If God existed how could it be proven?

[viole]

Only God could make that happen but God is biding His time until everyone chooses to believe in the same God of their own free will. You know what they say about God being patient.

Why? That free will thing must be the mother of all rationalizations. And it is self defeating, since God will need to do things in such a way that it is not obvious that they come from Him. Like miracles. They need to be such that they could still be no miracles at all.

One of the tenets of your religion, I think, includes middle men, aka prophets. What is their use? To communicate God’s will, or whatever? Why doesn’t He do it directly? If He has no problem to mess up with the free will of those prophets, why has He a problem with the rest?

why make it so complicated and choose a method that has a much more simple explanation? Namely, that those middle men just made everything up.

ciao

- viole

 

[rational experiences]

Father said you cannot argue against a natural human baby to adult experience.

We know we are not the heavens. We hear father in the heavens seen his image recorded. Too many first human science natural first observations for a thinker theist to argue.

Your belief a thought does not supersede a reactive cause effect.

We know water mass is mass first is not any single molecule.

Science theories for singularity when mass of any form exists first.

Science preaching mass is first by law.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Dont prove God. Just wait for faith to manifest knowledge (awareness of information).

 

[stvdv]

Then what is the issue?

Do you agree with what I said, that "where to look" can not be the issue here?

 

[rational experiences]

Why? That free will thing must be the mother of all rationalizations. And it is self defeating, since God will need to do things in such a way that it is not obvious that they come from Him. Like miracles. They need to be such that they could still be no miracles at all.

One of the tenets of your religion, I think, includes middle men, aka prophets. What is their use? To communicate God’s will, or whatever? Why doesn’t He do it directly? If He has no problem to mess up with the free will of those prophets, why has He a problem with the rest?

why make it so complicated and choose a method that has a much more simple explanation? Namely, that those middle men just made everything up.

ciao

- viole

Science says middle core or heart or mark or point. To react. None exist first. Is a theory of cause. How to. Must have. Will cause.

Science explained by mass body of men human in an agreement. We want as I want.

Moment to state change for science reactions.

Prophecy mathematics said first in natural highest state. Not present reactive cause.

Man attacks irradiated self body his owned prophecy recordings. Caused attack.

Prophet however not a real human. Not real as a one form in mass either.

Phenomena experienced by a living natural human man. A caused effect by man of science. Caused it to self. Explained phenomena as it occurred as his experience. I changed God. Was man informed.

God being all science strings earth mass first.

 

[rational experiences]

Dont prove God. Just wait for faith to manifest knowledge (awareness of information).

To know is not awareness.

Knowing is a man intent purpose of I will.

Aware is that man made the above statement and lied.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why? That free will thing must be the mother of all rationalizations.

One of the tenets of your religion, I think, includes middle men, aka prophets. What is their use? To communicate God’s will, or whatever? Why doesn’t He do it directly? If He has no problem to mess up with the free will of those prophets, why has He a problem with the rest?

Yes, the purpose of middle men, Messengers, Prophets or whatever you choose to call them is to comminicate God's will to humanity.

It is not only because of free will that God uses middle men who act as intermediaries between God and man because even they could have chosen not to carry God's message to humanity.

I explained the reason why God does not speak directly to anyone except His Messengers on this post: #527 Trailblazer, Friday at 9:22 PM

why make it so complicated and choose a method that has a much more simple explanation? Namely, that those middle men just made everything up.

It makes no sense that the Messengers if God would make anything up because they got nothing for themselves for all that they sacrificed and suffered in the path of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you agree with what I said, that "where to look" can not be the issue here?

I agree that "where to look" for God cannot be the issue becaue nobody can ever "find God."

 

[an anarchist]

Unless they have verifiable evidence that this belief is actually true

What I’m referencing is Vedic religious beliefs. For the Hindu, it is verifiable evidence.

it would be illogical to consider them to be a reliable source.

I pointed it out clearly in my reply that #1 is something that an atheist would not accept at an ideological level, case in point. So what I’m saying doesn’t apply to what you believe, so of course you deem it illogical. Because you think it is illogical does not mean it’s illogical, however.

 

[Mock Turtle]

He could visit Earth as a man and gather followers.

And do you think any around long ago could tell the difference between advanced aliens and any God?

 

[stvdv]

I agree that "where to look" for God cannot be the issue becaue nobody can ever "find God."

