Why is there no world-wide proof of God?

[Vermithrax]

I just asked it... look above

Of course there's no proof. All religions depend upon faith. Belief without evidence. Take Scientologists, for example. Dafter even than Christians, but with a significant following. But like Christianity, absolutely no proof. Nor evidence.

 

[Mortensen]

Of course there's no proof. All religions depend upon faith. Belief without evidence. Take Scientologists, for example. Dafter even than Christians, but with a significant following. But like Christianity, absolutely no proof. Nor evidence.

Why? What good is coming from people only having "faith"? I only see different types of faiths causing conflicts and debates...

 

[JonathonD]

Why? What good is coming from people only having "faith"? I only see different types of faiths causing conflicts and debates...

Our faith is in God. Like... say the big bang.. how did all the chemicals get there if it created the world? And I have seen Angels so you cannot prove me wrong. The put us on the earth and left us here to live by ourselves because of Adam and Eve.

 

[JonathonD]

For there is tons of proof, look on the news. And plus the BIBLE has predicted many things that would happen in this future.

 

[Mortensen]

For there is tons of proof, look on the news. And plus the BIBLE has predicted many things that would happen in this future.

Really? What? And give me proof and I'll believe that it is a God.

 

[Army of Juan]

Our faith is in God. Like... say the big bang.. how did all the chemicals get there if it created the world?

Big Bang is not faith based, it's science backed by evidence.

And I have seen Angels so you cannot prove me wrong. The put us on the earth and left us here to live by ourselves because of Adam and Eve.

I've seen Santa can you prove me wrong? Can you prove that you really saw an Angel and not just hallucinating?

 

[JonF]

What reason have God to hide is existence? Why is there people not believing in him? Shoud there even be doubt?

Please give us what you would consider sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Mortensen]

Constant revealing of God. People seeing miracles, miracles caught on tape, mysteries are answered by things that only mean that there is a higher power, more people will "meet" God and they will get more confident of his existence. People cannot doubt gods existence if there is thousands of good, unexplainable things happening all the time. "The world would not accept this kind of sudden happenings" is not a counter argument. God is all mighty, he could make it work, bessides he could have made things like this happening all from the start.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Constant revealing of God.

Where?

People seeing miracles

People are notoriously bad witnesses. They may well THINK they see miracles; whether or not they actually did is another thing entirely.

miracles caught on tape

Never happened.

mysteries are answered by things that only mean that there is a higher power

Like what? I've never heard of such a thing.

more people will "meet" God and they will get more confident of his existence.

People's confidence does not equate to their correctness. People have been confident of any number of things that are false.

People cannot doubt gods existence if there is thousands of good, unexplainable things happening all the time.

There aren't.

"The world would not accept this kind of sudden happenings" is not a counter argument.

No idea what this means.

God is all mighty, he could make it work, bessides he could have made things like this happening all from the start.

Yes, he could have (if he exists). Where is the evidence he did?

 

[JonF]

Yes, he could have (if he exists). Where is the evidence he did?

this question is meaningless unless you tell us what you would consider sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

this question is meaningless unless you tell us what you would consider sufficient evidence for the existence of God.

No, it's quite meaningful. You (and your fellow-believers) are the ones who claim there is evidence - but when challenged, all you can offer are either falsehoods or generalities. It's up to you to provide it.

However, I can think of huge numbers of things taht would be evidence of the existence of God. How about daily miracles? Religious healers who are really able to heal? Answered prayers (and no, not the 'he answered...he said to wait a while' answers)? Any of those would be a pretty good start...

 

[JonF]

No, it's quite meaningful.

There was a condition for the question to be meaningless.

You (and your fellow-believers) are the ones who claim there is evidence

Others may have, but I have made no such claim.

- but when challenged, all you can offer are either falsehoods or generalities. It's up to you to provide it.

Well the burden of proof in this case is interesting. It should rest with you, since this is a Christian forum and you are making the claim. Also, I have offered no such things so far, so please don’t make unfounded accusations.

However, I can think of huge numbers of things taht would be evidence of the existence of God. How about daily miracles? Religious healers who are really able to heal? Answered prayers (and no, not the 'he answered...he said to wait a while' answers)? Any of those would be a pretty good start...

There is a problem with any of these being evidence for the existence of God.

