Is God Real?

[Bryn Mawr]

Mickiel;1342935 wrote: I have listed the evidence, its all on the internet. I tell you what, punch in " The Mari Archives", a great discovery in biblical archaeology. Or punch in " The Nuzi Tablets", and I am, sure your computer will find those.

Peace.


They point to information about a city in Syria and one in Iraq, I'm interested in details of :-

Archaeologist have actually found the house of the Apostle Peter, the house of Mary and Martha, the Tomb of Joseph, and the Tomb of Lazarus.


These I know nothing of and want to learn - could you please post links to this data?

[Mickiel]

Mickiel;1342939 wrote: We can know that God is real, through a study of Civilization, and how it began. Something had to jump start our intelligence, and seperate us from primordal man, and civilization and God is that something. God gave humanity, after Adam, Language, science, transportation, agriculture, education, mathmatics, religion, and economics. These things ushered in civilization, and all of those things are signs of Consciousness.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

Peace.


I personally do not believe primordal humans were conscious, or they would have eventually became civilized. I think they were highly instinctual and could think, but they were uncivilized. They didnot have " High Levels" of intellectual, social, cultural, or technological development. They never became enlightened, they stayed in a savage state, and this is proof of God for sure.

And I want to explain why.

Peace.

[Ahso!]

Mickiel;1342943 wrote:



I personally do not believe primordal humans were conscious, or they would have eventually became civilized. I think they were highly instinctual and could think, but they were uncivilized. They didnot have " High Levels" of intellectual, social, cultural, or technological development. They never became enlightened, they stayed in a savage state, and this is proof of God for sure.

And I want to explain why.

Peace.:wah::wah: You mean like you? They were probably heads and tails above anything you've written in this thread. Sometimes its best to say nothing.

[Mickiel]

Bryn Mawr;1342942 wrote: They point to information about a city in Syria and one in Iraq, I'm interested in details of :-



These I know nothing of and want to learn - could you please post links to this data?


Well I don't understand, your computer should pull them up. Try biblicalarchaeology.org, And I will try to find specific links for you.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Bryn Mawr;1342942 wrote: :-



These I know nothing of and want to learn - could you please post links to this data?


On the tomb of lazarus, try sacred-destinations.com. On the apostle Peters house, try bibleplaces.com. Also go to you tube, punch in Peters house, and they have film footage of it.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Mickiel;1342947 wrote: On the tomb of lazarus, try sacred-destinations.com. On the apostle Peters house, try bibleplaces.com. Also go to you tube, punch in Peters house, and they have film footage of it.

Peace.




On Josephs tomb try tjresearch.info/tombsite.htm, and jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Mickiel;1342943 wrote:


I personally do not believe primordal humans were conscious, or they would have eventually became civilized. I think they were highly instinctual and could think, but they were uncivilized. They didnot have " High Levels" of intellectual, social, cultural, or technological development. They never became enlightened, they stayed in a savage state, and this is proof of God for sure.

And I want to explain why.

Peace.




I personally don't believe primordial humans were physically different than us by that much, I believe the main difference was Consciousness. They simply were not conscious being, not conscious as we are. They were animalistic and instinctive creatures. Human, but lacking " The Spirit in man", which is consciousness, the image of God. Which leads to civilization. One breeds the other. Consciousness will breed civilization, " Most" of the time. There are tribes that have not civilized even in our time, but they have relligion, agiculture, language, other signs of consciousness and types of civilization. God must make the transfer from uncivil to civil in man, evolution cannot do this.

And now I want to go into Romance as a proof of God.

Peace.

[Bryn Mawr]

Mickiel;1342947 wrote: On the tomb of lazarus, try sacred-destinations.com. On the apostle Peters house, try bibleplaces.com. Also go to you tube, punch in Peters house, and they have film footage of it.

Peace.


Mickiel;1342946 wrote: Well I don't understand, your computer should pull them up. Try biblicalarchaeology.org, And I will try to find specific links for you.

Peace.


Mickiel;1342948 wrote: On Josephs tomb try tjresearch.info/tombsite.htm, and jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

Peace.


