What would God have to do to convince YOU of His existence?

[The Brytish Isles]

Show up and announce his supposed existence? It’s really that simple.
.

He did that 2000 years ago

Then why couldn’t he do it now, eh?

I'm already religious, but for me to be convinced of his existence I would probably have to go through a long journey of faith similar to the one I went through.

But my problem with God isn't his existence/lack thereof, it's his hypocrisy. My gods are not moral, hell, they're pretty fucking amoral. But this "Yahweh" guy acts a lot like some of the worse of my gods. He doesn't rape anybody, granted, but he still has sanctioned it. Everything else is also checked off.

Self-Servent and Jealous, Check
Murders, Check
Causes unborn babies to die, Check
Sends people he doesn't like to be burned in an eternal lake of fire, Check
Sanctions Rape, Check
Caused mass genocide, Check
And those are the ones I can think off the top of my head.

Yet he calls himself Omnibenevolent, in the sense that he is more moral than man. If anything, he's just as bad as Satan (who is also a douche, for the record).

Now, of course, if the bible isn't meant to be taken literally this changes everything. You go from an angry and vindictive god to a truly loving one, but if you don't take the bible seriously your religion becomes little more than a bunch of incohesive men and women who loosely believe in the same god, meaning that power structures wouldn't exist. And given the power of the Church, we can't have that now, can we?

I recall hearing that the Bible and hence Christianity can/does get very inconsistent.

[Nationalist Teksas]

The fact that I am alive is proof enough that there is an ultimate figure of authority. This figure is perfect, and has been here forever. This figure is God.

[Hammer Britannia]

The fact that I am alive is proof enough that there is an ultimate figure of authority. This figure is perfect, and has been here forever. This figure is God.

*Gods, fyi

I recall hearing that the Bible and hence Christianity can/does get very inconsistent.

Which is my problem with fundamentalists. Those who take the Bible seriously are kind of foolish to believe in a book with such inconsistencies.

Hence why I highly respect those who don't even if they are the "Spiritual but not Religious" people of the Christian Community.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Give me my sight back.

[Ard al Islam]

I would believe in a god if...

Maybe He sent a few Messengers with Divine Scriptures that instruct us to look for the proof of Him in all of His creation and worship Him, not blindly, but logically.

Oh, wait.

[Hammer Britannia]

I would believe in a god if...

Maybe He sent a few Messengers with Divine Scriptures that instruct us to look for the proof of Him in all of His creation and worship Him, not blindly, but logically.

Oh, wait.

Yeah, if only. If only he had sent them in front of a city where thousands if not tens of thousands of people, including foreigners, can see and not to some random man who is illiterate.

Oh wait

[Cappuccina]

I would believe in a god if...

Maybe He sent a few Messengers with Divine Scriptures that instruct us to look for the proof of Him in all of His creation and worship Him, not blindly, but logically.

Oh, wait.

A-fucking-men.

[Twilight Imperium]

I would believe in a god if...

Maybe He sent a few Messengers with Divine Scriptures that instruct us to look for the proof of Him in all of His creation and worship Him, not blindly, but logically.

Oh, wait.

Yeah, if only. If only he had sent them in front of a city where thousands if not tens of thousands of people, including foreigners, can see and not to some random man who is illiterate.

Oh wait

I mean to be fair, if he was illiterate, how would he know?

[Twilight Imperium]

I would believe in a god if...

Maybe He sent a few Messengers with Divine Scriptures that instruct us to look for the proof of Him in all of His creation and worship Him, not blindly, but logically.

Oh, wait.

A-fucking-men.

I'll tell Brigham Young he's got a new convert.

[Hammer Britannia]

Yeah, if only. If only he had sent them in front of a city where thousands if not tens of thousands of people, including foreigners, can see and not to some random man who is illiterate.

Oh wait

I mean to be fair, if he was illiterate, how would he know?

Supposedly, Muhammad was a man who was in the cave Hira when the angel Gabriel vocally told him the Quran. He was then, somehow, able to remember the whole thing and was able to tell it to people who just so happened to write the Quran as a book after his death.

So, in other words, he just so happened to be vocally instructed and taught by an angel the contents of the Quran, but not how to write the book itself.

[Ard al Islam]

I mean to be fair, if he was illiterate, how would he know?

Supposedly, Muhammad was a man who was in the cave Hira when the angel Gabriel vocally told him the Quran. He was then, somehow, able to remember the whole thing and was able to tell it to people who just so happened to write the Quran as a book after his death.

So, in other words, he just so happened to be vocally instructed and taught by an angel the contents of the Quran, but not how to write the book itself.

