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?!?

[benchwarmer]

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?

I agree that a believer should not be a 1. A knower would be a 1.

If someone has knowledge of (i.e. directly interacted with) a god, then they know the god exists. Just like if I directly interact with a dog then I know that dog exists. (assuming we can trust our senses of course).

This makes 1 a possibility. To be a 7 is, IMO, impossible. How can we know no gods exist? We would have to have the ability to observe every possible place this god could be and have the correct sensory input to detect it.

In light of this, when a Christian both tells me they know God exists and also shows me only Bible verses to back it up I internally 'downgrade' them to believers, not knowers. If the Christian tells me they talked with God and had an 'experience' then I am inclined to grant them the status of 'knower' i.e. a 1. If, however, they turn around and tell me they need to strengthen their faith, require Bible verses to support their position, or otherwise fall back into a belief stance, then I highly question their 'knowledge/interaction'.

In other words, if I say I know my cat is orange, but can only offer everyone else verses from books about orange cats then people rightfully question my 'knowledge' claim.

So, to sum up, I think being a 1 is possible, but 7 is impossible. Being a 1 simply requires positive observation of the thing in question.

[otseng]

I agree that a believer should not be a 1. A knower would be a 1.

I don't know of any Christian who claims to be a "knower", whereas many do claim to be a "believer". There's also no exhortation from pastors or even the Bible that we are to be "knowers" in the sense that you define it.

We would have to have the ability to observe every possible place this god could be and have the correct sensory input to detect it.

Nobody on earth has seen or could see God, so 1 would also be impossible.

n light of this, when a Christian both tells me they know God exists and also shows me only Bible verses to back it up I internally 'downgrade' them to believers, not knowers.

That's fine, cause it's doubtful they would've categorized themselves as a knower in the first place.

In other words, if I say I know my cat is orange, but can only offer everyone else verses from books about orange cats then people rightfully question my 'knowledge' claim.

I agree. I also do not find it convincing when people argue for the truth of Christianity by exclusively quoting the Bible.

[Eloi]

An example: There would be no information in DNA to pass from one being to the next if someone hadn't written it down in the first place.

Someone had to have put the information that each DNA contains inside and that is transmitted from the beginning of living beings from parents to children. That is one of billions of proofs that it was an intelligent Creator who made us.
Is it so difficult to accept that fact?

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit for clarity...

An example: There would be no information in DNA to pass from one being to the next if someone hadn't written it down in the first place.

Someone had to have put the information that each DNA contains inside and that is transmitted from the beginning of living beings from parents to children. That is one of billions of proofs that it was an intelligent Creator who made us.
Is it so difficult to accept that fact?

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.

[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.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

"That" is a word used to describe something. Not hard to believe at all.

I do believe that a very powerful and superior being molded a human body out of soil material and then gave it life;

You're just incapable of showing this "superior being" "molded" anything.

theists believe that a heap of clay gathered on its own and suddenly lived.

It might serve ya we'll to not display your ignorance of the atheist position for all to see.

[1213]

...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.

I think it is not possible to become righteous in attempt to get eternal life. Reason why I think so is that I think righteous wants to do right and good, because he understands it is good, not because he expects reward from doing what is good and right.

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.

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

[1213]

... If it should turn out there exists no such God, can you still be considered 'righteous'? If so, by what standard?

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

However, I think righteousness means wisdom of the just, right understanding which leads to good actions. If person would have that wisdom of the just, without God, then I think he could be considered righteous.

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.

Evil is like darkness or emptiness, it is nothing really, because it means lack of good. Good is for example to love (care for others), speak truth, not steal, not murder... ...evil is when one is not doing good.

[Tcg]

I don't know of any Christian who claims to be a "knower", whereas many do claim to be a "believer". There's also no exhortation from pastors or even the Bible that we are to be "knowers" in the sense that you define it.

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

Can Doubters Know God?

Ortberg affirms this dichotomy between faith and knowledge. He says that if we have faith that God exists, we won’t know that God exists. He says that knowledge destroys faith. But in “Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge” (Harper Collins, 2009), Dallas Willard insists that faith in God is sustained and strengthened when it’s based on knowledge that God exists. Which of them is right? Does faith that God exists exclude knowledge of God or benefit from it? Moreover, in “Letter to a Christian Nation” (Vintage, 2008), the new atheist Sam Harris says it’s obvious there’s no God. Willard argues on the contrary that we can know there is a God. Can what seems obviously true to one person be known by another to be false?

Willard is definitely swimming against the tide. He contends that our current cultural assumption that we can’t have knowledge of theological and moral propositions is unfounded, false, unbiblical, and dangerous. And he thinks Christians have needlessly and unreasonably allowed their confidence about God’s existence and will to be eroded on the basis of this assumption. Willard believes Christian acquiescence on this point has pernicious consequences; we can obey the Great Commission only if we teach people to obey what Christ commanded, and effective teaching of this sort requires knowing that Jesus really does have the authority he claims for himself because he really is God and therefore what he commands is really God’s will. Willard says that people have the authority to teach something only if they know it to be true; so if Christians can’t know that Christianity is true, then they don’t have the authority to teach it.

https://www.westmont.edu/can-doubters-know-god

Additionally, in his book Dawkins states he is a 6 on his scale, but in interviews he has explained that he is more accurately a 6.9. This is of course not a 7, but is very close. Based on the statement above about Sam Harris, perhaps he'd be a 7 or at least claim to be. Based on Willard's position, it seems he'd not only be a 1, but suggests every Christian who teaches Christianity must be.

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


Tcg

[POI]

... If it should turn out there exists no such God, can you still be considered 'righteous'? If so, by what standard?

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

However, I think righteousness means wisdom of the just, right understanding which leads to good actions. If person would have that wisdom of the just, without God, then I think he could be considered righteous.

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.

Evil is like darkness or emptiness, it is nothing really, because it means lack of good. Good is for example to love (care for others), speak truth, not steal, not murder... ...evil is when one is not doing good.

Looks like you have missed my point entirely. Theists will argue that God IS good. But you FIRST have to prove that God even exists, before you can make this statement, and have it be anything more than a wishful hypothetical. In regards to "righteousness" and "evil", these words are predicated upon the a priori assumption that God exists. "Morality', when argued from a theist, is circular. Why? Because you ground moral absolutes based upon the god for which you assert exists. It ultimately brings up the question...

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

But I digress.... 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."

From there, you do not really look to have addressed what I stated, thus, the rabbit trail began. I'll start anew, in direct response to your above quoted statement.

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?