Evidence for God

[Treasure Hunter]

Rationality is the only reliable means for approximating truth. Therefore, genuine truth seekers necessarily adhere to the strict confines of rationality. If you don't, then you are not engaging in genuine truth seeking.

Rationality can’t touch greatness. It is for the status-quo-obedient and for those who are risk averse.

It’s a safe haven and part of God’s mercy, so I don’t desire to attack it any more than I have.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, what do you mean by "objectivity" and "rationality?"

As far as I'm concerned, being objective means that you're focusing on facts rather than preferences, opinions, emotions, or judgments. It's objective when we say that an object is red even if we're wrong; it is subjective when we say that the same object looks terrible in red.

Objectivity is therefore not some holy grail of impossible standards. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're completely rational, unbiased, or omniscient. It just determines what kind of statements you examine and make.

As for rationality, most of the successful coping mechanisms I know of and have had success with are rational processes and include methods of becoming more objective. That's how we fight pathological ways of thinking like emotional reasoning and motivated reasoning, which tend to exacerbate mental illness and suffering in general. This has been successful for over 2,000 years, as early as Socrates at least, from what I know of history.

I'm not sure what you mean by "live a life with only objectivity and rationality." Do you mean live a life where you have no preferences or feelings whatsoever? Clearly, even desiring such a life would be a feeling, so that's impossible. However, in my opinion, it is completely possible to consistently live in accordance with "rational action" as defined by game theorists and decision theorists, which includes maintaining a perception of the world informed by objectivity rather than preference. That's literally living with only objectivity and rationality.

You could say that game theory and decision theory require goals and that these goals are therefore subjective. I would say that these goals are literally called objectives and you're being obtuse. You could say that the goals are not necessarily chosen through a rational process, but then I would say that there surely are goals which have been considered rational and that's the whole point of a number of philosophies, namely rationalism and intellectualism. Unless you're going to say that rationalism does not meet your definition of rational? But then, at that point, what can be called rational if we reject the definition given to us by the philosophy that has devoted the most time to rigorously defining rationality?

I would say that you can cope as a human only being objective and rational, and we found the method to only live a life with objectivity and rationality over 2,000 years ago. We have only refined our methods and understanding since then, but the core rational approach has remained the same.

For the bold if you mean an objective as purpose or reason to do something, then that is subjective.
As for rational as being better in doing what you want to achieve or cope, then yes. But that you want that, an objective, is subjective.
We are talking about an object of what you want to achieve. How you do that, can be objective, that you want it not so much.

So being objective and rational is useful, but you know that the drill by now. Useful is what?

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

That is not just about science, it is so for rational and objective to as methods.
They can't do morality or what you want as useful to you.
It is the is-ought problem and no, you haven't solved it either. Nor have I.

 

[Trailblazer]

That doesn't address much less rebut my comment: "I asked you [what about your messenger or his message constitutes evidence for a god] and you never answered with anything more specific than his character, his work, and his words, which were all very human."

And I've answered your multiple times already. Do you really not know my answer still?

This has nothing to do with what I consider evidence... I already know that is not evidence for you.
I asked YOU what would be the evidence to YOU that would support his claim to be a messenger of God.

If you answered that I don't recall the answer.
I was not talking about evidence for God, I was talking about evidence for Baha'u'llah.
What would be sufficient evidence for you that would back His claims?

Yet you quoted him without attribution or disclaimer. I didn't know that they weren't your words and opinion until later. I don't know who all of these apostrophe people you quote are or which you think speak for a god. Hopefully, not that one.

I did not quote him. I only relayed what he has said about cowards. I don't believe he spoke for God since he was not a messenger of God.

That was based in experience, and you haven't disappointed yet after a couple of days, although it looks like you now feel compelled to do more this time based on your comment below.

People change every day, so your experience of what I have posted is not a reliable indicator of what I might post on another day.
Especially since this was a new question posed to me, there will be a different answer than you have seen in the past.

But you are wrong. We all have foreknowledge. I made the case and you agreed. Why are we back to this again?

But you are wrong. Only God has perfect foreknowledge so He can never be wrong. Anyone else can be wrong.