I must admit I'm struggling here,

biblicalarchaeology.org did not give me any information but did give me a lot of insight.

sacred-destinations.com was better, I found the reference to the tomb of Lazarus - a seventh century church built on the remains of a forth century site reputed to have been the grave of Lazarus but it was not convincing.

bibleplaces.com showed the house of St. Peter but made clear that this designation was on the basis of some second century graffiti with no direct evidence.

tjresearch.info/tombsite.htm was more specific but I did worry about a couple of statements. Firstly that "Apparently this tomb site has not yet been explored by archaeologists" and then the references to "Around 1960 Isa Rashid was prompted (by the same ETs who later contacted Meier)" followed by "Ufologist Michael Hesemann of Düsseldorf, Germany," which suggests that the assignation might not be reliable.

Finally, jewishvirtuallibrary.org, a site I know fairly well and have used for some time. Trouble is that a site search for Joseph of Arimathea found only general references and nothing specific to his tomb.

I wait, in hope, for some specific references.

[Mickiel]

[QUOTE=Bryn Mawr;

I wait, in hope, for some specific references.


Try Wikipedia.

Josephs tomb.

Peace.

[Ahso!]

Mickiel;1342959 wrote: Try Wikipedia.

Josephs tomb.

Peace.Instead of directing him to sites through guessing, why don't you just tell him where you got your information. That should be easy enough. Or did you simply make this stuff up? If these sites are indeed where you found your information, perhaps you misinterpreted what was written?

[Mickiel]

Ahso!;1342964 wrote: Instead of directing him to sites through guessing, why don't you just tell him where you got your information. That should be easy enough. Or did you simply make this stuff up? If these sites are indeed where you found your information, perhaps you misinterpreted what was written?




Well my source is the archives at Wheaton college, but those are not open to the public, so I have to guide him through public avenues.

Peace.

[Bryn Mawr]

Mickiel;1342969 wrote: Well my source is the archives at Wheaton college, but those are not open to the public, so I have to guide him through public avenues.

Peace.


Those archives must quote the journals where the original papers were published - pointers to those would be perfect.

[Ahso!]

Mickiel;1342969 wrote: Well my source is the archives at Wheaton college, but those are not open to the public, so I have to guide him through public avenues.

Peace.You mean to tell me that Wheaton College has books and information that cannot be found anywhere else? I doubt that. You're just playing hide and seek now.

[Mickiel]

Bryn Mawr;1342973 wrote: Those archives must quote the journals where the original papers were published - pointers to those would be perfect.




Well I just don't think thats possible, but I know of a graduate from there who wrote a pretty good pictorial guide book on biblical Archaeology, his name is Robert T. Boyd. If you could get your hands on a copy of that, its a great reference, I have one myself, but their very old and hard to get a hold of. I was given mine as a gift by a doctor.

Peace.

[Ahso!]

Mickiel;1342975 wrote: Well I just don't think thats possible, but I know of a graduate from there who wrote a pretty good pictorial guide book on biblical Archaeology, his name is Robert T. Boyd. If you could get your hands on a copy of that, its a great reference, I have one myself, but their very old and hard to get a hold of. I was given mine as a gift by a doctor.

Peace.So you have no proof of anything you're offering as so called fact? I think you simply ran out of excuses and found a place to hide. Anything you've read at Wheaton College should be available someplace else, just give names and titles.

[Mickiel]

Ahso!;1342978 wrote: So you have no proof of anything you're offering as so called fact? I think you simply ran out of excuses and found a place to hide. Anything you've read at Wheaton College should be available someplace else, just give names and titles.




My concern was Bryn, he seems to be interested, you however are just looking to crticise and belittle, of which I hold no intrest in. I have been patient with your attitude, but my patience is running thin. I hold no need to convince anyone of anything, but if one is interested, I can show these things as facts.

Peace.

[TruthBringer]

Mickiel;1342803 wrote: Oh what a question we all should realize, is God real?




On an individual level, It's as real as you believe It is.

[TruthBringer]

Mickiel;1342812 wrote: Consciousness then is proof of God, we cannot be continious with things that are lesser than ourselves, or, we were not born from things which were not conscious themselves. Such as apes, apes are not conscious beings, and we are not continious with the idiot hierarchy of speechless apes. They are lesser than we are, inferior. We came from a superior source, not an inferior source. This must be understood.

