It occurred to me that God, if it exists, could walk up to me and deliver a resounding slap to my rosy cheeks and I'd still be in the dark about its existence.

What form should proof of a God take? What does God have to do to convince everyone that it exists?

If God exists and can be proven, the proof (however inconclusive) may be around us. God here includes one who is uncreated/uncaused or one who has a cause but is powerful enough to have created this universe or one who has a cause within this universe but is powerful enough to create life forms like we have.

We are convinced of things either by experience, testimony or logic. God would therefore have to make us experience it or find it by logic, to convince us of its existence.

Logic is unreliable for absolute conviction. For example, I could make the logically sound argument that:

A cell is invisible to the naked eye.
The human body is a collection of cells.
Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.

This is obviously not a valid argument. We know this because we can see the human body with an unaided eye. However, for someone who has never seen a human body the argument is correct. To know that the argument is invalid, one has to see a human body with the naked eye. Logically valid arguments, then, have to be confirmed by experience.

Unfortunately for experience, one can only make sense of it by logic. Imagine that you were at a party at which you drank only water and from which you left feeling intoxicated. You might reason that your drink was spiked while you left it unattended, but until you see the results of a blood test you don't know if the cause was that you inhaled fumes from a psychoactive plant burnt in the vicinity or that your brain was oxygen starved due to some physiological cause or even that you had been envenomated.

The only thing an experience can prove is that you had the experience. If you experience intoxication, logic alone cannot confirm what caused the experience.

We are compelled to work with assumptions and probabilities in order to get on with the business of living. I find this a telling fact against God, since I assume/find it probable that God (at the very least a personal one) would not have made it so that we could not know conclusively that it exists. As it is, we don't even have to assume that God exists in order to get on with life.

Perversely, if we know as a fact that we cannot know anything conclusively except this fact, then the only way that God can show itself to us is as this fact. God, if it exists, would be the fact that we cannot know anything. Haha.

I might be horribly wrong, of course. What would you consider as proof of God?

the reason why God does not bother about proving itself to any human being is that it is just a matter of time when the individual sheds the physical body in the process of death, the person will clearly see all the prove that he/she needs.

it is just a matter of time

benodic:
the reason why God does not bother about proving itself to any human being is that it is just a matter of time when the individual sheds the physical body in the process of death, the person will clearly see all the prove that he/she needs.

it is just a matter of time

I think obtaining proof of God is more than an issue of shedding a physical body. It borders on the more fundamental issue of how we understand things. Can you think of a way by which we can (attempt to) know things other than the method we currently use?

first enlighten me on the methods being currently used now

benodic:

first enlighten me on the methods being currently used now

I believe we can only either experience a thing or discover it by reason. It's in the OP. I tried to explain why I don't believe that you can get certainty through either means. I can understand substituting a spiritual body for a physical one, but I don't understand what you intend to substitute experience and reason with.

Finofya nothing can be said to be proof of "god/gods" because we don't know or have anything to show to be a product or result of "god/gods"...(even religious books admit to be "inspired works" of which the inspiration is claimed to be "god/gods")


And all theists present are either presuppositions(pre-concluded statements)....like "the bible claims it's true, therefore I presuppose it to be true"


arguments from ignorance....like "If you don't know how the earth formed, then that means "god/gods" did it"


special pleading....like "everything that begins to exist has a cause, except "god/gods"... "

or one or more other fallacies....

And that's why I usually say when you can't know something or show it to be true/factual nor show it to be wrong,then it's of 0 value to you because you can't make anything out of it....

It's inseparable from imaginary friends and make-believe tales.

davien:
Finofya nothing can be said to be proof of "god/gods" because we don't know or have anything to show to be a product or result of "god/gods"...(even religious books admit to be "inspired works" of which the inspiration is claimed to be "god/gods"


And all theists present are either presuppositions(pre-concluded statements)....like "the bible claims it's true, therefore I presuppose it to be true"


arguments from ignorance....like "If you don't know how the earth formed, then that means "god/gods" did it"


special pleading....like "everything that begins to exist has a cause, except "god/gods"... "

or one or more other fallacies....

