Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Radar]

Why doesn't god prove himself? If he could, or even if he did, he wouldn't be God.

[Platos stepchild]

The question is, why doesn't God (assuming He exists) offer proof of His existence. I ask what such a proof might then look like. Consider: everything in this world, (regardless of how rare or exotic) is an example of something more general. For example, an igneous rock is...well, a rock, as is one which is sedimentary. With regard to planets, gas giants, along with ice giants and terrestrial planets are all elements of a well-defined set (namely, what is a planet). Homo sapiens and home habilis are both examples of the genus homo. But what of God? By definition, there is nothing of which God is an instance of.

Therefore, given that God is radically unique (what philosophers call sui generis) we must ask how this affects any proof of God's existence. God is traditionally considered to be transcendent, as well as imminent.What this means is, He is beyond all, and yet in all. I submit that the methodologies of proof, as we understand them are woefully inadequate for determining the existence of such a God. How then could even He tender a proof of His existence? (Perhaps the very notion of self-revelation would be foreign to God, inasmuch as He is self obvious).

[Sy Borg]

"Himself". God is a man, so they say. The supreme being surely must be male! How could a supreme being be a weak female - virtually chattel - and then claim to rule over mighty and powerful males? How could that be when we know that men are far smarter and accomplished than woman? After all, a woman is only as smart as a man's rib. In fact, reliable source, Borat, observed that women's brains are apparently the size of a chipmunk's brain. So a woman can't be supreme leader any more than a chipmunk - weak, dumb and emotional brood sows that can't even grow beards! (barring the occasional unfortunate mutation).

So our supreme being remains unambiguously male, waving his mighty shlong at believers and disbelievers alike. I try to be tolerant but the masculine deity is a product of male-dominated culture.

If we discard the primitive pronouns and an overarching consciousness does actually exist, people might have a chance of thinking about it realistically. The moment one says of God that "HE does x" then they are immediately pulled off into the world of imagination, introducing not only the masculine but the human where neither gender nor humanity exists.

God is either an "it" or mythical.

[Belinda]

Plato's Stepchild wrote:

The question is, why doesn't God (assuming He exists) offer proof of His existence.

This version of God doesn't exist, so there is no use in discussing this version of God. True, one might make a sort of ghost story with this Omnipotent Holy Creator version of God as the protagonist, as is done indeed by theist doctrines. But what is the use, other than as a dysfunctional method of social control ? Or for escapist purposes as comes to light from certain posters to Philosophyclub ?

Turn the question around, and you have a reasonable God. The better question would be "How can we nurture a God of mercy and justice? "

[Platos stepchild]

If God isn't omnescient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then there is no other version if God worth our time discussing. That's because the alternatives are nothing but cosmic strongmen. Anyone of which would be reluctant to reveal himself, so as to not provoke an even stronger god.

[Simply Wee]

Can you prove God wrong?...sure you can prove people wrong, but when individuals or collectives bring into this world that which is not yet real, then my guess is that is truth enough of what amounts to God, by my understanding of something eternal, complete in itself, thus no need to act. That which provides to those or that which within their own realm of reality, seek. The joker in the pack will always be circumstances, that sets the scene, a society worth protecting, outside that, is hell. I guess.

[Misty]

If there is a god, why doesn't he prove that he exists? Why does he leave us without any compelling evidence of his existence?

"Why does he leave us without any compelling evidence of his existence?"

Look into the mirror, hug a loved one, eat food this universe provides, observe the magnificence of the earth and heavens, take a breath, observe mankind's behaviors, observe human differences in face and body features, intelligence, observe the millions of species of animals, enjoy the sun, rain, snow, rainbows, etc., compelling? God proves HE/SHE/IT 'IS' constantly, but goes unappreciated. Instead man complains about a unique experience called life, or spends time destroying others. Can any man provide such a universe for his feeble creations or inventions, or better yet his discoveries? Why should God give mankind anymore evidence of himself when man curses what has already been given?

[Belinda]

If God isn't omnescient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then there is no other version if God worth our time discussing. That's because the alternatives are nothing but cosmic strongmen. Anyone of which would be reluctant to reveal himself, so as to not provoke an even stronger god.

The churches are certainly doing a bad job of public relations if they cannot teach unbelievers about the God of mercy and justice.

[Platos stepchild]

The "[h]eavens declare the handiwork of God" only to those who have already believed in Him. The decision to believe in God therefore isn't logical, inasmuch as proofs for His existence are not possible (see previous post). Rather, the decision is based on aesthetics. To a believer, a Godless world is essentially ugly. Whereas to an unbeliever, a divinely created world is grotesque. Churches are not beacons to a Godless world, despite how they might otherwise package themselves. Instead, they draw onto themselves only those who want to be drawn. The bottom line is, I find the titular question to frankly be disingenuous.

[Logic_ill]

Why doesn't god prove himself?

According to some people he has.

He has not been proven to me satisfactorily, so I'm not a believer. However, I don't know if there was any being involved in our creation, design, or existence.

[Simply Wee]

Acording to beliefs and scriptures and to many scientists and writers around the world, they, the Gods who invested our bodies with their heavenly source and influenced our beliefs are beyond this world. Yet even as they are portrayed to have walked amongest us at one time, so too did they adhere to God in the highest, in whome their work through imagination was concidered to have been perfected. We like them and as their children have aquired the light, everything we communicate with, learn with, evolve with, is no longer in stone, in chalk or ink, but in light. The light of God surrounds... envelopes us, yet we live in darkness until those who left this world entrusted to us, return.

