Why can't God be proven?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Why can't God be proven?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

Because of faith faith faith faith - ad nauseam - is normally the answer. But that's an excuse and doesn't really answer the question for many (including many believers if you listen to enough of them).
Surely, if God can create all that is, it could prove itself to everyone, yeah?
Some say this would, somehow, 'cheapen' the experience or that by proving itself to everyone, less people would (again, somehow?) not follow god. That is also an excuse.

What mentally sound person would see irrefutable proof that God is real and that everything God 'said' is real, and still say 'meh... I don't believe it'? Not many I'd suspect! And even if 'many' did do this, wouldn't it be a lot less than those who don't have faith in it and perish?

So for centuries of looking, no proof has been found. Why is that?

Some would say it's 'because there is no god'. And surely that may be true.
But could it also be true that God, creator of all things, is simply forcing people to 'have faith' to find him?
What benefit does that serve such a loving being, to see the inevitable eternal damnation of many of the beings it's said to love?!?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3286
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1554 times
Been thanked: 1052 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #51

Post by POI »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:36 pm
POI wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:17 pm
1213 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:29 pm
nobspeople wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:12 am ....What is relevant is why doesn't god prove himself beyond a shadow of a doubt to those who ask it (or anyone for that matter) and stop relying on faith and belief which can be about as wishy-washy as anything else?...
Maybe because it is not important and useful, doesn't cause any positive change in people for better.
That's funny, because many theists, for which I have debated, love to use the 'moral argument.' In a nutshell, "if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist." Just ask Dr. William Craig, for example...

In playing into this Christian hypothetical, let's explore.....

If an individual assesses that there exists no such thing as a god, then I guess they can base their 'morals' upon their own opinion. Would this be 'good' for society?

There has also been experiments done with small children. When the children believe there exists no supervision, they run amuck. When they believe authority is watching, they do not. This alone debunks your notion that knowledge of God's existence "doesn't cause any positive change in people for the better."
One would think, if god created humanity, it would know how humanity operates. Additionally, if god loves humanity, one would think it would do everything it could to support it. Surely, not everyone, regardless of what's presented to them as proof, will accept what's right in front of them.
That said, I don't believe a loving thing like a god would sit back, smokin' his whatever and chillin', and say 'Nah, I can't get through to 2% of them so I'm not gonna' do anything for the other 98%!'
I suppose that is possible, of course. But is it likely? If god loves humanity, I don't think so.
Even still, I'd think god would make an effort to show itself to all of those who have honestly asked, or are asking. That's not happening.
So we're left with a few options:
God's done with humanity
God's playing with humanity
God's incapable of doing this
God doesn't want to do this (these four options would seem to be in contrast to the god we're told loves us and can do whatever it wants)
There is no god.

What's more likely?
Imaginary hope that only 'reveals' itself to some (and not necessarily the same way to one person as the next) or where god sits is empty space?
I'm right there with ya... My response was in direct to @1213, in regards to 'what's the point, it won't make humans better anyways." :)
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #52

Post by nobspeople »

POI wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 2:39 pm
nobspeople wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:36 pm
POI wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:17 pm
1213 wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 5:29 pm
nobspeople wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:12 am ....What is relevant is why doesn't god prove himself beyond a shadow of a doubt to those who ask it (or anyone for that matter) and stop relying on faith and belief which can be about as wishy-washy as anything else?...
Maybe because it is not important and useful, doesn't cause any positive change in people for better.
That's funny, because many theists, for which I have debated, love to use the 'moral argument.' In a nutshell, "if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist." Just ask Dr. William Craig, for example...

In playing into this Christian hypothetical, let's explore.....

If an individual assesses that there exists no such thing as a god, then I guess they can base their 'morals' upon their own opinion. Would this be 'good' for society?

There has also been experiments done with small children. When the children believe there exists no supervision, they run amuck. When they believe authority is watching, they do not. This alone debunks your notion that knowledge of God's existence "doesn't cause any positive change in people for the better."
One would think, if god created humanity, it would know how humanity operates. Additionally, if god loves humanity, one would think it would do everything it could to support it. Surely, not everyone, regardless of what's presented to them as proof, will accept what's right in front of them.
That said, I don't believe a loving thing like a god would sit back, smokin' his whatever and chillin', and say 'Nah, I can't get through to 2% of them so I'm not gonna' do anything for the other 98%!'
I suppose that is possible, of course. But is it likely? If god loves humanity, I don't think so.
Even still, I'd think god would make an effort to show itself to all of those who have honestly asked, or are asking. That's not happening.
So we're left with a few options:
God's done with humanity
God's playing with humanity
God's incapable of doing this
God doesn't want to do this (these four options would seem to be in contrast to the god we're told loves us and can do whatever it wants)
There is no god.

What's more likely?
Imaginary hope that only 'reveals' itself to some (and not necessarily the same way to one person as the next) or where god sits is empty space?
I'm right there with ya... My response was in direct to @1213, in regards to 'what's the point, it won't make humans better anyways." :)
One might think (conspiracy time) we're the same person posting under different names!
:drunk:
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #53

Post by 1213 »

POI wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:17 pm ... This alone debunks your notion that knowledge of God's existence "doesn't cause any positive change in people for the better."
Interesting claim. Does that mean you believe God exists, or that people don’t have moral?

