Burden of proof

[rosey]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

[Goat]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

~~~~~

And finally to the Real Issue

Why should Christian Evangelists need to prove their God to me?

Because that would be the postulated question on a debate forum? Perhaps?

As for the rest, your 'lies' of the Bible are simple and easily proven strawmen. For example, why does man have sin? Because WE brought it? No, because we were tempted in innocence by Satan to partake in the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... and thus lost innocence and knew both good and evil, and could choose among them accordingly.

Some, like Adam chose righteousness thereafter. Some, like Cain, did not.

So, there is no God because atheists cannot seem to get the basics of Christian theology right?

That would be why atheists to have to PROVE there claims rather than just bash the Bible ... its how logic works.

Can you show that Satan exists at all, or is that just one of those unsupported claims that I keep hearing about. Can you show that Adam is more than an allegory or a myth'. The fact in the Hebrew, Adam is quite often referred to as a title not a name 'Ha-adam' ... i.e. 'The Man. To me, this show hows it is allegorical and a myth. Can not the Christian get the basis of their own religion right ?

I think perhaps some Christians, in addition to showing that the bible is actually the truth, get to actually know the history and context of their own bible.

I mean, it is trying to support unsupported claims by claiming more unsupported claims are true is rather circular... and when you show ignorance about the source of the unsupported claim to begin with... well

[stubbornone]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

~~~~~

And finally to the Real Issue

Why should Christian Evangelists need to prove their God to me?

Because that would be the postulated question on a debate forum? Perhaps?

As for the rest, your 'lies' of the Bible are simple and easily proven strawmen. For example, why does man have sin? Because WE brought it? No, because we were tempted in innocence by Satan to partake in the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... and thus lost innocence and knew both good and evil, and could choose among them accordingly.

Some, like Adam chose righteousness thereafter. Some, like Cain, did not.

So, there is no God because atheists cannot seem to get the basics of Christian theology right?

That would be why atheists to have to PROVE there claims rather than just bash the Bible ... its how logic works.

Can you show that Satan exists at all, or is that just one of those unsupported claims that I keep hearing about. Can you show that Adam is more than an allegory or a myth'. The fact in the Hebrew, Adam is quite often referred to as a title not a name 'Ha-adam' ... i.e. 'The Man. To me, this show hows it is allegorical and a myth. Can not the Christian get the basis of their own religion right ?

I think perhaps some Christians, in addition to showing that the bible is actually the truth, get to actually know the history and context of their own bible.

I mean, it is trying to support unsupported claims by claiming more unsupported claims are true is rather circular... and when you show ignorance about the source of the unsupported claim to begin with... well

Interesting as some of those issues may be to discuss, they not only fail to address the point of this thread, they kind of demonstrate why this thread exists.

The point being that BOTH sides have a burden of proof. Its entirely to easy, especially in the age of google, to get into confirmation bias. We can find 'evidence' to support and preconception we want, and we can find 'evidence' to deny any preconception we want.

Instead of asking someone why they think Satan isn't real ... try making said case. We already know your opinion, but we have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion. It could be something ridiculous, like, I just had a laxative and that caused me to think there was no devil.

Or it could be a solid reason, with a valid alternative solution ... but simply saying, "I won;t believe until you prove it too me," is not only intellectually lazy, given the emotional reality of humans and the inability to change ones mind, its also simply a set up from an argument from absurdity wherein NOTHING that is presented is EVER going to be good enough.

Atheist point to Creationists as being unacceptably obtuse in heir denials of evidence, often quite convincingly. I will say that there are atheists who are every bit as bad as fundamentalist creationists, proving that serial denial is every bit as poisonous to intellect as serial affirmation.

We ALL need to support what we say.

[Mithrae]

Monotheism most likely developed after polytheism - and polytheism probably developed after animism. So by your reasoning, Christians have a burden of proof first to show that spiritual being/s are great and powerful rather than the individual spirits of each tree or rock or stream in animism, and then to show that there is only one supreme spiritual being rather than many gods.

Of course, some Christians would suggest that belief in the one true God is the oldest of all beliefs, just as atheists might suggest that before animism and the like there was no belief in spiritual beings at all. I'm not sure either claim could be satisfactorily proven.

So I suspect that the principle you're suggesting would be an exercise in futility. But on an individual level I think there's some merit to the idea that we should have good reasons for changing our views on something; our minds aren't a blank slate, and short of solipsism we can't justify everything we believe. So is someone raised a Christian who finds fault with the bible really justified in rejecting all religions and theism entirely, or is that more of an emotional response?

