Why the existence of God can't be proven?

[Brivido]

I have been contemplating this question for sometime. It's important to be able to explain to rational people that the existence of God can't be proven. This is what I have come up with, please feel free to add your own answers to this same question:

The concept of proof is based on the presupposition that there is a real distinction between the subject that is asking for proof and the subject that should provide the proof. This distinction, like any other distinction, is ultimately unreal. I can't prove you my existence because I am you.

God can't be proven because God is what the concept of proof is based on. God is the canvas on which reality is painted on and, at the same time, is the images that are painted on the canvas. I can't show you the existence of the canvas on which, I myself, I am drawn on.

The concept of proof is based on the idea that all truths have an opposite, something false with which you can compare the truth and make it stand out as truth. But the Absolute doesn't have an opposite. It's all Truth. God is the substance that makes up every appearence. The subject of a dream that becomes conscious of being inside a dream can't prove to the other characters of the dream that everything is made up of Mind. Inside a dream everything is made of Consciousness. 

The concept of proof is based on rationality, logic and the notion of causality, but God is not just rational, is not just logic and it doesn't have any cause. In one of my last trips, I have become conscious that I as God have created myself, God has created himself, this doesn't make any fucking sense but it's nonetheless true. Existence is the definition of a miracle.

@Leo Gura Would you add anything else to this brief list?

[Gesundheit2]

45 minutes ago, Brivido said:

The concept of proof is based on the presupposition that there is a real distinction between the subject that is asking for proof and the subject that should provide the proof. This distinction, like any other distinction, is ultimately unreal. I can't prove you my existence because I am you.

You don't know that.

45 minutes ago, Brivido said:

God can't be proven because God is what the concept of proof is based on. God is the canvas on which reality is painted on and, at the same time, is the images that are painted on the canvas. I can't show you the existence of the canvas on which, I myself, I am drawn on.

That's the non-duality God. What about the duality and plurality Gods?

45 minutes ago, Brivido said:

The concept of proof is based on the idea that all truths have an opposite, something false with which you can compare the truth and make it stand out as truth. But the Absolute doesn't have an opposite. It's all Truth. God is the substance that makes up every appearence. The subject of a dream that becomes conscious of being inside a dream can't prove to the other characters of the dream that everything is made up of Mind. Inside a dream everything is made of Consciousness. 

The concept of proof is based on rationality, logic and the notion of causality, but God is not just rational, is not just logic and it doesn't have any cause. In one of my last trips, I have become conscious that I as God have created myself, God has created himself, this doesn't make any fucking sense but it's nonetheless true. Existence is the definition of a miracle.

Rinse and repeat the above answers.

[Leo Gura]

You are God. It's not a function of proof, it's a function of self-recognition. If you cannot recognize yourself in a mirror no proof will get you there.

Existence is prior to proof.

[Gesundheit2]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are God. It's not a function of proof, it's a function of self-recognition. If you cannot recognize yourself in a mirror no proof will get you there.

Existence is prior to proof.

But Leo, that's a strawman of religion. Religion claims that God is the creator of existence, but not existence itself. Religion makes a distinction between creator and creation that God is somehow/someway separate from its creation, which you deny. You use the word God as a synonym with the word existence/direct experience. Religious people use the word God as a synonym with the word faith/belief.

[KingCrimson]

@Gesundheit2 The religious people you are talking about are dogmatists who have no direct experience of God. They do not know what God really is. The "God" they are talking about does not exist. It is a figment of their imagination, anthropomorphized and extremely limited. It does not even come close to what God really is, what You are. Like all distinctions, the distinction between creator and creation exists only in your mind. It is possible for you to become directly conscious of this. You can verify it for yourself, but nobody will be able to prove it to you. Even when you verify it for yourself, you will not be able to prove it to anybody else, even though you will know it's true. That's just the way it is. If you don't believe it, that's great. You shouldn't. Go out there and verify it for yourself instead. 

