Is there proof or not?

[boatsnguitars]

Help me understand this.

Christians will claim they have ample evidence of the Holy Spirit, or God based on the feelings they get, or what they call evidence., or, "He'll prove himself to you when you believe.".

But, they also say God can't be tested for, and you can't prove God's existence because it would take away Free Will, or "God doesn't work that way".

These two ideas - that are probably mentioned a million times on this forum - are contradictory.

Can a Christian please explain, for once and for all, the rules on how God can be detected, but not proven, but proven and not detected, or whatever.

It makes no sense to me, but I'm an idiot, so maybe I don't get the simple logic.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll let the Believers explain, but I'll suggest how it looks to me, after staring at it for quite a long while:

It is of course a Mystery, but if it makes no sense to us, it makes sense to God. But it is uncannily like Buddhist enlightenment - you won't get it if you actually desire it. If you try to test prayer..well, scripture says you shouldn't. Which is probably why it shows no result if you do it. No, no the way the efficacy of prayer is shown as something that has an Effect other than feelgood, is to claim that it does work and ignore the study that showed it didn't.

Thus God revealing Himself likely works the same way. You cannot access God yourself, but God will come into your hart when you don't work for it, and will show that all your beliefs were exactly right, and they will be even when you change your mind and find a different and Right church community and preacher that agrees with You, the one of the Few Christians who have actually understood what God really wants.

[historia]

Christians will claim they have ample evidence of the Holy Spirit, or God based on the feelings they get, or what they call evidence., or, "He'll prove himself to you when you believe.".

But, they also say God can't be tested for, and you can't prove God's existence because it would take away Free Will, or "God doesn't work that way".

Can you give us an example of someone on this forum saying these two different things?

It would be useful to see how these two ideas are being expressed by someone who actuals holds these positions, rather than just your characterization of them.

[boatsnguitars]

Christians will claim they have ample evidence of the Holy Spirit, or God based on the feelings they get, or what they call evidence., or, "He'll prove himself to you when you believe.".

But, they also say God can't be tested for, and you can't prove God's existence because it would take away Free Will, or "God doesn't work that way".

Can you give us an example of someone on this forum saying these two different things?

It would be useful to see how these two ideas are being expressed by someone who actuals holds these positions, rather than just your characterization of them.

I can try to give you an opportunity to show how it works:

1. Can you explain the Hiddenness of God? Why is God completely hidden from us?

2. If you say He's not Hidden from us, why can't I detect him, and why can't you demonstrate he exists?

Here WLC addresses the problem. He admits God doesn't reveal himself to everyone - yet, the reason he says is because it's not good. Then, he claims there is adequate evidence.


There is a clear contradiction to say that he doesn't give evidence to show he exists, then claim he shows adequate evidence to show he exists.

This is the same thing you'd say if you were trying to be clever about something that doesn't exist.

For example, let me claim "Aliens exist"

You say, "Show me".

I say, "There is adequate evidence, if you look, but you can't expect them to fly down and say "Hi", they'd freak out everyone if they knew they existed.

You say, "But you just claimed they exist. Surely you were shown evidence"

I say, "Right, there is adequate evidence. I sought them out and proved I was a friend. You have to go in your back yard and plead to them in all honesty that you want to be friendly"

You say, ...what?

You see how Theism is like Alienism?

[historia]

Here WLC addresses the problem.

That was useful, thank you.

There is a clear contradiction to say that he doesn't give evidence to show he exists, then claim he shows adequate evidence to show he exists.

But that's not what Craig said.

He said God doesn't give "coercive evidence" to show he exists, but does give "adequate evidence."

You may not like that explanation, but it doesn't strike me as a contradiction.

[boatsnguitars]

Here WLC addresses the problem.

That was useful, thank you.

There is a clear contradiction to say that he doesn't give evidence to show he exists, then claim he shows adequate evidence to show he exists.

But that's not what Craig said.

He said God doesn't give "coercive evidence" to show he exists, but does give "adequate evidence."

You may not like that explanation, but it doesn't strike me as a contradiction.

Adequate evidence means I'd see that God exists. Yet, I don't see it, and yet, he and others claims God's existence is evident.

[historia]

There is a clear contradiction to say that he doesn't give evidence to show he exists, then claim he shows adequate evidence to show he exists.

But that's not what Craig said.

He said God doesn't give "coercive evidence" to show he exists, but does give "adequate evidence."

You may not like that explanation, but it doesn't strike me as a contradiction.

Adequate evidence means I'd see that God exists.

I don't think that's necessarily true. But, even if it was, now you're just moving the goal posts.

Your argument was that there is a "clear contradiction" in Craig's assertions. You've now dropped that and moved onto a different argument in which you are simply disagreeing with Craig's assessment that the evidence for God is adequate.

[TRANSPONDER]

it is rather the 'adequate evidence' is goalposts opening and closing like a malfunctioning lift door. You have only to browse the Atheist Experience to hear phone in Believers lining up to to claim that they have Proof. If God didn't want to prove He exists as that would nullify Free Will, then there is no clear proof. Only 'adequate evidence' as you say. Which being interpreted, means 'explaining things in terms of having a god being involved', when they can equally be explained as not having a god behind them.

In other words, not only not adequate evidence but really no good evidence at all. Aside from the Turin Shroud which is a bit of a puzzle, and the claims of NDE's and OBE's which still require clarification, there is nothing I can think of that is any decent evidence for a god, and nothing worthwhile for the correctness of Christianity.

[1213]

...
But, they also say God can't be tested for, and you can't prove God's existence because it would take away Free Will, or "God doesn't work that way".
...
Can a Christian please explain, for once and for all, the rules on how God can be detected, but not proven, but proven and not detected, or whatever.
...

I can't prove anything. But, I think people wold still have free will, even if God's existence would be absolutely proven for them. However, I don't think proving god's existence is crucial, because eternal life is not promised for those who are sure God exists, it is for those who are righteous.

And, I think maybe God could be compared to gravity, or electricity, you can't see them, so, how do you know they exist? By the influence. Maybe so, but one could always say the reason was something else.

[boatsnguitars]

...
But, they also say God can't be tested for, and you can't prove God's existence because it would take away Free Will, or "God doesn't work that way".
...
Can a Christian please explain, for once and for all, the rules on how God can be detected, but not proven, but proven and not detected, or whatever.
...

I can't prove anything. But, I think people wold still have free will, even if God's existence would be absolutely proven for them. However, I don't think proving god's existence is crucial, because eternal life is not promised for those who are sure God exists, it is for those who are righteous.

And, I think maybe God could be compared to gravity, or electricity, you can't see them, so, how do you know they exist? By the influence. Maybe so, but one could always say the reason was something else.

I can tell if gravity or electricity is influencing something. There are clear times when they aren't.
I can measure the affect of gravity (10 m/s^2), I can measure the amount of volts, amps and resistance. We can use electricity to restart a stopped heart, to send communications all around the world. Power lights, cars, USB's - and know how much electricity will hurt us.

How can I do this with God? And what are you measuring with God? Divine Power, or God Himself? What is actually doing the work when you talk about "influence"?
What influence are you talking about?