Mith, that makes no sense. That something came before doesn't mean you have to endlessly reprove something over and over again. What the OP is talking about is called paradigm shift -- as in, the person seeking to upset the current paradigm has to undermine the evidential underpinnings of teh current paradigm ... as opposed to claiming that they are right by rejecting any evidence whatsoever placed by others in support of the currently accepted paradigm ... essentially turing the rules of both logic and simple civilty on their head.

A fair point, but in the modern developed world Christianity (or even theism in general) is no longer the currently accepted paradigm. Its evidential underpinnings (primarily the bible and need for God to explain natural phenomena) have been largely undermined, or at least called very much into question in how we think of them.

The problem is that the evidence for God is inconclusive, and atheists claiming they have no burden of proof, are not making a claim ... are simply being dishonest in a very logically identifiable sense.

Not all atheists do this mind you, but its common enough that one has to wonder at the source of this widespread teaching in atheism?

Agreed.

Here is one of my favorites, simply statistical analysis:

"Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10x power124, a number beyond imagination."

http://jacktscully.wordpress.com/tag/pr ... -creation/

There is point in satistics when something is so improbable that it essentially becomes impossible. That generally being 10x power 50 ...

Ergo, its MUCH more probable that the universe was created rather than simply a random happenstance.

This is an excellent (and I suspect very much under-rated) point. Of course there are theories that a multitude of invisible undetectable universes exist, of which our remarkable world is but a single lucky one.

[A Troubled Man]

Indeed, the studies on the creation of the universe state that there is a MUCH higher probability that the resulting energy from the Big Bang will simply, like an explosion here on earth, simply fissile out in radiated energy rather than coalesce in matter ...

That might be true if in fact the Big Bang represented anything like an explosion here or anywhere else. It was an expansion of space that carried all the matter/energy of the universe along with it.

Explosions result in matter and energy moving away roughly the same distance apart and from a central point, while the Big Bang has no central point, and instead, all matter is moving away from each other. Huge difference.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 42:

Noting I'm jumping in here among the midst of it, I still feel compelled to respond...

...
The point being that BOTH sides have a burden of proof.

I'm kinda with ya, and I'm kinda ain't.

As a 'positive atheist', or simply as an atheist that declares there are no gods, I should expect such to be challenged, and that I should then do my best to support my positive assertion.

For those atheists who simply reject the claim that there's a god, not so much.

Just as I must work to convince the agnostic, "are you sure there ain't a god" crowd, so too must I work to convince the theistic, "Joey, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard and you oughta feel a bit bad for having said it" crowd.

Never should I pawn my responsibilities off on those I seek to convince.

Instead of asking someone why they think Satan isn't real ... try making said case.
...

I refer to the above about all this, and offer the following in an effort show I bear me the burden...

I propose the most rational conclusion to be had in this regard is that the use of such a concept is driven by the need to convince folks about this whole god deal, and about how some stuff is bad, m-kay, and is based on fear. An emotion..

And don't it beat all, the "fear of the unknown" is a rather well documented human condition, neatly solved by "knowing" there's some great God up in the sky, and he's gonna set it all right, if only you'll stop fretting over some of this stuff and get back to the toil that is the daily endeavors in the life of the 'modern' human.

Or it could be a solid reason, with a valid alternative solution ... but simply saying, "I won;t believe until you prove it too me," is not only intellectually lazy...

Perhaps only the "intellectually lazy" ever consider it was the othern's doing, where the "intellectually lazy" is, well, too "intellectually lazy" to convince the other guy that one's claims represent truth.

When a claim is made, and where one has no prior knowledge or experience regarding that claim, it is perfectly rational to remain skeptical until support is offered - and even then, if that support fails to convince one of the validity of the claim, there they sit. That ain't "intellectually lazy", except to note the claimant was "intellectually lazy" in being incapable of convincing the other'n there about it all.

The claimant, whether he considers others "intellectually lazy" or not, bears the responsibility to show his claims to be truth, rational, reasonable, or any of all the rest of all that, and of course here on this site there's rules in place and I ain't a mod, so keep that in mind about the rules the mods put in place about it all.

Accusing others of being "intellectually lazy" indicates one who is "intellectually ignorant" (where that means ignorant of just why folks don't think his claims are truth simply 'cause there he sat, he uttered 'em).

...given the emotional reality of humans and the inability to change ones mind, its also simply a set up from an argument from absurdity wherein NOTHING that is presented is EVER going to be good enough.

