If God existed would there be proof?

[PureX]

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 determining what is and is not a manifestation of "God's guidance". As are we all. Even the atheists. That does not make it a known fact that any particular circumstance you name is a manifestation of God's guidance. It just means that you have chosen to believe that "X" is, while "Y and Z" are not. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I am also sure that you have no factual proof that the assertion would stand apart from your own subjective criteria.

Our belief can make things real for us. But it can't make things real for everyone. And the sad result of our chasing after our beliefs, then, is that they tend to separate us from each other. And often drives us into antipathy with each other. Whereas faith does not require belief (that presumption of righteousness). Faith remains open-minded, and skeptical. It's a choice we make with our eyes open. It's a willingness to try out an ideal by acting on it, and then letting the result of that action determine the validity of the ideal. It doesn't have to be "believed in" in advance. It doesn't have to be "believed in" at all. It either works for us in a positive way or it does not. And if not, then we can alter the ideal and try it again. Or we can drop it all together. And we have no need to argue or debate with anyone else about it, because they can all do the same for themselves.

 

[MyM]

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

Go ahead and "test" lol

 

[MyM]

You are determining what is and is not a manifestation of "God's guidance". As are we all. Even the atheists. That does not make it a known fact that any particular circumstance you name is a manifestation of God's guidance. It just means that you have chosen to believe that "X" is, while "Y and Z" are not. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I am also sure that you have no factual proof that the assertion would stand apart from your own subjective criteria.

Our belief can make things real for us. But it can't make things real for everyone. And the sad result of our chasing after our beliefs, then, is that they tend to separate us from each other. And often drives us into antipathy with each other. Whereas faith does not require belief (that presumption of righteousness). Faith remains open-minded, and skeptical. It's a choice we make with our eyes open. It's a willingness to try out an ideal by acting on it, and then letting the result of that action determine the validity of the ideal. It doesn't have to be "believed in" in advance. It doesn't have to be "believed in" at all. It either works for us in a positive way or it does not. And if not, then we can alter the ideal and try it again. Or we can drop it all together. And we have no need to argue or debate with anyone else about it, because they can all do the same for themselves.

You cannot be sure that I have no actual proof lol Get your skepticism straight

 

[Kfox]

I would take factual proofs for my belief and not blindly believe.

So you don’t know your age, who your parents are or where you were born?

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?

I would think a merciful God would guide his people himself rather than remaining hidden for the vast majority of the population and allowing a bunch of crooked people with conflicting messages to speak for him.

 

[Kfox]

Yes.

Doesn’t that contradict what you said before when you said
"all truth is in the end a belief that appears useful."

 

[Brian2]

no.

Jesus is said to be exactly like His Father. Does it seem that way to you?

 

[Kfox]

Just as you have confused the meaning of the word, "know" with belief,

No, you are confusing the word “belief” with knowing. I’ve even provided a dictionary definition of the word that supports my definition. Perhaps you should do the same with your definitions.

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.

I never said faith requires evidence, I said there are people who require evidence before having faith. Address what I said; rather than misrepresenting my words.

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.

Belief has nothing to do with righteousness.

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.

Ahh so the dictionary is wrong, and you are right when it comes to defining words? And you expect me to believe that? No thank-you, I will assume YOU are wrong, and the dictionary is right.

 

[Brian2]

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...​

I think it was a SDA who started the idea of the fossils coming from the flood instead of billions of years.
I think the order of the fossils in the layers is not what it would be if it was all to do with one world wide flood.
I actually see science as confirming what is in the creation account on the whole, even with the evolution of the life forms, but not fully,,,,,,,,,,,,I don't think science has it completely right.
I also find that I can read a smaller flood in the Bible and that there seems to have been many of these at the end of the last ice age.
I guess I try to find a middle ground between the science and the Bible while still reading Genesis as a true historic narrative and understand it in what science has discovered.
But as I say, I don't see science as 100% accurate. I think science skips over things that God has done and attributed a lot of God's work to naturalistic answers, when really they don't know.
YECers no doubt would disagree but I see an insistence on the YEC ideas as part of the reason that atheism and turning away from the Bible seems to be increasing.

 

[Brian2]

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

Yes the US is pretty radical and conservative and probably reactionary like that.
However in the church I go to in Australia (Anglican Church) I was amazed at how many believed in the YEC.
I think it could be one of those things that the average Christian doesn't bother putting much thought into.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Go ahead and "test" lol

Well, so far you are just doing the same.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Doesn’t that contradict what you said before when you said
"all truth is in the end a belief that appears useful."

Well, if I have a (truth) belief that appears useful, but it doesn't work as useful in a given context, then it would appear it fits as not useful.

 

[Kfox]

Jesus is said to be exactly like His Father. Does it seem that way to you?

