What question makes God's existence unlikely?

[Anonymous]

[SixFootSexy]

Divine hiddenness a reference to the idea that God keeps certain aspects of His nature, will, or presence hidden from humans. This concept is often discussed in theology, particularly within Christian thought, where it is suggested that God has chosen to reveal Himself incrementally to humanity, allowing us to know Him better over time.

One of the bible verses says: "And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him." But that means you have to believe before you can 'know' but then aren't we all just 'little god' artificial intelligences? The only problem is that we all die. So regardless of what you believe everyone eventually dies. Then you have to decide, what do I believe in now that could make me live forever? Most people know Jesus resurrects, which is the only reason in my opinion to believe in Christianity, for that hope.

[Asker]

How should have Hod revealed Himself to us? As a physical being?

[SixFootSexy]

Jesus was a physical revelation

[Asker]

But for the people who lived when he lived

[Asker]

But only*

[SixFootSexy]

Yes and?

[SixFootSexy]

That served my original point. Like there was one person in all of human history that was only on earth for 33 years.

[Asker]

Why would he need to be more than that?

[Anonymous]

Here are some of the very interesting quotes:

[Asker]

The first one refers to suffering. If God is real why do we suffer.
The 2nd quote makes no sense.
As for the 3rd one, use common sense and say how can everything come from nothing.
The rock makes 0 sense. He is a spiritual being. He can create he can destroy. He can do anything. His creations can't be more powerful than him.

[Asker]

As for the last one, do you believe in objective morality?

[Opinion Owner]

The 2nd makes perfect sense, animals would also imagine "god" in their own image.
You mean just like "god" can come from nothing?
The rock just proves than nobody can be omnipotent.
Morality is a human invention, animals don't have it, but you can always choose to be a good person, if you have empathy, you don't need imaginary friends for that.

[Asker]

"The 2nd makes perfect sense, animals would also imagine "god" in their own image."
0 sense.
If animals could lol. So why couldn't they? Tell me the reason why animals are unable to believe in God.
"You mean just like "god" can come from nothing?"
I mean answer my question. Of course you can't
The rock proves nothing. God is the most powerful being. He is more powerful than anything he creates. Being a creator of everything is what makes him the most powerful.
"you can always choose to be a good person, if you have empathy, you don't need imaginary friends for that."
Is abortion moral?

[Opinion Owner]

Absolute sense, if you're a reasonable person, but you're obviously not.
Animals don't have consciousness, they are not as evolved as humans.
What is your question?
Nope, if "god" can't create such a rock, he is not omnipotent, fact, and if he can, he is still not omnipotent, because he can't lift it - fact: nobody can be omnipotent, it's logically impossible.
I see that you're a religious freak, so there is no reason for me to use logic, just like one of the quotes said: "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people".

[Asker]

"I see that you're a religious freak, so there is no reason for me to use logic, just like one of the quotes said: "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people".

it's logically impossible.
I see that you're a religious freak, so there is

if you're a reasonable person, but you're obviously not.

I knew you would insult me. That is what some people do when they don't have good arguememts.

"Animals don't have consciousness, they are not as evolved as humans"
Exactly. Beliefs and morals require conciousness.

Animals are animals because they don't have conciousness. If they had they would be humans.
So that quote makes no sense.
As for the rock. No creation can be as great as our creator. No creation is omnipotent. God is omnipotent.

My intelligence is questioned by a person who is unable to bring up his own points and is unable to back up others' points that he brought up.

[Opinion Owner]

LOL, I have arguments, you have only religious mumbling.
There is no point in explaining to you, cause whatever I say, you'll continue to ignore logic.

The quote has absolute logic, cause it explains that animals (if they had conciousness) would also imagine "gods" in their own image, just like you are imagining.

No one can be impotent, as I explained, it's logically impossible, oh, I forgot, you don't understand logic.

Religious people and intelligence... LOL

In what fictional "god" do you believe in? Cause there are thousands of them, all made up by ridiculous humans like you.
Zeus, Odin, Amun, Marduk, Manitou or some other?
What if there is a god, but not the one you believe in?
What if there is a goddess?
What if there are many gods, not mentioned in your book of fairy-tales?

