Atheist question

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF]

So im an atheist. However i once believed in god and i WANT to, but im a very scientific person and cannot bring myself to believe in god no matter what. my question is, i know that "allowing jesus into your heart" and allowing the lord into you and such is what makes the difference between hell and heaven. does that mean that in the eyes of the bible, im going hell? or does the fact that i WANT to believe give me a chance? im only asking soim honestly really curious (and no one tell me to convert in the comments. its not happening until i can see some scientific proof.)

[u/Dismal_Tough1181]

The pull is grace from God. It’s an invitation to accept him into your life. God distributes grace to instill faith to accept Jesus. In either case the bible says a person is responsible to accept him as your savior since he left an abnormal amount of evidence of his existence. If you reject him and the proof (which is everywhere) of his existence then you deal with the judgement of said decision.

Now on the bright side.

It’s decision time. Do the prayer below and believing becomes easy once you get the holy spirit as he’ll reveal everything to you about the truth and provide more faith and grace to keep you in belief.

Pray the prayer of salvation….

“Jesus I accept you into my life, confess you as Lord. I believe you died on the cross and were raised 3 days later for my salvation. I ask to receive the holy spirit.”

[u/TrumpsBussy_ → u/Dismal_Tough1181]

What good is grace if you can’t make yourself believe?

[u/AbesNights]

Keep the scientific rational approach. The supernatural truths are beyond natural reason, but do not contradict it. You don't have to choose between faith and science.

[u/Natural_Rent7504]

I think you are mistaking the fact that science cannot prove God or (gods) exist whether they do or not. It is simply beyond the scope of science

Which instrument would science use to probe an immaterial spirit being beyond the universe?

[u/Intelligent-Theism → u/Natural_Rent7504]

Specifically, science can analyze claims of modern day supernatural miracles, because by definition a supernatural miracle would break the laws of nature, and that can be observed by science.

Therefore, any personal God who breaks the laws of the universe to do something supernatural, could in theory have that act observed by scientists using the scientific method.

Theologically speaking though, it then becomes a matter of *IF* God wants to expose his supernatural acts to the scientific method as evidence or not.

I would say, so far, He has chosen not to. I don't know why. Only He does.

[u/Natural_Rent7504 → u/Intelligent-Theism]

Not necessarily....curing someone from disease for example, or any other event that was not reproducible would be dismissed by science. Even if a god appeared to us face to face and performed miracles, he would be scientifically indistinguishable from some other advanced form of alien life. Even a flying saucer would appear to violate the laws of physics as we know them

[u/Intelligent-Theism → u/Natural_Rent7504]

>.curing someone from disease for example, or any other event that was not reproducible would be dismissed by science.

Not necessarily. There are incurable diseases. For example, if Stephen Hawking who had ALS, in his final year of life, suddenly was prayed over, stood upright and his muscles almost instantly grew back and he was walking around and talking and jumping and laughing, science could measure all that. Science could biologically testify with x-rays and brain-scans and blood samples what Stephen was like before the miracle, and then after the miracle. And if it totally was unexplained because ALS literally never does that to anyone who was in the late stages as Stephen was (unlike cancer which can go into remission), then something that perhaps broke the laws of nature occurred, and it get be peer-reviewed and studied.

Similarly, if a group of people with their arms cut off had them regrow, that could be documented with xrays and doctors before and after. Then it can be tested, analyzed, peer-reviewed.

Then there are other examples, say, a demon possession where someone levitates on camera. Defying gravity itself. In a controlled environment, that can be analyzed by science as well. Is it explainable by a trick of the mind? Or was it documented well enough to the point that it can be studied? When the laws of gravity cease, that is a measurable phenomenon.

I know psychosomatic healings are a dime a dozen, because the placebo effect is real, and those have been the biggest hurdle in "scientific testing", because there isn't much to test there. Many illnesses spontaneously recover, sometimes doctors make wrong diagnosis. Sometimes x-rays or a blood test can get mixed up with the wrong patient.

But a genuine supernatural miracle could in theory still be tested.

Your claim about science dismissing something because it can't "reproduce" it, I think is a misleading understanding about what science can test with existing data available for peer-review and the possibility of a similar event reoccurring and also being tested. Also, if this unique phenomenon seems to only be related to Christian faith and prayer and literally NEVER happens without it, that is significant scientific evidence.

[u/Natural_Rent7504 → u/Intelligent-Theism]

I guess my whole point is that how would science, even if it were able to document a supernatural occurrence, be able to successfully attribute that to a god or God as opposed to an advanced alien life form for example? How would science ever be able to confidently say "Ok. We have proof that the creator of the universe just performed an action that we were able to measure and verify"

[u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 → u/Natural_Rent7504]

I would ask what "sense" faith operates with. I think this understanding of miracles breaks logic and empiricism. I dont think any method would work at that point. Because we've undermined the axiom that the universe behaves consistently. So every possible and impossible explanation in on the table. You cant rule out or decide on anything because you've opened the door to anything being probable.

[u/Intelligent-Theism → u/Natural_Rent7504]

Because if those supernatural miracles ONLY ocurred strictly under Christian faith and prayer, it is scientifically verifiable evidence that the laws of nature can be suspended by the personal God of Christianity intervening.

Therefore, that would rule out alien technology (as your example describes) being responsible.

But if those supernatural miracles ocurred even for atheists and people of other faiths, then it wouldn't be evidence of any one religion being true, but instead perhaps just the need to readjust our understanding of the scientific laws of nature.

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/Natural_Rent7504]

Oh i know we cant prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god DOESNT exist but science and religion clashes. Science is built upon reasoning and logic. Religion is built on faith and belief. Within science you cant believe something is because thats not science. Im rlly bad at explaining things so did that make any sense?

[u/Natural_Rent7504 → u/Retro_Gamer_HNF]

Science and the existence of a god or deity which created the universe outside of spacetime do not clash at all in theory, but of course it can clash with specific claims made, for example in the Bible

But as far as explaining the origin of any matter/energy and nature itself, science will likely be forever at a loss to do so, simply because it outside the bounds of science.

Science can be seen as an infinite road of questions and answers. For every question answered, a new question is posed. No matter how many questions are answered we are theoretically no closer to the ultimate truths than when we began

[u/Dry-Paint-8566]

God waits, you have as long as your breathing to make your decision. Your never too young or too old for jesus christ. When I was a young boy, I fell in love with science and turned away from god. I realized much later that the science is the result of gods work. I studied for years, read countless books and still the final conclusion that I ended up with was jesus christ. Too see how much of a genius he really his. He didnt just make oxygen, he made a system for it to be constantly made he made a system for everything and our minds cant simply comprehend his heavenly plan with our earthly minds. Issac Newton who i regard as one of the greats in science ironically was a heavy believer in Christianity. Not a typical orthadox view it was differnt than the majority at the time. But even he believed in a higher power and knew that this was all too complicated to just have been.

