If God existed would there be proof?

[ratiocinator]

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.

It's not even evidence. "The bible tell us..." is utterly irrelevant until you establish that it is a reliable source of information like this. Basically, you seem to be saying, something like:

If god is the creator of the world, then we would see the world.
We can see the world.
Therefore there god is the creator.

That is a fallacy called affirming the consequent.

 

[ratiocinator]

One of?

Well, okay, you've only stated one, so I stand corrected. However I'm assuming you must have more because the PSR is insufficient to support your original claims (as I pointed out and you just ignored).

Please state the problem clearly.

As I already said, your justification for using PSR was induction from everyday causality. This suffers from the problem of induction, the counterexamples in QM, and the fact that it implies an infinite regress of explanation.

I also offered to assume the PSR, for the sake of argument, and let you argue to your claims from that starting point, to see what the rest of the argument was, something you've ignored.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Meanwhile we're real and God exists only as a concept or thing imagined in individual brains.

Well there you go..
When you say that "we are real", what do you mean?
If "we are real" [concept], then G-d is real [concept].

Without that concept of "being real", there would be nothing.
If every human being thinks that "they are real", there must be some kind of common denominator, that enables us to experience such a concept. That is G-d. He is infinite.
There is no limit to the amount of people who think "they are real".

 

[firedragon]

Well, okay, you've only stated one, so I stand corrected. However I'm assuming you must have more because the PSR is insufficient to support your original claims (as I pointed out and you just ignored).

PSR doesnt support brother. It is a principle. If God exists, or if anything exists, it requires a sufficient explanation.

Anyway, just think of the logic. You or any other atheist would use this same logic, but would delve predominantly in scientism. The logic is, if God exists, there has to be proof. Dont you agree?

Will you believe in God with no proof whatsoever? I mean you as an atheist (which I assume. Maybe you have a different worldview so I apologise if I am wrong).

As I already said, your justification for using PSR was induction from everyday causality.

Not at all. Read that post once more. I didnt justify PSR based on causality. Since you said PSR was an assumption, I explained what an assumption is. Please read that post again.

 

[firedragon]

Prove love.

Why?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

My premise is that if God existed God would have to provide the proof because there is no way we could ever get to where God exists and get the proof ourselves.

If God existed would there be proof?

I am not asking if there could be proof or if there should be proof, I am asking if there would be proof.

• If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?
• Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?
• In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

Thanks, Trailblazer

Trailblazer's Questions: If God existed would there be proof?

Ehav4Ever's response: It depends on what a god is (both what said god defines itself to be and what humans mean by the word "god.") Further, it would also depend on whether or not the word "god" as humans define it correctly defines what they consider their god to be. For example, is a god simple something a human worships or is a god a specific thing like, the creator of reality/universe(s)/the one that established the natural laws of the universe, etc.

Also, it depends on what is considered proof of such a thing. For example, if the big bang, or the cause of the big bang, could be considered a "god" then one could consider that currently certain people consider the big bang to have a historical reality. What the big bang encompassed and what caused it may be up to speculation but that is a different.

Lastly, if one is saying that said "god" to prove itself would need to make humans aware of its reality one could ask a) how many humans are required, b) why human, c) why should such a god be concerned how many humans accept certain proofs or not, and d) what if said god knows that most humans don't want the kind of proof that said god would provide?

Trailblazer's Questions: If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?

Ehav Ever's Response: Again, it depends on what one considers a god to be and what said god is in reality. If a "god" decided that it doesn't need to prove itself then no. If said "god" doesn't like being called a god and won't listen to anyone that calls it that also maybe not. Also, it could depend on whether or not said god feels that it has already provided enough proof and has determined that most, all, or some humans are not interested in its type of proofs. Also, what universal laws says that a) a "god" needs to prove itself, b) humans haven't already seen the proof, or c) that a proof would change anything in the world? Further, what makes humans so special that a god should prove itself to humans?

Trailblazer's Questions: Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?

Ehav Ever's Response: See the above responses. Essentially, it depends on what a god is, what proof is, and whether or not said god is satified with the people who feel it has been proven. It also depends on whether or not a god can only be defined as something that humans define as sentience. For example, why can't String Theory be a god? Why not thermodynamics, why not the big bang, etc. Is it possible that something humans define as a god might not like that title or what humans put in their man made definitions for such a word? Also, who is to say that humans even know what sentience really is?

