• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists: If God existed…

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
People do not have to try to be humble, they either are or they aren't.
You are a refreshing change from the atheist poster I quoted in the OP.
In over five years of posting to him, I do not think he has ever admitted he was wrong, and he has never even met me halfway. That might sound rather extreme but it's the truth.
?
People can be stubborn. To admit being wrong is to admit defeat. I guess it depends on how one views making a mistake. Some people view failure as devastating. Proof of their own shortcomings. I prefer to think of mistakes and failures as just learning opportunities. I have learnt much from my many failures in life. More than my successes, in fact.
I will not comment on this person’s intentions or motivations, however, since I do not know that person at all.

I certainly do not know his motives for talking so much about a god he does not believe in and thinks would be evil if it existed, I would not waste my time talking about a god I felt that way about, but we humans are all so different.
I think that on some level he really wants to know if God exists, but he is not going to find out putting all these expectations on God.
Well, people tend to react to the environment they are surrounded by. Militant atheism certainly appears like a reaction, at least that’s what I think.
And maybe they have a valid point. Maybe they grew up in a cult, maybe they have been hurt or seen people hurt by religion.
I don’t know.
I do follow some Ex JW and Ex Mormon YT channels. And whilst they are not militant atheists (some even retained their faith in God) I can see why, based on their experiences, they would come to certain conclusions about religion and religious folks in general.

I think it’s helpful to not assume anything about an opponent’s background or why they have the opinion they have. (Though I’m sure I’m guilty of doing that all the time.)
There’s usually a good reason, maybe not always logical, but a good reason nonetheless.

But we are not privy to another’s brains, nor are we psychologists. A person who constantly talks about God but is atheist might do so for any number of reasons. Who knows?

That is a good point. Human needs are not God's needs and God is under no obligation to fulfill our needs.
Well, thanks. Still, when one claims that a creator deity has unconditional love for creation (like some do) it is pertinent to ask what shape that takes on the physical plane.

.

Since I am a Baha'i, I have a religion, so I think that scriptures contain God's will for mankind through the Messenger of God. Some are what people want to hear but a lot are what people don't want to hear, like some of the laws.

Again, I appreciate your humility and open-mindedness. Those are rare qualities in humans.
According to my beliefs, there can never be any direct intercourse between God and ordinary human beings, and that is why God speaks through Messengers who have both a divine and a human nature, thus they can act as mediators between God and man. That seems logical to me and that is why I believe it.
Well your path is your path. If that makes sense to you, fair enough.

For whatever reason, atheists have a problem with he idea of Messengers of God but in over five years of asking why I still have received no logical reason. The most logical thing they say is that they cannot know that any Messenger actually received messages from God and that is valid because nobody can prove that...The question is then why proof is necessary, why isn't good evidence sufficient?
Because humans are often logical with specific criteria in discourse, rules, if you will, for debate. It’s all very well to claim that you believe “insert messenger here” is evidence of God speaking to mankind. But that intrinsically falls short of the criteria demanded in logical discourse. Many times when evidence is asked, it is under the assumption that said evidence can pass at least mild scrutiny in say a scientific way. Something verifiable, something falsifiable and something testable. Messenger claims don’t cut it, often times, in such circumstances.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
He is the one true God depicted in the Abrahamic scriptures....
A more updated caricature can be to be found in the Writings of Baha'u'llah.
Have you found that test for me yet? The one that will objectively establish whether my keyboard is God or not?
 

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence?

That would depend completely on the character and motivations of the god in question. The "god" and the "goddess", as described by Druidic cultures, for example, are not necessarily "personal" deities who seek relationships with humans. I see no reason why such a deity would have any motivation or desire to do so.

A deity, such as the Jesuit-based God concepts who DO wish to have personal relationships with humans, I certainly believe they would do so.

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

The deities who wish a personal relationship with humans, I think, would want to provide this irrefutable proof in order to encourage those whom he wanted that relationship with to know s/he was there.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence?

Yes. If the deity in question was apathetic or disinterested in us.

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?