Tell that to the flat-earthers and the creationists, and I'll tell it to some of my own folks, and let's you come back with your findings, and I'll come back with mine.

Yes, folks are emotional. Such a condition shouldn't mean we play on their emotions by declaring there's a God up there, and if we don't do as some random human who happens to declare he knows the mind of this God says, it's gonna upset that God to such an extent he'd drown a whole danged planet about it.

Atheist point to Creationists as being unacceptably obtuse in heir denials of evidence, often quite convincingly. I will say that there are atheists who are every bit as bad as fundamentalist creationists, proving that serial denial is every bit as poisonous to intellect as serial affirmation.

I'd caution against mentioning "serial denial", lest it convinces the observer that there one sits with a case of it.

[stubbornone]

Monotheism most likely developed after polytheism - and polytheism probably developed after animism. So by your reasoning, Christians have a burden of proof first to show that spiritual being/s are great and powerful rather than the individual spirits of each tree or rock or stream in animism, and then to show that there is only one supreme spiritual being rather than many gods.

Of course, some Christians would suggest that belief in the one true God is the oldest of all beliefs, just as atheists might suggest that before animism and the like there was no belief in spiritual beings at all. I'm not sure either claim could be satisfactorily proven.

So I suspect that the principle you're suggesting would be an exercise in futility. But on an individual level I think there's some merit to the idea that we should have good reasons for changing our views on something; our minds aren't a blank slate, and short of solipsism we can't justify everything we believe. So is someone raised a Christian who finds fault with the bible really justified in rejecting all religions and theism entirely, or is that more of an emotional response?

Mith, that makes no sense. That something came before doesn't mean you have to endlessly reprove something over and over again. What the OP is talking about is called paradigm shift -- as in, the person seeking to upset the current paradigm has to undermine the evidential underpinnings of teh current paradigm ... as opposed to claiming that they are right by rejecting any evidence whatsoever placed by others in support of the currently accepted paradigm ... essentially turing the rules of both logic and simple civilty on their head.

A fair point, but in the modern developed world Christianity (or even theism in general) is no longer the currently accepted paradigm. Its evidential underpinnings (primarily the bible and need for God to explain natural phenomena) have been largely undermined, or at least called very much into question in how we think of them.

Agh, yeah, it is. Over half of humanity conforms to one of the Abrahamic faiths. And on a Christian debate forum ... one can stand to reason that it is indeed the paradigm that needs to be knocked over.

Here is one of my favorites, simply statistical analysis:

"Donald Page of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study has calculated that the odds against our universe randomly taking a form suitable for life is one out of 10x power124, a number beyond imagination."

http://jacktscully.wordpress.com/tag/pr ... -creation/

There is point in satistics when something is so improbable that it essentially becomes impossible. That generally being 10x power 50 ...

Ergo, its MUCH more probable that the universe was created rather than simply a random happenstance.

This is an excellent (and I suspect very much under-rated) point. Of course there are theories that a multitude of invisible undetectable universes exist, of which our remarkable world is but a single lucky one.

The problem is that the multiverse isn't even a theory, its just a guess with absolutely no faith. And when we have to take a multiverse, and infinitely recreating itself universe and an infinite number of universes doing the same thing to infinity ... simply to deny design, well, Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation hold sway.

[stubbornone]

Indeed, the studies on the creation of the universe state that there is a MUCH higher probability that the resulting energy from the Big Bang will simply, like an explosion here on earth, simply fissile out in radiated energy rather than coalesce in matter ...

That might be true if in fact the Big Bang represented anything like an explosion here or anywhere else. It was an expansion of space that carried all the matter/energy of the universe along with it.

Explosions result in matter and energy moving away roughly the same distance apart and from a central point, while the Big Bang has no central point, and instead, all matter is moving away from each other. Huge difference.

Agh, yeah, its an explosion ... just like here on earth. There is an energy source, called pure energy, and it is constantly used throughout the known universe, its what released from fusion and literally powers stars. Yet these stars are created from the same thing ... which is odd, because stars are not exploding into knew universes, even if some of the massive ones do explode ... we must bear in mind that the explosion results from the running out of atoms that were created in the Big Bang in the first place ... leaving a magic ball of pure energy, a source, exploding for no reason, a detonator, for means entirely unknown.

And yet, despite the fact that all evidence points to randomness of this event being ... statistically impossible. We will argue about the semantics of what kind of explosion it was? One that just happened to leave a shock wave that is still detectable billions of years after the fact.