I have another reason why "where to look" can not be the issue, but of course I respect your opinion on this
Good to have this clear though, so now you understand that there is no need for me to answer your question

Then what is the issue?

 

[sayak83]

Ancient Indian tradition had developed a sophisticated system of epistemology called pramanas. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. Epistemology attempts to prove God through logic alone.
I made a thread a little while back asking atheists if epistemology would ever provide satisfactory proof of God’s existence. Like, can one prove God through logic alone. The general consensus was no, as they understandably would prefer material evidence provided by natural science.
A pramana is a legitimate means to attain knowledge. Overall, their were six theorized different pramanas. The Nyaya Indian philosophy recognized four of these as legitimate means to attain knowledge I.e. prove God. I’ll reference this school of thought because they had the most developed school of epistemology from among the differing Indian philosophies.
the four valid means of attaining knowledge are:
1. Word/testimony from reliable sources
2. Perception
3. Inference
4. Comparison

1. Word and testimony as a valid means to attain knowledge is something that an atheist would never accept at an ideological level (I believe, I’m not atheist myself). The Hindus used this as argument because they believed that their very first sages from the most ancient times dived deep into meditation. When they were in this deep meditation, they were in direct contact with Brahman, and received true knowledge directly from Brahaman. This knowledge is what is passed down in ancient Vedic tradition. A Christian could use this argument, saying that the Bible proves God itself because the Bible says that God is real. This is a valid argument because the Bible is a reliable source.

I’ll discuss the other ones later on this thread, cooking myself some eggs

Ok. I am impressed. Not many non Hindus have read or even know of Nyaya.

 

[Justanatheist]

Atheists, if God existed what would you expect God to do to prove that He exists? What would be adequate proof for you to believe that God exists? Would you expect absolute proof of would you accept evidence?

This is the world I would expect if a classical god existed.

1. I would not expect pain and suffering. For example children dying of cancer.

2. I would expect everyone to believe in the same god and it not be dependent on culture.

3. I would not expect laws like of logic, physics etc, what need would a god have for those.

4. I would expect a universe full of life.

5. I would expect no religious wars.

Do we live in that kind of world, absolutely not.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the world I would expect if a classical god existed.

1. I would not expect pain and suffering. For example children dying of cancer.

2. I would expect everyone to believe in the same god and it not be dependent on culture.

3. I would not expect laws like of logic, physics etc, what need would a god have for those.

4. I would expect a universe full of life.

5. I would expect no religious wars.

Do we live in that kind of world, absolutely not.

The world is moving in that direction but we have a long way to go because the world did not get way it is now overnight.

It always helps when people listen to and follow the counsels of the Messenger but when they don't it takes a lot longer for change to happen... we'll get there, but not in our lifetime.

God was never hidden, people were just not looking when He showed up in the Person of the Messenger and thus far only a few have recognized Him...

“The One true God beareth Me witness, and His creatures will testify, that not for a moment did I allow Myself to be hidden from the eyes of men, nor did I consent to shield My person from their injury. Before the face of all men I have arisen, and bidden them fulfil My pleasure. My object is none other than the betterment of the world and the tranquillity of its peoples. The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 286

 

[Nimos]

The reason that you are an atheist is because God does not live up to your expectations because that is not the way of God. God only does what God chooses to do, not what we want Him to do.

I guess you could put it like that

God expects things of us, but they are not for God, they are for our own benefit.

In that case he is extremely bad at communicating it, which is a major issue here. God seem to expect different things from us depending on what religion you follow, which could either mean that God haven't made it clear what he expects, is poor at communicating or because that these things God "expect" from us doesn't in fact come from God, but from humans. Either way it leaves atheists with no reason to be convinced.

We can expect things from God, but we are not going to get what we expect, unless God wishes to give it to us. God is all-powerful and we are not so we cannot make God do anything.

If God wants us to follow him, then I would expect him to make it as clear as possible, why that is the case. That is the only thing I expect of him, if he do not want to do that, then why should anyone buy it?

By cost I meant what would happen to humans if God showed up. The cost would be to humans, not to God. One reason God sends Messengers to act as intermediaries is to shield us from His light which would be too much for us to bear and survive.

God could probably turn down the brightness if he wanted I don't believe that a God with such powers is stuck with having no ways to clearly communicate with us. In that case, God should have realized this massive design flaw in his creation. So it is not an excuse in my opinion.

That is your choice and the choice God wants you to have. That is one reaon why you have free will.

