Are there any references which might promote our belief in God by accounting for past physical observations? In the bible, there have been selective narratives which describe God’s appearance to the ancient prophets. Probably the most widely known example of a person being in the physical presence of God might be that of Moses during the time of the ten commandments. These accounts require us to have faith and to rely on the witnessing of others. For some, this evidence is not sufficient enough and they will not place their trust and faith on records which are several thousand years old. Maybe they have doubts in the ability of the witnesses who are not as discerning as people of today might be. Also, they may have distrust in the written accounts and records which have been handed down generation after generation as well as being translated from one language to another.

Why do we not receive some type of sign that gives us reassurance and confidence in the existence of God? If we have chosen to believe, why must we rely on others to be our first hand witnesses? Previously, we discussed the growth and development that we undergo while we are on the Earth. It is quite possible that our growth and development experiences would be curtailed if we became too overconfident. It may be that the growth of our faith experience is important for us to nurture and advance. Also, the testing of our faith may be an area that is important for us to develop. Imagine if we all walked around with absolute certainty and knowledge that God existed. Might we not become overconfident in our actions and start to act reckless and arrogant. We could potentially use this knowledge to lull us into a false sense of security. How many people have known someone in a position of great power and authority and fallen into the trap where they felt they could do anything and were immune to any repercussions?

One night, while I laid awake in bed for hours unable to sleep, I thought heavily about this topic. I put forward this same question to myself and wondered what would be required to satisfy my doubts. What kind of sign would I need? Various scenarios were considered. Maybe God could allow some miracle to happen that I would be witness to. Would that be sufficient? The more I thought about it, I realized that this would not work. What if someone who is far more skeptical than myself were to be involved instead? This would not satisfy their doubts. They would witness the miracle, but afterwards, when questioned about it, they would state that something indeed incredible happened. However when asked if God performed the miracle, they would coldly, but correctly, state that the event occurred just as described, but they did not see anyone else and they could not attribute the cause the events to God.

I thought about supernatural events that might happen. These too fell into a category which yielded the same net result. Although they might be wonderfully spectacular and cause for great mystery, there would be a faction of people who would focus on trying to find explainable and understandable causes for the events. Picture the biblical description on the parting of the Red Sea. If that were to happen today, how many people would be studying and seeking to describe the rare occurrence through natural or scientific means.

This led me to the determination that the most irrefutable evidence that people would accept would require a personal appearance by God. The doubt would vaporize quicker if the appearance was more spectacular and larger than life, as the expression goes. I started to think of the best circumstances for this to happen. It would be better if there were several witnesses to avoid the burden of proof falling onto a solitary person. Yet, as I attempted to mentally walk the example through, the whole process struck me as having an underlying current of futility. Knowing human nature to be what it is, the benefit of this doubt-breaking event did not seem destined to succeed. However, let us try and the example is set up as follows.

Say that you and twenty of your friends were to stand in a secluded area and God was to appear to the group. Furthermore, God would to speak to the group and briefly demonstrate the impressive powers that were at God’s command. Both the miraculous appearance and the demonstration left you and the entire group without any doubts whatsoever that God did indeed exist. Everyone was so pleased and overjoyed because now their doubts were totally overcome and satisfied. Any burdens or the weight of nagging questions were now completely lifted. There was a combined feeling of relief and joy at this event.

However, the difficulties have only begun. As a group, your skepticism has been totally overcome and you are all overjoyed. The task that lies ahead of you all is to now pass on the wonderful news to others. How do you undertake this? Maybe the first and obvious step is to tell the friends and family members of the group. It would be such a fantastic experience and the group would want to pass along the extraordinary knowledge to the next circle of friends outside the group so that they too could benefit. How would this go over? Quite well is the likely response. Since it is such a rare and incredible event, there would be serious first doubts as the explanation is initially told. However, these doubts would quickly evaporate once the realization of the circumstances and the people involved fully set in. The sincerity and credibility of the people involved in the event would be known and mentally evaluated by their friends. The credibility of the people, combined with the fact that they have a first hand report from the actual participants, would more than likely lead the first circle of friends to conclude the event was quite real. It may even lead to a change in their outlook on believing in the existence of God.

What happens though, when the original group tries to spread the knowledge of the event outside a close circle of acquaintances? For example, let us consider what would happen if the various types of news media were contacted. We will assume that due to the number of people involved, the news media will at least find the report worthwhile and send someone to investigate. Reporters would get dispatched and commence by conducting interviews with all of the first hand witnesses. Always concerned about hoaxes, they would have to determine the credibility of the witnesses and would likely find some ways to perform character checks. Another certain step they would take would be to ask if there was any more evidence of the event. Was there any physical evidence which was left behind and that could be shown. Since there is such an preponderance of news outlets that use visual media, inquiries would be made to see if there were any photographs taken, or, if anything was captured on a video camera. Without hard evidence of some type or any photographic record, the news event would certainly be characterized differently and would even affect the priority and coverage it was given.