If it could be proved no god exists

[wellwisher]

Science uses a God of random approach to explain all the gaps in creation. This God is not personified as a God, but he essentially leads to the same results. He is not personified, because he as randomness, has no definitive form. Like randomness his form is like a lottery. It is easer not to give him form, since anything definitive contradicts his nature. He is an incognito God for a closet religion.

Religion uses a God of order and planning. Since this God is determinate in direction and planning, he is personified, to show his timeless and definitive essence.

Let me show a contrast of these two Gods with a working example. The formation of life on Earth is not yet subject to a full logical explanation, since it has never been demonstrated in the lab. Yet, life exists on earth and evidence suggest it had a beginning here on earth. To fill in the gap of the beginning, Science will summon the God of Random. This gap filler is not logical or proven, but is faith based, since this God has never performed his random magic act in lab, the way their faith believes it did.

Religion also can accept life as existing and it believes it had a beginning. Both are in agreement with the alpha and omega. They fill in the same gap with a personified God of order and planning. This is also faith based since this God also has never orderly assembled life in the lab.

An interesting exercise would be for science to purge itself of the God of random, and only rely on the Age of Reason and evidence. Then it would not be the pot that is calling the kettle black.

 

[Kenny]

Nonsense. There are over 1000 Christian sects because people have different conceptualizations about what God is. They all believe one God. It's just that their perception of God is different from other Christian's perception of God. The difference may not be as great as the difference between Allah and Shive, but different nevertheless.

I asked a Christian about the Trinity and he replied that there are 7 different versions listed in the Bible.

But we aren't talking about the Trinity, are we? We are talking about one God. Even in the Trinity, as we believe that humans are also a trinity, we are still talking about ONE God.

Are you trying to change the subject to why there are 1,000 sects?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sort of. But in a way it strongly hints that God is indeed non-existent, or at least quite distant from the conceptions that sustain those people you speak of.

Yes, in a way God is very distant, but in a way He is very close, closer than our life-vein.

“Meditate on what the poet hath written: “Wonder not, if my Best-Beloved be closer to me than mine own self; wonder at this, that I, despite such nearness, should still be so far from Him.”… Considering what God hath revealed, that “We are closer to man than his life-vein,” the poet hath, in allusion to this verse, stated that, though the revelation of my Best-Beloved hath so permeated my being that He is closer to me than my life-vein, yet, notwithstanding my certitude of its reality and my recognition of my station, I am still so far removed from Him. By this he meaneth that his heart, which is the seat of the All-Merciful and the throne wherein abideth the splendor of His revelation, is forgetful of its Creator, hath strayed from His path, hath shut out itself from His glory, and is stained with the defilement of earthly desires.

It should be remembered in this connection that the one true God is in Himself exalted beyond and above proximity and remoteness. His reality transcendeth such limitations. His relationship to His creatures knoweth no degrees. That some are near and others are far is to be ascribed to the manifestations themselves.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 185-186

I do not see how it would be excessive to expect a true, loving, all-powerful God to inspire, if not teach outright, a bit more of resilience than the scenario that you describe implies.

I think God teaches that we have to be resilient, not directly, but rather through Messengers.
It is the Messengers who inspire us, as God does not reveal Himself to us directly.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, that's very creative: when the evidence is entirely consistent with God not existing at all, invent a scenario where God might exist despite an utter lack of evidence.

It kinda throws your revealed religion out the window, but that's your business.

There is all kinds of evidence but no proof, because God does not want us to have proof.

... but my point was that there are lots of people who say that they believe in God but can't answer the question "what do you mean by 'God?'"

What I mean by God is....

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is all kinds of evidence but no proof, because God does not want us to have proof.

When you talk about things like God "hiding," you're talking about evidence.

What I mean by God is....

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 167

My comment wasn't about you, but I'd say that's a pretty vague definition of God.

If the god-concept isn't fleshed out enough for us to say "God's existence implies (list of things we could conceivably test), so if those things aren't there, then this would imply that God does not exist," then it's not the sort of belief that is well-defined enough to evaluate in terms of "true" or "false." That's the sort of god-concept I'm talking about when I say it isn't even good enough to be wrong.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"We don't know"
What we know are:

1. We just exists
   
2. Nobody made us
3. Nothing made us

I have to believe you are just willfully being obstinate. This is a complete misconstruing of the issue. Do you know what "I don't know" means? It DOESN'T mean "nobody made us" it DOESN'T mean "nothing made us." Can you guess what it means? It means "I DON'T KNOW." Do you understand? It means I don't have enough information to take a stance one way or another. I am awaiting further information in order to be confident in taking such a position.

