Are there good reasons for accepting God?

[marco]

God is invisible: we cannot see or hear him. He makes no announcements. If he hides, he hides very well - but why? The testimony he exists in the Abrahamic sense comes from people for whom a telephone would seem miraculous, from people who thought thunder was God's voice, from people whose science told them the rainbow must be a sign from heaven and from people who thought heaven was up, and God would jump onto a mountain to climb down to us, and people would rise vertically into the air to reach God's house.

There is thus plenty to scoff at.

So WHY would a reasonable person accept the Abrahamic God?

Is there anything today that would lead us to say: "Yes! He exists all right."

Or is the case against him pretty clear?

[marco]

It depends how you see the personal God of the Bible.

If you are referring to the classical perfect, omni-benevolent type, it is a pretty closed case I am afraid with no chance of reopening because of the several problems like: The problem of evil (entropy-natural evils(black holes, exploding supernovas.....

......annihilation incompatible with both perfect justice and perfect mercy, scapegoating incompatible with perfect justice, none of the billions of free will creatures from Hell/Lake of Fire in an infinite amount of time will repent and ask for forgiveness).

I'm not sure we've addressed the question about accepting the Biblical God. We might accept him because he's fierce and frightening. The theological problems of evil that spawned a few heresies and dead heretics are not directly involved with our acceptance of Yahweh nor is his supposed dangerous gift of free will.

We have an account of Yahweh's deeds. Do they inspire us to accept him?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 11 by marco]

"We have an account of Yahweh's deeds. Do they inspire us to accept him?"

Q: Are you asking if the existence of a malevolent God can be reasonable accepted as a possibility or if a malevolent God can ever be the object of our worship?

[marco]

[Replying to post 11 by marco]

"We have an account of Yahweh's deeds. Do they inspire us to accept him?"

Q: Are you asking if the existence of a malevolent God can be reasonable accepted as a possibility or if a malevolent God can ever be the object of our worship?

Is he malevolent? Many disagree.

Can we reasonably worship a malevolent God? Wisdom would suggest that, if we're persuaded of the God's existence, it is clear we eat dirt if we have to.

The broader issue is whether we can read the Bible and deduce, reasonably, that the main character is non-fictional. I myself believe no. He is an obvious artefact of nomadic traits and prejudices - at least to me.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to marco]

“Is he malevolent? Many disagree. “

The only logical possibility compatible with the Bible and/or the reality of our universe is a very powerful(but not omnipotent), imperfect, malevolent God(Yahweh) masquerading as good too.
The perfect, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is logically impossible to exist when looking together at the bible and reality of our universe.


“The broader issue is whether we can read the Bible and deduce, reasonably, that the main character is non-fictional. I myself believe no. He is an obvious artefact of nomadic traits and prejudices - at least to me.�

Because the collection of books that represent the Bible consists mostly of legends, allegories, symbolic fiction, stories of mythical creatures and just some elements related to actual history is highly probable that the God of the Bible is just the result of some illiterate goat herders from the bronze age projecting and nothing more.

The possibility even as remote as it is of a malevolent God i think remains.

[1213]

...Jesus, a man, is God.

Bible tells that there is only one true God and Jesus is God’s temple, God dwells in Jesus and is greater than Jesus, according to the Bible. That is why I think it is not Biblical claim that Jesus is the God.

[marco]

The possibility even as remote as it is of a malevolent God I think remains.

Given the savagery on which nature builds herself, the explosive planet on which we live and the threats of destruction from outside our galaxy one can readily deduce a sadistic creator. The dramatic touches in the OT where a being wipes out all life on Earth just because he alleges everyone is nasty add weight to this conclusion. His absurd command for some old guy to build a boat big enough to contain a city of animals is amusing rather than a matter of sadism. Why didn't he supply one?

Thankfully we can dismiss Yahweh with the same relief that we dismiss any other fictional villain.

His requiring foreskins for trophies and his silly contract using a rainbow lead me to accept my reasoning isn't flawed.

[liamconnor]

God is invisible: we cannot see or hear him. He makes no announcements.

