Is God 'Testable'?
I don't post much on religious topics, though I probably should. While hanging out on Narrative (now defunct), I got into a little spar with a Buddhist teacher over whether or not one is able to test God. After that short exchange, I decided to write a series of posts on the topic. I didn't get to finish the series before Narrative went belly up, but I intend to re-purpose the articles that were published here and continue the series to completion. I make no promise, but I hope to be able to complete this mission by publishing one article each Sunday until done.
From Pixabay.
Keep in mind, we're not discussing the existence of God or the evidence of God's existence. That's another question entirely. Rather, what we are discussing is whether or not God's faithfulness can be tested.
The discussion was prompted by a response to on Narrator's post with these words:
A person can experiment with magnetism, (s)he can test it, (s)he can write descriptions that allow to even predict the result of another experiment, then check that such a prediction is factually what happens if the experiment is indeed carried out…
The same person cannot experiment with God, cannot test God…
The commentator went on to say
Evidence for magnetism is within our grasp, our reach, our control. Evidence for God isn't.
My response was this:
I'll challenge you on the idea that one can't test God. One can indeed test God, and many have. Some have tested Him and walked away in unbelief. Many others have tested Him and walked away believing.
And then we ensued upon a discussion of God's faithfulness.
While my Buddhist friend may have been challenging the existence of God in his response to the post, I'd prefer to discuss testing God's faithfulness rather than His existence. The reasons for this are manifold. First, in testing God's faithfulness, one lays to rest once and for all the question of God's existence. If the test is successful, it should lead to conclusive evidence one way or another--at least in the mind of the tester. A positive proof would indicate God's existence since that which is non-existent cannot be faithful. On the other hand, a negative proof would indicate that God is not faithful; while it's possible that God could exist and simply be unfaithful--according to the dictates of man's ability to reason--I would posit that an unfaithful God would be no god at all and therefore the apparent absurdity of such a contradiction would mean that there is no God. My apologies to committed deists for bursting your bubble.
From Pixabay.
Another reason for discussing whether or not God's faithfulness can be tested is because discussions on the existence of God typically descend into whether or not one accepts one proof claim against another, and it often hinges on whether one believes the agnostic claims of scientists rather than the metaphysical claims of theism. I see no reason to pit science against religion on matters of faith. Steering clear of this discussion will save everyone time and headaches.
I am cognizant that the discussion at hand might require many readers to suspend disbelief in agnostic or atheistic commitments. Suspended disbelief is often necessary in the realm of philosophy if one is to pursue an honest exploration and discovery into a difficult question. So I beg for that suspended disbelief as I seek to make my case that one can test God's faithfulness.
Direction of My Argument
While I certainly believe in empirical evidence for science, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that empirical evidence for the existence of God isn't possible. Hence, there is a third reason for not approaching that subject. One who seeks empirical evidence of God may as well jump off a bridge because that's what it will feel like when you reach the exit door of your laboratory and toss your lab coat into the laundry basket. I'll touch on this a little more later, but for now, know that I do not intend to address the question using empirical models of evidence testing. After all, this is metaphysics.
I will also not attempt to publish the entirety of my argument in this post. It could turn into a book-length manuscript! Instead, I will address the following four steps in separate posts.
- Believing that God exists
- The study of God where God exists
- Alignment with God's purpose
- Checking for results
Originally, I had envisioned the argument going this way:
- Believe that He exists
- Study His Word to learn what He says about Himself
- Obey has commands
- Check for results
The reason I made the change is because I gave it more thought and realized a proper study of God does not and should not be relegated only to "His Word," which, in evangelical Christian circles is a reference to The Bible. While I believe The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in its original language as it was written by God's instruments of communication, it would be terribly short-sighted and obtuse to claim that is the only way to study God. Therefore, I'll argue that a proper study of God requires studying Him everywhere He can be found.
The other major deviance from my original thought is on the point of obedience. I prefer "alignment with God's purpose" because a proper obedience should not be construed as a legalistic measure of doing all the right things and refraining from the wrong. A proper alignment to God's purpose requires obedience at the micro level, but it equally requires an understanding of His entire purpose at the macro level.