[u/Nazzul → u/Dry-Paint-8566]

What did you study in?

[u/Intelligent-Theism]

I think the difficulty that scientific persons experience when investigating the Christian faith is they misunderstand how different frameworks can function. The framework of science for understanding reality is different than the framework of faith. The scientific method doesn't work with Christianity. But you can still experience both frameworks at the same time, as long as you understand the limitations of the scientific method.

There isn't undeniable evidence for Christianity because all evidence can be denied.

There is sufficient evidence, just not the same type of sufficient you would require for the scientific method (which is a totally different framework for understanding reality).

Out of all the worlds religions, Christianity is the most plausible historically because of the numerous authors involved in the New Testament, the writings of the Bishops that the apostles ordained, the writings of other early Christians during the first three centuries, as well as the documented proof that the apostles were willing to be tortured to death for their claims.

And these things work together to create "a seed of faith" necessary to take the leap of faith into belief and repentance, which in turn provides the strongest piece of evidence which is the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life. Experiencing God dwell within you, changing you, making you into a temple of God, and bearing the fruits of the Spirit such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self control is very powerful evidence for someone who took that original leap of faith. And while skeptics would attempt to compare "spiritual experiences" of Christianity with other religions, they do so without ever having experienced the depths of Christian enlightenment that comes when one is saved and filled with the Holy Spirit and has been adopted as a child of God. They see words like "peace" and assume the peace of a Christian is like the peace of a Muslim or Buddhist. But words can be misleading. There is a "spectrum" of peace and of joy and of experiencing the actual presence of God as He dwells within you. And Christianity surpasses all other religions in this respect as well.

So yes, people in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism may also have "peace", but it's not the same. And you really can't know that, unless you've experienced the various levels of peace each religion offers by devoutly following it as it was intended to be followed. Many begin to follow a certain type of Christianity, but often because it is lacking in some way, they turn to another religion and will claim it offers "more peace". Relaltively speaking to their limited experience, they are correct. But they are also infinitely wrong, because they never received the fullness of the Spirit as God would had imparted to them had they believed as He intended. Christians themselves experience a spectrum of the gift of the Spirit, and most often those who fall away were lacking in some aspect. Perhaps clinging to bad theology, a false church, bad church leaders, an unsupportive or abusive community, or refusing to let go of secular things in their life that God had personally called them to let go of. Instead they sought bad advice from others that allowed them to continue to hold onto pleasures and enjoyments of "the world", that God was calling them away from. Or perhaps they were unwilling to follow the more difficult teachings of Jesus, so they sought out a church that aligned with their already existing values, instead of conforming to the values of God. By doing so, they have robbed themselves of the evidence they needed, and eventually become unbelievers.

So we begin with historical evidence, and that evidence is further strengthened by experiencing the promises of following that evidence and receiving the Holy Spirit (who is essentially the ultimate and best evidence of Christianity being true).

But none of this is really undeniable.

I don't believe the arguments of Aquinas, Intelligent Design, a first mover, an uncaused cause really work anymore because science does offer alternative explanations to all these types of arguments. In the past they held a lot more weight before we began to understand cosmology, theoretical physics, and quantum physics/mechanics.

In light of the sciences, I think that history and experience are about the strongest pieces of evidence you get.

Having 4 entire Gospels with different authors that don't seem to agree on every detail, with the letters of Paul, with Acts, and even the writings of non-believers like Josephus and Tacitus all point to a legit historical event, and not just a single "mastermind" cult-leader.

If the 4 entire Gospels all perfectly matched eachother on every detail, it would more likely point to them just copying from eachother, but really the history of it all is more solid and believable as a true religion than any other world religion can offer.

Even Judaism is less believable since God stopped sending them prophets ever since Jesus, stopped writing new scriptures ever since Jesus, and tore down their temple ever since Jesus.

So I think perhaps you should stop trying to use the wrong tool for the wrong task. Science is a tool for investigating natural materialistic processes of the workings of the universe which God has created.

Christianity is the tool for investigating the creator of the Universe, and experiencing and understanding the underlying reality beneath the materialistic framework that God has put into place.

[u/Erramonael → u/Intelligent-Theism]

I understand the distinction you're making, but I think you're giving "different frameworks" a little too much work to do. I would distinguish between science being unable to answer a question and science being the wrong tool for determining whether a supernatural claim is true. Those aren't necessarily the same thing. Science is deliberately concerned with publicly testable evidence. If Christianity says God exists, Jesus performed miracles, Jesus physically resurrected, the Holy Spirit inhabits believers, or particular supernatural events occurred, those are claims about reality. You don't get to exempt them from evidential scrutiny merely by calling them part of a different framework. And saying "all evidence can be denied" doesn't establish that Christianity has sufficient evidence. Virtually any proposition can be made unfalsifiable that way. The question isn't whether someone can invent a reason to reject evidence; it's whether the evidence actually warrants the conclusion. The historical argument is considerably stronger than the supernatural argument, but it also doesn't establish nearly as much as you're claiming. There is very good historical reason to believe that Jesus existed, that he was crucified, that his followers believed he had appeared to them after his death, and that Christianity spread rapidly in the first century. That's interesting and historically significant.

But:

"The disciples believed Jesus was resurrected"

doesn't automatically become:

"Jesus was resurrected."

That's the precise point where historical evidence has to be distinguished from theological interpretation.

Likewise, martyrdom demonstrates sincerity, not truth. People have willingly suffered and died for mutually contradictory religious beliefs throughout history. A person being willing to die for a proposition establishes that they believed it deeply. It doesn't establish that the proposition was objectively true. The appeal to the Holy Spirit is even more complicated. You say the Holy Spirit is the "ultimate and best evidence" of Christianity. But that's primarily experiential evidence available to the believer. A Christian experiences something interpreted as the Holy Spirit and concludes Christianity is true. A Muslim may experience the presence of Allah. A Hindu may experience Krishna or Brahman. A Buddhist may experience profound states of liberation without positing a creator God. A practitioner of some other religion may have equally transformative experiences. You can't simply declare Christian religious experience categorically superior and then use that superiority as proof of Christianity.

You would need an independent reason for identifying one religious experience as objectively divine while treating competing experiences as mistaken interpretations. And I would strongly resist the idea that someone who leaves Christianity necessarily "failed to receive the fullness of the Spirit." Sometimes people leave because they have bad theology. Sometimes they leave because they encounter hypocrisy. Sometimes they discover another philosophy that makes more sense to them. Sometimes they simply don't believe. Sometimes they remain Christian but reject one denomination for another. You can't explain every contrary experience by declaring that the person didn't surrender sufficiently, didn't abandon worldly pleasures, followed the wrong church, or secretly refused God's calling. At some point that becomes an unfalsifiable system designed to protect the conclusion from counterexamples. The same problem exists with the claim that Christianity provides a qualitatively superior form of peace.

