Why doesn't God prove himself?

[Snap]

Why doesn't God simply reveal himself to us?
If he exists, why does he remain invisible?
If he exists, why is he silent?
Why does a leap of faith justify his existence?
Why would he expect us to believe him in the absence of proof?
Why would he expect us to think irrationally in order to believe in him?
Is God opposed to logical thought processes? If so, why?
If you could prove God, then believed in him, would that count or would that be considered cheating? In other words, will God reward you only if you believe in him based on faith but not proof?

Seriously, folks, what theological premise explains why God neither speaks to us nor shows himself to us? What is the teaching/doctrine re: this?

Also, please don't say that he reveals himself to us through his creations. That's like me saying that I built a house and you should get to know me by looking at and examining the house. If I built the house, I'll be all too happy to talk with you about it. So why does God not do the same thing?

2nd Also: Don't say that God has appointed messengers (other humans) to speak on his behalf. For example: If I ask John to speak on my behalf to you, I will tell you one-on-one that I have appointed John to do so. I would never expect you to take John's word for it. So why does God not do the same thing?

3rd Also: Please don't be offended. If you can win me over, you can. If you cannot answer these questions, you cannot. I don't mean to appear hostile.

Thanks muchly for your time and your intelligent consideration.

[Checkmite]

My argument would be that God doesn't reveal himself because he really doesn't care what we think, ultimately.

But I think you might've been expecting an answer from a different sort of believer...

[Bikewer]

Certainly the OT God was not shy; burning bushes, splitting seas, plagues, pillars of salt....

[Skeptic Guy]

That's always been my argument when believers say that God is above the day to day happenings on Earth. When did that change?

[bigred]

Why doesn't God simply reveal himself to us?Directly, I assume you mean. Would it matter? Frankly, I suspect for you and many agnostics/atheists like you (it seems a given that you fit into one of those categories, pardon if not) that even if He did so in any "concrete" or supposedly "scientific" way, would shortly thereafter dismiss it as a trick or illusion or etc etc. So why bother? Also, see the 'absence of proof' answer below.

If he exists, why does he remain invisible?He isn't. But you have to look.

If he exists, why is he silent?He isn't. But you have to listen.

OK OK....you are making the (amazingly common) mistake of trying to act as if God is simply some physical being like ourselves. He is not.

Why does a leap of faith justify his existence?Frankly, this question doesn't really make sense. I guess you meant how does it "prove" His existance-? It doesn't.

Why would he expect us to believe him in the absence of proof?Because that's the only way (or at the very least the "main" way) believing in Him has any value. It's easy to believe in something that's right there and proven beyond any doubt. BFD. But believing in something (or someone) who isn't is something special. Are you saying you've never believed in someone or put faith in someone in some way, even though you questioned the circumstances around it? If so, you're in quite a minority.

Why would he expect us to think irrationally in order to believe in him?:rolleyes: "Irrational" is quite often a highly subjective term.

Is God opposed to logical thought processes? If so, why?No. Are you? If so, why?


If you could prove God, then believed in him, would that count or would that be considered cheating? In other words, will God reward you only if you believe in him based on faith but not proof?He obviously cannot be "proven" in any scientific sense, but who's to say who he does "reward" or not and why?

Seriously, folks, what theological premise explains why God neither speaks to us nor shows himself to us? What is the teaching/doctrine re: this?He reveals himself to us through his creations and has appointed messengers (other humans) to speak on his behalf.

Also, please don't say that he reveals himself to us through his creations. OOPS sorry. ;)

That's like me saying that I built a house and you should get to know me by looking at and examining the house. If I built the house, I'll be all too happy to talk with you about it. So why does God not do the same thing?You're right. God doesn't do things the way you would if you built a house; therefore ,He doesn't exist.

2nd Also: Don't say that God has appointed messengers (other humans) to speak on his behalf. dang did it again....sorry...