Such a deity would likely be apathetic or disinterested in us, thus not wish a personal relationship with us.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
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?
Not necessarily. I feel as though what the atheist quoted said isn't true - even if God existed, there could be no proof or even evidence of their existence whatsoever. Of course, such a God would be pointless to believe in in the first place. Then again, that depends which God they were talking about - an Abrahamic God who did the things stated in the Bible most definitely would have left evidence or proof of their 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?
It's impossible to guess the motivations of an ephemeral, omnipotent being that functions in an entirely alien way to us. It may not be a decision, necessarily, so much as just the way God functions.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
That is absolutely true. God does not NEED anyone to believe He exists. He is above all that.

That's absolutely true. Of course we cannot know the mind of God.
I don’t understand how you can make both of those statements. If we can’t know the mind of God, how can you make a definitive statement about what God’s intellectual needs and wants are?

One of the fundamental blockers here is believers who on one hand assert that God is unknowable and so dismiss any questions of evidence and proof on that basis but then go on to define very specific characteristics of what God ii and wants without any evidence by definition.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
People can be stubborn. To admit being wrong is to admit defeat. I guess it depends on how one views making a mistake. Some people view failure as devastating. Proof of their own shortcomings. I prefer to think of mistakes and failures as just learning opportunities. I have learnt much from my many failures in life. More than my successes, in fact.
I will not comment on this person’s intentions or motivations, however, since I do not know that person at all.
I can be stubborn but I used to be a lot more stubborn before I started posting on forums about six years ago. I have since learned that other people have legitimate positions and some of them can even be melded with mine. It has been a real growth experience, but then I live on forums.

It seems obvious to me that if someone has a problem even admitting they could possibly be wrong then they must be insecure and/or arrogant or narcissistic, but I don’t pretend to understand this atheist in the OP, even after over five years of posting to him. He is an enigma and he never gets personal like I do.
Well, people tend to react to the environment they are surrounded by. Militant atheism certainly appears like a reaction, at least that’s what I think.
It certainly seems like that but it could also be a real desire to know if God exists, but that could be a projection on my part because I think most people would want to know if God exists. But I would not think that if he did not talk so much about god. I don’t think that of most atheists.
And maybe they have a valid point. Maybe they grew up in a cult, maybe they have been hurt or seen people hurt by religion.
I don’t know.
I know he was raised Christian and hurt by Christianity. He rejected it later and has been on a mission to discredit it ever since. He assumes all religions are the same as Christianity. This is self evident because he says as much. My background is completely different from his, since I was not raised in any religion and knew nothing of Christianity or the Bible before I became a Baha’i. I wasn’t even searching for God or a religion; I just stumbled upon it, investigated it and then I believed it.
I do follow some Ex JW and Ex Mormon YT channels. And whilst they are not militant atheists (some even retained their faith in God) I can see why, based on their experiences, they would come to certain conclusions about religion and religious folks in general.
I understand that too but it is difficult for me to put myself in their shoes because I was not raised in any religion and my religion is very different from JW or Mormon because wer have no religious leaders or clerical system telling us what to do, we make our own way.
I think it’s helpful to not assume anything about an opponent’s background or why they have the opinion they have. (Though I’m sure I’m guilty of doing that all the time.)
There’s usually a good reason, maybe not always logical, but a good reason nonetheless.