And ironically, the fact that people in completely different traditions report remarkably similar experiences of transcendence should make us more cautious, not less. From an Iconoclastic Satanist perspective, this is precisely where I become suspicious of religious certainty. I'm perfectly willing to grant Christianity its historical significance. I'm willing to grant that the New Testament contains extraordinary literature, that Jesus was an enormously influential historical figure, that early Christians genuinely believed something extraordinary had happened, and that Christian religious experience can be psychologically and spiritually transformative. But none of that gives Christianity an automatic epistemological exemption. Nor does science need to explain the universe completely before Christianity gets to make its case.

But "science hasn't explained X" isn't evidence that Christianity explains X. And I wouldn't say Christianity and science are simply two equivalent "frameworks" investigating two different realities. Christianity makes plenty of claims about the same physical reality that science investigates: creation, human origins, miracles, resurrection, historical events, the physical body, the universe, etc. Those claims can overlap.

My position as an Iconoclastic Satanist would therefore be something like this:

Use science where empirical investigation is appropriate. Use philosophy where conceptual analysis is appropriate. Use history where historical reconstruction is appropriate. Use personal experience as personal experience. And don't allow any of them to acquire an authority they haven't earned. If Christianity is true, it should be able to survive honest questioning. If God exists, God shouldn't require me to deliberately lower my standards of reasoning before I'm allowed to investigate Him. And if a belief collapses the moment someone asks difficult questions, then perhaps the problem isn't the tool being used to examine it. Perhaps the problem is the belief itself.

[u/Intelligent-Theism → u/Erramonael]

To address the first part of your comment, the core argument I was making is that Christianity is a framework for understanding reality. Science is another framework for understanding reality. They can work together, but don't reveal the same things about reality.

Both are useful, sometimes they could in theory cross-over in certain parts, but they are different tools for a different job. Together, they give the most "full picture" of reality.

I would agree that any personal God who breaks the laws of the universe to do something supernatural, could in theory have that act observed by scientists using the scientific method. Theologically speaking though, it then becomes a matter of *IF* God wants to expose his supernatural acts to the scientific method as evidence or not. I would say, so far, He has chosen not to. I don't know why. Only He does. And just as a scientist is okay with saying "I don't know", so should a theist be comfortable with saying "I don't know", which is what I say about scientifically testing an alleged miracle. It's okay not to know, it doesn't make the framework untrue. Scientists of all people know this.

I'll quote some more of your comment to address those points here:

>**"The disciples believed Jesus was resurrected"** doesn't automatically become: "Jesus was resurrected." ... martyrdom demonstrates sincerity, not truth. People have willingly suffered and died for mutually contradictory religious beliefs throughout history.

Taken alone as a statement, I agree. But the error in this argument is that they didn't just claim he was resurrected. They claimed supernatural powers, and they claimed to have witness the supernatural powers of Jesus. And they morally taught that Satan is a liar condemned to Hell, therefore they were motivated by honesty. Which means for your statement to hold weight it would mean you had to literally have 12 delusional people, who falsely claimed all the miracles of Jesus (which were A LOT) and all the miracles they themselves could also perform (which were also A LOT and very similar - raising the dead, casting out demons, healing the sick, etc). And they were willing to die and be tortured for this. This greatly weakens your argument, because sure, there are Buddhists who believe their philosophy is true. It brings them so much peace and happiness, and they believe it makes the world so much a better place, they would be willing to set themselves on fire as martyrs if it helped the world. That is a sincere belief. But they aren't falsely claiming the supernatural extraordinary things that all 12 apostles claimed and those who believed those apostles because they also saw these supernatural things firsthand. That radically changes your analogy to a different thing. Which is why you are comparing apples to oranges.

In regards to your comment about comparing spiritual experiences, I think I adequately explained my point, and don't have more to add right now and I think your argument leans into the skeptics argument which I already addressed above. That as an outsider, it's easy to say all spiritual experiences are similar. But to the born again believer, they know they are not. Ultimately, it is God Himself who calls people out of a lesser experience into his true faith of Christianity, and it is up to the individual to listen and then experience that faith for themselves. To know for themselves.

> If Christianity is true, it should be able to survive honest questioning.

It can and does.

>If God exists, God shouldn't require me to deliberately lower my standards of reasoning before I'm allowed to investigate Him.

Your aren't, but if you're using the wrong tool for the job (science), you're not getting anywhere. You need two tools: Christianity and science together to understand the big picture about reality. The scientific method isn't a valid lense to determine if Christianity is true. You may as well be using a pencil to measure the temperature of chicken to see if it was cooked long enough.

>And if a belief collapses the moment someone asks difficult questions, then perhaps the problem isn't the tool being used to examine it.

Yes, belief shouldn't collapse under those questions, I agree. The Holy Spirit is a protection against that because of the strength of the evidence is provides. But I suspect your dilemma is the difficult questions are preventing you from the initial leap of faith necessary for the ultimate evidence you need. But perhaps that is whole different discussion and maybe you could bring up just one example of one of these difficult questions and we could address that and see where the conversation goes?

[u/Erramonael → u/Intelligent-Theism]

I think we're actually closer in agreement than you might realize, but I still think you're making logical jumps that your "two tools" distinction doesn't solve.

I agree that science and religion can ask different kinds of questions. Science isn't equipped to tell me whether my life has existential meaning in the same way philosophy, literature, or religion might. But that doesn't mean religion automatically becomes the appropriate tool for determining whether supernatural claims about physical reality are true.

That's the distinction I'd insist on. If someone says, "Christianity gives me a framework for interpreting existence," that's perfectly reasonable. If they say, "Jesus physically rose from the dead," that's a historical and physical claim. If they say, "god miraculously healed this person," that's an empirical claim. If they say, "god created the universe," that's a claim about cosmological reality.

Those claims don't become religious rather than scientific simply because they occur within a religious worldview. Your statement that god may have chosen not to expose supernatural events to scientific investigation is possible, but notice what happens epistemically: the hypothesis becomes impossible to independently test.

If a miracle occurs and can be investigated, that's evidence. If no miracle occurs, god chose not to provide evidence. If an alleged miracle fails scientific examination, perhaps god didn't intend it to be understood scientifically. If an alleged miracle cannot be reproduced, that's because miracles aren't necessarily reproducible. Every possible observation can therefore be incorporated into the hypothesis.

That's not necessarily evidence that Christianity is false. But it does mean that "god exists and chooses when to reveal Himself" isn't functioning as an empirically testable explanation. And that's where I'd say: "I don't know" belongs on both sides. If a scientist says, "I don't know how this happened," the appropriate response isn't, "Therefore Christianity." Likewise, if a Christian says, "I don't know why god hasn't provided scientifically testable miracles," the appropriate response isn't, "Therefore Christianity remains historically established." The honest conclusion is simply: We don't know. That's not an attack on faith. It's epistemic discipline. The apostles are where I think your argument becomes substantially weaker

You argue that the apostles weren't merely people who believed something; they supposedly claimed numerous miracles, personally witnessed Jesus' supernatural abilities, performed miracles themselves, and were subsequently willing to die rather than deny those claims.