For example: If I ask John to speak on my behalf to you, I will tell you one-on-one that I have appointed John to do so. I would never expect you to take John's word for it. So why does God not do the same thing?Yeah - again how dare God not do things the way you would?? No way can He exist!


3rd Also: Please don't be offended. I've never been offended by anyone questioning God's existance in itself.

If you can win me over, you can. lol. Yeah right, I believe that. Sorry not nearly that gullible. This has troll written all over it (but what the hey, it's a slow night).

If you cannot answer these questions, you cannot. I don't mean to appear hostile.I just did. I fully expect you and most others not to care for the answers, but I did anyway. So there. :cool:

Thanks muchly for your time and your intelligent consideration.Not at all. And if your curiousity/interest is sincere, I wish you well on your path to enlightenment or karma or Mass or test tubes or wherever it leads you.

[jjramsey]

Directly, I assume you mean. Would it matter? Frankly, I suspect for you and many agnostics/atheists like you (it seems a given that you fit into one of those categories, pardon if not) that even if He did so in any "concrete" or supposedly "scientific" way, would shortly thereafter dismiss it as a trick or illusion or etc etc.

If God appeared only to a few people, we probably would. After several blatant manifestations, at least some of us would be saying, "Ok, we get it, we get it."

Because that's the only way (or at the very least the "main" way) believing in Him has any value. It's easy to believe in something that's right there and proven beyond any doubt. BFD. But believing in something (or someone) who isn't is something special.

But not necessarily special in a good way. Sure, sometimes we need to take a risk and put some level of trust in something that we aren't entirely sure about. Even then, we have, or at least we should have reasons for the level of trust that we have. That's called taking a calculated risk, and that is very different from putting one's trust into something that has offered poor reasons for such trust and even shown signs of not being trustworthy at all.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ockham's Razor cuts very fine.

[Snap]

Well, bigred, I don't blame you for suspecting me a troll. I often wonder about the sincerity of posters in any Forum. After all, a lot of people like to "play" other people and then laugh and "feel intellectually superior" in the process.

I will, however, re-read your answers, but am too tired to do so anymore tonight.

I don't have the answers to the questions I've asked, but I do appreciate your pointing out the "baiting" aspects of them, which implies that I thought I had the answers. I wasn't fully aware that I was doing that.

Honest questions really should be open-ended and free of assumed answers on the part of the interrogator.

If not, then it may be just another joke or game. That's hopefully not my intent, unless I'm deceiving myself on some level.

Ah, such is so! Thank you.

[Autolite]

Hey Snap. I really don't have the answers to all your questions save the first one ... there is no god. I am not trying to be smug with your queries, valid as they are, but the fact that god does not exist should render most of the other questions moot. If you would like detailed answers for the questions you've posed you may want to perhaps consider asking them again on a christian web forum. There you would likely receive a plethora of convoluted rationale which will only probably leave you in deeper confusion. I can attest that searching for logical or satisfactory answers to your questions is a lost cause. You are looking for logic in a realm of anti-logic. Good luck...

[Broes]

Wait, I have people seen awnser your question in a very convincing way...
Lemme try it...

"Because it says so in the Bible!"


Did that convince you?

Bruce

[Darth Rotor]

Why doesn't God simply reveal himself to us?
If he exists, why does he remain invisible?
If he exists, why is he silent?
Why does a leap of faith justify his existence?
Why would he expect us to believe him in the absence of proof?
Why would he expect us to think irrationally in order to believe in him?
Is God opposed to logical thought processes? If so, why?
If you could prove God, then believed in him, would that count or would that be considered cheating? In other words, will God reward you only if you believe in him based on faith but not proof?


Your question assumes that God has insecurity issues, which might be answered, if one were to pick a line in Scripture for this, in the negative.

"I am that I am." I don't see a need to prove much of anything there. From that, one could argue that God is "comfortable in His own skin," as it were. (Caveat: there is a bit of "projecting human habits on God" with this line of thinking.)

Why would you assume that God has insecurity issues, or a need to prove anything since the Crucifiction?