True, what theists offer as proof is quite far from it. I asked myself what I'd offer as proof (to myself and others) if I decided to embrace theism today. If God existed and it could be proven, the proof could be right in your face. What would it look like?

Granted, the question only works on the assumption that there could be a provable God.

And that's why I usually say when you can't know something or show it to be true/factual nor show it to be wrong,then it's of 0 value to you because you can't make anything out of it....

It's inseparable from imaginary friends and make-believe tales.

Exactly. People bristle at the mention of the FSM or IPU because they recognise the truth of this. They just don't agree that it might apply to their deity.

finofaya:


True, what theists offer as proof is quite far from it. I asked myself what I'd offer as proof (to myself and others) if I decided to embrace theism today. If God existed and it could be proven, the proof could be right in your face. What would it look like?

Granted, the question only works on the assumption that there could be a provable God.



Exactly. People bristle at the mention of the FSM or IPU because they recognise the truth of this. They just don't agree that it might apply to their deity.

if God should come down a say chop knockle you will still doubt him.

Redoil:
if God should come down a say chop knockle you will still doubt him.

That's what makes me agnostic. How can you be sure that he is in fact "God"?

finofaya:


That's what makes me agnostic. How can you be sure that he is in fact "God"?

since you will still hold on to ur hard believe then i see no need for God to reveal himself to you.

Life is harsh and difficult and people tend to mostly do things base on what they believe is right as long as they are not stepping on any body toe and the law.
I will suggest you do some serious soul searching about God again maybe you will find him maybe not. For if you seek him you will surely find him. If you find him i will say wellcome home brother but if not then it is well
Note i am not forcing you to do it it is just a matter of choice for freedom to chose whether there is God or not is ur rght.
I will encourage you to think for ur self and allow others the priveldge to do so too.

Redoil:
since you will still hold on to ur hard believe then i see no need for God to reveal himself to you.

Hopefully God sees the matter differently.

Redoil:

Life is harsh and difficult and people tend to mostly do things base on what they believe is right as long as they are not stepping on any body toe and the law.
I will suggest you do some serious soul searching about God again maybe you will find him maybe not. For if you seek him you will surely find him. If you find him i will say wellcome home brother but if not then it is well
Note i am not forcing you to do it it is just a matter of choice for freedom to chose whether there is God or not is ur rght.
I will encourage you to think for ur self and allow others the priveldge to do so too.

The issue is how one can be certain that he has found God. I agree that people should be allowed to think for themselves and, further, to share their thoughts. Anyone is free to go ahead and believe in God but you're encouraged to examine that belief from time to time.

benodic:
the reason why God does not bother about proving itself to any human being is that it is just a matter of time when the individual sheds the physical body in the process of death, the person will clearly see all the prove that he/she needs.

it is just a matter of time

The obvious conclusion from your post is that God does not exist in this life.
If we are only aware of God after death, after our life ceases to exist, then isnt it folly to waste so much seeking and making so much noise about what, according to you, cannot be made manifest nor co-exist with our life experience?

REAL JESUSCHRIST Mystery#authority OF THE MANTLE ,THE POWER THAT BE, THE LIGHT AND JUDGEMENT has comeback to earth,BEHOLD WE dont beg humanbeigns to acept our POWER TRUTH+REVELATION you click&read>https://instagram.com/p/3mb2IMM9jO/

finofaya:


I think obtaining proof of God is more than an issue of shedding a physical body. It borders on the more fundamental issue of how we understand things. Can you think of a way by which we can (attempt to) know things other than the method we currently use?

Finofaya, God doesn't owe you anything. I wonder what image of God you have in your head. Cursing, or refusing to believe in his existence doesn't move or change him in any way. He still remains God, and he works with those who believe. Simple.