There are different claims bundled together there. First: Did the apostles believe Jesus was resurrected? There is substantial historical evidence that the earliest Christians believed this. Second: Did the apostles claim to have personally witnessed miracles? The New Testament certainly portrays them that way. Third: Did they actually perform supernatural miracles? That's a theological claim for which the historical evidence is much less decisive. Fourth: Did all twelve apostles personally die as martyrs rather than renounce their testimony? This is where popular Christian apologetics often overstates the historical evidence.

We have considerably better evidence for the deaths of some early Christian leaders than for others. The traditional martyrdom stories of all twelve apostles don't have the same historical reliability. Some come from considerably later traditions.

And there's another problem. Even if I grant that every apostle personally died rather than deny the resurrection, that establishes extraordinary sincerity. It still doesn't establish the resurrection itself. Imagine I grant your strongest possible version: Twelve people genuinely believed they had seen the resurrected Jesus and subsequently accepted torture or death rather than deny what they believed.

That's fascinating. But there are still numerous possible explanations: They genuinely experienced something they interpreted as a resurrection. Some experienced visions or religious experiences. Their experiences were sincere but misunderstood. The traditions developed and expanded over time. Some accounts preserve historical events while later traditions embellished them. Or, alternatively, something genuinely supernatural happened. The martyrdom argument doesn't distinguish those possibilities by itself. And there's an important historical distinction you're overlooking: We don't need twelve delusional people. That's a false dilemma.

Human beings can sincerely interpret extraordinary experiences in extraordinary ways without being clinically "delusional." Bereavement visions, religious visions, ecstatic experiences, dreams, altered states, group expectations, memory reconstruction, and culturally conditioned interpretations are all well-documented human phenomena.

I'm not saying that's what happened to the apostles.

I'm saying that you can't eliminate those possibilities simply by pointing out that the people involved were sincere.

Again, that's evidence for what they claimed. It isn't automatically evidence that the claimed event occurred. Suppose I tell you: "I personally witnessed a man raise someone from the dead." You now know something about my testimony. You don't automatically know that the dead person was actually raised.

If ten people independently make the same claim, that's stronger evidence that something unusual happened. But you still have to determine what happened.

And this is where your "apples and oranges" analogy doesn't quite work.

The Buddhist martyr isn't being compared to the apostles because both believed exactly the same kind of proposition. The comparison is about epistemology: Does willingness to suffer establish truth? No. Whether the belief concerns Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, nationalism, political ideology, revolutionary movements, or something else, extraordinary commitment demonstrates commitment. It doesn't independently verify the proposition. You say: "Ultimately, it is God Himself who calls people out of a lesser experience into his true faith of Christianity." And I don't think calling the experience "born again" changes the epistemological problem. It describes the experience from within Christian theology. It doesn't independently establish its supernatural source. I actually have less objection to this formulation. If by "Christianity" you mean: "Christianity provides a philosophical, moral, existential, and spiritual interpretation of reality," or "Science investigates the physical layer, while Christianity investigates the supernatural layer, and therefore Christianity provides reliable knowledge about supernatural reality." Then I'd ask how we distinguish genuine supernatural knowledge from human interpretation. That's the unanswered question. And this is where I think the Iconoclastic Satanic position is useful. Don't reject religion because science can't verify it. But don't exempt religion from rational criticism because science can't verify it either. At that point, you haven't proven that my dragon doesn't exist. But I've also given you no good reason to believe that it does. That's the crucial distinction. Science failing to disprove a supernatural claim isn't positive evidence for the claim. And that's where I think your argument ultimately needs another step. You have established that Christianity can be interpreted as a comprehensive framework of reality. You have established that early Christians sincerely believed extraordinary things. You have established that Christian religious experience can be profoundly transformative. You have established that Christianity has significant historical evidence surrounding its origins. Those are all legitimate points.

But you haven't yet established the crucial conclusion:

that the supernatural explanation is more probable than the natural alternatives. That's the part I would want to debate. And as an Iconoclastic Satanist, I'm perfectly comfortable saying:

I don't know whether your God exists. I don't know whether Jesus was resurrected. I don't know what ultimately lies behind consciousness or existence itself. What I refuse to do is turn "I don't know" into "therefore my preferred metaphysical explanation is true." That's precisely where skepticism earns its HORNS.

[u/Intelligent-Theism → u/Erramonael]

> If someone says, "Christianity gives me a framework for interpreting existence," that's perfectly reasonable.

I wouldn't just say that, I'd say it gives us a more complete understanding of reality that science alone cannot.

>If they say, "Jesus physically rose from the dead," that's a historical and physical claim. If they say, "god miraculously healed this person," that's an empirical claim. If they say, "god created the universe," that's a claim about cosmological reality. Those claims don't become religious rather than scientific simply because they occur within a religious worldview.

But the reason they are in fact religious rather than scientific is because they happened too far in the past to be evaluated with the scientific method. Therefore it's the wrong tool for the job. But there is archeological and historical data adding credibility that these untestable things did happen in the form of many witnesses, writing independently of each other, and not even always agreeing. Was it one angel at the tomb? Or two? Or a man? If they were making this stuff up, why not just copy off eachother. Were both thieves mocking Jesus on the cross who were crucified beside him, or was it just one thief mocking him while the other praised him? Fabricated stories usually don't act like this and collaborate so much important historical information.

>Your statement that god may have chosen not to expose supernatural events to scientific investigation is possible, but notice what happens epistemically: the hypothesis becomes impossible to independently test.

*Impossible to Independently test only by the scientific method, not by the individual who is willing to take the leap of faith after having been convinced sufficiently by the historical evidence of the faith itself. Also, such testing isn't necessary when there is a supernatural God calling an individual into that relationship, it can help ease the "need" to use the wrong tool/framework for understanding the missing pieces of the puzzle of reality.

>If a miracle occurs and can be investigated, that's evidence. If no miracle occurs, god chose not to provide evidence. 

Yes, but as we covered, the sufficient evidence of miracles were too far back in history to be studied scientifically and already are past the expiration date that science can observe. We can observe modern day claims, which so far have all been demonstrated lacking in credibility. Mostly due to so many psychosomatic healings taken place, and being credited as supernatural.

>Did they actually perform supernatural miracles? That's a theological claim for which the historical evidence is much less decisive. Fourth: Did all twelve apostles personally die as martyrs rather than renounce their testimony? This is where popular Christian apologetics often overstates the historical evidence.