[Asker]

The quote has category error. It attributes human abilities and consciousness to animals while still insisting they remain animals, which creates a logical inconsistency.
It also relies on a hypothetical scenario that does not reflect reality (the idea that animals would create art if they had human-like consciousness and abilities). Such counterfactuals can lead to flawed reasoning because they are built on assumptions that don’t hold true. So the use of animals in this hypothetical situation can be seen as leading to an absurd conclusion—creating a scenario where animals possess human attributes while remaining within their own biological categories. And just because some humans depict gods in their own image does not imply that if animals could create art, they would do the same.
By the way most religous people deem God as a spiritual being not a physical one that looks just like us.

[Asker]

I believe in the creator of the universe

[Opinion Owner]

Nope, the quote is a comparison that shows that lots of animals (if they had consciousness) would be as dumb as some humans, so they would make up a "god" who looks like them.
You are giving human attributes to an imaginary creature, so it's quite logical to give them to animals, considering that animals actually exist.

Sure, every religion has their own illusions.

[Opinion Owner]

So who is your "creator of the universe"?
Where did you see him?
Did he talk to you?

[Asker]

"Nope, the quote is a comparison that shows that lots of animals (if they had consciousness) would be as dumb as some humans, so they would make up a "god" who looks like them."
So you're saying animals are smarter than human beings? Lol

God is a spiritual being. He doesn't look like humans.

"You are giving human attributes to an imaginary creature"

I don't. No human could create universe, send people to hell and take away pure souls to heaven. None of these actions applies to the abilities of human beings.

"So who is your "creator of the universe"?
Where did you see him?
Did he talk to you?"
He is a spiritual being. He is not visible.

[Opinion Owner]

No, I'm not saying that animals are smarter, there are lots of humans who don't believe in imaginary creatures :D

Then why does your book of fairy-tales say that "god created humans in his own image"? ;)

So you believe in invisible creature, can you hear him?

[Asker]

Can I hear him? I said he is not a physical being. He is spiritual. I can't see him. I can't hear him.
I don't know what image means there.

You said "lots of animals (if they had consciousness) would be as dumb as some humans"
So do you REALLY think animals are smarter than believers? Leave your bitter side aside. Answer honestly.
God is spiritual in the bible.

[Opinion Owner]

external-content.duckduckgo.com/.../

[Opinion Owner]

external-content.duckduckgo.com/.../

[Opinion Owner]

You can't see him, you can't hear him, and you can't touch him, so what makes you think he exists?

No, I said animals would do the same thing as the believers - they would made up gods in their own image (I was quoting Xenophanes - ancient Greek philosopher ).

Bible clearly said that god made humans in his own image (despite being spiritual, that's just one of many contradictions in the bible).

[Asker]

Why can't animals believe in God? This is a simple question

[Opinion Owner]

Oh, don't tell me, you know a religious animal?
I have pets, and guess what, they don't go to church, they don't pray, and they don't wear religious symbols :P

[Asker]

Animals can't belive in God. Do you knoe why?

[Opinion Owner]

Oh really, how can you be sure? You can speak animal languages, like Dr. Dolittle? :D

[Asker]

Can you answer my question?

[Opinion Owner]

You asked me "do you know why"? I was waiting for your answer :D

[Opinion Owner]

Here is a great question for you ;)
Can you convince me that God exists? ↗

[Asker]

Belief or disbelief require conciousness. Animals don't have it. If they had they would be humans. So your quote makes no sense

[Opinion Owner]

LoL, I already said that animals don't have conciousness, but if they had it, they would make up "gods" who look like them, so my quote makes perfect sense ;)
external-content.duckduckgo.com/.../

[Opinion Owner]

external-content.duckduckgo.com/.../

[Opinion Owner]

You still haven't answered my question: You can't see him, you can't hear him, and you can't touch him, so what makes you think he exists? ;)
external-content.duckduckgo.com/.../

[purplepoppy]

If God is the ultimate creator why is nature full of poor design and mistakes?

Why do good things happen to bad people while the good suffer?

Look at nature and you'll see billions of animals suffering slow painful deaths, ask yourself what God would design that.

Google images of Gastroschisis and ask why a God would do that to a baby? (Born inside out)

Look at the worms in the eye of the baby in the photo and ask what great sin it committed for God to punish it.