[d.thomas]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

~~~~~

And finally to the Real Issue

Why should Christian Evangelists need to prove their God to me?

Because that would be the postulated question on a debate forum? Perhaps?

As for the rest, your 'lies' of the Bible are simple and easily proven strawmen. For example, why does man have sin? Because WE brought it? No, because we were tempted in innocence by Satan to partake in the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... and thus lost innocence and knew both good and evil, and could choose among them accordingly.

Some, like Adam chose righteousness thereafter. Some, like Cain, did not.

So, there is no God because atheists cannot seem to get the basics of Christian theology right?

That would be why atheists to have to PROVE there claims rather than just bash the Bible ... its how logic works.

Can you show that Satan exists at all, or is that just one of those unsupported claims that I keep hearing about. Can you show that Adam is more than an allegory or a myth'. The fact in the Hebrew, Adam is quite often referred to as a title not a name 'Ha-adam' ... i.e. 'The Man. To me, this show hows it is allegorical and a myth. Can not the Christian get the basis of their own religion right ?

I think perhaps some Christians, in addition to showing that the bible is actually the truth, get to actually know the history and context of their own bible.

I mean, it is trying to support unsupported claims by claiming more unsupported claims are true is rather circular... and when you show ignorance about the source of the unsupported claim to begin with... well

Interesting as some of those issues may be to discuss, they not only fail to address the point of this thread, they kind of demonstrate why this thread exists.

The point being that BOTH sides have a burden of proof. Its entirely to easy, especially in the age of google, to get into confirmation bias. We can find 'evidence' to support and preconception we want, and we can find 'evidence' to deny any preconception we want.

Instead of asking someone why they think Satan isn't real ... try making said case. We already know your opinion, but we have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion. It could be something ridiculous, like, I just had a laxative and that caused me to think there was no devil.

Or it could be a solid reason, with a valid alternative solution ... but simply saying, "I won;t believe until you prove it too me," is not only intellectually lazy, given the emotional reality of humans and the inability to change ones mind, its also simply a set up from an argument from absurdity wherein NOTHING that is presented is EVER going to be good enough.

Atheist point to Creationists as being unacceptably obtuse in heir denials of evidence, often quite convincingly. I will say that there are atheists who are every bit as bad as fundamentalist creationists, proving that serial denial is every bit as poisonous to intellect as serial affirmation.

We ALL need to support what we say.

.


God's invisible right? What would evidence of an invisible entity not existing look like? People declare that ancient invisible gods are out there and then put the burden of proof on to doubters of these invisible entities. Sure thing Sherlock, we'll get right on that.


.

[TheTruth101]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

~~~~~

And finally to the Real Issue

Why should Christian Evangelists need to prove their God to me?

Because that would be the postulated question on a debate forum? Perhaps?

As for the rest, your 'lies' of the Bible are simple and easily proven strawmen. For example, why does man have sin? Because WE brought it? No, because we were tempted in innocence by Satan to partake in the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... and thus lost innocence and knew both good and evil, and could choose among them accordingly.

Some, like Adam chose righteousness thereafter. Some, like Cain, did not.

So, there is no God because atheists cannot seem to get the basics of Christian theology right?

That would be why atheists to have to PROVE there claims rather than just bash the Bible ... its how logic works.

Can you show that Satan exists at all, or is that just one of those unsupported claims that I keep hearing about. Can you show that Adam is more than an allegory or a myth'. The fact in the Hebrew, Adam is quite often referred to as a title not a name 'Ha-adam' ... i.e. 'The Man. To me, this show hows it is allegorical and a myth. Can not the Christian get the basis of their own religion right ?

I think perhaps some Christians, in addition to showing that the bible is actually the truth, get to actually know the history and context of their own bible.

I mean, it is trying to support unsupported claims by claiming more unsupported claims are true is rather circular... and when you show ignorance about the source of the unsupported claim to begin with... well

Interesting as some of those issues may be to discuss, they not only fail to address the point of this thread, they kind of demonstrate why this thread exists.

The point being that BOTH sides have a burden of proof. Its entirely to easy, especially in the age of google, to get into confirmation bias. We can find 'evidence' to support and preconception we want, and we can find 'evidence' to deny any preconception we want.

Instead of asking someone why they think Satan isn't real ... try making said case. We already know your opinion, but we have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion. It could be something ridiculous, like, I just had a laxative and that caused me to think there was no devil.

