If God existed would there be proof?

[Kfox]

Bad English, sorry.
Yeah, but to me all truth is in the end a belief that appears useful.

Aren't there times when the truth can actually be to your detriment?

 

[Brian2]

When I said he should do better, I wasn't blaming God. It would be senseless for a person who doesn't believe in God to actually blame God. I was speaking hypothetically under the assumption that what you actually said about God were true.

So it is only blaming God if God is real.

 

[Brian2]

Just between Christianity and the Baha'i Faith, prophecies are interpreted completely different and different things are made into prophecies... like when the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, comes... Baha'is say that is a prophecy about Baha'u'llah.

Then with nature... Christians believe in a fairly young Earth, a world-wide flood and creation. Baha'is believe in a very old Earth, no flood and in evolution.

Baha'is don't believe in a Trinitarian God. They don't believe in the greatest miracle God performed in the NT, the resurrection of Jesus. So, how many things about God are definitely known? It depends on which religion and Scriptures a person believes in, and which interpretation of those Scriptures they follow.

I would not say that Christians believe in a fairly young Earth and world wide flood necessarily, and both Christians and Baha'is believe God created everything and evolution is a common belief amongst Christians no matter what Young Earth Creationists say.
But even with differences in what and who God is etc both Baha'is and Christians believe in God.

 

[Brian2]

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).

I find the same Brandolini's law principle with refuting the sceptics claims such as the one that prophecy is BS.

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.

Well I presume you claim to have evidence that there is NO God and that is unfalsifiable.
The evidence I just noticed is the statement that so called design is explicable without a god.
But lack of evidence is not evidence of lack for a start and the claim is not true. If it was true then scientists would not still be running around looking for ideas that actually show that all this could have come about by itself.

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.

I would not accept that a single "failed prayer" would falsify a god and I would say that testing God that way would not be a scientific test and would be against the word of God anyway.
I would think however that God has given us prophecies for one thing, to show that He is God and knows the future and also can cause things to happen in the future. A failed prophecy is seen as not being from God.
So we do have a whole collection of fulfilled prophecies even if some people want to say they are not detailed enough and are not unambiguous and even if sceptics claim they were not prophesied in advance etc.
Those caveats clearly lessen the possible number of fulfilled prophecies even though both Jews and Christians had a stake in making sure the prophecies they said were real, were actually real and they were not being taught by false prophets.
Any way we basically end up with prophecies from the OT about Jesus and prophecies from the OT and NT about things that will happen after Jesus.
With the prophecies about Jesus there is always sceptic opposition to them as being unclear and not real prophecies and even to the point of saying that the life of Jesus is made up to make it look as if prophecies were fulfilled.
It just leaves us with prophecies about the times after Jesus and they are open to interpretation and are mainly not completely fulfilled yet.
So it is a case of sceptics deny the validity of even the falsifiable evidence of prophecies as they do about any other evidence.

 

[Kfox]

So it is only blaming God if God is real.

No. If I were wrong and God were real, I would still be responding hypothetically under the assumption of if God were real; thus I wouldn't be blaming God. However if God were real, I doubt God would be anything like this person was describing I suspect God would be much better than that. However if God were not better than what he was describing, then God would be worthy of blame; even though I would not be the one blaming him.

 

[Brian2]

No. If I were wrong and God were real, I would still be responding hypothetically under the assumption of if God were real; thus I wouldn't be blaming God. However if God were real, I doubt God would be anything like this person was describing I suspect God would be much better than that. However if God were not better than what he was describing, then God would be worthy of blame; even though I would not be the one blaming him.

As long as there is no blame on you.
Do you think that maybe you misunderstand the portrayal of God in the OT.

 

[Kfox]

As long as there is no blame on you.
Do you think that maybe you misunderstand the portrayal of God in the OT.

no.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am unaware of any scientific theory that says that the universe poofed into existence. If that's your understanding of the Big bang theory, then you should adjust your understanding. The only poofing that I have ever heard of is God poofing the universe into existence. As per Genesis 1

The big bang equals something from nothing.

 

[ppp]

The big bang equals something from nothing.

If you think that then you don't understand the big bang theory. It doesn't even reach all the way back to the start of the expansion event. It only goes back as far as the end of the Planck Epoch.

 

[CG Didymus]

I would not say that Christians believe in a fairly young Earth and world wide flood necessarily, and both Christians and Baha'is believe God created everything and evolution is a common belief amongst Christians no matter what Young Earth Creationists say.
But even with differences in what and who God is etc both Baha'is and Christians believe in God.

I know some Christians try to validate the young Earth and the flood. My brother is a 7th Day Adventist and showed me a video of all sorts of geological "evidence" for both. I'm sure you've seen or heard similar things. What do thinks of those things? To me, because of the way it is presented, sounds true. But I'm not going to study up on geology to try and prove it wrong or right. And I suspect that there is just as much or more evidence for an old Earth and no flood.

The worldwide flood rapidly buried millions of plants and animals, creating the right conditions for fossils to form. Typically when an animal dies, it decomposes or is scattered by scavengers over time. However, the fossils found in sedimentary layers were buried instantly...​

 

[ppp]

I would not say that Christians believe in a fairly young Earth and world wide flood necessarily, and both Christians and Baha'is believe God created everything and evolution is a common belief amongst Christians no matter what Young Earth Creationists say.
But even with differences in what and who God is etc both Baha'is and Christians believe in God.