Yes, and more. Now read your words again: "Only God has foreknowledge." Shall I repeat them? "Only God has foreknowledge." Do you not know what those words mean? Shall I paraphrase? God alone can know what things will happen. It was wrong before and it's wrong again.

Correction: Only God has perfect foreknowledge so He can never be wrong. Anyone else can be wrong.

It's a question others have asked you in vain for a few years now, and you have never brought a single fact that supports your claims for who Baha'u'llah represented. Now it seems that you might look for your most divine text or quality or feat, although I have grave doubts that you will do that. But if you do, the debate on the significance of that evidence can proceed.

I will find whatever I find and present what I find.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Critical analysis - observe evidence and then generate an induction that accounts for it and predicts future events.
Faith - begin with a belief, then observe evidence and pick that which you like while rejecting whatever seems to contradict your belief.

That is a false dichotomy..
We ALL start off with an idea in our head .. that G-d is likely to exist, or is not likely to exist etc.
You may claim that you are COMPLETELY unbiased, but your posts show otherwise.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This has nothing to do with what I consider evidence... I already know that is not evidence for you.
I asked YOU what would be the evidence to YOU that would support his claim to be a messenger of God.

If you answered that I don't recall the answer.

Yes, it does have to do with what you have called evidence, but you don't care to discuss that.

I asked YOU what would be the evidence to YOU that would support his claim to be a messenger of God. If you answered that I don't recall the answer.

I've answered it multiple times. No more. In another thread, I answered you again just minutes ago, and recommended you write it down ("please write that down this time so you don't have to keep asking me what constituted evidence for a god for me"). Don't ask me again.

I was not talking about evidence for God, I was talking about evidence for Baha'u'llah. What would be sufficient evidence for you that would back His claims?

You mean the claim that he was channeling a deity? The support of that claim would also be evidence for a god. One would have to show evidence of a god to support the claim that he channeled the message of a god.

I did not quote him. I only relayed what he has said about cowards.

And you think that's relevant? It's not. It's just your deflection to avoid answering for why you paraphrased him at all, and without attribution or disclaimer.

Only God has perfect foreknowledge

You've moved the goalpost. That wasn't the claim I rebutted.

I will find whatever I find and present what I find.

I know, and I'm pretty sure that I know what that won't be despite your protestations about predicting behavior framed as reading minds.

That is a false dichotomy.. We ALL start off with an idea in our head .. that G-d is likely to exist, or is not likely to exist etc.

The dichotomy follows that, and is not false. There are only two ways to come by belief - by the proper interpretation of evidence and faith. I described them exactly. If you disagree for a reason, you can make your rebuttal.

You may claim that you are COMPLETELY unbiased, but your posts show otherwise.

I don't claim to be completely unbiased. I'm very biased. I've spent a lifetime accumulating effective biases - my belief set, or accumulated learning. One of my biases is against belief by faith, a VERY rational bias.

 

[muhammad_isa]

One of my biases is against belief by faith, a VERY rational bias.

..and what does that mean?
..to me, it means that whatever evidence presents itself, you will discard it,
because you would rather believe that G-d is made-up by men.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it does have to do with what you have called evidence, but you don't care to discuss that.

I've answered it multiple times. No more. In another thread, I answered you again just minutes ago, and recommended you write it down ("please write that down this time so you don't have to keep asking me what constituted evidence for a god for me"). Don't ask me again.

I know you do not consider the Writings of Baha'u'llah to be evidence for God. That is not what I was asking you.
I was asking you what you WOULD consider evidence for the claim of Baha'u'llah to be a Messenger of God.

You mean the claim that he was channeling a deity? The support of that claim would also be evidence for a god. One would have to show evidence of a god to support the claim that he channeled the message of a god.

I know, and I have said this many times over that nobody can ever prove that God exists, so we cannot ever prove that ANY alleged messenger is channeling a message from God. This is a faith-based belief. The only way to go about it is look at the character, life, completed mission, and writings of the messenger in order to determine if the messenger was telling the truth about what he claimed.

And you think that's relevant? It's not. It's just your deflection to avoid answering for why you paraphrased him at all, and without attribution or disclaimer.

I am not answerable to you. I do not need to add a disclaimer just because I remembered with what Abdu'l-Baha said about cowards while I was writing a post and incorporate the thought into my post. That post was not even to you, it was to @danieldemol.