Trailblazer's Questions: In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

Ehav Ever's Response: See the above responses. If there is no concrete universal rule that in reality causes a God to hold by a strict rule of revealing itself then yes. I.e. if a god is not bound by any external rules/boundaries and only is bound by what it chooses then it could easily choose not to provide proof or it could chose to only provide proof to those who want it. If a god doesn't require humans to beleive in it, then yes.

Further, consider the following. Does a god need to provide proof to plants and animals? If not, why are humans deserving of a proof and plants and animals not? Maybe plants and animals already have the proof but it was deemed that humans were not worth the time. Maybe the planets know it, but humans are like flees to a planet and thus humans are not a part of the bigger picture.

Just a few things to consider.

 

[ratiocinator]

PSR doesnt support brother.

You said it was an axiom. If you're not going to use it to deduce or support your conclusion, then what's its point?

If God exists, or if anything exists, it requires a sufficient explanation.

I don't actually accept that (because it leads to an infinite regress of explanation) but, as I said, I'll accept it for now to see why you think it leads to your claims being true.

The logic is, if God exists, there has to be proof. Dont you agree?

That isn't logic, it's just another claim, and no, I don't agree. How have you jumped from a sufficient explanation to a proof? This is not specific to god, why would the fact that something (anything, even a scientific conjecture) has a sufficient explanation, mean that we could prove that it exists or know what said explanation is? In fact, why would it imply that would could necessarily find the slightest hint of any evidence for it?

Since you said PSR was an assumption, I explained what an assumption is. Please read that post again.

Okay then, your expiation that an assumption is (always) based on experience, is obviously false (look the word up in a dictionary). You gave no reason at all for accepting the principle of sufficient reason, which still makes it an assumption.

 

[Brian2]

Suppose some God created us, then went away and put the janitor in charge?

Presumably, when God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden, he put Satan in charge. Is that the God that everyone prays to?

I would not say that He put Satan in charge.
IMO God punished Satan for what he did but he had not gone far enough for God to get rid of him at that point and probably God needed him to be there for what God had in mind to save humanity from what Satan had done.

 

[Brian2]

I can definitely subscribe to that.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. It may be implied there that you have to be receptive to being comforted by God.

My pov is that this comforting is going to come after the judgement and when everyone is open to God and to His comfort. But that is the Christian idea of the judgement and return of Jesus of course.

 

[Brian2]

I think it depends on the God you are referring to. If (for example) the God described in the Bible existed, I believe there would be proof because according to the bible God wants us to know him.

So He gives us enough evidence to believe He exists and people reject it and say it is no good and they want more and better evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

So He gives us enough evidence to believe He exists...

Like what, for example?

 

[blü 2]

I believe that God has objective existence in the sense that God exists in reality, outside the mind, but I cannot give you a physical description of God since God is not a material entity that can be tracked down and seen.
Nevertheless, below is the depiction of God according to my beliefs.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

As I see it, the only things that are objectively real are material entities; and the way things supernatural, spiritual, immaterial &c exist is as concepts or things imagined in individual brains.

 

[blü 2]

Matthew 19:26 - And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Yet when we look at reality, nothing suggests that God ever says or does anything; the world behaves just as we'd expect it to behave if God existed only conceptually or in imagination, not as a being with objective existence.

 

[blü 2]

Well there you go..
When you say that "we are real", what do you mean?

I mean that we each live in our heads, and a world exists external to us which we know about through our senses. Other names for that world external to the self are 'nature' and 'objective reality'.

So from my pov you're real because you exist in the world external to me, and I trust the same is true from your pov.

If "we are real" [concept], then G-d is real [concept].

By that argument, Mickey Mouse and Superman are just as real as you are. I don't think that's an accurate statement.

Without that concept of "being real", there would be nothing.

No, our sensory inputs inform our brain of the world external to us. It's there surely enough ─ it's where we get our parents, our air, water, food, shelter, society and so on.