God has sent the angel Gabriel to Muhammad to tell him the message, the Qur'an, which he transmitted to the entire world.

His society was a very backward one, so he would often go somewhere secluded(like the Hira cave) to meditate and reflect on life.

God had put the message in his heart through Gabriel. This is in and of itself a miracle, considering the circumstances.

Keep in mind, paper didn't exist back then(the Muslims hadn't introduced it to the world yet ). People memorized the passages that God revealed to him. These people kept this message until the 3rd Khalifa, Uthman bin Affan(RA) ordered the Qur'an to be compiled into an official copy, and then every copy would be made from that copy.

[Ard al Islam]

And to all of you, I wonder why you immediately assumed that I was talking about Muhammad. I was, but he was not the only Messenger. There were others:

Noah
Eber
Salah
Abraham
Lot
Ishmael
Joseph
Jethro
Moses
Elijah
Jonah
Jesus

[Highever]

Supposedly, Muhammad was a man who was in the cave Hira when the angel Gabriel vocally told him the Quran. He was then, somehow, able to remember the whole thing and was able to tell it to people who just so happened to write the Quran as a book after his death.

So, in other words, he just so happened to be vocally instructed and taught by an angel the contents of the Quran, but not how to write the book itself.

Keep in mind, paper didn't exist back then(the Muslims hadn't introduced it to the world yet ). .

That's not true, on both counts. Paper has been around since roughly the 1st-3rd century BCE, and it was the Chinese that introduced it to the world.

[Godular]

Presenting evidence of his omnipotence/omniscience, then giving a decent enough explanation why they're such an asshole.

[Risusol]

He just has to show himself to me, I know it sounds simple and crude but if it really exists I would like to see it with my own eyes. Even tho is not possible.

[Ard al Islam]

Keep in mind, paper didn't exist back then(the Muslims hadn't introduced it to the world yet ). .

That's not true, on both counts. Paper has been around since roughly the 1st-3rd century BCE, and it was the Chinese that introduced it to the world.

Your first point is correct. Indeed, early forms of paper were around for them to write down the scripture. But my second point is correct. The Muslims DID indeed introduce paper to the world. The Chinse invented it the best version of it, true, but what did they do with it? They hoarded it. They did not give their secrets of paper-making to Europe. The Chinese kept it for themselves.

The Muslim Empire was so large, it stretched all the way to China. The Chinese and Muslims fought on a few occasions. During these wars, the Muslims discovered the Chinese secret of paper-making. After learning this, they quickly spread the secret throughout their empire and to Europe as well. Muslims loved to acquire and spread knowledge, per God's instructions. That's why they were the forefront of scientific research and similar fields for centuries, while Europe in the Dark Ages severely lacked behind in information. It wasn't until the Renaissance that Europe surpassed the Ottoman Empire as the most knowledgeable society.

So next time you read a book, remember, Muslims made it possible.

[Hammer Britannia]

That's not true, on both counts. Paper has been around since roughly the 1st-3rd century BCE, and it was the Chinese that introduced it to the world.

Your first point is correct. Indeed, early forms of paper were around for them to write down the scripture. But my second point is correct. The Muslims DID indeed introduce paper to the world. The Chinse invented it the best version of it, true, but what did they do with it? They hoarded it. They did not give their secrets of paper-making to Europe. The Chinese kept it for themselves.

The Muslim Empire was so large, it stretched all the way to China. The Chinese and Muslims fought on a few occasions. During these wars, the Muslims discovered the Chinese secret of paper-making. After learning this, they quickly spread the secret throughout their empire and to Europe as well. Muslims loved to acquire and spread knowledge, per God's instructions. That's why they were the forefront of scientific research and similar fields for centuries, while Europe in the Dark Ages severely lacked behind in information. It wasn't until the Renaissance that Europe surpassed the Ottoman Empire as the most knowledgeable society.

So next time you read a book, remember, Muslims made it possible.

No, I'm going to thank the Chinese.

This is like thanking White People for Imperialism when empire building has existed since Egyptian Times. And books existed since the said Ancient Egyptians, they just weren't written on paper, they were written on parchment.

The only thing the Muslim Civilization was good at was taking ideas from the Indians, Chinese, and cultures of the past and spreading it to the world. They were mear vendors and collectors and to thank them for anything is like thanking Walmart for having chips.

[Hammer Britannia]

-snip-

[Highever]

That's not true, on both counts. Paper has been around since roughly the 1st-3rd century BCE, and it was the Chinese that introduced it to the world.