DR

[Tex]

Why would you assume that God has insecurity issues, or a need to prove anything since the Crucifiction?


No, he wouldn't need to prove anything. But he supposedly wants all to believe and be saved. So why the roundabout approach of expecting us to deduce his existence indirectly? He could expend an infinitesimal fraction of his infinite powers to appear directly to each of us in some tangible form to answer our questions. Saying that this expectation is "projecting human habits on God" may be true, but still doesn't explain why he doesn't do it. It has been said by some that such a direct approach would violate our free will and eliminate the need for faith. Yet, miracles abound in the bible. According to the story, Thomas was given the opportunity to see firsthand and believe, even though "blessed are those who have not seen and have yet believed". So why wouldn't a moral god afford us sceptics the same opporunity to believe by firsthand experience and be saved from eternal torture, even if we must forego such extra "blessings" which stem from unseen belief?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Your question assumes that God has insecurity issues, which might be answered, if one were to pick a line in Scripture for this, in the negative.

"I am that I am." I don't see a need to prove much of anything there. From that, one could argue that God is "comfortable in His own skin," as it were. (Caveat: there is a bit of "projecting human habits on God" with this line of thinking.)

Why would you assume that God has insecurity issues, or a need to prove anything since the Crucifiction?

DR

Isn't it interesting that God's name is a verb, and an irregular one at that?

[kbm99]

Snap -

You are anthropomorphizing god a bit with this line of questioning, assigning him human attributes and values which are probably not appropriate. I think the answer, ultimately is, that we are in no position to demand or expect anything from god, and he is in no way obliged to answer us. Being unknowable is something of a prerequisite for being god.

Of course, from my perspective neither are you obliged to concede that an ultimately unknowable, undefinable being is in any way relevant - or real.

[Michael Redman]

It is ridiculous to assert that spektics wouldn't believe in a regularly and obviously participatory God. We didn't deny the existence of the sun and the moon and the stars before adequate proof demonstrated what they are. If God had been around all this time, regularly manifesting, communicating, and interacting with the world, no one would doubt it.

Snap -

You are anthropomorphizing god a bit with this line of questioning, assigning him human attributes and values which are probably not appropriate.According to the Bible, we were made in his image. It is entirely appropriate.

[IMST]

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
No further comment.

[bobcarp]

Why doesn't God simply reveal himself to us?

Directly, I assume you mean. Would it matter? Frankly, I suspect for you and many agnostics/atheists like you (it seems a given that you fit into one of those categories, pardon if not) that even if He did so in any "concrete" or supposedly "scientific" way, would shortly thereafter dismiss it as a trick or illusion or etc etc. So why bother? Also, see the 'absence of proof' answer below.

If one of the other thousands of gods revealed themselves to you would do the same dismissal as a trick or illusion or would you accept and devote your life to them?

If he exists, why does he remain invisible?

He isn't. But you have to look.

So when you looked and saw god, what did he look like? How tall? Color hair? Bald?

If he exists, why is he silent?

He isn't. But you have to listen.

So when you heard him what did he sound like? Low voice? High voice? Loud? Soft spoken?

OK OK....you are making the (amazingly common) mistake of trying to act as if God is simply some physical being like ourselves. He is not.

But above you said we can see/hear him if we look/listen. Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?

Why does a leap of faith justify his existence?

Frankly, this question doesn't really make sense. I guess you meant how does it "prove" His existence-? It doesn't.

Then why do people say, “you just have to have faith” when I ask them to justify his existence. I agree with you it doesn’t prove his existence, but it’s the answer believers give. Ya’ll need to find a new answer to that question I guess.

Why would he expect us to believe him in the absence of proof?

Because that's the only way (or at the very least the "main" way) believing in Him has any value. It's easy to believe in something that's right there and proven beyond any doubt. BFD. But believing in something (or someone) who isn't is something special. Are you saying you've never believed in someone or put faith in someone in some way, even though you questioned the circumstances around it? If so, you're in quite a minority.

