If God existed would there be proof?

[Trailblazer]

I guess the first question is: In what way would a god exist? Would a god be in a form that we can experience/observe?

God would be whatever God is. I do not believe that God exists in a form we can observe but some people tell me that they experience God.

If an observable god exists then it would be in that god's interest to provide undeniable proof of existence.

Why do you think it would be in God's best interest? Do you think that God would need our belief?

No proof does not mean something doesn't exist, you cannot prove a negative.

You just said two things.
Obviously if God does not exist there would not be any proof of God's existence....
My question was If God existed would there be proof?

 

[lukethethird]

If God existed would there be proof?
Why, isn't faith cuttin' it for ya?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

To paraphrase, if the ocean existed, could the ocean provide proof if its existence to the fish?

So one fish asks another fish "where is this ocean the other fish are always talking about?"

We are in God and God is within us, asking for proof of God's existence is like the fish asking where is the ocean?

 

[Trailblazer]

If God existed would there be proof?
Why, isn't faith cuttin' it for ya?

I don't need faith because I have evidence which constitutes proof for me.

 

[Nimos]

I can always count on you to think things through.

I really like that you distinguished between the intervening God and the non-intervening God.
That would be the theist vs. the deist God and obviously we would not expect to see the same behavior from both these Gods. The theist God is the personal God and the deist God is impersonal so He would not give a hoot if anyone believed that He existed. The logical deduction is that the theist God would provide evidence of His existence but the deist God would not provide anything...

But do you think that the theist God is obligated to provide proof?

No. But in such case I don't really think it make sense to even talk about what such God is in the first place and it would end up being equal to that of a non intervening God.

Lets imagine that we have a plane with 200 passengers and it crashes, out of these 195 dies and 5 miraculous makes it. It would be extremely irrational to jump to the conclusion that God did in fact save these 5 people, but let 195 die. First of all, because it wouldn't really put God in a great position of why he would let so many die without giving an explanation for it at the same time. But also because, we might have data from other plane crashes of similar nature, that might give an explanation of how these 5 people could have been lucky and make it. So unless God chooses to provide proof, we don't really have any good reason to jump to that conclusion, besides that, one could equally make the case that God chose to kill or let the 195 people die as well on purpose.

So if we are willing to praise God for saving 5 people, without him providing a proof for doing so, we might as well blame him for killing the 195 as well. Both of these would be unfair, given that God didn't chose to provide proof of actually intervening on behalf of any of the passengers or simply make the plane not crash in the first place. If we can't tell the difference, God becomes irrelevant to us as I see it. Doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, simply that we can't tell the difference, so it doesn't matter if he does or doesn't.

Do you mean that such a God could exist but if nothing could be known about such a God He may as well not exist? Is proof the only way God can act as if He exists? What about providing evidence?

It follows along the same line as above. Imagine every time you get into your car and go for a drive, God prevent you from ending up crashing. To you, this would be completely unknown, you would simply drive from A to B and having no clue that God did this. Which end in the same as above, you are unable to know when and if God intervene in your life if there is no proof of it. So you behaving as if God exist changes nothing, if you can't tell the difference anyway.

Do you mean that a God that did not provide proof could exist but would be irrelevant because we would not know that He existed? But what if that God provided evidence, would that be good enough?

Yes, if God provided proof of his existence, it would change everything, there wouldn't be any atheists/agnostics left and only one true religion.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't need faith because I have evidence which constitutes proof for me.

Yes, yes, of course you do.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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 you seek God you may find your self.
If you seek your self you may find God.

 

[Brian2]

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

Maybe the existence of beings who can ask questions about the existence of God, is proof that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. But in such case I don't really think it make sense to even talk about what such God is in the first place and it would end up being equal to that of a non intervening God.

Lets imagine that we have a plane with 200 passengers and it crashes, out of these 195 dies and 5 miraculous makes it. It would be extremely irrational to jump to the conclusion that God did in fact save these 5 people, but let 195 die. First of all, because it wouldn't really put God in a great position of why he would let so many die without giving an explanation for it at the same time. But also because, we might have data from other plane crashes of similar nature, that might give an explanation of how these 5 people could have been lucky and make it. So unless God chooses to provide proof, we don't really have any good reason to jump to that conclusion, besides that, one could equally make the case that God chose to kill or let the 195 people die as well on purpose.

So if we are willing to praise God for saving 5 people, without him providing a proof for doing so, we might as well blame him for killing the 195 as well. Both of these would be unfair, given that God didn't chose to provide proof of actually intervening on behalf of any of the passengers or simply make the plane not crash in the first place. If we can't tell the difference, God becomes irrelevant to us as I see it. Doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, simply that we can't tell the difference, so it doesn't matter if he does or doesn't.

