If God existed would there be proof?

[Clara Tea]

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

Woody Allen said that he doesn't mind dying, as long as he isn't there when it happens.

They say that a sign of intelligence is never making the same mistake twice. So, I try to make new mistakes. Or, I make the same mistake 43 times (that's not twice).

"alleviate other's suffering".....That's what Jesus did, and he led by example (that is, we are supposed to do that). But, look at all of the people reading the scriptures (possibly looking for loopholes to get into heaven), and they are concerned with their own souls, not the souls of others. They spend a great deal of time studying the bible, and no time emulating Jesus.

I think that the most pervasive message of Jesus was "take responsibility."

Satan rules by deception (often pretending to "fight evil" for God). Satan also uses fear (like Orange alerts designed to scare us into another war). Satan is associated with the 7 deadly sins. Apathy (Hurricane Katrina), greed (lower tax, ignore homeless, frack oil while destroying God's environment), killing (wars, torture, lack of medical care, etc.), and others. Satan leaves a wake of destruction, misery, and debt, and that is how you can recognize him.

We have to avoid evil, while taking responsibility. We can't be so frightened of terrorism that we attack our peaceful allies who live in the same general area. It isn't about us feeling safer, it's about them losing their lives and suffering.

 

[Clara Tea]

So why did you say no to evidence?

Has anyone who figures that God is imaginary, ever thought that we might be too? If so, it isn't very hard to assume that imaginary people have an imaginary God.

 

[Clara Tea]

Then what are the difference between the question I asked you and when you are presented with a set of rules in a board game and you having to make a decision based on those?

The example of the cat, were to illustrate that when asked a question, where you are specifically asked what to take into consideration, that it is pointless to then start including all sorts of other irrelevant stuff in order to answer it. Meaning that the "rules" of the question is to answer it based on the image of a cat and nothing else. Fair enough if you don't like the word "rules" in this case, I can understand why.

Obviously the reason is, that if you start including all kinds of other things and assumptions, then you are not addressing the actual question asked, but whatever you believe is relevant or think the person asking the question mean.

Schroedinger's Cat....probability of existing and not (simultaneously....until we check to make sure).

Belief in God remains a probability (perhaps a very low probability) until we test it (if we could devise a test). Then, we will know for sure. But, when quantum mechanical particles are tested (to check location), a photon is bounced off of them and that alters their old position. So, we can know where things were, but never where they are.

We can know where something is, but not how much energy it has. We can know how much energy it has, but not where it is. (Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle).

So, if we know something about God, we might lose other info about God. If we know something now, it might force us to not know something later.

 

[Clara Tea]

if you start including all kinds of other things and assumptions, then you are not addressing the actual question asked.

A miracle of God.....avoiding a question by distracting with extraneous info and assumptions. God provides.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@Nimos

Your examples are not relevant for some people who believe in God. That can be observed as how some people think and act.
Now tell me how you think has any relevance to how other people think and act.
That is it. That is how simple it is. Words are not magical and your thinking can't in the strong sense cause someone else to act and believe differently.
No matter hów irrelevant the idea of God is to you, it means nothing to someone for which the idea of God is relevant to that someone.
That is it. That is the limit of all your critical thinking. It only works for those who think like you.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

So, if someone hits your toe with a hammer, you shouldn't ask "why?". That is because they exist, the hammer exists, and the question "why?" is irrelevant. Still, it would be interesting to know.

 

[Clara Tea]

And don't forget sound.

My sister had "sound" arguments, and always won debates. In fact, they were the noisiest of any. She graduated Magna Cum Loudest.

 

[Nimos]

Schroedinger's Cat....probability of existing and not (simultaneously....until we check to make sure).

Belief in God remains a probability (perhaps a very low probability) until we test it (if we could devise a test). Then, we will know for sure. But, when quantum mechanical particles are tested (to check location), a photon is bounced off of them and that alters their old position. So, we can know where things were, but never where they are.

We can know where something is, but not how much energy it has. We can know how much energy it has, but not where it is. (Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle).

So, if we know something about God, we might lose other info about God. If we know something now, it might force us to not know something later.

Sorry, I failed to understand what is meant with this in relationship to what Im talking about, can you elaborate?