Either God did this? Or god doesn't exist.

[Asker]

Our great almighty science should find the cure.

[Asker]

"If God is the ultimate creator why is nature full of poor design and mistakes?"
The world is not created to be perfect. Heaven is perfect

[purplepoppy]

So did God screw up accidentally or on purpose

[Asker]

Depends on what imperfection you mean.

[chrissykerdock]

i guess why did he make murderers rapists and transgenderd

[jshm2]

No question makes God's existence unlikely. If you use mathematics like the Bayes Theorem, the probability of God will never be zero. But that is as close as science can come. Science cannot deal with the issue of God and existence, it's outside its purview.

[Grond21]

I don't think anything properly understood makes his existence unlikely

[nawtee_me]

Would anyone question the existence and continue to question something that didn’t exist? The fact the God’s existence is questioned confirms the existence of God. And faith….

[Asker]

No one questions the existence of fairies. Everyone knows they don't exist.
But I am sure atheists would say... I will let them speak

[Billlewis]

If dogs, cats, livestock and other mammals don't go to heaven, what makes us so special?

[Guanfei]

Where is he?

Who created him?

Why didn't he show himself, which would be the ultimate proof of his existence?

[Asker]

I thought you were a theist

[MikeRJ]

The time old question of the problem of evil is probably the one most raised by atheists. Those questions can be answered, however.

[Asker]

Why is there evil?

[MikeRJ]

A lot of it is due to free will. People willfully do evil things like murder and rape others. As far as natural disasters and diseases, it is a result from the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

[OfDeath]

Well, what do you mean by god? There are a lot of flavours.

[Asker]

The creator of the universe

[OfDeath]

So what was there before this god created the universe and where did it come from?

[Asker]

God has always existed

[OfDeath]

So that would mean we have a reality which allows for things to always exist and that obviates the type of god you propose.

[Asker]

For what things?
Could a physical being exist without begining?

[OfDeath]

It seems that way if you consider quantum field fluctuations where particles can pop into existence.

But a being like an elephant? Probably not although the actual possibility of it still isn’t zero weirdly enough. Just very close to zero.

But what is your point? Quantum fields and elephants are things we already know exist and we can measure and observe them. God? Not the same. We don’t know it exists and we can’t measure and observe it.

So this is the point where you ask what is more likely?

If we indeed do live in a reality which allows “always having existed”, is it more likely that the potential for fundamental conditions for a universe always existed which we know exist?

Or god which is no more than an imaginary concept?

[Asker]

"fundamental conditions for a universe always existed"
Lol so your atheist minds thinks something has always existed?

[OfDeath]

Actually no, I don’t think that. I don’t know and therefore don’t jump to any conclusions.

What I was doing was engaging in a thought exercise using the rules you yourself set out when you wrote and I am quoting you verbatim here “God has always existed”.

With that thought exercise, I demonstrated that by your own rules, the type of god you proposed would be very unlikely to exist.

[Asker]

Of course you say you don't know. You also can't think. You can explain the origin of everything that would exclude God. Yet you deny the existence of God.

And what type of God I proposed?

[OfDeath]

Well, you said yourself the creator of the universe when I asked what you meant by god but it looks like being on the back foot has clouded your memory or you wouldn’t have asked. I then asked where did that come from and you said it had always existed. You seem to be somewhat defensive here. You’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks. It appears that I have ruffled your proverbial feathers by challenging your way of thinking in a way you have never experienced. This is normal when people who have never really put their view to a proper test realise that the very condition they base the existence of their god on doesn’t actually work in favour of it.

I suggest you take a break and reflect for a while before coming back with further knee-jerk hostility.

[Asker]

You didn't answer my question but bothered typing so many insulting sentences. It is when people don't have arguements.

How is the god I proposed unlikely to exist, Mr Scientist?

[Asker]

God exists outside time and space. He doesn't have a begining. He is a spiritual being. So this rule doesn't apply to physical objects. Therefore both universe and particle are physical entities.

[OfDeath]

Insulting sentences? Such as?

You’re the one dropping the ad hominem insults such as “you can’t think”. One of the lowest forms of discourse is when one attacks the person rather than the argument. Especially low when the attack is totally unjustified and done out of fear or incomprehension.

