If God existed would there be proof?

[Fallen Prophet]

My premise is that if God existed God would have to provide the proof because there is no way we could ever get to where God exists and get the proof ourselves.

If God existed would there be proof?

I am not asking if there could be proof or if there should be proof, I am asking if there would be proof.

• If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?
• Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?
• In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

Thanks, Trailblazer

If God existed - wouldn't literally everything be proof of His existence?

 

[Trailblazer]

If God existed - wouldn't literally everything be proof of His existence?

Not necessarily.

 

[Kfox]

I was directly addressing your question, "How could anyone ever prove that God does not exist?" So again, which deity?

People can apply deity status to anybody or anything they want; and sometimes those things and people DO exist.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Not necessarily.

How so?

Considering that this is the same God who claims that He created all things.

 

[Trailblazer]

How so?

Considering that this is the same God who claims that He created all things.

A claim is not proof if the claim.

 

[MonkeyFire]

That's a false dichotomy fallacy.

The only other answer is death, but that is not right. Time marches on, the light will perceiver, so long as there a Holy Fire. Let there be Light, let there be Fire. Science doesn't know it, but its just trying to right the book of life, but it is part of nature. You can't burn the Book of Life, but if you did it would be okay. But, the truth is you can have eternal rebirth, and the Book of Life can be there as a Holy Rock. If Love and Faith were a promise to all angels, why did Science come to earth, and why did Omni follow her here? Because God is Love, and Love will prevail. All I need is to tell the truth, belief is no assumption, it is life itself. If you have ever been cheated, you haven't been. Anything is possible within the confines of reason and belief. Belief is not an assumption, but the empirical truth. What was it about temptation, did they ever find out who they are? He's called satan, and the devil, but neither are true. He was slandered, and accused, but Metatron will save us for namesake. He shows up like make believe as a friend I call best. Like Hades, Lucifer just rules the underworld, and below him there is not nature, only flesh and bone. Do not call it hell, let it be a hospital, and a prison, and what ever can be healed, or wills to be, the devil ain't no warden, He is but my bad guy and nothing else. Let hate exist, and let make believe save sorrow that is why angels came to earth. Hospital world is also the battle ground. Knowledge of good and evil isn't the same as war, war is knowledge of good against evil, that was the mistake mankind made, then a few verses later " God speaks to someone and says behold the man has become like one of us to know good and evil." Maybe it already happened, and He got free already and assured time is in nirvana, or is Holy War left up to St. Michael in nirvana?

 

[ratiocinator]

Could it mean that there isn't any "proof or evidence" that can be given for others to "see God" but it can only be understood by each individual person according to their ability to understand what God is?

I'm not really sure what this means. Are you suggesting that 'God' in a personal philosophical then it sort of makes sense I guess, but if it's supposed to be an actual, real external entity the statement seems to presuppose that it exists and the understanding can only be 'understood' individually, which doesn't really make much sense to me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm not really sure what this means. Are you suggesting that 'God' in a personal philosophical then it sort of makes sense I guess, but if it's supposed to be an actual, real external entity the statement seems to presuppose that it exists and the understanding can only be 'understood' individually, which doesn't really make much sense to me.

You touching some good points in your reply.

My understanding is that to be able to understand God it is only through personal practice of spiritual teaching that lead to understanding of God.
An other thing is that in my understanding God is not a physical being, but a being without body, so God is within everything ( like an energy being)
So yes each person will have a different understanding of God, a different " relationship" with God.

But I speak only from my understanding so other people will see this differently than I do and they can still be correct and I can still be wrong in many of my understandings of God.

 

[ratiocinator]

But you dont accept that "If God exists there will be proof".

P1: You dont accept if God exists there will be proof
P2: You say God is speculative because there is no proof.

Whats the conclusion?

You contradict yourself.

What you've labelled as a second premiss actually follows directly from the first. If god exists there may be proof or there may not be. In other words proof would be a sufficient condition for god's existence but not a necessary one, or that if there is proof then god exists, but we can't say the converse that if there is no proof then god does not exist. So the existence of god is undecidable from the absence of proof.