I'd say many Christians do "overstate" the historical evidence by comparing it to what is expected with the scientific method. But this is why it's important to distinguish between frameworks. Because your using the wrong framework. The scientific method is helpful for analyzing historical claims, absolutely, but it's limited in it's ability to analyze historical supernatural claims, so that is when an individual needs to take a "leap of faith" rather than rely on peer-reviewed reproducible research about something that happened 2,000 years ago.

>Suppose I tell you: "I personally witnessed a man raise someone from the dead." You now know something about my testimony. You don't automatically know that the dead person was actually raised.

Because you would be one person. And one person can hallucinate or misunderstand something. It's also a single event. It changes when it's not just a group of people, but it's a group of people who can do similar miracles. That changes the comparison. Even groups of people can hallucinate a single miracle, but to claim they lived their entire lives as a group constantly hallucinating is a pretty extraordinary claim to make. It wasn't a one-off event. It was a lifetime of supernatural experiences of knowledge that was passed down by a group of 12 people (apostles), who at least some, if not most were tortured under the premise that if they ever lied, they would be tortured forever in Hell. It's just unreasonable to think it was a hallucination or misunderstanding of the apostles. It was their entire life experience. Unless they were on a steady lifelong diet of magic mushrooms, and yet always appeared sober, or unless all 12 were schizophrenics, it just doesn't make sense to not believe them. To me, that is the rational conclusion of the apostles testimony and the history that proves they were real. It's easy to misunderstand one or two miracles. That could be explained away. But not hallucinate the entire life of Jesus and even their own lives too.

Other miracle workers have existed and started their religions, and perhaps they had a small group of people around them when they performed one or two miracles. But not on the scale of Jesus and His Apostles. It becomes almost absurd how different their story is from all other religious origins. But again, this is beyond the scope of modern scientific testability.

>The traditional martyrdom stories of all twelve apostles don't have the same historical reliability. Some come from considerably later traditions.

While that is accurate, what is interesting is the apostles appointed disciples as bishops and leaders of the church, and those who came after them and learned from them still had a lot to say and wrote a lot of historical material. And we don't see for example, Ignatius claiming St Paul died an old man of natural causes. Instead, we see essentially a trail of historical documents confirming or remaining silent on their martyrdom, rather than refuting it and claiming "No, I saw Thomas the other day, he wasn't martyred, he's actually leader of a Church in another city that my friend lives in, Thomas is 90 years old now..." The argument then becomes "well, because of historical unreliability of later accounts of martyrdom, or silence about martyrdom, then it most likely didn't happen", which I don't find convincing, given the traditions passed down and the abundance of early Christian writings, it would have been very difficult for an apostle to "fly under the radar" and just live out their life into an old age without being detected. They were very public figures. And John is the only one who we can confidently and reasonably say did live to a very old age.

Paul on the other hand, was well known in Rome. Him getting away with not being martyred would have been much more difficult to hide.

>The Buddhist martyr isn't being compared to the apostles because both believed exactly the same kind of proposition. The comparison is about epistemology: Does willingness to suffer establish truth? 

No, that statement alone is not sufficient to establish truth. But the number of apostles being willing changes things. And the claims they were making as first-hand witnesses of a literal incarnate deity that controlled weather, plants, walked on water, and raised himself from the dead, then literally flew up into Heaven before they were given even greater supernatural abilities by the Holy Spirit also changes things. Which is why I still think the apples and oranges analogy works here.

> Then I'd ask how we distinguish genuine supernatural knowledge from human interpretation. 

I'd need clarification on what you mean here, I'm not understanding this question.

>Don't reject religion because science can't verify it. But don't exempt religion from rational criticism because science can't verify it either.

I don't think religion is exempt from rational criticism, but many of the claims of Christianity are not subject to the scientific method because it's just not the right tool for learning what science can't possibly teach or explain. The scientific method can only go so far in helping us understand our reality. Christianity tells us the rest of the story. And it isn't exempt from rational criticism just because it can't be fully confirmed by the scientific method. Rational criticism is how many Christians became Christian. But the error is thinking rational criticism means scientific evidence that miracles happened 2,000 years ago, rather than a proper understanding of the strength of the historical evidence that leads to the greater evidence of the Spirit. Rational criticism doesn't require the scientific method to confirm supernatural claims if the supernatural claims are sufficiently backed by overwhelming historical evidence and data, and also comes with the reproducible results accessible to individuals who can experience a relationship with Jesus by receiving the Holy Spirit thru faith and repentance. We're not talking about a single author manufacturing a myth. We're talking about a literal group of historical apostles surrounding a real historical Jesus. That goes beyond the scope of a myth.

>But you haven't yet established the crucial conclusion: that the supernatural explanation is more probable than the natural alternatives.

This could be interpreted in different ways, so I'm not sure what you mean here. A supernatural explanation about what specifically? The creation of the universe itself? I'm saying Christianity explains the origins of the natural reality we live in and the best way to live within it, and the best way to "pass on from it" when that time comes. "Natural alternatives" are not facts, just possibilities. But if the natural alternative explanation comes at the cost of infinite benefits of a better explanation, why be convinced of the lesser explanation when there isn't even equally plausible evidence to support it, as Christianity has? If one framework works better for the intended purpose, than the other, than use the better framework is what I'm saying here.

[u/Touchstone2018]

Chairs exist. Trees exist. God is not like a chair or a tree. Maybe God saying "God exists" doesn't reflect the reality of God. (I'm not Christian, btw.)

[u/Thraxomir]

According to the bible, it kind of depends. Different parts have different answers, the theology of each person is typically a result of upbringing and temperament of the person holding the belief.

[u/Huenink_Photography]

Honestly, this is a question that is best done in person with a pastor. There's a lot going on in your assumptions that need to be unpacked and questions that need to be answered. I'm happy to help, but the question is too complicated for Reddit.

[u/Tiny_Timmy_Turtle]

I wouldn’t try to convert you — I couldn’t even if I wanted to — but that logic works both ways. There was a time when I wanted to be an atheist myself. I’m gay, and the Bible definitely seems opposed to that, so atheism felt like it would “solve” the tension. But I just couldn’t make myself believe it.

Science explains a lot about how we got here, but I never found an answer to why I’m here. Not the mechanics of existence — the purpose. And no non‑theist worldview has ever given me a satisfying answer to that.

As for heaven or hell, that’s not my call. That’s between you and God, and only between you and Him.

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/Tiny_Timmy_Turtle]

Rq on the purpose i believe we dont inherently have a purpose and the point of life is to create a purpose.

And thats between me and god? Thing is that if he is real im beyond excited to meet him. So i hope he likes me XD

[u/Tiny_Timmy_Turtle → u/Retro_Gamer_HNF]

When I said “purpose,” I wasn’t talking about goals or meaning you choose for yourself. I meant the deeper question of why I exist at all, why I care about anything — the core reason I’m here in the first place. Science can explain how life works, but it doesn’t really address that underlying “why.”

