Why God cannot be proven?

[Konsciencia]

This is the question I came across. I have my own answers to that question, but I want to here from you all. What do you think?

Why God cannot be proven?

 

[Faria]

If God could be made obvious, like the Sun in the sky, we would be forced to believe or else be fools. Only a fool would deny the existence of the Sun. But God is not so obvious, and we have the ability to choose faith as an act of will, or to reject it. Without the right of rejection, we are not free to choose; and if we had proof, we would no longer have the power to reject what is proven.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

This is the question I came across. I have my own answers to that question, but I want to here from you all. What do you think?

Why God cannot be proven?

The flipside of the same question: Why God cannot be disproven?

Post automatically merged: Jul 22, 2025

If God could be made obvious, like the Sun in the sky, we would be forced to believe or else be fools. Only a fool would deny the existence of the Sun. But God is not so obvious, and we have the ability to choose faith as an act of will, or to reject it. Without the right of rejection, we are not free to choose; and if we had proof, we would no longer have the power to reject what is proven.

I believe this is the standard theological answer.

Post automatically merged: Jul 22, 2025

My answer: If it could be done, someone would have done it by now, considering the amount of brainpower devoted to it over the centuries

 

[IllusiveOwl]

Why God cannot be proven?

Nani!?!?

I thought you were God, king! What happened?

 

[HoldAll]

When I was little my very pious Catholic mum told me about the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

but admitted herself that they were not very convincing. The average person believing in God without necessarily being religious frequently challenge atheists by saying, "But somebody must have created all this, right?" without being aware that there were actually religions like Hinduism and Buddism who proceed from the assumption of a perennial world without any need for a creator god (ok, it's actually more complicated than that) where the common people in Asia will allegedly often say, "The universe is like a wheel, it has neither beginning nor end".

The old Jewish Kabbalists were all in agreement that God as the transcendent Eyn Sof was ineffable and could never be described nor experienced, only His expression in the form of His creation, i.e. this world we're living in. How can you prove a transcendent god? By the very definition of transcendence you can't. You can only interpret certain phenomena as signs of His divine working and presence in our word. Atheists either deny these phenomena (such as miracles, for example) or interpret them in an entirely different way. Discussions about the existence of god usually falter because the disputing parties are unable to agree what exactly should be regarded as proof in the first place.

Personally, I think that people will always believe what they want, and that includes atheists - the only difference is that they will always believe in their own denial of God. Me, I'm an

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, meaning that I don't care one way or another. I guess I would be an agnostic if I could be bothered enough.

 

[Kepler]

Fallibilism

 

[Konsciencia]

Nani!?!?

I thought you were God, king! What happened?

I am Illusive Oil, but I just thought to play around. Oohh!! My friend I am very much my own Infinite Self.

 

[IllusiveOwl]

I am Illusive Oil, but I just thought to play around. Oohh!! My friend I am very much my own Infinite Self.

Okay... What BREED of owl am I? Surely, if you are me, you would know such a basic fact of my being!

Post automatically merged: Jul 22, 2025

Oh wait, you said Illusive Oil nevermind.

Color me disappointed.

 

[Konsciencia]

Okay... What BREED of owl am I? Surely, if you are me, you would know such a basic fact of my being!

Post automatically merged: Jul 22, 2025

Oh wait, you said Illusive Oil nevermind.

Color me disappointed.

I don't want to go off topic but I am just beginning to realize that I am my Own Infinite Self. I have to raise my level of Awareness in order for me to reach my totality. Although, I am going with what I have planned on my end. However, I think there might be just a little individualization in me. I make it complicated to Myself.

 

[IllusiveOwl]

I am just beginning to realize that I am my Own Infinite Self. I have to raise my level of Awareness in order for me to reach my totality.

Yes, many of us have come to this conclusion on our own and are practicing to achieve this ascension of awareness, however do you notice that most of us don't go around preaching that we are the Infinite God as Messiah's? It's cringe and accomplishes nothing but deserved questions on whether or not you've taken your meds.

Why God cannot be proven?

In response to the question, I find it silly. Our very conscious being, the intangible thing that is Life itself behind the image of dead matter, is a profoundly magical mystery that only something akin to the concept of "God" could come up with, I prefer calling it The All or Dao. Atheists are children, just as theists are, Mystics are the ones who know what's up, they're the only ones who have the nerve to get direct answers around here.