[Gesundheit2]

31 minutes ago, KingCrimson said:

@Gesundheit2 The religious people you are talking about are dogmatists who have no direct experience of God. They do not know what God really is.

I don't think we're on the same page. Religious people have religious experiences despite being "dogmatists", so you're clearly just dismissing them right off the bat for no obvious reason except the difference in opinion.

31 minutes ago, KingCrimson said:

The "God" they are talking about does not exist. It is a figment of their imagination, anthropomorphized and extremely limited. It does not even come close to what God really is, what You are.

How do you know it doesn't exist? You're talking from a different paradigm, but that doesn't give you the right to automatically cancel out all other paradigms.

The truth is that you don't know whether the God they talk about is actually real or just imaginary. At least with the religious God morality exists, unlike with your God. Your God doesn't differentiate between right and wrong, which is not the case with the religious Gods.

[Breakingthewall]

you can prove the existence of god since existence is god, and you can prove that you exist, so you are existence. but before you can prove that, you have to make it clear that there can be no separation between you and what is not you, and that is a complicated process for someone who bases his entire view of reality on the separation between me/not me.

[StudentX]

Trying to prove god is like trying to make a finger grasp the whole hand?

The proof itself cannot BE the very thing it's trying to prove.

Truth is always prior to proof, it always escapes. You can't grasp the totality with a part of itself.

Edited March 18, 2022 by StudentX

[Carl-Richard]

God is proof.

[Adamq8]

@Gesundheit2 I think that you are putting forth a valid objection and a valid paradigm of " religious dogmatics".

The funny thing is that ive experienced God as well but afterwards i have also dived deep into christian theology, and seriously, it is not as " dogmatic" and " fanatic" as many tend to believe, sure there are crazy evangelists who is a bit too much, but there are also PROFOUND wisdom behind the theology.

Orthodox christianity is surely spirituality and do experience God.

@Brivido You can certainly provide real philosophical arguments for God's existence which is really good, sure atheists and people of that ilk can dismiss the presuppositions, but honestly, knowledge and proofs and truth is an illusion in an atheist worldview if you are consistent.

The Christian worldview is using ALOT the concept of Logos, which is logic, rationality, order, etc, and if we go out in nature there is intelligibility. 

God is infinite and the creator of us, creatures, God has created us, but we are not God in that we become his essence, or his personal experience, we can participate in what Orthodox Christianity calls theosis, we become gods, but not God.

That is the purpose of creation, to commune with God and participate in his goal for creation, it is ultimately Jesus who has the authority of the Father, since he is God incarnate.

Just imagine that this is actually true, imagine that there is the Infinite Trinity, which the Son/Logos incarnated in his own creation to show us salvation to use a Christian word.

I am saying that, the depths of the Christian tradition is not to be dismissed with a hand wave.

Orthodox theology incorporates both Non duality and Duality and transcends even those two points of view.

Father - Son - Holy spirit.

Neither total monism and neither total duality, but both.

Oneness and multiplicity. 

If you follow monism to its ultimate conclusion, yeah then solipsism is the last stop tbh.

 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, StudentX said:

Trying to prove god is like trying to make a finger grasp the whole hand?

The proof itself cannot BE the very thing it's trying to prove.

Truth is always prior to proof, it always escapes. You can't grasp the totality with a part of itself.

Well said.

[RMQualtrough]

It doesn't have any boundary. No matter how far you try to zoom out and retreat it's always outside of that. In altered states the sensation of something outside of everything exerting power over you can become exponentially alarming, depending on how strong the trip gets.

[Brivido]

11 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

Father - Son - Holy spirit.

In one of my past trips I got an insight about the Christian symbolism of the trinity: the father is the creator; the son is the creation and the holy spirit is the process of creation. Apparently they are separated but in reality they are one and the same thing.

[vizual]

@Brivido  That's also what Christians believe. Holy Trinity is separate, yet one. 

[gettoefl]

i wrote a decent thread delving into the logos this morning if anyone wants to read