Peace.


You had me up until this part. In fact I still completely agree with your last post before that one. But you contradicted yourself on this one.

Apes are not conscious of themselves? Apes will look into a mirror and notice who they are. In fact it has been said that Apes/Primates and Humans are the only creatures on the planet that will do that for more than a second or two before losing interest.

I'm not saying that We came from Apes. I know we weren't always in our current state/form though, and we do have a tailbone. Also, it is quite possible that whatever form we evolved from, could have been from elsewhere outside of this planet. There is no direct link to Human Beings on this planet from the beginnings of the Earth at least in terms of science. This could give one reason to believe that it is possible that whatever Life form we evolved from is not from this planet. The only question that would remain in that case is how the heck did our original form get here then? And without that key information, we won't be able to answer the rest.

But as far as what you said about Apes being inferior and "less important" than us, you are most mistaken. There is no logic behind saying that just because something is smarter than another thing, that it is more important. If that were the case, than you better hope we don't ever discover an alien life form that is in any way smarter than we are, or you might find them thinking the same thing about you, and convincing you that you need to be eliminated due to your inferior capacity for critical thought. And I know damn well if they said you had to go because you were an idiot compared to them, you wouldn't just nod your head and agree.

Other than that, great post previous to the one I just quoted.

[TruthBringer]

Ahso!;1342824 wrote: I know I or anyone I know was never taught that. Can you show me the teachings your talking about?


To be fair, I was taught that we came from apes on planet Earth all the way up through Elementary school. I'm sure anyone who is older than probably 30 knows what I am talking about. Maybe older than 30 (I'm 26) and younger than 60 I'm not exactly sure how far it goes back. Takes time for them to be allowed to introduce it into the textbooks and then for the schools to realize that the opinion is no longer as popular and therefore to eliminate it from the textbooks.

The classic picture of the little Ape walking and then the taller Ape walking and then the even taller less hairy Ape walking and than the almost Human looking Ape walking and then the Human walking. Taller and taller and taller as it walks. Trying to emphasize the evolution of course. Though it could have been standing instead of walking I can't exactly remember all I remember is being a little kid looking at it and thinking it was funny that we came from apes but also believing what they spoon fed me because I didn't know any better at the time.

I may have left out one or two Apes not sure.

[TruthBringer]

By the way I just want to add that I don't rule out that our current form originated/evolved from some sort of Primate. I just don't believe it was any Primate we can trace our roots back to that exists here on the Earth. If it was a Primate at all, it would have to have originated from outside of this planet. And that's where things get extremely tricky to understand.

However, Primates on Earth show that there is proof to this theory, but they don't completely prove the theory. But the proof is the closest with the Primate. Seeing is how the Primate resembles us in so many ways and actions, and more than any other creature on the Earth.

Now a different theory for me is that if there are primates that exist outside of this Earth, would there have been any "higher" intelligence (not more important) than us that would have had a reason to place those creatures on this planet and then somehow interact with their evolutionary process? In order to somehow speed it up perhaps? And when I say "higher" intelligence I don't confine it to anything like we have seen in movies thus far. I'm talking about some kind of entity be it more ethereal looking or solid looking (or possibly even various types of entities in multiples more than one) that would have placed our ancestors on this planet and then watched them evolve into what we are today. Who and why? That's what I would ask them if I could and if that's Truly the case.

[Mickiel]

Many evolutionist have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation test do indicate that the chimpanzee is our closest relative. Yet reguarding this we must observe the following; Milk chemistry indicates that the Donkey is mans closest relative. Cholesterol levet test indicate that the Garter Snake is mans closest relative. Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the Chicken is mans closest relative.

On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the Butter Bean is mans closest relative.

Peace.

[TruthBringer]

Mickiel;1342990 wrote: Many evolutionist have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation test do indicate that the chimpanzee is our closest relative. Yet reguarding this we must observe the following; Milk chemistry indicates that the Donkey is mans closest relative. Cholesterol levet test indicate that the Garter Snake is mans closest relative. Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the Chicken is mans closest relative.

On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the Butter Bean is mans closest relative.