Imagine you're God Almighty who created all things and transcends all, would you be bothered if some people refused to believe in you? I don't think so. You'd do things your way, and have mercy on whomever you choose to have mercy on, and kill whomever you choose to kill. Because you're God. Some Idio.ts think God is threatened by their disbelief. Quite foolish if you ask me.

finofaya:


I think obtaining proof of God is more than an issue of shedding a physical body. It borders on the more fundamental issue of how we understand things. Can you think of a way by which we can (attempt to) know things other than the method we currently use?

Finofaya, God doesn't owe you anything. I wonder what image of God you have in your head. Cursing, or refusing to believe in his existence doesn't move or change him in any way. He still remains God, and he works with those who believe. Simple.

Imagine you're God Almighty who created all things and transcends all, would you be bothered if some people refused to believe in you? I don't think so. You'd do things your way and have mercy on whomever you choose to have mercy on, and kill whomever you choose to kill. Because you're God. Some Idio.ts think God is threatened by their disbelief. Quite foolish if you ask me.

Joshthefirst:
Finofaya, God doesn't owe you anything. I wonder what image of God you have in your head. Cursing, or refusing to believe in his existence doesn't move or change him in any way. He still remains God, and he works with those who believe. Simple.

Imagine you're God Almighty who created all things and transcends all, would you be bothered if some people refused to believe in you? I don't think so. You'd do things your way, and have mercy on whomever you choose to have mercy on, and kill whomever you choose to kill. Because you're God. Some Idio.ts think God is threatened by their disbelief. Quite foolish if you ask me.

You do realise that it is theists who think that God is threatened by disbelief. That's why they discourage apostacy. Atheists simply don't think that there is God.

The OP is about why God (assuming there is one) has designed us to be unable to know him or her other than by faith.

Your post paints the picture of a confused God. If he works with only those who believe, shouldn't he leave unbelievers alone, to their devices? And if he is not bothered by disbelief, why does he not work with unbelievers? Also, how can a God not care whether one believes that he exists, but then care about whether one behaves like he exists?

I think a God that does not care if people know him is not a personal God and cannot care about any other thing that people do. He is irrelevant.

finofaya:


That's what makes me agnostic. How can you be sure that he is in fact "God"?

Indirectly asking the same question. . . What is God?

This is the simplest and as well the most difficult question. I think you can not arrive at a conclusion when your God is not tied to a religion or concept.

Let see how things play out

FOLYKAZE:


Indirectly asking the same question. . . What is God?

This is the simplest and as well the most difficult question. I think you can not arrive at a conclusion when your God is not tied to a religion or concept.

Let see how things play out

I don't think it is the same question. Whatever God is, it may or may not be capable of proof by us.

If the God is tied to any religion, the conclusion is valid only for that religion. I tried to use a description that can apply across the board.

finofaya:


I don't think it is the same question. Whatever God is, it may or may not be capable of proof by us.

If the God is tied to any religion, the conclusion is valid only for that religion. I tried to use a description that can apply across the board.

Does your OP applies to bulls worshipped as God in hinduism?

Does it applies to Stars worshipped as god in ATR?

FOLYKAZE:


Does your OP applies to bulls worshipped as God in hinduism?

Does it applies to Stars worshipped as god in ATR?

From the OP:

God here includes one who is uncreated/uncaused or one who has a cause but is powerful enough to have created this universe or one who has a cause within this universe but is powerful enough to create life forms like we have.

Don't start with that theatre gallery stuff again, abeg.

finofaya:


From the OP:



Don't start with that theatre gallery stuff again, abeg.

This contradict your submission here:

finofaya:

I don't think it is the same question. Whatever God is, it may or may not be capable of proof by us.
If the God is tied to any religion, the conclusion is valid only for that religion. I tried to use a description that can apply across the board.

I will look away from thi anyway.