 

[Clara Tea]

@Nimos

Your examples not relevant for some people who believe in God. That can be observed as how some people think and act.
Now tell me how you think has any relevance to how other people think and act.
That is it. That is how simple it is. Words are not magical and your thinking can't in the strong sense cause someone else to act and believe differently.
No matter hów irrelevant the idea of God is to you, it means nothing to someone for which the idea of God is relevant to that someone.
That is it. That is the limit of all your critical thinking. It only works for those who think like you.

In Yiddish, Moishe Kapoyr is a person who is always contrary. Literally, it means "Michael upsidedown." Some use the term for people who think strangely. Jews were aware of those with different logic (not necessarily wrong).

We like to think that there is just one correct answer. But what if there were different rules for logic that would arrive at different conclusions?

There are many gray areas, and many unknowns. Perhaps the best we can do is guess or make statistical estimates of some things. This is how quantum mechanics works. Often quantum experiments don't yield the same conclusions (or even logical conclusions).

Lets say, for example, there was a way to flip a quantum state between up and down. If one flips an up, it will become down. If one flips a down, it will become up. But if one flips an up twice, you'd think it would be up again, but in a strange quirk of quantum mechanics, it might not be, necessarily.

The world of quantum mechanics makes us uncertain of everything.

 

[Nimos]

Your examples not relevant for some people who believe in God. That can be observed as how some people think and act.

Its doesn't matter whether its relevant for some people that believe in God or not.

The initial condition in the OP, where in regards to an undetectable God. Even if a person doesn't believe that to be the case and that God is very much detectable in their eyes, they still have to address the question based on the condition that God is undetectable. Its no different, than someone saying "imagine that Earth was a in the shape of a box, how would that affect... etc... etc.." even if we don't belief that the Earth is a box, that is part of the condition or question asked.

That is it. That is how simple it is. Words are not magical and your thinking can't in the strong sense cause someone else to act and believe differently.
No matter hów irrelevant the idea of God is to you, it means nothing to someone for which the idea of God is relevant to that someone.

Please stop reading stuff into things. Again, im not saying that God is undetectable or trying to convince anyone that he is, im arguing based on what Trailblazer wrote in the OP and were asking about.

That is it. That is the limit of all your critical thinking. It only works for those who think like you.

Again, you are not answering or even remotely addressing my argument, you simply continue to add your own assumptions and drawing conclusions based on these, which are completely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with what I wrote or asked you, or even what the OP question was about.

 

[Nimos]

In Yiddish, Moishe Kapoyr is a person who is always contrary. Literally, it means "Michael upsidedown." Some use the term for people who think strangely. Jews were aware of those with different logic (not necessarily wrong).

We like to think that there is just one correct answer. But what if there were different rules for logic that would arrive at different conclusions?

There are many gray areas, and many unknowns. Perhaps the best we can do is guess or make statistical estimates of some things. This is how quantum mechanics works. Often quantum experiments don't yield the same conclusions (or even logical conclusions).

Lets say, for example, there was a way to flip a quantum state between up and down. If one flips an up, it will become down. If one flips a down, it will become up. But if one flips an up twice, you'd think it would be up again, but in a strange quirk of quantum mechanics, it might not be, necessarily.

The world of quantum mechanics makes us uncertain of everything.

Is God or is he like quantum mechanics? Because in that case he would be detectable. I agree with you, that quantum mechanics is very weird, but again, yet detectable and has been proven, despite us not really understanding all of it.

But as mention to Mikkel_the_dane, is this relevant for the question asked? Lets go back in time a 1000 years, when quantum mechanics were unknown and undetectable, these people clearly lived their lives as if quantum mechanics didn't in exist, and therefore it would have been completely irrelevant to them, in regards to how they got through each day, what they decided to do etc.

Obviously the moment we detected quantum mechanics and figured out what it were, things change. Exactly as if we detected God tomorrow in whatever way that would occur, that would change everything. But things we don't know about is irrelevant to us as long as we don't know they exist, and it doesn't matter how weird or amazing etc. they are or might be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its doesn't matter whether its relevant for some people that believe in God or not.

The initial condition in the OP, where in regards to an undetectable God. Even if a person doesn't believe that to be the case and that God is very much detectable in their eyes, they still have to address the question based on the condition that God is undetectable. Its no different, than someone saying "imagine that Earth was a in the shape of a box, how would that affect... etc... etc.." even if we don't belief that the Earth is a box, that is part of the condition or question asked.