In short, god can be proven, but you need to get the proof yourself through direct experience.

I have to cite Jung, it's a clinical condition of mine. He was asked if he believed in God, and he said "I don't believe, I know."

 

[Konsciencia]

Yes, many of us have come to this conclusion on our own and are practicing to achieve this ascension of awareness, however do you notice that most of us don't go around preaching that we are the Infinite God as Messiah's? It's cringe and accomplishes nothing but deserved questions on whether or not you've taken your meds.


In response to the question, I find it silly. Our very conscious being, the intangible thing that is Life itself behind the image of dead matter, is a profoundly magical mystery that only something akin to the concept of "God" could come up with, I prefer calling it The All or Dao. Atheists are children, just as theists are, Mystics are the ones who know what's up, they're the only ones who have the nerve to get direct answers around here.

In short, god can be proven, but you need to get the proof yourself through direct experience.

I have to cite Jung, it's a clinical condition of mine. He was asked if he believed in God, and he said "I don't believe, I know."

Once I discovered this for Myself. I knew that I must keep it to Myself. I am not here to save the world.

Post automatically merged: Jul 22, 2025

Yes, many of us have come to this conclusion on our own and are practicing to achieve this ascension of awareness, however do you notice that most of us don't go around preaching that we are the Infinite God as Messiah's? It's cringe and accomplishes nothing but deserved questions on whether or not you've taken your meds.


In response to the question, I find it silly. Our very conscious being, the intangible thing that is Life itself behind the image of dead matter, is a profoundly magical mystery that only something akin to the concept of "God" could come up with, I prefer calling it The All or Dao. Atheists are children, just as theists are, Mystics are the ones who know what's up, they're the only ones who have the nerve to get direct answers around here.

In short, god can be proven, but you need to get the proof yourself through direct experience.

I have to cite Jung, it's a clinical condition of mine. He was asked if he believed in God, and he said "I don't believe, I know."

And yesss, I like your point on how one finds God.

 

[Morell]

This is the question I came across. I have my own answers to that question, but I want to here from you all. What do you think?

Why God cannot be proven?

Maybe because the certainty of god would not serve humanity in the current time and state. There seem to be some who know god, but it is a knowledge gained for a price, isn't it? I think it's a good thing that we cannot just prove god, but need reach into spiritual to learn about gods first hand.
Maybe for the better. More than enough people take too much pride of "knowing" the god and claiming him to be on their side as an excuse for their hypocrisy and pride. (and many other sins as well) Would it be good for bad people to have more of the knowledge of the divine?

For myself I would say that it doesn't matter, if there is the one god or not. It doesn't change anything for me and my path.

 

[Trialectical_Materialist]

This is the question I came across. I have my own answers to that question, but I want to here from you all. What do you think?

Why God cannot be proven?

Which one? The being of universal forms which matter imitates is the best evidence for a higher function of intellect. Untouchable, non spatial objects, that only the mind can grasp, yet exist truly in every mind, and all matter is forced to resemble them. Such as number. All exists in certain quantity, yet quantity itself can only be beheld by the mind and above.

 

[Taudefindi]

Because the concept of "proof" is human and mostly tied to science and reason, while god is tied to faith which is belief despite the lack of proof and thus requires no reason.

I conside myself an atheist(yes, an atheist that practices occultism and other sorts of esoteric and spiritual paths is an irony and that isn't lost on me) but I do not exactly tell others that I don't believe god exists.First because people can believe whatever they want, so long they're not hurting others with their faith, and second because it's more like it doesn't matter much to me.

I have two views of god, one is that god is just an energy of sorts that exists and permeates everything, that energy does not have a consciousness but it follows a hidden directive that makes it do what it does(whatever it is) and because the thing called "god" is an energy and not a being, it cannot be interact with the way you would with either a sapient or non-sapient lifeform.It just is, the way the alleged dark energy is.It exists and it may be used in a way if figured out it's properties.

The other view is that god isn't this powerful figure(because if he was then there would be a myriad of questions regarding the other claims made of him), but more of an entity that has some measure of power, so not really the omnipowerful and omniscient creator-being the Bible speaks of, but just a being above humanity.The most apt comparison I can make are ants and humans, which in this case god would be a human while we would be ants.

