Let's suppose God did....

[pjnlsn]

Are you saying that there is no proof or evidence of God's existence?

"In the most general sense possible, [and beyond that it is not proven,] the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"In the most general sense possible, [and beyond that it is not proven,] the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

Which harkens back to the OP: if God exists, he knows what evidence he could bring forth that would be sufficient to demonstrate his existence. If no such evidence is possible, then there's nothing God could do to demonstrate his existence. If this is indeed the case, then there a priori will never be any evidence for God, and there therefore is no good reason to believe he exists (even if, as in this hypothetical, he does indeed exist, we could never tell this case apart from the alternative).

Yet, the OP somehow believes that the a priori impossibility of evidence for God is somehow a detriment to the non-believers' position - yet such a case would clearly be detrimental to the theists' position. Most perplexing.

 

[Elioenai26]

"In the most general sense possible, [and beyond that it is not proven,] the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

You say that the concept of God is too insubstantial for one to even know what evidence for its existence would look like.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[Elioenai26]

Which harkens back to the OP: if God exists, he knows what evidence he could bring forth that would be sufficient to demonstrate his existence.

To who? To the one willing to believe in and obey and worship Him and love Him as God their Father, Sustainer, and Provider? Yes i agree.

To who? To the one not willing to believe in and obey and worship Him as God their Father, Sustainer, and Provider? No, I disagree. I disagree because God cannot force anyone to trust, love and hope in Him. God's primary aim is to receive unto Himself a people who love Him and want to live with and for Him freely by an exercise of their own will. God is obligated to give only that evidence which is sufficient for men to be able to make a choice between accepting Him and rejecting Him freely. God is not obligated, nor is He even able to force an obstinate, unwilling man to freely repent from his wicked self dependence and worship Him as the One True God.

If no such evidence is possible, then there's nothing God could do to demonstrate his existence. If this is indeed the case, then there a priori will never be any evidence for God, and there therefore is no good reason to believe he exists (even if, as in this hypothetical, he does indeed exist, we could never tell this case apart from the alternative).

For the one who is unwilling to believe, no amount of evidence will convince them. This is what Jesus meant when He said only those who were willing to do His will would know whether or not the words that He spoke were true. Elsewhere Jesus also spoke saying that if they would not believe Moses and the prophets, then neither would they believe even though one be raised from the dead.

Yet, the OP somehow believes that the a priori impossibility of evidence for God is somehow a detriment to non-believers' position - yet such a case would clearly be detrimental to the theists' position. Most perplexing.

It is not a detriment to you because you ultimately get what it is that you want from God...Nothing... You see no divine acts or miracles. You see no evidence of God. And you are happy and content with this.

 

[JGG]

You say that the concept of God is too insubstantial for one to even know what evidence for its existence would look like.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Because there is no operational definition of god. We don't simply not know what to look for, we haven't decided what we're looking for evidence of.

 

[pjnlsn]

Because there is no operational definition of god. We don't simply not know what to look for, we haven't decided what we're looking for evidence of.

This, more or less.

 

[Davian]

"In the most general sense possible, [and beyond that it is not proven,] the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Are you saying that there is no proof or evidence of God's existence?

Yes.

 

[Skavau]

To who? To the one willing to believe in and obey and worship Him and love Him as God their Father, Sustainer, and Provider? Yes i agree.

No. To anyone. If God is omniscient he would know exactly what each individual would require to believe in him. That it might be unwelcome to many is irrelevant to what would convince them.

To who? To the one not willing to believe in and obey and worship Him as God their Father, Sustainer, and Provider? No, I disagree. I disagree because God cannot force anyone to trust, love and hope in Him.

We've been through this. This is a different thing you're talking about. The question of belief in God is different to the question of serving God. That many are unwilling to serve God, obey God does not mean that they could not be convinced of God.

I've already told you myself, repeatedly that my anti-theism on this point is not related and entirely distinct from my atheism.

God's primary aim is to receive unto Himself a people who love Him and want to live with and for Him freely by an exercise of their own will. God is obligated to give only that evidence which is sufficient for men to be able to make a choice between accepting Him and rejecting Him freely.

How bizarre. How can anyone make a free choice if they do not have access to all the facts? I mean from your perspective people like me are ignorant of what is. We don't have all the information, or understanding of that information. This means that we cannot make a free choice.

I daresay that God ought to be obligated to provide concrete evidence of his existence in order to grant that free choice he so dearly needs. Then he would see who truly would reject and accept him - because as it stands, from his standards innocent people who would obey and serve if they were convinced are condemned to hell.

God is not obligated, nor is He even able to force an obstinate, unwilling man to freely repent from his wicked self dependence and worship Him as the One True God.

Perhaps not, but this is not only (a) irrelevant to what convinces people of God's existence but also (b) irrelevant to him granting people a free choice by providing concrete evidence they would accept.

For the one who is unwilling to believe, no amount of evidence will convince them.