Symbolically:

G "God exists"
P "There is proof that god exists"
¬ Negation (not).
⇒ Conditional, i.e. A ⇒ B means If A then B.
∨ Disjunction (inclusive or).
∧ Conjunction (and).

P ⇒ G
-------------------
¬P ∨ G
(G ∧ P) ∨ (G ∧ ¬P) ∨ (¬G ∧ ¬P)
¬(¬G ∧ P)

All of which are logically equivalent, and have the truth table:

G ¦ P ¦ P ⇒ G
--------------
F ¦ F ¦ T
F ¦ T ¦ F
T ¦ F ¦ T
T ¦ T ¦ T

How about you getting back to justifying your own claims?

 

[ratiocinator]

An other thing is that in my understanding God is not a physical being, but a being without body, so God is within everything ( like an energy being)

Okay, but if it exists in any form other than just an idea within people's minds, then the point I made about presupposing its existence applies and the question is raised as to whether you can be sure if you study "spiritual teaching" and come to an "understanding", then if it's a real understanding of something outside your mind, of just a subjective experience, entirely within your mind. I can see no why that you could be sure of that.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Okay, but if it exists in any form other than just an idea within people's minds, then the point I made about presupposing its existence applies and the question is raised as to whether you can be sure if you study "spiritual teaching" and come to an "understanding", then if it's a real understanding of something outside your mind, of just a subjective experience, entirely within your mind. I can see no why that you could be sure of that.

At the level of understanding i have right now, I hold a belief that God is both within me, and outside of me.
If you believe different that isnt a problem for me

 

[ratiocinator]

At the level of understanding i have right now, I hold a belief that God is both within me, and outside of me.
If you believe different that isnt a problem for me

Well, you are, of course, free to believe whatever you like, so long as it causes no harm to anybody else and you don't try to impose it on other people, but I prefer to base my beliefs on objective evidence and/or reasoning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, you are, of course, free to believe whatever you like, so long as it causes no harm to anybody else and you don't try to impose it on other people, but I prefer to base my beliefs on objective evidence and/or reasoning.

How do you understand your own usage of "prefer"?

 

[firedragon]

What you've labelled as a second premiss actually follows directly from the first. If god exists there may be proof or there may not be. In other words proof would be a sufficient condition for god's existence but not a necessary one, or that if there is proof then god exists, but we can't say the converse that if there is no proof then god does not exist. So the existence of god is undecidable from the absence of proof.

Symbolically:

G "God exists"
P "There is proof that god exists"
¬ Negation (not).
⇒ Conditional, i.e. A ⇒ B means If A then B.
∨ Disjunction (inclusive or).
∧ Conjunction (and).

P ⇒ G
-------------------
¬P ∨ G
(G ∧ P) ∨ (G ∧ ¬P) ∨ (¬G ∧ ¬P)
¬(¬G ∧ P)

All of which are logically equivalent, and have the truth table:

G ¦ P ¦ P ⇒ G
--------------
F ¦ F ¦ T
F ¦ T ¦ F
T ¦ F ¦ T
T ¦ T ¦ T

How about you getting back to justifying your own claims?

You absolutely misrepresented it. I didnt say "there is proof that God exists".

Surprising you cant represent simple sentences. For your viewing I will cut and paste again.

But you dont accept that "If God exists there will be proof".

P1: You dont accept if God exists there will be proof
P2: You say God is speculative because there is no proof.

Whats the conclusion?

You contradict yourself.

If God exists, and as you say "Its impossible to have proof" which you keep trying to prove, then how in the world could you say "Its speculative because there is no proof"???

This is a circular fallacy. As bad as it can get.

If you say something exists, and it can NOT HAVE PROOF though it exists, you cannot expect proof when there is no proof.

 

[ratiocinator]

You absolutely misrepresented it. I didnt say "there is proof that God exists".

I didn't say that you did.