Or it could be a solid reason, with a valid alternative solution ... but simply saying, "I won;t believe until you prove it too me," is not only intellectually lazy, given the emotional reality of humans and the inability to change ones mind, its also simply a set up from an argument from absurdity wherein NOTHING that is presented is EVER going to be good enough.

Atheist point to Creationists as being unacceptably obtuse in heir denials of evidence, often quite convincingly. I will say that there are atheists who are every bit as bad as fundamentalist creationists, proving that serial denial is every bit as poisonous to intellect as serial affirmation.

We ALL need to support what we say.

.


God's invisible right? What would evidence of an invisible entity not existing look like? People declare that ancient invisible gods are out there and then put the burden of proof on to doubters of these invisible entities. Sure thing Sherlock, we'll get right on that.


.

Where are you getting the idea that God is invisible?

God has been seen by Apostles of the past, like Moses and such..

God is invisible as in , God is not of physical and materials

He can choose to show physically if he wants to, just like he did with Moses, Isiah, Jeremiah and such.

Consider them lucky, that's all.

[TheTruth101]

Atheists/Agnostics generally claim that the burden of proof is upon the religious, particularly the Christian religious. If you ask them to disprove the Resurrection of Christ, the flood, etc., they remind you that you have the burden of proof, not them, so it's up to you to prove it, not them to disprove it. But to me, the burden of proof is generally on those who provide new ideas/theories that are against the establishment. Christianity was the establishment for round abouts 1700 years, and then all of a sudden the Atheists show up during the enlightenment with their wild new ideas and theories, and have the audacity to say Christians have the burden of proof. Please explain to me how this is possible. It is the atheistic ideas that are much more recent. You must provide ample evidence for your claims.

~~~~~

And finally to the Real Issue

Why should Christian Evangelists need to prove their God to me?

Because that would be the postulated question on a debate forum? Perhaps?

As for the rest, your 'lies' of the Bible are simple and easily proven strawmen. For example, why does man have sin? Because WE brought it? No, because we were tempted in innocence by Satan to partake in the fruit of the tree of knowledge ... and thus lost innocence and knew both good and evil, and could choose among them accordingly.

Some, like Adam chose righteousness thereafter. Some, like Cain, did not.

So, there is no God because atheists cannot seem to get the basics of Christian theology right?

That would be why atheists to have to PROVE there claims rather than just bash the Bible ... its how logic works.

Can you show that Satan exists at all, or is that just one of those unsupported claims that I keep hearing about. Can you show that Adam is more than an allegory or a myth'. The fact in the Hebrew, Adam is quite often referred to as a title not a name 'Ha-adam' ... i.e. 'The Man. To me, this show hows it is allegorical and a myth. Can not the Christian get the basis of their own religion right ?

I think perhaps some Christians, in addition to showing that the bible is actually the truth, get to actually know the history and context of their own bible.

I mean, it is trying to support unsupported claims by claiming more unsupported claims are true is rather circular... and when you show ignorance about the source of the unsupported claim to begin with... well

Interesting as some of those issues may be to discuss, they not only fail to address the point of this thread, they kind of demonstrate why this thread exists.

The point being that BOTH sides have a burden of proof. Its entirely to easy, especially in the age of google, to get into confirmation bias. We can find 'evidence' to support and preconception we want, and we can find 'evidence' to deny any preconception we want.

Instead of asking someone why they think Satan isn't real ... try making said case. We already know your opinion, but we have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion. It could be something ridiculous, like, I just had a laxative and that caused me to think there was no devil.

Or it could be a solid reason, with a valid alternative solution ... but simply saying, "I won;t believe until you prove it too me," is not only intellectually lazy, given the emotional reality of humans and the inability to change ones mind, its also simply a set up from an argument from absurdity wherein NOTHING that is presented is EVER going to be good enough.

Atheist point to Creationists as being unacceptably obtuse in heir denials of evidence, often quite convincingly. I will say that there are atheists who are every bit as bad as fundamentalist creationists, proving that serial denial is every bit as poisonous to intellect as serial affirmation.

We ALL need to support what we say.

.


God's invisible right? What would evidence of an invisible entity not existing look like? People declare that ancient invisible gods are out there and then put the burden of proof on to doubters of these invisible entities. Sure thing Sherlock, we'll get right on that.


.

Where are you getting the idea that God is invisible?

God has been seen by Apostles of the past, like Moses and such..

God is invisible as in , God is not of physical and materials

He can choose to show to physically if he wants to, just like he did with Moses, Isiah, Jeremiah and such.

Consider themucky, that's all.