Why God doesn't prove himself beyond a reasonable doubt?
Why we need to go beyond knowledge to seek God?
God is beyond knowledge and the distrustful(faithless ) human mind
people Have Problems With God Beyond Our Understanding
Understanding doesn't mean to have a reasonable hypothesis it means to control, to know completely and exhaustively. So to say "God is beyond our understanding" means we can't deconstruct God, we can't reduce the concept of God to something else, we can't explain the physics or nature of God, we can't know what he's capable, but most of all it means we can't know his reasons for what he does.
There are other atheists who demand God strike them down in front of crowds as proof of His existence, and others who just say that if He really existed, and wanted everyone to believe , then He would just come down from heaven and appear to everyone so that every man could plainly see Him and believe.
The theists, however, believes that God requires very faith&honesty because there is something necessary about it. Hence, to appear to everyone, or make Himself known by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, is to negate what is a necessary condition of having a relationship with God in the first place. To do so would mean that God would appear to everyone and come into a relationship with not a single one of them
The problem with this, of course, is that God requires very faith&honesty rather than sight in order to have a relationship with people.
"Futhermore, science already has logical explanations for the beginning of the universe. Science has already proved that something CAN come from nothing, and since the net energy of the universe is zero"
God created this universe from nothing
God is nothing like us humans and stop thinking about Him in that sense. He simply says for something "be" and it becomes.
God can do anything. He doesn't NEED anything to begin with.He just speaks/think and things happen.
"So the question left is "should I believe in a creator and be a deist?", to which the answer is simple. If there is no evidence, then it is likely (but not proven) that there is no creator."
So, how does this apply to the question of God? God, being an all-powerful, all-knowing being, is beyond our ability to test or understand. Whatever test we may devise to prove that He exists, God can manipulate to give an ambiguous(one not easily understood) answer.
- NDMALv 77 years agoBest Answer
God even went so far as to come in the incarnate form and spoke to the people directly. Yet there were still some who did not believe. Why do you think it would be any different today than it was when Christ walked the earth 2000 years ago?
No, those saying then need God to reveal himself in the flesh and do miracles are being just as disingenuous as Herod was when he asked Christ to perform like a trained dog.. There is more than adequate evidence in nature that points to the Creator, there is testimony in the scriptures, there is the proof of changed lives, there are even more than 2000 studies demonstrating that prayer does have a measurable effect on patient outcomes. Those who deny God have no excuse and are only deluding themselves.
- It Is Always NowLv 77 years ago
Out of the hundreds of contradictions in their religion, even just one simple contradiction can disprove their religion such as "an all perfect god that needs worship". (And I could list several more that immediately disprove the Christian God).
Christians make a lot of ad hoc arguments to justify even the possibility of their god existing, one of them involving the fact that the Bible (the perfect word of God that their entire religion is 100% based upon) is not even a reliable source to be taken literally.
Even if they could argue that their god COULD exist, they have yet to find a reason to believe in that god. All of their arguments have been debunked decades ago, and even if they were still legitimate arguments, they merely argue for the existence of a deistic creator of the universe, and NOT a personal god, such as the gods our religions have thought up.
So the question left is "should I believe in a creator and be a deist?", to which the answer is simple. If there is no evidence, then it is likely (but not proven) that there is no creator. If there is a creator, it does not interact with the universe, so we must ask ourself, how is this any different from a creator that doesn't exist? Either way, it should be assumed that a creator does not exist until evidence of existence or interaction with the universe has been found.
Futhermore, science already has logical explanations for the beginning of the universe. Science has already proved that something CAN come from nothing, and since the net energy of the universe is zero, the universe can simply come to exist due to quantum fluctations. It is very likely that this isn't the only universe either, whether the universe recreates itself in an infinite series of "big crunches" or there are an infinite number of parallel universes, this makes the argument from perfection obsolete.
Since there is no reason to believe in a creator, and you would be a fool to believe in a personal God, the only logical position is the default position of atheism; the lack of belief in gods. Feel free to describe yourself as an "agnostic atheist" but would you really even bother saying you're agnostic about fairies and unicorns? Why treat gods with any more seriousness? If you want to be technical, we're all agnostic about everything, and should only use the term to describe a respectable chance of a claim being true, based on evidence.
As for those who say "religion does good, teaches us morals, gives us hope, etc." they seriously need to wake up and smell the roses. The 9/11 attacks were purely inspired by religion. Religion completely devalues life in fear of death and blind hope for an afterlife. Religion teaches people what to believe rather than how to believe. It preaches ignorance over knowledge, and that believing in something without evidence is a virtue. For those who actually care about truth, rather than believers, it's no wonder than 90% of the scientific community are atheist, and that science relies on evidence and not blind faith or wishful thinking. Some say religion and science go hand in hand, but the truth is, religion is as unscientific as it can possibly get.
- SephLv 77 years ago
Life is about variety not 'getting it right'
Not believing in God is an experience that needs to be had
But I disagree with you, faith it's only a 'necessary condition of having a relationship with God' if God decides so. He could have totally created the universe such that he is objectively detectable and people had relationships with him
- 7 years ago
My God The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not prove himself to mere mortals, you must trust him in faith and he shall reveal himself to you if he so chooses.
You can not test the flying spaghetti monster, he shall unleash himself at his own will.
He is beyond the human understand so none of the senses can find him. He is beyond time and space and is all at once with everything.
He is the great and powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster.
He shall never show himself except into hearts that so choose.
...... just words, we all can make them.Source(s): Atheist
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- james oLv 77 years ago
Thus far, it appears God isn't going to subject Herself to proof, so I would speculate that that is the end of it.
We don't have to like it, but we don't get to critique God.
- 7 years ago
Why should he? Why hasn't evolution proven it's self yet. I still have yet to see a monkey turn into a human.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Because there is no God to prove it self.
- 7 years ago
He can't prove himself, since he doesn't exist.
- Ingrid's MemoryLv 57 years ago
He does, everyday .. only people choose not to see it
- seethepositiveLv 47 years ago
he wants us to have faith. many times we do not see or feel when he has come behind us and assisted us.