is why all through the Exodus, so many blood-shedding incidents occurred, provoked by the occult dictator. In reality, who was Y.? One could say he was a very ancient being whose evolutionary origin is unknown. Through long periods of cosmic time, this being kept his individuality, but unfortunately his evolution was directed toward negative, dark, and destructive aspects; much like a human being who grows bitter with the passing of time and adopts a negative and destructive concept of life. Many beings similar to Y. exist in the Universe. Fortunately, the magnetic defenses of the planet constitute an impenetrable barrier against those beings. However, Moses' magic ritual opened a door and cleared a pathway through which Y. was able to penetrate into the Earth. It is possible to see this as the most transcendental, but unfortunately harmful event in the occult history of humanity.
The tradition transmitted by the great Hermetic Masters affirms that at a crucial moment in the history of humanity, a powerful diabolic Archangel, if we are allowed to call him thus, succeeded in penetrating the earth's occult defenses and entered its atmosphere, provoking extreme disturbances....

This is qouted from the book "The stellar man" by John Baines, 2002
i apologize to read everybody...

If you want to know what i´m thinking about real GOD, the supreme creator, look in here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Peace love and light,
let u guide by higher i


Jim

Adj, I've liked some other things you've posted, but...

The core of the Christian faith is that God wants a relationship with you.

Then you would think by now that a bright guy like him would have noticed that the ordinary and usual way to begin a relationship with someone is to introduce yourself.

Dude has my email address, right? I'd be happy to meet him for a coffee. My treat.

Consider if you were to fall in love with another person. Wouldn't you want them to love you for the person that you are, without manipulation or dishonesty?

If God wanted to have a relationship that wasn't based on fear, then he need never have mentioned Hell. As if there would be a Hell to mention. If he built it, then he built it for a reason.

Our faith is that God loves you enough that he diminished himself, becoming man, ...

Diminished himself? There's a problem right there. If you're looking to establish a relationship with someone, then you don't come on like they're trash. Period.

99% of your guy's problem with being loved would vanish if he just acted loveable. There are junior high school kids with sharper social skills than his.

That is a problem for your story. You need to work on it. The web is a good place to practice, so good luck with it.


[edit on 17-7-2010 by eight bits]

Let's get beyond the limitation of words, shall we, because they can make you reach any conclusion and position you want about the existence of God?

Let's enter the world of mathematics for proof of God's existence. Oh, you were not aware that there is (or even could be in principle) mathematical evidence - overwhelming evidence amounting to proof - for the existence of transcendental intelligence and design. Well, there is. And there always has been in a diluted form within esoteric/mystical traditions. Only the complete set of keys to understanding this mathematics were unavailable until now. Thanks to Dr Phillips, a theoretical physicist, the mathematics of the divine mind, as revealed in the sacred geometries of the world's religions and as re-discovered in various theories of particle physics, has been discovered.

Spend the next six months studying his research at:
smphillips.8m.com...
If that is too challenging, continue to blather on here with words that get you nowhere and achieve nothing except reinforcing your unchanging point of view and delaying your spiritual evolution towards God.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by micpsi]

The lack of proof I think is the reason they call it faith. The only proof I believe one can have is found within themselve and through their own experiences.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Lupin]

Originally posted by mf_luder

There's no "proof" of ANY God, so I think you kind of named this thread a bit wrongly there, chuckles.

The title of the thread is perfectly correct, as the question is addressed from a Christian perspective. If the follower of another religion wishes to address why their version of God doesn't provide proof of his existence, they are welcome to. I wouldn't presume to.

Originally posted by eight bits
Adj, I've liked some other things you've posted, but...

The core of the Christian faith is that God wants a relationship with you.

Then you would think by now that a bright guy like him would have noticed that the ordinary and usual way to begin a relationship with someone is to introduce yourself.

Dude has my email address, right? I'd be happy to meet him for a coffee. My treat.

Given that he can't sit down with you for coffee, for the reasons cited in my post, I would point out that he most likely has introduced himself to you, probably lots of times. Everyone who wants to tell you about Jesus is that introduction. Whether you find them annoying (I certainly do, at times,) or helpful, spreading the Word is how you learn about God.

Consider if you were to fall in love with another person. Wouldn't you want them to love you for the person that you are, without manipulation or dishonesty?

If God wanted to have a relationship that wasn't based on fear, then he need never have mentioned Hell. As if there would be a Hell to mention. If he built it, then he built it for a reason.

