If God existed would there be proof?

[Sheldon]

A claim is not proof if the claim.

It's not necessarily even evidence for the claim.

 

[leroy]

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

Well “proof” is something subjective that depends on personal opinion, what counts as proof for you might not count as proof for me.

But yes if God exists he is expected to provide proof for his existence, so if you are an atheist that means that ether:

1 God presented the Proof but you ignore it

2 At some point in the future God will present such proof.

 

[firedragon]

Look, formal logic is obviously a beyond you so, let's put it this way

Nope. Prove what I said is false. Since you are the GURU of formal or informal logic. You didnt respond to my post mate.

Ciao.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not necessarily even evidence for the claim.

A claim is not evidence for the claim. That would be circular reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well “proof” is something subjective that depends on personal opinion, what counts as proof for you might not count as proof for me.

But yes if God exists he is expected to provide proof for his existence, so if you are an atheist that means that ether:

1 God presented the Proof but you ignore it

2 At some point in the future God will present such proof.

Why do you think that if God exists he is expected to provide proof for his existence?
How can humans put expectations on God?

There is no proof that God exists but God presented evidence and atheists reject it.

 

[Brian2]

Like what, for example?

Like fulfilled prophecies, like design in nature.

 

[Brian2]

If people reject it because they say the evidence is not good enough, he obviously is not giving enough evidence for us to believe; if he did people wouldn't reject it, they would believe.

He gives enough evidence for many to believe.

 

[Brian2]

All the religions say they have "evidence", yet all believe something different. And now add Baha'is to the list that claim to have evidence that their prophet is from God and God is real. Then each religion gives "evidence" why the other religions are wrong.

Still we all believe in a God...................even if everyone else is wrong about many other things.

 

[Kfox]

He gives enough evidence for many to believe.

Perhaps many, but not most. He should do better

 

[Brian2]

Perhaps many, but not most. He should do better

I think it is too easy to blame God. I do it too but God and me can work it out. When a non believer blames God there usually is no working it out with God. But God can show anyone that He is not to blame if they do not believe,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it takes a desire to vindicate God I guess.

 

[ratiocinator]

Nope. Prove what I said is false.

I gave counterexamples. Even a single counterexample is a disproof. I also pointed out that your statement led to the absurd conclusion that there could be evidence for god despite it not actually existing. No doubt this was unintentional but you could have easily modified your statement to correct it (adding just three words).

You didnt respond to my post mate.

I did, in some detail, all of which you've ignored.

Ho-hum, I tried....

 

[ratiocinator]

Like fulfilled prophecies...

I've looked at a number, all of which verge on the comical. I eventually got bored of checking them, much like claims from YECs and sites like AiG. You go to a lot of trouble to check these things only to eventually you find out that it's BS (Brandolini's law).

...like design in nature.

So called design is explicable without a god. Also 'goddidit' is not an explanation because it could, quite literally, 'explain' anything at all. You actually can't possibly have evidence for something if it is impossible for there to be any evidence against it, i.e. if it's unfalsifiable.

For example, if there were a whole collection of very detailed and totally unambiguous fulfilled prophecies, and it was clear they were made in advance, and if you accepted that a single failed prophecy, or one that had to be somehow 'reinterpreted', would falsify god, then we might be getting somewhere. Similarly, if prayer actually, measurably worked for a particular god, and you'd accept that a single failed prayer would falsify that god, that would work too, but instead, we get excuses like "god always answers prayer but it might not be the answer you wanted", which again makes the claim unfalsifiable, because you can just pray, see what happens, and call it the answer.

 

[firedragon]

there could be evidence for god despite it not actually existing.

Thats just made up. You didnt read properly mate. Clever.

 

[ratiocinator]

Thats just made up.

No, it's a logical consequence of a statement of the form "if P then Q", that it is possible for Q to be true while P is false, so if you say "If god, then evidence for god", then it leaves open the possibility that there can be evidence for god without there being a god. An 'argument' of the form: "if P then Q, not P, therefore not Q", is a fallacy called denying the antecedent which is a formal fallacy which renders the argument invalid.

This is again a case of misunderstanding necessity and sufficiency. If P then Q, states that P is sufficient for Q (or, alternatively, that Q is necessary for P). What I suspect you wanted to say is that god is both necessary and sufficient for there to be evidence for god, which is still a statement I've refuted by counterexamples, but at least it wouldn't leave open an absurd possibility.

 

[PureX]

Since we can't know what evidence of god's existence would look like, we wouldn't know it even if we encountered it. And as others have pointed out, no evidence means no proof. Existence, itself, may very well be the proof that God exists. But we are not able to grasp this proof because we are unable to know that existence is the result of God existing.

So the question asking if God would give us proof if God exists becomes moot. Since we couldn't identify such proof whether God gave it to us, or not.

 

[Kfox]

Since we can't know what evidence of god's existence would look like, we wouldn't know it even if we encountered it..

Why would you say that? If God existed, it would be quite easy for him to provide evidence that he existed. If I can do it, a much more powerful God can do it too!

 

[PureX]

Why would you say that? If God existed, it would be quite easy for him to provide evidence that he existed. If I can do it, a much more powerful God can do it too!

The problem isn't God, it's us. We cannot comprehend what the existence of God would entail. So we have no idea what to even look for. You say "He" as if God were human, but there is no "he". There is no human, or gender, in any way that we could recognize. You say God could "do" this or that. But we have no idea what a "God deed" might be. For all we know everything that happens might be a "God deed". How could we tell?

 

[ratiocinator]

Existence, itself, may very well be the proof that God exists. But we are not able to grasp this proof because we are unable to know that existence is the result of God existing.

This just misunderstands what proof and evidence are. For example, we've known since the dawn of humankind that if we let go of something on earth, it will fall to the ground. We have come up with various ideas and then scientific theories to explain this, the latest being general relativity. Does that mean that things falling to the ground has magically become evidence of general relativity? Of course it doesn't. The evidence consists of the things it explains that nothing else did and the predictions it made that have been successfully tested.

Similarly, there have been all kinds of creation myths throughout history but if we suddenly discovered the ultimate explanation (even if we could somehow be sure it was true, and whether it was some god or not), it wouldn't make existence evidence or proof for that explanation. We'd have to have some additional information that would differentiate it form all the other possibilities.

 

[PureX]

I have no idea what you think you are objecting to ... if anything.

Recognizing and naming gravity tells us absolutely nothing about God's relevance to it. And it proves nothing about gravity. All it does is give us the false impression that we understand gravity, now. And we don't. We understand it a little better. Although we can't really even say that for sure. As we don't know how what we don't know about gravity might completely change what we think we know, now.

 

[1213]

The problem I see here is that it's likely that Moses is a fictional character and thus the stories of Moses are fables written by Abrahamics intended to further their faith.

Even if we would think Moses is fictional, the story still gives the idea what it means to be faithful. But, I don't think Moses is fictional. If people would make fictional hero, he would more likely be like superman or something like that.