Its just a story, who would ever want or need to believe it, for if it is true, only upon their return will we see our true father, and only then will the reality of our imagination be creditied to truth, for if there is a God, so resides the truth, and yet the truth is there, in the reality created through our imagination. I guess.

[Wilson]

I think it's ridiculous to say that there is no evidence of God, or any kind of spiritual power in the universe. Just think about it.

I think there is evidence of God all around, whenever I see a beautiful landscape, and the feeling I get from it being so beautiful, the fact that it is UNIVERSALLY beautiful to most everyone is evidence that there is God..I mean the[/u] Grand Canyon can't be coincidentally gorgeous to all eyes, it was crafted within nature by a supernatural essence or being.

I remember Madelyn Murray O'Hair - the most famous early atheist for you youngsters - saying, when someone asked if such beauty was not proof of God's existence, something like, "And when you look at children dying of cancer, horrible birth defects, people tortured by insanity, and the Holocaust, is that not evidence against the existence of a loving God?"

All our brains have certain things in common, such as appreciation of certain patterns and colors, because we have so much DNA in common. We evolved to find beauty in many natural things, and to take pleasure in that beauty, because an appreciation of beauty was of benefit to the species. I don't claim to have a full understanding of why that is so, but it probably has something to do with the fact that a drive to appreciate and create beauty and order led our ancestors to develop better ways of staying alive and procreating.

The original question - Why doesn't God prove himself? - is a very convincing argument - for that subset of humans who are logical thinkers - that no benevolent Abrahamic God exists. If God exists and cares about us and wants us to have everlasting life, then He would reveal Himself, and I would become a theist and live forever in paradise with fifty virgins (or wings and harps - whichever version is correct). Since He hasn't done so, either He doesn't want the best for us, or there's no heaven, or He doesn't exist.

[Misty]

I think it's ridiculous to say that there is no evidence of God, or any kind of spiritual power in the universe. Just think about it.

I think there is evidence of God all around, whenever I see a beautiful landscape, and the feeling I get from it being so beautiful, the fact that it is UNIVERSALLY beautiful to most everyone is evidence that there is God..I mean the[/u] Grand Canyon can't be coincidentally gorgeous to all eyes, it was crafted within nature by a supernatural essence or being.

I remember Madelyn Murray O'Hair - the most famous early atheist for you youngsters - saying, when someone asked if such beauty was not proof of God's existence, something like, "And when you look at children dying of cancer, horrible birth defects, people tortured by insanity, and the Holocaust, is that not evidence against the existence of a loving God?"

All our brains have certain things in common, such as appreciation of certain patterns and colors, because we have so much DNA in common. We evolved to find beauty in many natural things, and to take pleasure in that beauty, because an appreciation of beauty was of benefit to the species. I don't claim to have a full understanding of why that is so, but it probably has something to do with the fact that a drive to appreciate and create beauty and order led our ancestors to develop better ways of staying alive and procreating.

The original question - Why doesn't God prove himself? - is a very convincing argument - for that subset of humans who are logical thinkers - that no benevolent Abrahamic God exists. If God exists and cares about us and wants us to have everlasting life, then He would reveal Himself, and I would become a theist and live forever in paradise with fifty virgins (or wings and harps - whichever version is correct). Since He hasn't done so, either He doesn't want the best for us, or there's no heaven, or He doesn't exist.

How would living in paradise with fifty virgins be paradise? How is that logical thought? LOL

[Wilson]

How would living in paradise with fifty virgins be paradise? How is that logical thought? LOL

I'd assume they would not remain virgins. Otherwise, false advertising!

-- Updated August 6th, 2015, 12:14 pm to add the following --

This from Wikipedia:

"In Islam, the concept of 72 virgins (houri) refers to an aspect of Jannah (Paradise). This concept is grounded in Qur'anic text which describe a sensual Paradise where believing men are rewarded by being wed[1] to virgins with "full grown", "swelling" or "pears-shaped" breasts.[2][3] Conversly, women will be provided with only one man, and they "will be satisfied with him".[4]

Contemporary mainstream Islamic scholars, for example; Gibril Haddad, have commented on the erotic nature of the Qur'anic Paradise, by saying some men may need ghusl (ablution required after sexual discharge) just for hearing certain verses.[5]

Orthodox Muslim theologians such as al-Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have all discussed the sensual pleasures found in Paradise, relating hadith that describe Paradise as a slave market where there will be "no buy and sale, but... If any man will wish to have sexual intercourse with a woman, he will do at once."[6][7]

It is quoted by Ibn Kathir, in his Qur'anic Commentary, the Tafsir ibn Kathir,[8] and they are graphically described by Qur'anic commentator and polymath, al-Suyuti (died 1505), who, echoing a hasan hadith[9] from Ibn Majah,[10] wrote that the perpetual virgins will all "have appetizing vaginas", and that the "penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal".[11]


Apparently it is never stated where the virgins come from. Are they virtuous women who died on Earth and ascended into heaven? If so, shouldn't they get just one man? Or maybe they are manufactured by God on demand, whenever a Muslim man reaches paradise. Sounds like women will outnumber the men in heaven by a wide margin.

[Atreyu]

If there is a "God", what makes you think that She could "prove" herself? The assumption in the OP is simply false, as if a God could possibly reveal itself to very lessor entities such as ourselves.

The truth is that God could no more reveal Herself to us that we could reveal ourselves to microbes swimming around in a drop of water. Stick a needle into the water, inject various chemicals, put electric probes into the water to create vibrations - do whatever you like and none of the microbes in the drop of water will ever have the faintest inkling of your existence.

And the same would apply to any "God" trying to "prove" itself to us, but to an even greater degree....