Again, it seems that all of the gods have this same MO of wanting us to believe without any proof. Did they all get together and set these “Ground Rules” about what each god can and cannot do to procure followers? Did the devil also agree on these ground rules.

Why would he expect us to think irrationally in order to believe in him?

:rolleyes: "Irrational" is quite often a highly subjective term.

So you don’t think people that believe in astrology, ouiji boards, wishing wells, etc. are irrational?

Is God opposed to logical thought processes? If so, why?

No. Are you? If so, why?

No, that’s why I/we use logical thought process, but it doesn’t answer why god requires that we abandon logical thought process to believe in him/her/it. I could abandon logical thought and believe in unicorns too, but I’m an clear thinking adult and I know all the faith in the world that unicorns exists isn’t going to mean unicorns exist.

If you could prove God, then believed in him, would that count or would that be considered cheating? In other words, will God reward you only if you believe in him based on faith but not proof?

He obviously cannot be "proven" in any scientific sense, but who's to say who he does "reward" or not and why?

Who’s to say Muslim martyrs aren’t rewarded. Who’s to say any believer in any god is or isn’t rewarded in the after life. Take the same logic that you use to look at other gods/religions and apply them to yours.

[kbm99]

According to the Bible, we were made in his image. It is entirely appropriate.

I don't recall having said anything about the Bible, and I don't notice that the OP says anything about the Bible, either. I'll grant that it may be reasonable to assume he is thinking about the god of Jewish/Christian/Muslim tradition, but that's certainly not explicitly stated.

I agree that the bit about man being made in his image in Genesis leads one to assign many anthropomorphic attributes to Yahweh, and that is exactly why Yahweh was the first god I stopped believing in, if you understand what I mean by that.

[Michael Redman]

I don't recall having said anything about the Bible, and I don't notice that the OP says anything about the Bible, either. I'll grant that it may be reasonable to assume he is thinking about the god of Jewish/Christian/Muslim tradition, but that's certainly not explicitly stated.

I agree that the bit about man being made in his image in Genesis leads one to assign many anthropomorphic attributes to Yahweh, and that is exactly why Yahweh was the first god I stopped believing in, if you understand what I mean by that.
I think a biblical-style onmiscient, onmipotent, personal God is a premise of the question. Otherwise, there would be as many answers to the question as there are possible other meanings of "God".

[Bob Klase]

Why would you assume that God has insecurity issues

I would say that any being who's as jealous and vengeful as god (as indicated by the bible) has insecurity issues. But I suppose that would be limited to beings that actually exist.

[Wowbagger]

God is not obligated to prove Himself to anyone!!
People only need to prove to themselves that He exists, and that is good enough proof for them!!


(Of course, there are other people who are well aware of the fact that no one is immune to self-delusion...)

[Faithkills]

Directly, I assume you mean. Would it matter? Frankly, I suspect for you and many agnostics/atheists like you (it seems a given that you fit into one of those categories, pardon if not) that even if He did so in any "concrete" or supposedly "scientific" way, would shortly thereafter dismiss it as a trick or illusion or etc etc. So why bother? Also, see the 'absence of proof' answer below.

Bunk. People said man could not fly in fixed wing aircraft. They flew one. Case closed.

God just has to appear.

He isn't. But you have to look.

Where should we look for evidence? If you know you can solve this whole god business and save everyone a lot of trouble.

He isn't. But you have to listen.

See above.

OK OK....you are making the (amazingly common) mistake of trying to act as if God is simply some physical being like ourselves. He is not.

No problem. We have evidence of all sorts of non physical phenomena, magnetism, radiatio, gravity.. We aren't asking that he be material.

Because that's the only way (or at the very least the "main" way) believing in Him has any value. It's easy to believe in something that's right there and proven beyond any doubt. BFD. But believing in something (or someone) who isn't is something special. Are you saying you've never believed in someone or put faith in someone in some way, even though you questioned the circumstances around it? If so, you're in quite a minority.