Religious healers and prayer has a causation problem. There is no way to show that my prayer or a religious healer was the cause of the answered prayer or the healing. If I was to say look I prayed for X, and X happened even though X is very unlikely you could just say well X happened randomly.

Miracles might be better, but still has issues also. Miracles by nature are super natural. So if I was to site what I would call a miracle as evidence you could always object there is an unknown natural explanation, or the event was really natural. In other words, there is no way to show that the super natural is actually in fact super natural.

 

[Lord_Marx]

I think the point is that God would know what was required to prove himself to each individual person, however he refuses to do this for some reason.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

There was a condition for the question to be meaningless.

I know. It was still meaningful, even with the condition.

Others may have, but I have made no such claim.

Apologies - ni saying 'you' I meant Christians in general, not you in particular. Again, my apologies for implying that you in particular had done so.

Well the burden of proof in this case is interesting. It should rest with you, since this is a Christian forum and you are making the claim.

No, the burden of proof always rests on those making the claim - in this case, the claim that God exists. The fact that we're on a Christian forum is irrelevant. And I haven't made any claims regarding God's existence - you (generic you, meaning Christians) have.

Also, I have offered no such things so far, so please don’t make unfounded accusations.

Again, apologies - I meant 'you' in the generic sense.

There is a problem with any of these being evidence for the existence of God.

Religious healers and prayer has a causation problem. There is no way to show that my prayer or a religious healer was the cause of the answered prayer or the healing. If I was to say look I prayed for X, and X happened even though X is very unlikely you could just say well X happened randomly.

I could - which is why I said it would be evidence, not proof, for God. If someone claimed that they could heal by God's power, and could actually do so, that would certainly be evidence for God. It would, as you say, be possible that the healing had nothing to do with God - but it wuold be evidence, not proof, for God.

Miracles might be better, but still has issues also. Miracles by nature are super natural. So if I was to site what I would call a miracle as evidence you could always object there is an unknown natural explanation, or the event was really natural. In other words, there is no way to show that the super natural is actually in fact super natural.

A good point. To a large extent, 'supernatural' is a pretty meaningless term. It could be said to mean 'that which we haven't classified as natural yet'. For example, ESP is considered to be supernatural. Yet if it were suddenly discovered to have certain experimentally-verifiable properties, it would cease to be supernatural and just become part of the natural.

God, however, does not. He is, and always will remain, supernatural. If he was to cause an event that we not only cannot find a natural explanatino for, but cannot find a natural way that it could even have occurred (for example - countering gravity), it would be pretty good evidence (again, not proof).

 

[JonF]

I know. It was still meaningful, even with the condition.

I disagree emphatically. I called what you meant by “evidence” in your post into question. You claim the question still has meaning. So please give the meaning of the question with out reference to “evidence”.

No, the burden of proof always rests on those making the claim - in this case, the claim that God exists. The fact that we're on a Christian forum is irrelevant. And I haven't made any claims regarding God's existence - you (generic you, meaning Christians) have.

In this case were not the ones making the claim given the context.

I could - which is why I said it would be evidence, not proof, for God. If someone claimed that they could heal by God's power, and could actually do so, that would certainly be evidence for God. It would, as you say, be possible that the healing had nothing to do with God - but it wuold be evidence, not proof, for God.

If causal connection can’t be established it doesn’t really count as evidence.

God, however, does not. He is, and always will remain, supernatural. If he was to cause an event that we not only cannot find a natural explanatino for, but cannot find a natural way that it could even have occurred (for example - countering gravity), it would be pretty good evidence (again, not proof).

I disagree here too. An appeal to the supernatural should hardly count as evidence. Do you think a couple hundred years ago explaining things by spontaneous genesis was legitimate evidence for the existence of God? By the standard you gave it would be. Or do you mean singular events that go against the natural order? These wouldn’t work either, for the first possible objection I gave. Let’s say we ran across some mass that didn’t have any gravity. Physicist everywhere would immediately say the current theories of gravity just need revision. Soon new theories to explain this phenomenon would arise, or basic assumptions would be changed. The problem asking for evidence of the super natural is you are asking for scientific evidence I assume. And one of the basic assumptions of the natural sciences is that the universe is consistent.

Now here I will actually make a claim of my own: the claim God exist is a non-falsifiable non-verifiable claim. So no, I don’t think we can offer empirical or ontological evidence that God exist.

 

[JonF]

I think the point is that God would know what was required to prove himself to each individual person, however he refuses to do this for some reason.

do you mean proof here, or did you mean evidence?

