If there really is a God, then why didn't he leave proof of his existence?
Should I take his word for it?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
From a philosophical point of view, there is a very big problem, which consists in the fact that the existence of any subject other than myself is very difficult, almost impossible to prove strictly.�
And, if we go further, the existence of the self is also a big question: the same Buddhism, for example, rejects the substantial existence of the”I”. The material world is even worse.
In this sense, the philosophical status of God or, if we talk about paganism, the gods is not unique.
It all depends on what is considered proof. You see, in science there are different types of evidence – strict and not strict.
For example, we have a hypothesis that the total resistance of the circuit when connected in series adds up.
How can we strictly prove this hypothesis? No way. Any measurement of current flowing in different circuits with the same voltage-all this will always be only inductive, that is, not a strict proof.
Suppose the phenomenon of Human resurrection is discovered. At the same time, the death was witnessed by a whole consultation of doctors and pathologists, but the Person still came to life, despite the fact that He was declared irrevocably dead. What can this phenomenon mean? Does he strictly prove that there is a God? The answer is no. All this proves is that something has happened that we previously thought was impossible in our experience. In other words, our experience was flawed. Here are the cases.
Question : would it be correct to believe a Person if He says that He knows exactly how He was resurrected? Personally, I think that this is simply the only way out of the situation. And if a Person said that He would rise again even before He died and was declared irrevocably dead, then even more so.
In fact, Christianity always remains a faith. We just saw the phenomenon of the Resurrection of a Person, and believed this Person.
Once a polytheist was asked to answer…
The Gentiles are not creationists for the most part, but manifestationists. That is, the world and people in our understanding are not the creation of the gods, but their manifestation in this world. Consequently, the gods never needed to set aside any of their proofs. The world itself and we in it are the main proof.�
The sun (a ball of incandescent plasma in space ) is a manifestation of the solar gods. Their work machine, if you will. Wind, earth, sky, crafts and skills, life and death-all this is in the world? Definitely. Can this exist without the gods? From the point of view of atheists-quite, but in our understanding it is not.
I read the comments under the first answer. “Can God come and prove to me that he is God” – of course he can. But the question is-does he need it? Almost any communication between man and God took place on the initiative of man. Start praying and calling out to the gods , and then maybe they'll come and show you and tell you. Because they don't need it in the first place. They have enough work of their own, and they don't give a damn about people.
God has recently been very busy providing proof of his existence by personally visiting non-believers to provide them with a signed and sealed certificate, as well as photocopies of their birth certificate, passport, and driver's license, because he so “needs” the opinion of proof lovers that he will definitely come to show them to you…))))
No, you shouldn't.
And if the world and you are not proof, what proof can there be for you that a Higher Intelligence created both the world and you in the world?
You can put it more simply. If you believe only your eyes, pluck them out, for they often lie to you. If you believe only what you hear, pierce your ears, for they may lie to you. Only the Truth – never lies. For it is from your God. Who gave you eyes and ears and a heart, so that your faith might be even stronger)
First answer from the link: short, logical, and understandable. If everything can be explained without the hypothesis of God, then why on earth is this hypothesis correct? According to legend, something similar was answered by Laplace to Napoleon when asked where God is in his reasoning. And people offer to believe in the word, not the gods. If there were a God(s), we would know for sure.
Why, if there is a God, does he not give reliable and convincing information about himself?
Some simpleton knows how to put a question in such a way that hundreds of wise men will not find the answer! And the essence of such a statement of the question is to falsify the Truth.
For example, how could it happen that the questioner did not turn his head and see that “NATURE is an ICON OF GOD”? The essence of the MIND of the Universe is in ITS Wisdom!
And how is it that the questioner did not see the “traces” of this Mind in the LAWS of the universe and the Existence of all things!?
And if he didn't have enough understanding to do that, here's the latest trace of that proof:
.. And it came to pass, and then-He rose again!
There is evidence of this in history!
So what? Not enough evidence?
The proof of God's existence is the world itself. This can only be proved indirectly.
There are two types of evidence. Inductive-enumeration of belonging to the known obvious through an infinite chain of existing variants according to certain characteristics. Deductive – attribution to the known obvious through logical operations. Both types of evidence are not absolute, because they rest on a) the presence of evidence of something, as a given that does not require proof. and b) the very “evidence” can be questioned in connection with the so-called psycho-physical problem – the boundary between our consciousness and the outside world, which we cross only through the senses. An attempt to overcome this boundary strictly logically cannot be successful, since it rests on sollipsism (the world is a complex of my feelings). Therefore, the truth of the present world is determined by us indirectly – through practice, experience. But it also doesn't cross the psycho-physical boundary.