If God exists, and as you say "Its impossible to have proof"...

I never made that claim.

I said that it was possible for a god to exist and there be no proof. If you'd bothered to read my post I explained my position precisely in three different ways.

You seem to be struggling with the difference between rejecting the notion that if god exists there will (necessarily) be proof, and making the claim that if god exists then it's impossible for there to be proof.

I corrected you on the same point in #259. I expressed it before in #256, where I said "...it's a perfectly logical possibility that a god might exist and there be no proof...". It has been my clearly stated position since my very first post on the subject (#47).

What do I have to say to get you to pay some attention?

Once again:

God existing would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for there to be proof of its existence. You do understand necessity and sufficiency, yes?

If proof exists, then god exists, but we can't say that if no proof exists, then no god exists or that if no god exists then there would be proof that no god existed.

My sole premiss is P ⇒ G. You want to add G ⇒ P, and then the idea of "proof that god doesn't exist" (N) and ¬G ⇒ N as a premiss. Thus equating to your original statements:

IF God exists, there would definitely be proof. There is no question about it.
If God does not exist, there has to be proof that God does not exist. There is no question about it.​

I'm not actually sure that "proof that god doesn't exist" is even possible, but assuming it was then N ⇒ ¬G would be reasonable, but I don't accept that ¬G ⇒ N.

I'm still waiting for the slightest justification for these bizarre claims.

 

[firedragon]

I never made that claim.

That has been your argument so far, all along.

I said that it was possible for a god to exist and there be no proof.

You have been saying that to think that "If God exists, there will be proof" is absurd, and have been at it.

But if you are changing it to "Possibilities", the fine. I will accept that. No worries.

If proof exists, then god exists, but we can't say that if no proof exists, then no god exists or that if no god exists then there would be proof that no god existed.

All of this is a strawman ratio.

 

[ratiocinator]

That has been your argument so far, all along.

False. #259, #256, #47.

You have been saying that to think that "If God exists, there will be proof" is absurd, and have been at it.

Yes. I was saying your claim "IF God exists, there would definitely be proof. There is no question about it." is absurd. If you seriously can't see that that does not amount to saying that it's impossible for there to be proof if god exists, then we might as well give up as you have no grasp of logic whatsoever.

But if you are changing it to "Possibilities", the fine. I will accept that. No worries.

I'm not changing a thing.

All of this is a strawman

Of course it isn't. "If there is proof then god exists" is a one way implication. It says that proof is sufficient reason for god to exist.

In contrast, your claim quoted above says that proof is necessary for god to exist. It's exactly the other way around, you're saying "if god exists there will be proof", from which we can directly deduce that "if there is no proof then god doesn't exist".

G ⇒ P
¬P
-------
∴ ¬G
(Modus tollens)

Again, if you can't see that we might as well give up.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

A claim is not proof if the claim.

The question, "If God existed, would there be proof?" already implies that God exists.

The actual question - if there would be proof - is predicated upon the assumption that He Himself already existed.

I was not trying to claim that since the Universe exists - that is proof that He exists.

I was saying - if God existed - then literally everything would be the proof of His existence.

 

[Kfox]

Empirical evidence suggests that unconscious phenomena include repressed feelings, automatic skills, subliminal perceptions, and automatic reactions, and possibly also complexes, hidden phobias, and desires.
Unconscious mind - Wikipedia

We are all human beings. Perhaps you are superhuman.
Hypnosis often uncovers things about ourselves that we are
not consciously aware of.

Yeah those things exist, but that doesn't mean everybody is being dishonest with themselves. Think about it; if the vast majority of people claim your evidence is not sufficient for them to believe you, who are YOU to claim that it is? Perhaps it is YOU who are being dishonest with yourself.

 

[ratiocinator]

I was saying - if God existed - then literally everything would be the proof of His existence.

That's simply false though. It's just circular reasoning, assuming your conclusion:

If god exists then everything would have been created by god.
Everything exists.
Therefore everything is evidence that god exists.