In the past, I probably thought of him as an opponent but I don’t think that way anymore. I am not trying to win any arguments; I just believe what I believe and I am firm in my faith. The more I have learned about it by talking about it and being forced to do more research the firmer I have become.
But we are not privy to another’s brains, nor are we psychologists. A person who constantly talks about God but is atheist might do so for any number of reasons. Who knows?
I do have a MA degree in counseling psychology but I do not try to analyze people although I probably do it by nature. I don’t think anyone has the right to speak for anyone else as if they know what they are thinking or their motives. I am tired of being called brainwashed just because I have a religion and that is illogical because there is nobody in my religion who tells anyone what to believe or how to practice the religion. Yet this atheist insists there has to be someone doing that to me because he cannot imagine I would think for myself and choose my religion. The best way to handle such false accusations is just to ignore them and not respond. Responding just keeps it going. Live and learn.
Well, thanks. Still, when one claims that a creator deity has unconditional love for creation (like some do) it is pertinent to ask what shape that takes on the physical plane.
That’s true. I question the unconditional love of God because of all the suffering I see in the world. Whatever I believe has to make sense to me.
Because humans are often logical with specific criteria in discourse, rules, if you will, for debate. It’s all very well to claim that you believe “insert messenger here” is evidence of God speaking to mankind. But that intrinsically falls short of the criteria demanded in logical discourse.
The only question I have is why, why is it illogical? It seems really logical to me that there would need to be a mediator between a transcendent and ineffable God and mankind, someone who could bridge the gap. How else could we ever know anything about God? If there any indication that God has ever revealed Himself in any other way? Are all the major religions man-made? If they are man-made, how have they withstood the test of time? Has anything other than religion had such long lasting and dramatic effects upon humanity and the world we live in? These are questions atheists have to answer if they want to have a rational discourse. Just to say that all purported Messengers are false and all religion is a sham is not a rational answer. There has to be something to back up such an assertion and refute the claims of religions.
Many times when evidence is asked, it is under the assumption that said evidence can pass at least mild scrutiny in say a scientific way. Something verifiable, something falsifiable and something testable. Messenger claims don’t cut it, often times, in such circumstances.
There cannot ever be anything verifiable, falsifiable or testable for an immaterial God who is not in the world we live in. The reasons are rather obvious.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said: If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence?
That would depend completely on the character and motivations of the god in question. The "god" and the "goddess", as described by Druidic cultures, for example, are not necessarily "personal" deities who seek relationships with humans. I see no reason why such a deity would have any motivation or desire to do so.
A deity, such as the Jesuit-based God concepts who DO wish to have personal relationships with humans, I certainly believe they would do so.
Why would God have to provide proof? Why wouldn't evidence be adequate?
For what it's worth, I do not believe it is possible for God to have personal relationship with humans. God is too far exalted above us to come down to our level. The only was we can relate to God is through a mediator, a Messenger of God. He is the evidence of God's existence.
Trailblazer said: If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.
The deities who wish a personal relationship with humans, I think, would want to provide this irrefutable proof in order to encourage those whom he wanted that relationship with to know s/he was there.
Maybe if God needed to have a relationship with humans God would provide proof, but I do not think God has any such needs.

Trailblazer said: Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence?

Yes. If the deity in question was apathetic or disinterested in us.
My question is why God has to either want a relationship with humans or be disinterested? Maybe God just wants us to know He exists and not want a relationship. In that case providing evidence should be adequate. Proof is necessary only if God needs our belief, but God has no needs. It is humans who have needs so we can look at the evidence God provides or we can choose not to in which case we will not have our needs met.
Trailblazer said: 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?
Such a deity would likely be apathetic or disinterested in us, thus not wish a personal relationship with us.
Maybe God just wants us to have faith in Him. If He provided proof, faith would be unnecessary. Maybe God only wants those who are willing to seek the evidence and believe on faith to believe in Him.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence?
Not necessarily. I feel as though what the atheist quoted said isn't true - even if God existed, there could be no proof or even evidence of their existence whatsoever. Of course, such a God would be pointless to believe in in the first place.
Pointless because there would be no way to know He existed?
I agree that if there was no evidence it would be pointless and even foolish to believe in such a God, but I do not see why there would have to be absolute proof.
Then again, that depends which God they were talking about - an Abrahamic God who did the things stated in the Bible most definitely would have left evidence or proof of their existence.
There is evidence and the Bible is part of the evidence.
It's impossible to guess the motivations of an ephemeral, omnipotent being that functions in an entirely alien way to us. It may not be a decision, necessarily, so much as just the way God functions.
That is one of the most intelligent things I have heard all day. Obviously we cannot know how God functions but we can know the will of God through scriptures.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
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.
People accept the fact that it takes ca. 4 years univerity (+12 years prior study) to get your degree.

University degree might look similar to Universal degree, but compare it to a grain of sand in the desert.