Not to detract from your point. It's about half and half in the US, but yes, worldwide the Christian YECs are a minority.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aren't there times when the truth can actually be to your detriment?

Yes.

 

[MyM]

But we have already established that in this instance (God-proof) there is no way to know. So that criteria is irrelevant.
Faith requires no evidence or proof. The result of engaging in it will provide it's own justificatio

No; that has not been established. You see to know simply means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt; it doesn't not mean yuo have 100% proof, or that you are even right.
Example; If you asked me, I will tell you I know my age, who my birth parents are, the city I was born in, and exactly how old I am. I even have a birth certificate to confirm all of this. Now for ME that is enough evidence for me to say I know. However suppose I was actually adopted by the people I know to be my parents, and I was born in another country on a different day and the fake birth certificate is all a part of the conspiracy to keep all of this information away from me? If such information came out I would admit I was wrong however until such information comes to light, I will continue to know my age, when I was born, and who my parents are. Does this make sense to you?
I know theists who are as certain of their God as I am of my age, an birth information. IT doesn't mean they are right, it just means they are certain beyond any shadow of doubt. SO God-proof is not necessary to know God exists; all you need is conviction beyond any shadow of doubt.
Definition of know | Dictionary.com

Perhaps not for you, but there are plenty of people who require some type of evidence in order to have faith.

I would take factual proofs for my belief and not blindly believe. In my religion, God sent down guidance. Would not a creator know to guide his people towards good? I would think so. He wouldn't say go to earth and live and that's that. What kind of merciful God would that be?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would take factual proofs for my belief and not blindly believe. In my religion, God sent down guidance. Would not a creator know to guide his people towards good? I would think so. He wouldn't say go to earth and live and that's that. What kind of merciful God would that be?

You are using one standard for proof. I am using another. That is where it ends.

 

[MyM]

You are using one standard for proof. I am using another. That is where it ends.

My standard of proof is genuine

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My standard of proof is genuine

Yeah, and mine is so wrong that I am not in reality and already in Hell.

 

[MyM]

Yeah, and mine is so wrong that I am not in reality and already in Hell.

your choice lol

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

your choice lol

Yeah, I was testing you to learn more about your thinking. Thank you for your answer.

 

[PureX]

No; that has not been established. You see to know simply means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt; it doesn't not mean yuo have 100% proof, or that you are even right.
Example; If you asked me, I will tell you I know my age, who my birth parents are, the city I was born in, and exactly how old I am. I even have a birth certificate to confirm all of this. Now for ME that is enough evidence for me to say I know. However suppose I was actually adopted by the people I know to be my parents, and I was born in another country on a different day and the fake birth certificate is all a part of the conspiracy to keep all of this information away from me? If such information came out I would admit I was wrong however until such information comes to light, I will continue to know my age, when I was born, and who my parents are. Does this make sense to you?
I know theists who are as certain of their God as I am of my age, an birth information. IT doesn't mean they are right, it just means they are certain beyond any shadow of doubt. SO God-proof is not necessary to know God exists; all you need is conviction beyond any shadow of doubt.
Definition of know | Dictionary.com

Perhaps not for you, but there are plenty of people who require some type of evidence in order to have faith.

Just as you have confused the meaning of the word, "know" with belief, you have also confused the meaning of the word "faith" with belief. Faith requires no evidence because it is an action that will produce a result, and that result will justify it, or it won't. Belief is a presumption of righteousness in advance of taking any action that then requires sufficient evidence to justify and maintain itself regardless of any action. You can run to the dictionary, now, if you want to, to justify your confusion, but all the dictionary will prove is that others are also confused, and thereby wrongly conflare and misuse the terms as you have.

The best way to understand this whole 'god/no god' issue is to forget what anyone believes about it and focus on what they claim to be so, and why they maintain that claim. Because the truth is that none of us knows a damn thing. We just think we do. And that's not knowledge, that's "belief". Belief is a result, not a justification. And to understand this issue, we need to explore the justifications. What are people gaining from their choosing whatever position they've chosen? Because they didn't choose it based on knowledge or proof. They couldn't have. No one has any.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just as you have confused the meaning of the word, "know" with belief, you have also confused the meaning of the word "faith" with belief. Faith requires no evidence because it is an action that will produce a result, and that result will justify it, or it won't. Belief is a presumption of righteousness in advance of taking any action that then requires sufficient evidence to justify and maintain itself regardless of any action. You can run to the dictionary, now, if you want to, to justify your confusion, but all the dictionary will prove is that others are also confused, and thereby wrongly conflare and misuse the terms as you have.

The best way to understand this whole 'god/no god' issue is to forget what anyone believes about it and focus on what they claim to be so, and why they maintain that claim. Because the truth is that none of us knows a damn thing. We just think we do. And that's not knowledge, that's "belief". Belief is a result, not a justification. And to understand this issue, we need to explore the justifications. What are people gaining from their choosing whatever position they've chosen? Because they didn't choose it based on knowledge or proof. They couldn't have. No one has any.

Yeah, knowledge as justified true belief is a nice idea, but it doesn't hold up.