Nobody really knows what Jesus actually said because he never wrote anything down. The only thing we know about him is what other people claimed he said; which is likely far from the truth IMO.

As far as if he was described to be exactly like Yahweh? When I look at how Jesus instructed his followers to treat their enemies (Luke 6:28) vs the way Yahweh instructed his followers to treat their enemies (Numbers 31:17) they appear to be polar opposites to me.

I believe it was Mark Twain who said “men of war will worship a God of war, men of peace will worship a God of peace”

I believe men like Moses, Saul, and others in the Old Testament were men of war, so when they created a God, they created a God of war (Yahweh)
Later in the New Testament, men like Peter, Paul, and John were men of peace, so when they created a God they created a God of peace (Jesus).
But that's just the way I see it.

 

[Kfox]

Well, if I have a (truth) belief that appears useful, but it doesn't work as useful in a given context, then it would appear it fits as not useful.

So not all truth is a belief that appears useful in the end?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So not all truth is a belief that appears useful in the end?

I understand what you are getting at. And yes, I made a sort of contradiction if you consider truth objective. But to me, there is no objective truth in any strong sense. Any truth is a cognitive process that appears to work, until it for another time, space and sense doesn't work/appear to be useful.
Now we can debate if objective reality is regular and thus there is a regular truth, but I am with Hume as that is an appearance in the mind just as causation.
Now I do have faith that objective reality is overall epistemologically fair, but that is not true. That is how I solve epistemological solipsism.

 

[Link]

God should be appearing clearly per Atheist philosophers if God exists. This is known as the argument from divine hiddenness.

So it seems Atheists and Theist philosophers mostly agree, God would not hide himself but prove himself. The Atheist say God can become more non-hidden, Theists agree, but also argue for reasons why to some degree he is hidden.

 

[PureX]

You cannot be sure that I have no actual proof lol Get your skepticism straight

Logically, I can be sure of it.

 

[ppp]

Now I do have faith that objective reality is overall epistemologically fair, but that is not true.

Could you explain what epistemologically fair means in that context?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Could you explain what epistemologically fair means in that context?

It is Descartes's evil demon and all the other variants. They have never been solved. So I assume that objective reality is epistemologically fair and not the Matrix or one of the other variants.
You can find the same here for science as per assumptions:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

I just hold one non-ontological/metaphysical assumption as I don't do positive ontology/metaphysics. For the everyday world I am a methodological skeptic and pragmatist.

 

[night912]

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.

That is a false premise. Proof can be found with or without god providing it. In fact, the majority of things that exist didn't provide the proof of their existence to us, instead, we found it ourselves. You don't have to provide the proof that you are a human being, but it's possible for me to find it.

The only two categories that proof is impossible to find are, things that don't exist and things that are unfalsifiable.

If God existed would there be proof? Yes

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?

It's up to god.

• Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?

Yes it does. However, currently not having the proof of god's existence, does not mean that god does not exist.

• In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

Of course that's possible, like I said before, it's up to god on whether or not he wants to provide the proof of his existence. But all of that is irrelevant in regards to there being proof of god's existence. This is because in this hypothetical scenario, god exist, therefore the proof of god's existence must also exist.

And my definition of "proof" here is exactly the same one you're using that you posted in here.

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

 

[CG Didymus]

I think it was a SDA who started the idea of the fossils coming from the flood instead of billions of years.
I think the order of the fossils in the layers is not what it would be if it was all to do with one world wide flood.
I actually see science as confirming what is in the creation account on the whole, even with the evolution of the life forms, but not fully,,,,,,,,,,,,I don't think science has it completely right.
I also find that I can read a smaller flood in the Bible and that there seems to have been many of these at the end of the last ice age.
I guess I try to find a middle ground between the science and the Bible while still reading Genesis as a true historic narrative and understand it in what science has discovered.
But as I say, I don't see science as 100% accurate. I think science skips over things that God has done and attributed a lot of God's work to naturalistic answers, when really they don't know.
YECers no doubt would disagree but I see an insistence on the YEC ideas as part of the reason that atheism and turning away from the Bible seems to be increasing.

Yes, I think it's a hard position for some Christians to take. It is much easier to just take the Bible as literal as possible and close one's mind to what "science" says. Since "science" can say lots of stuff.
I'm, ironically, closer to believing like some Baha'is and think the Bible stories are fictional. They, though, try to say they are "metaphorical", and I just think they were legends and myths. But, that's great and easy to do with things like the flood, the question then is... What do people do with the NT stories that have Jesus rising from the dead? The easiest thing for me is to write it off as myth. But then, since it is told in the gospels as if it really happened, and there were witnesses that saw Jesus alive after, then what? Did something as incredible as that really happen? Or was it a hoax and a lie. Or, again, like the Baha'is say... that the resurrection was a metaphor?

No matter what I try to believe, I get a brain cramp.