Just as the truth of the present physical and social world is determined by us through physical and social practice, the truth of the sacred world becomes apparent only through sacred practices. References to the fact that the latter are not always available to everyone can be countered by saying that not all physical and social practices are always available to everyone: not everyone has seen America and can prove the Newtonian binomial. This does not mean that America does not exist and Newton, between us, considered himself a theologian, and not a physicist/mathematician.
There isn't even a word for it. You must believe the priests that the prophets spoke the word of God. If God wanted to give a convincing proof of his existence, he could at least leave an inscription made by him personally, and not by intermediaries.
No, you must live a righteous life, otherwise after death you will face very big problems of infinite duration. From what point of view is it righteous? yes, at least from your own point of view, as your conscience could confirm. The problem is that your conscience will not confirm this and will begin to torment you in such a way that you will not be able to calm it down, and forever, this is hell. Right now you just don't realize this problem, but if something clicks and you realize it, then you will desperately start looking for a solution, and only in Christ will you be able to find it.
I will answer from the point of view of an atheist.Although I agree with other authors, faith does not need proof.
God could not leave something behind ,because he is not there.
But there is evidence for the consistent evolution of animals,which is evidence in favor of the fact that it does not exist
A living, omnipotent God is the Creator of everything, regardless of the faith or disbelief of one person or millions of people, and there is a lot of evidence for this: scientific discoveries in chemistry,physics, biology, etc., as well as historical, archaeological, and astronomical ones. God does not approve of credulity. He likes it when a person gets to the bottom of the truth.
“…if you make your ear attentive to wisdom and incline your heart to reflection, if you call for knowledge and call for understanding…Then you will find the knowledge of God ( Proverbs 2: 1-5) You need to compare what you learn from the Bible with scientific facts.
Another way to make sure is to look carefully at the world around you and ask yourself questions.
“For what can be known about God is manifest to them, because God has revealed it to them.
For His invisible power and divine essence, from the foundation of the world through the contemplation of creatures, are visible… ” (Romans 1: 19,20)
You don't have to take anyone's word for it. In the same way, God doesn't have to meet your expectations. You expect that there will be something in the world that will tell you directly that there is a God. But this is nonsense! This would work in the case of extraterrestrials. The testimony of God is the WHOLE world, not something in it. EVERYTHING exists , so it is obvious that God exists. If this is not an argument for you (and for many it is not), then it's okay. To each his own. No one owes anyone anything. No one is bad for what they believe or don't believe.
The existence of God is confirmed by the order, power, and complexity of macroscopic and microscopic creations. Evidence of his work and greatness is everywhere. Psalm 19: 1 says, ” The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the works of His hands.”
The true God, the Creator of the majestic heavenly bodies, has such glory and such splendor that people of the flesh are not able to look at him – “man cannot see Me and live”(Exodus 33: 20). Only angels, spiritual creatures, have the vision to see God's face in the literal sense of the word (Matthew 18: 10). However, this is not given to people, but the Creator allows them to see his beautiful qualities through his Word, the Bible, as well as through the revelation that he gave about himself through his Son Jesus Christ (John 1:18; 14:9).
To find evidence of some ancient civilization, people need to work hard, for example, excavations are underway. It is the same with God, there is a lot of evidence, you need to study the Bible, compare it with history, there are many prophecies, all have come true, and more will come true.
Listen to your CONSCIENCE…I guess that's His voice.What other evidence is needed?)And in general…does He owe us anything?Isn't it the other way around and that's what we owe Him?
Look around you, the whole universe is created by him. All the scientific theories about the big bang that created everything around us are also a kind of religion that you need to believe in. After all, it says so: in the beginning there was nothing, then this nothing shrank to a tiny size of 1000000???? degrees and vzarvalo. What's wrong with religion? We consider the story of the frog princess who was kissed and became a beauty to be a fairy tale. And if you add millions of years, then the frog becomes a person by science. Magic.
