Agnostic.com

12 0

Which would be harder to prove...

Which would be harder to prove: 1.) That god exist? Or 2.) (In this 2nd scenario we are assuming hypothetically, that god has revealed himself) that god is "good and just" as the authors of the bible claim he is, despite the countless atrocities he has committed and allows to happen?

micmorgan6 3 Jan 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

12 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Its impossible to prove he is good. unless your a psychopath

0

The [non]existence of supernatural beings and realms inherently cannot be [dis]proven. That's the whole point of agnosticism, and, indirectly, of atheism.

So ... clearly were god to actually, for the very first time in human history, to step out from behind the curtain and truly reveal Himself, it would at least possible to evaluate whether he was good and just, and certainly, at that point, the existence of god would be proven, so everyone wins.

0

Existence can be proven, but not goodness. Thus the former would be easier. ‘Existence’ is objective. ‘Good’ is subjective.

0

Like many of the other people posting in answer to these questions I too say neither. For those who believe both questions are answered yes. For those who do not believe the answer to both questions is no. It is a matter of belief not logic or proof.

0

Neither can be proven scientifically

0

Neither is possible. The fictitious god of the Abrahamic religions is presented as evil as can be, and the portrayals in this fairy tale stress this point. There is no other evidence available, unless one considers the voices that talk to totally delusional schizophrenics.

1

God has big problems with anger management.

@Dave75 How about if you were to use little thing instead of big G..

2

Well, l know I'm going to try not to piss him, her, it off! Him, her, it has a nasty temper. Easily offended ya know. ☺

1

It would be harder to prove that god exists, as it is impossible to prove a negative. The reason is that if god revealed himself, the burden of proof to justify his actions would be on him. And to do that he would have to reveal his plan to such an extent that it satisfied our judgement to the point where we both understood and forgave him for what he has to do to keep his plan running smoothly, which would be impossible in and of itself, as he created the plan that any five year old could do better at.

0

In the general case, (2) seems clearly harder to prove, since it has far more premises to defend. To prove that God exists, s/he/it would simply need to identify themselves, or any of a myriad of other possibilities depending on the precise nature of the proposed deity.

However, there's a great deal more argumentative work needed to prove that God is just: At a minimum, a cogent definition of "just" must be worked out, and then this definition shown to apply to whatever God was shown to exist. It's kind of convoluted.

0

It woold be more difficult to prove the existence of this god than to prove that she/he is a good god. If we see the behaviors, we could then make a judgement

0

Well. Without evidence the existence of any God is unprovable speculation, whilst any existing God could possibly have some logical reason for their actions. So I would say the former.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:268310
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.