If God existed would there be proof?

[Clara Tea]

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?

If death gets one to heaven is death bad? Was it bad to send Jesus to heaven?

I suspect that mental anguish is bad. So, the suffering that Jesus did on the cross was bad, and completely unnecessary. Unless, of coursse, God wanted Jesus to understand human suffering.

Even if life on earth is just an illlusion (like the Matrix movie), the anguish that one feels is still real.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That is what Lewis always says but that does not really help people who are suffering in this life, even if they believe in the next life. Moreover, we are told hardly anything about the next life, only that there will be joy and gladness, but what does that mean?

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.

As to those that have tasted of the fruit of man’s earthly existence, which is the recognition of the one true God, exalted be His glory, their life hereafter is such as We are unable to describe. The knowledge thereof is with God, alone, the Lord of all worlds.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 345-346

Imo, the knowledge should not have been with God alone, if God expected us to endure so much suffering in this world, but as we both know, suffering is not evenly distributed, which is another problem as I see it. There is no explanation as to why some people suffer so much more than others but we are supposed to be grateful for our suffering because it is supposed to make us more spiritual. If that's really true I should be really spiritual by now, but I do not feel very spiritual. .

I best get off my high horse before I say anything more.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is proof for those who believe the evidence.

That's true, and that is what I keep telling the atheists.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If death gets one to heaven is death bad? Was it bad to send Jesus to heaven?

I suspect that mental anguish is bad. So, the suffering that Jesus did on the cross was bad, and completely unnecessary. Unless, of coursse, God wanted Jesus to understand human suffering.

Even if life on earth is just an illlusion (like the Matrix movie), the anguish that one feels is still real.

Death isn’t bad, it’s as much a part of life as birth is. The insoluble paradox for those of us who believe in a loving God, is not “why is death a part of His creation?”, but rather, “why does He allow so much suffering in this life?”

This is the question the book of Job tries to address, and ultimately leaves unanswered; the only answer Job gets from God, is rhetorical; Were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Not all questions have answers. Some people find this intolerable, for it seems we were made to ask questions. But if a question has no answer, and asking the same ones over and over leads us up the same blind alley, perhaps we should ask another question, try another route.

In my opinion, the question we should each be asking ourselves is not “Why does God allow suffering?” but rather, “What can I do, today, to alleviate the suffering of others?”
To ask this question involves assuming some personal responsibility for the wellbeing of others; and people don’t like responsibility. Many of us do almost anything to avoid it

 

[firedragon]

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?

If an observable god exists then it would be in that god's interest to provide undeniable proof of existence.
No proof does not mean something doesn't exist, you cannot prove a negative.

If God exists, the "why" question is irrelevant to something that exists.

Gods interests if existing is unavailable unless you can speak directly to God. You making propositions on behalf of God means you are your own God. You are imposing your own interests upon a being you cant speak to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good question. I meant proof, not evidence.

Proof is in my beliefs system a feature of the mind. And thus not relevant for that independent of the mind including an objective God.

 

[ratiocinator]

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 take your points in order:

• Depends on whether this god wanted us to be sure of its existence or not. A god might exist that simply didn't care about humanity at all, or actively wanted to hide itself.
  
• No.
• Yes.

This is exactly why you get agnostic atheists because, if there is no "proof" or actual evidence, then despite the fact that it's still possible that a god (or gods) exists, why would I care or take the possibility seriously? There would be no reason to believe that a god existed, because it could only ever be a guess. Endless things might possibly be true and there be no evidence for them (or no evidence available to us now), so why would anybody just arbitrarily decide to believe any of them?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To take your points in order:

• Depends on whether this god wanted us to be sure of its existence or not. A god might exist that simply didn't care about humanity at all, or actively wanted to hide itself.
  
• No.
• Yes.

This is exactly why you get agnostic atheists because, if there is no "proof" or actual evidence, then despite the fact that it's still possible that a god (or gods) exists, why would I care or take the possibility seriously? There would be no reason to believe that a god existed, because it could only ever be a guess. Endless things might possibly be true and there be no evidence for them (or no evidence available to us now), so why would anybody just arbitrarily decide to believe any of them?