Peace.


I'm not using science to demonstrate this my friend. I'm using your eyes. What creature looks the most like us? Acts the most like us? Thinks the most like us? And is the most like us, here on planet Earth? Forget about the science, you know the answer. And the Primate wins the prize.

So you may be both right and wrong at the same time. As is usually the case with everyone is who not perfect. Including myself. Yes we didn't originate from any Primate from this planet, but that doesn't mean we didn't originate from one elsewhere in the Universe.

[Mickiel]

Romance then is evidence that God is real. The five senses couldnot be developed by random theory or mindless matter, Emotion is a sign of sure design of an emotional designer. We can Love and want to be Loved, and that is a sure sign of creation. A sure sign. Matter cannot love, evolution has no Love, theory has no Romance.

And I want to continue on that.

Peace.

[TruthBringer]

I think science has gotten it right in many ways. I think it is true that the very first ancestors of our species did live very close to the beach. In fact right on it. I believe that they were an Aquatic and Land species as well. So they are correct on this. It only makes sense that our ancestors would have stayed as close to the oceans (by living on the beach) as they could have, because if they were to venture into the woods too far than they would become lost, they would have lost their primary food source (which would have been right next to them), they wouldn't have been able to see in the dark, they would have become disorientated, and surely they would have died.

So our ancestors being an aquatic/land species is correct. Just as we are today although we have lost our dependence on the seas. So now we should ask, is there, or could there be, an aquatic/land Primate species somewhere out there in the Galaxy? Let alone the Universe? In conditions similar to ours, and if our ancestors thought like we do, than I think the answer to that question is most definitely yes.

[littleCJelkton]

I love the "lets throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks" threads especially on religion. I am going to try a couple

There is no God. There is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, because bad things happen to all the time as a result of the FSM creating the universe while drunk.

Jesus likes eggs, and when after Jesus was resurrected, the disciples hid them from him so he changed them all to chocolate rabbits put them in baskets and gave them to little kids, this explains the Easter holiday

[TruthBringer]

littleCJelkton;1342998 wrote: I love the "lets throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks" threads especially on religion. I am going to try a couple

There is no God. There is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, because bad things happen to all the time as a result of the FSM creating the universe while drunk.

Jesus likes eggs, and when after Jesus was resurrected, the disciples hid them from him so he changed them all to chocolate rabbits put them in baskets and gave them to little kids, this explains the Easter holiday


We are stuck on a planet in the middle of a gigantic Universe questioning everything because that's just what we do. Is it ever going to stop? Not as long as we remain confined to our little planet here with no real means of discovering any new information outside of it. If we don't kill each other off long before that ever happens.

There are probably clues related to Who/What God is on every single planet. In every single solar system. But guess what, we won't get to know what those clues are for a long long time. And we can't possibly put any kind of completed puzzle together with only the clues we can find on our own.

Unless, you look deep within. There, and only there, can you find greater answers than anything outside of yourself can give you. And that goes for eternity.

The most solid argument for what God is that can be proven in physical observation from our perspective here on Earth is that It is Energy. Not some guy with a long beard, not a beautiful female radiating like the Sun. Just Energy. There is nothing else that comes close to it for trying to explain what God could be in physical terms, and then to go even further by backing it up with factual evidence. Not imagination and or speculation.

But like I said before, True answers are always found from within, and then they are shared with others.

[TruthBringer]

I think the simplest answer for what a Pyramid actually represents is that it represents in more than one way the story of Creation. Of ALL of Creation. And it did this long before any word of mouth religion or written religion ever did. And this is because the ancients on Earth - the Egyptians, the Mayans, etc., did not invent the Pyramid, but they only had knowledge of it which was more than likely passed down to them in one form or another. Either that, or they were smart enough to figure out even just the concept of the Pyramid all on their own, without anything else as a guide post. The second is highly unlikely, although not impossible. The first is the more logical choice.

I think the Pyramid is a stronger representation of Creation than even a triangle because it shows how creation came forth from all angles and in many different forms. Not just one above/before the other in a vertical line but some Lifeforms at the same time, etc., splitting off in multiple directions but still downward showing their line of descendancy.