You, on the other hand, have so obviously taken a position and yet I have to assume that you have no more information than I have. And based on the ridiculous content of your posts and your attempt to tell people what it is they believe, I have no choice, really, but to assume that you know A LOT LESS than I do. Seriously. That's where we are. Your tone and content of posts is just so outrageously presumptive and foolish that I have to simply ignore the things you say. It is so obvious that you are far, far back on the path to understanding, and I am not willing to walk back that far to engage you. Get it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, in a way God is very distant, but in a way He is very close, closer than our life-vein.

“Meditate on what the poet hath written: “Wonder not, if my Best-Beloved be closer to me than mine own self; wonder at this, that I, despite such nearness, should still be so far from Him.”… Considering what God hath revealed, that “We are closer to man than his life-vein,” the poet hath, in allusion to this verse, stated that, though the revelation of my Best-Beloved hath so permeated my being that He is closer to me than my life-vein, yet, notwithstanding my certitude of its reality and my recognition of my station, I am still so far removed from Him. By this he meaneth that his heart, which is the seat of the All-Merciful and the throne wherein abideth the splendor of His revelation, is forgetful of its Creator, hath strayed from His path, hath shut out itself from His glory, and is stained with the defilement of earthly desires.

It should be remembered in this connection that the one true God is in Himself exalted beyond and above proximity and remoteness. His reality transcendeth such limitations. His relationship to His creatures knoweth no degrees. That some are near and others are far is to be ascribed to the manifestations themselves.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 185-186

I think God teaches that we have to be resilient, not directly, but rather through Messengers.
It is the Messengers who inspire us, as God does not reveal Himself to us directly.

You know, you are telling me outright that you believe that a God that I can't possibly find either likely to exist nor worth of any attention is the One True God.

 

[MJFlores]

I have to believe you are just willfully being obstinate. This is a complete misconstruing of the issue. Do you know what "I don't know" means? It DOESN'T mean "nobody made us" it DOESN'T mean "nothing made us." Can you guess what it means? It means "I DON'T KNOW." Do you understand? It means I don't have enough information to take a stance one way or another. I am awaiting further information in order to be confident in taking such a position.

You, on the other hand, have so obviously taken a position and yet I have to assume that you have no more information than I have. And based on the ridiculous content of your posts and your attempt to tell people what it is they believe, I have no choice, really, but to assume that you know A LOT LESS than I do. Seriously. That's where we are. Your tone and content of posts is just so outrageously presumptive and foolish that I have to simply ignore the things you say. It is so obvious that you are far, far back on the path to understanding, and I am not willing to walk back that far to engage you. Get it?

 

[ecco]

If God could be proven to NOT exist, I think it would be catastrophic for believers who love God and depend upon Him for stuff. Does that make more sense now?

Which God?

Do we really need to prove Atlas does not exist?
Do we really need to prove Osanyin does not exist?
Do we really need to prove Psychic Snowflakes do not exist?

 

[ecco]

I could say "Jesus is Lord"
in fact, if He isn't then you are not serving Him as you should.

But Jesus is God only in the sense they are in unity. Jesus prayed to His father
that "they may be one" with them. We don't make a doctrine out of God, the
Son and eleven disciples. To love and obey God is to be one with Him.

So, you don't believe in the trinity, but you believe in a dualistic God. Who/what impregnated the young virgin to get pregnant with Jesus?


Have you ever gone beyond your indoctrination and really thought things through or do you just blindly accept and parrot?

 

[ecco]

If there's no God then the universe appeared by magic.

That may be your opinion. It is similar to your opinion that God appeared by magic or, equally silly, that God has always existed.

Science is good for figuring out the mechanisms of the universe, but
it cannot, by definition, figure out how the first mechanism came to
be, or even, why it suddenly appeared.

Correct. That leaves us with IDon'tKnow. Throughout history people who didn't know created Gods and asserted GodDidIt. GodDidIt has never been shown to be right.

What's wrong with being honest and saying IDon'tKnow?

 

[ecco]

Science uses a God of random approach to explain all the gaps in creation. This God is not personified as a God, but he essentially leads to the same results. He is not personified, because he as randomness, has no definitive form. Like randomness his form is like a lottery. It is easer not to give him form, since anything definitive contradicts his nature. He is an incognito God for a closet religion.

Your first sentence is blather. From there it goes downhill.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You can't say that. Current science posits this Big Bang - and the thinking
is that the universe began at the point. And what lies "outside" of the universe,
(essentially a silly question) is lay "before" the universe.