You've moved the goalpost. That wasn't the claim I rebutted.

You think you rebutted the claim that only God has foreknowledge by providing examples of how you have foreknowledge?
I previously agreed with you that we all have foreknowledge. I am now retracting that.

foreknowledge: knowledge of an event before it happens

foreknowledge

1. knowledge of an event before it happens 2. knowledge of an event before it…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Only God has foreknowledge of events that will occur in the future because God is all-knowing and can never be wrong.
You made plans for dinner and you expected that you would have dinner at a certain time in a certain place. That is not foreknowledge.
Anything could have happened to interfere with your plans so you did not know that dinner would take place.

I know, and I'm pretty sure that I know what that won't be despite your protestations about predicting behavior framed as reading minds.

You don't know that since you do not have foreknowledge. You don't know, you only have expectations.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

and what does that mean?

I wrote, "One of my biases is against belief by faith, a VERY rational bias." That means that I have a preference, and it is based in reason. I prefer ideas derived from critical analysis of evidence over unjustified belief, because one generates useful ideas about reality and the other doesn't.

to me, it means that whatever evidence presents itself, you will discard it, because you would rather believe that G-d is made-up by men.

That's not what it means, nor is it what I or other critical thinkers do. What I'd rather believe is whatever is correct according to the method I use to determine that. Have you ever stopped to think that there might be another explanation for why critical thinkers reject the arguments of theists besides trying to find reasons not to believe in a god? I don't think so. No alternative possibility ever seem to come up in these discussions. Imagine a group of believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. What do you think their experience here would be like, and how would you expect them to understand it?

You think you rebutted the claim that only God has foreknowledge by providing examples of how you have foreknowledge?

Yes.

I previously agreed with you that we all have foreknowledge. I am now retracting that. foreknowledge: knowledge of an event before it happens

I have accurately predicted uncounted sunrises and sunsets.

Only God has foreknowledge of events that will occur

No. Watch this: Carnak (sic) predicts that there will be a total solar eclipse visible from much of North America this Saturday. Let's see what happens.

You made plans for dinner and you expected that you would have dinner at a certain time in a certain place. That is not foreknowledge.

The duck was delicious, and it was ready at the exact date, time and place predicted.

Anything could have happened to interfere with your plans so you did not know that dinner would take place.

I was correct. And I am correct that the sun will redden, swell, and consume inner planets in a few billion years. You can bet on it. Look out your window tomorrow at noon. I predict that a star will be lighting up the countryside. Let's see how I do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes.

I have accurately predicted uncounted sunrises and sunsets.

That is not foreknowledge. Go ahead, Google it and see what you find. Only God has foreknowledge. Prophets of God also have foreknowledge because they get that knowledge from God.

Come back to me when you find one website that says that ordinary humans have foreknowledge. Even atheists would be laughing at your claim to foreknowledge.

No. Watch this: Carnak (sic) predicts that there will be a total solar eclipse visible from much of North America this Saturday. Let's see what happens.

Do you really think that you are imparting new information? It can be known when and where an eclipse will occur by astronomical calculations.
That is knowledge but it is not foreknowledge.

“The mathematicians by astronomical calculations know that at a certain time an eclipse of the moon or the sun will occur. Surely this discovery does not cause the eclipse to take place. This is, of course, only an analogy and not an exact image.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 139

The duck was delicious, and it was ready at the exact date, time and place predicted.

Only because something did not happen that interfere with your plans. You had plans and everything happened the way you planned it but that was not foreknowledge.

I was correct.

So you were correct about one dinner plan, big deal. That does not prove foreknowledge, it only means that your dinner went off without a hitch. The claim that humans have foreknowledge can be easily refuted by other people's experiences, since many people make plans and everything does not go as they planned. Happens every day.

And I am correct that the sun will redden, swell, and consume inner planets in a few billion years. You can bet on it. Look out your window tomorrow at noon. I predict that a star will be lighting up the countryside. Let's see how I do.

No, you do not know any of that for a fact, only God has foreknowledge.
You must really have a high opinion of yourself and your abilities. I am glad I don't have that problem.

 

[Ella S.]