Well, enter psychology and coping. Or as some atheists call it - the crutch.
I mean the same goes for all forms of positive metaphysics.

 

[Brian2]

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.

A world with death had to be because God knew that humans would sin and so would need to die.
Suffering goes hand in hand with death of course and a corruptible and mortal human body.
Also this earth had to be a place for God to give us humans moral freedom. That includes free will to cause or stop the suffering of others.

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.

And yes those left behind grieve but God said that He would dry all our tears.

 

[Nimos]

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?

No I don't think knowing when God intervenes is especially important to people that believe. I think, obviously me guessing, that it is the comfort of someone listening and the chance of someone powerful caring about us and help us when needed. And of course mixed with the believe that a God created everything.

But if God is "invisible" to us, he becomes irrelevant, again have nothing to do with whether he is real or not. But exactly as me telling you that some invisible creatures interfere and control our lives at random times. If I can't show you that these creatures exists and actually do these things, it makes no difference to you whether they actually exist or not. And you are better of simply behaving as if they doesn't, especially if I also tell you that you have to do certain things, to not make them angry. And it is no different with God, except that you might have been convinced that you actually have to do certain things in order to live as God wants you to.

But again, you can look at yourself and a person of another religious belief or an atheist, and ask yourself whether you are better off than they are? And how do you make the judgement that you are in fact better off? and if you don't believe you are better off than they are, what is the reason then for it? Because clearly God doesn't seem to favor your way of living over the other ones. In that case, we get to the "saving" part, that God will only save certain people and that might be what keep you believing that you are doing the right thing, exactly like one of another religious view might think exactly the same as well.

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.

That might very well be true. Obviously I don't buy that as an atheist, because to me it doesn't make sense. First of all, because Jesus according to the bible also told his disciples that they would experience this in their lifetimes, which didn't happen. Furthermore, what about all those people that lived before us that are now dead, they didn't get to experience this. So even if it happens, what does it matter if it occurs in 4000 years or 500 years, at which point we are all dead anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
But if God is "invisible" to us, he becomes irrelevant, ...

As it stands it is an invalid deduction,
P1: God is "invisible" to us
C: Therefore he is irrelevant.

That is an example of critical thinking applies to an argument.

 

[Nimos]

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.

He would be relevant in regards to having done it. But irrelevant in regards to us actually knowing it.

Even if God did it, we have no clue which God we are talking about, it could be the Christian God, it might be Odin, Allah, one of the Hindu gods, or a God we didn't even knew existed or there might not be any God at all, which ever of these you choose is irrelevant, if said God is undetectable.

Its for the same reason that science doesn't deal with the "why" question as well. Its irrelevant and is not considered possible to answer. So science can tell us how rain is caused, how the sun produce light, the process behind it etc. But doesn't deal with the question of why does it rain? why does the sun shine? why is there life rather than no life?

The why question is something we fill in and in most cases without any evidence for it. When I say in most cases, it is because, we can explain why an animal need to eat, which is obviously because it would die if it didn't, but we can't answer the question of why does animals have to eat in the first place? And this is where, we can throw in God and say that he designed it that way, but that is not an answer, it is simply filling a gap without any good reason for doing so.

 

[Nimos]

As it stands it is an invalid deduction,
P1: God is "invisible" to us
C: Therefore he is irrelevant.

That is an example of critical thinking applies to an argument.

It is not invalid.

If I ask you to make a decision right here and now, between A and B. And depending on which of these you choose, I claim that God or some other invisible force, will do something bad to you in the future.

Unless you can confirm that God or this invisible force actually exist, those information is irrelevant to you, even if something bad happens to you in the future, you have no clue if it was caused by you choose A over B, or if it was caused by something else. And you have no clue if it was God or the invisible force. Given that you can't reach a sound conclusion of which of these are correct, if any, given that there might not be a God or an invisible force, its completely irrelevant for you to even consider these as real, when choosing between A and B.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not invalid.