Brahman and Eledumare still not made up what you called God? Shakti is the uncaused and uncreated God in Shakyism which in plain sense is Universal energy. This God is powerful and created the universe according to Shaktism and Shaivism sect of Hinduism. Shakti literally mean 'to be able' which intercept with physics which states that energy is ability to do. Energy wa/is not created and it is worshipped as the uncreated creator in hinduism. Shakta worship the energy which is not created as Goddess shakti.

Does Shaktism fall short of what we call or you call God? Do you ask for the evidence of Energy? Why then do you ask for the evidence of shakti - a goddess which is energy?

On the other note, are the Gods that do not create the universe does not made up what we call God here? What do you then call Sango which represent eletrical energy? Or Yemoja which represent watrr? Or Ogun which represent Iron? Are they not Gods considering they do not partake in th creation of the universe?

Are those cause uncaused God not God?


On Brahman, this is the creation God of hinduism. The earth and everything in it was created by this God. In the plain sense, Brahman is Ultimate Reality. This constract Maya, "the changing, illusory world of appearance. Hinduism is deep rooted in existentislism and psychology. The Gods are mostly representation of realities and consciousness.

One of the key concepts of Hinduism is the belief in an ultimate reality called Brahman which is the source of all living things in this universe. Brahman is the ground of all reality and existence. Brahman is uncreated, external, infinite and all-embracing. It is the ultimate cause and goal of all that exists. It is One and it is All. All beings emanate from Brahman; all beings will return back to the same source. Brahman is in all things and it is the true Self (atman) of all beings.
http://1stholistic.com/prayer/hindu/hol_hindu-brahman.htm

brahman is the ultimate reality and as well the pure consciousness. Brahman is a deity/god which is uncreated and does exist. What evidence are you looking for in Brahma; the uncreated creator God which represent REALITY or PURE CONSCIOUSNESS?

Eledumare is the great consciousness which makes infinite possibilities.

Brahma and Edumare are God which according to the religion that hold believe in them are not created. However, they both represent REALITY and CONSCIOUSNESS.

Reality is the real state of existence which is not created. It is Brahma and Eledumare.

You are creating a defined fence round the word God and how you view it. Keep it coming.

finofaya:
It occurred to me that God, if it exists, could walk up to me and deliver a resounding slap to my rosy cheeks and I'd still be in the dark about its existence.

What form should proof of a God take? What does God have to do to convince everyone that it exists?

If God exists and can be proven, the proof (however inconclusive) may be around us. God here includes one who is uncreated/uncaused or one who has a cause but is powerful enough to have created this universe or one who has a cause within this universe but is powerful enough to create life forms like we have.

We are convinced of things either by experience, testimony or logic. God would therefore have to make us experience it or find it by logic, to convince us of its existence.

Logic is unreliable for absolute conviction. For example, I could make the logically sound argument that:

A cell is invisible to the naked eye.
The human body is a collection of cells.
Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.

This is obviously not a valid argument. We know this because we can see the human body with an unaided eye. However, for someone who has never seen a human body the argument is correct. To know that the argument is invalid, one has to see a human body with the naked eye. Logically valid arguments, then, have to be confirmed by experience.

Unfortunately for experience, one can only make sense of it by logic. Imagine that you were at a party at which you drank only water and from which you left feeling intoxicated. You might reason that your drink was spiked while you left it unattended, but until you see the results of a blood test you don't know if the cause was that you inhaled fumes from a psychoactive plant burnt in the vicinity or that your brain was oxygen starved due to some physiological cause or even that you had been envenomated.

The only thing an experience can prove is that you had the experience. If you experience intoxication, logic alone cannot confirm what caused the experience.

We are compelled to work with assumptions and probabilities in order to get on with the business of living. I find this a telling fact against God, since I assume/find it probable that God (at the very least a personal one) would not have made it so that we could not know conclusively that it exists. As it is, we don't even have to assume that God exists in order to get on with life.

Perversely, if we know as a fact that we cannot know anything conclusively except this fact, then the only way that God can show itself to us is as this fact. God, if it exists, would be the fact that we cannot know anything. Haha.