Excepting, of course, those incidents in recorded history where he seems to have communicated; I suppose you really mean, "not to me personally"?

If he hides, he hides very well - but why?

I think this would be a very good argument if the majority of the world were atheists. Since many seem to have "found him", his plan seems to be working out quite well.

The testimony he exists in the Abrahamic sense comes from people for whom a telephone would seem miraculous

,

Not sure how you know this? Perhaps they would be amazed, and then when it was explained to them, they would accept it as an advancement.

from people who thought thunder was God's voice

,

They all thought this???

from people whose science told them the rainbow must be a sign from heaven

whose science?? What are you going on about? They told stories about prehistory like the majority of the cultures. We do not even know if they believed all of them.

and from people who thought heaven was up

,

Incorrect. They may have talked as if heaven were up; very educated theologians do so today.

and God would jump onto a mountain to climb down to us

,

If you are referring to the tower of Babel, literary analysis would help clear up quite a bit.

and people would rise vertically into the air to reach God's house.

??

So WHY would a reasonable person accept the Abrahamic God?

Historical analysis of the resurrection. Explaining common experience, like objective morality (which, despite the nonsense that floats about here, is universal). Aristotle's argument from motion/change.

Is there anything today that would lead us to say: "Yes! He exists all right."

By "us" do you mean "you"? Then obviously not.

[Justin108]

If he hides, he hides very well - but why?

I think this would be a very good argument if the majority of the world were atheists.

The majority of the world might not be atheists but they are non-Christians. Only about 30% of the world is Christian. Which means 70% of the world have not "found" God.

Since many seem to have "found him"

Define "found him"? Does the fact that you think he exists mean you found him?

his plan seems to be working out quite well.

So his plan is for only 30% of the world's population to believe in him?

So WHY would a reasonable person accept the Abrahamic God?

Historical analysis of the resurrection.

The historic analysis would conclude that a man died and his tomb was later found to be empty. How would a reasonable person conclude the Abrahamic God based on this?

Explaining common experience, like objective morality (which, despite the nonsense that floats about here, is universal). Aristotle's argument from motion/change.

Neither of these arguments would conclude an Abrahamic God. At best, they would conclude that some sort of deity exists but not that that deity is necessarily YHWH. What reason is there to accept the Abrahamic God?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Excepting, of course, those incidents in recorded history where he seems to have communicated; I suppose you really mean, "not to me personally"?

Which "incidents" are you referring to exactly?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to liamconnor]

Marco : Are there good reasons for accepting God?

You: “Historical analysis of the resurrection."

We only have some bogus anecdotal evidence from 2000 years old.

We have the same testimonial evidence for the miracles of Sathya Say Baba(he apparently healed himself in front of the thousands of people gathered in Prashanthi Nilayam who were then praying for his recovery.), The Greys(abductions) and for any other miracle(from other religions), supernatural, paranormal event out there.

We have sincere and vivid accounts of one’s encounter with an angel or the Virgin Mary, an alien, a ghost, a Bigfoot, a child claiming to have lived before, purple auras around dying patients, a miraculous dowser, a levitating guru, and so one.

We have The Miracle of the Sun experienced by tens of thousands of people if not millions in Fatima, Portugal. According to many witnesses the sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth before zig-zagging back to its normal position.


But the logic dictates if not suffering of bias, special pleading you should also believe in reincarnation, The Greys(aliens), Bigfoot, Ghosts, and so one; like you believe in the miracle of Christianity because the evidence is the same: (anecdotal (testimonial) evidence).

But since you don’t you are therefore not rational in your belief.




You: “Explaining common experience, like objective morality (which, despite the nonsense that floats about here, is universal).�

Morality is explained by the natural phenomenon called evolution. No need for God.

“Premoral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.�

Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Empathy.

As a result of this mirroring process =empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the empathic process) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality(therefore this is objectively true) mostly guided by:

“The Golden Rule� or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

Also,
“Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups.[20] The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Both objective morality(=Golden Rule<—Empathy<—Mirror Neurons) and religion are quite well explain by evolution. No need for God.
Therefore you don’t have any grounds in saying your belief is rational.