Yes, he built it for a reason. It is to house Satan and the other angels who rebelled against him. He doesn't send a person there, they elect to go there, but it wasn't built with humankind in mind. But, as I said, I'm not much of a fan of that whole "eternal torture to make you choose good through fear" thing. Doesn't do anything for me, and I can see why it would be problematic for people looking for reasons not to believe.

Our faith is that God loves you enough that he diminished himself, becoming man, ...

Diminished himself? There's a problem right there. If you're looking to establish a relationship with someone, then you don't come on like they're trash. Period.

If you and God were equals, or even remotely similar, sure. But this belief is not that God is some sort of elevated being. He created the whole Universe. He existed before it was here, and he'll be here after it is gone. Think that physics or advanced mathematics is hard to comprehend? He's the one who came up with it in the first place.

We don't know a lot about God, and, to be honest, I suspect that we can't know a lot about God, at least not now. It's just beyond our comprehension. Even basic concepts like how God can know everything that will ever happen, but still allow for free will confound us.

So it's kind of sad that we struggle to rationalize and understand things that we probably can't, while the most important part, the whole relationship thing, is something that is pretty easy to wrap our heads around, and yet so many give up on Christianity without even giving it a shot.

Having faith, is believing in something that are senses cannot evaluate.
Faith comes from G_D and is expressed through our heart.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by Violater1]

Given that he can't sit down with you for coffee, for the reasons cited in my post,

That's very kind of you to cover for him, but I am sure you understand that I'd rather hear that from him. Besides, he can do anything,

So, I understand if he doesn't want to join me for coffee. That is his choice, but then you and I are back to where we started from, which is, he doesn't behave like someone who is both smart and has the motives you attribute to him.

I would point out that he most likely has introduced himself to you, probably lots of times. Everyone who wants to tell you about Jesus is that introduction.

Kapyang? I think not .

I'm not much of a fan of that whole "eternal torture to make you choose good through fear" thing.

But, see, there's the problem. The issue is whether he's a big fan of it.

I don't need to tell you that not everyone who professes the Nicene Creed agrees with you. That's a lot of sincere and thoughtful followers of Christ (there are also Christians who don't profess the Creed, of course).

Now, postmortem detention and religious reorientation policy is just the sort of thing that would come up over coffee. And my questions can't be reliably answered by just anybody who wants to talk to me about Jesus.

If you and God were equals, or even remotely similar, sure.

We must be at least remotely similar. He made me in his image, right?

However, the issue is whether he diminished himself by becoming human; your hypothesis.

He didn't stop being God, so he became human in addition to what he already was. So, the only way anybody could diminish themselves by adding to themselves is by adding something that detracts from what they were before.

Humans don't have to be bigger and stronger than him. They just need to be even the least bit good, and not such a dead loss as to diminish an inexhaustible store of good.

So, again, over coffee, he could tell me what he thinks of my species, our species now. I can take it, if his opinion really is as bad as you say. But I don't simply assume what his answer would be. That would be rude, and as you point out, he is bigger and stronger than me. Best I should be polite.

Even basic concepts like how God can know everything that will ever happen, but still allow for free will confound us.

Actually that one's fairly easy. Maybe another time.

But yes, I would concede that God, if the term refers, is ineffable. Words will fail to describe God completely and accurately, at least that's what I think.

So it's kind of sad that we struggle to rationalize and understand things that we probably can't, while the most important part, the whole relationship thing, is something that is pretty easy to wrap our heads around, and yet so many give up on Christianity without even giving it a shot.

Well, if it's any consolation, I didn't give Odin much of a chance, either, and the evidentiary foundation for both is pretty much the same.

Except it wasn't coffee that I proposed to Odin.

S&F, adj. The least I can do.

Well God is Love. With Love comes Trust. Trust is Faith. Just like my future wife. I trust that she loves me. I can't speak for her past or her future, she did and will do what she wants to do. Thats why believing takes a leap of faith.

Originally posted by eight bits

Given that he can't sit down with you for coffee, for the reasons cited in my post,

That's very kind of you to cover for him, but I am sure you understand that I'd rather hear that from him. Besides, he can do anything,

So, I understand if he doesn't want to join me for coffee. That is his choice, but then you and I are back to where we started from, which is, he doesn't behave like someone who is both smart and has the motives you attribute to him.

Well, let's try looking at it this way. Would you agree to coffee with God, if he said that the only way he'd do it was to exclude you from being able to accept him? That he'd be happy to sit down with you for a few hours, answer all of your questions, but then, since you no longer can accept his relationship under the aegis of wanting to be with him, rather than needing to be, because you've seen solid proof? One of the questions you could ask, of course, is whether you'll go to hell for eternity, but at that point, it's too late to change your mind about the whole thing.