So you need much more than 4 years.

But some Atheists expect a Theist to just give the Atheist the proof. He is too lazy IMO to do the hard work, as described in the Scriptures, himself.

Just foolish IMO to expect your professor in University to make your exam. How much more foolish to expect God to hand over the proof you desire (without the desire to do the hard work yourself)

TIP: The hard work does not mean "to Google". It means "innernet" not "internet"

So, yes God provides proof ! Are you willing to do the hard work needed to get it? Atheists (who complain) better stop complaining that God "should" give them the proof on a gold plate, and instead use their time more wisely and start meditating (or whatever other instructions the Scriptures provide) IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Trailblazer said: That is absolutely true. God does not NEED anyone to believe He exists. He is above all that.

That's absolutely true. Of course we cannot know the mind of God.


I don’t understand how you can make both of those statements. If we can’t know the mind of God, how can you make a definitive statement about what God’s intellectual needs and wants are?
We cannot know how the Mind of God functions but we can know the Will of God (what God wants) by what is revealed in scriptures.
One of the fundamental blockers here is believers who on one hand assert that God is unknowable and so dismiss any questions of evidence and proof on that basis but then go on to define very specific characteristics of what God ii and wants without any evidence by definition.
The Essence of God is unknowable but the Will of God is knowable if it has been revealed in scriptures.
Some characteristics of God are also knowable if they were revealed in scriptures.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Pointless because there would be no way to know He existed?
I agree that if there was no evidence it would be pointless and even foolish to believe in such a God, but I do not see why there would have to be absolute proof.
I don't think there has to be absolute proof - good evidence would be sufficient. Of course, belief in God may only potentially rely on faith or revelation, in which case any evidence or proof (or lack of either) is kind of irrelevant.

There is evidence and the Bible is part of the evidence.
If you like. But it is not an especially reasonable standard of evidence, and lends little - if any - credibility to the actual claim.

That is one of the most intelligent things I have heard all day. Obviously we cannot know how God functions but we can know the will of God through scriptures.
This seems a contradiction to me. If you cannot understand or comprehend God at all, then you cannot determine what, if any, scriptures are an accurate representation of their intent (if such a being can be said to have intent). You might as well rely on nursery rhymes for evidence of God's needs, as they are just as likely to be accurate as any religious scripture.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I can be stubborn but I used to be a lot more stubborn before I started posting on forums about six years ago. I have since learned that other people have legitimate positions and some of them can even be melded with mine. It has been a real growth experience, but then I live on forums.
I am very stubborn. I try to expel that when discussing something. But I am very pigheaded when I decide to be lol

It seems obvious to me that if someone has a problem even admitting they could possibly be wrong then they must be insecure and/or arrogant or narcissistic, but I don’t pretend to understand this atheist in the OP, even after over five years of posting to him. He is an enigma and he never gets personal like I do.
Perhaps. I'm not a shrink, so I don't know. Maybe this person is just very hurt.

It certainly seems like that but it could also be a real desire to know if God exists, but that could be a projection on my part because I think most people would want to know if God exists. But I would not think that if he did not talk so much about god. I don’t think that of most atheists.
Well wanting to know if God exists is possibly the oldest of any of the philosophical questions humanity has poised. I don't know if that's evidence of anything other than, humans seem to prefer to ask if they are alone.
Make of that what you will

I know he was raised Christian and hurt by Christianity. He rejected it later and has been on a mission to discredit it ever since. He assumes all religions are the same as Christianity. This is self evident because he says as much. My background is completely different from his, since I was not raised in any religion and knew nothing of Christianity or the Bible before I became a Baha’i. I wasn’t even searching for God or a religion; I just stumbled upon it, investigated it and then I believed it.
I was raised Hindu, so I also cannot relate to this person's background. But scars can be hard to get over for anyone. They have a profound affect on the human psyche, do they not?

I understand that too but it is difficult for me to put myself in their shoes because I was not raised in any religion and my religion is very different from JW or Mormon because wer have no religious leaders or clerical system telling us what to do, we make our own way.
And I am in the same boat. But I empathize very easily. It was probably the first thing I learnt in my spiritual instruction. And growing up in the West, I guess I am quite familiar with such religious structures. At least from a pop culture standpoint.