 

[Lord_Marx]

do you mean proof here, or did you mean evidence?

Evidence that acts as proof.

An all-powerful and all-knowing God would have the knowledge of what it would take to prove his existence to any given individual along with the power to do so.

In other words, he would know exactly what evidence would convince a person of his existance.

 

[JonF]

I’ll take that to as you want proof. There are several answer I’ll give here:

First: According to the bible once upon a time he did. It didn’t work out so well. First we dwelt with God (in Eden), but then we choose to end that fellowship. God still had direct interaction with people (Israel), but that fellowship didn’t work out so well because yet again of choices we made. So basically, because we communicated to God that was not our desire via our actions.

Second: Some people would say he does. But with a healthy dose of free will you may just not be able to figure it out. The existence of evidence doesn’t mean you will be able to use the evidence to figure anything out.

And Thirdly: God wants a consentient world. My epistemological view is the only knowledge people can have is hypothetical. So “proof” doesn’t exist.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I disagree emphatically. I called what you meant by “evidence” in your post into question. You claim the question still has meaning. So please give the meaning of the question with out reference to “evidence”.

Sure. Show me something to indicate that God exists.

In this case were not the ones making the claim given the context.

Semantics. The positive claim - that God exists - is yours (ie., Christians).

If causal connection can’t be established it doesn’t really count as evidence.

Of course it can. Not as good quality evidence as if a causal connection can be established, but evidence nonetheless.

I disagree here too. An appeal to the supernatural should hardly count as evidence. Do you think a couple hundred years ago explaining things by spontaneous genesis was legitimate evidence for the existence of God? By the standard you gave it would be. Or do you mean singular events that go against the natural order? These wouldn’t work either, for the first possible objection I gave. Let’s say we ran across some mass that didn’t have any gravity. Physicist everywhere would immediately say the current theories of gravity just need revision. Soon new theories to explain this phenomenon would arise, or basic assumptions would be changed. The problem asking for evidence of the super natural is you are asking for scientific evidence I assume. And one of the basic assumptions of the natural sciences is that the universe is consistent.

Exactly. So if it began, in some aspect, to act on an INconsistent basis - if, say, you were able to fly through the air - then that would be evidence of supernaturalism.

Now here I will actually make a claim of my own: the claim God exist is a non-falsifiable non-verifiable claim. So no, I don’t think we can offer empirical or ontological evidence that God exist.

Then I find it to be a meaningless claim. Any claim that is neither falsifiable nor verifiable is worthless. I can claim that an invisible, undetectable dragon lives in my garage. Is that of any worth?

 

[JonF]

Sure. Show me something to indicate that God exists.

So again I ask, what would you consider this “something” to be that would indicate God exist. Also would like to point that when I asked for a specific “evidence” you substituted for a more general “something”. When within the last several post you critiqued Christians for appealing to generals.

Semantics. The positive claim - that God exists - is yours (ie., Christians).

True, but on a Christian forum the claim God exist is an assumption. You are challenging the consistency of our assumptions, so the burden of evidence would rest on you.

Of course it can. Not as good quality evidence as if a causal connection can be established, but evidence nonetheless.

If low quality evidence is what you want you can do a google search and come up with thousands of cases where people prayed and then people were healed with out causal connection.

Exactly. So if it began, in some aspect, to act on an INconsistent basis - if, say, you were able to fly through the air - then that would be evidence of supernaturalism.

But if I did offer find some evidence along these lines, me flying through air for example, you would say. There is a trick because it defies physics or it’s natural because natural science assumes consistency, you just lack a natural explanation.

Then I find it to be a meaningless claim. Any claim that is neither falsifiable nor verifiable is worthless. I can claim that an invisible, undetectable dragon lives in my garage. Is that of any worth?

Your claim is meaningless for other reasons. Unless, if what you mean by “meaningless” is evidence can’t be offered to support or deny this claim. If by meaningless you mean something else, I disagree. Most people respond to things like this by saying, “Believing in non falsifiable claims is like believing in UFO’s.” The difference between belief in UFO’s and belief in God is that UFO’s are verifiable, I could bring you show you a UFO and a little green man and that would settle the issue. Or, by comparing belief in God to something similar to the situation you gave. These claims are meaningless because they have no practical effect on reality. If your dragon exists it wouldn’t make one meaningful difference what so ever.