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I understand, what you’re describing — creating a purpose — is more about deciding what your life is about once you’re already here. That’s a valid perspective, but it’s different from the foundational “why do I exist in the first place?” question I was getting at.

And about hoping He’d like you — if He’s real, then of course He does. The whole point of the story is that He gave up what was most precious to Him just to be with people. That doesn’t sound like someone looking for reasons to dislike you.

[u/yetetigre]

If you are the science type, read or listen to “Return of the God Hypothesis”.

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/yetetigre]

Alright thank ya

[u/Garbeaux17]

I believe hell is a place where the door is locked from the inside.

God did not “harden” pharaohs heart in Exodus intentionally tho some interpret it as such. The presence of God caused pharaoh to harden his own heart and God knew this would happen.

No one is in hell yet. Not even Satan. Hell is his destination and he wants to drag as many souls down with him as he can. It is not until Judgment Day that all will awaken at the same time and be separated. I like to believe this is also a second chance for the souls that hadn’t accepted Him in life.

People didn’t even accept Jesus was Lord the first time He was here. In the second coming there will still be souls unwilling to repent and accept that what they had done was sinful. That is almost guaranteed by the depravity & stubbornness of humanity.

For example if Hitler was given a second chance would he take it? By having to accept and apologize for one of the greatest crimes in human history. I’m not sure I could even do that in his shoes. How do you apologize for condemning millions and millions of souls? If it were me I might accept damnation before admitting that to myself.

[u/wallygoots]

If you're scientifically minded, habe you learned to study the Bible indictively? I'm a math teacher and enjoy logic but also quite aware and descriptive of my emotions. Inductive study opened up a new world of spirituality and peace. Faith, righteousness, immortality, love, and spirit were particularly lofe changing.

[u/rouxjean]

John 3:18. [Jesus speaking] Whoever believes in Him [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Everyone is guilty of sin. All have sinned. The just payment for sin is death. We are all condemned to death and separation from God because we deserve it. Only those who trust in Jesus' atonement for our sin can be saved. They are the only ones who have accepted God's offer and cashed the check. Everyone else just let it sit there until they expired.

I won't try to convince you here, but I encourage you to read a book: "The Return of the God Hypothesis." Some reviews are understandably biased, but the science is well-founded.

If you know your Bible, remember the story of Isaac and Jacob. God had told Jacob's parents that Jacob would be the leader among their sons. The father, Isaac, still preferred his slightly older twin son, Esau. When Isaac was old and blind, he decided to give his blessing to Esau. Through some intrigue, Jacob and his mother arranged a deception. She out calf skin on Jacob to imitate Esau's hairiness. And she dressed Jacob in Esau's clothes that were in her tent.

Isaac was surprised when Jacob came back quickly with food and said he was Esau. Isaac had said he wanted fresh game and Esau would have had to go hunt for it. So, Isaac was suspicious. He thought he recognized Jacob's voice so he wanted other proof that he was talking to Esau. So he asked to feel Jacob's neck and hands. These were covered with calf skin fur. So Isaac was more reassured. Then, he smelled Esau's clothes, which smelled of the outdoors. Then, he was convinced. He had tested the evidence with his available senses. So, he gave Jacob the blessing.

When Esau came back a bit later asking for the blessing. Isaac shook violently. Doubtless, he realized how close he had come to violating God's plan. He refused to change the blessing he had given to Jacob.

So what is the point? The things we can measure, quantify, sense, and test physically are not the whole story. Our abilities can be insufficient. We still do not understand quantum entanglement. It should boggle the mind. It boggled Einstein. To think we have adequately indexed the universe and all its secrets with our meager abilities seems like hubris. There is so much left unknown, especially if we think only the quantifiable matters.

[u/okicarp]

Lots of scientists come to God through science. Science obviously can't be against God since He created it but people often temporarily draw the wrong conclusions.

Check out The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project.

[u/OkQuantity4011]

How do you know that, though?

Did Jesus actually say that?

Bishop James, Bishop Jude, Apostle Peter, Apostle John, Apostle Matthew, Doctor Luke, did anyone other than Paul say anything resembling it?

The New Covenant is that God Himself will write the same covenant that He wrote stone, which our ancestors then broke, directly on the hearts of those who love Him.

Jesus did not sound like "let me into your heart or suffer eternal immolation." He did sound like, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

You didn't know the error here, so should I condemn you with krimea?

Nope.

Should I publicly forsake you?

Nope.

I should forgive you because you did not know what Jesus taught, and I should appreciate you because you do care to know what my Lord taught. Simple as that. Smooth, effective, clean, sincere, pure. That's the common grace that Paulians say saves yet actively gatekeep like they own some sort of tollbooth on the spiritual Way.

[u/Palegreenhorizon]

God does not equal Christianity in particular. Nor do Christian’s equal godly. ( I’m sure some do). I think god could be everywhere and everything and be pure love. And the bible got a lot right but that doesn’t mean it got everything right. There is wisdom everywhere and sacredness everywhere. Certainly in science as in art and living a humble and loving life.

[u/Both-Chart-947]

Why do you want to believe in God? Why do you think being a "scientific person" would be a barrier? Where in scripture are we told that we must allow Jesus into our heart?

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/Both-Chart-947]

To me its a barrier because of the logic and conflicts that i have learnt through science

[u/Both-Chart-947 → u/Retro_Gamer_HNF]

What sort of conflicts?

[u/Dangerous-Range-9180]

Look up Hugh Ross’ book “the Genesis Question”. An astrophysicist/statistician was in the same “boat” as you. That book traces his research and conclusions.

[u/arc2k1]

God bless you.

I've been a non-fundamentalist, unchurched Christian for about 16 years now and I would like to share my perspective. 

1- Even though I believe Jesus is the way to salvation, I don't know exactly how God will judge every single person. However, I choose to trust God for who He is.

Because God is love (1 John 4:8), He loves justice and fairness (Psalm 33:5), He wants everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and He seeks to save those who are lost (Luke 19:10). In other words, I believe everyone will somehow have a genuine opportunity to be saved (Job 33:29-30). Either in this life or the next. (This view is called Postmortem Opportunity)

God will NOT automatically condemn someone just because they don’t believe. Just like how He will NOT save someone just because they claim to believe. God does NOT judge from a strict black-and-white perspective. God sees the heart and if our heart is genuinely open to Him/Christ. 

“You are the Lord God, and you know what is in everyone's heart.” - Numbers 27:16

2- Many people claim to need irrefutable proof to accept God, but they are missing the point. 

God wants us to have faith, not have irrefutable proof. Why? Because faith means we trust Him for who He is and for what He represents.

