If God existed would there be proof?

[Sheldon]

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

You said this would not involve evidence?

 

[Sheldon]

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

I am dubious, as that seems like circular reasoning.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

Why?

 

[Sheldon]

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.

What? Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Proof is a misnomer in this context, and really applies to mathematics and formal logic. So of course evidence can and should be considered, even if inconclusive. We just need to examine it critically, but also refrain from agreeing with the proposition if the available body of facts does not justify such a conclusion.

When someone says proof I tend to infer that they mean establish enough objective evidence as to put a proposition beyond any reasonable doubt, but that it remain tentative in the light of new evidence. How likely new evidence is to amend or even reverse an accepted fact can probably be estimated from the amount and nature of objective evidence that supports it.

 

[Sheldon]

the Bible is evidence but it is not accepted as evidence for atheists.

The bible contains claims, evidence would be what supports those claims. Since this comes up a ot I'll give an example.

Jesus body disappearing from its tomb is a claim, this is not a significant fact to me, since it is not that extraordinary a claim. However the claim it was because he was resurrected from the dead, is a very extraordinary claim, so whilst I'd be happy to accept the first claim prima facie, the second one would require a very high degree of objective evidence before I would accept it. The first claim would not be sufficient to support the second, if were there no credible explanation for it's disappearance.

 

[firedragon]

Why?

Why what? Please frame your question again if you dont mind.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why what? Please frame your question again if you dont mind.

You said:

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.​

And I asked why. That is, why do you think these two claims of yours are actually true? Why do you think there is no question about either claim?

 

[firedragon]

You said:

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.​

And I asked why. That is, why do you think these two claims of yours are actually true? Why do you think there is no question about either claim?

Because I go with the axiom that everything must have a sufficient reason.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because I go with the axiom that everything must have a sufficient reason.

But that doesn't make it true and there are other axioms possible.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because I go with the axiom that everything must have a sufficient reason.

1. If it's an axiom, then it's basically an assumption that doesn't itself have sufficient reason, rather undermining any universal applicability.
   
   
2. Even if we accept the axiom, how does that make make your statements true? Even if there is sufficient reason for a god (or no god), why would that mean that there would be proof? Why would it mean humans would be able to know the reason? The PSR doesn't tell us that there are things we can't, or don't yet, know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Something occurs to me on this:

If God were necessary - for the existence of either the universe as a whole or something in the universe - and we were able to confirm that this was so, this would be proof of God.

The corollary to this, then, is that if God cannot be proven, then - as far as we're able to determine - God is unnecessary.

Hmm.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Something occurs to me on this:

If God were necessary - for the existence of either the universe as a whole or something in the universe - and we were able to confirm that this was so, this would be proof of God.

The corollary to this, then, is that if God cannot be proven, then - as far as we're able to determine - God is unnecessary.

Hmm.

That is an invalid deduction and you are not an universal "we", unless you are God.

 

[Nimos]

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.

it is not in this case. Im presenting you with an example with clear rules, so they are not abstract in any way, but are well defined. im not asking about your opinion about anything. But for you to clarify or demonstrate in which way certain information in a given setup is not considered irrelevant for whatever decision you are making.

To which you replied that, my abilities to think logical is not a strong side. I have no issue with these personal assaults, but does little for your argument. Im not saying that I might not be wrong, which is why im interested in your argumentation for why you think im wrong and have poor logical reasoning.

So again, given the setup as presented above:

An undetectable God, an invisible force or neither of them.

Each of these are in favor of either A or B, or none of them if neither of them exist.

Which option of either A or B would you choose in order to avoid harm, and how would you reach the conclusion that one option is better than the other and therefore not irrelevant information?

If you truly believe that im being illogical it should be easy to argue why that is the case, and I would as said, be interested in hearing it, so I can learn why that is so.

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.

This is also irrelevant, im not presenting you with a real situation, but an example of why something would be considered irrelevant under certain circumstances.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

it is not in this case. Im presenting you with an example with clear rules, so they are not abstract in any way, but are well defined. ...

A stone is concrete. Now hold your rules and tell us what you see about the observable properties.

Nevermind, we have apparently been here before.
You see to think that seeing a cat is exactly the same as seeing that 2+2=11.

 

[DNB]

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.

I understand, i felt that it was splitting hairs or not relevant to the OP, but my point was evidence becomes proof once it's established that it truly points to what you are trying to prove.

 

[Nimos]

A stone is concrete. Now hold your rules and tell us what you see about the observable properties.

Nevermind, we have apparently been here before.
You see to think that seeing a cat is exactly the same as seeing that 2+2=11.

No, but if you ask me to decide whether a given animal on an image is a cat or not, I will answer you based on that. And not start answering you left, right or center, that not all animals are cats and therefore... blah blah blah

So again, based on what I asked you, is what I said illogical or not? is what I said wrong? Its not about being right, but I would like to know if you actually have a argument for it, or if it was just slander and whether I should just ignore it?

 

[DNB]

What? Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Proof is a misnomer in this context, and really applies to mathematics and formal logic. So of course evidence can and should be considered, even if inconclusive. We just need to examine it critically, but also refrain from agreeing with the proposition if the available body of facts does not justify such a conclusion.

When someone says proof I tend to infer that they mean establish enough objective evidence as to put a proposition beyond any reasonable doubt, but that it remain tentative in the light of new evidence. How likely new evidence is to amend or even reverse an accepted fact can probably be estimated from the amount and nature of objective evidence that supports it.

Is evidence is accepted as a viable witness towards the veracity of something's existence, then it's proof. In other words, can evidence be ambiguous?

But, either way, there is grounds to differentiate as there can be evidence to make an assertion or accusation, or arouse suspicion, but further evidence can underscore the proposed conclusion or even establish it as fact. Or, can cause it to deviate from the initial hypothesis, ...but without discrediting the evidence that was deemed suspicious in the first place - yes, evidence can be ambiguous.

 

[firedragon]

But that doesn't make it true and there are other axioms possible.

Great. What other axioms do you go by?

 

[firedragon]

If it's an axiom, then it's basically an assumption that doesn't itself have sufficient reason, rather undermining any universal applicability.

Please show that its just a random assumption.

Even if we accept the axiom, how does that make make your statements true? Even if there is sufficient reason for a god (or no god), why would that mean that there would be proof? Why would it mean humans would be able to know the reason? The PSR doesn't tell us that there are things we can't, or don't yet, know.

Please show that its not correct or "true" as you said.

Thanks.

 

[Link]

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 not proving himself would mean he is not God.