Why Even God Couldn’t Prove That He Was God

“God stood before me on Tuesday.  It rained that day.” One of those claims is verifiable and one is not.  What methods and evidence would you use to test each?  What if that was today?

Do you suppose that direct experience with both rain and God would be impossible to question?  Experiencing rain is a discernable, sensory event, defined by an identifiable material (water) which falls from the sky, under the effect of gravity.  Its evidence is such that a child could explain how they know it rained recently.  Could there be an illusion or false copy of “rain”?  Maybe, but there’s little harm in accepting a perfect replication of falling water as being “rain” if it seems to BE rain in every imaginable way.  However, accepting that “God” is standing before you clearly has very different consequences.

performing copy

If a God-like being were on Earth performing wondrous miracles, unleashing deadly wrath, telling the future and much more, couldn’t he also easily mislead us at will?  Of course he could!  A being of such knowledge and power could give anyone exactly the experience they expected from God, no matter his true identity.  Ultimately, we could only ever take him at his word and hope he isn’t just an impostor.  Why?  Human minds would be laughably inadequate to reveal an all powerful being’s true nature and intentions.

If you can’t imagine witnessing your God’s power, as performed by an impostor, then you haven’t much of an imagination.  Believers already label natural events and mysteries as being from God, WITHOUT directly experiencing the supposed cause.  Talk about leaving the door open to be misled!  God could be a naturally occurring magical being who easily reads our mind, knows the future, raises the dead, makes us feel his presence and of course can look like a human with a perfectly groomed beard. Pure fiction you say?  No, it’s not a stretch considering that believers already suppose exactly the same thing, only replacing natural with supernatural.  Any thoughts?

Perhaps you’re thinking how “THAT discovery would simply be the revealed nature of God, so his rules still apply and he is still God. It’s exactly like your imperceptible copy of “rain” effectively still being just rain to us”.  Is it?  If those many fake instances of rain were indistinguishable from real rain there’s no apparent consequence, even if it were somehow a deception.  Alternately, what if there were two indistinguishable Gods now claiming to be the one real God?
2 gods copy

Suddenly, it becomes obvious and important that one of them (at least) is a fake and/or a deceiver.  Even if they seemed to have identical powers and competed to the death to claim the title, wouldn’t you want the real God of the Bible to win?  Wouldn’t you insist on knowing if the victor was actually the deceiver or not, especially before you kneeled, loved and worshiped him?  Obviously you wouldn’t be okay with worshiping the equivalent of the Devil, even if he filled the roll of God as far as you could tell, right?

Did your common sense kick in just now when you realized that there are DRAMATIC consequences to blindly accepting whoever may be in charge?  If it is a deceiver, then your abandoning of reason was utterly short sighted.  If you’re lucky he won’t punish people for such irresponsible blind faith, but instead reward them like the last guy did.  Don’t stress though, even witnessing “miracles” from the source, all day long, doesn’t demonstrate its divinity, its honesty or the being’s true nature.  The reality is that there is no apparent God running around for humans to even consider as a candidate and the best divine evidence amounts to natural events, mysteries, and anecdotes.  Simply labeling these things with a divine cause is just as silly as claiming that faerie magic did it.  It’s not evidence & it certainly doesn’t confirm a God.

At least that potential impostor god performing miracles would be SOMETHING god-like to worship, while today’s believers have nothing to even point to.  This empty bank of evidence supporting a dangerous culture of faith, makes buying into religion utterly absurd, irresponsible & arguably harmful for anyone to believe, let alone to pass on to others.

Think about it.  Even the best imaginable evidence wouldn’t verify divinity, but instead just a higher power.  Having no such evidence, we can only suppose and blindly guess if such a power even exists.  Assuming you believe anyway, despite such bad evidence, what do you truly know about your imagined God-like being?  The honest answer is “Nothing”.  The intelligent response is atheism.

~By Artie P. at FreeAtheism.org

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Why Even God Couldn’t Prove That He Was God

  1. thanks for your efforts to cause us to think for ourselves instead of pastors and prophets or priests thinking for us. hope many may realize the need for this beautiful exercise of self consciousness. thanks.

  2. Interesting–I’ve thought about this before and pondered the terrifying implications. Many theists to whom I propose the same scenario simply can’t accept that God is not self-evident and so there would be no difficulty in identifying the true God. Moreover they do not accept or cannot imagine a universe in which an exact forfeit is possible (a failure of imagination to say the least which is all the more surprising given their ability to imagine and accept even more absurd scenarios).

    Mormons are in an interesting case and one I know something about (I was raised Mormon). Mormons believe in the infallible epistemic guide of the Holy Spirit (warm fuzzy feelings–seriously!). They also believe that a counterfeit being (presumably Satan in this scenario) would not have a physical body so if they were to attempt to give this God-disguised-Devil their secret signs and tokens (which literally involve secret handshakes) it would be unable to make physical contact and they could thus divine (no pun intended) the divinity of the being in question. Alternatively they would rely on warm and fuzzy feelings to identify God as real or counterfeit–they believe that these emotions can come directly from God and are therefore absolutely unerring. Never mind that a counterfeit that can make it rain at will etc. could presumably make them feel a specific emotion merely by manipulating brain chemistry–they would accept such a being as genuine despite the obvious problems.

    In any case many (most?) theists are simply not equipped with the intellectual tools or the imagination necessary to conceive of and follow such a scenario to its logical conclusions in my experience.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s