Did you read any of my replies at all? Like the bit about the condition you base your god’s existence on (having always existed) not working in its favour?

[OfDeath]

Ok so there is another attribute you have just edited in to your god. It exists “outside of time and space”. So unfortunately, that is not a concept known to reality. All we can be sure exists is inside time and space. Actually, here is a joke for you: Albert Einstein and his wife are going through a rough patch in their marriage and his wife says “I just need 2 things right now: space and time” to which Albert replies “ok what is the second thing?”.
So the point is spacetime is one thing and everything we have ever seen, heard, said, smelled, thought or imagined was done within spacetime and we know of nothing else. So “outside space and time” is fantasy at this point. It’s like saying elves slide down the rainbows. Just a made up thing which is not a known possibility.

But let’s pretend for a second there is an existence “outside space and time”. You are back to square 1. How did god come to exist outside space and time? And if god created the universe from outside space and time, that means it is possible for spacetime to be affected on from outside which opens up a range of unknown things which may have affected it, reducing the possibility that it was actually this imaginary thing you call god. But that is more fantasy.

[OfDeath]

Another thing which doesn’t work in your favour is that you call god a spiritual being and non physical yet somehow has the capacity to create physical things. So if we have a reality which allows for things to exist exnihilo eternal which are non physical and yet can produce physical phenomena, then that obviates the need for a god to do it because it means the mechanism to be able to simply always exist and result in physical phenomena is part of reality. If this was the case, there is no need for a god as it becomes an unnecessary step in the process.

Again, this is all just supernatural fantasy. Instead of blindly believing nonsense like that and being content with a god of the gaps non explanation, we should take the courage to try and find the real answer as has been the case with many areas of knowledge which we once attributed to supernatural nonsense.

[Asker]

If you can't understand something can exist outside abd space then tell me how could nothing create everything?

[Asker]

" I don’t know and therefore don’t jump to any conclusions"
Yet you jumped to the conclusion that God is not real. You claimed it many times.

[Asker]

"And if god created the universe from outside space and time, that means it is possible for spacetime to be affected on from outside which opens up a range of unknown things which may have affected it, reducing the possibility that it was actually this imaginary thing you call god."
That increases the possibility of God's existence because only spiritual being from the outside of time and space could have power over the universe.

[Asker]

"So if we have a reality which allows for things to exist exnihilo eternal which are non physical and yet can produce physical phenomena, then that obviates the need for a god to do it because it means the mechanism to be able to simply always exist and result in physical phenomena is part of reality."
That mechanism would be different from what physical objects can do to other physical objects.

[OfDeath]

“ If you can't understand something can exist outside abd space then tell me how could nothing create everything?”

I understand the concept but it is fantasy. Therefore it is not a valid argument. I am not obliged to argue against that which is not valid and not backed up by evidence. Therefore I simple say “I don’t believe that”.

Understood?
So don’t ask me how can nothing create everything when that isn’t what I am saying. Don’t try to make a straw man argument.

[OfDeath]

“Yet you jumped to the conclusion that God is not real. You claimed it many times.”

No I didn’t. I have always maintained disbelief in your claim and not a belief in the negative. Again, do not make straw man arguments.

[OfDeath]

“That increases the possibility of God's existence because only spiritual being from the outside of time and space could have power over the universe.”

Nope. Spirituality is a human imagined concept with no counterpart and has no set capabilities therefore that is an invalid argument. Sorry about that. Furthermore, your statement is a causal reductive fallacy. You’ve attempted to gate keep the imagined ability to influence the universe from outside to only your god.

[OfDeath]

“That mechanism would be different from what physical objects can do to other physical objects.”

Nope, I’m playing by your rules and wasn’t talking about physical objects. I was referring to the mechanism itself needing to be part of reality in order for your god to use it. So here we have a situation where your god is reliant on that ability to be relevant but there would be no reason why the ability wouldn’t stand alone. So you’ve complicated the issue by adding a god into the equation which decreases the likelihood of a god being fundamental since you, yourself just demonstrated albeit inadvertently that in theory there is something more fundamental than a god.

Shame about that isn’t it?

[Asker]

Do you deny that you claimed God is not real?

[Asker]

So was there matter before time and space?
Think about that question.