It follows along the same line as above. Imagine every time you get into your car and go for a drive, God prevent you from ending up crashing. To you, this would be completely unknown, you would simply drive from A to B and having no clue that God did this. Which end in the same as above, you are unable to know when and if God intervene in your life if there is no proof of it. So you behaving as if God exist changes nothing, if you can't tell the difference anyway.

So do you think that the only reason why we would want to have proof that God exists is if we could also know if and when God intervenes to save people on earth, kind of like Superman?

Yes, if God provided proof of his existence, it would change everything, there wouldn't be any atheists/agnostics left and only one true religion.

That's true, and I believe that is going to happen in the future. The Bible and in the Baha'i Writings say that everyone will believe in God in the future.

Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

“The Day is approaching when God will render the hosts of Truth victorious, and He will purge the whole earth in such wise that within the compass of His knowledge not a single soul shall remain unless he truly believeth in God, worshippeth none other God but Him, boweth down by day and by night in His adoration, and is reckoned among such as are well assured.”
Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 153-154

I also believe that in the future there will be only one religion. I do not know exactly how or when it will happen or what the one religion will be called but I believe it will come to pass because it was ordained by God, and everything God ordains comes to pass eventually.

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error.”
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 91

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Remember the Joni Mitchell song that was sung by Judy Collins, "Both Sides Now". I'm like that. I used to see God in the mountains. But then there's a rockslide, and avalanche, or like St. Helens, it blows up. Up in the skys, we have all the beautiful stars at night. And oh, a shooting star. Did you make a wish? But then we have stars going supernova. Asteroids crashing. Black holes sucking. I loved the ocean. But it's filled with sharks and other things that can kill you. Tsunamis can wipe out a whole seaside town. Yeah, for those that see God in his creation, what exactly are you looking at? It's both good and bad. So, if you see God in his creation, does that make God good and bad?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah, for those that see God in his creation, what exactly are you looking at? It's both good and bad. So, if you see God in his creation, does that make God good and bad?

Believers tend to only see the good and atheists see the bad, but you are right, it is a mixed bag.
I don't know if that makes God both good and bad, it just means God is not as good as believers make Him out to be, Imo.

But for faith-based believers God is all-good because that is what is in their scriptures. Never mind the objective evidence to the contrary, they will find a way to explain that away, like when they say the bad is for your own good. But that does not work for people who reason logically.

 

[Trailblazer]

What the heck's the difference, as far as your OP is concerned, ...or anything for that matter???
Evidence is not evidence if it's not established as proof.

There is a difference because proof is something everyone would believe whereas evidence is not believes by everyone. For example, the Bible is evidence but it is not accepted as evidence for atheists.

 

[Brian2]

It depends on the type of God we are talking about.

If its a non intervening God, meaning simply a creator God, I don't see how there would be any proofs. Such being would be impossible for us to witness. In fact there could be such being right now, that has nothing to do with any of the known Gods that we know of. But such being is irrelevant to us anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference.

If God is an intervening one, I think we would be able to notice it or at least there would be a chance of it. Obviously it depends in which way such being is intervening. Which could range from very visible to almost being as invisible and irrelevant as a non intervening God is.

Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?
No, it wouldn't mean that. But again it could be argued whether there is any point in behaving in such ways as if one existed. Because nothing would be know about such God.

In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?
Same as above, a God could exist, but again would be irrelevant.

A God who created the universe and who causes the sun to shine on everyone and rain to fall and who provides plants for food etc etc is certainly relevant even if undetectable.

 

[Brian2]

Believers tend to only see the good and atheists see the bad, but you are right, it is a mixed bag.
I don't know if that makes God both good and bad, it just means God is not as good as believers make Him out to be, Imo.

But for faith-based believers God is all-good because that is what is in their scriptures. Never mind the objective evidence to the contrary, they will find a way to explain that away, like when they say the bad is for your own good. But that does not work for people who reason logically.

Is God bad because He does not stop all the harmful things from happening in the world?
Some people actually use that as a reason to not believe in a good God.
I guess they must think that God has a responsibility to prevent any harm happening to any living creature.

 

[Truthseeker]

But for faith-based believers God is all-good because that is what is in their scriptures. Never mind the objective evidence to the contrary, they will find a way to explain that away, like when they say the bad is for your own good. But that does not work for people who reason logically.

Yes, I might concede that, but I also believe in recompension in the next life. That is in Baha'i. Theologicans in other religions have also concluded that.

 

[Brian2]

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

There is proof for those who believe the evidence.
What we know in science is that life comes from only pre existing life.
If you believe the science then a life giving God exists. If people want to ignore what we know at this stage and live in a fantasy and not believe in a life giver then that is up to them.
So the existence of being who ask whether God exists is proof of the existence of God.