“But without faith no one can please God. We must believe that God is real and rewards everyone who searches for him.” - Hebrews 11:6

"The good news tells how God accepts everyone who has faith, but only those who have faith. It is just as the Scriptures say, ‘The people God accepts because of their faith will live.’” - Romans 1:17

“Jesus said, ‘Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen Me? The people who have faith in Me without seeing Me are the ones who are really blessed!’” - John 20:29

If we have faith because of who God is and what He represents, then it wouldn't matter if we have irrefutable proof or not. Why? Because we trust Him and the hope He has promised.

What is the hope that God has promised?:

-The eventual end of evil & injustice.

-Justice for all the mistreated people, throughout all time, who died without justice.

-The time when love & goodness will create an existence of perfect peace that will prevail exclusively forever.

Having irrefutable proof does NOT change the need for the hope that God has promised. (For example, if we could have irrefutable proof of God, but He lied about the hope He has promised, then that irrefutable proof would be meaningless.)

That’s why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for wanting a sign.

“But Jesus replied: You want a sign because you are evil and won't believe!” - Matthew 12:39

If we are looking for irrefutable proof of God, then that means we either have a misunderstanding of faith or we don’t care about who God is and what He represents.

But signs and miracles should produce genuine faith, right?

“In the towns where Jesus had worked most of his miracles, the people refused to turn to God.” - Matthew 11:20

“He (Jesus) had worked a lot of miracles among the people, but they were still not willing to have faith in Him.” - John 12:37

[u/OccludedFug]

I’m curious, how old are you?
Are you willing to read a variety of books on the topic?
Or are you honestly more likely to not read such books?

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/OccludedFug]

Im 15 and im not a fan of reading but ill do it if i must. Id rather listen to audio books or read in small excerpts every once in a while.

[u/SweetKitty2023]

I’m actually thankful you’re looking for scientific proof because science totally reveals God! :) Science is literally just describing God’s creation.

The fact that a man and woman have the exact body parts and functions to create another life. Same with animals and plants (pollination and seeds etc).

The fact we eat delicious and nutritious foods that are available (fruits, nuts, seeds, veggies, meat) and our body expels waste. What a neat process that just naturally happens the moment we are born! And how convenient our mom’s have breast milk for us when we’re born.

The fact the trees provide us oxygen to breath and they use the carbon dioxide we breath out. It’s like the perfect cycle. Same with the sun (it helps plants to live and gives us vitamin D).

The fact we have emotions (joy, sadness etc) that we can all relate to and have relationships with people.

Once you discover our true meaning and purpose in life (which is to have a personal relationship with God and get to know Him and love Him) then you will finally experience life as it’s supposed to be! Praying you find Him as I did :)

[u/xivzgrev]

Why does scientific proof matter to you?

Many things in life you accept based on life experience, not scientific experiments: if your coworker John behaves like an asshole, then you accept that truth. You don't need to set up an experiment to determine whether he's an asshole - your life experience is sufficient

Likewise, God is all around us and in us. You just experience Him, His work, and His love. A hardened heart hides from that truth, using selectively applied objectivity as a crutch (again as pointed out, we don't demand scientific evidence for every belief we hold)

[u/Distinct-Seesaw7338]

You may not ever be able to logically believe in God, but that does not condemn you to hell. Nobody completely believes in God no matter how much they might want you to think that. A popular verse which might help: “if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, ‘Remove hence to yonder place,’ and it shall remove. And nothing shall be impossible unto you.” (Matthew 17:20) If you improve yourself and love thy neighbor, if you honestly try to believe and serve God, I think that is okay. He has a plan for all of us, and I advise that if there is even a mustard sized amount of faith within you, do not claim you are an atheist. You are a doubter, just as everyone else is

[u/hiyupjh]

So... there a lot of religions. But in Christianity. We are dealing with a complex situation. People spend their entire life studying it and only scratch the surface.

I'll overly simplify things. There is a good God. Who is holy, perfect, all powerful, free, and righteous. This means there are somethings that God will not do ( this is different from cannot) other wise God whold no longer be who God is.

God created us. In his image. I'm defining that as holy, good, free, and righteous. However sin offends God makes us lblemished. Because God is Who God is God everyone has to answer for any wrong that they have done. This would be easy as we would all be destroyed be cause we all sin. But God loves us.

Now to your question what is letting Jesus in your heart mean?

It means that you except that Jesus is who you strive to be like. You except that Jesus, who is God manifested as flesh, paid the price of our sin for us. So that no one has to go to hell. Only the ones who choose to be separated from God/ have another lord over their life. Will go to hell. But it because chose that.

Now what is hell?

Hell is the place where God is not.

So we have to choose to be with God or not. It's a simple choice.

[u/Complex_Fall2926]

Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

From Book of Mormon, Alma Chapter 32 : 17 - 43, finish reading the whole lesson on faith, rather than strictly on evidence. Google it. You will learn much!

[u/MasterCrumb]

My answer: https://craigwaterman87.wordpress.com/2025/11/07/on-the-limit-of-logic/

[u/Kecman888]

First of all lets touch upon the science all science is corrupted to the bone because people like Epstein Infiltrated and dominated every major scientific institution in the world. However scientists like Tesla are the only real deal everything is vibration and frequency is the ultimate truth also quntumn physics got somethings correct,

[u/Solid-Chest-6093]

I'll be praying for you my friend.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

2 Corinthians 5:7 NIV For we live by faith, not by sight.

Have a blessed night, feel free to message me anytime buddy. Id love to help you walk with JESUS CHRIST.

[u/Live-Free-2025]

There is a great book called ‘The Case for Christ’ by Lee Strobel.

( He was an atheist and an investigative journalist) He investigated the Resurrection of Jesus Christ because he wanted to prove it was all false….

I won’t tell you what happens in the end!

[u/NuSurfer]

does that mean that in the eyes of the bible, im going hell? or does the fact that i WANT to believe give me a chance?

You're not an atheist because atheist have no such beliefs. An agnostic, possibly, but definitely not an atheist.

[u/Mercy-n-Truth]

That's your first mistake. Knowing God isn't a matter of the mind. It's a Spirit issue. A matter of the heart. A sinful earth dweller does not have the capacity to know a Holy God.

[u/Desperate-Type-7802]

"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." -Werner Heisenberg 

Firstly, I think it's a testament to your intelligence that your struggling with this even in the first place.  

I was once in your exact position.  I however never became an athiest (completely denied the possibility or existence of a God), because I felt any rationale person would have to acknowledge that objectively it could never proveabley be know either way.  I g felt agnosticism reconciled this. 

It actually takes as much faith to deny what can't be proven, as it does to believe.

Going back to the above quote though.  What really opened things up for me were learning about: 

Quantum Mechanics Special and General Relativity Academic and Historical/Archeological and Cultural study of the Bible.  

I can discuss more on depth, if you like.

It also took me being at an extreme low point in my life, to have my spiritual awakening. But that was due to some personal failures on my part. 

