Someone who calls themselves an athiest has posted the following: “Yes it is possible there is some god like being out there but it would be so far from our ability to understand that it would be a waste of time trying to. ” (I have been blocked from making any further comments on their blog. So I won’t give credit to the author of this quote)
I find this interesting for one reason. This person makes the admition that there is a possibility for the existance of God. But considers chasing after this thread of possibility a waste of time. Fine. Is it appropriate to dismiss any possible hope simply because we can’t have it all? And has that author considered the meaning of the word Grace?
It’s much like saying, “I don’t know how to build a house. So I’ll just live out here on the grass.” We are warned that a simplistic approach to God is unwise. Wouldn’t it be better to at least apply the same primary truths to our search for God that we apply to our own physical world? But his (I assume it’s a he) approach is to dismiss the entire thing. It is a choice one can make. But I can’t possibly agree that it’s the best approach to God.
If we consider the worst case sinario of man’s descriptions regarding God and what His demands are, we are put to a serious task of bending our lives toward His nature so as to avoid any possible eternity in hell. Now, don’t we do that with storm warnings? We hear it on the radio or TV. We look out our window and see no sign of the warned storm. Should we just ignore the warning? No one will ignore it. They will make choices in regard to the warning. And in the above quote I suppose we can surmise that this person has made a choice.
But look at this person’s comment. This one decides that chasing after further knowledge is a useless cause. Ok. Then, when it comes to teaching anything at all, this person must accept a “no response” from those who read his posts. After all, isn’t that what he is doing with any possible knowledge of God? Fine. Another quote comes to mind, “As you wish”.
By His Grace.
Words From There 
I agree. Credible evidence pointing to the existence of God would be worth following even at great cost. At the very least, in the case of evidence for a non-theistic / non-personal god for example, it would be of enormous scientific value. It would be of unfathomable spiritual value in the case of evidence for a theistic / personal God for example.
LikeLike
There are two problems I sense. Both come from the Christian experience. I believe you’re wishing there were credible and provable proof (isn’t that what “proof” indicates?). You won’t find it. I gave the reason for this before. But I don’t mind saying it again. Man is a very rebellious animal. And he is proud of his rebellion. This same pride would readily carry over to any understanding and appreciation of God. And we see this played out every day among those who call themselves Christians. “Oh! God loves me! I must be a wonderful person”. So God has blinded man from all possible scientific proofs. The proof you’re going to find is the creation itself, of which we are an undeniable part.
The other item is a very personal situation. Once a man has accepted God at the face value of the Bible (and, perhaps the testimony of those who know Him) he enters into a sort of contract with the Most High. The man begins to turn his mind and actions toward what he reads and hears or sees. And God will reach into that man’s soul to help him as he applies himself. As God has said, “Humble yourself before the Lord. And in due time He will lift you up”.
I can testify this: We don’t just believe in Jesus. We learn to Know Him. This is why it’s so utterly impossible for science to confront the true Christian experience.
I know the intellect can’t accept what I’ve just said. But I think I’ve given sufficent reason from the Christian’s perspective..
by His Grace.
LikeLike
If there were a God who wanted us to know that He existed, I expect He could easily provide the proof, just as I can provide proof that I exist. Since we don’t have any proof, then either there is no God, or if there is a God, He doesn’t want us to know for a fact that He exists. You can I can agree on this since you believe that “God has blinded man from all possible scientific proofs.” And if you believe that, then you also have to agree that what you refer to as “Creation”, and what I refer to as the universe, is no proof that God exists.
We can go one step further and say that if there is no credible evidence that God exists, then either there is no God, or if there is a God, He doesn’t want us to have a reason to believe that He exists.
I personally don’t demand proof before I would be willing to believe that gods exist. I think that demanding proof is an unreasonable position and that is why I agreed with you in my first comment to this post. I do think it’s reasonable to demand credible evidence though. Believing that something is true when the belief isn’t based in evidence is “blind faith”. If we were to accept blind faith as a reliable way for us to know what is true, then we would also have to agree that it is equally likely that Allah demands jihad, that Santa Claus brings presents at Christmas, and that Jesus arose from the dead.
LikeLike
I’m sorry I took so long to get back to you on this. I missed your comment, evidently. I did have a “proof” as I considered God. It was called the Bible. And as I read it, I simply believed what I was reading. I can’t say I believed it all, for understanding has to accompany any belief. A lot of terms, hidden meanings, and cultural practises, escaped my ability to grasp them.
This, however, was proof enough for me. And it seems to have produced a pretty healthy crop of trust between myself and God.
LikeLike