For the bold if you mean an objective as purpose or reason to do something, then that is subjective.
As for rational as being better in doing what you want to achieve or cope, then yes. But that you want that, an objective, is subjective.
We are talking about an object of what you want to achieve. How you do that, can be objective, that you want it not so much.

So being objective and rational is useful, but you know that the drill by now. Useful is what?

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

That is not just about science, it is so for rational and objective to as methods.
They can't do morality or what you want as useful to you.
It is the is-ought problem and no, you haven't solved it either. Nor have I.

Analytical philosophy, which is based on logic and rationality, is the norm for discussing ethics. The is-ought problem doesn't really have anything to do with that, because it still affirms that you can extrapolate ought statements from true ought statements.

Your issue isn't with the is-ought problem, then. In fact, your issue isn't with ethics at all because ethics is mostly about the logical consequences of various moral axioms. Your issue is with metaethics.

Moral rationalism is a metaethical framework, though, that is rational. It supports the idea that moral axioms are knowable "a priori." Thus, there is no issue with the is-ought problem or the fact-value distinction.

The limits of science are not equivalent to the limits of rationality. Analytical philosophy can and does deal with questions of morality, metaphysics, ontology, and so on rationally. Science is just one rational method for dealing with empirical data and, yeah, empirical data has its limitations, but those limitations do not apply to rationality as a whole.

If you're going to call moral rationalism irrational because it isn't scientific, then that's several layers of wrong. It's so deeply misguided that I don't think I could unpack it in a single thread.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What I'd rather believe is whatever is correct according to the method I use to determine that..

..well, you choose the method..

..Imagine a group of believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

..now you're being immature..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Analytical philosophy, which is based on logic and rationality, is the norm for discussing ethics. The is-ought problem doesn't really have anything to do with that, because it still affirms that you can extrapolate ought statements from true ought statements.

Your issue isn't with the is-ought problem, then. In fact, your issue isn't with ethics at all because ethics is mostly about the logical consequences of various moral axioms. Your issue is with metaethics.

Moral rationalism is a metaethical framework, though, that is rational. It supports the idea that moral axioms are knowable "a priori." Thus, there is no issue with the is-ought problem or the fact-value distinction.

The limits of science are not equivalent to the limits of rationality. Analytical philosophy can and does deal with questions of morality, metaphysics, ontology, and so on rationally. Science is just one rational method for dealing with empirical data and, yeah, empirical data has its limitations, but those limitations do not apply to rationality as a whole.

If you're going to call moral rationalism irrational because it isn't scientific, then that's several layers of wrong. It's so deeply misguided that I don't think I could unpack it in a single thread.

Then show how it works, Or if you don't want to, find an academic source.

 

[danieldemol]

now you're being immature..

Now your throwing ad-hominem in lieu of refutation in my view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

Don't ask the horse to drink dirty water.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Analytical philosophy, which is based on logic and rationality, is the norm for discussing ethics. The is-ought problem doesn't really have anything to do with that, because it still affirms that you can extrapolate ought statements from true ought statements.

Your issue isn't with the is-ought problem, then. In fact, your issue isn't with ethics at all because ethics is mostly about the logical consequences of various moral axioms. Your issue is with metaethics.

Moral rationalism is a metaethical framework, though, that is rational. It supports the idea that moral axioms are knowable "a priori." Thus, there is no issue with the is-ought problem or the fact-value distinction.

The limits of science are not equivalent to the limits of rationality. Analytical philosophy can and does deal with questions of morality, metaphysics, ontology, and so on rationally. Science is just one rational method for dealing with empirical data and, yeah, empirical data has its limitations, but those limitations do not apply to rationality as a whole.

If you're going to call moral rationalism irrational because it isn't scientific, then that's several layers of wrong. It's so deeply misguided that I don't think I could unpack it in a single thread.

"Analytical philosophy, which is based on logic and rationality, is the norm for discussing ethics."
How do you know, it is true, that it is the norm?

So here is my issue with truth. It is cognitive and it works in practice in at least one case. But from that doesn't follow that it works in all cases. Or that there is only one form of it.
In more specific words, from the fact that you can use one form of truth doesn't mean that there is only one form and it works in all cases.
So you have to specify rationality as a whole and then test if that has a limit or even more than one limit.