The notification asked me to answer this question. I'm sorry, but I can't. It's not that I can't explain the answer to you, it's hard for me to convey it in text. Write and talk a lot. You can answer this question based on logic, philosophy, biology, cosmology, genetic engineering, physics, etc. etc. But I want to add. In any dispute about religion , a scientist and his opponent, a spiritual leader (for example), never come to a 100% conclusion. The conclusion will be made only by the audience of the dispute, who will ask themselves the question ” do I believe ?” And most importantly. Divided into two groups , believers and atheists, people remain people and should not conflict .
The essence of a person is known by his faith. The evil one does not believe that there is good, and the good one does not believe that there is evil. By faith, the essence of man is known. So as not to destroy the wheat along with the tares.
There is a God, whatever that means. It's just that what is now considered God is written in a two-thousand-year-old language. For those people, for their understanding. Wait for the second coming, corresponding to the present, although, kmk, everyone already understands everything.
First of all, it is necessary to determine which of the several hundred gods invented by people (starting from the Stone Age) we are talking about.
The gods are mentioned only in literature, oral farts, writings, drawings, films, and so on. But in real life, none of the gods were ever seen.
If someone claims to have seen one of the gods, ask yourself: why is this person not a liar; if he is not lying , how long has he been hallucinating?
If one of the many gods exists, all his actions must be evaluated properly from the point of view of today. In particular, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. You will see: how everything will fall into place. To do this, just Google “Criminal Case of God” (this material referred to the Christian god named Elohim (aka Yahweh, Sabaoth, Christ). This is enough to understand who we are talking about.
Most importantly, with vast amounts of knowledge and evidence, it is unwise and ridiculous to discuss the existence of a particular god (or gods). To take this seriously, to waste time and energy and spoil relations with our neighbors on the planet because of this is as stupid as seriously discussing the metabolism, for example, at the Chippolino.
There are even more important things. For example: whether your interlocutor is a believer. If he says “yes”, how will he prove his “faithfulness”? What are you willing to do for the sake of your faith? And if he's not ready to defend her , isn't he a hypocrite? Not a speculator? Isn't he an opportunist? Being a believer just a little bit is impossible (just like being a little bit pregnant). Here or absolute faith to the last drop (after all, fanaticism does not exist, because tn. “fanaticism” is the standard of any faith) with all the consequences: dogmatism, observance of fasts, rituals, norms and traditions (from A to Z and literally), or even not to declare yourself as a believer. That is, the interlocutor = atheist.
Of course, I left it, and there's plenty of evidence… The problem is that during the existence of popular religions in Europe(which, by their purpose, are designed to store evidence of the existence of God), they have degraded in order and now practically cannot offer their adherents anything but blind faith. But even this smallness attracts certain people, because even the word God itself already carries great power. But thank God, God does not have a biased attitude towards any nations or countries. It appears periodically to absolutely everyone and everywhere . And thank God there are still original texts of the holy scriptures in which God himself tells about himself and about his plan for creating this world. There are quite a lot of such writings and they are mostly preserved in the territory of modern India, although they were previously distributed everywhere, Perhaps because India is geographically the most isolated part of the continent and wars were extremely rare there. The most famous scripture is the Bhagavad Gita (Song of God) this scripture was written down 5000 years ago. It is written in Sanskrit in verse and contains all the necessary information for life. There are also Shatras, Puranas , Srimat Bhagavatam, upanishads, etc. They tell about God and everything connected with him. This is a huge amount of information, just having come into contact with which you understand that no person can invent it. Some such scriptures about God have been adapted into films, such as the Mahabharata, Vishnu Puranas, etc. In addition, the places described in These scriptures are still preserved in India: Vrindavan, Kurukshetra, etc.
Thus, God left a lot of information about himself. The only question is whether we want to know it or not. After all, he does not impose himself on anyone. He honestly protects our free will, because he only needs pure love from us.
“If there really is a God, then why didn't he leave proof of his existence? Should I take his word for it?”
And what scammers leave evidence of their activities?
Have you ever seen such people?
If this “tovarisch” was really a “god”, then it is unlikely that he would have made a fool of himself and let on the fog, which is what all sorts of charlatans do in various uniforms (cassocks, cassocks) or even without them.
And believe the scammers “at their word” or not-everything is in your hands!
God is in Eternity and is preparing a way out of the Light that is not criminal, without preparation, God cannot come out because no one can stand His glory and everyone will perish, when the time comes ,everyone will see God, but for now you will have to believe or not believe in this godless world.