Your first point is correct. Indeed, early forms of paper were around for them to write down the scripture. But my second point is correct. The Muslims DID indeed introduce paper to the world. The Chinse invented it the best version of it, true, but what did they do with it? They hoarded it. They did not give their secrets of paper-making to Europe. The Chinese kept it for themselves.

The Muslim Empire was so large, it stretched all the way to China. The Chinese and Muslims fought on a few occasions. During these wars, the Muslims discovered the Chinese secret of paper-making. After learning this, they quickly spread the secret throughout their empire and to Europe as well. Muslims loved to acquire and spread knowledge, per God's instructions. That's why they were the forefront of scientific research and similar fields for centuries, while Europe in the Dark Ages severely lacked behind in information. It wasn't until the Renaissance that Europe surpassed the Ottoman Empire as the most knowledgeable society.

So next time you read a book, remember, Muslims made it possible.

Thats....not true at all. You're trying to construct some sort of narrative where the Chinese were evil and in no way did paper making spread until the Muslims arrived, which is false. Long before the Muslims paper making was around in Vietnam, India, SE Asia, Japan, Korea, and parts of central Asia. That is hardly them keeping it to themselves. Paper making techniques didnt travel to Europe because they simply were far to distant and not have widespread contact at the time. Paper making did spread to Europe through the Muslims however, because they brought it with them to ther conquests in Iberia which in turn came from their conquests of central Asia.

However, even before that, there was papyrus and other scrollwork found throughout Europe from the Egyptians.

Modern papermaking did come to Europe through Muslim conquest this is true, as it finally brought a stable and significant connection between the two. This narrative however that Chinese are evil and selfish people is simply disingenuous.

[Hammer Britannia]

Your first point is correct. Indeed, early forms of paper were around for them to write down the scripture. But my second point is correct. The Muslims DID indeed introduce paper to the world. The Chinse invented it the best version of it, true, but what did they do with it? They hoarded it. They did not give their secrets of paper-making to Europe. The Chinese kept it for themselves.

The Muslim Empire was so large, it stretched all the way to China. The Chinese and Muslims fought on a few occasions. During these wars, the Muslims discovered the Chinese secret of paper-making. After learning this, they quickly spread the secret throughout their empire and to Europe as well. Muslims loved to acquire and spread knowledge, per God's instructions. That's why they were the forefront of scientific research and similar fields for centuries, while Europe in the Dark Ages severely lacked behind in information. It wasn't until the Renaissance that Europe surpassed the Ottoman Empire as the most knowledgeable society.

So next time you read a book, remember, Muslims made it possible.

Thats....not true at all. You're trying to construct some sort of narrative where the Chinese were evil and in no way did paper making spread until the Muslims arrived, which is false. Long before the Muslims paper making was around in Vietnam, India, SE Asia, Japan, Korea, and parts of central Asia. That is hardly them keeping it to themselves. Paper making techniques didnt travel to Europe because they simply were far to distant and not have widespread contact at the time. Paper making did spread to Europe through the Muslims however, because they brought it with them to ther conquests in Iberia which in turn came from their conquests of central Asia.

However, even before that, there was papyrus and other scrollwork found throughout Europe from the Egyptians.

Modern papermaking did come to Europe through Muslim conquest this is true, as it finally brought a stable and significant connection between the two. This narrative however that Chinese are evil and selfish people is simply disingenuous.

I mean, yeah. They made the silk road for a reason. They weren't backwards hoarders.

In fact, one could argue that the Muslims were the backwards hoarders and not the Chinese. After all, The Byzantines were pretty advanced in a very similar situation to the Muslims, being some of the only sane people in Europe compared to the absolute-ruling Catholics. And did the Muslims give the Byzantines this vast wealth of information? No, they instead fought to teeth and nail murdering each other in a long series of wars between external and internal foes.

[Badb Catha]

Nothing; I already believe in Him.

[Country of CityTowne]

As far as I know, truth doesn't need worshippers, punishments/rewards, etc. All it needs is evidence, which in my opinion is something all religions lack.

Finally someone with common sense besides the atheists on this thread who also have common sense!

[Badb Catha]

It's funny how the entire concept of at least the Biblical God but often other Gods is that he refuses to give scientific evidence that can't be construed to mean something else and that people still want him to violate that precept, because of specific circumstances and honestly literal Deus Ex Machina, to which I tell God: Touche.

If you're an Atheist, ok, that's reasonable.

But I feel most Atheists must be exposed to God at a early age.