 

[viole]

In other words, miracles. Baha'u'llah did miracles but they were only evidence to those who witnessed them.

Sure, they always are
And you call that evidence?

It would be very difficult to make up actual history. There are verifiable things that happened in history while Baha'u'llah walked the earth. We are not talking about Jesus now, for whom all we have are the gospel accounts, we are talking about Baha'u'llah. Accounts of His life were documented by His contemporaries.

And? I am sure that that guy who managed his entire community to commit suicide, because he convinced them that there were a UFO behind a comet, that will hitchhike their souls to wherever, really existed. There are historical reports about him. Even pictures.

That means nothing. The world is, was and will always be full of delusional people.

If the premise the Bible is true is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

That is not circular. It is like saying, if the premise that Superman exists, then Kryptonite
exists, too. Not circular, but not very useful. It is like conditional probability, under the premise of Superman, Superman exists with 100% probability.

So?

What is circular is:

- God exists.
- How do you know?
- It's in the Bible
- And how do you know the Bible is true
- Because it has been written by God

Similarly, if the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Yes, like Kryptonite. This is basically all your arguments in favor of God reduce to. The problem with circularity will start when you try to show evidence of the premise.

Of course, the argument is not sound. Since I can never 'prove' the premise that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true, then I can never assert the conclusion that God exists. The same applies to the Bible, it can never be proven to be true, so it cannot be used to assert that God exists.

Which brings us back to you having no evidence, and the atheists are right. It is not the case that they do not know what God is. But it is the case that theists do not know what evidence is, instead.

imagine that the first messenger must have used evidence that certified him to really speak for God, since God would not expect people to believe in His messengers without evidence.

All messengers of God know the qualities of God since those qualities are revealed to Him by God

There we go. Trying to show evidence of the premise, and fall into circularity in no time. Like that Bible argument above. Don't you see it?

I don't know, because I did not live in prehistoric times.

And that is all evidence you have.

Zero.

I really wonder what motivated you to start this OP, make complicated analogies of atheists not knowing God, and all that, with what you have.

Forget it. You will always lose. All evidences, proofs, arguments in favor of God are, no matter how complex, scientific, philosophical, whatever, at the current state of our knowledge, based on fallacious, question begging, circular, special pleading statements, and unproven rumors, that will bring you nowhere. And it is also very easy to show that.

Therefore, if you want to believe, it is fine. But you must have faith. Only faith. 100% faith, and nothing more than that. Any hope to base one's metaphysical belief on a rational basis, must be abandoned the very moment we start believing that, because that belief can exist only with faith.
I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[joelr]

I know what the evidence for God IS, so I don't need to know what the evidence for God WOULD BE.

No, you have a BELIEF in what you think God is. Your words. You need to demonstrate that your beliefs are true.
You also said :
"I do not believe that spiritual experiences are sufficient evidence for God because those are subjective and they cannot be experienced by everyone."
So now you would have to demonstrate your beliefs in God are true and correct and provide this objective evidence you claim you have.

But what's going to happen is you have no objective evidence and can not demonstrate the God you "know is true" is true at all.
You will present a claim from a person who provided no evidence whatsoever.

What seems to have happened is you decided to hold a belief in a claim that is unwarranted.

I know what the evidence for God IS so I know it IS NOT according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities.
That is how I know that evidence for God would NOT be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities.

And also not personal/spiritual experience. You also said - "I am looking for people who are logical with whom I can have a logical discussion. Personal opinions mean nothing unless they are based upon logical reasoning."

But you don't actually want a logical discussion because I have tried to have several logical discussions and you have no interest.

Take away, scientific, academic, legal, personal, spiritual evidence, what are you left with? Some sort of claim and believers choosing confirmation bias.

This is very logical. The issue is you also refuse to accept that your beliefs are not logical. It's been spelled out step by step, a man claiming revelations is already extremely suspect. Then add on this God decided to give him ZERO science, philosophy, mathematics or anything new to humans, refused any upcoming reveals about science that was coming soon, mathematics, medical science, technology. But did allow him to give incorrect science that is now outdated and even incorrect on a variety of topics.

Pretty sure at this point, it's fair to say, or it's logical to say, you were mistaken and led by a cognitive bias from wanting this to be true.