Please stop reading stuff into things. Again, im not saying that God is undetectable or trying to convince anyone that he is, im arguing based on what Trailblazer wrote in the OP and were asking about.


Again, you are not answering or even remotely addressing my argument, you simply continue to add your own assumptions and drawing conclusions based on these, which are completely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with what I wrote or asked you, or even what the OP question was about.

Well, we have non revealed deism. So it is already answered.
Some people do believe in an undetectable God,
How they do answer to how they believe, is besides the point. The fact is that they believe.

 

[Nimos]

Well, we have non revealed deism. So it is already answered.
Some people do believe in an undetectable God,
How they do answer to how they believe, is besides the point. The fact is that they believe.

Yes and my argument is that God in such case would be irrelevant from our perspective and that these people are drawing illogical conclusions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes and my argument is that God in such case would be irrelevant from our perspective and that these people are drawing illogical conclusions.

Well, you are not an universal "our" as your are not God and these people are humans like you. So you assume an "our" that is invisible and only exists in your mind for your kind of humans.
As for me, I choose not to believe in your "our".

 

[1213]

...
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?....

By what the Bible tells, God is the creator of this world. If He exists and is the creator, we should be able to see His creations. But, maybe that is only evidence, not a proof, maybe nothing is ever proof.

 

[Nimos]

Well, you are not an universal "our" as your are not God and these people are humans like you. So you assume an "our" that is invisible and only exists in your mind for your kind of humans.
As for me, I choose not to believe in your "our".

God almighty

Did I claim to be God? Did I claim anything in regards to God?!!! I just told you, that the conditions Trailblazer put forward in the OP, was an undetectable God!! If you believe that her conditions are wrong (Which I don't see how you could), then why even participate in this thread, why not make a new one with the same question asking about a detectable God instead?

Again with the "rules", Trailblazer defined them when she asked the question, what is the point of answering her if you simply change the condition and the question she is interested in.

As an atheist yourself, you must be able and used to pretending and follow the condition that God is real, whenever you answer theists about whatever. So I don't get why this is considered such a huge deal when the condition is "undetectable".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God all mighty

Did I claim to be God? Did I claim anything in regards to God?!!! I just told you, that the conditions Trailblazer put forward in the OP, was an undetectable God!! If you believe that her conditions are wrong (Which I don't see how you could), then why even participate in this thread, why not make a new one with the same question asking about a detectable God instead?

Again with the "rules", Trailblazer defined them when she asked the question, what is the point of answering her if you simply change the condition and the question she is interested in.

As an atheist yourself, you must be able and used to pretending and follow the condition that God is real, whenever you answer theists about whatever. So I don't get why this is considered such a huge deal when the condition is "undetectable".

If God is real as undetectable, it doesn't matter, because we have already people who believe in such a God. That is the pragmatic answer based on observation of the world.
That is one answer to this one from the OP: In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence? Yes, that is called non-revealed deism and that is a version of God.

 

[Nimos]

If God is real as undetectable, it doesn't matter, because we have already people who believe in such a God. That is the pragmatic answer based on observation of the world.
That is one answer to this one from the OP: In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence? Yes, that is called non-revealed deism and that is a version of God.

Yes, and I agree with you on that.

But would simply add, that in such case God would be irrelevant to us, because we wouldn't know the difference and therefore unable to know which God is real and which isn't. It is purely based on which one we would like to be real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, and I agree with you on that.

But would simply add, that in such case God would be irrelevant to us, because we wouldn't know the difference and therefore unable to know which God is real and which isn't. It is purely based on what which one we would like to be real.

Okay. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

And how many ways are there to get to heaven? Some people think there is only one way, and that is through Jesus. And those same people that believe that, believe that sin and death entered the world because of one man's sin, Adam. Some people see all that from "both sides now" too. Christianity has some good and some bad. Some people believed it is the absolute truth. Some people see it as pure myth.

So, to God, is this just a movie? A movie he wrote and directed? Or is it people that keep writing scripts of what they think is the truth. One of those scripts has God, Jesus, the devil and all of us playing out our lives. In that script the good go to heaven...The bad to hell. But why believe in that script when there are so many others. But, then again, it is just a script. Is it the truth?