I think you mean unwilling to serve. No-one is truly unwilling to believe or not believe in anything. We are our beliefs. We are our convictions. They shape us. Again, my anti-theism and the anti-theism of others are distinct from what we consider to be true. I am certainly willing to believe in God.

Just not to serve.

 

[Freodin]

To who? To the one willing to believe in and obey and worship Him and love Him as God their Father, Sustainer, and Provider? Yes i agree.

To who? To the one not willing to believe in and obey and worship Him as God their Father, Sustainer, and Provider? No, I disagree. I disagree because God cannot force anyone to trust, love and hope in Him. God's primary aim is to receive unto Himself a people who love Him and want to live with and for Him freely by an exercise of their own will. God is obligated to give only that evidence which is sufficient for men to be able to make a choice between accepting Him and rejecting Him freely. God is not obligated, nor is He even able to force an obstinate, unwilling man to freely repent from his wicked self dependence and worship Him as the One True God.



For the one who is unwilling to believe, no amount of evidence will convince them. This is what Jesus meant when He said only those who were willing to do His will would know whether or not the words that He spoke were true. Elsewhere Jesus also spoke saying that if they would not believe Moses and the prophets, then neither would they believe even though one be raised from the dead.



It is not a detriment to you because you ultimately get what it is that you want from God...Nothing... You see no divine acts or miracles. You see no evidence of God. And you are happy and content with this.

Another question for you, one that you perhaps are more willing to answer than my last one (I still would like to see a response to that request though):

Do you love my sister? And I don't mean an "Oh, I am commanded to love every human being" type of love... I want to know if you love my sister especially and as a distinct individuum.

 

[Elioenai26]

Because there is no operational definition of god. We don't simply not know what to look for, we haven't decided what we're looking for evidence of.

This, more or less.

Well now that seems quite remarkable to me for several reasons:

1. To say that there is no operational definition of God is to ignore the very obvious fact that ever since philosophy as a discipline was undertaken by the Greeks, a commonly agreed upon operational definition of God has been the foundation from which these philosophers worked.

To support this statement all I have to do is simply appeal to the history philosophy itself. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"The working assumption from the Greeks onward has been that God is the most perfect possible being." God, Western Concepts of[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western Philosophy and theology.

2. The asssertion that there is no operational definition of God is remarkable also in it is a statement that is completely contrary to what is evidenced in contemporary philosophical discussion. Many of the most prominent and well-known philosophers of today
both non-theist and theist alike are deeply involved in work regarding God. Debates abound between non-theistic and theistic philosophers regarding God's existence and none of these philosophers maintain that there is no operational definition of God. So in conclusion it seems to me that this notion of there being no operational definition of God is completely unsubstantiated.

All of the above leaves me asking the following: where do you two gentleman get the idea that there is no operational definition of God? Since this view is not commonly held by contemporary philosophers, you must have gleaned it from some other source (s). What are these sources? Why should these sources be given more credibility than the current consensus of the philosophic community?

 

[JGG]

Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western Philosophy and theology.

Typically, we only look for one of these attributes at a time. Which one would you like us to investigate scientifically? How would we actually do that?

We're looking for a person without a body. How do we find that? How do we operationalize a bodiless person? What if we are able to insert somebody's mind into a computer? Would they not be bodiless? Would they then be God?

Next, we're looking for something eternal. How do we know what is eternal, or determine that it will be eternal? How do we then connect that to our bodiless person?

I was told that God was neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but whatever. How do we determine that our bodiless person is these things? And how do we operationalize perfectly good? What is good?

 

[KCfromNC]

Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient

Weird you'd tell us god is omniscient and omnipotent after assuring us that your god doesn't know how to provide convincing evidence to non-believers. Both can't be true, so which is it?

 

[Elioenai26]

Typically, we only look for one of these attributes at a time. Which one would you like us to investigate scientifically? How would we actually do that?

We're looking for a person without a body. How do we find that? How do we operationalize a bodiless person? What if we are able to insert somebody's mind into a computer? Would they not be bodiless? Would they then be God?

Next, we're looking for something eternal. How do we know what is eternal, or determine that it will be eternal? How do we then connect that to our bodiless person?

I was told that God was neither omnipotent nor omniscient, but whatever. How do we determine that our bodiless person is these things? And how do we operationalize perfectly good? What is good?

The questions that you have asked are good questions however before I endeavor to begin answering them I would like to go back to the question I posed in my last post. The question kind of ties into what you are asking.

The question that I posed to you and the other gentleman was: What gives you the reason to think that there is no operational definition of God? It is clear that this idea of yours had to have come from somewhere some source or reference or person or teaching so I was curious as to know where the idea comes from; that is, the idea or view that there is no operational definition of God.

If you can expound on this train of thought then I will be better able to answer your questions.

 

[Elioenai26]

Weird you'd tell us god is omniscient and omnipotent after assuring us that your god doesn't know how to provide convincing evidence to non-believers. Both can't be true, so which is it?

In order to get clarification from you on what you just said I will need to ask you a question.