Please tell me where you find a mistake in the logic.

The Quran and Gospels do not say there will be no more prophets. Those are merely Christianity's and Islam's false beliefs based upon misinterpretation of the scriptures, in an effort to claim that they are the last and final religion from God.

The Quran says - "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." 5:3 and is considered to mean no more prophets are needed.
The Gospels warn of future false prophets but do not say real prophets will come.
Yes they want to claim they are the last just as Bahai prophets want to say they are actually prophets. There are no prophets, no God has been demonstrated and no messages from any God has ever been demonstrated.

What there are - claims and people who hold beliefs in the claims.

Please show me where I ever ranted about atheists. It is the atheists who rant at believers, whoever will listen to them.

This thread, post #1. For example:


"When I say I have evidence Atheists always say “that’s not evidence!”

Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?"

and

"Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for."


those are rants about atheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fallacy of false equivalence because that is like comparing apples and oranges. Theists cannot show the atheists who God is in photos because God is not a material object that flies overhead like a plane. Likewise, theists cannot show atheists the wreckage of a God as proof that God actually exists.

Why wouldn't God, if real, leave physical evidence? How could a god design and create an entire universe without leaving "fingerprints" in some way?

Why wouldn't there be sonething akin to the cosmic microwave background radiation? Physics predicted that if the Big Bang really happened, cosmic microwave background radiation should exist... and lo and behold, it does. Why wouldn't there be something similar for God?

And on the flipside, wouldn't a lack of physical, empirical evidence for God indicate God's irrelevance to what we measure empirically in the physical world?

 

[dybmh]

Why wouldn't God, if real, leave physical evidence? How could a god design and create an entire universe without leaving "fingerprints" in some way?

Those are really good questions! The answers to any question relating to why and how God created is going to be extremely complicated. But, that doesn't mean that these sorts of questions should go unanswered.

In summary:

How could a god design and create an entire universe without leaving fingerprints in some way? If "nothing" is the first creation, then there is a gap between the creator and creation which cannot be traversed or observed in a material or physical manner. This is discussed in Jewish mysticsm, the concept is called Tzimtzum. Many people are familiar with the phrase 'creation ex-nihilo', but few seem to understand what it means. It means that "nothing" was the first creation. The idea is, there was an initial contraction creating nothingness which permits the material world to exist.

Why wouldn't God, if real, leave physical evidence? According to the story, God did leave physical evidence. But because the Jewish people failed to remain united in adherence to God's laws, they ( we, me ) no longer have that physical evidence. But, everything in life has pros and cons, positives and negatives. There is a benefit to having physical evidence, obviously. But there's also a liability because that physical evidence can be taken away. So, ideally a person would have both, physical evidence and non-physical evidence. And that's the system that God has set-up, at least in theory. In the past there was physical evidence. Currently we're in a period where there is no physical evidence and all a person has is faith ( which is a method for obtaining non-physical, weak, subjective, evidence ). And in the future, there will be both.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Those are really good questions! The answers to any question relating to why and how God created is going to be extremely complicated. But, that doesn't mean that these sorts of questions should go unanswered.

In summary:

How could a god design and create an entire universe without leaving fingerprints in some way? If "nothing" is the first creation, then there is a gap between the creator and creation which cannot be traversed or observed in a material or physical manner. This is discussed in Jewish mysticsm, the concept is called Tzimtzum. Many people are familiar with the phrase 'creation ex-nihilo', but few seem to understand what it means. It means that "nothing" was the first creation. The idea is, there was an initial contraction creating nothingness which permits the material world to exist.

Why wouldn't God, if real, leave physical evidence? According to the story, God did leave physical evidence. But because the Jewish people failed to remain united in adherence to God's laws, they ( we, me ) no longer have that physical evidence. But, everything in life has pros and cons, positives and negatives. There is a benefit to having physical evidence, obviously. But there's also a liability because that physical evidence can be taken away. So, ideally a person would have both, physical evidence and non-physical evidence. And that's the system that God has set-up, at least in theory. In the past there was physical evidence. Currently we're in a period where there is no physical evidence and all a person has is faith ( which is a method for obtaining non-physical, weak, subjective, evidence ). And in the future, there will be both.

Interesting, thanks