Yes, there is the Big Bang Theory. And what IT says is that at one point everything existed as a SINGULARITY, which then started expanding at the point of the big bang. A SINGULARITY is NOT N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

So AGAIN... were's your evidence that NOTHING can even exist? Where's your evidence that there isn't anything 'outside' of the current universe or that there was nothing 'before' the current universe?

 

[QuestioningMind]

"We don't know"
What we know are:

1. We just exists
   
2. Nobody made us
3. Nothing made us

I'm toying around the Original Post
Assuming it is proven that no god exists
So, I've been thinking and what do you think?
We would have plenty of "IDK" or I don't know.
Maybe someone would come out of the blue, just like that with no reason whatsoever.
That would be fantastic right?




Sure we could play I don't know.
But assuming someone said it was proven that no god exists
then that person knows your I don't know



Then there was something or someone?
If I don't have evidence that in the beginning there was ever nothing?

Nope... your lack of evidence that there was nothing does not automatically mean there was something. However, your lack of evidence that there was nothing makes your entire claim completely useless. It's JUST as useless as ME claiming that there has ALWAYS been something, without any evidence. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How blissful you must be.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I wonder what would be the reaction of theists if evidence was discovered which proved beyond any shadow of doubt that no god has ever existed, and all faiths are created by humans?

At first they would probably be very upset and depressed they had believed in something which was discovered to be false. They might feel at a loss at what to put their trust in and how the world could exist without such a being. But after a while they might gain more confidence in their own abilities to control and lead their own lives in a compassionate, fruitful manner and understand that it has been possible all along even without their own ideas about what that entity is.

Another question might be how they think their lives would be different than they are now without a belief in gods/higher powers. If they can't come up with anything much different, they are half way there.

 

[ecco]

But we aren't talking about the Trinity, are we? We are talking about one God. Even in the Trinity, as we believe that humans are also a trinity, we are still talking about ONE God.

Are you trying to change the subject to why there are 1,000 sects?

The comment about the Trinity was just one example of the 1000 different conceptualizations of what God is. Among Christians, some believe in a TriGod, some a dual-god, some ignore the OT and just consider Jesus. All as different as Atlas and Allah.

You Christians all have different ways to worship your different versions. It is not one big glorified Christianity. It is 1000's of sects all claiming to be the Real Christianity.

 

[ecco]

There is all kinds of evidence but no proof, because God does not want us to have proof.

How very arrogant of you!
Who are you to assert that you KNOW what God does or does not want? Even your Ballulah only knew what God wanted him to know.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nonsense.


More nonsense. There's nothing particularly prescient about the Bible. So-called "fulfilled prophecy" is generally just pareidolia, IMO.

You meant IMHO! It's "pariedolia" that the Jews were scattered to many lands, persecuted in each, returned to their land, defeated their enemies? Quick, name a people scattered for 2500 years who retained their language and faith then got their nation back?

 

[PruePhillip]

Or existence just is. Which, as it happens, we know it to. Whether it had a "proper' origin is highly speculative and perhaps more indicative of human nature than of that of existence itself.
Besides, inserting a hypothetical God in the matter is just creating a name and calling it an explanation. Unless you happen to have some sort of explanation for the origin of that God that somehow avoids the imponderables of the existence of existence itself.
No, it actually doesn't. Why do you think that it does?
Who or what is going to do that?

There are two creations in Genesis, and not the two people normally think of.

1 - "God created the heavens ...... and the earth"
in that order.

2 - We are then transported to the dark and sterile ocean of the early earth and
given the sequence of events which led to man - which accords with science
but written in theological language.

Number 1 should be broken down into
1 - God created the heavens

Because that's fundamentally different than creating the earth. The building
blocks for the earth were a part of the "heavens", ie hydrogen and the "metals"
plus the laws of physics, ie gravity.

BUT THERE WERE NO BUILDING BLOCKS AND NO PHYSICAL LAWS
FOR THE CREATION OF THE "HEAVENS."
IT JUST "HAPPENED" WITHOUT THESE.

And this is where the "magic" comes from. Science says (without proof
or evidence) that "there is no reason for our being. It just happened." Only,
how could the universe spring into existence without a reason? Science
says that all phenomena has a reason for doing what it does. But that the
First phenomena "had no reason."

Some scientists say that you just "don't think about this" but I find the
whole process intellectually dishonest.
I am happy if someone says that "M theory" of hyperspace membranes
can explain the Big Bang. But the Big Bang isn't the issue, it's existence
itself - and that's fundamentally different than the Big Bang because its
obvious this "singularity" was a physical entity, acted upon by physical
laws - so "something" was here before the Big Bang to cause it.

It's that first "something" that is the philosophical problem. Not a science
problem.