In the past, I probably thought of him as an opponent but I don’t think that way anymore. I am not trying to win any arguments; I just believe what I believe and I am firm in my faith. The more I have learned about it by talking about it and being forced to do more research the firmer I have become.
That's a healthy response. Never try to win anything (I'm sure I still try to win in many arguments lol.) I have learnt a lot from debates and studying. I don't know if I've become firmer, though perhaps according to the Dharmic paradigm, it would be viewed as a progression rather than falling away from faith.
We tend to accommodate atheism more readily than our Abrahamic siblings, at least that's what I've seen. I;m probably wrong.

I do have a MA degree in counseling psychology but I do not try to analyze people although I probably do it by nature. I don’t think anyone has the right to speak for anyone else as if they know what they are thinking or their motives. I am tired of being called brainwashed just because I have a religion and that is illogical because there is nobody in my religion who tells anyone what to believe or how to practice the religion. Yet this atheist insists there has to be someone doing that to me because he cannot imagine I would think for myself and choose my religion. The best way to handle such false accusations is just to ignore them and not respond. Responding just keeps it going. Live and learn.
Oof, well I spoke too soon then lol
Sure, that accusation is rather irritating and tiresome. But similarly I'm sure Atheists are sick of being called sinners or just in denial by believers. (Not saying that's what you leveled at this person, just saying that is a common narrative pushed by the religious.)

That’s true. I question the unconditional love of God because of all the suffering I see in the world. Whatever I believe has to make sense to me.
That's fair enough

The only question I have is why, why is it illogical? It seems really logical to me that there would need to be a mediator between a transcendent and ineffable God and mankind, someone who could bridge the gap. How else could we ever know anything about God? If there any indication that God has ever revealed Himself in any other way? Are all the major religions man-made? If they are man-made, how have they withstood the test of time? Has anything other than religion had such long lasting and dramatic effects upon humanity and the world we live in? These are questions atheists have to answer if they want to have a rational discourse. Just to say that all purported Messengers are false and all religion is a sham is not a rational answer. There has to be something to back up such an assertion and refute the claims of religions.
Just because you find that logical, doesn't mean it's objectively logical.

I mean I guess logic technically falls under philosophy and therefore there are many different schools. But generally what tends to happen is, (at least what I see) a non believer will come from a more scientific and materialistic background and therefore favour that particular school of logic and want more objective rational arguments.
The religious seem to be more in favour of personal affirmation. A belief that something is real because that's what makes sense to them personally. But this is not particularly scientific. There's nothing really wrong with it either. But what I see in theistic vs atheistic debates, both sides essentially talk past each other because both have their own very specific definitions of what constitutes logic and evidence.

I believe all religions are man made. And many have indeed stood the test of time, I mean the Dharmics have been around for like 6,000 years at least. The Abrahamics are alive and kicking. Even the old traditional Pagan religions are reviving.

As for something that has had lasting and dramatic affects on humanity? Art. Propaganda. Politics. We have more than one vice, after all.

Atheists do refute the religious claims, but like I said, they do so from a very specific point of view. With arguably a very specific definition of what constitutes logic and discourse. So the refutations are already being "ignored" because such arguments do not meet the criteria a theist requires.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, or even that I favour either or. I'm just saying, these arguments are just "different."
So I don't know if there's common ground to be had, other than, "we'll agree to disagree."
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I don't think there has to be absolute proof - good evidence would be sufficient. Of course, belief in God may only potentially rely on faith or revelation, in which case any evidence or proof (or lack of either) is kind of irrelevant.
That sounds reasonable.
If you like. But it is not an especially reasonable standard of evidence, and lends little - if any - credibility to the actual claim.
I said the Bible is part of the evidence. Imo, there needs to be more evidence, and there is.
This seems a contradiction to me. If you cannot understand or comprehend God at all, then you cannot determine what, if any, scriptures are an accurate representation of their intent (if such a being can be said to have intent). You might as well rely on nursery rhymes for evidence of God's needs, as they are just as likely to be accurate as any religious scripture.
That would depend upon the religious scripture you are talking about.
There is no way to understand or comprehend the intrinsic nature of God but we can know the Will of God through what scriptures reveal. I am not referring to the Bible, which is a Pandora's Box. I am referring to the Writings of Baha'u'llah which are comprehensible.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
We cannot know how the Mind of God functions but we can know the Will of God (what God wants) by what is revealed in scriptures.
That feels like a distinction without a difference to me. “Mind” and “Will” are the same kind of thing in this context, at the very most, one would implicitly lead to the other. It still boils down to you saying “God is an impenetrable mystery” but then “This is exactly what God wants you to do”.