I invite discussion, even criticism, from readers on these points. I do not expect to change any minds, for that certainly is not within my power. My intent here is to simply offer an expression of my own faith through a proper reasoning using the Biblical texts the Christian church has historically interpreted as evidence pertaining to the question, extra-Biblical texts that I find helpful in answering the question, and my own personal experiences.
In the coming weeks, I'll explore these four steps in the testing process--with this caveat: One need not adhere to these steps in any particular order. And if you think it strange that I should give an ordered list and insist that it not be followed to the T, consider that God is not a puppet, nor does He exist in a box. Attempts to make Him some Jack-in-the-Box for man's own good have had disastrous results in history. I will not walk down that road.
Again, I will endeavor to post every Sunday, but I won't make a promise. I am a slow and deliberate thinker, which should not be confused with indecisiveness. I simply prefer to have "all my ducks in a row," if you will, before I issue them marching orders.
From Pixabay.
Without further ado, and no lengthier an introduction, I'll leave you hanging on this thread until my next post, which will endeavor to show that believing in God's existence is a prerequisite for testing His faithfulness. See ya then!
Buy on Amazon.
Cryptocracy: Crypto news for less than the price of a latte.
I have given much thought to God in my life. One of the questions that seems perhaps insurmountable in such speculations as testing, is how does one define God? It seems entirely likely that any force that has power beyond our limited understanding could appear (or even claim) to be God, regardless on the truth of that appearance. I question much more, but not here to argue as much as hoping you might consider that in your future posts.
Also wanted to suggest that despite your desire for objectivity, references to He/Him and
Originally, I had envisioned the argument going this way:
suggests that you are limiting your analyses/testing based on the limited scope of your beliefs. I'm curious if such testing can be done suspending those beliefs as you ask of the agnostic and athiest?
Looking forward to what you present.
In philosophy, and metaphysics, if one is to explore complex topics, one must make certain assumptions. They may or may not be true, but if you're going to discuss the existence of multiple pre-existent universes, for instance, you must assume that 1) multiple universes is possible; and 2) that they don't necessarily have to exist simultaneously. I am assuming the definition of God to be the Judeo-Christian understanding of a montheistic God, and specifically, the Trinitarian God of Christianity.
On your second statement, any force beyond our limited understanding claiming to be God, should be tested. Why take its word for it?
I'm not trying to be objective. I'm trying to be reasonable. Language itself is a limitation. He/Him is simply a useful reference to indicate the personal nature of a God within the limitations of our language. Historic references use it, therefore shall I.
I'm using the same linguistic and thought tactics philosophers have always used. Some of your questions will be answered in forthcoming posts. For instance, the next one in line deals with why it's important to believe in God before you test Him. I hope you'll find that it makes sense.
Suspending belief in God in order to test Him would be a philosophical absurdity. How would you test what you don't believe in? More importantly, why would you? Again, I'll deal with this in the next segment.
Thanks for the comment.
Interesting topic. Got yourself a gold mine for impact reporting. Hope to read more!
Thanks! Hang on, I hope you like it.
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Steemcleaners is killing tts? WTF.
Nice to see you here in the city.
Thanks. As I get more integrated, I'll contribute more and share some ideas. I've got a few brewing, but I'm pacing myself. Just got Level 3! Playing around, testing, and seeing how I want to get involved.
It's a good read.
Well, I'm a Muslim and you may guess, I strongly believe in the existence of God. There are so many unanswered questions, maybe those direct us to believe in God. It's actually a very broad topic and depends on our perspectives too.
Would love to hear more from you.
Keep a lookout every Sunday and you'll see more on this topic. Yes, there are many questions in life that have no answers, or where the best answer is an unexplainable "mystery." And there are those that science will never be able to answer. I believe the entire physical existence points toward God.
That's what I believe too. I will lookout your post. Thanks :)
Hi, @blockurator!
You just got a 0.57% upvote from SteemPlus!
To get higher upvotes, earn more SteemPlus Points (SPP). On your Steemit wallet, check your SPP balance and click on "How to earn SPP?" to find out all the ways to earn.
If you're not using SteemPlus yet, please check our last posts in here to see the many ways in which SteemPlus can improve your Steem experience on Steemit and Busy.
Here's the situation,
A five year old is playing on the deck of a cruise ship.
A woman screams and everybody looks over just in time to see the child leap off the edge.
Ten different people begin feverishly praying to their ten different gods to please rescue the child.