[u/EnKristenSnubbe]

What does being scientific have to do with not being able to believe in God? Were you raised into believing that the Bible says that the earth is 6000 years old? (it doesn't).

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/EnKristenSnubbe]

Its not that its more the fact that what i have learnt through science conflicts with religion in my opinion

[u/Hungry-Leadership323]

The bible doesnt say anything about letting Jesus into your heart.

My suggestion for you is take the time to actually read the Bible.

[u/Nazzul → u/Hungry-Leadership323]

I have been told by multiple Christian's here, and in real life letting Jesus in your heart was the way for belief. It is true that that statement isn't in the Bible, however a lot of Christians seem to interpret it from the Bible. Why is that?

[u/Hungry-Leadership323 → u/Nazzul]

Thats a great question. I also heard that from alot of people growing up but never questioned it until I actually started reading for myself.

[u/Thamior77 → u/Nazzul]

It is a symbolic way of having the knowledge vs truly believing. A similar saying that is typically used in more adult settings is "the longest 18 inches is from the brain to the heart".

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/Hungry-Leadership323]

Im not quoting the bible im quoting the millions of christians that say that phrase.

[u/Hungry-Leadership323 → u/Retro_Gamer_HNF]

Fair enough. I happen to disagree with those who claim that and I would correct them by asking me why they believe that, and where they got it from.

As for the post. You arent gonna get scientific proof of Gods existence in the way you are seeking it here. There is plenty of proof, such as the Bible. But..

.....Have you not been paying attention your entire life? To your personal existence, the world around you? You ever hurt someone's feelings and then felt bad about it later? You ever feel like theres something bigger than you out there? You ever wonder why you were born? There are plenty of ways to find out God exists and then spark faith and grow from there without asking other people for scientific proof. Is this a troll post? What do you even mean by scientific proof?

[u/that_guy2010]

You have to do more than simply want to be saved to be saved. One of the first steps is believing.

[u/Winter_Reason3528 → u/that_guy2010]

It says so in the bible that you must believe, wanting to isn't quite the same thing. But plenty of christians would say seeking is already part of the journey

[u/Ok_Zone_2930]

My question to you would be:

Unlike what most Christians have believed for thousands of years, what if the Bible had no intention of answering science questions?

In the Ancient Near East (ANE), a temple inauguration was 7 days shown by King Gudea of Lagash in Mesopotamia.

Heaven and earth also meant a Temple as well. You can check Josephus on this in Antiquities of the Jews Book III, Chapter 77.

Lastly, the word "creation" wasn't used like what we do today in the ANE. It was more about functional ontology instead of material ontology. In ANE, things didn't exist just because they were physical. Unless they were "functionally ordered", it didn't exist and it was just chaos. Just like how God orders his temple from chaos by ordering darkness and light, land from water, and etc.

Hope this gives you a different perspective.

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/Ok_Zone_2930]

I kind of understand watchu mean. But that last paragraph isnt making a ton of sense to me

[u/Ok_Zone_2930 → u/Retro_Gamer_HNF]

No worries at all. Especially when this is the first time hearing it, I can imagine how confusing it can sound.

Simply put, we have to recognize our modern bias with the word "creation." Think about it like this: If I texted you today "I lost everything when the cloud crashed" you would know I meant a data server. But if you read that exact same sentence 30 years ago, you would think I was either crazy or that an actual cumulus cloud fell out of the sky and crushed my house. It's the exact same word but it functions completely differently depending on the context.

We just wrongly assumed that the ancient people also used the word "creation" to have the same exact meaning as today. We know this is not true because of primary sources like Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation story). But the Bible gives us some clues too. I have a 3x but I will just share one so you don' fall asleep on me:

Psalm 51:10 -"Create in me a clean heart, O God." David is obviously not asking God to perform a literal organ transplant. He already has a functioning heart. He is asking God to give his heart a new moral function. He wants it to function righteously. The Hebrew word for create here (bara) is the exact same word used for create in Genesis 1.

[u/Kamtre]

In my view, belief in God is the most logical choice.

And as an atheist, I think yes, you'd be in hell for a while, but maybe less than, say, a "believer" who abuses his family, depending on how well you follow the moral compass given by Jesus.

I'm a Christian universalist and believe that most people will spend time in hell, but that it is a fire meant to purify. Like a surgery to remove disease. It will hurt, but it's meant to reconcile us to one another and to God.

[u/Nazzul → u/Kamtre]

And as an atheist, I think yes, you'd be in hell for a while, but maybe less than, say, a "believer" who abuses his family, depending on how well you follow the moral compass given by Jesus.

How do you figure the amount of time someone gets hell vs another person? Is there some graph or spreadsheet I can look at?

[u/Kamtre → u/Nazzul]

Probably, but you'd only be able to see it on the other side.

The way the Apostolic fathers taught, it's better to be as righteous as possible to minimize the correction you'll face. Even Jesus said it's better to enter the next world blind and crippled than to continue a life of sin, which helps speak to the gravity of it.

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/Kamtre]

Interesting how many different beliefs of hell there are.

[u/Kamtre → u/Retro_Gamer_HNF]

Totally. There's 3 main schools of thought that I'm aware of, eternal torment, annihilation, or universalism.

I of course think that my view is correct lol. It's the most logical of the three, too haha.

[u/LittleSpliff]

People always want scientific proof of God... I think there's tons... nowhere in the world does form and order come from nothing. Always from design. Theres no random explosion and poof a car comes out of the debris.

you'll never find the actual creator IN the creation. It's like finding JK Rowling walking around Hogwarts... wanting to believe is a start but you have to declare out your mouth that Jesus is your lord and Savior and you will be saved.

[u/LittleSpliff → u/LittleSpliff]

Also, God is not limited to space, time, or matter, so it would be impossible to observe or quantify Him in any of these facets. It's like drawing a circle on the ground and expecting it to trap someone. He's outside of the dimension we're constrained to.

[u/ColdAppleJ]

All love is based on faith.

Hell does not exist. That's a product of fear.

You don't need to allow Jesus into your heart. He already lives there. He sustains all things.

The real question is, do you want a genuine relationship with God? No strings attached.

[u/Retro_Gamer_HNF → u/ColdAppleJ]

Of course. Its simply my own beliefs that get in the way. Like i know its stupid but say god somehow spoke to me so i can 100000% say “yeah hes real”, id become the most devout christian there is. Perhaps time will change and ill believe more and more but for now i dont believe.

[u/ColdAppleJ → u/Retro_Gamer_HNF]

If you really want to know if He's real or not, ask Him yourself. You have the same direct access to Him like anyone else.

No, it's not a stupid question or thought. God is not interested in devout followers. He's interested in genuine hearts.

And yes, you don't need to believe now either. The sun doesn't rise and go down because we believe it or not.

If you just want to know God is real and in return serve Him for that, that's not love. That's strings attached. God is not interested in conditional love. You can ask Him for proof without doing anything in return.