There's a simple reason beyond the cynical but fair(One even God would and technically does say is a logical thought, even if horribly wrong) response of brainwashing:

Satan, in theory, controls the data and evidence. Not through lies and cover-up, conspiracies, wrong data, etc., but logical misdirection of conclusions of the results. This misdirection ironically doesn't disprove the existence of God, but it's not meant to, it's merely meant to not give any evidence, to frustrate.

That's a core facet of the Bible, him having that power and God knowing reasonable people are being deceived so he does something more subtle.

Now, he also realizes that he will be dismissed as a myth due to that. He knows he'll be seen as just another myth. That's what Revelations refers to:
As humanity grow more distant from Christianity's influence due to time's natural consequences, less and less will be true Christians until the Antichrist deceives them all.

It is my firm belief that the Mark of the Beast represents something that is not arbitrary, but rather a endorsement or taking part in a horrific event that even non-christians should be disgusted at doing, likely a act of great violence or hatred for nature(Mass animal torture/slaughter for the antichrist, murder, torture etc. are visual examples of the thing the people who get the mark are supposed to do that consciously condemns their souls to hell for a act of unspeakable cruelty with some justification by the antichrist for them to do it), or literally implicitly if not outright worshiping Satan in a ritual that is an endorsement of his violent acts and torture of humans, literally a endorsement of his hatred for humanity and betrayal of humanity's dignity and safety and not being tortured by demons alive, all of those woud be a betrayal of god and jesus, an act of hate betrays love, which is what god is supposed to represent.


The rapture then is supposed to represent God giving a final warning in this test to see if they need his existence to be their only reason for them to not act with such cruelty, to give them the free will to make that mistake and show their true selves and how cruel they really are without knowing of God's existence being 100% assured, which is supposed to deter them, 100% proof of his existence, destroying the purpose of this test.



When you look at it this way it all makes sense, and wraps up several loose ends. Will this convince any Atheists?
Of course probably not, and that's good, because it'll show their true character of how they act in a world without God, and possibly due to implications from Revelations, no Moral/Legal hindrance from indulging into one's own spiteful, darkest most violent, evil, and cruel desires.

God doesn't want people to be saved just so because he can. He wants them to be saved because of a will to trust in faith, not fact, and of their own will to risk being wrong to show their loyalty to God, and of a will to be in a community of love for humanity.

Does this community have many faults, conflicts, splits, and bad people within it?
Yes, but the ideas at the heart of the community cannot be changed by those bad people without causing them to lose influence, and many will still stay. As well those bad people(murders as an example), are still punished in the end for paying lip service and not true remorse and compassion for fellow humans.


You may say this argument sounds really complicated, and God would agree. He knows how crazy this can sound-the Bible mentions it-so frankly he's not interested in you believing in his existence.

He challenged us to respect his wishes and we failed.

The challenge he presents to the world is if they can respect each other, without his practically assured existence dissuading us from truly showing not just him, but ourselves and each other if we'll truly respect each other.


Now he probably knows the confusion of the implications of his existence in science, how he can exist, how powerful is he, etc.

I honestly believe if he could have explained it to us, we'd have figured out the answer by ourselves without his help. If we do, there's no need to intervene directly.
If we can't, what makes us believe his logic can make sense to us? We're like Ants. It'd be beyond our comprehension.

As for why he did all this specifically, he likely wants to save that as a moral of the story at the end because he dislikes spoilers. Seriously. The Bible makes it clear he dislikes spoilers. God is 99% likely to be a huge fan of writing and novels. Hell he probably loves fiction that portrays a version of him as evil and/or exaggerated most of all, reading the Bible really gives me that vibe now that I think about it. He probably will give Gnosticism "God's Best Alternate History Award" and may pardon some Gnostics, also contemplating the possibility of that being true and giving him an existential crisis. Or not, but not the point I'm making.


That's my answer.

It's long, complicated, and confusing, but honestly:

Assuming that the Bible is true, it fits God's descripted character perfectly, so makes sense.


God is really the biggest H.P. Lovecraft fan there is, loving Lovecraft's made-up Reality before it was cool.

I enjoyed reading this, thank you.

[Highever]

As far as I know, truth doesn't need worshippers, punishments/rewards, etc. All it needs is evidence, which in my opinion is something all religions lack.

Finally someone with common sense besides the atheists on this thread who also have common sense!

I mean it might not be proof to you and I but to those beleive it isnt about proof, it's about faith.

[UIJ]

which god

Obviously I'd prefer him to just show up one day and prove it

but that's not gunna happen because muh book says so

But even then, he could suck my dick because fuck em, you don't just get away with giving my cat cancer, fucker.