Why can't God be proven?

[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?!?

[brunumb]

It takes a lot more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

I do believe that a very powerful and superior being molded a human body out of soil material and then gave it life; atheists believe that a heap of clay gathered on its own and suddenly lived.

When the scientific explanation is reduced to the same absurd level as the religious creation event, of course it is unbelievable. One should understand the current scientific position on the origin of life and subsequent evolution of species before making statements that bear no relation whatsoever to what has been proposed. No one with such an understanding could seriously make ridiculous proclamations like "a heap of clay gathered on its own and suddenly lived".

[brunumb]

By what I know, righteousness means wisdom of the just, right understanding. When you understand what it means, you also know why it is good, even without any eternal life. Also, i think it is wrong to say it is a reward, when in Bible it is a gift.

Taking that under consideration, God essentially becomes unnecessary and what the Bible claims is really irrelevant. We can reduce the latter to a single page that says something simple like "Every day try not to do anything bad" and leave God out of the picture altogether.

[brunumb]

By what the Bible tells, people would not probably be righteous without God, because:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Once again the fictitious devil is brought into the picture as an excuse for people doing bad things. Curiously, God is supposed to fix all that, but there is no sign that he is even making an attempt. It actually looks more like he doesn't really care, or more likely, that he doesn't exist. The world has all the appearance of neither one of them actually existing, except in the imaginations of true believers.

[1213]

By what the Bible tells, people would not probably be righteous without God, because:

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Once again the fictitious devil is brought into the picture as an excuse for people doing bad things....

Sorry, I didn’t mean and I don’t think even Bible means in that devil is the guilty of wrong doings of people.

[1213]

By what I know, righteousness means wisdom of the just, right understanding. When you understand what it means, you also know why it is good, even without any eternal life. Also, i think it is wrong to say it is a reward, when in Bible it is a gift.

Taking that under consideration, God essentially becomes unnecessary and what the Bible claims is really irrelevant. We can reduce the latter to a single page that says something simple like "Every day try not to do anything bad" and leave God out of the picture altogether.

It seems to me that without God that does not really happen. But, at least for me, God and Bible are not irrelevant, I think they are the reason for me to have this understanding.

[1213]

...Does God do/command a moral action because it is good, or is such a moral action good because God does/commands it?

Good seems to be very subjective idea. In Biblical point of view good is not to do bad things to others, and that person cares of other. Reason why it can be seen good is that it doesn't cause harm to others.

...Getting back on topic.... The question is asked "why can't God be proven"? Your initial answer looks to be: "Maybe because it is not important and useful, doesn't cause any positive change in people for better."
...
So, your position is that God's demonstrated presence is not important or useful? Your position is also that God's demonstrated presence would not cause any change for better? Why not?

And more importantly, is this the reason God plays hide and seek?

Yes, I think it is not necessary to know God exists, if it doesn't make any change for better. But, I don't think God plays hide and seek. I believe all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to suppress that idea, because they don't like the message.

[otseng]

This article from Westmont College addresses this very issue and references a Christian, Dallas Willard, who asserts that it is possible to know God:

Yes, it's possible to know God, in the sense that we can understand and relate to God. But in the sense that the OP is defining it that knowing requires 100% certainty, it is not possible.

One may be perfectly convinced that God exists or doesn't, but can't know either with absolute certainty.

I agree.

[JehovahsWitness]

This article from Westmont College addresses this very issue and references a Christian, Dallas Willard, who asserts that it is possible to know God:

Yes, it's possible to know God, in the sense that we can understand and relate to God. But in the sense that the OP is defining it that knowing requires 100% certainty, it is not possible.

TO KNOW
1.
be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

One can indeed know something that cannot be observed if one has adequate information about that thing, so theoretically it is perfectly possible to know an invisible God.

Certainty is a personal conviction which may or may not be based on fact. A man can be 100% certain his wife didn't cheat on him even if she comes home late, smelling of alcohol with strange men's telephone numbers stuffed in her bra. In short if one has information and one is entirely convinced by it , one can be said one know with 100% certainty there is a God.



Can God be proven?
viewtopic.php?p=1048703#p1048703

[POI]

...Does God do/command a moral action because it is good, or is such a moral action good because God does/commands it?

Good seems to be very subjective idea. In Biblical point of view good is not to do bad things to others, and that person cares of other. Reason why it can be seen good is that it doesn't cause harm to others.

As long as you ignore the parts you do not like, from the bible Getting back on track below....

...Getting back on topic.... The question is asked "why can't God be proven"? Your initial answer looks to be: "Maybe because it is not important and useful, doesn't cause any positive change in people for better."
...
So, your position is that God's demonstrated presence is not important or useful? Your position is also that God's demonstrated presence would not cause any change for better? Why not?

And more importantly, is this the reason God plays hide and seek?

Yes, I think it is not necessary to know God exists, if it doesn't make any change for better.

I would assume you think murder, rape, and theft are bad, right? Assuming the answer is yes, we shall proceed...

You do not think there would be any change, "for the better", if all knew God exists? Really? What do you think would happen, if all KNEW God was watching and judging? Do you think the murder/rape/theft rates would go up, down, or remain the same?

I would imagine they would go down considerably. Don't you? If they go down considerably, would this not be 'for the better'?

But, I don't think God plays hide and seek. I believe all people know deep inside them that God is real, some just want to suppress that idea, because they don't like the message.

I no longer believe due to severe lack in evidence to support the claim. I no longer believe because I do not see distinguishable results in 'answered prayer'. I no longer believe because every claimed holy book I've read, does not look to be consistent when compared to human discovery. I no longer believe because I prayed for God's contact, for decades, and no such luck.

Deep inside, I do not think there exists YHWH there. It has to do with following the evidence, or lack there-of. As I told you before, if I thought He existed, and did not like some of the messages, I would likely rationalize all those disliked parts; like you probably do (i.e.) the topics --- 'slavery' and 'faith healing'' come to mind

[Eloi]

It takes a lot more faith to believe that than it does to believe in an Intelligent Designer.

I do believe that a very powerful and superior being molded a human body out of soil material and then gave it life; atheists believe that a heap of clay gathered on its own and suddenly lived.

When the scientific explanation is reduced to the same absurd level as the religious creation event, of course it is unbelievable. One should understand the current scientific position on the origin of life and subsequent evolution of species before making statements that bear no relation whatsoever to what has been proposed. No one with such an understanding could seriously make ridiculous proclamations like "a heap of clay gathered on its own and suddenly lived".

This: "a heap of clay gathered on its own and suddenly lived" is this:

Atoms came together and, owing to their properties, some of em bunched up into chemicals. These chemicals, in turn, according to their properties, bunched up, and next thing ya know, humans have created the means of our own eternal destruction.

That's best we can tell. To propose a"creator", in the common religious sense, is unwarranted.

... with less words.