 

[Clara Tea]

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

God gives free choice (good to heaven, bad to hell).

But there are requirements for free choice.

If the hand of God visibly reached down from heaven, and let his presence be known to all (including atheists), all would believe, and likely almost all would be good. Free choice would likely not exist.

So, God must hide. God's miracles must appear to be coincidences are weird facts of science. For example, the statue that appears to drink milk could be explained by capillary action (Van Der Waals force, which is electrostatic force that is apparent on surfaces).

This gives freedom of choice to both the theists and atheists.

When God warns us with prophecies, such as Revelation (which is a prophecy from God telling us that we will face God's wrath if we attack Iraq, and warning us that the most powerful nation in the world is the Whore of Babylon (source: Revelation 17:18), and that the demon called the dragon was President GHW Bush, and the demon called the beast was President W. Bush. When God predicted the various punishments, God knew that electing the wrong person would create an avalanche of various problems.

That is, God knew that the same president who made a torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (and many other torture camps around the world), was also filled with many other deadly sins (excessive drinking, excessive narcotic use), and sins of apathy (Hurricane Katrina), sins of pride (greatest country in the world), sins of bearing false witness (calling Iraqi official Doctor Death, in order to promote a war), etc. So, the wrong president would create all of the woes of the world.

The the faithful, we should not have attacked Iraq. Those with no faith, defied God, and attacked Iraq so that they would feel a tiny bit safer, knowing that some country (albiet, a country that had nothing to do with terroris) was being destroyed. Americans traded their souls to the devil in exchange for feeling a tad bit safer by attacking the innnocent.

To most Christians (who, by the way, have no faith in God) it all seems to be a coincidence, or they believe the Canadian who tears down America (Rush Limbaugh) and blame others for the problems that we now face.

But the world is a mess today, and that is because we elected the wrong president, and defied God by doing so.

Faithless theists would blame others or say it is all a coincidence. But, those of faith, who believe Revelation, would know that it is not a coincidence. God knew all along what the consequences would be, and even had them written in Revelation (a chapter of the New Testament bible).

The fact that events unfolded precisely as predicted in Revelation (including a part of Revelation 15....seven plagues), is a miracle. But it is a miracle only for those who believe in God. For those who defied God, and attacked Iraq, Revelation is a mystery. They can't figure out where Babylon was (though it has been there for thousands of years). They try rewritting or changing the meaning of Revelation in order to shed blame (saying that there must be some hitherto undiscovered Babylon that no one ever heard of). But God already thought of that and made sure that Revelation, itself, states that some will try to change the meaning of Revelation, and when they do, they will be written out of the book of life forever, and burn in the fiery lake of fire of the bottomless pit of hell for all eternity.

You have to believe to see. You have to have faith in God in order to not attack Iraq while everyone else is afraid of terrorism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is God bad because He does not stop all the harmful things from happening in the world?
Some people actually use that as a reason to not believe in a good God.
I guess they must think that God has a responsibility to prevent any harm happening to any living creature.

No, I do not think like those atheists because I do not expect God to intervene in this world and stop bad things from happening. God gave man Scriptures for a moral guidance and free will to act so man is responsible for his actions.

What bothers me is that God created a world like this in the first place, a world where He knew people will suffer and die, usually through no fault of their own and often because of some evil choices made by someone else that caused them to suffer.

I do not believe I know more than God and could have done a better job, as some atheists believe, because that is illogical, I just don't like to see people suffer and die. It is not the dead that suffer, it is those who are left behind to grieve.

 

[Clara Tea]

God would be whatever God is. I do not believe that God exists in a form we can observe but some people tell me that they experience God.

Why do you think it would be in God's best interest? Do you think that God would need our belief?

You just said two things.
Obviously if God does not exist there would not be any proof of God's existence....
My question was If God existed would there be proof?

If God made nature and us, he wants nature and us to survive. Perhaps that is like God watching TV, and we are the characters.

God doesn't need for us to do miracles, since God is all powerful. However, God does need our obedience, because there are certain actions of mankind that must be done correctly, or events could damage God's creation.

 

[Clara Tea]

No, I do not think like those atheists because I do not expect God to intervene in this world and stop bad things from happening. God gave man Scriptures for a moral guidance and free will to act so man is responsible for his actions.

What bothers me is that God created a world like this in the first place, a world where He knew people will suffer and die, usually through no fault of their own and often because of some evil choices made by someone else that caused them to suffer.

I do not believe I know more than God and could have done a better job, as some atheists believe, because that is illogical, I just don't like to see people suffer and die. It is not the dead that suffer, it is those who are left behind to grieve.

You make a lot of sense.