Doesn't this idea of believing with something without proof lend itself to massive abuse? Why would god inflict such a thing on us when there is absolutely no way for anyone who swallows this faith concept to distinguish between 'genuine' revelation and otherwise. I presume you think your conception of religion is the right one, but all the other pernicious murderous, manipulative, and presumably soul damning, ones make use of this same idea, that faith is the key. Why would god engender this when it lets all these people be misled so horrifically, their very souls are at risk, and the souls of their victims who may never be saved?

I would think god may be a little beyond this egoistic need for us to 'believe' in him, since it seems he doesn't really care that most of the world believes the wrong thing.

:rolleyes: "Irrational" is quite often a highly subjective term.

Not in the sense we use it. It's only subjective to believers. To skeptics if you show us evidence we are wrong it's irrational to continue to believe.

He obviously cannot be "proven" in any scientific sense, but who's to say who he does "reward" or not and why?

Why can he not be proven? What makes you think this?

He reveals himself to us through his creations and has appointed messengers (other humans) to speak on his behalf.

So again, this seems really bad. People can't know who are genuine messengers and who are just power mongering. Since so many believe false prophets this just seems downright negligent on god's part. Children who grow up in the wrong religion never really have a chance.

[Dorian Gray]

Doesn't exist. All you have to do is look and/or listen, and you'd see that.

[Bri]

Isn't the standard answer that God wants us to be able to act of our own free will, and if we knew for certain of his existence, we would not be able to do so?

-Bri

[c4ts]

Isn't the standard answer that God wants us to be able to act of our own free will, and if we knew for certain of his existence, we would not be able to do so?

-Bri

Why should proof depend on the illusion of free will? And if knowing this would deny us free will, why does it not also deny God the same, since he automatically knows?

[Bri]

Why should proof depend on the illusion of free will? And if knowing this would deny us free will, why does it not also deny God the same, since he automatically knows?

I am providing a typical Christian explanation, which would depend on the premises that (among other things) 1) we have free will, 2) God exists and is omnipotent, and 3) God wants us to freely choose right/good over wrong/evil.

Surely knowing for certain of God's existence would preclude us from being able to freely choose between right and wrong.

You are getting a bit off-topic discussing whether God's knowing of his own existence would preclude him from having free will, however I don't see any reason why it would. If I hold a gun to your head and force you to rob a bank, I am certainly limiting your freedom to choose whether or not to rob a bank, but am in no way limiting my own freedom in that regard.

-Bri

[Beerina]

Isn't the standard answer that God wants us to be able to act of our own free will, and if we knew for certain of his existence, we would not be able to do so?

-Bri

Yes, but then the next observation comes up: "Then why the vague, unprovable threats of eternal damnation as a reason to obey other vague, unprovable, rather odd rules on how to live?"

Ooh! I wonder what's on Big Brother tonight?

[JoeEllison]

Most of the answers to these sorts of questions show the intellectual bankruptcy of the whole "god belief", especially of the Abrahamic type. It mainly brings up the contradiction of "God wants us to do these things" with "We cannot know or ascribe things to God". It is a cheat, a fraud, a way to create a win-win for the believer in the absence of evidence and rational thinking.

For instance, if you say "God wants us to accept Jesus so that we can be saved, because he loves us", you can't turn around and say "we can't question why God doesn't appear"... because you've already established that you believe you can answer at least some questions about what "God" wants and why it wants them.

*shrugs*

Some people are fond of rational thinking and logic. Others value their imaginary friends more. It takes all kinds, I guess.

[Bri]

For instance, if you say "God wants us to accept Jesus so that we can be saved, because he loves us", you can't turn around and say "we can't question why God doesn't appear"...

All Abrahamic religions say we can't question why God doesn't appear? More to the point, the OP already did.

-Bri

[Bri]

Yes, but then the next observation comes up: "Then why the vague, unprovable threats of eternal damnation as a reason to obey other vague, unprovable, rather odd rules on how to live?"

I imagine one explanation is that in order to choose to do right instead of wrong, you have to know what constitutes "right" and "wrong."

-Bri