However, if person does good only because there is someone watching, it is not in my opinion a change for better. Person is still evil, he just doesn’t do all the evil things he wants. In Biblical point of view there should happen change of heart so that person becomes righteous. then he wants to do what is good and right and no need someone to watch and cause fear.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #54

Post by 1213 »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:31 am I would think it supremely important if God is supposed to have any interest in people believing in him...
Bible tells that eternal life is for righteous. That is why I think believing in God’s existence is not the point, becoming righteous is. For that Bible is enough, for anyone who wants to be righteous.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #55

Post by otseng »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:51 pm
What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean like a mathematical proof? A conclusion that is 100% certain?
Yes, that would satisfy 'proof' for the vast majority of humans (though there will still be hold-outs - you know the ones? The ones that say 2+2=-elephant).

But this doesn't answer the question 'why' - why can't god be proven?
Because God is not math? O:)

Why place such a high burden that God needs to be proven with 100% certainty when practically nothing else is held to such a standard?

In history, how can anything be proven to be true? Same with sociology, economics, politics, law, etc.

Even science cannot prove anything. Science is good at falsifying something, but cannot actually "truthify" something. Something can be accepted as a hypothesis or a theory or even a law, but it's not elevated to the status as proven to be eternally true.

I agree with Dawkins spectrum of belief where he says "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." There are gradations of belief and people can fall anywhere in the spectrum of belief.
1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_ ... robability

As one of the most outspoken atheists, even Dawkins does not claim to be a 7. So, if one of the foremost atheists do not claim to be a 7, why should there be a requirement that believers need to be a 1?

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3286
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1554 times
Been thanked: 1052 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #56

Post by POI »

1213 wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:23 pm
POI wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:17 pm ... This alone debunks your notion that knowledge of God's existence "doesn't cause any positive change in people for the better."
Interesting claim. Does that mean you believe God exists, or that people don’t have moral?
I'm responding to your statement (post #47) -- "Maybe because it is not important and useful, doesn't cause any positive change in people for better."

I don't know if a god or god(s) exist? I also currently think morals are relative.
1213 wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:23 pmHowever, if person does good only because there is someone watching, it is not in my opinion a change for better.
Okay. So committing less crime, because one thinks someone is always holding one accountable is not "for the better"? I'm glad to see you are taking the 'moral high road' and all. So I flip it back to you... If it should turn out there exists no such God, can you still be considered 'righteous'? If so, by what standard?
1213 wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:23 pm Person is still evil, he just doesn’t do all the evil things he wants. In Biblical point of view there should happen change of heart so that person becomes righteous. then he wants to do what is good and right and no need someone to watch and cause fear.
Define 'evil'? According to you guys, evil is anything which goes against God's nature. Thus, it kind out sounds like you require God for your standard of evil. :)
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #57

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:39 pm
nobspeople wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:35 am So for centuries of looking, no proof has been found. Why is that?
What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean like a mathematical proof? A conclusion that is 100% certain?

If however you mean evidence and arguments that support the existence of God, that has been provided for many centuries and continues to grow to this day.

As for faith, there will always be an element of faith. Nobody can prove (with 100% certainty) that God exists. But, that doesn't mean we need to believe on blind faith (with no evidence whatsoever). It will fall somewhere in between the two extremes and the line to be drawn on where to actually believe is up to the individual.
That's one reason I reject the "you have no proof / evidence" angle. Sure the believer has their proof, and their evidence. It's just so often we find such to be lacking in confirmable, testable ways that we reject those proofs, that evidence, as unreliable for sound concludings.

Heck, I can't prove atoms, nor quarks, nor muons, nor rational, level headed wimmins exist, but I love em all the same.

Just funning about the wimmins, I've yet to meet the first one that couldn't think me under the table :wave:
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #58

Post by brunumb »

1213 wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 5:24 pm Bible tells that eternal life is for righteous. That is why I think believing in God’s existence is not the point, becoming righteous is.
And eternal life is the giant carrot for believing and becoming righteous. That is the obvious reason that you seem to push at every possible opportunity. Without eternal life as a reward there is no good reason to believe in God and be righteous.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #59

Post by Purple Knight »

nobspeople wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:46 am [Replying to 1213 in post #2]
I think it is because the point is not to believe in the existence of God, but to be righteous, to have right understanding of good and right and the desire to do what is good and right.
This seems to be saying you can't be good and righteous if you know that god exist which is ludicrous in every sense of the word.
I don't think it's silly at all. If you knew God existed, of course you'd do his bidding. But if on some level we all think it's a bunch of prehistoric nonsense, then only those who find real righteousness in the words will follow them.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7961
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Why can't God be proven?

Post #60

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:30 pm
nobspeople wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:46 am [Replying to 1213 in post #2]
I think it is because the point is not to believe in the existence of God, but to be righteous, to have right understanding of good and right and the desire to do what is good and right.
This seems to be saying you can't be good and righteous if you know that god exist which is ludicrous in every sense of the word.
I don't think it's silly at all. If you knew God existed, of course you'd do his bidding. But if on some level we all think it's a bunch of prehistoric nonsense, then only those who find real righteousness in the words will follow them.
This comes down to argument about whether one can be moral (righteous - in one sense) without religious guidance. The argument is that it is possible. In fact, I argue that humans devise moral codes and it is religion that uses them and claims the credit for them. The slavery issue illustrates this. Bible believers know that slavery is not moral (though we saw some try to excuse it on the grounds that paying taxes, working, etc. was akin to slavery). But the Bible appears to accept slavery. So what it says has to be denied or excused to bring it into line with how human morality has developed and religious morality has had to change to keep up with it. This leaves Christians with a book that hasn't changed to keep pace with it.

This is what leads to the 'ghost Bible' which says what they think it should say as distinct from what it actually Does say. Thus we get all the 'it doesn't actually mean that' apologetics.

Post Reply