I might be horribly wrong, of course. What would you consider as proof of God?

ur already experiencing LIFE.

Joshthefirst:
Finofaya, God doesn't owe you anything. I wonder what image of God you have in your head. Cursing, or refusing to believe in his existence doesn't move or change him in any way. He still remains God, and he works with those who believe. Simple.

Imagine you're God Almighty who created all things and transcends all, would you be bothered if some people refused to believe in you? I don't think so. You'd do things your way, and have mercy on whomever you choose to have mercy on, and kill whomever you choose to kill. Because you're God. Some Idio.ts think God is threatened by their

disbelief. Quite foolish if you ask me.

But why do Christians like you, threaten non Christians especially atheists of the horror God will do if they continue with disbelief? Will a God that doesn't care if you believe or not bother punishing you for your disbelief?

Actually it's your type that make god seem like he is threatened by our disbelief...we only speak out what we read from your utterances about God

macof:




But why do Christians like you, threaten non Christians especially atheists of the horror God will do if they continue with disbelief? Will a God that doesn't care if you believe or not bother punishing you for your disbelief?

Actually it's your type that make god seem like he is threatened by our disbelief...we only speak out what we read from your utterances about God

Change God there to Idealogical Law.

Does it make sense?

FOLYKAZE

Do these your Gods have personhood? The way I see it you are simply giving me synonyms. Eg., Shakti is a synonym for energy. Brahma is a synonym for reality.

chuna1985:



ur already experiencing LIFE.

Go on.

@finofaya, In 1929 Hubble came up with a theory and it is regarded as the greatest in the history of astronomy, he published a velocity-time relation theory which is the basis of modern day cosmology. in years to come, with further observations, the expanding-universe theory was accepted by scientists and astronomers alike. yet astonishly before the contemporary science it has been revealed by Allah to Muhammad that indeed he(Allah) is the creator of the heavens(space) and he(Allah) is the one that expands it. Q51:47-48 "and the heaven(space) we created with might, and indeed we are its expanders and we have spread out the earth, how Excellent spreader (thereof) we are!" the verse simply points out that the space is expanding just as contemporary science proved much much later, how could Muhammad who was unlettered conceive such fact on his own? verily an all-knowing being is behind this fact! This verse of the noble Qur'an is just one out of the thousands of scientific miracles found in it(Qur'an).

finofaya:
FOLYKAZE

Do these your Gods have personhood? The way I see it you are simply giving me synonyms. Eg., Shakti is a synonym for energy. Brahma is a synonym for reality.

Lol My guy dey jump from Uncaused/uncreated God to personal God.

Anyway yes they have personhood.

FOLYKAZE:


Lol My guy dey jump from Uncaused/uncreated God to personal God.

Anyway yes they have personhood.

There was no jump. You just didn't read what I wrote. Personhood and personal don't even mean the same thing.

If your Gods have personhood, then the evidence which we require for things like energy cannot be the same that we require for them. I hope I don't have to explain why.

finofaya:


There was no jump. You just didn't read what I wrote. Personhood and personal don't even mean the same thing.

If your Gods have personhood, then the evidence which we require for things like energy cannot be the same that we require for them. I hope I don't have to explain why.

This is where you guys get things wrong. I have told you several times that you need to look beyond literal depiction of God concepts. When you look for God from personhood because of anthromorphism, you all will arrive at a wrong conclusion. Take for example Iustice is a goddess of justice represented as a woman wearing a robe with a sword and scale in her hand. You and lot others are looking for a beautiful woman while in plain sense Iustice is RULE AND EQUITY OF THE LAW.

So tell us sir, do you look fof a lady in IUSTICE or you are looking for RULE OF LAW?

Are you looking for a handsome guy in Brahma or you are looking forUltimate reality?

Are you looking for warrior with big Hammer which he swing around in Thor or you are looking for Justice?