If I ask you to make a decision right here and now, between A and B. And depending on which of these you choose, I claim that God or some other invisible force, will do something bad to you in the future.

Unless you can confirm that God or this invisible force actually exist, those information is irrelevant to you, even if something bad happens to you in the future, you have no clue if it was caused by you choose A over B, or if it was caused by something else. And you have no clue if it was God or the invisible force. Given that you can't reach a sound conclusion of which of these are correct, if any, given that there might not be a God or an invisible force, its completely irrelevant for you to even consider these as real, when choosing between A and B.

Logic is not your strong suite. That is a first person subjective evolution and without evidence.

 

[Nimos]

Logic is not your strong suite. That is a first person subjective evolution and without evidence.

Then tell me how you would use those information to make the correct choice?

Lets say that God favors one letter and the invisible force the other, and if there is no God or invisible force, it doesn't matter which you choose.

Which of A or B would you consider to be the correct option and how did you reach that conclusion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then tell me how you would use those information to make the correct choice?

Lets say that God favors one letter and the invisible force the other, and if there is no God or invisible force, it doesn't matter which you choose.

Which of A or B would you consider to be the correct option and how did you reach that conclusion?

Correct is an abstract in your thinking. But your way of thinking is not the only one possible. You are, just like we all do, doing framing as how you understand and thus all other ways of framing are incorrect to you. But that is based on how you think.

So try to consider this from sociology, Thomas Theorem:
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.

BTW the word "real" has no observable property, it is an abstract like "God". Real is invisible, so why do you believe in it? Because it works for you. Just like God works for some people.

 

[firedragon]

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

Lets see if one could take a completely independent stance on your OP.

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.

This is not about providence, this is about existence. So if someone believes there is no proof for Gods existence, he is typically an agnostic. But he might use the term "evidence" because of scientism becoming a certain type of foundation. Also, if someone believes God exists, typically he has proof God exists. This "Proof" could be various things. So one has to analyse these proofs and determine if they are valid. Even if someone claims he has no proof, but faith alone, he has proof. Valid or invalid is a completely different analysis altogether.

This works both ways. And is a long long discussion IMO.

 

[Erebus]

If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?

Not necessarily. If God does indeed exist, he may be unwilling or unable to provide proof of his existence. That possibility would be compatible with some concepts of God, though it raises doubts about others in my opinion (e.g. an omnipotent being that wants us to believe in him).

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

No. It's possible that God is deliberately concealing himself.

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

Yes and there are innumerable reasons why such a being might choose not to reveal itself.


Everything I've said here points to one reason why I'm leery of people who argue that we must live a certain way because it's God's will. If God does want us to abide by particular rules then why wouldn't he make that clear in some incontrovertible way? Also, how can we trust the people who claim to know God's will? They could easily be mistaken, lying or deceived by some malevolent being.

That's not to say that people shouldn't follow one of the revealed religions. However, I'd argue that it would be better to do it for reasons other than attempting to abide by God's will. Perhaps it's because you agree with the religion's moral code for example. Maybe you just like the communal aspect.

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

Does this apply to all gods or only to creator gods?

 

[Sheldon]

I mean proof according to the following definition. God would be established as a fact that everyone would know and agree upon:

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

So why did you say no to evidence?

Good question. I meant proof, not evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lets see if one could take a completely independent stance on your OP.

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.

This is not about providence, this is about existence. So if someone believes there is no proof for Gods existence, he is typically an agnostic. But he might use the term "evidence" because of scientism becoming a certain type of foundation. Also, if someone believes God exists, typically he has proof God exists. This "Proof" could be various things. So one has to analyse these proofs and determine if they are valid. Even if someone claims he has no proof, but faith alone, he has proof. Valid or invalid is a completely different analysis altogether.

This works both ways. And is a long long discussion IMO.

And don't forget sound.