Atheists: If God existed…

[Trailblazer]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

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

 

[SomeRandom]

Plot twist. All gods exist. They’re just making bets on how many people they can get to do their bidding without actually appearing.

 

[Trailblazer]

Plot twist. All gods exist. They’re just making bets on how many people they can get to do their bidding without actually appearing.

But if god(s) exist why would they not provide proof of their existence?
Do you thing that god(s) play games with humans?

 

[shmogie]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

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

The same old tired question, over, and over, and over again.

Evidence regarding spiritual things is different with different standards for each person.

There are no rules of evidence as there are in law. An atheist likely has a completely different set of admissable evidences from a believer.

It is the height of arrogance to decide that everyone must accept the atheists view of evidence, and none other.

 

[Twilight Hue]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

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

I've always been of the opinion that it will take a God to know a God.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The same old tired question, over, and over, and over again.

Evidence regarding spiritual things is different with different standards for each person.

There are no rules of evidence as there are in law. An atheist likely has a completely different set of admissable evidences from a believer.

It is the height of arrogance to decide that everyone must accept the atheists view of evidence, and none other.

I would say by virtue of actuality, the established evidence for no God is overwhelming when compared to alleged evidence for God.

It's not really any perception of arrogance on the atheist part when facing complete silence that doesn't even support a possibility.

 

[Skwim]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible.

A possibly, but not necessarily so.

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

If he's anything like the god of Abraham it's because he wants to be exalted and worshiped.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

He doesn't give a poop.


.

 

[steveb1]

Unless I'm mistaken, the OP rests on the assumption that the only "real" categories must be material. This creates a problem, because in all but one definitions I'm aware of, God is defined as non-material "Spirit', for whom no material, scientific proof can be adduced.

Core spirituality is based on perception of God as an object of experience, not of science, philosophy or even of faith.

All claimed God-experiences are by nature private and subjective. Therefore it is impossible to pull them out of the subjective sphere for public dissection and analysis.

So not only is God, as a non-material entity, not detectable by scientific means, so too is the claimed God-experience. It is not "of the body", it does not exist in the body-brain, and it is restricted to the unpenetrable private domain.

The main problems with attempting to narrow "proof" of God only to material methods are:

1. God is not claimed to be material in the first place.

2. The arena in which God is said to be experienced is not material.

3. Hence it is a category error to demand physical proof for God.

4. It is a category error because it incorrectly attempts to deal with a qualitative category as if it were a quantitative category. Which is as useless as attempting to render a full analysis of Shakespeare's Hamlet by examining the paper, ink, or digital framing that make up its material components, while ignoring its meaning, its literary and interpersonal context.

5. In addition to the false demand or expectation that for to be real God - for God to be God - God must be just one more material process or object within the physical world, another problem is that typically God is required to be viewed as a Creator, and even in some cases, an interventionist manipulator of a material world which God did not necessarily create.

6. If God is neither a material object or process; and if God is not a Creator/interventionist miracle-maker, then it is clear that the material world cannot offer evidence of an initiating Creator, so that asking for worldly proof of a non-worldly, non-creative agent is an inappropriate demand.

7. Since neither science nor philosophy can "prove God", the argument is thrown back to the question of God - not as an object of science, philosophy, or faith - but rather as an object of experience of the kind claimed by mystical union traditions.

8. If God can be known personally, privately, in the "soul" (the deepest subjectivity of sentient beings), then - precisely because of the subjectivity of the claimed experience - God cannot be proved by appeal to claims of private encounters of the divine.

9. Therefore, it would seem that there cannot be any proof of God, at least in the common connotation of the term "proof".

 

[SomeRandom]

But if god(s) exist who would they not provide proof of their existence?
Do you thing that god(s) play games with humans?

Possibly. It’s also possible that they don’t care and are above such petty human needs. Not malicious, just....aloof. I mean all that power, would you have a need to prove yourself to anyone, let alone to creatures that are (presumably) lower than you on the totem pole?

Perhaps gods look at our existence and laugh at the cruel farce that is life.
I don’t presume to know the mind of an all powerful creature.

 

[susanblange]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

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

Prophecy ends with Zechariah 14. God is present on earth today. The elect believe it. The final proof that God is who he claims to be is the resurrection. Zechariah 14:4-5. 100 million people will witness this. God's final judgment will affect the heathen/idolaters/Christians, and they will be cut off by fire. Zechariah 14:12, Joel 3. It's called the "valley of decision". Joel 3:14.

 

[LuisDantas]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

This God that you usually speak of, you mean? Which, it must be reminded, is in no way particularly default a conception of same?

No, I don't think that your God would provide proof of its existence. That would deny him any role, after all.

But in all honesty, your God is a particularly skewed take on the general idea of Abraham's God. Such a skewed one that it is just not worthy of the effort spent in such a question, let alone an answer to it.