“Why doesn't God make everyone know that He exists?” This is exactly what we are trying to think about in the framework of one of the programs of our new project “5 questions“. Welcome:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/7pMaXEaSnxI?wmode=opaque
For those who find it easier to understand the printed text, here is a summary of the video:
This issue involves considering it from several different angles.
First, God has already made it possible for everyone to believe in Him. The very existence of the universe, of man, and of the moral law in it already attest to the presence of the Creator.
Second, the entire history of the Israelites and the very person of Jesus Christ bore witness to God. If we expect God to convince every generation and every individual of His existence, then, unfortunately, this is not in His plans.
Third, no miracles and signs can give a person true faith in God, because they can always be attributed to a mass hallucination, the machinations of extraterrestrial civilizations, or anything else.
Finally, and fourthly, it is important that God does not restrict our freedom to believe or disbelieve. Apparently, it is very important that we learn to live by faith in our earthly life.
In order to answer this question, it is necessary to understand how the concept of god (s) appeared in general and why people need it.
Magical thinking was born a long time ago. Experts associate it with the emergence of fantasy, thanks to which people have learned, on the one hand, to predict the future, and on the other – to explain what is happening here and now. Having a fantasy has both its pros and cons. For example, something moves in the bushes. Shadows that look like stripes. What is it, the wind and the play of light in the branches – or a tiger? If there is a wind, then we can not be afraid. If the tiger – you need to run and hide. Those who ran and hid survived.
Thus, the speed of decision-making prevails over accuracy. Our thinking is riddled with a huge amount of cognitive distortion, which is an artifact of an incredibly productive brain. We rarely test our conclusions for objectivity, and at the time of the birth of magism, we simply did not have the tools to do so. Our ancestors were based on fantasy, when they tried to get rid of the horror of uncertainty and uncertainty, from the fear of death, tried to rally the community against the vagaries of nature and the external enemy. This is how proto-religions were born first, and then religions that reflected our primary ideas about “how everything works.”
Today, science, using powerful tools for verifying facts and hypotheses – the scientific method-has provided answers to many questions that our religious ancestors could not have imagined. Even more questions are yet to be answered. But is it worth trying to find answers by resorting to naive, unreliable, archaic tools – such as magical thinking – and justifying your conclusions about what is happening in the world with fantasies and illusions due to mental errors?
You have asked yourself a very important question: should you take the word of those who claim that God exists, but refer to myths, and not to objective data?
Answer: no, you shouldn't. To assert something, and at the same time resort to arguments that themselves need to be confirmed – this is a logical error. Such arguments have no weight.
This is a good question, but it is impossible to give a definite answer.
I'll start with the second question, as it's much simpler. “Do I have to take his word for it?”. No, you shouldn't. You can believe. Or you may not believe it. It's all up to you.
The first question deserves more attention. Why don't we have any proof of God's existence? First, you need to decide what exactly God is for you. There are many religions, and many ideas about this Being (?). Each religion puts forward its own explanations and proofs of the existence of God. However, most of them are reduced to FAITH, not to KNOWLEDGE (although there are some areas that try to link religion and science together, without denying the material physical laws. For example, neotomists).
I will only tell you my vision of this problem – There is no “bearded grandfather” in the sky who looks after us and rules the world. Such an interpretation is only a simplified understanding of the question of God. That's why the “bearded grandpa” can't come down from heaven to earth and say, ” Here I am.”
However, God can be perceived much more deeply. I, as an agnostic, do not presume to assert the presence or absence of some higher power. However, if it exists, it is something immaterial, unknown. This is not a creature that can provide evidence. This is an intangible intelligent force / energy / vector. And an immaterial phenomenon cannot provide material evidence.
Maybe God, the creator (not necessarily in the Orthodox sense) does not want to be known?
Many people don't understand or don't want to see this evidence.
Why are you considering only two options? There is us and God.
Maybe we are subjects, with our own spirit, parts of one common consciousness, which may be God, but parts that have not realized themselves, and are in ignorance, at least many. Lessons that we need to understand in order to recover.
Question: If there was once a single spirit (Creator), why did it split up?
Of course, this may be a delusional hypothesis, but I am very attracted to it.
Great question. Let's find out what evidence of God's existence you would consider convincing if he left it. If you answer this counter-question, it will be possible to talk more specifically. I have been searching for examples of such proofs for a long time, the conditions of which are formed for atheists or those who doubt the existence of God. So far, there are not many examples.