If you can refer to what specific post I typed that gave you the idea that it is my view that God does not know how to provide convincing evidence to non believers I would be much obliged.

The reason I am asking you this question is because I know I never said that or even implied that.

What I have said is that it is not logically possible for God to force someone to believe in Him of their own free will. It is the same as saying that God cannot make a married bachelor or a round square or a sentence in English with no English words etc. All of these things are logical impossibilities. To say that God cannot do any of those is not in any way to suggest that He is not omniscient or omnipotent.

 

[JGG]

The questions that you have asked are good questions however before I endeavor to begin answering them I would like to go back to the question I posed in my last post. The question kind of ties into what you are asking.

The question that I posed to you and the other gentleman was: What gives you the reason to think that there is no operational definition of God? It is clear that this idea of yours had to have come from somewhere some source or reference or person or teaching so I was curious as to know where the idea comes from; that is, the idea or view that there is no operational definition of God.

If you can expound on this train of thought then I will be better able to answer your questions.

An operational definition is meant to put limits on what we are studying, so we can validate or invalidate it through measurement. How do we measure a bodiless person? How do we determine omnipotence, or omniscience, concepts which are unlimited, when we do not possess it? How do we determine a perfect good, when our concept is clearly imperfect? How do we determine what is supernatural when we are limited to a natural existence? How do we limit an eternal being?

An operational definition of God is impossible because God is defined in terms of things that we cannot test.

Now, how do you intend to test for God?

 

[Elioenai26]

An operational definition is meant to put limits on what we are studying, so we can validate or invalidate it through measurement. How do we measure a bodiless person? How do we determine omnipotence, or omniscience, concepts which are unlimited, when we do not possess it? How do we determine a perfect good, when our concept is clearly imperfect? How do we determine what is supernatural when we are limited to a natural existence? How do we limit an eternal being?

An operational definition of God is impossible because God is defined in terms of things that we cannot test.

Now, how do you intend to test for God?

Your misgivings are based on a logical positivistic methodology which was abandoned by philosophers and scientists some sixty years ago Mr. JGG. That is the reason why you find no secular/non-theistic philosophers raising these questions that you are raising. In fact, it is only on internet forums and in infidel youtube videos that you find these questions/objections being raised.

Operationalism is a child of the logical positivistic era which was popular in the 20's and 30's.It is used in certain specific disciplines none of which are pertinent to our discussion of God's existence. I have already given sources regarding logical positivism's decline and ultimate rejection by the scientific and philosophic communities. I can give them to you if you would like.

Ultimately, our working definition of God according to Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is full of content. So much so that God still finds place in one way or the other in metaphysical and philosophical discourse today.

We investigate God's existence the same way we investigate any other person's existence. We do this by keeping in mind God's superlative attributes. If God exists then we expect for there to be evidence of this. Philosophers of religion, natural theologians, metaphysicians, historians, astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, biologists, archaeologists, etc. have a wealth of data at their disposal for investigating this matter. This is one area in which science has been and can be very useful.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ultimately, our working definition of God according to Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is full of content. So much so that God still finds place in one way or the other in metaphysical and philosophical discourse today.

Why arbitrarily use Anselm's definition of god (which imparts no actual information by the way) rather than any other definition of god?

 

[variant]

We investigate God's existence the same way we investigate any other person's existence. We do this by keeping in mind God's superlative attributes. If God exists then we expect for there to be evidence of this. Philosophers of religion, natural theologians, metaphysicians, historians, astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, biologists, archaeologists, etc. have a wealth of data at their disposal for investigating this matter. This is one area in which science has been and can be very useful.

Disregarding your ironic diatribe against logical positivist because they have antiquated ideas:

Yet the evidence is nil.

Otherwise please point out the scientific evidence for God's existence and, remember to first define God in a way it could be evidenced.

I can assure you that plain old empiricism has not been abandoned by the scientific community.

 

[Elioenai26]

Why arbitrarily use Anselm's definition of god (which imparts no actual information by the way) rather than any other definition of god?

Philosophers do not "arbitrarily" use Anselms's definition. It has been the traditional conceptualization of God in Western philosophy for centuries simply because it is the most comprehensive, succinct and coherent definition of God.

The conceptualization of the "greatest conceivable being" which is the definition in a nutshell, was articulated by Plato as well as Aristotle and was later refined and expounded upon by minds like Augustine and Aquinas.

Since that time it has been the favored definition used in the philosophic community. Anytime God is mentioned in philosophy with a capital "G" , this is what the word refers to.

The word "gods" can be used to denote the gods of pantheism, or the gods I.e. idols of a specific pagan religion. Philosopers have little to nothing to do with the latter two uses of the word god with the lower case "G".

As I have stated previously elsewhere, the traditional definition of God used in philosophy is full of content and meaning. No contemporary philosopher whether they be non theistic or theistic in there thinking would venture to say that the traditional Western conceptualization of God is void of meaning. The concept is simply too well studied and has too much of a rich history within the philosophic community for any serious philosopher to deny this while still majntaining their credibility.