Theory number 3.

[Mystic]

For people perhaps misunderstanding (or just trying to easily dismiss the argument), this thread is not an argument for the existence of God.

It's simply a hypothesis given that 1) God exists, 2) God is knowable to humans, why don't Atheists know God exists, while many other people do.

If you it see it from this perspective, I'm sure you would see none of those fallacies you mentioned.

Here's the real question: why would god design humans in a way that would prevent some of them from knowing him?

Good question. I don't know but I do have hypothesis to that as well. Hint: It has to do with the nature of the "curvy" "hot" knowledge and personality choosing.

[Cyberman]

Science works, but we also need "art", we also need "morals" and I feel we also need "God".

Something of a non sequitur there, I feel. Science isn't supposed to, and doesn't, replace those things; though the last one is so obviously out of place in that list that its inclusion needs a hell of a lot of supporting. Why do we need "God"?

We need to have a sense of pride and science won't tell us the value of our being.

That strikes me as being rather like throwing away, say, a microscope when it won't tell us the price of a tin of baked beans. It shouldn't be expected to tell you such things and so can hardly be dismissed as limited or blinkered.

Science is a startlingly broad term anyway, covering a vast range of disciplines and fields, many of which we use every day of our lives without thinking. For instance, when we look at a rainbow, we depend on such things as refraction of light, optics, the principle of stereoscopic vision etc, all of which come into play automatically, behind the scenes, to let us admire the etheral beauty of the rainbow.

[Mystic]

Something of a non sequitur there, I feel. Science isn't supposed to, and doesn't, replace those things; though the last one is so obviously out of place in that list that its inclusion needs a hell of a lot of supporting. Why do we need "God"?

That is what I mean. Science has it's own application, it doesn't replace all we should place our beliefs in.

It shouldn't be expected to tell you such things and so can hardly be dismissed as limited or blinkered.

That was my point. I said "science works".

[Cyberman]

Yes, but then you said "but". Like I did just then, and will again in a moment, but the "but" part is what I was addressing.

[Mystic]

Yes, but then you said "but". Like I did just then, and will again in a moment, but the "but" part is what I was addressing.

Yeah, I'm saying science is great, but we need others things than science as well.

[Darkstar]

That is what I mean. Science has it's own application, it doesn't replace all we should place our beliefs in.

There it is: the common theistic argument that god is beyond science. It is important to note that this does not work for any theistic belief other than deism. If god interfered with the earth in any way, we would be able to scientifically prove that he had done so, unless he deliberately concealed his actions. As for deism, how could one prove god? Is god even still alive? Even if god were proven, would it have much significance?

[Mystic]

That is what I mean. Science has it's own application, it doesn't replace all we should place our beliefs in.

There it is: the common theistic argument that god is beyond science. It is important to note that this does not work for any theistic belief other than deism. If god interfered with the earth in any way, we would be able to scientifically prove that he had done so, unless he deliberately concealed his actions. As for deism, how could one prove god? Is god even still alive? Even if god were proven, would it have much significance?

It's rationally possible for science to prove a Creator. It's not rationally possible for science to prove "God" as in the "Ultimate Being" let alone "a god" as in a being worthy of worship. This is simply by the methods employed by science.

We can ask questions, "how can one prove morality", "how can one prove value". My question to that, is does one need to. Or can we know without such proofs.

Assume God exists. He would know why he exists as opposed to not. Assume he is necessary. He would understand why he is necessary and that he is. We wouldn't have knowledge as clear as he does of himself, but why can't there be a descended knowledge from God that is derived from his knowledge of himself whom is the basis of existence (assuming that is what he is)?

Suppose it's impossible for anything to exists on it's own except ultimate existence, while everything would be constantly dependant on that being for existence.

Suppose God knew that. Why wouldn't we be able to know that, given that God knows it in properly basic manner?

Although this doesn't prove God or that we know God, I would say, sometimes you have to ask, if the proposition is true, then does it explain this and that.

[Cyberman]

Yes, but then you said "but". Like I did just then, and will again in a moment, but the "but" part is what I was addressing.