When the child is rescued, which god gets the credit?
The Real One.
But isn't that the question? Which one is "the real one"?
Is it Nanabozho? Is it Hanuman? Is it Ahura Mazda?
How can we know which one saved the child?
I mean, when people pray and their prayers are answered, does that mean their specific god is the real one?
Would you consider that answered prayer "compelling evidence"?
That's a good question. You'll have to keep reading. ;-)
That raises a great point. In my research years ago, it appeared that intent is capable of changing outcomes at times in ways that, at least on the surface, would not seem feasible. So many different religions (and subsets inside of religions) have their documented stories of "miracles" and it seemed the only connection between them all was the belief/intent manifested beforehand.
hey there @blockurator. After reading your post I got more questions than critique, but my questions may carry a little nugget of critique...
As some comments already pointed this out - Any position can be justified with faith. If 5 different people can use faith and arrive to 5 absolutely different conclusions, then faith is not a reliable method to discover what is actually true... so from this, my immediate question is why attempt to test something that doesn't actually aid us in getting closer to truth?
Also i feel like I cant really hone in on the argument itself... Can you please describe what you mean by 'faithfulness'? To me the 'ness' part signifies that there is some sort of 'faith scale'... For example if you say it's 'dark' then you are describing a quality of something, but if you want to discuss the degree to which it is dark you'd talk about 'darkness' as it signifies a scale... i'd like to hear your definition though, cause i might be way off...
I'm also very puzzled by the phrase "God's Faithfulness"... Its hard for me to understand your stance without fully grasping the meaning of what it is. I would like to know the definition of what you mean when you say "God's Faithfulness" I think that will help me understand what you are trying to test and experiment with.
@ankapolo, that's a great question!
You are right in saying that faithfulness is a quality, but it has to be a quality of a sentient thing. Tables and chairs, for instance, can't be faithful. They may be reliable, but only insofar as the materials used to make them and the workmanship that goes into manufacturing them can be trusted. Your dog, on the other hand, can be faithful. So what does that mean?
Let's take a scenario: If you are on a lake and in a boat, let's say, and you fall out. If you don't know how to swim and aren't wearing a life jacket, you might be in danger of drowning. That would be a terrible predicament, wouldn't it? But let's say you are not alone. You were with one other person in that boat. That person, thankfully, does know how to swim; and there happens to be a life preserver on that boat, which you, unfortunately, were not wearing. So your companion tosses you the life preserver and you manage to slip it over your head, despite your near panic. Your companion next holds an oar out over the side of the boat, which you wrap your hands around, and he assists you in getting back into the boat. He has saved your life.
Now let's imagine that scenario plays itself out every day. Like Groundhog Day. Ever see that movie? Over and over again, you fall out of the boat and your companion, over and over again, manages to save your life. He never fails. He is always there, always prepared and well-composed, and knows just what to do to get you back in the boat. That is what I mean by faithfulness. It's a quality of a trustworthy companion on whom you can always rely without fail.
Humans fail. Your mother, your brother, your sister, your lover, your bestie, they may all fail you at some point. That is, you may have certain expectations of them to which they are incapable of rising. That could be because your expectations are unrealistic, but it may also be because they simply aren't always, 100 percent, able to meet those expectations. Maybe, on a certain day, their priorities shift and something else becomes more important for a time, or maybe they lose sight of a certain thing and forget what is important to you. As faithful a friend any individual might be, there comes a time when even the most faithful human friend can fail you. Even your dog, upon seeing that cute little poodle across the street, may wander off to play at a time when you need it the most. God, on the other hand, is always there, always ready to be your life preserver.
Now, that comes with some caveats. God has made Himself known in history in certain ways, and He's made it clear that He has a certain standard for His creation to live by. God is not obligated to give us whatever we want just for the asking. He's not Santa Claus. We can't say, "Well, I want a Rolls Royce" and expect God to provide it to show his faithfulness. That isn't how it works.
As I expound on these ideas more in the coming weeks, I'll discuss this a bit more - What is faithfulness? How is God faithful? How can we test Him on that faithfulness, and why should we? I hope you'll come along for the ride.
8^)
You've raised some excellent points. I actually want to read more . 😊😊
Posted using Partiko Android
Thanks. Here's the next post in the series.