If every human being thinks that "they are real", there must be some kind of common denominator, that enables us to experience such a concept.

Yes, that sensory input I mentioned.

That is G-d. He is infinite.

We don't find infinite things in the real world; nor omnipotence, nor omniscience, nor perfection nor various other terms commonly used to describe God. But those terms are imaginary ─ we don't find omnipotence or omniscience or perfection &c in the world external to us, only with our concepts or in our imaginations.

Whereas if God had objective existence, was real, then everyone would have a very similar perception of who and what [he] was, and there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of gods in history or tens of thousands of sects of the major religions in the present world. Instead we'd all perceive the same real thing, the same way as we perceive a real person or object or place ─ and in fact we do nothing of the kind,as even this conversation shows.

 

[Colt]

My premise is that if God existed God would have to provide the proof because there is no way we could ever get to where God exists and get the proof ourselves.

If God existed would there be proof?

I am not asking if there could be proof or if there should be proof, I am asking if there would be proof.

• If God existed would God provide proof of His existence?
• Does the fact that there is no proof of God's existence mean that God does not exist?
• In other words, could God exist and not provide proof of His existence?

Thanks, Trailblazer

Keep in mind that God isn't lost but to find him we must go looking where he actually dwells, in spirit.

"Those who know God have experienced the fact of his presence; such God-knowing mortals hold in their personal experience the only positive proof of the existence of the living God which one human being can offer to another. The existence of God is utterly beyond all possibility of demonstration except for the contact between the God-consciousness of the human mind and the God-presence of the Thought Adjuster that indwells the mortal intellect and is bestowed upon man as the free gift of the Universal Father." UB 1955

 

[Kfox]

So He gives us enough evidence to believe He exists and people reject it and say it is no good and they want more and better evidence.

If people reject it because they say the evidence is not good enough, he obviously is not giving enough evidence for us to believe; if he did people wouldn't reject it, they would believe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, our sensory inputs inform our brain of the world external to us..

Exactly .. "external to us".

Yes, that sensory input I mentioned..

..but that is not all. We all experience "being real".

We don't find infinite things in the real world..

Don't we?
There are roughly 7.8 billion people in the world, who all think that "they are real". It is finite, yet it seems there is no limit to the amount of individuals who can all think that "they are real".

Whereas if God had objective existence, was real, then everyone would have a very similar perception of who and what [he] was.

That is demonstrable nonsense.
G-d is not dependent on your definition of "real".
You merely equate "what is real" with your physical senses.
Furthermore, atheists usually claim that the root of experience is physical .. which is a contradiction in terms.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If people reject it because they say the evidence is not good enough, he obviously is not giving enough evidence for us to believe; if he did people wouldn't reject it, they would believe.

Huh? You what?

That is assuming that we are all telling the truth, and have nothing hidden in our subconscious, which even we might not be aware of on the surface.

 

[blü 2]

Exactly .. "external to us".

And we know about them via our senses.

..but that is not all. We all experience "being real".

The self does that.

There are roughly 7.8 billion people in the world, who all think that "they are real". It is finite, yet it seems there is no limit to the amount of individuals who can all think that "they are real".

Don't confuse the two issues. My remark about the infinite being an imaginary quality is a remark about the essentially imaginary quality of the otherwise descriptionless God.

That is demonstrable nonsense.
G-d is not dependent on your definition of "real".

Show me what real thing you intend to denote when you say "God".

You merely equate "what is real" with your physical senses.

There's a world external to the self and we call it nature, or reality, or the realm of the physical sciences &c. And we know about it through our senses, just as I said. Not only do we not find God there, but there's no concept of God that I'm aware of that's appropriate to a real being, one that's not imaginary, but has objective existence. If you have one, please tell me what it is, and the objective test that will determine for us whether any real candidate is God or not.

 

[Kfox]

Huh? You what?

That is assuming that we are all telling the truth, and have nothing hidden in our subconscious, which even we might not be aware of on the surface.

No, it assumes you are not telling the truth when you say he provides sufficient evidence. If you claim he is providing sufficient evidence, but everybody who experience the evidence say the evidence is not good enough, obviously he is not providing sufficient evidence! How difficult is this to understand?