No one should care whether such a God exists, let alone whether its existence could or should be demonstrated.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

Everything is possible when we visit the mental regions of such surreal conceptions, I guess.

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Well, that defeats the whole purpose of even conceiving such a God, doesn't it?

 

[Willamena]

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

It has to do with what "existence" means. What sort of things do we allow "exist?" For instance, we don't allow that fictional things exist. We don't allow that imagined things exist. We don't allow that mistaken things exist. If Darth Vader turned to the camera and announced, "I exist!" we needn't take him at his word.

Proof of God would have to overcome all such barriers.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

Many possible reasons. It could be that proof of her existence is ridiculous or impossible. If God has sentience, it could be that she has personal reasons why she has chosen not to reveal herself.

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
https://www.google.com/search


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

If you're not talking about evidence of absolute existence that would constitute proof, then I guess I bow out.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

But if god(s) exist who would they not provide proof of their existence?
Do you thing that god(s) play games with humans?

You have to ask Q of the continuum

 

[Sunstone]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

The atheist in this case strikes me as having not fully thought through the issue here. Of course, it would take a book to offer you a truly comprehensive answer to such a large question, but even so, I think the atheist could have done better -- unless you are limiting the length of people's comments.

In the first place, there are at least several categories of evidence for the existence of God. For instance, there are the categories of no evidence, weak evidence, ambiguous evidence, and weak ambiguous evidence, in addition to other categories. Let's take a quick look at three of them without trying to be comprehensive...

NO EVIDENCE: A complete lack of any evidence would create at least two possibilities. First, that there are no gods. Second, that there are gods, but the gods do not intervene in the world. Put differently, if there were gods, and if the gods did intervene in the world, there would be -- absolutely, there would be -- some kind of evidence for the existence of gods.

WEAK EVIDENCE: The fact that some people have mystical experiences after which they report they encountered a god provides us with weak evidence that at least one god exists. (Please note, about 22% of people who have mystical experiences report that their experiences only seemed to be of a god -- but that they could not honestly conclude their experiences actually were of a god.) I

AMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE: The fact the world exists is ambiguous evidence for the existence of a god -- assuming gods are creators. It is evidence because it is exactly what we would expect to find if there were a god. It is ambiguous because the world could conceivably exist without there being a god.

I would myself say nearly all evidence for the existence of deity is either weak, ambiguous, or weak ambiguous evidence.

Now, the above are just three categories of evidence regarding the existence of deity. There are other categories. The atheist in your example seems to have overlooked quite a bit. Consequently, his comment was a bit too simplistic.

 

[Sunstone]

Now, let us suppose the gods exist. If that were the case, then it would seem to me there is between humans and the gods an "epistemic curtain". That is, for epistemological reasons, it would be impossible to ascribe with any significant degree of confidence very many traits, characteristics, or properties to the gods. For example, we could not say with any confidence such things as "the gods dislike homosexuals", "the gods oppose sex outside of marriage", or "the gods favor our side in battle". It would be ridiculous to take such statements of the wills of the gods seriously. Of course, that assumes the gods exist in the first place.

At least that is how I myself see it. Your mileage might vary.

 

[Sunstone]

Many people these days seem convinced that "standards of evidence" are wholly subjective. I find that kind of cynicism and nihilism curious. It strikes me like saying two and two equal whatever you want two and two to equal.

I cannot imagine anyone who has spent much time thinking about what two and two equal -- or sum as -- would argue that they sum as whatever you want them to sum as.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are no rules of evidence as there are in law.

I know that but the atheist I quoted in the OP claims that any evidence for God's existence should be admissible in a court of law.

An atheist likely has a completely different set of admissable evidences from a believer.

Well obviously, and that is why they are a atheists.

It is the height of arrogance to decide that everyone must accept the atheists view of evidence, and none other.

I fully agree.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've always been of the opinion that it will take a God to know a God.

True, only God knows God fully. We humans can only know a small tidbit about God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible.
A possibly, but not necessarily so.

Why not, if God is omnipotent?

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.
If he's anything like the god of Abraham it's because he wants to be exalted and worshiped.

That's true, but that God only wants us to exalt and worship Him for our sake, not for His sake, since that God needs nothing from humans.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?
He doesn't give a poop.

You are in the right ball park. God does not need our belief. If He did he would provide proof of His existence,
God wants us to believe in Him, but only on His terms.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

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

There is no scientific proof there is a god because no concrete evidence suggest there is outside of a person's culture and tradition.

I know you repeat this and may only be looking for key replies. Internet habit.

But god is a cultural construct. If it were not, everyone should follow bahaullahs laws. It would be universal. Since only Baha'i are governed by bahai laws why would we think god exists outside that?

If that's the case, we should all be bahai because Baha'i believe something is missing with abrahamic and eastern religions, why not.

Can anyone prove god exists with evidence and that is not dependent on language, culture, tradition, and laws?

Maybe not the answer you're looking for but God does exist just the proof varies by religion not by science (observable evidence).