So the reason why I could see the advantage of building a Pyramid on a planet would simply be to show those who come upon your little planet that you know full well the story of Creation, and are therefore probably less hostile and more willing to accept others who are not from your World. Those planets that would have Life but would not have Pyramids present would obviously be more hostile, less trusting, more rebellious, etc. if the lack of the knowledge of the Pyramid was directly linked to their lack of understanding of where everything came from and how. And therefore they would probably be left alone at least until they could figure out the Truth. Luckily, the fact that we even know what a Pyramid is is a sign that we have already begun to understand the Truth about the origins of existence for everything that exists. And this would definitely appeal to other Worldly intelligence. So we are at least on the radar in terms of that respect.

I could also understand the nature behind trying to keep the knowledge of the Pyramid sacred, and to not allow it to be forgotten, as in the case of many of the secret societies, etc. However I think that unfortunately for people who feel that they are the "keepers" of the important knowledge of the World, there will always be corruption in the higher levels, because the people at the top of the society begin to feel as though they are untouchable.

As far as why people have been so obsessed with depicting God as a man in some parts of the World, and as a woman in others, is simply because we were for the longest time and for many of us still are just like babies when it comes to our understanding about what God really is. And it is only through our science that we have actually been able to gain a greater understanding. But if you think back to the time when science was primitive at best, and was limited to figuring out how to treat wounds, build better fires, etc., than think about how a baby looks at it's parents when it becomes old enough to understand who they are. The way a baby shows it's knowledge of it's parents is by calling them Ma Ma or Da Da. And I know it's funny to think about how all of the statues built throughout history of big strong men representing God or beautiful strong women representing God, were no different then as it is now in the way those people described God in the only way they knew how, which was through their love for their Mamas and Dadas. So they went the extra mile, and chose one or the other, and had enough foresight to project the image of their own parents onto the image of whatever created them and all of their kind. So they starting building statues and things related to Mamas and Dadas.

But....knowledge is only as good as what the individual who understands chooses to do with it. It is worthless if not transformed into a greater understanding, and even then, after that, into an even greater understanding, and on and on.

[koan]

Perhaps it would be wise to define "real"

[Mickiel]

Is God Real? And how can we really know? Well often its the results of our feelings that we can see. Feelings is something that we cannot see like a real solid thing, but we know they exist. Emotions are real, we cannot see them in their true form, because they have no true form, their just in us, and they manifest themselves and come out of us, and we see the results of that. So it is with God. We cannot see him, but we can feel him, and know that he is there.

Romance then is evidence of God. Its strong pull, its gear toward Love, its mystic.

And I want to go into how to see God in that.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

People may tell you that ytou do not Love someone, but you know for yourself that you do. So it is with God, others may say that he is not real, but you know for yourself that he is. The Romance then with God is first personal, and must be valued as such.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

A Romance can be developed over a long distance, without you ever even seeing the person. It is a communication that develops into an emotional experience, and that experience is both real and relevant to you. So it is with God, and those who develop a long distance relationship with him. This experience that many are having, is evidence that God is real.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Someone telling me that God is not real, is like someone telling me that a certain woman is not for me. I mean, they just can't see what I see and feel. But thats alright you know, thats them. They must feel what they feel, and I what I feel. I feel that God is real, and very real. This thing inside of me grows, this Romance with my consciousness.

But I want to move on to Language as proof that God is real.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Consciousness is just not important in animals, nor is communication between them important. There is no need for language in animals, but there is a need for man to communicate.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

As your consciousness searchs for God, your trying to communicate with him in a sense. That will be difficult, because God rarely verbally communicates with a human. I personally don't think hes done so in thousands of years. But I think he wanted us to be able to communicate with each other. So he gave us language.

Language is not something that came from evolution, there is no evolution in language. The combination of matter and chemicals cannot produce the spoken word. The big bang theory cannot produce verbs and nouns. Language is a gift, and evidence of a great communicator.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

[Ahso!]

You still at it, even though its been proven throughout this thread that you don't use facts? Who is it you're trying to fool here?

[Mickiel]

Because in our brief lives we catch so little of the vastness of history, we tend too much to think of language as being solid as a dictionary, with granite-like permanence, rather than as the rampant restless sea of Metaphor which it is. Language has the power to express everything. And it is power, and it came from power.