This is what is strange, if God wants me to have that choice, then why is so much effort around the world going into trying to convince people that he does exists, if he doesn't care about it and want people to have free will.

Its sort of like a person going "I don't care... you can do what you want, I think both options are good.... but, if you do this then its slightly better... But hey, not saying anything, whatever you want" it give the impression of a child or person, that say they don't want to be involved in something, but just can't hide their excitement of really wanting be a part of it, when it comes to it.

God is interested in the welfare of humans and that is why God sends Messengers. Of course it does not do much good unless humans recognize and follow the teachings and laws of the Messengers. God chooses to reveal Himself through the Messengers so that is all we are going to get from God as proof of His existence, unless we consider the Creation to be proof. As for the animals, you already know how I feel about them.

I don't agree, I see absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Humans care about each other to some degree and we can help each other, God, as above, throwing gravel into the machinery, from behind the curtain is not caring or helping.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus is a myth because that he preaches about the days of Noah. The story relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Reading the Bible itself, it demands a literal interpretation of the events in it. However people else read it is aside from that fact.

How do you know that Noah did not exist?

 

[Brian2]

Sure.
I mean, I flat out admit I do not know.
And if it was as important to God as it is to so many of its followers that I know, then it is on God, is it not, to follow through?

I get the distinct impression that it is much more important to Gods followers than it is to God.

I could be important to God that people care enough that they accept the evidence that He has given for belief in Him.
After that of course it is a matter of seeking God and not just whether He exists or not.
I have found that many atheists put the bar so high that it shows they are not interested in believing in God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If God existed, could we prove it? How could we prove it?

Depends on the specifics of the God.

How could we prove that God exists if God is in hiding, undetectable by humans?

You wouldn't. Belief in such a God would be completely irrational and unjustified.

How could we prove God exists if God is not in the material world and has no physical properties?

If God were to exist, he would be physical and material.

"Physical" and "material" are defined by that which exists in reality. Unless we were talking about something that exists only as a concept (e.g. "democracy" or "beauty"), the idea of something that exists in reality but isn't material is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Since God insists on hiding, it makes more sense to me that God should provide the evidence or proof, especially if God wants people to believe that He exists.

But how could God provide evidence or proof that He exists?

Likely any number of ways, but again, it depends on the God.

If God does not provide any evidence or proof why should we believe that God exists? How would it be fair for God to expect us to believe with no evidence or proof?

You shouldn't, and it wouldn't.

If God existed, what would God do to prove it? How could God prove that He exists and still remain in hiding?

This whole "God hiding" thing is a useless concept, IMO. It seems to me to be excuse-making for why it seems that God doesn't exist.

As long as the evidence is consistent with God not existing, that will be the best explanation that fits the facts.

Atheists, if God existed what would you expect God to do to prove that He exists? What would be adequate proof for you to believe that God exists? Would you expect absolute proof of would you accept evidence?

I've gone into this before, but as a benchmark: if God has as much effect on our lives and the world around us as, say, the Moon, I would expect the evidence for God to be at least as good as the evidence for the Moon.

What that evidence would be would depend on the specifics of the God, but I'd be looking for evidence from multiple fields that's nearly ubiquitous and all agrees with itself.

 

[McBell]

Why would God need excuses? What did God do wrong? Who does God have to apologize to?

Why indeed.
Yet here we are.....

I feel that God does some things wrong but I know that is irrational because I know that God cannot make mistakes. Since God is infallible God can never make any mistakes and that means that God can never need any excuses for what He does. I know there is nothing I can do to change what God does because God is all-powerful. That puts me in a kind of catch-22, not liking what God does but being unable to do anything about it.

With all the various traits, attributes, assumptions, declarations, ect. about Gods character, wants, desires, demands, needs, etc. it boggles the mind to think how they piece together into a single entity.

 

[MikeF]

As the description below says, "The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable."

And I would call this an artificial construct of reality. The problem with an artificial construct of reality, immune from verification, and populated with ones idealized entity, is that, if everyone accepts this artificial construct, they are free to either re-imagine your entity, or populate the construct with their own entities. All of which would be protected and immune from verification based on the parameters that describe this artificial construct of reality.

I can only offer the definition of the God I believe in, a God that is real and existent, but I realize there are many other definitions of God. Some might be similar, some dissimilar.

I understand that your belief is important to you and works for you in your life. I shall not argue it away from you.
Regards.