"So here we have a situation where your god is reliant on that ability to be relevant but there would be no reason why the ability wouldn’t stand alone."
What do you mean?

[OfDeath]

“Do you deny that you claimed God is not real?”

Yes. I said god was an imaginary concept. Some imaginary things end up being true after the discovery of reliable evidence. Such things would include black holes, exoplanets and even atoms. All of these were originally imaginary hypotheses which were proven using reliable evidence. Perhaps one day god will be discovered, I doubt it but I wouldn’t say it is impossible. So I didn’t claim god wasn’t real, what I said was god is currently only an imaginary concept for which no reliable evidence has been discovered and that is why I don’t believe it exists. I also find the arguments for the existence of god unconvincing as you would have guessed by my responses to every argument you have put forward so far.

Was there matter “before time and space”? The question itself doesn’t make sense. It’s like what is asking what is north of the North Pole?

We have no evidence for a “before time” or an “outside space” or more correctly “outside spacetime”. This would be outside the parameters of what we call reality which means something not real. An imaginary concept. Will it someday be discovered? Maybe, but then we will ask well how did that place come to be and what else is there etc? It would just push back the frontier of science.

[OfDeath]

"So here we have a situation where your god is reliant on that ability to be relevant but there would be no reason why the ability wouldn’t stand alone."
What do you mean?

Exactly what I wrote which is why I chose the words. I mean, you have imbued god with attributes such as the ability to influence a separate pane and having been past eternal extant. This is really nothing other than imagination and speculative fiction but in theory, these attributes can be separated from a host which diminishes the necessity of the host as an explanation for the unknown. To turn around and say something like “no, only god can do that” would be special pleading in this case especially considering none of this is based on anything which is part of known reality.

[Asker]

So what option would you consider non fictional regarding the begining of everything?

"Was there matter “before time and space”? The question itself doesn’t make sense. It’s like what is asking what is north of the North Pole?"
Only non physical being could create time and space. Matter couldn't do that as matter can't exist outside time and space.

[OfDeath]

“ Only non physical being could create time and space. Matter couldn't do that as matter can't exist outside time and space.”

Ok so claims such as the one quoted above are something we refer to as begging the question. You can’t just regurgitate this sort of garbage and think you will be taken seriously in a debate. And I say that in the nicest possible way. You’re basically presupposing that something created time and space and it was a non physical being. In order to make this point valid, you would need to both prove there is a non physical being and that it can create time and space yet you have no reliable evidence for either. An argument that presumes the conclusion it is trying to establish. The same again for the claim that “matter couldn’t do it because it can’t exist outside time and space”. What’s worse is the second one in addition to being a circular reasoning fallacy and begging the question is that it is a straw man argument. I never said matter could exist outside time and space or that it could create time and space or anything remotely of the sort. I’ve pointed this out earlier too so I might have to tell you what a straw man argument is in layman’s terms: a straw man argument is when you make something up yourself and attack that instead of attacking the other person’s argument. It’s not valid reasoning.

I don’t propose any option. The closest explanation we have for the beginning of everything at the moment is the Big Bang theory. We don’t know how it happened just that it did and we don’t know what if anything came before it. It is a frontier of scientific inquiry and instead of being content with benighted arguments like “god did it from outside time and space”, we should take the courage to endeavour to discover the real answer.

[Cheerfull009]

I am Muslim, so I believe on God and creater of this universe

[juliammm]

Ho, my GOD! There are so many!

[Asker]

List them

[Off_Jack]

Do you believe that God is all-powerful?

[Asker]

I believe there is no one and nothing more powerful than him

[Off_Jack]

In Isaiah, He says, "I am the Lord All-Powerful, the first and the last, the one and only God." Thus, he proves that His existence cannot be proven. Do you need me to explain this further?

[AviatorTom]

If god exists, why can't we see god?

[Asker]

Because he is a spiritual being. He exists outside time and space

[AviatorTom]

@marish01If that is true, is the pronoun "he" the correct one to use? Maybe a spiritual being outside time and space should have its own way of reference?

[Asker]

We use he for God refering him as father

[Pete671]

Animal suffering,,,

[HungTexan]

Not sure there is such a question.

[Dargil]

can't think of one.