I'm not sure that I have a response, regardless of what you say, but I just wonder what your answer would be.

I'm not much of a fan of that whole "eternal torture to make you choose good through fear" thing.

But, see, there's the problem. The issue is whether he's a big fan of it.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter, either way. It is what it is. I'm just not into hostility, fear and anger, and question motivation under those circumstances. I was reminded earlier today about a book (I guess it's a video on YouTube as well) called "23 Minutes in Hell". I've read it (it's very poorly written, content aside,) and find it rather offensive. I suppose that it works with some people, but for me, that's not an approach that works.

If you and God were equals, or even remotely similar, sure.

We must be at least remotely similar. He made me in his image, right?

To be honest with you, I have no idea what that means (in the Biblical context, not your sentence) but I think it unlikely that we look like him (God the Father, obviously we bear similarity to Jesus )

He didn't stop being God, so he became human in addition to what he already was. So, the only way anybody could diminish themselves by adding to themselves is by adding something that detracts from what they were before.

Well, at some point (in my theology) he did have to stop being God, in that God can't die. When Christ was on the cross, and said "Why have you forsaken me?" one interpretation is that, in that moment, God's presence was removed from Christ's humanity, and he felt the loss of his divinity. I don't know, though, it's just one way to look at it.

S&F, adj. The least I can do.

Thanks, and I appreciate your input! I have very little interest in changing anyone's mind, but a great deal of interest in hearing others' perspectives.

While my views on religion are torn. A guy I had a similar conversation with had this to say.

Proof of god? Just look around....

While I don't know how to take the statement, even some scientist point to an "intelligent design".

Would you agree to coffee with God, if he said that the only way he'd do it was to exclude you from being able to accept him? That he'd be happy to sit down with you for a few hours, answer all of your questions, but then, since you no longer can accept his relationship under the aegis of wanting to be with him, rather than needing to be, because you've seen solid proof? One of the questions you could ask, of course, is whether you'll go to hell for eternity, but at that point, it's too late to change your mind about the whole thing.

That's a good question, adj, and I'll answer. But I don't see how the hypothetical advances your original argument. This doesn't sound like the proposal of a smart being trying to build a loving personal relationship with someone.

Answer: Yes. It might take some courage, I might falter in the event, or since he's talking and negotiating, I might see if I could refine the deal. But if the deal is as you describe it, take it or leave it, then it is acceptable to me.

Explanation: If there is a Hell in the usual conception, then I'm going there anyway, since I am an agnostic despite having been evangelized. Even if there isn't a medieval Hell, then I'm still plainly not currently on a path that would lead to a relationship with God.

So, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a lot of downside for me in accepting the hypothetical offer. Add to that my profound suspicion that any relationship based on guessing games couldn't ever be very solid. That just won't work, IMO.

On the upside, I would know in life what only the dead know in the ordinary course of things. That's no small thing if you take it seriously, and I would expect to pay something for it.

Well, at some point (in my theology) he did have to stop being God, in that God can't die. When Christ was on the cross, and said "Why have you forsaken me?" one interpretation is that, in that moment, God's presence was removed from Christ's humanity, and he felt the loss of his divinity. I don't know, though, it's just one way to look at it.

I try not to tell people what their theology should be, 'cause what right-thinking theist wants advice about God from an agnostic anyway? But I feel as confident as I feel about any point of literature that what Jesus said was the opening verse of the twenty-second Psalm.

That is an invictus poem, written by an ancestor of his, according to the backstory. The plain meaning of the Psalm is that God has not foresaken the speaker. Jesus cannot recite the whole Psalm, because at the time in question, he is being suffocated to death, and simply lacks the breath to say more than he does. There is even some gallows humor in the gospel story, where passer-by fail to recognize the Psalm, mock Jesus, and by mocking him, ironically reveal their own inability to understand.

Other views are possible, of course. And yes, if he did stop being God, and especially if all he got to share of humanity was our misery in death, then I would agree that he would have been diminished.

Thanks, and I appreciate your input! I have very little interest in changing anyone's mind, but a great deal of interest in hearing others' perspectives.

Thanks back at ya. I think you've got a great approach to discussing these topics on the web. Good talking with you; see you out there.

reply to post by adjensen


Why is there no proof of ANY GOD>? that is the real question... Religion is made up to conform the masses into doing what the world deems as right and wrong. It is that simple!!!

reply to post by adjensen


there is no "proof" of a christian god because it is simply a lot easier for me to believe that hundreds of millions of people who have relayed this to us over generations were liars.

that they are all liars makes more sense than god.

that is the easiest answer i can think of to the question the title poses to us.