And I want to go further into that.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Language must make dramatic changes in mans attention to things and persons, because it allows a transfer of information of enormous scope, which is why I know primordial man had no language, there was nothing of significance to transfer beyond grunts and sounds. But from the time of Adam, knowledge began to increase significantly, and God used language to do this.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Now I want to go into history as proof of God being real. And this is tied closely to archaeology, because archaeology helps to unfold our history. The evidence of God is both under our ground, and in our history books.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Again the life of Jesus was recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pling the Younger, the Talmud, Lucian, Celus and Sextus Julius Africanus. Of the ten most read books in the world, the bible is number one. It was the first book ever printed, by Johannes Gutenbergs press in 1454. The bible has over 40 different authors, from over 40 different generations. It was written over a span of 1500 years. None of the Authors compared notes. It was written on 3 different continents, Africa, Asia and Europe. And written in 3 different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. It has been translated in over 2,000 languages.

There is no other book like this in our history, not even close.

Peace.

[littleCJelkton]

the first laws written in stone in the tigris river, I think that was a greater achievement than the bible. Which I see as a tale of older religious myths retold with new characters written down instead of orally passed down to teach morals, As the the bible holds alot of similarites to sumerian mythology (the flood at the tower of babel, and noahs arch), greek mythology (pandora's box, and eve and the apple), and Egyptian mythology (the ressurection of Osiris, and the ressurection of Jesus christ). but who am I kidding that is logical nonesense that has no place on a forum like this back to the madness

[xyz]

Mickiel;1343058 wrote: Again the life of Jesus was recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pling the Younger, the Talmud, Lucian, Celus and Sextus Julius Africanus. Of the ten most read books in the world, the bible is number one. It was the first book ever printed, by Johannes Gutenbergs press in 1454. The bible has over 40 different authors, from over 40 different generations. It was written over a span of 1500 years. None of the Authors compared notes. It was written on 3 different continents, Africa, Asia and Europe. And written in 3 different languages, Hebrew, Arabic and Greek.


Aramaic, not Arabic.

[Mickiel]

The will of God is simply the history of man unfolded. We can see Gods hand in human history, and I want to show you how to reconize that.

Peace.

[littleCJelkton]

xyz;1343063 wrote: Aramaic, not Arabic.


No sense in debating that, but welcome you are terribly late for tea.

[Mickiel]

Is God real? Well a look through our own history will show that the majority of our history, is really based on God. In one form or another, humanity has confronted its belief in God all throughout our history.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

God is the beginning and the end, the past and the present, he is the complette cycle of time. Our past was prepared by him, as is our future. When you see incredible events in our past, you are looking at the will of God unfolding. Him shaping human history and molding our future.

And even events that we cannot see, God uses history to promp the future.

And I want to get into that.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

The bible states that God " Is before all things", an incredible being, he knows the future because he shapes it with the past. Actually God lives in our past, he is living in our present, and he is right now living in our future, all at the same time. Simply a stunning being, its how he knows everything, because he shapes everything from its beginning to its end. Long ago in an ancient history Gods great mind became pregnant with the thought of creating humanity. At that moment in reality, our history began.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

Now I want to go into Atheism as proof Of God.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

One of the ways to understand that God is real, is to examine those who believe he is not. An unusual thing to do, but you are examining an unusual being. Your search will be unorthodox at best. Contained in the mind of an Atheist, is a sure view of God. One of the sure things God has done in history, is to blind the mind of man to his existence. To both see and understand this about God, is to find a " Track of him", a " Fingerprint", so to speak.

And I want to get into that.

Peace.

[littleCJelkton]

and yet your still loosing more and more of yourself getting in to such nonsense

[Mickiel]

Atheism then, is proof of God. In Rom. 11:32, God has shut up all into disobedience, so that he might later, show mercy to them all. One pathology of God is to blind others from his reality. In John 12:40;" He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." So that they couldnot see him. This incredible ability is sure evidence of God. Some are just totally blind to him, its as he wishes.

But let me get into some other ways to know that God is real.

Peace.