If God can't be shown to exist, isn't he useless

[The Sum of Awe]

If God can be shown to exist, why is there doubt?

If God can't be shown to exist, where is his value?


The only exception I can think of is deism, but that falls into question of whether a valueless God can still be considered 'god'. Then there is monism, as I am in agreement with, which is a God unidentifiable. If God is unidentifiable and thus inseparable from common things, logically that means the value of God's existence is at level with lesser things and thus God is not greater than the universe and that falls into valuelessness, or the problem with deism, the ungodliness which is another question itself. But in pantheism this problem is overcome when God needn't be greater than the universe, for they are one and the same, and that explains why God isn't recognizable to all, we are apart of him.

As for God not being the universe, God could've made existence thus making him greater in that sense, but after that there is no present action of God that preserves this value. A man who plants the first trees doesn't mean anything else to the forest that comes of them in decades afterward. Creating them is a one time value, preservation is needed to continue this value.

Another example: someone who has been a great help to people throughout their lives, they can be great for that, but it doesn't mean they're still helpful when they age to disability.

 

[Quagmire]

If God can be shown to exist, why is there doubt?

If God can't be shown to exist, where is his value?


The only exception I can think of is deism, but that falls into question of whether a valueless God can still be considered 'god'. Then there is monism, as I am in agreement with, which is a God unidentifiable. If God is unidentifiable and thus inseparable from common things, logically that means the value of God's existence is at level with lesser things and thus God is not greater than the universe and that falls into valuelessness, or the problem with deism, the ungodliness which is another question itself. But in pantheism this problem is overcome when God needn't be greater than the universe, for they are one and the same, and that explains why God isn't recognizable to all, we are apart of him.

As for God not being the universe, God could've made existence thus making him greater in that sense, but after that there is no present action of God that preserves this value. A man who plants the first trees doesn't mean anything else to the forest that comes of them in decades afterward. Creating them is a one time value, preservation is needed to continue this value.

Another example: someone who has been a great help to people throughout their lives, they can be great for that, but it doesn't mean they're still helpful when they age to disability.

Ancient Man had no idea oxygen existed.

 

[Skwim]

If God can be shown to exist, why is there doubt?

Because it hasn't been shown to exist to everyone's satisfaction.

If God can't be shown to exist, where is his value?

Although it cannot be shown to exist, its value could lie in the "fact" that it put this whole world together, and so on. Kind of like the ignorance of Earth's magnetosphere years ago.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

i can't see the electricity in a high voltage wire but I know not to touch it. do you really need to see proof of everything?

 

[Lyndon]

Fortunately believers in God do not need the OPs approval for their own beliefs. Its another "I believe this" so everyone else must be wrong but me thread, and it is frankly quite boring.

 

[Copernicus]

Nonexistent gods have always proved to be of value to people. That's why so many have been invented historically. They help people to answer questions about where they came from and how reality works. The answers may be wrong, but they put the nagging questions to rest, especially when children won't shut up about them. Moreover, having a god approve of you and your policy proposals is a definite plus when it comes to promoting your own social value. Still works today. People even get rich off of gods.

 

[Nakosis]

The value depends on how folks who are "believers" can be manipulated. Since people choose to believe in the supernatural, it's belief can't be scientifically disproved.

And like Copernicus said, it puts some questions to rest for folks so they can get on about other things.

 

[Iti oj]

i can't see the electricity in a high voltage wire but I know not to touch it. do you really need to see proof of everything?

but your belief in that is based upon demonstrable evidence

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ancient Man had no idea oxygen existed.

Oxygen has the same qualities as God?

 

[Quagmire]

Oxygen has the same qualities as God?

They have more or less the same haircut.

 

[Twilight Hue]

i can't see the electricity in a high voltage wire but I know not to touch it. do you really need to see proof of everything?

It's an obvious objective experience to be had touching a live wire.

Are you saying that proof is not necessary for establishing facts as they pertain to things?

 

[psychoslice]

Its not god that is useless its the concept of a personal god that is useless, I personally see all as one, and call that whatever you want, so I see the Source in all, but a personal god, na, not at all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They have more or less the same haircut.

I'm not so sure. Although ancient man wasn't familiar with microchemistry, it does seems clear they were aware of breathing in and exhaling a gas.

Ie; breath.

I just don't see the same obviousness as it pertains to God in that particular sense.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I suppose there is a conceptual usefulness pertaining to God. It's clearly useless in any objective practical sense of the word as there is no real interaction taking place.

 

[Thief]

If God can be shown to exist, why is there doubt?

If God can't be shown to exist, where is his value?


The only exception I can think of is deism, but that falls into question of whether a valueless God can still be considered 'god'. Then there is monism, as I am in agreement with, which is a God unidentifiable. If God is unidentifiable and thus inseparable from common things, logically that means the value of God's existence is at level with lesser things and thus God is not greater than the universe and that falls into valuelessness, or the problem with deism, the ungodliness which is another question itself. But in pantheism this problem is overcome when God needn't be greater than the universe, for they are one and the same, and that explains why God isn't recognizable to all, we are apart of him.

As for God not being the universe, God could've made existence thus making him greater in that sense, but after that there is no present action of God that preserves this value. A man who plants the first trees doesn't mean anything else to the forest that comes of them in decades afterward. Creating them is a one time value, preservation is needed to continue this value.

Another example: someone who has been a great help to people throughout their lives, they can be great for that, but it doesn't mean they're still helpful when they age to disability.

Have you considered the need of someone there.....in your last hour of breathing....
might be a good thing to have Someone standing over you, that can fend off any potential harm.

but then the question.....would He care about you?

 

[Thief]

Ancient Man had no idea oxygen existed.

so a lack of knowing creates dysfunction?

In this comparison, God could exist outside your ability to 'see' Him.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

i can't see the electricity in a high voltage wire but I know not to touch it. do you really need to see proof of everything?

Electricity can be measured in other ways, anyone can notice electricity, it isn't hidden.

We do need proof if something is considered real, otherwise we'll never be certain if we just say 'yes' or 'no'.

Fortunately believers in God do not need the OPs approval for their own beliefs. Its another "I believe this" so everyone else must be wrong but me thread, and it is frankly quite boring.

I'm not trying to give approval, and I'm not saying everyone else is wrong. It's a simple question and I'm open to answers. Just because I question deities doesn't mean I'm giving them approval...

It sounds to me that your post is a cop out, dodging the answers by distracting the original topic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If God can be shown to exist, why is there doubt?

What can be shown to exist and how?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Electricity can be measured in other ways, anyone can notice electricity, it isn't hidden.

It isn't hidden, because "it" doesn't exist as such and what is hidden is whatever is responsible for the effects of what we call electricity.

 

[Bunyip]

I reflected on this question for sometime, before remembering that so many theological approaches to faith demand no such demonstration of existence. I have had the pleasure of talking to a few Orthodox Jews for example, who I don't think would even find the question meaningful. To them God is innate, and thus asking for a demonstration of his existence can never be more than a sort of malformed question.
The more I think about it, the fewer sects of all faiths there are that would think an observable demonstration of God's existence is even significant. Maybe evangelical Christians of some sorts are exceptions?
The theological approaches like that of the awesome Father Bob Maguire, or Bishop Spong demand no such demonstration of evidence. Nor do those of many Hindu and Islamic scholars.
Pantheists, deists and Buddists tend to dismiss such things out of hand (I'm inclined to, agree with them). and for most good people it's probably something they rarely think about.