The Essence of God is unknowable but the Will of God is knowable if it has been revealed in scriptures.
Scriptures are an ocean of evidential issues in themselves. There are a vast range of difference (often contradictory) scriptures, writings and revelations presented by different monotheistic faiths, with all sorts of provenance, interpretations, compilations and exclusions and nothing to say which, if any, are legitimately created, dictated or inspired by an actual god.

Using (selected) scripture to support your idea of God and then the existence of that God to validate your scriptures strikes me as implicitly circular. That’s why there is this challenge to believers to offer independent evidence, outside of that circle.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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

If God provides no proof of existence then God is irrelevant to the universe. God could exist but might as well not.
We know what exists because we can measure it effect on other things that exit. No proof means no measurable effect.

Could God choose not to have any measurable effect on the universe? Sure. Then God's existence doesn't matter to the universe and won't matter until God chooses otherwise which would provide measurable proof of God's existence.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That would depend upon the religious scripture you are talking about.
There is no way to understand or comprehend the intrinsic nature of God but we can know the Will of God through what scriptures reveal. I am not referring to the Bible, which is a Pandora's Box. I am referring to the Writings of Baha'u'llah which are comprehensible.
My point is that no scripture, of any kind, can truly be said to help understand anything about God if God is truly incomprehensible and unknowable, because you have no way whatsoever to verify the truth of those writings. That goes for the writings of Baha'u'llah, the Bible, the Torah and Humpty Dumpty. They are all equally useless in determining the true will of God, because they cannot meaningfully be tested against a God if God is incomprehensible and unknowable.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
That is a materialist's position, and it is logically incoherent, as the position, itself, is imaginary/fictional (conceptual).
Proof of God would have to overcome all such barriers.
Nothing can overcome such an incoherent bias.
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.

If you're not talking about evidence of absolute existence that would constitute proof, then I guess I bow out.
More likely we are not capable of perceiving of such 'evidence'. In much the same way as a single cell in our bodies is not capable of grasping the whole body within which it resides, and from which it derives it's existence, sustenance, and purpose.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If God provides no proof of existence then God is irrelevant to the universe. God could exist but might as well not.
We know what exists because we can measure it effect on other things that exit. No proof means no measurable effect.
I do not think we need absolute proof of God and that is impossible. I think good evidence should be adequate.
Could God choose not to have any measurable effect on the universe? Sure. Then God's existence doesn't matter to the universe and won't matter until God chooses otherwise which would provide measurable proof of God's existence.
There is no way for us to know how God affects the universe, but that does not mean God does not affect the universe. Why do humans have to have measurable proof of how God affects the universe? That is far beyond our ability to comprehend.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
My point is that no scripture, of any kind, can truly be said to help understand anything about God if God is truly incomprehensible and unknowable, because you have no way whatsoever to verify the truth of those writings. That goes for the writings of Baha'u'llah, the Bible, the Torah and Humpty Dumpty. They are all equally useless in determining the true will of God, because they cannot meaningfully be tested against a God if God is incomprehensible and unknowable.
I don't look at it that way. The Essence (intrinsic nature) of God is incomprehensible and unknowable, but God can communicate to Messengers who reveal God's Will to humanity. Of course we cannot verify that the communication came from God, but that is where faith comes in, faith in the Messenger of God which equates to faith in God, since God sent the Messenger.
 
Top