Yeah, I'm saying science is great, but we need others things than science as well.

I agree. And we have them. A world with nothing but science wouldn't function, any more than one without science or the understanding of it. Anyway, like I said, you can't get away from the scientific method even when you think you're doing something completely devoid of science. Following a cake recipe, catching a ball, filling your car's fuel tank, you're doing science instinctively.

[Darkstar]

It's rationally possible for science to prove a Creator. It's not rationally possible for science to prove "God" as in the "Ultimate Being" let alone "a god" as in a being worthy of worship. This is simply by the methods employed by science.

And how do you know this? Sure, we could not prove absolutely that he is the ultimate being, but one would reach a certain point where it would have to be admitted that he was powerful beyond total comprehension. God would know exactly what it would take to convince us, but does not do so. If he is a deistic god, then he would have no reason to, but then what is the point of trying to find him, and why would he give us the ability to spiritually know him? If you think about it, there isn't really spirituality to a deist because there is likely no afterlife, assuming one adheres strictly to the idea of an apathetic creator.

We can ask questions, "how can one prove morality", "how can one prove value". My question to that, is does one need to. Or can we know without such proofs.

How can we 'know' god without such proofs when some people clearly don't 'know'? Also, there is an evolutionary explanation to morality.

Assume God exists. He would know why he exists as opposed to not. Assume he is necessary. He would understand why he is necessary and that he is. We wouldn't have knowledge as clear as he does of himself, but why can't there be a descended knowledge from God that is derived from his knowledge of himself whom is the basis of existence (assuming that is what he is)?

Suppose it's impossible for anything to exists on it's own except ultimate existence, while everything would be constantly dependant on that being for existence.

Suppose God knew that. Why wouldn't we be able to know that, given that God knows it in properly basic manner?

...assume...suppose...suppose that...yeah, that can really be debated with so many assumptions thrown in. Not to mention the that you left out the fact of god knowing his own reason for existing is also an assumption; if he is simply creator and not ultimate being he might not know.

Although this doesn't prove God or that we know God, I would say, sometimes you have to ask, if the proposition is true, then does it explain this and that.

If magical leprechauns really do cause rainbows, then that explains how rainbows are caused and we don't need to study light refraction...see, that doesn't work. With such a monumental pressuposition (as in god) this argument cannot hold weight

[Mystic]

And how do you know this? Sure, we could not prove absolutely that he is the ultimate being, but one would reach a certain point where it would have to be admitted that he was powerful beyond total comprehension.

What I mean by Ultimate Being is that is greatest possible being. "God" is defined as that. As for a god, it depends whether being super immensely powerful is enough to be worthy of worship. Personally, I believe "power" is of the lowest manifestations of God, and "ultimate power" without being "ultimate love" would not be worthy of worship. I believe God is worthy of worship due to his moral qualities, and without those qualities, I would not revere her/him/it to the extent of worship.

God would know exactly what it would take to convince us, but does not do so.

This is true, but is there a possible benevolent reason behind that? Perhaps as I said, he doesn't want knowledge of God to be dry and without will power of the soul/mind to see.

If he is a deistic god, then he would have no reason to, but then what is the point of trying to find him, and why would he give us the ability to spiritually know him?

I'm confused as to the definition of a deistic God. I believe in a caring God, and that there is (a) benevolent wise reason(s) he isn't constantly communicating to us or answering prayers.

How can we 'know' god without such proofs when some people clearly don't 'know'?

I've made three theories now to answer this question, and I still don't know the answer .

Also, there is an evolutionary explanation to morality.

Even if there is an evolutionary proof that morality is binding, and not a delusional belief, humanity didn't believe in morality due to this proof.

...assume...suppose...suppose that...yeah, that can really be debated with so many assumptions thrown in. Not to mention the that you left out the fact of god knowing his own reason for existing is also an assumption; if he is simply creator and not ultimate being he might not know.

I think you got a little frustrated here? If we are going to rule out that knowledge of God is possible, we should assume all possible explanations to why knowledge of God is possible and then show it to be impossible...or do you disagree?