In both views, a person would need a direct interaction with god for it/him to be proven to the person.But that is one person experiencing that, how to make others experience the same?They can't, because perception is something of the self and no one else can perceive the same as you even if you're both seeing the same thing, because our perception is influenced by our understanding of reality, our personality and our mindset.So how do you create proof that will affect everyone in the same way?Each person would need to have proof tailored to their perception, and so far I do not believe someone(or something) would be capable of that on such a huge scale.

So god will stay a subjective talk subject, rather than an objective one.

 

[Johny111]

Mystics do not need to prove anything. God is perhaps a part of the experience, so if we lack experience, we engage in speculation. For example, theologians, they do not have experience, which is why they invented spectacular mental gymnastics.

 

[Konsciencia]

Because the concept of "proof" is human and mostly tied to science and reason, while god is tied to faith which is belief despite the lack of proof and thus requires no reason.

I conside myself an atheist(yes, an atheist that practices occultism and other sorts of esoteric and spiritual paths is an irony and that isn't lost on me) but I do not exactly tell others that I don't believe god exists.First because people can believe whatever they want, so long they're not hurting others with their faith, and second because it's more like it doesn't matter much to me.

I have two views of god, one is that god is just an energy of sorts that exists and permeates everything, that energy does not have a consciousness but it follows a hidden directive that makes it do what it does(whatever it is) and because the thing called "god" is an energy and not a being, it cannot be interact with the way you would with either a sapient or non-sapient lifeform.It just is, the way the alleged dark energy is.It exists and it may be used in a way if figured out it's properties.

The other view is that god isn't this powerful figure(because if he was then there would be a myriad of questions regarding the other claims made of him), but more of an entity that has some measure of power, so not really the omnipowerful and omniscient creator-being the Bible speaks of, but just a being above humanity.The most apt comparison I can make are ants and humans, which in this case god would be a human while we would be ants.

In both views, a person would need a direct interaction with god for it/him to be proven to the person.But that is one person experiencing that, how to make others experience the same?They can't, because perception is something of the self and no one else can perceive the same as you even if you're both seeing the same thing, because our perception is influenced by our understanding of reality, our personality and our mindset.So how do you create proof that will affect everyone in the same way?Each person would need to have proof tailored to their perception, and so far I do not believe someone(or something) would be capable of that on such a huge scale.

So god will stay a subjective talk subject, rather than an objective one.

I like your views and thoughts on the subject. Much Love.

 

[Clear]

Thats a pretty good reason, for most, as they lack the imagination or resonance. Same thing, in the end. Beginning and during as well.

 

[AbammonTheGreat]

God can not be proven from a naturalistic, reductive, or material framework. He can be reasonably and logically approached but only as a glimpse. Theres a long tradition of philosophers approaching proofs of and axioms that lay out an expectation for his existence. However, what we require for "proof" in modernity is something that is measurable. And you cant measure eternity, infinity, or transcendence. So the hegemonious worldview rejects the notion of logical proof because you cant measure an axiom, it is an assumption you either start from or discover through a process of negation.

And this largely stems from scientific epistemology as well as from the otherside of the aisle in post modern humanities with an epistemology rooted in solipsism. There are however many people who have been able to offer ontological proofs for God. But an ontological proof is not accepted by people who require a natural and material explanation which is the burden our modern institutions place on whether something exists.

 

[FireBorn]

It is a subjective. Evil itself cannot be proven. My contacts with demons cannot be proven, hell, all of my experiences cannot be proven either (yet we read a book written in the 12th century with the same experiences and take it as gospel? anyway lol)

All of religion and spiritual stuff, including magick is subjective. I am 100% at peace with that fact. So what it cannot be proven?

Does it diminish your experience?

What would change about what you are doing if the Christian god, or your personal deity/spirit were proven objectively real?

The idea of god being real or not real only matters to you against your experience. Its not a dig, just the truth about it.

 

[Trialectical_Materialist]

It

Does it diminish your experience?

What would change about what you are doing if the Christian god, or your personal deity/spirit were proven objectively real?

The idea of god being real or not real only matters to you against your experience. Its not a dig, just the truth about it.

I have to strongly disagree with everything here. First of all there is objective knowledge and second people should not be content with opinion only, for the same reason you should look for a real partner instead of settling for an AI girlfriend app. That which has being is always going to be superior than that which is in the interval between being and not being.